A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
I think there are more Republicans (becaues most of the fundamentalist Christians are in our party) than Democrats that think mormonism is a church created by and controlled by the devil.

Mormonism may make a lot of Democrats uneasy, but my guess is that there are not that many Democrats that think Mormism is the religion of Mammon.

It has not been a big issue here, but I suspect the Reid/Romney difference may in part be because of differences in levels of commitment.

Romney is a former bishop in the Church and once headed the Eastern Mass. Mormon church; he was an advocate of a large and very visible tabernacle on Route 2 west of Boston. He has not shied from his religion, and would likely be the most actively religious President we've seen since Jimmy Carter.

Is Reid as prominent in the Church? I really don't know. But Romney is certainly much more Mormon than the Kennedy's are Catholic.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
Thanks. More facts and predictions to brighten my day. Are there any strong wind currents that travel from the Indian subcontinent to California?

silver lining? Lots of jobs would come back.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Kashmir - there is a whole other ball of fun. I think it is just a matter of time before Kashmir splits off from India (at least the part of Kashmir north of that river that is just above Jammu).

It's much harder for a province like Kashmir to escape from the gravitational pull of a state when the state is strong, and India is only getting stronger. So I wouldn't expect Kashmir or part thereof to split from India anytime soon, not withstanding that it is a mess.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
In that I don't think Iran wants anything but the total elimination of Isreal.

None of the leaders in the Middle East want to eliminate Israel. Israel provides an excellent distraction, and they need Israel to blame for all the problems in the region.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I find it baffling that that the first word that always is mentioned after hearing "Mitt Romney" is "Mormon" - but it barely registers a blip when we're talking about the [soon-to-be] Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Why, Spanky, why?

Because Harry Reid's continued political career does not depend on getting anyone outside Nevada to vote for him.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
him and he's decided to veer to the right.

When he ran in Mass., he assured all the women's rights groups that he supported the law as it existed -- but he avoided uttering words like "choice".

He ran for Governor of Massachussets and didn't openly call himself pro-choice and he won? His opponent must have been a moron.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's much harder for a province like Kashmir to escape from the gravitational pull of a state when the state is strong, and India is only getting stronger. So I wouldn't expect Kashmir or part thereof to split from India anytime soon, not withstanding that it is a mess.

I don't agree with your assumption that strong states have a strong gravitational pull. If a state is getting stronger that means the people are getting wealthier, the middle class is growing, so the people have more economic power and that usually leads to more political power.

Once the people are more in control the ones in a minority ethnic group are more likely to want their nationalistic desires realized (and have the economic and political clout to push for what they want) and the people not in that ethnic group are less likely to care if the minority group leaves.

Dictators like to rule over other ethnic groups, but not so much governments of liberal prosperous democracies. I think the main reason why Europe is split along ethnic lines (and continues to split more and more along ethnic lines) is because it is prosperous and the dictators of have lost power. Once the dictatorship in Czechoslovakia ended, and the country started to prosper it split. Yugoslavia was the most prosperous of the eastern block countries, but once it could it split up.

Canada is prosperous and getting stronger yet Quebec is very close to bailing. Same with Great Britain and Scotland and the same with Belgium. A hundred years ago this sort of splitting up was not an issue. The Northern League in Italy and the Catalans in Spain are talking about going their own way. I think the prosperity of these nations has encouraged this disintegration, not discouraged it.

It seems to me that the more prosperous a country becomes and the more democratic the more likely it is to break up according to ethnic lines.

I think the only thing that has held Pakistan, India and China together is their poverty and strong central governments.

As stated before, China has solved this problem through ethnic cleansing (pushing the Han into the ethnic areas) but Pakistan and India have not been able to do the same. I think both of these countries are doomed to splitting along ethnic lines if they continue to prosper.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
He ran for Governor of Massachussets and didn't openly call himself pro-choice and he won? His opponent must have been a moron.

We're a Democratic state but we're also heavily Catholic.

His opponent had a mixed record on choice going back a dozen years, though was strongly pro-choice during the campaign. But Mitt was able to say that she was the only candidate in the race who had cast a vote against abortion rights.

He's a wily one, that Mitt.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
We're a Democratic state but we're also heavily Catholic.

His opponent had a mixed record on choice going back a dozen years, though was strongly pro-choice during the campaign. But Mitt was able to say that she was the only candidate in the race who had cast a vote against abortion rights.

He's a wily one, that Mitt.

As they say, most people don't win campaigns through their own efforts, they win because their opponents defeat themselves.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
As they say, most people don't win campaigns through their own efforts, they win because their opponents defeat themselves.

Welcome to America, macaca!

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
It seems to me that the more prosperous a country becomes and the more democratic the more likely it is to break up according to ethnic lines.

Maybe this is true of industrialized countries, but I can't think of an example of this phenomenom you describe with a pre-industrial country with a strong central government. Or a non-democracy, for that matter. The USSR fell apart, costing Russia control of the other SSRs, not because of democracy but because of the collapse of communism. China lost control over Macao, Hong Kong, and various other concessions because the central government was so weak. As the central government strengthens, those places -- and Tibet, for that matter -- are increasingly under central control, notwithstanding that a middle class is developing. This may change in time, but the current trends seem to run the other way.

Your other examples fall into two different categories, it seems to me. Canada/Quebec, UK/Scotland, and Belgium/ Flanders are in one. There's something common to them, but I'm having a hard time putting my finger on. Spain/Catalonia is maybe similar. Then there are countries where the ethnic boundaries are blurry, and don't fit fell with the national borders. There are examples of this all over Central and Eastern Europe -- the former Czechoslovakia, Albania & Kosovo, the Transdniester (that looks spelled wrong), Georgia & South Ossetia -- and in Africa. In many of those places, the national boundaries have never worked well, but the Cold War kept a lid on things for a while.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Maybe this is true of industrialized countries, but I can't think of an example of this phenomenom you describe with a pre-industrial country with a strong central government. Or a non-democracy, for that matter.

Yes that is true. One way of looking at is Dictators just want more land. The stronger they are the more land they control and the easier it is for them to hang on to the more land. But the pressure is always there for ethnic groups is to split off. That pressure increases the more powerful economically and poitically that ethnic group becomes. So if an authoritarian centralized government gets weak, then ethnic groups break off, or if they get more prosperous, democratic or developed then ethnic groups spit off.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop The USSR fell apart, costing Russia control of the other SSRs, not because of democracy but because of the collapse of communism.

And the collapse of communism made the central government weak giving them the break.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop China lost control over Macao, Hong Kong, and various other concessions because the central government was so weak. As the central government strengthens, those places --

Those places were taken from them.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
and Tibet, for that matter -- are increasingly under central control,

They have been under central control ever since Tibet was invaded. The strength of China and the strenght of the Chinese central government are two different things. Right after the invasion the central government in china was at its strongest. As China becomes more prosperous and powerful, that doesn't mean that the central government is also getting more powerful. In fact I think the just the opposite is happening.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop notwithstanding that a middle class is developing. This may change in time, but the current trends seem to run the other way.

As China develops, the middle class grows and the polticial power of the people grows. All those factors would make it easier for tibet to split. The best way to hold onto tibet would be for the central government to stay strong and the people to stay weak. Economic development will only increaes the power of the people at the expense of the central government.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Your other examples fall into two different categories, it seems to me. Canada/Quebec, UK/Scotland, and Belgium/ Flanders are in one. There's something common to them, but I'm having a hard time putting my finger on. Spain/Catalonia is maybe similar.

National groups that don't want to be politically connected with another nationa group. It seesm to be nationalism to me.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Then there are countries where the ethnic boundaries are blurry, and don't fit fell with the national borders. There are examples of this all over Central and Eastern Europe -- the former Czechoslovakia, Albania & Kosovo, the Transdniester (that looks spelled wrong), Georgia & South Ossetia -- and in Africa. In many of those places, the national boundaries have never worked well, but the Cold War kept a lid on things for a while.

Actually the lines in Czechoslovakia were very clean and that is why they had the velvet revolution where the blurry lines in Yugoslavia caused a mess. But in either case nationalism prevailed with only difference that a "patchwork" of ethnic groups leads to lots of pain and suffering.

Pakistan, India and China are all Empires similar to the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia before their fall. They are all just a collection of ethnic groups. China is an exception because there is one huge ethnic group and some small ones and the huge ethnic group is being used to ethnically cleans the small groups. So China may use ethnic cleansing to prevent a similar fate of the Soviet Union. But that is not happening in Pakistan and India. These countries have held together because they have been poor and the central governments have been strong (although not as strong as Chinas and that is why there are always insurgencies - especially in India because it has stayed a democracy). But as the countrys grow more prosperous they will trend towards the European model. India is just like Europe. A bunch of ethnic groups in very definable boundaries. India and Pakistan, the more they grow econmically (and become democratic) the more they are doomed to fall apart.

I believe the same is true of Persia.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Yes that is true. One way of looking at is Dictators just want more land. The stronger they are the more land they control and the easier it is for them to hang on to the more land. But the pressure is always there for ethnic groups is to split off. That pressure increases the more powerful economically and poitically that ethnic group becomes. So if an authoritarian centralized government gets weak, then ethnic groups break off, or if they get more prosperous, democratic or developed then ethnic groups spit off.

OK. But -- setting aside the question of whether pre-industrialized countries necessarily are run by dictators -- I'm not thinking of examples of increasingly prosperous pre-industrialized countries with strong central governments where ethnic groups split off. It seems like a post-industrial thing.

And the collapse of communism made the central government weak giving them the break.

Exactly.

Those places were taken from them.

They were ceded by agreement, though China was not in a position to put up a fight.

They have been under central control ever since Tibet was invaded. The strength of China and the strenght of the Chinese central government are two different things. Right after the invasion the central government in china was at its strongest. As China becomes more prosperous and powerful, that doesn't mean that the central government is also getting more powerful. In fact I think the just the opposite is happening.

There was nominal control of Tibet going back to the invasion, but as a practical matter the central government has been able to exert more and more power there. But you are correct that two different phenomena intersect here. One is that the central government in China has been getting stronger in many ways, and increasingly has been able to exert itself vis-a-vis provincial and foreign governments where it couldn't before (e.g., Africa, Tibet, etc.). Another is that economic development in some ways weakens the government's grip vis-a-vis citizens.

As China develops, the middle class grows and the polticial power of the people grows. All those factors would make it easier for tibet to split. The best way to hold onto tibet would be for the central government to stay strong and the people to stay weak. Economic development will only increaes the power of the people at the expense of the central government.

That really depends on the nature of the economic development. For example, if growth in Tibet centers around resource extraction, perhaps that strengthens the central government. Unclear that what China is doing in Tibet -- as opposed to the coastal provinces -- is going to lead to a big middle class.

National groups that don't want to be politically connected with another nationa group. It seesm to be nationalism to me.

OK. But why now in those countries, and not in other places?

Actually the lines in Czechoslovakia were very clean and that is why they had the velvet revolution where the blurry lines in Yugoslavia caused a mess. But in either case nationalism prevailed with only difference that a "patchwork" of ethnic groups leads to lots of pain and suffering.

The Velvet Revolution was the fall of Communism. The split between the Czechs and the Slovaks. My point about Czechoslovakia is that -- like other countries in that area -- the national borders didn't necessarily make a lot of sense when drawn, but the map was static during the Cold War. Once the Cold War ends, Czechoslovakia can split up, and Yugoslavia falls apart, etc. I'm not sure what it means to say "nationalism prevailed."

Pakistan, India and China are all Empires similar to the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia before their fall. They are all just a collection of ethnic groups. China is an exception because there is one huge ethnic group and some small ones and the huge ethnic group is being used to ethnically cleans the small groups. So China may use ethnic cleansing to prevent a similar fate of the Soviet Union. But that is not happening in Pakistan and India. These countries have held together because they have been poor and the central governments have been strong (although not as strong as Chinas and that is why there are always insurgencies - especially in India because it has stayed a democracy).

I'm not sure I agree with a lot of this. There are major differences between Pakistan, China and India, and major diffferences between those three countries at the USSR. Pakistan is the most like an empire, but it's not an empire as much as a collection of separate areas that doesn't have much of a national identity as such. China and India both have strong national identities, notwithstanding that both incorporate areas with some separate identity. It makes as much as sense to call the United States an empire because of Hawaii and Puerto Rico, no?

And China has had some very weak central governments in recent years -- e.g., the first half of the last century.

But as the countrys grow more prosperous they will trend towards the European model.

What does this mean?

India is just like Europe. A bunch of ethnic groups in very definable boundaries.

In both India and Europe, it's often hard to draw those boundaries.

India and Pakistan, the more they grow econmically (and become democratic) the more they are doomed to fall apart.

Why? Pakistan's odds are worse, I think, but perhaps because it's such a basket case.

I believe the same is true of Persia.

?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
OK. But -- setting aside the question of whether pre-industrialized countries necessarily are run by dictators -- I'm not thinking of examples of increasingly prosperous pre-industrialized countries with strong central governments where ethnic groups split off. It seems like a post-industrial thing.

Pre-industrial nations, even when democratic, are not very democratic in that they don't respect human rights much and they are pretty corrupt. The people in general do not have a lot of sway over what the government does. But it seems to me once they start to industrialize ethnic groups start calling for independence.

A perfect example of this is Indonesia. Before Suharto fell it was considered a democracy - authoritarian but still a democracy. It had a typical authoritarian semi democracy for many years. As the country got more prosperous (And got stronger internationally) the demand for ethnic split offs grew stronger. The more prosperous the people got the stronger the calls for independence. Once the growing middle class turned it into a democracy that is when the pieces started to split off. First East Timor, and now Aceh and Irian Jaya both want to go.

Now that Thailand is becoming industrialized and democratic the muslim south wants so split off.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
They were ceded by agreement, though China was not in a position to put up a fight.

My point was those were not ethnic conclaves that moved for independence once the country was weak, those were Han Chinese conclaves that were grabbed by foreign powers once the central government was weak.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

There was nominal control of Tibet going back to the invasion, but as a practical matter the central government has been able to exert more and more power there.

After the invasion was the army was in control. How much more power can you get than a military occupation where all the dissidents have been thrown in jail or executed? Once the Lama left didn't China pretty much have total power in Tibet? I am sensing here that you know more about the history than I do? Was there some sort of autonomy after the Lama left that was taken away at a later date? My knowledge of Tibet history is a little shakey.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
One is that the central government in China has been getting stronger in many ways, and increasingly has been able to exert itself vis-a-vis provincial and foreign governments where it couldn't before (e.g., Africa, Tibet, etc.). Another is that economic development in some ways weakens the government's grip vis-a-vis citizens.

Yes China is becoming more and more like the United States. Super powerful in foreign affairs but pretty weak at home. Look at the US. Presiden: Bush can launch an invasion of a country half way around the world and thumb his nose at the rest of the world while he does it and yet he can't do anything about a little inconsequential gnat in California named Spanky.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
That really depends on the nature of the economic development. For example, if growth in Tibet centers around resource extraction, perhaps that strengthens the central government. Unclear that what China is doing in Tibet -- as opposed to the coastal provinces -- is going to lead to a big middle class.

You hit the hammer on the head of the nail there. They aren't doing anything to help grow a middle class in Tibet. The Tibetans are being starved and relelgated to the fringes of society. The middle class is being moved in and they are all Han Chinese.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The Velvet Revolution was the fall of Communism.

Sorry. I meant the velvet divorce.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The split between the Czechs and the Slovaks. My point about Czechoslovakia is that -- like other countries in that area -- the national borders didn't necessarily make a lot of sense when drawn, but the map was static during the Cold War. Once the Cold War ends, Czechoslovakia can split up, and Yugoslavia falls apart, etc. I'm not sure what it means to say "nationalism prevailed."

When I say nationalism prevailed, these republics broke into nation states. The multiethnic states fell apart into nation states. Hence: Nationalism prevailed.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I'm not sure I agree with a lot of this. There are major differences between Pakistan, China and India, and major diffferences between those three countries at the USSR. Pakistan is the most like an empire, but it's not an empire as much as a collection of separate areas that doesn't have much of a national identity as such. China and India both have strong national identities, notwithstanding that both incorporate areas with some separate identity. It makes as much as sense to call the United States an empire because of Hawaii and Puerto Rico, no?

Hawaii no, Puerto Rico yes. I shouldn't have used the term empire. Multiethnic state would have been better. The Han Chinese make China an empire in that the Han Chinese rule over other ethnic groups. Kind of like the Soviet Union was really a Russian empire where russians ruled over other ethnic groups. Although in the Soviet Union I think non russians fared much better than non-Chinese in China. Hell both a Georgian (Stalin) and a Turkish Siberian (Brezhnev) served as general secretary.

India is not as cohesive as you would think. There is cohesian in the central north where the Punjabis and other indoeurpean Hindus who speak Hindi reside . But the south doesn't even have indoeuropeans, and the east is full of Bengalis. And in the far east Assam is almost in full revolt. India is a multi ethnic state, and most of it is only held together by Hinduism (they refer to India as Hindustan). Christianity didn't hold Europe together very well. Musim East Bengal did not stay part of Pakistan (which is controlled by Muslim Punjabis) , so why should West Bengal stay part of India which is pretty much controlled by Hindu Punjabis?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop And China has had some very weak central governments in recent years -- e.g., the first half of the last century.

Yes and when it was weak, it lost the ethnic areas like Tibet, Inner Mongolia, Manchuria and Sinkiang. It also lost some Han areas like Hong Kong, Macao, Port Arthur etc, but I don't think there was ever a question that the Han areas would at some point be part of China again, where the status of the ethnic areas would rejoin the empire. Both Tibet and Sinkiang had to be invaded by the red army to get them back.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
What does this mean?

By European model I mean that as they get more prosperous they will divide up along ethnic lines and then create regional economic political entities. If you think it, all the last European wars of this century were about nationalism. WWI was caused by Serbian nationalism, and at the end of the war all sorts of multiethnic states collapsed giving way to nation states: Germany gave up Poland, Russia gave up Poland, Finland and the baltics, Austria Hungary Fell apart etc. WWII. was pretty much caused because the last divided ethnic group (Germans: being divided into Austria, the Sudentenland, and the Polish Corridor) wanted to be united. The Balkan war was all about creating ethnic nation states in the last area where mulitethnic states existed.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
In both India and Europe, it's often hard to draw those boundaries.

In all the ethnologue maps I have seen of India and Pakistan, it seems that the ethnic groups are pretty clearly divided (much more so than Europe).

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Why? Pakistan's odds are worse, I think, but perhaps because it's such a basket case.

Maybe. But Pakistan is still pretty poor and not getting richer quick like India is. It is also not a Democracy like India is. So dictator plus poor people means the country will probably stay together. India = getting prosperous and democratic so it will divide.

[SlaveNoMore]

courtesy of Powerline, we have this awesome memo from Governor Blunt of Mizzou:

From: Governor Matt Blunt
To: Department Directors
Date: December 4, 2006
Re: "Merry Christmas"

Last year there was a great deal of public discussion regarding the Christmas season. Specifically, we heard from those who believe that the Christmas break should be called by a non-religious name such as "Winter Holiday." They also argued that traditional Christmas greetings such as "Merry Christmas" should not be used.

Missouri state government employees should not have to worry about this matter. To ensure that there is no confusion regarding our state policy I am directing that each of you inform all members of your department that they should feel at ease using traditional holiday phrases, including "Merry Christmas" and they should have no fear of official reprisal. I also ask that you inform your staff that the objections of those who are offended by these phrases be given due consideration, but that no state employee will be reprimanded or in any way disciplined for saying "Merry Christmas."

This holiday season should not give state employees reason to feel as though they must check their religious views at the door of a government building. Instead, it is my hope that each state employee enjoys the holiday season with full confidence that their government exists to preserve their liberty rather than constrict it.