http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16K6m3Ua2nw

PS. I live in America.

Subversive !!

That was pretty good.

bonus

The show The Newsroom happens to be pretty good. But honestly, it's really fluffing hard to do better than that in any amount of time.

It's a decent video.

I think that if you ask the average liberal on the street what's at the heart of their support for social programs, they'll tell you that they want to help people. They just want to help people.

I think that if you ask the average conservative on the street what's at the heart of the opposition to social programs, they'll tell you that the one's we have now don't work very well, that they waste money, and that we could help so many more people if the programs worked better.

These aren't inherently contradictory ideas or beliefs. What they are is completely ignored by today's media and feared by today's politicians.

Today is the era of (liberal bias inerted here) heartless Republicans and (conservative bias inserted here) delusional Democrats.

yep, I liked that speech, too, when I watched the pilot of The Newsroom.

It was one of the best pilots I've seen in a long time. Truely excellent. Sadly the following 2 episodes couldn't keep up with that niveau. I'll still keep watching whenever I have some spare time.

Always an issue of divide an conquer.

Typical Sorkinesque monologue of nice buzz phrases that bemoan the present and romanticize the past. I mean, c'mon, he slams the girl asking the question for naivity in the same breath claims we passed laws in the past for almost entirely moral reasons? I'm sure that's exactly what the Alien and Sedition Acts were all about. What's more amusing to me is for him to have the character--presumably a baby boomer--lecture the current generation on being the worst, seriously? The "greatest generation" saddled us with entitlements that they could afford by having a bigger labor force behind them and then the baby boomers followed up by having less kids and demanding more benefits/entitlements. I'm not sure I would say apathy or hopeless optimism is worse than running up the tab on your children and grandchildren's future.

The broader point that America and Americans need a reality check is probably on point. But then the politics come in with Sorkin's "a war on poverty, not a war against the impoverished." It's a philosophical difference. He would say you fight poverty by taxing business more. I would say you fight poverty by helping an economy thrive to lower unemployment and hire more. I'm digressing too much now.

On speech scale, eh. The show's decent. I find the characters a little too long-winded sometimes talking in these streams of consciousness that I rarely see people do. The critics deadpanned it a little too much, but it's nothing to write home about.

Look at trumper go. Busting out the Alien and Sedition Acts.

In fairness, the real busting was on the House floor at the time where the first documented fight between members took place. Essentially after one spat on the other and then the other decided to kick the fluff out of him. Needless to say, I enjoy people romanticizing about those times that conveniently forget about the duels, beatings, and random horrible legislation.

The girl that asked the question is cute

Thanks for sharing! I'll see if I can catch the show. I don't really watch TV, but am intrigued to see what ideas the creator wants to share

America is the greatest country in the world for though it has fallen much, it is still head and shoulder greater than any other nation. It might not be as great as it once was, or as great as it could be, much it is still the greatest nation in the world.

trumper: I'm with you on this. I ended up doing a literary critique about a book and when I got into the secondary research, I found out there was a lot of historical criticism linking the book to the A&S Acts, so it's one of those random weird historical acts that I'm actually fairly familiar with. I find the very idea that it was clearly targeted at one guy (Thomas Jefferson) to get him to shut his mouth to be hilarious. Horribly wrong and only funny because it happened over 200 years ago. But hilarious nonetheless.

I think throughout most of the 20th century was probably the most "genteel" Congress has been. It used to be way worse (as you pointed out), and I'd argue it's probably on the downswing again, but I kind of hope we won't have any fights break out (or do I? I'll have to think about that).

I wish politicians cared enough to get into fist fights

Think of how the ratings on C-SPAN might change. If there was even like a 5% chance any given day that some Republican was gonna drop the gloves and go after Pelosi, I'd have my DVR perpetually recording.

Pelosi needs to get beat up like a man... fluffing fluff

b

legislation and voting breaking out at boxing matches would make CSPAN worth watching.

Politicians already act childish enough without fist fights starting -_-

plans on moving to eastern europe

Exactly. Or "negative campaigning" and how the Founding Fathers never did it. I respond, except when talking about alleged mistresses, bastard children and otherwise challenging folks to duels over these slights, but sure.

Somehow I knew this thread would have trumper in it.

Yep, can't help myself.

What I need is a return of Mentar or Mick to spice things up!

I can play devil's advocate and spout off more leftist views in an obnoxious and dismissive attitude if you need me to trumper. Not usually my style, but hey, if it makes it more fun...

It's ok, but you win points for correctly describing their styles!

I could also correctly describe the style of those on the other side, too, but I'll hold back for now. :)

I would be moderate portion of the "other side" of that equation and welcome some fun. Albeit, I also follow politics and policy for a living.

hmmmm.... so when I end up reading a bunch of articles and looking up info to try to post intelligently, you already know all that stuff.

I better get any debates in with you during the summer before I have to start teaching and doing grad school again.....

Ha, I would not only be wrong, but also smug to claim I knew "all that stuff." I closely track political and health care-related items. Past that, it's stuff I'm reading for my own enjoyment/out of boredom, although sometimes because those issues interplay--say defense with the sequestor for lame duck session.

We should engage in a debate about agriculture policy. I was talking to a friend about ethanol subsidies during a softball game (beer league can get boring when you're down a ton) and she was going on a long explanation about their benefits. Me, I'm more leery.

I'd say, knowing very little about ethanol subsidies (despite living in Illinois), I guess I'm for them, but to really have a strong opinion about it, I'd have to do more research.

In theory though, I figure farmers are pretty much at the whims of the weather, making it a tough living, and I'm generally in favor of alternative forms of energy other than your typical petroleum.

If I researched it more though I wouldn't be shocked if I ended up changing my mind if the research gives me compelling reasons to.

I do feel bad for the corn farmers since many had to plow under their crops in midwest and plant anew due to the drought, but the corn producers in particular have a pretty healthy market to sell at.

The number of grocery products that contain a corn byproduct or are fed by corn is ridiculously high. You toss in ethanol and they have the golden crop aside from perhaps beef, which with the KORUS FTA is even nicer.

Anyway, back to the subsidies, my issue is with subsidizing the production when we have abundant resources nearby. I would much prefer we subsidize a shift in the auto industry to create more engines running on natural gas given the glut of it in the Bakken, Eagle, and other shale plays. We would have cleaner gas and it would be $1 a gallon instead of $3.50. Then again, I do own stock in a natural gas company so I'm biased (not Chesapeake, thank God).

Trumper,

In Gujarat, India 70% of the cars run on CNG. The current engine that comes in the car does work with CNG, we do not even have to do anything to it except add a very small kit that adjusts the firing rate.

The state has very large natural gas reserve, so they started drilling for the CNG and started running piplines to near by gas stations. Petrol consumption dropped by a huge number.

In united states, this is also possible, as long as we can get past the oil companies and their lobby groups.

The neoliberal agenda is the global consensus of the moneyed elite - the issues really have nothing to do with the US specifically.

I do love the fact that in the U.S.A. the "baby boomer" generation (e.g. the most selfish, spoiled, and pathetic generation that this country has seen in a long while) is now busy breaking their arms patting themselves on the back in self-congratulation. But it's when they start wagging their fingers at the lack of industry in today's youth (this from the hippie, "don't trust anyone over 30" generation!) that I really want to poke someone's eye out.

CNG... alot smarter then using our food supply and running up the costs to drive there is by far better sources of fuel, that will still leave our freezers full.

I don't know why (strike that, I do know why) a compromise can't be struck by basically adopting the T Boone Pickens plan of drilling for more natural gas while putting large subsidies into developing more sustainable and renewable energy sources.

Is there anyone that can't abide by that plan as a reasonable compromise? It both gives us a short-term path to making ourselves more energy independent, but also a long-term path to a renewable source of energy that won't simply put the same problem on a future generation again.

well, i will be back to really post.. video was funny.... but in responce to the thread topic.. i believe[ and yes, i am a biased citizen.] that america is not maybe what we were... not ahead by alot, but i assure you there is no country better in world anywhere !!!!!

http://www.torontosun.com/...-at-denver-batman-showing

What does this even mean? Yes, the US is the biggest economy and military power in the world, yes its "culture" (ie Hollywood) permeates across the globe with very few equals - but I can list at least 15 countries I'd rather have been born as an "average" citizen into than the US. And you can make similar assertions ("second greatest") about military and economic strength for China now, but I sure as hell wouldn't have liked to have been born a Chinese person.

If you don't like America... Leave. Move to some other country you do like.

I love America.

I was going to come on here and blast this moronic show for having a baby boomer say ANY generation is the worst ever when both the boomers' parents and children both agree it's the boomers who have managed to F everything up. However it appears trumpet and others beat me to it.

The US is in fact the greatest country on Earth, it has the largest economy, the most cultural influence, the most number of influential corporations, the best military, and it's citizens have a greater degree of freedom then other free countries. Sure there are some spots in the world like Norway that are great places to live, but most of those places only exist under the blanket of freedom that the US provides (and then turn around and question the manner in which we provide it) We would prefer they just say thank you, and be on their way.

how the hell do you measure this? I'm getting kind of tired of hearing it. America's laws aren't more liberal than those of most of Europe, America's social conventions aren't more liberal than those of most of Europe... I guess the business climate in America is more "free" if that counts for anything.

None of these outside of the economy indices really support the "land of the free" hypothesis http://en.wikipedia.org/...i/List_of_freedom_indices

(not what I believe but just as stupid): maybe you should stop bashing China and say "thank you" given how they're basically lending money to your government and private sector, propping it up through these turbulent financial times...

Pontus: I will give you some examples of how Americans are more free.

There is no principle of the "primacy of Parliament" for the legislature.
We have an independent judiciary that can check excesses of other branches.
Our definition of free speech is broader then virtually any other country. For instance Europe's anti-trolling laws and their threshold for defamation would both be unconstitutional here.
We have an adversarial, and not inquisitional format for our criminal courts as some western European countries do.
Our freedom of religion also has a much broader definition. There are several religions in the US that are outright banned in some European countries such as Scientology.
The right to bear arms is almost non-existent in other free countries.

I did not know that about Gujarat, but it gives me hope for my natural gas stock (nat gas has taken such a beating this spring, although also when I bought a good stake so minimal loss for me). The kit size particularly interests me as the technology in America doesn't seem up to that point. I wonder if any folks here have thought of buying those patent rights. Chevy could stop making the costly Volts and make nat gas cars.





T Boone is out for himself. He made all of his money off nat gas and now owns significant stakes in water rights in that greater-Oklahoma area, which are extremely valuable. He's trying to add on top of those rights by tossing in wind power.

I think the power of renewable resources is in the practical applications such as geo-thermal for homes, some solar, etc on a smaller scale. I don't really think they're ready for the prime time and I'm not sure that's entirely a bad thing. We have dropped tons of stimululs dollars into them and despite big promises, most of them have gone bellyup.

The big energy companies are beginning to transition their expenses to include a renewable portfolio. For instance, France's Total (trading under TOT) has a sizeable investment in solar. Those energy companies are ruthless, but people assume they will only pursue oil because it's where their money is at. I think it's the opposite, if they find some great new cheap way to produce energy they will do so and patent the hell out of it as quickly at they can.

And, on the renewable resources note, the left-leaning folks on here may be surprised to hear that I bike in about 7 miles each way to work. Albeit, I don't do so for environmental reasons--I like the idea of saving $7-10 a day and getting a free workout with good scenery (both in terms of landscape and hot chicks).

Primacy of parliament: this isn't about freedom. It's about systems of government. The US has a strong executive, most European countries have a strong legislative branch. I'd say the European system is probably more "democratic" in the sense that you have a much wider of choice of who to vote for in most cases (as opposed to 2 candidates). That and European countries regularly hold referendums on important issues which is unheard of in the US.
Independent judiciary: granted... but once again not really sure how this relates to freedom?
Freedom of speech: Yes, that's true.
Court system: Don't know enough to comment.
Freedom of religion: Ehhh, this really depends. Scientology is not banned in any European country, it's merely banned from operating as a religion with the same benefits religious organisations get. Then there are issues such as headscarves in France and circumcision in Germany... but it's contentious in the sense that a lot of these religions infringe upon other freedoms so it's not a clear cut question of "freedom" in this case. I'd also add that anti-religious sentiment such as Islamophobia, while common in groups within Western Europe, seems to be a VERY pervasive attitude throughout the entire United States (including quite a few posters from old AT topics).. The US isn't going to allow Shariah courts for instance whereas many European countries allow them on a "voluntary" basis
Right to bear arms: yes, granted.


But for all these freedoms the Americans have, Europeans enjoy:
- shorter prison sentences for most offences (far smaller percentage of population incarcerated)
- more direct democracy (addressed earlier)
- more liberal drug laws
- stricter data privacy laws, less widespread government invasion of data privacy
- all the aspects of freedom listed in the wikipedia page I posted - western europe does very well compared to the US in most


Anyway, the point of my original post wasn't to show that "Europe is more free than the US" but that freedom can't be measured and that statements by Americans that they live in the "most free" country in the world are not true because in many aspects of freedom the lag behind Europeans. I mean if you choose to think America is more free than European countries because you have a powerful president... erm, fine I guess, but you'll be flat out wrong in many aspects.

My point on the primacy of Parliament as it relates to freedom is that Parliament is essentially authoritarian. In the UK/Spain etc..... The only thing that could stop Parliament from passing a law that bans all political parties except the one in power would be the monarch nutting up and vetoing it(which monarchs almost never do). Parliaments can pass ANY laws no matter how egregious because in parliamentary systems there is no separation of powers. In the US Congress cannot just pass any law they want doing anything they want as Parliaments have the authority to do. This also ties in with the independent judiciary point.

Also disagree that there is more direct democracy in Europe. In America you vote for YOUR representative for your specific district to represent it. That is much more direct then a slate of national candidates that are voted in, in their order on the list and who are almost always 100% beholden to the party line else they will be removed from the list next election.

they wrong.America is the greatest country.