First while I am very much a conservative and like conservative commentary for some reason I have never once cared for the opinions of George Will. One reason I dislike him I suspect is that he employs some of the same tactics of critical review as far too many liberals do themselves. He is far too "into" himself or "full" of himself and tends to have this steep view of himself as an un-touchable academic type. I do not like people with condescending attitudes or comments.
I think it is poison to speak badly of Europe or America. I give great credit to Tony Blair of the UK for time after time after time trying to bridge the differences of Europe and America. If you ask me that is a real leader worthy of praise.
To close and mention once more my feelings of George Will I will simply say I do not bother with his hot air.
Read: I agree with him, so I find it very hard to disagree with him.
Read: I've had a stint at journalism, read a lot, and I am from in DC so political talk is everywhere -- and it is ubiquitous in inteligent pop culture there. Only naive liberals discredit George Will. Smart ones just don't like him. I know people that disagree with him, but when you have to come up with the facts to measure your word against his, he'll beat you every time. Remember that he does this for a living AND is probably the best in the world at what he does. . . or at least the most widely sydicated, televised, and published.
Anyway, you can disagree with him, but if he got you in a debate, goodbye SPJ. Watch him on TV among a bunch of liberals sometime. It's a truly stupifying experience. He's a shark with a silly haircut.
I think it is poison to speak badly of Europe or America.
May I ask why? I know that it's a taboo to judge another man in terms of strict Christian doctrine, but personally I don't find judging to be wrong so long is it doesn't impair your ability to forgive.
I find socialism to be morally wrong (deemphasizes the disadvatages of sloth) as well as economically ineffective (I think this is obvious). So in my eyes it's a bad choice whether you care more about the proverbial City of Man or more about the City of God.
There, I spoke badly of socialist regimes, and hence most of Europe. Yet I would love to see that continent turn around and finally get out of the feudal era.
Read: I've had a stint at journalism, read a lot, and I am from in DC so political talk is everywhere -- and it is ubiquitous in inteligent pop culture there. Only naive liberals discredit George Will. Smart ones just don't like him. I know people that disagree with him, but when you have to come up with the facts to measure your word against his, he'll beat you every time. Remember that he does this for a living AND is probably the best in the world at what he does. . . or at least the most widely sydicated, televised, and published.
Anyway, you can disagree with him, but if he got you in a debate, goodbye SPJ. Watch him on TV among a bunch of liberals sometime. It's a truly stupifying experience. He's a shark with a silly haircut.
I read the whole article. This article was about the decline of Europe.
What was the points :
- failure of franco-germany foreign policy
- europe army is irrelevant (and canada too)
- the birth ratio natality is too low in europe.
first point: resuming a complex situation to a single statement like Germany and France want to hold a tyrant in power is over-simplistic. Foreign policy is based upon geopolitic and geostrategic issues melded with inside politic. There where plenty of threads dealing this issues in AO, we should relate to this various threads if we are interested by this debate.
Second point : European army. Army is build upon 15 nations and soon 25. There is strong armies, like UK, and in a lesser extent France and others countries which have a weaker one. There is so real problem there, but not sufficiant to make sink the boat europe.
Third point and the more important. The decline of natality. Like every occidental countrie, there is a large decline in natality. Europe need immigration. Welfare and inside politic has nothing to do with this. Decrease of natality has more to do with the occidental way of life and especially the culture of spare time . Having 5 childs have a negative impact for spare time especially for ladies : it's a choice of life.
Yet I would love to see that continent turn around and finally get out of the feudal era.
I suggest you to choose your words with more accuracy. Feudal relate to a precise system of governement, who disapeared in Europe more than a millenium ago, hundreds years before three boats crossed the sea.
I admit I didn't read all the replies to this thead but..... I don't think it's a decline of Europe.... it's an attempt by Europe to compete with the United States..... (European Union)................anyone?
May I ask why? I know that it's a taboo to judge another man in terms of strict Christian doctrine, but personally I don't find judging to be wrong so long is it doesn't impair your ability to forgive.
I find socialism to be morally wrong (deemphasizes the disadvatages of sloth) as well as economically ineffective (I think this is obvious). So in my eyes it's a bad choice whether you care more about the proverbial City of Man or more about the City of God.
There, I spoke badly of socialist regimes, and hence most of Europe. Yet I would love to see that continent turn around and finally get out of the feudal era.
Here we go again
1) There is not a single socialist country in europe (can´t count the times I have had to make this point on AI)
2) If there were: Would it be moral wrong for the people to have chosen a socialist state system? Even if people actually vote here?
As much as i don't want to perpetuate this because it seems to turn into one man's word against another's, I will explain my opinion more thoroughly, backed up with some evidence. Basically a feat that seems to be met by only a select few on AI.
Powerdoc: I know what feudalism is, entirely, in history and in concept. Do you? It's my beleief that Europe has never spiritually left the feudal system, since head's of state and government regimes are too eagerly protected, and in many nations there are still monarchies, even though they may be passively so. I know that Europe is not hugely feudal at this point, but I don't think it's completly free of feudalism either. (See also reply to Anders about EU subsidies) The fact that there's any motive to take on responsibilities "for Queen and Country" is a throwback to a feudal culture. Also as evidence I'll mention the recent debacle around an American newspaper's insult to the president of France. Basically, any government where power, authority, and freedom of expression can be skewed around a leading figure has some degree of feudalism in it.
Also, history indicates that by 1492 and even by 1622 there were still generally feudal institutions in Europe. There were monarchies in England and -grumble- a blatantly feudal system in France. Plus, the Catholic Church was pretty feudal.
Anders: In a similar argument, what is the tax rate of Denmark? It's pretty high. That money goes towards a lot of public service and wealth distribution. PLUS, the EU finds it appropriate to heavily subsidize dozens of industries (farming, Airbus, to list 2) and then make classically foolish ecenomic decisions in order to protect otherwise faulty industries (like building surpluses and then throwing them away). That's a healthy dose of socialism, if you ask me. I consider America to be slightly socialist, but europe is definitely closer to socialism than capitalism in most respects, so it fits to consider it socialist.
Choosing socialism is morally wrong if sloth is against your moral code. Otherwise, I guess not.
SPJ: You can think what you want, but Chomsky is primarily a linguist. If the argument is on public policy, Will is much better informed on the matter. I have no idea what would amount, though.
I wonder if some of our more articulate European friends would be so kind as to articulate the case that Europe is not in decline or even that Europe is becoming stronger as a power broker right now, or over the forthcoming time period of say the next 50 years or so. It would be interesting to see how much support can be made for the reverse proposition.
"systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."
There would be no such thing as taxes because there would be no private property to tax. Under capitalist economies the state take away part of your income. Under socialist it gives you "pocket money". Its not being more or less socialist or capitalist but how the fundament of your system works. In a capitalist system the government is the leech. Under socialism your the leech.
Our constitution gives us the right to private property. Without a fundamental change to that socialism could never become the model.
Powerdoc: I know what feudalism is, entirely, in history and in concept. Do you? It's my beleief that Europe has never spiritually left the feudal system, since head's of state and government regimes are too eagerly protected, and in many nations there are still monarchies, even though they may be passively so. I know that Europe is not hugely feudal at this point, but I don't think it's completly free of feudalism either. (See also reply to Anders about EU subsidies) The fact that there's any motive to take on responsibilities "for Queen and Country" is a throwback to a feudal culture. Also as evidence I'll mention the recent debacle around an American newspaper's insult to the president of France. Basically, any government where power, authority, and freedom of expression can be skewed around a leading figure has some degree of feudalism in it.
Also, history indicates that by 1492 and even by 1622 there were still generally feudal institutions in Europe. There were monarchies in England and -grumble- a blatantly feudal system in France. Plus, the Catholic Church was pretty feudal.
So, if you know what feudalism is, I guess you'll agree that SLAVERY is one of its nastier incarnations? And it didn't stop in 1865. If you've read up a bit in Afro-American studies, you'll know that many Blacks lived in semi-slavery (full-blown feudalism if you will) up to the 1950s.
PLUS, the EU finds it appropriate to heavily subsidize dozens of industries (farming, Airbus, to list 2) and then make classically foolish ecenomic decisions in order to protect otherwise faulty industries (like building surpluses and then throwing them away).
1) US is guilty of the first on other areas (like steel production). Perhaps we are a bit worse but there is a general consensus that this have to end (especially in the agrocultural area) that I don´t see in US (perhaps because we are poorly informed about the internal industry-politics in US)
2) The surplusses is a thing of the past. It was a 80s and early 90s phenomen.
Your definition of socialism is absolute. In absolute capitalism, the government is not the leech because there is no government. I consider Denmark to be socialist because more than half of the country's GNP goes through the government (let me check that fact, though). That means that as far as economic freedom is concerned, you're more than half impaired.
I think you can forget the definition this time and understand the concept involved.
Powerdoc: I know what feudalism is, entirely, in history and in concept. Do you? It's my beleief that Europe has never spiritually left the feudal system, since head's of state and government regimes are too eagerly protected, and in many nations there are still monarchies, even though they may be passively so. I know that Europe is not hugely feudal at this point, but I don't think it's completly free of feudalism either. (See also reply to Anders about EU subsidies) The fact that there's any motive to take on responsibilities "for Queen and Country" is a throwback to a feudal culture. Also as evidence I'll mention the recent debacle around an American newspaper's insult to the president of France. Basically, any government where power, authority, and freedom of expression can be skewed around a leading figure has some degree of feudalism in it.
Also, history indicates that by 1492 and even by 1622 there were still generally feudal institutions in Europe. There were monarchies in England and -grumble- a blatantly feudal system in France. Plus, the Catholic Church was pretty feudal.
According to the Larrousse dictionnarie about feudalism : group of law and habits who rule the social and political order of a part of europe, from the end of the carolingian aera to the end of Middle age (dark age) and who imply :
- the preemenency of a social class of warrior
- links of dependances from man to man. (slavery is one of them, even if it was not called this way at this time).
Monarchy of this period, even an absolute way ( a la Louix XIV) is not feudal.
Parlemantary monarchy are not feudal (do you see any reference to a social class of warrior and a line in the constitution of such countries saying that some citizens are more important than others ? ). I think that you miss-umploy the word feudal, you should better use the word Jacobinism which refer to a very centralize governement system. A concept that should fit with many europeans countries, even if this system tends to disappear in France (the decentralisation).
Same apply for the catholic church, it's a centralized and hierarchised organisation, but not a feudal one.
I know what you try to meant , but the word Feudal is not the good one.
I wonder if some of our more articulate European friends would be so kind as to articulate the case that Europe is not in decline or even that Europe is becoming stronger as a power broker right now, or over the forthcoming time period of say the next 50 years or so. It would be interesting to see how much support can be made for the reverse proposition.
Europe is still one of the richest group of democratic countrie of the world. Considering that there is only a minority of democratia in the world, and that european countries are rich countries, i don't see the decline yet.
The major change in world wide politic of the last twenty years, was the end of the cold war. Something that changes the international relations.
I wonder if some of our more articulate European friends would be so kind as to articulate the case that Europe is not in decline or even that Europe is becoming stronger as a power broker right now, or over the forthcoming time period of say the next 50 years or so. It would be interesting to see how much support can be made for the reverse proposition.
I may not be too articulate but I will have a go ...
1) The economies of Europe are growing not declining.
What a bizarre thread, particularly the socialism == satanism bit.
More on topic, I've never understood how a country can suffer from both an aging population that refuses to replace itself and also be struggling to keep illegal immigration to a minimum.
Lots of fit, young, poor people want to move into the EU. That (and progressive euthenasia laws) will solve that problem. Note how he casually 'assumes' immigration out of existance. The guy's slick, I'll give him that.
I also liked how this guy gets to decide who gets a slice of the newly-liberated Iraqi's cake. Sounds like FEUDALISM to me!
As for *both* pro-european and anti-european positions being anti-american (as long as you disagree with him on the issue at hand), that's a lovely bit of rhetoric.
Was there any real substance to this guy's 'opinion'? I don't think so.
It is also relevant to note the rumours circulating that suggest Blair will use his post-war popularity to force the UK to join the Euro, accelerating european convergence.
I think the United States of Europe has a nice ring to it.
Comments
First while I am very much a conservative and like conservative commentary for some reason I have never once cared for the opinions of George Will. One reason I dislike him I suspect is that he employs some of the same tactics of critical review as far too many liberals do themselves. He is far too "into" himself or "full" of himself and tends to have this steep view of himself as an un-touchable academic type. I do not like people with condescending attitudes or comments.
I think it is poison to speak badly of Europe or America. I give great credit to Tony Blair of the UK for time after time after time trying to bridge the differences of Europe and America. If you ask me that is a real leader worthy of praise.
To close and mention once more my feelings of George Will I will simply say I do not bother with his hot air.
Fellowship
Originally posted by giant
you are just making it all up
Ah yes...but of course. GREAT post. Use a smiley next time, otherwise we'll all just think you're being a horse's butt on purpose.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
George Will always makes a good case. Whether you like him or not, No journalist I can think of is so solid and nearly irrefutable.
Read: I agree with him, so I find it very hard to disagree with him.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
Read: I agree with him, so I find it very hard to disagree with him.
Read: I've had a stint at journalism, read a lot, and I am from in DC so political talk is everywhere -- and it is ubiquitous in inteligent pop culture there. Only naive liberals discredit George Will. Smart ones just don't like him. I know people that disagree with him, but when you have to come up with the facts to measure your word against his, he'll beat you every time. Remember that he does this for a living AND is probably the best in the world at what he does. . . or at least the most widely sydicated, televised, and published.
Anyway, you can disagree with him, but if he got you in a debate, goodbye SPJ. Watch him on TV among a bunch of liberals sometime. It's a truly stupifying experience. He's a shark with a silly haircut.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Ahhh where do I begin....
I think it is poison to speak badly of Europe or America.
May I ask why? I know that it's a taboo to judge another man in terms of strict Christian doctrine, but personally I don't find judging to be wrong so long is it doesn't impair your ability to forgive.
I find socialism to be morally wrong (deemphasizes the disadvatages of sloth) as well as economically ineffective (I think this is obvious). So in my eyes it's a bad choice whether you care more about the proverbial City of Man or more about the City of God.
There, I spoke badly of socialist regimes, and hence most of Europe. Yet I would love to see that continent turn around and finally get out of the feudal era.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Read: I've had a stint at journalism, read a lot, and I am from in DC so political talk is everywhere -- and it is ubiquitous in inteligent pop culture there. Only naive liberals discredit George Will. Smart ones just don't like him. I know people that disagree with him, but when you have to come up with the facts to measure your word against his, he'll beat you every time. Remember that he does this for a living AND is probably the best in the world at what he does. . . or at least the most widely sydicated, televised, and published.
Anyway, you can disagree with him, but if he got you in a debate, goodbye SPJ. Watch him on TV among a bunch of liberals sometime. It's a truly stupifying experience. He's a shark with a silly haircut.
That's interesting.
I bet Noam Chomsky would tear him to shreds.
What was the points :
- failure of franco-germany foreign policy
- europe army is irrelevant (and canada too)
- the birth ratio natality is too low in europe.
first point: resuming a complex situation to a single statement like Germany and France want to hold a tyrant in power is over-simplistic. Foreign policy is based upon geopolitic and geostrategic issues melded with inside politic. There where plenty of threads dealing this issues in AO, we should relate to this various threads if we are interested by this debate.
Second point : European army. Army is build upon 15 nations and soon 25. There is strong armies, like UK, and in a lesser extent France and others countries which have a weaker one. There is so real problem there, but not sufficiant to make sink the boat europe.
Third point and the more important. The decline of natality. Like every occidental countrie, there is a large decline in natality. Europe need immigration. Welfare and inside politic has nothing to do with this. Decrease of natality has more to do with the occidental way of life and especially the culture of spare time . Having 5 childs have a negative impact for spare time especially for ladies : it's a choice of life.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Yet I would love to see that continent turn around and finally get out of the feudal era.
I suggest you to choose your words with more accuracy. Feudal relate to a precise system of governement, who disapeared in Europe more than a millenium ago, hundreds years before three boats crossed the sea.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
May I ask why? I know that it's a taboo to judge another man in terms of strict Christian doctrine, but personally I don't find judging to be wrong so long is it doesn't impair your ability to forgive.
I find socialism to be morally wrong (deemphasizes the disadvatages of sloth) as well as economically ineffective (I think this is obvious). So in my eyes it's a bad choice whether you care more about the proverbial City of Man or more about the City of God.
There, I spoke badly of socialist regimes, and hence most of Europe. Yet I would love to see that continent turn around and finally get out of the feudal era.
Here we go again
1) There is not a single socialist country in europe (can´t count the times I have had to make this point on AI)
2) If there were: Would it be moral wrong for the people to have chosen a socialist state system? Even if people actually vote here?
Powerdoc: I know what feudalism is, entirely, in history and in concept. Do you? It's my beleief that Europe has never spiritually left the feudal system, since head's of state and government regimes are too eagerly protected, and in many nations there are still monarchies, even though they may be passively so. I know that Europe is not hugely feudal at this point, but I don't think it's completly free of feudalism either. (See also reply to Anders about EU subsidies) The fact that there's any motive to take on responsibilities "for Queen and Country" is a throwback to a feudal culture. Also as evidence I'll mention the recent debacle around an American newspaper's insult to the president of France. Basically, any government where power, authority, and freedom of expression can be skewed around a leading figure has some degree of feudalism in it.
Also, history indicates that by 1492 and even by 1622 there were still generally feudal institutions in Europe. There were monarchies in England and -grumble- a blatantly feudal system in France. Plus, the Catholic Church was pretty feudal.
Anders: In a similar argument, what is the tax rate of Denmark? It's pretty high. That money goes towards a lot of public service and wealth distribution. PLUS, the EU finds it appropriate to heavily subsidize dozens of industries (farming, Airbus, to list 2) and then make classically foolish ecenomic decisions in order to protect otherwise faulty industries (like building surpluses and then throwing them away). That's a healthy dose of socialism, if you ask me. I consider America to be slightly socialist, but europe is definitely closer to socialism than capitalism in most respects, so it fits to consider it socialist.
Choosing socialism is morally wrong if sloth is against your moral code. Otherwise, I guess not.
SPJ: You can think what you want, but Chomsky is primarily a linguist. If the argument is on public policy, Will is much better informed on the matter. I have no idea what would amount, though.
Socialism:
"systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."
There would be no such thing as taxes because there would be no private property to tax. Under capitalist economies the state take away part of your income. Under socialist it gives you "pocket money". Its not being more or less socialist or capitalist but how the fundament of your system works. In a capitalist system the government is the leech. Under socialism your the leech.
Our constitution gives us the right to private property. Without a fundamental change to that socialism could never become the model.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Powerdoc: I know what feudalism is, entirely, in history and in concept. Do you? It's my beleief that Europe has never spiritually left the feudal system, since head's of state and government regimes are too eagerly protected, and in many nations there are still monarchies, even though they may be passively so. I know that Europe is not hugely feudal at this point, but I don't think it's completly free of feudalism either. (See also reply to Anders about EU subsidies) The fact that there's any motive to take on responsibilities "for Queen and Country" is a throwback to a feudal culture. Also as evidence I'll mention the recent debacle around an American newspaper's insult to the president of France. Basically, any government where power, authority, and freedom of expression can be skewed around a leading figure has some degree of feudalism in it.
Also, history indicates that by 1492 and even by 1622 there were still generally feudal institutions in Europe. There were monarchies in England and -grumble- a blatantly feudal system in France. Plus, the Catholic Church was pretty feudal.
So, if you know what feudalism is, I guess you'll agree that SLAVERY is one of its nastier incarnations? And it didn't stop in 1865. If you've read up a bit in Afro-American studies, you'll know that many Blacks lived in semi-slavery (full-blown feudalism if you will) up to the 1950s.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
PLUS, the EU finds it appropriate to heavily subsidize dozens of industries (farming, Airbus, to list 2) and then make classically foolish ecenomic decisions in order to protect otherwise faulty industries (like building surpluses and then throwing them away).
1) US is guilty of the first on other areas (like steel production). Perhaps we are a bit worse but there is a general consensus that this have to end (especially in the agrocultural area) that I don´t see in US (perhaps because we are poorly informed about the internal industry-politics in US)
2) The surplusses is a thing of the past. It was a 80s and early 90s phenomen.
I think you can forget the definition this time and understand the concept involved.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Powerdoc: I know what feudalism is, entirely, in history and in concept. Do you? It's my beleief that Europe has never spiritually left the feudal system, since head's of state and government regimes are too eagerly protected, and in many nations there are still monarchies, even though they may be passively so. I know that Europe is not hugely feudal at this point, but I don't think it's completly free of feudalism either. (See also reply to Anders about EU subsidies) The fact that there's any motive to take on responsibilities "for Queen and Country" is a throwback to a feudal culture. Also as evidence I'll mention the recent debacle around an American newspaper's insult to the president of France. Basically, any government where power, authority, and freedom of expression can be skewed around a leading figure has some degree of feudalism in it.
Also, history indicates that by 1492 and even by 1622 there were still generally feudal institutions in Europe. There were monarchies in England and -grumble- a blatantly feudal system in France. Plus, the Catholic Church was pretty feudal.
According to the Larrousse dictionnarie about feudalism : group of law and habits who rule the social and political order of a part of europe, from the end of the carolingian aera to the end of Middle age (dark age) and who imply :
- the preemenency of a social class of warrior
- links of dependances from man to man. (slavery is one of them, even if it was not called this way at this time).
Monarchy of this period, even an absolute way ( a la Louix XIV) is not feudal.
Parlemantary monarchy are not feudal (do you see any reference to a social class of warrior and a line in the constitution of such countries saying that some citizens are more important than others ? ). I think that you miss-umploy the word feudal, you should better use the word Jacobinism which refer to a very centralize governement system. A concept that should fit with many europeans countries, even if this system tends to disappear in France (the decentralisation).
Same apply for the catholic church, it's a centralized and hierarchised organisation, but not a feudal one.
I know what you try to meant , but the word Feudal is not the good one.
Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
I wonder if some of our more articulate European friends would be so kind as to articulate the case that Europe is not in decline or even that Europe is becoming stronger as a power broker right now, or over the forthcoming time period of say the next 50 years or so. It would be interesting to see how much support can be made for the reverse proposition.
Europe is still one of the richest group of democratic countrie of the world. Considering that there is only a minority of democratia in the world, and that european countries are rich countries, i don't see the decline yet.
The major change in world wide politic of the last twenty years, was the end of the cold war. Something that changes the international relations.
Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
I wonder if some of our more articulate European friends would be so kind as to articulate the case that Europe is not in decline or even that Europe is becoming stronger as a power broker right now, or over the forthcoming time period of say the next 50 years or so. It would be interesting to see how much support can be made for the reverse proposition.
I may not be too articulate but I will have a go ...
1) The economies of Europe are growing not declining.
That'll do for now.
More on topic, I've never understood how a country can suffer from both an aging population that refuses to replace itself and also be struggling to keep illegal immigration to a minimum.
Lots of fit, young, poor people want to move into the EU. That (and progressive euthenasia laws) will solve that problem. Note how he casually 'assumes' immigration out of existance. The guy's slick, I'll give him that.
I also liked how this guy gets to decide who gets a slice of the newly-liberated Iraqi's cake. Sounds like FEUDALISM to me!
As for *both* pro-european and anti-european positions being anti-american (as long as you disagree with him on the issue at hand), that's a lovely bit of rhetoric.
Was there any real substance to this guy's 'opinion'? I don't think so.
It is also relevant to note the rumours circulating that suggest Blair will use his post-war popularity to force the UK to join the Euro, accelerating european convergence.
I think the United States of Europe has a nice ring to it.