No, the rhetoric with North Korea is due to open hostility and is therefore somewhat reasonable.
What is unreasonable is our policy towards Cuba. There the issue is unmitigated hatred for no good reason on the part of Americans. We are fairly sure that were it not for U.S. policy, Cuba would be a free and democratic state today. However, given U.S. policy, Cuba just might be a communist dictatorship for another century. We know this, yet we continue to act like Cuba stole our lunch money. My God, the only legal justification for the embargo was expropriation of American property, yet the statute of limitations in U.S. law on expropriation ran out decades ago.

True, Cuba's leadership has done everything within its power to maintain the embargo, but did not U.S. politicians see they were being played for over half a century?

8/18/2008 1:57:24 PM

That's what I'm saying. Aside from being purely irrational, our bad relationship with Cuba comes from mutual unwillingness to work with each other on the highest level of government. The argument that we embargo them because they are not free a free country is bluntly wrong, and as you say, we may have helped them remain as an authoritarian state. We've done it for plenty of other countries.

So then what is the criteria for us working with a country or not working with them? It's not a matter of the type of government we're dealing with, it's not directly a matter of human rights or any noble cause. It's simply a matter of whether or not our leaders are buddy-buddy with their leaders.

8/18/2008 2:07:20 PM

"It's simply a matter of whether or not our leaders are buddy-buddy with their leaders."
Yep. Which, of course, lends massive credence to the libertarian argument against government power. People should not be forced to leave their economic survival to the buddyness of government agents, be they elected or otherwise.

If the American people insisted on running the blockage of Cuba then fairly quickly the embargo would be abandoned when they got tired of being shown for fools by fellow American citizens. However, Americans for no good reason recognize the right of their government to impose such blockades, go figure.

[Edited on August 18, 2008 at 2:16 PM. Reason : .,.]

8/18/2008 2:14:45 PM

National governments are the self-serving lords of the 20 and 21st centuries. Their ability to exercise power far beyond any mandate ever granted to them hinges on the citizens being complacent enough to ignore a vast swath of issues. Pretty much all governments that exist in the world today comprise of some "representative body", and the majority of corrupt governments claim to have been elected in fair and free elections. There is no longer a line, but a spectrum from the free to the non-free world, and no place is truly free.

The entire foundation for representative democracy over democracy was no longer applicable after communications advanced enough that people could express their will instantly over long distances, except for the fact that we're just lazy or willing to accept our situation. The power of the bureaucracy doesn't come from the ballot, it comes from the ability to dictate the choices in the ballot. And yet, we must have these shitbags' permission to travel somewhere or trade with someone.

Even corporations provide a microcosm to show how well it works to put a few people in charge with the mandate of carrying out the will of a population with the scam of a 'vote' behind it. While sad, the results should have been predictable if one just assumes people work towards their own interests (they do). The founding fathers understood this, but it seems like lost knowledge anymore...

8/18/2008 2:46:24 PM

^yep


Anarchy FTW

8/18/2008 3:27:14 PM

Quote :

"We are fairly sure that were it not for U.S. policy, Cuba would be a free and democratic state today."

I disagree with the American embargo of Cuba, but I think you're stretching the truth here. While playing off of the threat of the "evil American Empire" right off the coast has scored Fidel Castro a few points, its hardly the foundation of his political power.

The American embargo in Cuba is pretty much a political grudge against Fidel Castro, sustained by both the embarrassment he caused the United States and the loud voices of an influential Cuban ex-pat community. There's really no good political reason to keep it in place anymore.

8/18/2008 4:51:54 PM

No, I find it absurd to suggest that the Cuban people would still support Castro were it not for the embargo. Afterall, communist states fall apart due to their inability to run an economy. Well, were it not for the credible argument that their economic condition has been forced upon them by foreigners then no people in the world would put up with sixty years of highly visible poverty.

But, this is an opinion, and if there are any Cubans fresh off the boat then I would yield to their expertise.

8/18/2008 5:42:32 PM

The only thing controversial about the Olympics is that stupid fucking shit like hand ball is even a registered sport.

That and anything requiring judging.

It shouldn't take a doctorate in statistics to figure out how to score synchronized diving.

8/18/2008 6:12:03 PM

^So, does one of the synchronized diver judges just happen to have a doctorate in statistics, or is that some sort of requirement to be a judge.

Yeah, any event requiring judging is going to draw criticism and controversy. Personally I don't think it's a very fair process, I lump it in the same category as grading English papers. Uhhhhhhhhh... you get a "B".

It's funny how most of the "popular" events in both the summer and winter olympics are judged events. Women's figure skating, womens gymnastics, etc. Some of those events are even judged on artistic quality. The olympic jazz hands that the women do during the floor exercises are just plain ridiculous.

[Edited on August 19, 2008 at 7:38 AM. Reason : -]

8/19/2008 7:37:33 AM

I just think anything that requires a judge isn't a sport.

A sport dictates scores, winners, losers, and lots of gloating by one side.

I mean imagine a basketball game where the winner was chosen by who had better form.

Really?

8/19/2008 6:10:48 PM

Quote :

"No, I find it absurd to suggest that the Cuban people would still support Castro were it not for the embargo."

Don't underestimate the man. Castro was one of the 20th-century's most charismatic and cunning leaders. It's entirely possible he would have worked the different circumstances to his advantage.

8/19/2008 6:35:00 PM

^^ here's a modest proposal to try to solve the judging problem which only would be possible to implement pretty recently with new technology

http://tinyurl.com/6dymzq

Quote :

"Here's my straightforward solution. Have an athlete model the perfect move on any equipment, have everybody in that sport agree that the model move is indeed the gold standard, and let the computer compare the score the athletes move to the gold standard. Please let me explain what I mean in a more straightforward manner. Take the best athlete in the world at the vault. Put that athlete in one of those black suits that can be covered with reflective dots at all of the critical points on the body. Have the athlete do a vault (let's say a Handspring, Yamashita, round-off) and capture that vault with slow motion cameras hooked up to a computer. Now you have a digital perfect version of the Handspring, Yamashita, round-off stored in the computer. As long as the sports governing body agrees that this digit vault is the gold standard, the computer can now instantly compare the same vault done in competition to the gold standard digital vault, and more importantly subtract points and deductions based on how much the competition vault varies from the stored digital vault. No guessing, judges, or even endless waiting for scores needed."

[Edited on August 19, 2008 at 10:57 PM. Reason : .]

8/19/2008 10:56:55 PM

^ That presents way way too simplistic a solution.
First off, let's take gymnastics. If you were to do this, you would need to categorize every single combination of moves possible, or take out any element of creativity among the routines, and make the sport much less interesting to watch. Keep in mind that keeping viewers, making sure the events are as widely televised as possible, and adversiting are still the bottom lines here. Yeah, these are sports, but it's still entertainment.
Second off, what about sports that are less objective, like judo or wrestling? In judo, you are always going to need somebody there on the mat to judge where on the uke's body the throw landed. If it landed flat on his back, sure, ippon, full point, you win the match. If he turned out, and it landed on his side, or the tip of his shoulder first, you get less of a point. The simplistic answer would be "pressure sensors on the uniform" but any judo player can tell you that the gi doesn't stay in place while you're playing. You can't totally remove the human element from some of the more directly competitive sports in the olympics.

8/20/2008 6:19:48 AM

^^ But if we already knew the perfect athlete then we wouldn't need the Olympics

8/20/2008 7:12:11 AM

They need ratings. Of course they'll have sports that are really performances.

And if people couldn't fight over something then it would be less interesting.

8/20/2008 10:54:30 AM

No, the best way to do it is open the lines up to the audience and get them to vote on the winner.

8/20/2008 5:57:21 PM

I don't doubt that would get better ratings, but they're not only obligated to the ratings.

The point is some mixing (and blurring) of performance and athletic ability. I certainly can't tell the difference in difficulty of a tipple lutz and... whatever else they do.

8/21/2008 5:26:31 PM