tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post113881265138412467..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Hail democracy in the Middle East, but not that way!Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1138855851764273242006-02-01T23:50:00.000-05:002006-02-01T23:50:00.000-05:00This reminded me of a text I read a few weeks ago,...This reminded me of a text I read a few weeks ago, by a Brazilian comical writer in the biggest newspaper there. He was commenting on a cartoon published elsewhere. It was like this:<BR/><BR/><I><B>I loved Henrique's cartoon showing Bush thinking (Bush thinking is already part of the joke): "Latin America: a blue collar in Brazil, a communist in Venezuela, a native in Bolivia and a woman in Chile. This democracy thing is going too far."</B></I><BR/><BR/>And now they could add something about Palestine, no doubt. Jokes asides, today at lunch we were talking exactly about this in the lab. The democracy paradox, let's call it. Sure, it is hypocritical of the "free world" to demand democracy and then threaten people when they choose something uncomfortable to the status quo. If a nation decides to vote itself into chaos, what can one do? If they decided to elect communists/ terrorists/ evangelicals/ social democrats/ nazis/ islamic radicals/ whatever, then would it be legitimate to "cancel democracy" until things get "normalized" to the way whomever has the power likes them?<BR/><BR/>One interesting side of this also is that a country can (or should be able to?) democratically choose to stop being democratic (at least indirectly, by putting there a group that will do that kind of thing). But the side effect is that it then cannot change it's "collective mind" later, after the worst damage is done and a dictatorship is in power... In cases like that, where the consequence of democracy would threaten democracy itself, would it be legitimate to attach strings to the system and make it conditional? Isn't it already like that? Is the communist party still illegal in the US (has it ever been or is this a legend?), while neonazism is "free speech"?<BR/><BR/>JAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1138831035311244502006-02-01T16:57:00.000-05:002006-02-01T16:57:00.000-05:00Morever,Oops! A badly formed thought. I said "...i...Morever,<BR/>Oops! A badly formed thought. I said "...in the heat of an election, politicians tend to exercise a good deal of license in what they say."<BR/>What I meant was that politicians should be <I>allowed </I> a good deal of license during an election. What may draw comment at other times, should not draw comment during an election.<BR/><BR/>In actual fact, no intemperate comments were made by Martin, but a position was taken on some money owed from improperly collected duties (found improper by US Courts, and by dispute-resolving tribunals).lily palmerstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12781464070656607284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1138828924894843222006-02-01T16:22:00.000-05:002006-02-01T16:22:00.000-05:00During the recent Canadian election campaign, the ...During the recent Canadian election campaign, the US ambassador to Canada warned the (ex) Prime Minister, Paul Martin about making anti-American comments. (As did Condoleeza Rice, but this was in the run-up to the campaign.)<BR/><BR/>Of course, in any Canadian election, it is likely that issues regarding US-Canada relations might come to the fore. Morever,<BR/>in the heat of an election, politicians tend to exercise a good deal of license in what they say. <BR/><BR/>In any case it seems improper for a US ambassador to comment on anything that is part of an election campaign in a neighbour's well-established democracy. It just could influence the results! If the other political party wants to make an issue of it, that's another matter.<BR/><BR/>Martin lost the election (for other reasons), but the episode smacked of bullying.lily palmerstonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12781464070656607284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1138822971026626502006-02-01T14:42:00.000-05:002006-02-01T14:42:00.000-05:00I heard a related story a while back - Apparently ...I heard a related story a while back - Apparently Bush was upset that Turkey decided - democratically - to not support the Bush regime military attack on Iraq. Bush (or his people) stated, on the record, that they wished the military of Turkey would have ignored its leaders/people's wishes and joined in with the US. <BR/><BR/>Democracy is OK in Bush's eyes only when it agrees with his agenda.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-1138815086696757652006-02-01T12:31:00.000-05:002006-02-01T12:31:00.000-05:00Well, it is an election year. We may not be able t...Well, it is an election year. We may not be able to alot about our esteemed president now, but maybe we can do something about removing some of his support in Congress. I can tell you right now that I won't be voting for anyone with an (R) by their name for a loong time.<BR/><BR/>NoahJerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17925319454015150016noreply@blogger.com