It seems you need plenty of reading to understand the fundamentals of communication even before you start to talk about tackling poverty. And what has that got to do with the supreme court case? Is that where our prosperity w ... read full comment
It seems you need plenty of reading to understand the fundamentals of communication even before you start to talk about tackling poverty. And what has that got to do with the supreme court case? Is that where our prosperity will be realised? Hallelujah!
Rea 11 years ago
Overlooking the black plague is a big bobooo, but the basic argument of the NY Times piece isn't without merit. If anything, it's something we all know about. Elite power stagnates if locked in; it may not decay right away an ... read full comment
Overlooking the black plague is a big bobooo, but the basic argument of the NY Times piece isn't without merit. If anything, it's something we all know about. Elite power stagnates if locked in; it may not decay right away and indeed may last a long time(like Ancient Egypt or Tokugawa Japan), but it tends to slow down progress. Just compare Anglo-America vs Latin-America. In Anglo-America, notwithstanding the exclusion of non-whites, lots of citizens had freedom to think their ideas, make their fortunes, and make the climb. A Thomas Edison would have less likely in Latin America. Rule of Law is also important. By ROL, we of course mean laws that apply fairly to everyone. Rule OVER Law, the system of the aristocracy, meant a system of laws applied differently to different classes/castes. But in America, rule of law meant most people were guaranteed the same basic rights and protections. As Venice was an aristocratic society, it was bound to favor Rule Over Law to Rule of Law. And despite Sailer's list of great luminaries, Venice did gradually slide and lose power, just like Portugal and Spain. But then, one could argue that the relatively free and inclusive Netherlands also lost out to other powers, even to France during the age of kings. Also, a civilization in trouble can still produce many cultural giants. Backward Russia in the 19th century produced some of the greater writers and music composers ever. Blacks had the short end of the stick in America, but they came to define much of American popular music, much more so than successful groups like Swedish-Americans and Greek-Americans. Where the NY Times piece fails is overlooking the real reason for Venice's demise. With the rise of bigger consolidated kingdoms and nation-states, the city-state was becoming untenable as a dominant force. But even the ancients knew this: the Greek city-states couldn't withstand the power of the united Macedonians under Alexander the Great. No matter how rich and powerful Venice was in terms of quality, it couldn't win against sheer quantity, especially as the quantity was also gaining in quality. So, Venice was bound to be overshadowed by nations like France and UK. And in time, Italian power could only survive through national unification--as was true of the Germans. And in time, even the major nations couldn't compete with the super-nation-states. UK was a superpower for awhile but, in the end, couldn't compete with US with more land, more population, more wealth, more might. UK compared to US was like Venice compared to France. Singapore may be successful , but it's nothing compared to China. Same with Hong Kong. Anyway, Venetians may have locked in elite power not only out of 'greed' but in the need for concentrated power for survival. As prosperous as Venice was, it was vulnerable and surrounded by many enemies, both within and without Italian peninsula. More freedom may pay greater dividends in the long run, but in the short run, it could undermine one's survival. UK and US could enjoy more freedom because UK was an island surrounded by seas and because US was far away from the violent politics of Europe. Also, American whites(at least those in the North) were the vast majority in the 19th and early 20th century. Latin American whites not only came from more authoritarian cultures but couldn't breathe easily because they were surrounded by so many non-whites. So, they had a war mentality and locked in their privileges, like the Southern gentry who feared the blacks(and even Scotch-Irish boozers). Anyway, the article, though superficially appealing to liberals, may actually be undermining of their confidence and authority. After all, the unmentioned target of the piece could be construed as the new Jewish elites, especially those in Wall Street(who've gained power via Harvard, Yale, etc). If American elite power is getting locked in, then the implication is Jews are hogging it all for themselves.
hqezujqoddg 11 years ago
9MHexH yljaxeganmgn
9MHexH yljaxeganmgn
nfojo.blogspot.com/ 10 years ago
14000000 copies of the best dissertations and project works by Thesis Writer In Ghana.
14000000 copies of the best dissertations and project works by Thesis Writer In Ghana.
It seems you need plenty of reading to understand the fundamentals of communication even before you start to talk about tackling poverty. And what has that got to do with the supreme court case? Is that where our prosperity w ...
read full comment
Overlooking the black plague is a big bobooo, but the basic argument of the NY Times piece isn't without merit. If anything, it's something we all know about. Elite power stagnates if locked in; it may not decay right away an ...
read full comment
9MHexH yljaxeganmgn
14000000 copies of the best dissertations and project works by Thesis Writer In Ghana.