Originally posted by J B: ^^ In that case why don´t you make it more spicy and take a stand , affirm a claim or tow, reason and conclude the correctness of the template(even a filled one ). As it stands , i don´t feel motvitaed enough to react to an unfilled template except the way i already did. React? - you mean empty and trivial denounciations of said template??? Yes, that was somewhat below the belt. My belief is one I think you are familiar with. It is the called the Watchmaker Theory or some derivation thereof. If one sees a perfectly functioning and useful timepiece in the middle of the desert, one doesn't assume it magically evolved form the sands beneath it. This perfect timepiece would be an analogy of the Sun. This process of analogy is continued with many aspects of the various natural phenemona that occur in our world. The conclusion thus becomes: There is an intelligent designer, there is a God. And since the natural phenemona work in harmony - the supreme being is one - there is no pantheon of contradictory dieties. From that, I derive my view of scientific theories. So theories that have random, spontaneous etc automatically make me doubtful. With regard to the Big Bang - nothing in the theory makes disbelieve unless the theory states the Big Bang which started off the chain reaction occured spontaneously/randomly - then it would seek to deny a supreme being - and becomes a falsehood. This is my understanding of Big Bang, it says spontaneous particles started banging into each other. My understanding of that particular point may well be mistaken since science is not my forte.

Originally posted by J B: quote:Originally posted by ThePoint: This is where you state the inaccuracies and falsehoods my friend. The ball is in your court. Not exactly my freind !! The issue of the subject matter can and has been presented before in a much better phrased argumentations than this unfilled template. I personally have seen it, debated it, etc etc. It´d be too trivial to refute such elemntry claims. I´d be intrested though if it atleast contained some personal views, argumentations and stand points than these empty claims. Hitting below the belt here. You lambast these views as trivial, elementary and empty and yet make no attempt at showing how they are so. By posting one would assume these are, in fact, the poster's 'personal view, argumentations and stand points'. That is a rather superfulous statement on your part. With regard to the refutation, the least you can do, saxiib, is point me to a thread if I am to take you seriously.

Originally posted by J B: quote:Originally posted by ThePoint: I understand. Whatever the template, if it is an accurate and truthful presentation - then it really doesn't matter. Yet worse , it is not !! that is why i´d like her/him to have gone through the argumentations and have them examined. This is where you state the inaccuracies and falsehoods my friend. The ball is in your court.

Originally posted by J B: ThePoint, If u read again you´ll understand that i´m not against the article beeing copied and pasted per se, if u again read the article you´ll see that it is a prepared template that has the words "The Qur'an on the Origin of the Universe ", "The Qur'an on Clouds ","The Qur'an on Mountains " etc etc. It´s using this kind of template with a preset format that i´m against. And worse it gives the false impression that it is coined for the defence of creationism. Even worse , Proud_Muslimah forgot to fill the blank with the intended verses of the Quran. And yes i beleive TRUTH should be straight forward and self explanatory than beeing served as template with preset format and fallacious argumentation. Your direct words gave the distinct impression that you were against her copying/pasting. I did not impute anything extra at all. However, if you have clarified your language - I understand. Whatever the template, if it is an accurate and truthful presentation - then it really doesn't matter. Truth is indeed straight forward and self-explanatory but, again, whether your heart/mind will accept it is an entirely different matter altogether.

It seems the consensus is that the Holocaust did occur - but the numbers are the debate? These numbers weren't arrived at quickly and a whole bunch of historians came to a consensus. It would seem to me a rather large conspiracy if they all agreed to inflate the numbers of dead. And I have difficulty understanding what motivation there would be. There is a simple reason - why the Holocaust is so present and loudly recognized in the West. Jews and the Jewish lobby has a lot of political and economic power thus their suffering takes centre stage. Even if you find that offensive and insensitive, that shouldn't result in one devaluing Jewish suffering. In other words, you can believe in the Jewish Holocaust and a Native American Holocaust at the same time.

Originally posted by J B: People like Proud_Muslimah apparently can only copy from others, being unable to construct their own arguments and attempted proofs. Perhaps if they had to sit down and work through the issues themselves, they might begin to see some of the flaws in the arguments they use. By simply copying and pasting the flawed work of others, though, they can avoid all the hard thinking and reasoning that might cause them to question their assumptions. Can’t have that, now can we? A person that goes to such an extent to defend a supposedly pure ,self-explanatory and compationate faith needs HELP. How interesting! So if I were to copy down Big Bang/Theory of Evolution - your post would be the same??! Would I similarly be "unable to construct their own arguments and attempted proofs"? "By simply copying and pasting the flawed work of others, though, they can avoid all the hard thinking and reasoning" - apparently, magically enough, this doesn't apply to Big Bang/Evolution!! Islam needs no defence - God is its ultimate defender. Maybe you are unaware but Dawa'a and education are fundamental components of this religion. Thus, the post. Just as Big Bang/Evolution tries to educate so do we. Islam is pure and compassionate. As to it being self-explanatory, that is based on the individual's heart. If it not self-explanatory to you, you, my friend, are the one in need of help.

Good post - Proud Muslimah. Although the author wasn't as rigourous as he could have been - what he was saying makes intuitive sense. Big Bang states that the 'Bang' occurred at random - thus the author's statment - 'something coming out of nothing'. Now if the statement is Allah has made the command 'Be' and the process started, which is how I look at it, then perfectly fine. But this idea of general randomness in terms of the universe/humans etc. is unsupportable. At the end of the day, humans will believe what they want to believe. I was watching Charlie Rose a oouple of weeks ago and he had on two eminent scientists, one of them was Crick I believe, one of the discoverers of DNA. Both were lambasting the Abrahamic religions and their statements about the origin of man. And both kept praising Darwin's work on evolution and referred to it as their Bible. Nothing could convince them otherwise and their arrogant dismissals of revelation was breath-taking. Those are the moments you realize as is said in the Quran(paraphrased) - There are some whose Hearts, Minds, Eyes, Ears we've closed and nothing will convince them otherwise.

Originally posted by LANDER: Well, notwithstanding the coca policy, nothing else to me seems outlandish about what Morales is proposing. He his getting help from a Ph.D latino professor from an ivey league school and he will hopefully negotiated better terms with the TNCs. Judging the wisdom of his future actions serve no purpose at the moment and much of it will depedend on reaction from the TNCs operating in Bolivia and to a larger extent reaction from Washington. Taking his rhetoric about “Cuba being a model†at face value doesn’t necessarily reflect the reality on the ground. It’s interesting the points brought up about Cuba between you and Castro really. The government over there like many others in this world does a lot of things to be admired (Morally) and than some other economic matters that are not to be emulated. That being said, I think Castro is absolutely right about the economic sanctions. We wouldn’t know how Communist policies would or wouldn’t have been successful under Castro if the U.S hadn’t imposed those economic sanctions. When talking about Communism seems to me there are two mistakes often commited. One being to equate communism with the broader definition of “socialism†and the second taking empirical evidence of Communism as absolute proof of the non-viability of the theoretical system itself. A few modern Marxist theorist would argue to the opposite, but that’s another discussion all together. Cuba’s largest trading partner was the U.S if you could call that a “partnership†in the past as it was really a total domination of U.S investment. Take away a small country like Cuba’s overwhelmingly largest trading partner and you have an instantaneous collapse of the Economy. Due to its geographical location too, Cuba didn’t really have much elsewhere to turn hence the reason for its international isolation today. Can you picture the U.S. border being closed to Canada? (Each others largest trading partners) that would bring about strong recessionary forces in the U.S. and all but the collapse of the Canadian economy. What is oulandish about Morales is: the degree of change he is promising and the speed with which he is promising to change Bolivia. Big social and economic change hardly ever occurs fast - and it is irresponsible of any leader to claim otherwise. Another outlandish thing and I quote from the Economist: If Mr Morales becomes president, he will “nationalise everythingâ€.... Wise - I think not. "Judging the wisdom of his future actions serves no purpose" - that statement is a bit of a fantasy. People judge all the time. Especially with a politician that has so much power over people. That said - I am judging Morales' statements and actions as to how he would govern and basing my opinion on that. I am not judging him in a vaccum. There is a basis there. "Taking his rhetoric about 'Cuba being a model' at face value...." If one doesn't take individuals at face value, is that a recipe for the good? I am supposed to impute something else about his character? - that is mistaken. You take people at face value unless they take actions that contradict that. Communist policies have not worked anywhere around the world on a reasonably long time frame. Once you can name me a country that is communist that is thriving and growing economically - we'll talk further. Please don't mention the likes of China and Vietnam - those countries maybe communist politically but their economies certainly are not. With regard to Cuba and the embargo - hopefully we can agree that trade is a good thing subject to robust regulation - yet Castro will likely not have conducted trade with the US even if they dropped the embargo unilaterally. Why do I say that? On the basis of previous actions and statements by him. Cuba has plenty of other trading partners - the EU/Canada etc. But trade cannot be properly conducted if people are unable to own productive assets and can't engage in contractual relationships etc. With regard to Canada, trade with the US really took off after NAFTA - but Canada still conducts trade with plenty of other nations. Additionally, trade while a large part of the economy, is not the only thing Canada has going. A robust domestic economy is also present. Trade is a two-way thing - both sides benefit otherwise trade wouldn't be conducted so the likelihood of US closing its border with Canada is remote. Canada does not actively manage its economy and dicker with the ability of people to own productive assets through corporations Are you sure about that? I’ll give you this much, there is a strong trend towards privatisation of what use to be Natural Monopolies such as Ontario or B.C. Hydro. That being said, every country does “actively manage its economy†contrary to what you wrote be it the U.S. federal reserve or the Bank of Canada. Maybe you were simply alluding to capital controls and even there your still mistaken, as I previously stated the Canadian government will control certain sectors of the economy. A prime example is that of Chartered I banks (i.e. Scotia bank, CIBC etc..) no such bank can have more than 25 % foreign ownership or more than 10% ownership by any individual or group of individuals. Any mergers are to ask for government approval and can be turndown if perceived to be against public Interest. For a more blatant example let us reach back to a time of Mild Welfare state system in Canada (According to Dr. D. Williamson), there was still a a competitive market system but there also much government involvment in the general economy. This was the period between 40s-70s in Canada, it was Characterised by increasingly extensive and continuous gov. involvment to fine tune the business cycle and to bring about ecomomic growth and high level of employment as inspired by John Maynard Keynes. These days though we follow closer the ideas of John Kenneth Galbraith in Mixed economy still with stage direction from gov. of resources, prices, investment wages, profits. For example in 73 the government set up the A.I.B(anti-inflation board) which controlled prices and wages for ALL firms in Canada. It proved to be inefficient and was disbanded in 75. Also in 73 there was a Foreign Revenue Agency set up which controlled the take over or merger involving ANY company that was wholly or partially owned by non-canadians. So you see all of these matters were characterized by increased gov. direction of the economy in the goal of National Interest much like the Bolivians are doing(Mind you the two situations differ in matters implied, but the desired outcome is quite similar). Back then there wasn’t too much noise made by these policies by foreigners as compared to Bolivia for several reasons that extend to the political realm. For one Canada is a western nation and doesn’t talk rhetoric about “communismâ€, secondly its a middle economy and could not so easily be ignored by the U.S., thirdly and most importantly Bolivia has not come up with "sophisticated" means to have the people of bolivia benefit from natural gas aside from outright threatened nationalization which would be I guess what you refering to as "extreme socialist values". so anyway this little thread has consumed a little too much time, what I would suggest to you The Point is to compared the merits of sociaslist policies with that of “cowboy capitalism†as practiced in latin America. Ask yourself which is in the greater interest of the people (by this I don’t mean the selective elite)? Why do governments regulate business? According to Williamson there a few reasons you might find compatible with the situation in Bolivia. Intervene: 1-When undesirable Market Structure exist 2-When there is a perceived need to preserve a natural resource(not necessarily a reality only perceived by the public) 3-When there are significant externalities connected with a firms conduct in a Mkt. I.e. pollution 4-**When the Market conduct of firms generate public discontent. Na’mean power to tha BEOPLE 5- When public discontent is to control or dilute large power blocks in the economy [/QB] What do I mean by 'actively managed economy'? I mean government that owns the majority of the factors of production, makes decisions as to how to allocate resources, actively prevents private individuals from owning factors of production, restricts the ability of private individuals to enter into mutually beneficial contractual relationships. That is my definition. Obviously, Canada or the US do not fit that mold. You state the Federal Reserve as an example of 'actively managed economy' yet, in other places, you decry its cowboy capitalism. That is a contradiction. The US can't have an actively managed economy and yet be the poster child for cowboy capitalism. Canada and the US have a well-regulated market economy with Canada having more of a mixed economy through crown corporations etc. Well-regulated does not equal actively managed. Simple as that. The regulations and rules are clear and economic players are allowed to do their own thing as long as it is within the rules. Hardly an example of governments actively managing their economy. You are right - this thread has taken quite a bit of time. If anything, I want to convince you of the baselessness and utter uslessness of Communism/heavy Socialism as an economic and political philosophy. You don't have to take my word for it. Our own religion is unsupportive of that. This does not mean I don't support strong social welfare programs - in fact, that is one of the reasons I like Canada so much vis-a-vis the United States. That is based on progressive taxation and a strong committment to equality of opportunity - both very admirable, although people do resent the mandatory taxation. Again, I will refer you to our religion - it is supportive of capitalism in the sense that is how resources can best be used/allocated but it also calls for a strong degree of social awareness/justice. It, however, relies more appealing to a person's heart and humanity. That is ultimately the best way of ensuring social justice - because as we full know - laws/rules/taxes can be subverted, especially by the rich and powerful.

Originally posted by Castro: quote:Originally posted by ThePoint: If you look at Vietnam and how ravaged it was by the US forces - and now how intelligent leadership is guiding the country and producing one of the fastest GDP growth rates in SE Asia - you would understand that Cuba has a chance. The question is: will leadership be intelligent or not? Atheer I'm not disputing leadership in a country and its willingness to positively change its destiny are important. What I am saying is there's only so much any nation can do if, for one reason or another, it faces powerful entities such as the IMF/World bank, the EU, the WTO, and last but not least, the CIA and US army. There is economical intervention of one or more of these entities in just about every country in the world. And more likely than not, they're not interested in the economic wellbeing of the citizens of these states. What they are interested in is making sure global multinationals have unfettered access to resources (natural or human) and to markets in these states. Cuba is being punished, outright, for siding with the Soviets during the cold war. Whether Castro would have made it an economic power house is open to debate. But even with this four decade long embargo it is not the hell hole that other countries in the Carribean (Jamaica, Dominican Republic and Haiti) are without any trade sanctions. It seems whatever disagreement we have is based on a matter of degree. Yes, Cuba is facing a formidable array of opponents but so many others have faced those same opponents and gone to better their respective countries. And I still believe that the majority of the blame for Cuba's problems lie at the feet of its leadership. If I understood correctly, you seem to be suggesting more of it lies at the feet of the organizations listed above. If that is the case, then we agree to disagree. Absolutely right on the last point - whatever the faults of Castro - he is no Mobutu or the other crap that rule countries like Haiti and Jamaica. Why is it that the black man is cursed with such poor leadership!

Originally posted by Fathia: ThePoint, you do not fully comprehend my argument. Completing an aspect of his education deserves a proportion of our appreciation. However the fact he is developing and challenging himself through higher education deserves our recognition. Perhaps this young man will be a contributor to rebuilding our beloved Somalia. Fathia, There really is nothing to comprehend. We simply have a difference in opinion. I have stated the reasons for my opinion. I don't know that you have. This really is not a big deal.

Originally posted by Paragon: The question I always wished to ask Bush was, if interception restrictions were put in place during the bi-polar US/Soviet balance of power, where the threat to US national security was existential, how can he justify his acts of taping American citizens with the pretext of terrorism (which is insignificant really, compared to thermal/nuclear threat)? Do Bush's advisors really pay attention to the history of American foreign policy when in their decision-makings? :confused: Very good point - but then I guess the answer is: Bush and his ilk consider Muslims not to be American citizens in the fullest sense of the word. Words like 'fifth column' and 'disloyal' started to surface in the wake of 9/11 and that mindset is entrenched in this administration, nothwithstanding their public proclamations to the contrary.

Originally posted by Fathia: I agree that one should always have exceptionally high standards but a dose of positive encouragement doesn't harm. We should recognise and appreciate each others efforts and accomplishments. In this case the young man completed his course and is up on the next level hence congratulation is in order. You have to understand that each of us have different learning pace and we may not achieve our potential from outset. I hope that you are not such a hard task master that you would expect everyone to achieve your set criteria on the run. We are humans and each has their imperfections which I suppose is partly beautiful and detrimental. Again I say well done to the young brother and to use criticism positively. AGAIN, 'snarky' is the key word. For those who aren't familiar with it - it means roughly *****y. No probs with positive encouragement. And a regular, old congratulations is fine. What I was objecting to - was making a big deal out high school graduation in general. It had nothing to do with this particular poster. I am a hard task master but that doesn't mean that those who don't acheive to my pre-set level are condemned. No, not at all.

Originally posted by Castro: ^ I meant to say overt. We don't know what Castro would have done. It's really a matter for speculation. The reality as we know it is that Cuba was never given a chance to be anything but a failed state. Just about every US client state has become a basket case. May be it's a blessing in disguise the US imposed the embargo. Without it, we may have another Haiti on our hands. No, we don't - but we can speculate based on evidence we do have. I totally disagree with - 'Cuba was never given a chance to be anything but a failed state' - that conveniently sidelines one's own failings. People have the ability to change their lives - they are not always getting acted on by an outside force. Your phrase leans towards that mindset. If you look at Vietnam and how ravaged it was by the US forces - and now how intelligent leadership is guiding the country and producing one of the fastest GDP growth rates in SE Asia - you would understand that Cuba has a chance. The question is: will leadership be intelligent or not?

Originally posted by Castro: ^ Could the 45 year embargo on Cuba have anything to do with its economy being a 'disaster'? Talk about economic distortion in its most covert form. No doubt. It could even be the major cause of the economic problems of Cuba. But if the US dropped the embargo tomorrow - would Castro let people own productive assets so that the economy can grow??? I doubt it. The embargo and its economic effects is not covert in the least - it's basically - how dare you kick us out of your country and defeat us in Bay of Pigs. It is essentially an arrogant attitude. But that doesn't preclude Mr. Castro from being the Deng Xiaoping of Cuba and moving the country slowly to a more of a capitalist society much like China and Vietnam. Does he do it? No. Most problems in life are of one's own doing.

Originally posted by Curling Waterfall: quote:Originally posted by ThePoint: I am always amazed by people who think graduating from High School is some big acheivement. And they throw big parties for their kids and buy them cars etc. Let's face it - it's not rocket science - anybody with a minimum of effort and intelligence can do it. People need to have higher standards. It is the highest achievement for a 17/18yr old. What else could they possibly achieve at that age? Build a nuclear power plant so snooty people like you can view their accomplishment as something worthy of praise and party? If you read the preface to my statement - you would see the words - 'snarky and 'personal' - both of which help to modify the opinion. That said - you have a low opinion of 17/18 yr olds. 17 year olds have built million dollar businesses, invented useful stuff, did ground breaking research etc. So graduating high school with 51% is not in my book of serious acheivements. This is not to belittle graduating high school period but it is to put it into perspective. My younger brother recently got his licence - a feat thousands acheive every year much like high school - am I going to throw a party for him or do anything special. No - a congratulations in the VERY ordinary sense of the word is due. That's all. In terms of high school, what is an acheivement is graduating in the top 10% of your class, being valedictorian etc. I have high standards - and I hope other Somalis have high standards also - so they can fulfill their potential to the fullest. It seems your standards are not high in the least - after graduating high school - maybe we'll see you working at McDonald's full-time????

Originally posted by Paragon: No. Actually, in the study of development economics, illuminating neo-statist assertions claim that pricisely (in Johnson Chalmers) the 'developmental state' can be attributed to the economic miracle of East Asia (read for example, the 'guided market' of Robert Wade in the case of Taiwan, Amsden's 'governed' market in Korea). So yes, while state-ownership could have detrimental effects, state direction of the market, as opposed to 'market-led' (yet not precisely Laissez Faire as we know it), is key to economic development. You see market led economies lead to conglomorates (such as pre-war Zaibatsu of Japan, which was later dissolved and replaced by the Keiretsu ) and interest groups that dominate the market itself by inducing into it economic factors that limit economic growth, while at the same time forcing the weak state to their own benefits. Market led economies do not produce a weak state. You are right you can't have a weak state if you want economic development. But you can a have a semi-strong state and market led development. The key is proper regulation. Ie. Anti-trust laws, competition regulator, labour regulator etc. Your description of pre-war Japan is correct and it is consistent with the situation in the US in the early 1900s with monopolies like Standard Oil and US Steel. They were dealth with and the playing field level through Teddy Roosevelt's introduction of Sherman Anti-Trust. At this point, 'strong' state becomes semantic. If you have a state that has strong regulations and protections, market led development is best. Unless, of course, the government prostitutes itself out to big business through campaign contributions! Thus there needs to be a strong state in the developmental process, a state that can protect itself from such interest groups pressures. A strong Communist state, especially that type of China doesn't necessarilly distort economic development, in fact if you ask some Asian Model economists, it appropriates suitable policy of resource allocation for industries (there is broad literature on this) that work towards the national developmental goal of the nation. Strong state issue discussed above. The 'Communist' government of China has had many of its policies distort economic development although they are doing enough right for economic development to forge ahead. Witness the Chinese banking sector which has a huge amount of bad loans. Why? Because loans went to people with party connections, not necessarily to the best business people. Also, witness the Chinese stock market, another indicator of the quality of business decisions, many of which are promulgated by the government. It is one of the worst performing markets in the world even though Chinese GDP growth is among the highest in the world. 'Suitable policy of resource allocation for industries' smacks of the infamous and useless Soviet style 5-year plans. It is not a reasonable argument to think that the state best knows how to allocate resources just as it not reasonable to argue only private companies know how best to allocate resources. However, given the choice, private companies are definitely better at allocating resources - why? Because they are directly connected to where the demand is coming from - the market. But where state let go of their markets and indulge in all out liberalizations, such as in the mid-1990s, what happens is indeed financially catastrophic (think: the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis and the Malaysian remedy to the crisis). In East Asian social and economic rights rather than civil and political rights matter most. So as long as the state guarantees, the peoples' economic welfare, it can adapt whatever political approaches it so wishes. The same applies to Morales' case: to recover from economic disaster and poverty that had been resulted by rampant capitalism. It's important to keep cause and effect seperate to know what factors were really involved and what were incidental. The East Asian collapse had to do with massive foreign short-term borrowing by governments/companies, loose monetary policy and an underlying base of bad loans and asset bubbles. When the foreign money was pulled quickly as these imbalances worsened -it caused an awful and devastating chain reaction. The 'strength' of the state had little to do with it. You are right that capital controls were instrumental in shielding Malaysia to a large degree but that is hardly a demonstration for a strong state. OK. I won't say much about the quote above, but I will give you four economic categories in which all states of the world fall in: market ideological, plan ideological, market rational, and plan rational economies. USA falls in the first category, Japan falls in the fourth category. Try to get hold of Johnson Chalmers' writings and try to figure out the rest of the countries and the categories in which they fall Not sure what this had to do with the fact that socialism as practiced by Canada(if one can call it that) has little to do with what Morales proposes. He has said publicly that Cuba is a model. The Cuban economy, rightly called socialist/communist has been a disaster and is entirely and completely different from Canada's economy.

Originally posted by Yeniceri: ^^ True that controversy sells but we don't know what's really inside him. He says he's reformed - and I'll take his word for it. What matters is the substance of his writing: he shares the truth about U.S. global empire, how it became, its visions and goals, etc. Confessions of an Economic Hitman is still one of the best books I've ever read - regardless of the author's inner intentions. Yet, the world continues to play the U.S. game. That's the tragedy - not John Perkins' intentions. You do make a valid point - it IS possible he had a change of heart. I'm making the point he has hardly clean hands - and his account will naturally result in suspicions. Basically, for me, given his background, I take an extremely skeptical view of his writings. Brother, I dislike the World Bank/IMF - they are bureaucratic institutions with an inflated sense of their knowledge and ability. However, these tirades against globalisation are generally baseless and irrelevant. How you do deal with it is the key question.

Originally posted by Castro: ^ Yeah really. This is the image I have of the whole US vs. South America unfolding saga: there's a massive Goliath busy beating the crap out of a David in the Middle East with his back turned towards South America. Every once in a while, Goliath turns around to see what all the noise behind him is about and he sees Fidel, Evo, Hugo and Lula frozen in jest with kid-smiles on their faces and accusing each other saying: "he did it". What they are doing, in reality, is making the blade that will be used to stab Goliath in the back. And Goliath won't even know what hit him. Interesting picture. While I am not sure they are sharpening their blades per se - I definitely see Goliath sinking slowly in the sand under his own enormous wieght while busy fighting David.

Originally posted by Ahura: Congrats on graduating and good luck! If I could make an entirely snarky and personal remark and in no way is it directed to you Ahura: I am always amazed by people who think graduating from High School is some big acheivement. And they throw big parties for their kids and buy them cars etc. Let's face it - it's not rocket science - anybody with a minimum of effort and intelligence can do it. People need to have higher standards.

I would suggest to you to think of what career you envision yourself in and then take the course of study that will best acheive that. Personally, my take on Science is coloured by family experience. Both my sisters are in Science. One has graduated and after failing to find a job in science is going to teach in UAE. She tried hard but positions in science at entry level were hard - she commented that only a few positions were available in labs and the like for the numerous graduates of her program(Chemistry). My other sister is in her last year of Biology - she has applied to Medical School and as a back up to Teacher's College because she knows how few jobs there are in the science field. This is the situation in Canada at least so may not necessarily apply to Minnesota. Personally, I would advise you to take Business/Economics as opposed to a science degree - the jobs are more abundant than most other field. And I would advise you to take business as opposed to economics - business is more practical whereas economics is more theoritical. The practical is almost always better than the theoritical. One final note - always take something you will enjoy while keeping career objectives in mind. If your parents are reluctant, you have to make your case to them and sell it to them. After all, it's not your parents who will live with decision for the rest of their lives - it will b you.

Excuse me while I puke! He expects me to believe that after all that time he was playing the game - now he has moral pangs about what he was helping to do. Unlikely. He is most likely in it to make a little green. Controversy sells - witness Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Michael Moore et al.

Additionally, Crown Corporations are a negligible part of the economy of this country. The vast majority of economic activity results from small business and private corporations.

Originally posted by LANDER: quote:Originally posted by ThePoint: Evo Morales is a grandstander with, I think, little substance behind his sweeping rhetoric. And Bolivia is not as rich as Venezuela so he needs foriegn investors to stay. But if his people elected him in a free and fair election, Washington should butt out. I wish Cuba/Venezuela/Bolivia could learn something from China - Transition your economies slowly and steadily - Communism and extreme Socialism is a deadend There is nothing "extreme" about the policies suggested by Morales, having a mixed economy with government regulating some aspects is perfectly legitimate and widely accepted in IR. If one would compare the government regulations and Crown Corporations in canada to those found currently in bolivia, it be assued canada is an extremely socialist country by comparison. What partly makes China a succesful economic story is its control of capital flow, hopefully morales will do something along those lines. Historically "cowboy capitalism" has prooved desastrous in latin america due to the very fact that Capital flows and foreign direct investments came in and out too easily out of countries like Argentina. Any foreign investor panic could result in launching the country in a serious recession and an uncontrolable spiral that could ensue in the region. Part of the reason I think the region is fed up with American interventionism in their economic/national matters. Anybody seen the documentary titled OUR BRAND IS CRISIS it aired on the CBC a while back, it told the story of how U.S. and Israeli strategist (James Carville amongst them) got the ex-president GONI of bolivia re-elected in a very close race. How the utilized smear campaigns against the opponents and used tremendous resources to basicly look after the interest of the united states in the region. It also talks about how inneficient of a president he was with his neo-liberal policies where he and his immediate entourage got very rich and the unemployment level rose despite the promises of thousands of new jobs from the gas industry. Interesting doc to say the least, because the makers of the doc do not directly comment themselve, all of the opinions and messages come straight from either the Bolivian government members of the time or their employees from the US consulting firm. I won't ruin it for those whom haven't seen it yet, but needless to say things end badly for 'GONI' and his 20 something % (of popular vote)victory. More on Bolivia: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article333457.ece Well, I didn't use the term extreme if you will notice above. But in some ways it fits. Morales wants to free up the planting/harvesting of coca - notwithstanding its traditional medicinal uses - that has an adverse effect on countries around the region through increased availability of cocaine. Morales brought down or helped to bring down the previous several presidents - 2 of them in a matter of months. Does anything change drastically for the better in a matter of months? No. Is that the course of action a wise leader would take? I doubt it. Morales also has publicly said that Cuba is an example for him - Notwithstanding the good healthcare - Cuba has little going for it economically. Communism and state ownership of large chunks of the economy are not a recipe for economic development - that has been pretty much established. The comparison with Canada is incorrect. Canada is a socialistic country in terms of trying to equalize income disparity and the associated ills thereof(ie. access to decent healthcare/education etc) Canada does not actively manage its economy and dicker with the ability of people to own productive assets through corporations. In general, I don't like rabble-rousers and extreme populists as leaders. That sort of style is not conducive to rational, well-thought out policies and recommendations that will make a real dent in poverty and despair in the long-term.

Evo Morales is a grandstander with, I think, little substance behind his sweeping rhetoric. And Bolivia is not as rich as Venezuela so he needs foriegn investors to stay. But if his people elected him in a free and fair election, Washington should butt out. I wish Cuba/Venezuela/Bolivia could learn something from China - Transition your economies slowly and steadily - Communism and extreme Socialism is a deadend

The Turkish establishment is a detestable piece of vermin - the present gov't is a little better. I have always hated their virulent self-loathing and self-flagellation as Muslims. And thinking that nothing of value is Islamic and everything of value is European. The continental Europeans are particularly hostile to Muslims and Islam, in addition to their general hostililty to non-white immigrants. So not suprised about their hypocrisy. What is unforgivable is what the Turkish establishment has done vis-a-vis Islam.