What's Happening
Published November 3, 2004
Been really busy with school. However, there are only a few remaining bugs I plan to fix for v3.5, so I'm hoping to get those resolved this week or weekend, and get skEdit out as soon as possible.
Was up very late last night watching the election. Very disappointed with the way it went. However, it seems like people wanted the Republicans (for reasons unfathomable to me), so that is what we're going to get. With a Republican President, House, and Senate, they'll be able to do mostly whatever they want. I don't normally get into politics in this space, but I had to say something.
Personally I don't think they should have the majority of all houses, it gives them way too much control. I thought Kerry was an inbecile who should never have been put forward. On the other hand, Bush is a lying, cheating, stealing nuisance that is barely any better, but at least he has Colin Powel.
Damien on November 4, 2004 #I sympathise with you Sean.
But the fact remains that roughly 60 million American's through their infinite lack of understanding has sent the following message to the rest of the world:
"F... U !!!" combined with a rude one-finger-salute.
Civilised people do not take kindly to that type of behaviour, and all Americans - including the innocent - will pay the price for that over the coming decades. It will take at least 20 - 30 years of good continuous leadership in the US for the world to forget and forgive.
In their supposed aim to make the world safer, Americans have now made it more dangerous and they have the most dangerous men running their own administration. Well done !!
Do a google on "The Power of Nightmares" + BBC2 and you should find torrents to one of the best documentaries ever made. Watch it, and realise how misled you have been and what the ultimate consequence of that will be. You think things are bad now, just wait they can only get worse.
Proud to be NON-American on November 4, 2004 #Do you really think 60 million Americans have an infinite lack of understanding? Those who voted for Bush didn't do so because they want US soldiers to die or because they hate Kerry or because they had nothing else to do. Those who voted for him did so because they think he will make the country safer. They did so because the UN is (has been) an impotent enforcer of nothing. They didn't throw up a middle finger at the world -- that makes it sound like the election should be determined by world opinion poles -- instead they did what they thought was best for America. Whether they are right or not remains to be seen. In four years when we have more of our tax-dollars in our pockets and the economy continues to improve, we can see if America's safer or a better place to live. When the world quits bitching to the US to save it from tyrants then we can be an equal participant in the world community. As long as we are considered the leader (see US's prominence in UN headquarters and budget and global aid), many people feel we have to look after ourselves first.
Sorry for the rant...I just don't understand the Bush hate and the cries of ignorance on the part of the voters. Looking forward to version 3.5
Luke Hartman on November 6, 2004 #the US may well be a champion of democracy, but you only have to look at how the voting process works to wonder how democratic it really is (see the current edition of Wired for a good analysis)
At the end of the day it's not down to which of Bush or Kerry would have made a better leader (my personal choice would be the latter simply because change encourages balance) but if you'd actually trust anyone who want's that job to have your best interests at heart
jeremy on November 6, 2004 #True, but do you want to force someone to run for the job to ensure they'd have your best interest at heart?
Luke Hartman on November 6, 2004 #there's the problem Luke.... you can't without some pretty onerous public disclosure for the rest of their life to ensure they don't support a bill today and then when they retire they get a parting gift from Corporation X as a thank-you for allowing them to destroy a community / part of the environment / education / health system.
However at the moment there is no real accountability and it appears the lobbyists with the biggest pockets dictate direction rather than the common people, or common sense.
The US is not alone in this respect - the UK and Australia also have the same problems (having lived there I've seen it first-hand) yet both the public and the press are too apathetic to actually reach boiling point and change anything.
At the end of the day I suspect we end up with the leaders we deserve. And boy, does that reflect badly on us !
BTW - Sean, not sure how it happened, but the site is less about skEdit and more about politics today - sorry !
jeremy on November 6, 2004 #World won't be safer becasue Americans can send more military power abroad. Hate gives birth to hate. Americans have won the baltle, but have lost the war. Now look at the Arab world and ask yourself - are they very friendly? Bush is goint ot war as Christian, earnesly praying God. So for Arabs it is religious war, not just war against terrorism. But the saddest thing is that Bush has no real understanding of Christianity, otherwise he would do quite opposite of what he does now. Chirstianity is not for goint to war, but for loveing enemies and doing good to them. At least that's what Christ taught. So for me he's one who is using God's name in vain. After earnest "prayers" he sends soldiers to kill - what a caricature of real Christian character!
Guntis on November 7, 2004 #I would think that programmers of all people, would have a better understanding of the technologies out there and what we are up against. Terrorist could end America... period! But hey, maybe if we just give more love to those who think it's their religious duty to kill us... well... maybe they leave us alone.
Bryce on November 7, 2004 #Bryce, I don't think anyone is saying all we should do is "send love" to the terrorists. However, my guess would be that if you asked the terrorists, many of them would have had at least one family member killed by America, an ally of America, or a regional country supported by America (e.g. Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war). So, it is at least worth considering that killing thousands of civilian Iraqis will likely breed more terrorists, who hate America not because they hate freedom, but because we directly/indirectly killed their family. Of course, many of the terrorist leaders are simply religious zealots using this anger against America.
It is estimated that between 14,000 and 16,000 Iraqis have been killed during this war*. As a comparison, in 2003, there were 625 deaths due to terrorism worldwide (according to the US State Department)**. While that number is still too high, it does not seem that terrorism at this level could "end" us. The disparity between these numbers is striking. Even looking at September 11th, when 3,030 Americans were killed***, leaves a huge gap.
Was Saddam a bad guy? Certainly. If we can establish a democracy in Iraq, will that be good? Almost definitely. However, the end may not necessarily justify the means, particularly if another solution could have worked. Had we given the weapons inspectors more time, we likely would have discovered that Iraq had no WMDs, war would not have been justified, and a lot of innocent Iraqis would still be alive. Saddam was in bad shape, the sanctions were working, and given enough time, would probably have finished the job. As George H.W. Bush said in his memoirs regarding the first Gulf war:
"Trying to eliminate Saddam ... would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible ... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq ... [T]here was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see, violating another of our principles ... Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' [1990] mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."****
It seems he judged the situation well.
However, none of this means terrorism is not a concern. A nuclear, biological, or chemical attack would be devastating, and prevention of that is where our efforts should lie. And of course, as Iraq had none of those, its invasion did not further that goal.
What I'm really trying to say is that this country needs leaders to consider all alternatives, and pick the one with the best long term results. What I've tried to present here is that the invasion of Iraq was not that solution. Not because I love the terrorists, but because it just didn't make any sense.
I did not intend for this normally apolitical space to get political, but I feel that reasoned discussions of these issues is worthwhile. However, if comments here start to get ridiculous, I will close them for this post.
* http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
** http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2003/33771.htm
*** http://www.september11news.com/911Art.htm
**** http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Defensewatch_111903_Exit,00.html
Sean Kelly on November 7, 2004 #"When the world quits bitching to the US to save it from tyrants"
Oh for the love of - now this is what really scares me, and shows why Bush was voted back in. Americans have hardly any knowledge of their own history, just a sanitised "founding fathers" version that carefully omits most of the truth. Do some research and see how many tyrants the US has been responsible for supporting or instating down the years. Think about how your President is *now* saying that the reason Saddam was removed from power was because he was a tyrant, not because of the WMD that weren't found, and consider how many tyrants the world has seen or still exist that the US has turned a blind eye to, or in fact benefited from.
Oh that's right, the election was won on 'morals.' Sheesh!
Unihead on November 9, 2004 #Right on Sean! I totally agree.
And I think that 48% of the country also agrees.
And I also can't wait for 3.5...
Canyon on November 9, 2004 #Great post above Sean.
Go 3.5!
David Kern on November 10, 2004 #I just have to comment on some of the submissions and points brought up, so apologies for the length. I am trying hard to be short and succinct.
Bryce:
Wow, man. Your grasp of the facts, clear understanding of the issues involved and acute answer to the problem, is what makes America so great and widely respected in the world.
PS: As a highly informed programmer, you might want to look into adding some *content* to your site, as it is what most websites are there for.
OK, now that we have dealt with the simpletons, let?s begin the adult discussion.
Luke:
?Do you really think 60 million Americans have an infinite lack of understanding??
Yes, in some - but not all - aspects of life. The majority of American's do not have a passport, have never been abroad, experienced different cultures, ways of thinking etc. etc. Because of this, this vast group of people have little to compare their views with and thereby build an informed understanding of complex issues.
As for the 60 million number. Well, call me stupid if you like, but I think it's more like 40 million with the rest added courtesy of Diebold.
"Those who voted for him [Bush] did so because they think he will make the country safer."
IF that was their only aim, then they have failed badly. As a direct consequence of Bush being re-elected, more people around the world are disillusioned and angry with the US than ever before. The support for US has never been lower and if Bush follows the same path during the coming four years, as he did during his first term it will only go lower.
"... because the UN is (has been) an impotent enforcer of nothing."
This is a far more complex issue than I have time and space for here, but let's just contemplate the fact that the US has cast more UN Security Council vetoes (73 in total) than anyone since 1990. (Second overall after the former Soviet Union)
So, when you comment on the UN as being an "impotent enforcer of nothing", perhaps you should consider the actions of your own administration(s) and how those have affected the UN.
Public organisations are imbued with the strength that we the people/members give them. If we want a strong UN then we should start with supporting and strengthening it, rather than put it down to suit our own agenda. If we actually followed the Bush agenda to its logical conclusion then we would adopt vigilanteism if we felt the police was not catching criminals well enough. Perhaps you support that as well?
"... As long as we are considered the leader (see US's prominence in UN headquarters and budget and global aid)..."
1. You are no longer considered as 'the leader'. You are considered as a powerful bully, not a leader for the good of the world. Far from it, so please forget that point of view.
2. The US is the single largest debtor to a underfunded UN.
3. The US is among the lowest contributors of international aid as a percentage of GDP. It is not the amount of money that counts, but the percentage of what you can afford to provide.
So, nothing to boost about there either I would suggest.
"...I just don't understand the Bush hate and the cries of ignorance on the part of the voters."
That's the problem we - the world - are facing here. Whereas we - as opposed to you - would try to vote in the best able, most suitable, most experienced, best educated, most successful leader to the most powerful position. You - twice - voted in a person that is/has been a flawed human being with few impressive credentials. Now if we choose our leaders based on their personality, then perhaps we should also choose them based on their attractiveness or any other arbitrary aspect.
Why does so many people in the rest of the world strongly dislike G. W. Bush? There are many reasons, but the main one is that after 9/11 you - and Bush - had our support. Since then - and some prior to 9/11 - Bush has taken so many steps that has eroded that support to such an extent that it is no longer there. You have no wide support for your ideas and policies around the world. You are increasingly isolated and alone. If you somehow would think of that as good, then put on a T-shirt that says "I voted for Bush" and walk down the street in an Arab country alone. Maybe then you will begin to realise the value of not being alone.
Jeremy & Luke:
"... US democratic process..."
I would suggest that you live in a fictional democracy that is being continuously eroded. You do not have a democracy that you should be proud over and attempt to export to other countries !
Why that statement ? A true democracy is one where... :
1. ...every vote is counted and every voter is valued for their contribution. Not where you have 'electoral colleges', 'first-past-the-post', discarded votes, disenfranchised voters and so on.
2. ...you have a multi-party system with more than two parties to choose from. Having just two parties by definition limits choice and options, as well as political progress. In all functioning markets/areas of life we have a multitude of choice. We do not have two car manufacturers producing one type of car each; two airlines; two TV-channels; etc. etc. By having a choice we - the people - can better choose the product/ideas/etc that suits our needs/beliefs.
Just stop and think about the above statement for a while, and you will realise how important and valuable it is. Those who speak for limited (two party) choice, are only doing so because it strengthens their chance of being in power or making money from you.
3. ...the views and needs of the population as a whole is more important and more respected, than the views of financially powerful lobby groups with their own agendas.
4. ... anyone can take part in the election with equal chance and resources to promote the strength and values of their message, rather than requiring millions to spread lies and character assassinations.
If you sit down and think about the above points you will realise how wrong your 'democracy' actually is, and how much work you will need to do to correct it. Let alone restore international trust in the process. Jeremy, you are on the right track in my mind. You get it. Now begin working to change it, rather than sit down and forget about it.
"...the UK and Australia also have the same problems..."
Living in the UK - but not being British - I agree with you there Jeremy. The UK 'democracy' is almost as flawed as the US. Look at the Scandinavian countries - such as Sweden - for good examples of working democracies.
"At the end of the day I suspect we end up with the leaders we deserve. And boy, does that reflect badly on us !"
Yes, that's the sad outcome of the current situation, and that is what contributes to the multitude of problems that affect the world today, like poverty, starvation and terrorism.
Guntis:
"Hate gives birth to hate."
Absolutely ! Arrogance creates irritation. Irritation creates anger. Anger creates angry words/actions. Angry words/actions create more anger. More anger leads to hate.
Arrogance is the root of hate and all evil ! And arrogance rules the US today.
"But the saddest thing is that Bush has no real understanding of Christianity, ..."
Beautifully said ! Many 'born-again-Christians' - like Bush - have a distorted and narrow interpretation of the message originally put down into the Bible. You can always spot a 'born-again-Christian' by the fact that they have to talk about how much they pray and how good they are as opposed to all other Christians and religious people. I personally is of the school that you do, but don't talk about it. Sort of like you using toilet paper while on the toilet. Praying is a private transaction between you and your God. Not something you have tell others about at every opportunity.
Sean:
Amen !! There is no way that I can improve upon your comment. I knew you were an intelligent person.
And finally, a few additional thoughts of my own:
HISTORY
Only by studying history, will you begin to understand the complex world we live in and the many paths of actions that are open to us at any given time. By studying history, you can also see the consequences of previous actions and hopefully learn how to avoid them.
As a parting statement, please consider the following:
30 - 40 years ago, America fought a war against another -ism, that time it was Communism. Part of that war was the Vietnam War. Not exactly one of the US' greatest moments. At the time it was crucial to US security and so on, but the fact remains that the US was forced to give up the fight and today - 30 years later - Vietnam is still a communist state.
The Iraq War is to all extents and purposes a repetition of the Vietnam War. I feel terribly sorry for all the innocent Iraqis killed and injured, but also for the poor US soldiers that have been sent to fight a war that was not needed, and will not end in the expected outcome, and then will come back to the US and be ignored just as many of the Vietnam vets have been.
The US has always been far more successful when they have engaged in an open debate with others, promoted good products and actions, rather than what you are doing now.
Thank you for the word.
Still Proud to NOT be an American on November 11, 2004 #