tvashtarkatena

What about single commodity producers in the underworld?

Flip 1: China. I hear their free elections are real potboilers. I suppose that they're single commodity producers...if you define "all the cheap shit we buy" as a single commodity. Flip 2: Norway, the world's tax haven. Flip 3: 'third world'? A bit of bait and switch, no? Is Saudi Arabia 'third world', or are you talking about someplace like Nigeria? I'd say 'third world' has much more to do with repression than 'single resource'. Non-specific/multiple criteria: Naughty statistician! Flip 4: I've racked up 4 national examples that refute your argument to your none. So far, I'm winning by infinity percent...relativistically speaking, of course. Flip 5: Costa Rica. A classic commodity (coffee and palm oil) producing central American country which is not repressive. Why? Because they choose not to be.

The Woman, however, might.

I'm arguing with you, not wikipedia. If wikipedia is the first thing you reach for when wielding your 'scholarship', well, I got nothin'. Still waiting for you to back up your thesis...in your own words, with obvious historical examples...as I did. Using sheep, no less.

This assertion evaporates under historical scrutiny. First of all, there are very few nations around the world that are 'single resource' based. Too few to draw any kind of simplistic conclusion regarding the relationship of that key resource and the oppressiveness of their regime. When one examines these few nations, no clear patterns emerge. Repressive Saudi Arabia is oil based, but then, so is the very democratic and socially liberal Norway. New Zealand's primary export is sheep. Repressive? Not very. For a more local example, visit Kuwait, another oil based nation, sometime. Pretty liberal and modern. One thing Jay's arguments all have in common: they are in love with the 'Big Idea': a one size fits all, formula based, and thus centralized, solution for the world's problems. Unfortunately for this philosophy, which has failed spectacularly of late, successful foreign policy requires a more case by case approach and a great deal of local knowledge and dependence on in country relationships. Using Saudi Arabia as an example, I would argue that their cultural and colonial history had much more to do with their present level of repression than the fact that they are a single resource producer. Islam, which was at its inception was a liberalizing force in what was a brutal nomadic culture, has morphed over the centuries into its present intolerant forms, the most intolerant of which reside in Saudi Arabia. No surprise; it is the birthplace of the religion. What we see today is a young, tenuous Kingdom, established under the auspices the colonial powers long before oil became a primary world resource, trying to maintain an uneasy peace with a fundamentalist population following a religion established, again, long before oil became a primary world resource. There's actually a substantial body of research and empirical evidence to support my claims about the connection between economies driven by single-commodity or set of commodities. When can we expect the publication of your refutation? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse You cite a wikipedia entry as your rebuttal? The kid who got tasered for streaking has a wikipedia entry, for Christ's sake. Why don't I just cite Noam Chomsky in response and declare victory? I've already published my refutation to your thesis...and I await your counter argument.

do you drive over the speed limit? liberal: instead admitting they did wrong - uses relativism What's wrong with relativism?

This assertion evaporates under historical scrutiny. First of all, there are very few nations around the world that are 'single resource' based. Too few to draw any kind of simplistic conclusion regarding the relationship of that key resource and the oppressiveness of their regime. When one examines these few nations, no clear patterns emerge. Repressive Saudi Arabia is oil based, but then, so is the very democratic and socially liberal Norway. New Zealand's primary export is sheep. Repressive? Not very. For a more local example, visit Kuwait, another oil based nation, sometime. Pretty liberal and modern. One thing Jay's arguments all have in common: they are in love with the 'Big Idea': a one size fits all, formula based, and thus centralized, solution for the world's problems. Unfortunately for this philosophy, which has failed spectacularly of late, successful foreign policy requires a more case by case approach and a great deal of local knowledge and dependence on in country relationships. Using Saudi Arabia as an example, I would argue that their cultural and colonial history had much more to do with their present level of repression than the fact that they are a single resource producer. Islam, which was at its inception was a liberalizing force in what was a brutal nomadic culture, has morphed over the centuries into its present intolerant forms, the most intolerant of which reside in Saudi Arabia. No surprise; it is the birthplace of the religion. What we see today is a young, tenuous Kingdom, established under the auspices the colonial powers long before oil became a primary world resource, trying to maintain an uneasy peace with a fundamentalist population following a religion established, again, long before oil became a primary world resource.

I don't think this is a widely held argument at all. I would guess that it is a mistatement of the argument that US military involvement in Iraq has destabilized the region and inflamed fundamentalist extremism there...which it certainly has by anyone's analysis, including supporters of the war. This has resulted in more repression in the region; by extremist governments (Iran), by governments trying to contain extremist elements (Egypt), and by weak governments under threat of collapse (Lebanon). I would also argue that many, myself included, believe our Middle Eastern polices have been flawed not because of some simplistic belief that our involvement per se leads to repression, but that the US does not consider the repressiveness of a regime as a primary determinant for lending support. Rather, alignment with US interests (Israel) and a willingness to sell oil on favorable terms (Saudi Arabia) have determined who we favor in the Middle East. Social justice has had little to do with it. As a result, we are now reaping a huge debt, decreased security, and a less stable and less democratic Middle East for our decades of massive investment in the region.

I wouldn't know if Kokanee is swill or not; as far as I can tell, all Canadian nationally distributed brands seem to be Hamms in different colored cans. Culture of churchladies: No. Culture of cheap, readily available beer, smokes, and amo: Yes.

The much needed Sultan Traffic Revision: Before and After:

Wire gates are a huge improvement, especially the new curved wire gates designed to clip easily to bolt or rope. Dey be clippin so fine, the gates are way durable and reliable; you'll be thanking yourself for springing the extra chump change for them when the sweat starts to flow. I've found great deals for wire gate quickdraws that worked out to be just over $5 a biner. Definitely worth it.

As for a pack, I use my Golite Jam for nearly everything. Light, simple, comfy, large. Love it.

It's interesting to me how American conservatives, who have argued vehemently against any form of socialism for decades, consistently argue for centralized control and against local control. They continually defend big agribusiness at the expense of smaller family farms, foreign intervention through the use of force over working with soveriegn governments to resolve problems within their own borders, and a larger military; the most socialist organization ever created by man. It be all funky n shit.

KK -- yer always begging for sex from the guys here, even though there's little doubt this is mostly a hetero site. Tell me, is it too much trouble for you to just do a Google on latent-queer-bait (dot-com), or are you obsessed with one day turning a straight guy? The last time I gave it to KKK, he didn't even say "I love you" afterwards. Not very nice.

I would take a canoe with the priest, fox, and rabbi first, followed by the chicken, your GF, and a lawyer second.

You haven't lived until you've caught the middle guy's leader fall in an Alpine Bod harness. Anyone know of a Boy's Choir I can join in the area? ...or dodged the right hand guy's frozen free fall surprise. My left eye still twitches.

True, but you do have to pay 11.95 CN for a sixer of Kokanee, but never on Sundays nor after 6:00 pm. Oh Canada, when will thou breakest thine chains of tyranny!

The article fails to mention that she pooed for three days straight afterwards.

I think a comprehensive redesign of Sultan's traffic flow should be accelerated by federal funding....

Start scratchin', Fido....

Buh bye, Butterball.

That's Ja love for ya....

Not the only erroneous supposition in this letter, to be sure, but, ah, the war is already lost (some folks just haven't gotten the memo)...which pretty much makes the rest of the treatise moot. By lost, I mean that the foreign policy objectives for the war, stated or implied, have all backfired. Attacks by extremists around the world, particularly US interests, have increased, so the 'enemy' has been emboldened, not cowed. Stability and reconstruction in Iraq are a joke. The Taliban is back. Oil supplies are not secure. Iran is not intimidated. Freedom and democracy have not spread like wildflowers throughtout the Middle East; instead, the region has embraced fundamentalist extremism. Frankly, the author of this letter is either a moron or just woke up from a several year long coma.

Mmmmmm. Cream filled donut....

Don't hate. Appreciate.