America is still a dominant economic force right now, but the writing is on the wall. Unless careful action is taken, I think all the signs point towards a decline in America's ability to project its power. As an American in my 20's, I grew up listening to hearing about how we were such a good country with a good government, ruled by the people. Everyone preached how we were so free, how our freedom defined us.
America's decline won't just be caused by the current financial crisis. You cannot separate this phenomenon from our decreased standing in the world's eyes as a shining beacon on a hill. We were supposed to be a model democracy.
The events in Iraq and Afghanistan, the prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib, extraordinary rendition, and Guantanamo Bay have lead to world to look away from us when it comes to morality. We no longer occupy the moral high ground. We no longer serve as a guideline for how to run a democracy. Now, with the financial crisis in full swing, we no longer serve as a guideline for how to manage an economy either.
Granted, we are still a large nation with many wealthy consumers. It will probably take a generation for the full effects of our fall from grace to come to fruition. But, when it comes down to it, we simply cannot maintain our place in the world when the confidence in our country has been shaken so much, both in terms of our government and our economic systems.
From a US perspective, given the current cratering of financial markets, the fact that you're less dominant is probably a good thing. China and India still have robust growth. US problems aren't going to kill the world economy, and eventually the world is going to reinflate the US economy.
Maybe sooner than eventually. I think there's going to be "Bush is gone" dividend worldwide.
Not looking for a fight, but none of these things are new.
Initiating armed conflict: Spanish-American War, various invasions into Mexico, to some degree Vietnam
Wartime screw-ups/atrocities: MyLai (sp?), firebombing of Dresden
Extraordinary rendition: probably the basis of every other spy novel for the past 50 years. Nothing new except for the outrage
We still make things people want -- we have creativity and ideas that the rest of the world desires. Take a look at Hollywood, or the electronic games industry, or the advances in microcircuitry.
We were supposed to be a model democracy, yes. But democracies are made of people, and people do bad or boneheaded stuff. The trick is that we have a system where we make mistakes and then learn from them, not that no mistakes are ever made.
I just wouldn't be too pessimistic. I'm more concerned with the rise of people who think they can use some sort of social engineering to make the world perfect than the foibles of our current reality.
I'd highly recommend Fareed Zakaria's "Post American World". Give gives good insight into how America rose to power. WWII helped, but it wasn't the defining moment. It was the huge industrial advances at the end of the 19th century that shaped our economic leadership in the world. Before even WWI, we were the top producing nation in the world, with double digit growth rates year after year.
I had a whole spiel worked out in my mind to help this poor chap but realized there wasn't much point. Better just to make him as self-aware as I can.
Actually regarding Creationism, I think the world was created in 7 days, except each day took two alternate lengths.
1: if you were standing in it then millions of years, and
2: if you were standing out of it from God's perspective, exactly 24 hours. The days may in fact run simultaneously. From God's perspective, it's a bit like running 7 DVDs players in fast forward from your couch so that each one only runs for 24 hours of viewing time, but as an actor within the film it could be a few million years story time depending on how fast it was fast-forwarded from the couch and how the scenes progressed in the storyline.
My point: Creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive when one's frame-of-reference for viewing the universe's startup events can switch between alternate yet equally valid perspectives.
Page 73: See current views of the Catholic Church, including ongoing internecine debate. These guys have been bridging theology and philosophy in internally consistent ways for a long long time.
Page 14: Someone mocks your answer by comparing it to political arguments.
Comments
America is still a dominant economic force right now, but the writing is on the wall. Unless careful action is taken, I think all the signs point towards a decline in America's ability to project its power. As an American in my 20's, I grew up listening to hearing about how we were such a good country with a good government, ruled by the people. Everyone preached how we were so free, how our freedom defined us.
America's decline won't just be caused by the current financial crisis. You cannot separate this phenomenon from our decreased standing in the world's eyes as a shining beacon on a hill. We were supposed to be a model democracy.
The events in Iraq and Afghanistan, the prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib, extraordinary rendition, and Guantanamo Bay have lead to world to look away from us when it comes to morality. We no longer occupy the moral high ground. We no longer serve as a guideline for how to run a democracy. Now, with the financial crisis in full swing, we no longer serve as a guideline for how to manage an economy either.
Granted, we are still a large nation with many wealthy consumers. It will probably take a generation for the full effects of our fall from grace to come to fruition. But, when it comes down to it, we simply cannot maintain our place in the world when the confidence in our country has been shaken so much, both in terms of our government and our economic systems.
From a US perspective, given the current cratering of financial markets, the fact that you're less dominant is probably a good thing. China and India still have robust growth. US problems aren't going to kill the world economy, and eventually the world is going to reinflate the US economy. Maybe sooner than eventually. I think there's going to be "Bush is gone" dividend worldwide.
Not looking for a fight, but none of these things are new.
Initiating armed conflict: Spanish-American War, various invasions into Mexico, to some degree Vietnam
Wartime screw-ups/atrocities: MyLai (sp?), firebombing of Dresden
Extraordinary rendition: probably the basis of every other spy novel for the past 50 years. Nothing new except for the outrage
We still make things people want -- we have creativity and ideas that the rest of the world desires. Take a look at Hollywood, or the electronic games industry, or the advances in microcircuitry.
We were supposed to be a model democracy, yes. But democracies are made of people, and people do bad or boneheaded stuff. The trick is that we have a system where we make mistakes and then learn from them, not that no mistakes are ever made.
I just wouldn't be too pessimistic. I'm more concerned with the rise of people who think they can use some sort of social engineering to make the world perfect than the foibles of our current reality.
You make some good points, but America didn't obtain any real power until after World War II. Our fortunes are actually quite recent.
I'd highly recommend Fareed Zakaria's "Post American World". Give gives good insight into how America rose to power. WWII helped, but it wasn't the defining moment. It was the huge industrial advances at the end of the 19th century that shaped our economic leadership in the world. Before even WWI, we were the top producing nation in the world, with double digit growth rates year after year.
Recent in terms of what? That's over 60 years ago. Unless the average human has started living to 100 or more, 60 years is a generation or more.
And I bet if you really looked at it, total GDP probably really took off during the industrial revolution, some 50 years before that.
How much of that is due to the safety we provided for European intellectuals?
You would have to be an Obama voter.
A man addresses you calmly. "I believe that all earthly species originated in their modern forms, at the same time, by the direct action of God."
To refute his claims using scientific evidence, turn to page 29.
To refute his claims using theological or philosophical arguments, turn to page 73.
To reply, "You would have to be a creationist," offering no further rejoinder, turn to page 14.
I had a whole spiel worked out in my mind to help this poor chap but realized there wasn't much point. Better just to make him as self-aware as I can.
Actually regarding Creationism, I think the world was created in 7 days, except each day took two alternate lengths.
1: if you were standing in it then millions of years, and
2: if you were standing out of it from God's perspective, exactly 24 hours. The days may in fact run simultaneously. From God's perspective, it's a bit like running 7 DVDs players in fast forward from your couch so that each one only runs for 24 hours of viewing time, but as an actor within the film it could be a few million years story time depending on how fast it was fast-forwarded from the couch and how the scenes progressed in the storyline.
My point: Creationism and evolution are not mutually exclusive when one's frame-of-reference for viewing the universe's startup events can switch between alternate yet equally valid perspectives.
So am I allowed to peak at pages 73 and 14? Gotta find out what I missed.
Page 73: See current views of the Catholic Church, including ongoing internecine debate. These guys have been bridging theology and philosophy in internally consistent ways for a long long time.
Page 14: Someone mocks your answer by comparing it to political arguments.