Stupidity - the single reason why democracies never work

Rabit - yes, god forbid we move to a Singaporean style law and order. We are having trouble enough as it is to protect our rights against governments.

I think it fits East Asian societies better. Where values, even human rights, are more communal instead of individual. It makes little sense to adopt only a single element of this culture.
Which in turn means, that it not always makes sense to export elements of Western democracy to them. (Or by them).

Singling out elements of democracy, lifting them out of a broader cultural context, may not produce the expected results everywhere. As witness the rough transition to democracy in many Eastern European countries. Or, for that matter, not all cultural differences pass the north-south divide of Europe well. What seems ridiculous, even corrupt, to Finland, may work in Sicily. Trust - so important for a functioning democracy and market - in Northern Europe is communal, in Southern Europe it is individual. It makes for very different politics and business, and qualities of life that work in different ways.
Which is better, is difficult to objectively determine. The Nordic countries are like a glass house, they are so transparant. A man is judged on his capabilities. South Italians, for their part, live outside with their family and neighbours, sip on their wine a bit, all live to be ninety years old and keep wondering why so many Fins commit suicide all the time.


Likewise, I can't help but marvel at countries like Japan, South Korea, and even Singapore and Hong Kong. Much of their society is alien. To very varying degrees, democratic open societies in a Western sense they are not. Yet, they pretty much compete with only the Scandinavians for the top positions on the Human Development Index. They live as long as Southern Europeans, they are as wealthy as the richest countries in the West. Crime is virtually absent and the people are so polite to each other it makes one weep.

They belie the notion that only Western style democracy leads to succesful societies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Also, in many ways, I support the BBC as well. In shows such as Crimewatch, Panaroma and others. They play a very good public role and should broadcast more shows like these.

---

The BBC is the envy of the world. Whatever criticisms one may have of it, if I were British and they'd ask for a bigger budget yet again, I'd grant it.

Now that I think about, I probably personally finance half their annual budget. My entire DVD collection is simply the BBC back catalogue of costume drama, natural history and documentaries.

You raise a good point. Public broadcasters everywhere perform a great educational and civic function. Commercial television, for its part, is a pest. A well-functioning media and press is crucial to a democracy. And if it were up to me, governmental involvement should not be exclusively negative, that is, to protect freedom of speech and the functioning of open media markets. It should also be positive, by financing public television and subsidising plurality of the press.

Also, for all the good that digital media has brought to plurality of information, I fear the demise of the traditional press it is resulting in.

The BBC is the envy of the world. Whatever criticisms one may have of it, if I were British and they'd ask for a bigger budget yet again, I'd grant it.
Well, it is because you don’t have to watch it… :beam:
BBC was a reference, long time ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

You guys never live under a totalitarian regime....

If u used to live some time under that, you'll value, whatever bad things come from democracy, they are just batter than living under a totalitarian regime that if u suddenly and accidentally said "******* are ******* tyrants and their wives are whores.... and the next day all your families are tortured and sent to prison for "displeasant actions" or another ridiculous bad behaviours.

---

this is an important point; living under a totalitarian regime provides an essential perspective when it comes to weighing and measuring the flaws of western representative democracy.

The difference between an authoritarian and totalitarian regime can be seen in Russia.
Before Yeltin Russia was a totalitarian power. Under Yeltin it became a Western Democracy. Under Putin and Medvedev it became an authoritarian regime.
Between the three Russians prefear the third, maybe except Kasparov and a few liberal yuppies. Despite the Kursk, he has proved that an authoritarian regime can help balance the situation in Russia.No more plutocrats or communists slicing the country according to their will.

.........You actually prefer Putin.....?

Go read some Anna Politkovskaja.

Russia is paralyzed by corruption. It's everywhere, and controls everything. The normal laws of the economy doesn't apply anymore, all that matters is your ability to bribe people.

Well, anything bad that happened in Yeltsin's era was often swept under the rug while newspapers in the west wrote about democracy in Russia. The corruption you talk about actually blossomed during Yeltsin's time. Putin brought it under control to a degree.

The deal is that west likes Putin a lot less than it liked Yeltsin, so more is written about corruption and oligarchs in Russia. Some with journalists. More journalists were killed during Yeltsin's time than Putin's. Russia still has a long way to go, but Putin is a step forward...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Well, anything bad that happened in Yeltsin's era was often swept under the rug while newspapers in the west wrote about democracy in Russia. The corruption you talk about actually blossomed during Yeltsin's time. Putin brought it under control to a degree.

The deal is that west likes Putin a lot less than it liked Yeltsin, so more is written about corruption and oligarchs in Russia. Some with journalists. More journalists were killed during Yeltsin's time than Putin's. Russia still has a long way to go, but Putin is a step forward...

---

I don't disagree with your analysis of the Yeltsin years, but the mere fact we are talking about Putin as opposed to President Medvedev rather demonstrates the enormous challenges for a pluralist future in Russia.

Because the voters of the nations are stupid. They keep electing these stupid leaders "hoping" for change, then getting nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Well, anything bad that happened in Yeltsin's era was often swept under the rug while newspapers in the west wrote about democracy in Russia. The corruption you talk about actually blossomed during Yeltsin's time. Putin brought it under control to a degree.

The deal is that west likes Putin a lot less than it liked Yeltsin, so more is written about corruption and oligarchs in Russia. Some with journalists. More journalists were killed during Yeltsin's time than Putin's. Russia still has a long way to go, but Putin is a step forward...

---

Thus the conclusion is;

- Communism was bad.
- Yeltsin was bad.
- Putin is bad.
- Western democracy ain't bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Rabit - yes, god forbid we move to a Singaporean style law and order. We are having trouble enough as it is to protect our rights against governments.

I think it fits East Asian societies better. Where values, even human rights, are more communal instead of individual. It makes little sense to adopt only a single element of this culture.
Which in turn means, that it not always makes sense to export elements of Western democracy to them. (Or by them).

Singling out elements of democracy, lifting them out of a broader cultural context, may not produce the expected results everywhere. As witness the rough transition to democracy in many Eastern European countries. Or, for that matter, not all cultural differences pass the north-south divide of Europe well. What seems ridiculous, even corrupt, to Finland, may work in Sicily. Trust - so important for a functioning democracy and market - in Northern Europe is communal, in Southern Europe it is individual. It makes for very different politics and business, and qualities of life that work in different ways.
Which is better, is difficult to objectively determine. The Nordic countries are like a glass house, they are so transparant. A man is judged on his capabilities. South Italians, for their part, live outside with their family and neighbours, sip on their wine a bit, all live to be ninety years old and keep wondering why so many Fins commit suicide all the time.


Likewise, I can't help but marvel at countries like Japan, South Korea, and even Singapore and Hong Kong. Much of their society is alien. To very varying degrees, democratic open societies in a Western sense they are not. Yet, they pretty much compete with only the Scandinavians for the top positions on the Human Development Index. They live as long as Southern Europeans, they are as wealthy as the richest countries in the West. Crime is virtually absent and the people are so polite to each other it makes one weep.

They belie the notion that only Western style democracy leads to succesful societies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The BBC is the envy of the world. Whatever criticisms one may have of it, if I were British and they'd ask for a bigger budget yet again, I'd grant it.

Now that I think about, I probably personally finance half their annual budget. My entire DVD collection is simply the BBC back catalogue of costume drama, natural history and documentaries.

You raise a good point. Public broadcasters everywhere perform a great educational and civic function. Commercial television, for its part, is a pest. A well-functioning media and press is crucial to a democracy. And if it were up to me, governmental involvement should not be exclusively negative, that is, to protect freedom of speech and the functioning of open media markets. It should also be positive, by financing public television and subsidising plurality of the press.

Also, for all the good that digital media has brought to plurality of information, I fear the demise of the traditional press it is resulting in.

---

excellent post on the outcomes of varying societies, but i have a real problem with the bbc in that i refuse to pay for the bbc, our public broadcaster, to issue illiberal left propaganda.

As evidenced by Ben Stephenson with his revealing quote in the guardian: “We need to foster peculiarity, idiosyncrasy, stubborn-mindedness, left-of-centre thinking”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/orga...on-tony-garner

I consider his illiberal-left auto-pilot to be typical of the bbc, and i view the message as both partisan generally and cretinous particularly, so i would rather see the BBC burned to the ground than put up with the good bits at the cost of watching the bbc reduce the mental-age of the viewing population.

But then i can do little more personally, i don't have a TV and thus don't pay a license.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MasterPhantom

Because the voters of the nations are stupid. They keep electing these stupid leaders "hoping" for change, then getting nothing.

---

The voters aren't stupid. It's just that every candidate for office lately is either so mediocre they refuse to make any real change or is so radical that they couldn't make a change if they wanted to.

Maybe over time this will shift, but it's going to require a gradual breakdown of a Washingtonian establishment that is more than half a century old. Politicians don't like their cozy atmospheres being threatened, and they will fight any drastic change tooth and nail.

Stupidity is exactly why democracy works. It gives everyone a chance to be president. Even alcoholic spider monkeys with Down's Syndrome. They even get re-elected.

In all seriousness, the perception of control by the masses is exactly why democracy works. People don't clamour for freedom when they already think they are free.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reverend Joe

The voters aren't stupid. It's just that every candidate for office lately is either so mediocre they refuse to make any real change or is so radical that they couldn't make a change if they wanted to.

Maybe over time this will shift, but it's going to require a gradual breakdown of a Washingtonian establishment that is more than half a century old. Politicians don't like their cozy atmospheres being threatened, and they will fight any drastic change tooth and nail.

---

Reason why I wouldn't be elected. I would completely reform the system and I will make laws/rules in regards to things which have not even come into our technological view, opposed to the other way round. (make laws 10-20 years later after when it has become commonplace)

"You are not permitted to use teleporter technology when some one is using the bathroom, no matter how amusing and embarrassing it would be."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

this is an important point; living under a totalitarian regime provides an essential perspective when it comes to weighing and measuring the flaws of western representative democracy.

---

The very experience of mine (even when you are still 8 or 9 y old child, you can feel that!). Indonesia before 1998, under Soeharto. Well, pretty much strict laws of "silence or dissapear"

EDIT: and if he and his family still in power now... maybe I can't have an email or facebook account to be used as freely as now... maybe only a bit better than Iranians...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cute Wolf

The very experience of mine (even when you are still 8 or 9 y old child, you can feel that!). Indonesia before 1998, under Soeharto. Well, pretty much strict laws of "silence or dissapear"

EDIT: and if he and his family still in power now... maybe I can't have an email or facebook account to be used as freely as now... maybe only a bit better than Iranians...

---

i had the same experience living in africa, at more or less the same age.

Claming that Western Democracy is good for all is like claming that you can win a poker match with the first royal flush.
Without the banking system to support it, Western deomocracy will collapse into anarchy, just like Barcelona during the Spanish Civil War. And since more funds are being directed by Israel into domestic issues, like improving weapon systems (and especially anti-ballistics) and building the economy, less and less money is being diverted into foreign policies.
The next logical step in the development of the human society is anarchy, then all will implode back into authoritarianism. We've all seen that whenever the bank system collapses so does democracy. WW2 had its origins in the Great Depression. Whenever the money-meter goes low so does economic freedom and a more authoritarian regime comes into shape.Whenever the money-meter goes up so does economic freedom and a more democratic regime is installed.
Authoritarian regimes work best where people are poor and democratic ones where people are wealthy.Just like poor pesants rallied to Charles's banner during the Civil War while the rich rallied to Cromwell's.
The third neurosis of mankind after death and female choice is that of collectivism. A man can function well either alone or in a mob, depending on either his socialism or individualism.
A working democracy is as feasable as a pure market economy. It needs countless subjects with the same abilities and goals in mind. But mankind was never developed by God to behave like an ant.Ants can live in a democratic society only because they're sterile and blind and cannot have osprings. A queen gives birth to millions of workers who are equal and united but never have any personal wishes or will. Their only job during a brief life is to work. The only one who benefits from their work is the queen, but even she is prison to a routine of egg-laying.
So, from an ant's point of view:
Freedom is slavery.
The masses have never been anything more than siege weapons for the elites, becuase the weak and mediocre will always need shelter in the heard and when a herd moves, there's nothing to stop it.Herd conformity is the herd's biggest asset and the biggest liability. The ones who can survive outside the herd are its leaders and elites. But the elites always stay inside the herd to exploit its weaknesses and to move it to their favorite pastures.
Have you ever seen a Mexican wave performed on stadium. Only a few need to trigger it, but when they do the whole stadium performs.

Cromwell represented freedom, you say?

You're going to piss of the brits now, ya know....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cronos Impera

Claming that Western Democracy is good for all is like claming that you can win a poker match with the first royal flush.
Without the banking system to support it, Western deomocracy will collapse into anarchy, just like Barcelona during the Spanish Civil War. And since more funds are being directed by Israel into domestic issues, like improving weapon systems (and especially anti-ballistics) and building the economy, less and less money is being diverted into foreign policies.
The next logical step in the development of the human society is anarchy, then all will implode back into authoritarianism. We've all seen that whenever the bank system collapses so does democracy. WW2 had its origins in the Great Depression. Whenever the money-meter goes low so does economic freedom and a more authoritarian regime comes into shape.Whenever the money-meter goes up so does economic freedom and a more democratic regime is installed.
Authoritarian regimes work best where people are poor and democratic ones where people are wealthy.Just like poor pesants rallied to Charles's banner during the Civil War while the rich rallied to Cromwell's.
The third neurosis of mankind after death and female choice is that of collectivism. A man can function well either alone or in a mob, depending on either his socialism or individualism.
A working democracy is as feasable as a pure market economy. It needs countless subjects with the same abilities and goals in mind. But mankind was never developed by God to behave like an ant.Ants can live in a democratic society only because they're sterile and blind and cannot have osprings. A queen gives birth to millions of workers who are equal and united but never have any personal wishes or will. Their only job during a brief life is to work. The only one who benefits from their work is the queen, but even she is prison to a routine of egg-laying.
So, from an ant's point of view:
Freedom is slavery.
The masses have never been anything more than siege weapons for the elites, becuase the weak and mediocre will always need shelter in the heard and when a herd moves, there's nothing to stop it.Herd conformity is the herd's biggest asset and the biggest liability. The ones who can survive outside the herd are its leaders and elites. But the elites always stay inside the herd to exploit its weaknesses and to move it to their favorite pastures.
Have you ever seen a Mexican wave performed on stadium. Only a few need to trigger it, but when they do the whole stadium performs.

---

That post needs a flow chart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cronos Impera

Authoritarian regimes work best where people are poor and democratic ones where people are wealthy.Just like poor pesants rallied to Charles's banner during the Civil War while the rich rallied to Cromwell's.

---

Not really. The Parliamentarians had the support of the lower gentry and the up and coming merchants, as well as the ordinary townsfolk in the areas where trade was becoming more important. The Royalists had the support of the aristocracy, as well as the peasants in the more backward areas. It wasn't a case of poor vs rich, it was more about the old economic feudal system losing ground to one based on free trade and capitalism, with political and religious issues polarising the whole episode. It is like the Marxists say, "all history is the history of class struggle" (or something like that).

Cronos Impera has touched on an important component -- property. While I would disagree with his linkage of wealth and democracy per se, I believe he IS correct in that property is one of the more fundamental components of democratic republicanism. Without personal property and a respect by the government for same, the success of a democracy is diminished.

I believe that, for the West, the problem is that we are suffering under too broad a suffrage.

Broadening the suffrage to include everyone with a pulse inevitably leads to a situation where the "have nots" seek the use of government power to take property from the "haves." And why shouldn't they? From the perspective of the HN's, its the most rational of decisions.

We have restricted suffrage for ludicrous reasons in the past (Sex, Coming from an "upper class" womb rather than a "lower class" one, particulars of worship, etc.), but restricting the suffrage in some fashion that requires the voter to think/vote/consider more than simple selfish pecuniary concerns would help.

Wish I knew a way to do that....

Bah Seamus.

The solution to the "idiot voter"-problem is not to remove their vote - that will only lead to rioting.

The only true solution is to educate, educate and educate. If you fell that you are not an idiot yourself, then it is your democratic duty to enlighten those you see as idiots.

It really is very simple.

What if people don't want to get educated though? It's human nature, if someone else is doing a decent job running the country, there's no motive to improve your own political abilities, you only need a few people to run a government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Bah Seamus.

The solution to the "idiot voter"-problem is not to remove their vote - that will only lead to rioting.

The only true solution is to educate, educate and educate. If you fell that you are not an idiot yourself, then it is your democratic duty to enlighten those you see as idiots.

It really is very simple.

---

I think Seamus has hit upon the very nub of the problem.

The "idiot voter" in most democracies does not riot - he does not vote at all. The franchise is barely exercised by most people and they do not miss it.

"Educated" voters are also significantly apathetic. People only exercise their franchise when they can see a direct correlation with their well-being. Western democratic governments have a vested interest in keeping the active electorate at a minimum and as ill-informed as possible, so you are never going to get a commitment to citizen education.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Romania (and Bulgaria in the EU, and many other states in the former Soviet bloc) are democracies in name only. This has created a deep mistrust of democracy in this region. Democracy is associated now with mobsters, corruption, plunder. Many long for authoritarian states, aka Russia.
All I can say is, these systems are not democratic in the full extent of the word. It also shows that democracy does not mean elections and majority rule. Democracy resides in 'soft democracy'. Such as a developed civic society, a strong middle class, human rights, minority rights, the rule of law, and soberness and moderation in public debate and conduct.

---

Just wondering, where did you get that from? I know you are right, but still, I am curious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

I think Seamus has hit upon the very nub of the problem.

The "idiot voter" in most democracies does not riot - he does not vote at all. The franchise is barely exercised by most people and they do not miss it.

---

Just like the peasantry never rebelled in the past? :inquisitive:

I sense this conversation coming back around to the 'full fridge = happiness' I think thats a big part of it, Im fairly sure a few of my friends will go through thier whole lives (assuming they get/keep decent jobs) full fridge, house and a car and then thier only worry is entertaining themselves... politics does not enter into this...

When everything starts crashing and burning everyone will suddenly become intrested... all you need then is some charismatic extremist and everything will go to hell...

Maybe its not so bad after all...

By the way, stupidity is the reason why dictatureship, even disguised in Kingdom or Empire never work.
Except it is at the top level.:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

Just wondering, where did you get that from? I know you are right, but still, I am curious.

---

I got it from nowhere in particular. Just a brief, and simplified summation of what I've gathered over the years are some commonly held beliefs within Russia and elsewhere in the former Eastern Bloc regarding democracy; combined with a summation of necessary components to make democracy function.

The definition of democracy is not only 'rule by the masses', or majority rule. The other definition refers to the particular system of government and society - very broadly defined, very limited in time and geography - of modern Western countries.
The two are often confused, causing lots of misunderstandings and frustration.

The other aspect of the post concerned what happened in Russia. 'Capitalism' and 'democracy' were installed in Russia in the 1990's. This basically boiled down to selling Russia for scraps to gangs of mobsters.
Small wonder, then, that democracy is mistrusted in Russia nowadays. I too would prefer Putin over a mobsterocracy.

Sad. Tsarism, communism, mobsterocracy, autocracy - it doesn't make a difference to ordinary Russians. Dissidents, the poor, the masses outside of Saint Petersburg and Moscow, those not connected with politics - nothing has changed for them. Life is held cheap, winters are cold, and the limitless resources of Russia are plundered for the benefit of a mere handful. Be they aristocrats, apparatchiks, Yeltsin era mobsters. And outside forces are held to blame. Jews, Europeans, capitalists, Americans, Muslims from the southern rim, Chinese in Siberia. Meh, the largest country in the world, and it feels itself perennially surrounded and besieged.


Russia reminds me of Serbia a bit. Narcissim combined with victimization. A great country that through deliberate act of foreigners has been cut up and is kept down. Poor Obama last month thought he could press the 'reset' button. Meanwhile, the Russians and Serbians are still celebrating Russia's attack against Georgia as a great counter-victory against the Americans.

Apart from a mere handful of intellectuals in Moscow, nobody in Russia has positive connotations anymore to the word 'democracy'. And these few that do, are murdered or elsewise silenced.

~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus

I believe that, for the West, the problem is that we are suffering under too broad a suffrage.

Broadening the suffrage to include everyone with a pulse inevitably leads to a situation where the "have nots" seek the use of government power to take property from the "haves." And why shouldn't they? From the perspective of the HN's, its the most rational of decisions.

We have restricted suffrage for ludicrous reasons in the past (Sex, Coming from an "upper class" womb rather than a "lower class" one, particulars of worship, etc.), but restricting the suffrage in some fashion that requires the voter to think/vote/consider more than simple selfish pecuniary concerns would help.

Wish I knew a way to do that....

---

A way to do that? Well you could turn fascist. Failing that, you could vote the next best thing, Republican.

Maybe poor Americans who have the nerve to long to be free and equal citizens can emigrate elsewhere? Perhaps in search of a place that accepts the poor, the huddled masses, a country that is a home of the free?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Russia reminds me of Serbia a bit. Narcissim combined with victimization. A great country that through deliberate act of foreigners has been cut up and is kept down. Poor Obama last month thought he could press the 'reset' button. Meanwhile, the Russians and Serbians are still celebrating Russia's attack against Georgia as a great counter-victory against the Americans.

Apart from a mere handful of intellectuals in Moscow, nobody in Russia has positive connotations anymore to the word 'democracy'. And these few that do, are murdered or elsewise silenced.

---

You seem to believe that you have a talent for summing up nations, just as well as individuals. Last time I've mentioned that, you interpreted it as my way of saying how Serbs are a great nation because I've pointed out that being a shrink for 12 million people is a bit too much. Now you think you're good enough to do exactly that with app. 160 million people. Louis, you're getting better with each passing day. Do you think India was victimised in childhood and did China had problem with the parents? I think Brazil wet the bed even in the teenage years and Nigeria didn't leave the breast for a very long time.

But, unfortunately, there's some truth in your words. Can't say for Russia (although I do believe there is similarity), but definitely for Serbia. Problem is that trust and cooperation are a two way street. As long as the other side refuses to even contemplate the idea that mistakes and blunders have been made and how much of that distrust is their fault, we won't move from square one. We might, actually, but at a snail's pace. Can't speak for the nation but I won't accept moral responsibility for mistakes other people made, no matter how profitable it might be.

I'm also not aware of anyone in Serbia celebrating the conflict between Russia and Georgia. I've been outside those days and there were no mass gatherings in the streets celebrating anything, let alone an armed conflict. Someone might have celebrated it in the privacy of his/her home, I could hardly barge into homes of other people to check. Maybe you have another "reliable" article the proves otherwise, that half of the population was celebrating, I don't know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Poor Obama last month thought he could press the 'reset' button.

---

You mean Biden's visit to Serbia? Or something involving Russia?

Well, Louis, your statement was at best a generalisation. Nothing you said was false, but to say that is all, and to say that all do as you say is generalising. Which may or may not be good. There are benefits of generalisation and its pitfalls. I lived in Russia, and still do for a part of a year, and it is becoming different, changing.

This: Sad. Tsarism, communism, mobsterocracy, autocracy - it doesn't make a difference to ordinary Russians. Dissidents, the poor, the masses outside of Saint Petersburg and Moscow, those not connected with politics - nothing has changed for them. Life is held cheap, winters are cold, and the limitless resources of Russia are plundered for the benefit of a mere handful. Be they aristocrats, apparatchiks, Yeltsin era mobsters. ...has certainly improved. Putin is working, especially on corruption, as Russia is not about to get a democratic government any time soon, but it can change its other aspects. We will see how Russia pulls out of the recession, or namely how the oil prices rise and fall, which will be crucial to determining the solution to the previous question.

However, this: And outside forces are held to blame. Jews, Europeans, capitalists, Americans, Muslims from the southern rim, Chinese in Siberia. Meh, the largest country in the world, and it feels itself perennially surrounded and besieged. ...is getting much worse, as Putin seems to be slowly and sinisterly injecting increasing doses of anti-Americanism in the classic act of whipping up jingoism to draw the spotlight away from one's own shortcoming. Putin, as interesting it would be to believe, may still have delusions over Russia and its power, attempting to bring it back to the USSR days. I doubt he actually thinks Russia is strong right now, but perhaps he dreams of a stronger future Russia, which is quite counter-productive I daresay.

I am tempted to liken his illusions to the almost a century it took Britain to realise its days were over, but given Russia's size and natural resources, it may still be possible to bring some of the past back. Thus I cannot divinate if his behaviour is proper or not.


I would not believe you read many works about Russia that were not biased, but to rely on my understanding and impressions from having lived their is just as faulty if not more than your reliance on others and not you. Rarely do I see an unbiased account of Russia, one that does not merely mention her many weaknesses and stop at that. Things seem to be taking the up-turn in the economic and the reduction of various criminal situations such as corruption, misappropriation of funds/graft, as well as the political dominance of rich businessmen seeking to plunder everything, and whatnot, but at the same time the central government and the mentality of the people is not moving forward.

Whether this is yet transitional period towards the better is up to a question. Politically-historically speaking, Russia is still a young nation, of less than 20 years. It took US slightly longer than that to set things right, and US did not have the shackles of the past, the communism, to shake free...





As for the "reset" & "overload" debacle, that was Hillary's visit. I do not blame the bloke making the mistransaltion either. In technical or computer language in Russia, "reset" is pere-zagruzit" "pere" meaning "over" or "again" and "zagruzit" meaning load, as in "load an website page". At the same time, in vernacular, as it is in US, load means a burden, a hefty weight. Thus, "overload button" is what the news sources claimed Hillary gave to Medvedev. But "pere" could mean either "over" or "again/re-". That button could be taken by a common man as "overload" but by a techie as "reload/reset"