The World Is Insane

[Scrapper]

Hey now, Ayn Rand is awesome.

 

[Bradylama]

What CCR is saying, Jebus, is that France couldn't have been a nation-state because it was a state which encompassed multiple nationalities, not just different languages.

 

[John Uskglass]

Hey now, Ayn Rand is awesome.

I'd say she had the potential to be worse then Hitler. Hitler, at least, cared about the lives of some people.

 

[Scrapper]

Nah, she cared, but only if you weren't an emptily altruistic moron who felt that society owed you for being down on your luck. Besides, reason as a virtue, fair trade for all services, and the abandonment of blind faith all sound like good things to me.

 

[Jebus]

You are an idiot Jebus. There, I said it. It needed to be said.

Oh oh oh. Amazing. CCR, you are amazing.

Let me give you a tip: you should stop insulting people like this. It will only make you look more like a complete fool when you are completely wrong, as you usually are.

Because, you see -

That's utter bullshit. In no way was France a nationstate before Napoleon, because the French nation was composed of two distinct ethnicities; Occitain and, well, French. Not to mention Breton, as the inhabitants of that penninsula did not even speak French upon it's addition to said monarchy, or even Corsica. France's 'nation state' status is incidental; 300 years of Northern French being the only acceptable identity will do that to a nation.

Same can be said of Spain (Castillan y Catalan), German even (High and Low German).

See, this is where you made an ass of yourself again. I had just finished saying that not all nationstates are based on ethnicities or language. OMG, what a shocker, eh?
Spain, as you have pointed out, was not. It wasn't based on common ethnicity (Basques <> Castillians & Aragonese) nor commong language (Basques <> Castillians <> Aragonese). So then omg, why were they formed into Spain in the first place? Because of common culture. You know what that word means, mr. walking waste of perfectly good human fat? They formed themselves into a nationstate to complete the Reconquista and form a unified front against the Arab and Berber enemies in El Andalus. And; even today; splitting Spain up again would be unthinkable.

France, then, was formed because of common history. They basically re-formed Charlemagnes West-Frankish empire. Language or Ethnicity didn't matter fuck there, 't was on history the unification was based.
I know a lot of people have an overly simplistic look on nationstates (omg they speak the same language they should be in a nation together) - and I am absolutely not surprised you have that simplistic vision too, CCR. After all, you are rather simple minded in the first place.

Let's take Belgium, for example. Two languages are spoken there: Dutch and French. To the North of Belgium lies The Netherlands, to the South of Belgium lies France. So why, I ask you, didn't the northern part of Belgium became a piece of the Netherlands and the southern part a piece of France?
Because that would be absolutely unthinkable. Flemish don't consider themselves affiliated with the Dutch by a long shot, nor do the Walloons think of themselves as French. They actually feel a stronger connection to one another than to the respective same-language nations bordering them. Why? Common history.

Same with Switzerland. Heck, Switzerland is probably a better example, because Belgium is a federation. - They speak French, German and Italian over there. Would that mean that Switzerland should actually be split in three, and the respective part be annexed to France, Germany and Italy? Heck no. That would be unthinkable. The Swiss have a distinct national identity, that isn't based on language or enthnicity by a long shot. Same with India or China: dozens of different enthnicity, hundreds of different languages, yet they all feel they belong together. In the USA and Canada though, for instance, people are of the same ethnicity and speak the same language - yet melting the two nations together would be unimaginable. Why? Omg, different history.

Jebus, France was not a nation state before the modern day; and even today, it includes Corsica. Your argument is full of shit. Great Britan is as much a nation state as France ever was.

Learn your history, dumb shit. For starters, Corsica wasn't given to France untill somewhere in the end of the 18th century, to pay off a debt Genua had with them. The nation of France had been proclaimed way, waaaay before that.
Secondly, Corsica didn't change shit. Calling Corsica a nation is already a hugely long shit, since Corsica has never been independant to my knowledge. Also, Corsica was added after 'France' was proclaimed. When Poland recieved all that German territory after WWII, and lost so much to the Russians, did they suddenly cease being a nation-State, and start being an empire? Heck no. Nationality is where your national identity lies, not what language you speak or what sub-sub-sub ethnicity you have.

Bot omg, that's probably way to complicated for you.

Call me an idiot again, and I'll cease being mr. nice guy, asshole.

 

[Murdoch]

Alright, CCR/John and Jebus, knock it off.

Flames will only get you into The Vats and discussed on the mod forum. And seeing as how both of you have been discussed there in the past, this does not bode well for your future posting status.

Keep it civil or keep it the hell out.

 

[Brother None]

Call me an idiot again, and I'll cease being mr. nice guy, asshole.

Too late.

Jebus, you have been told twice in this thread to back off, by both welsh and me, so I will now give you a warning for your behaviour. This means you now have two strikes against you. A third strike and you will be banned. I will not be lenient here for any reason, your lack of self-control no longer serves as an excuse for you, nor does the fact that you don't like other people here. Either get a grip or prepare to be ejected, forcefully.

For good measure; John Uskglass, you were also out of line and are hereby warned.

But I digress...

]No way! So tell me, which European country was the first to succesfully combine those three?

Yep.

That's rather odd. So basically you're saying that because France combined three things it is more important than those three things, even seperately. A car is more than all its individual parts?

Yet others would argue that in this scenario, all France did was serve as a stepping stone in development. Basically an archeologist that dug up some old skulls and combined them with new skulls to form the mega-skull that is modern-day life. That would relativise its role pretty well.

That definition is somewhat flawed

Dictionary definitions tend to be rather bad.

Yet, 'nationstate' also means a nation free of overly decentralising forces and headed by strong, overhead leadership

Wow, and here I was thinking Norbert Elias was only popular in Holland and Germany.

However, as Elias is pointing out, you're forgetting several things, amongst which the fact that the Holy Roman Empire actually decentralised when the French started centralising. In other words, it had finished what they were just starting. Your assumption, in fact, that all countries that went against decentralising forces after France ipso facto based their decentralisation on France seems to be rather badly backed up here.

In fact, the development from the Holy Roman Empire into Germany seems to be one of a larger area shrinking and at the same time becoming more decentralised, until modern times. This doesn't fit well into your French model, though, since it is a roaring exception.

England, also, being basically a discovery of one French noble house, had a very different history of centralisation than France, though by the same model, if you actually look at England and not the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Also, you dodged John's remark about Corsica. If the UK is simply a conglomerations of nations because it includes four distinct seperate nations, how is France not such a thing for include two, Corsica and France?

Whoa. Deep.

Wasn't it?

I'd prefer "Scholar's arrogance" over "Library Card Holder's arrogance" any day.

Why?

*snip half-arsed historical/socioligical "theory"*

Wow, that sure put me in my place. That may have been one of the most well-structurized counter-arguments I have ever seen

The Battle of Trafalgar was the defeat that spelled out the doom of Napoleon.
Borladino, after all, would've never happened if Napoleon had defeated the Britains on that day. Because if he had defeated the British naval power, he'd have no more need to install his Continental System. If he would've never had installed his Continental System, Alexander of Russia would've never ceased being his buddy and pull out said system. And if Alexander would've never pulled himself out of that system, Borladino would've never happened and the French army wouldn't have been devastated. So there.

What the hell is Borladino?

Since you smashed John for not reading your post properly, let's now actually read what I said: This battle was a turning point in the sense that it turned the Napoleonic campaign from what could have possibly been a naval war into a land-war.

Would you look at that? I called it a turning point too! However, unlike you, I find it very hard to substantiate that a battle is the most important battle in a war just because it enabled the definitive war that actually defeated the person in question.

The Battle of Waterloo was actually the decisive battle... Of the Hundred Days.

I never denied that. This is why I spoke of the definitive battle of the Napoleonic Wars, not seperate definitive battles of the first reign of Napoleon and the 100 Day Carneval. I was clear enough on that.

That said, who else?

Beating the dead horse again, I see?

Russia with the rise of Putin? China- with it's territorial grabs and threats against Taiwan? Japan with it's dreams of regional hegemony? France with it's various manuevers in Africa (I mean this is the country that protected the perpetrators of the Rwandan Genocide).

"Rise of Putin"? This again shows a misunderstanding of Russian democracy and I again feel the need to explain it indepth, but again I'm too lazy for it. That said, I'd prefer Russia, yeah.

China's not an option for obvious reasons

I don't see how Japan with it's dreams of regional hegemony would differ from the USA, who actually has regional hegemony.

And to be honest with you, welsh, I think the argument of calling France evil because of its Machiavellian power politics is a bit tired out. Not only is this focusing on that part of France's foreign politics that is most suiteable for this argument (post-colonial mistakes, basically), rather than the spectrum of other factors (amongst with enviroment and mulilateratism), but I don't think the USA is exactly exempt of supporting tyrants and even mass-murderers. In fact, I really don't see how you can put the USA on a pedestal above France.

Not to mention that we live in a fast and democratic age. You can mumble and whine about the days of yore, but the fact is that countries change pretty damn fast under democratic pressure. France, having lost its colonial grip, really might now be a better option simply because it has given up on these colonial dreams, whereas the USA is just starting to dream of colonialism.

 

[kibrika]

No im not a hippie or a peace defender or something like that.

I am Die, war, die!

You guys sound cool. I am so sorry I don't have the nights to read and understand all this stuff. You know, learning history only in schools of one certain country provides one with quite an unobjective viewpoint.

Everybody knows human society never evolved faster than it did between the Renaissance and now, and by God - most of the evolution happened in France.

Along with the society they brought all the 'rules' and stereotypes, didn't they?

Hey now, Ayn Rand is awesome.

What has she got to do with it (Ok, I'm not going to ask what have Jebus's pictures got to do with anything)?

 

[Bradylama]

the USA is just starting to dream of colonialism.

Pshaw. After the Spanish-American War there was a huge division between Imperialists and Traditionalists as to what we'd do with territories ceded by Spain. The Imperialists won, and we kept the Phillipines (rather violently) as a territory. Of course, we never really took any more territories with the exception of the U.S. Virgin Islands, but it did gain us recognition in the Imperial club.

We've never really been "just dreaming" of colonialism. Though, I'm not sure how much advantage we can take over a country before raising their standards of living.

 

[Jebus]

]No way! So tell me, which European country was the first to succesfully combine those three?

Yep.

That's rather odd. So basically you're saying that because France combined three things it is more important than those three things, even seperately. A car is more than all its individual parts?

Well ehm... Yeah. Unless you prefer having a carburator and a car battery sitting in your garage instead of a car, of course.

Yet others would argue that in this scenario, all France did was serve as a stepping stone in development. Basically an archeologist that dug up some old skulls and combined them with new skulls to form the mega-skull that is modern-day life. That would relativise its role pretty well.

Meh. So all Jefferson did was to combine previous inventions into his steam train? Perhaps, but does that 'relativise' the importance of this event? Did Jefferson not change the world with his invention?

Also, defining nationstates by the three elements you have pointed out is a bit narrow. There's also the proclaimed indivisibility (is that even a word?) of the nation, centralised execution, etc.

Norbert Elias

Who?

However, as Elias is pointing out, you're forgetting several things, amongst which the fact that the Holy Roman Empire actually decentralised when the French started centralising. In other words, it had finished what they were just starting. Your assumption, in fact, that all countries that went against decentralising forces after France ipso facto based their decentralisation on France seems to be rather badly backed up here.

The Holy Roman Empire seems like an awfully strange example here, Kharn. As the name 'Holy Roman Empire' already shows, the HRE never was a nationstate. At it's hight, it had Dutch, Belgian, Italian, French, Bohemian, Polish and whatnot citizens.

Secondly, decentralisation had already began before France became a nationsate. The Reichstag already existed from the 15th century, and the Golden Bull was issued around the same time Philippe IV (yea, I checked) finished forging the French nationstate. Allright, it might've been a decade or two later, but two decades is a very small time to serve as an example to follow for the rest of the world. And hey, the HRE never had really been anything more than a federation in the first place.

And actually, the decentralisation of the HRE was because of the birth of the nationstates. The German dukes, Bohemian princes, Dutch counts and whatnot say that the French were able to form a nationstate - then why shouldn't they? This should also be quite obvious from the fact that when the HRE ended in 1806, the different nationalities within the former empire quickly went their own way - the Dutch had done so much sooner.

In fact, the development from the Holy Roman Empire into Germany seems to be one of a larger area shrinking and at the same time becoming more decentralised, until modern times. This doesn't fit well into your French model, though, since it is a roaring exception.

Allright, I hadn't read the 'exception' bit until now, but I'm still not going to delete what I wrote above, since that would've made it a waste of effort

England, also, being basically a discovery of one French noble house, had a very different history of centralisation than France, though by the same model, if you actually look at England and not the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

England is a relatively difficult case. For starters, one could argue that England has only been a nationstate for about two centuries (1066 - annexation of Wales in the 12th or 13th century, don't remember), because from then you could start calling it an empire. But of course, you could then also see the Acts of Union as attempts to forge a British nationstate - yet that does however not make the national idendity of the Welsh suddenly disappear. And since the Act of Union of 1707, one could hardly call the UK a nationstate. England is a nation, yes, but it's a part of the UK state.

Also, you dodged John's remark about Corsica. If the UK is simply a conglomerations of nations because it includes four distinct seperate nations, how is France not such a thing for include two, Corsica and France?

First of all, I never called the UK nothing more than a conglomeration of nations. It is a state, yet not a nation-state. While feelings of national identity in Wales and Scotland might now have dimmed to the point where they almost non-existant, the Northern Irish still don't consider themselves British by far.
Secondly, I haven't dodged it. For starters, I said that Corsica has only been added to France when the nationstate of France had already long been formed. Secondly, I pointed out that Corsica as a distinct seperate nation is rather doubtfull. I guess the lack of Corsican national identity has also been proven by the relatively recent referendum (in 1999 I think it was), where the majority of Corsicans voted against relative autonomy in the French state.

Also, there's a distinct difference between Corsica in France and, say, Scotland in the UK. Corsica is by all means viewed as an integral part of France, while the UK is officially still a union between the nations of, among others, England and Scotland. National identities aside, this is also a basic difference.

Whoa. Deep.

Wasn't it?

It was.

I'd prefer "Scholar's arrogance" over "Library Card Holder's arrogance" any day.

Why?

Because there's a basic between what you can learn from books and what you can learn from academic studies. What you learn from books will rarely be as a complete a picture as what you learn in college.

*snip half-arsed historical/socioligical "theory"*

Wow, that sure put me in my place. That may have been one of the most well-structurized counter-arguments I have ever seen

I don't know. I agree that it was a good argument, yet I believe I could've perhaps structured it better.

What the hell is Borladino?

That's a good question. Where did I get that from? I meant Borodino, of course.

Since you smashed John for not reading your post properly, let's now actually read what I said: This battle was a turning point in the sense that it turned the Napoleonic campaign from what could have possibly been a naval war into a land-war.

Would you look at that? I called it a turning point too! However, unlike you, I find it very hard to substantiate that a battle is the most important battle in a war just because it enabled the definitive war that actually defeated the person in question.

Meh, then you could call the Battle for Britain a turning point instead of a decisive battle too. I, for one, consider it to be a decisive battle - otherwise we'd probably all be speaking Russian now.

 

[Bradylama]

Also, defining nationstates by the three elements you have pointed out is a bit narrow.

By calling something a Nation State to begin with you're already narrowing your focus.

Because there's a basic between what you can learn from books and what you can learn from academic studies. What you learn from books will rarely be as a complete a picture as what you learn in college.

HA! If you consider instruction from a college professor the "whole picture" I want whatever you're smoking. Nevermind that you could learn the exact same things in college from books. And before you talk about academic studies again, we are talking about history here. What you learn in History class is the same things you read in books, only presented in your professor's perspective. Sure, you could be doing academic research and such, but what are you doing that from?

Meh, then you could call the Battle for Britain a turning point instead of a decisive battle too. I, for one, consider it to be a decisive battle - otherwise we'd probably all be speaking Russian now.

But that would also mean that the Russian Campaign was the deciding factor in Napoleon's defeat. The Battle of Britain was both decisive and a turning point because it prevented German expansion into the British Isles, and preserved a Springboard for a new front in the West. The Luftwaffe was incorporated as a part of the Army. It wasn't a seperate branch dedicated to a different type of warfare like modern airforces, which is part of the reason the Germans lost the Battle of Britain. The blow struck to the Luftwaffe devastated the German war effort, not just their capabilities in the air, as by this time the air war was an integral part of the ground war.

To further expand on this concept: the key purpose of naval warfare is to reserve the ability to project force across the oceans, or to prevent an opponent from projecting his force on you. In this sense, Trafalgar didn't actually damage Napoleon's ability to wage war. It instead strengthened it, as his resources were then more dedicated to his armies.

 

[Jebus]

Also, defining nationstates by the three elements you have pointed out is a bit narrow.

By calling something a Nation State to begin with you're already narrowing your focus.

OMG. I'm such a narrow-sighted bastard.

Because there's a basic between what you can learn from books and what you can learn from academic studies. What you learn from books will rarely be as a complete a picture as what you learn in college.

HA! If you consider instruction from a college professor the "whole picture" I want whatever you're smoking. Nevermind that you could learn the exact same things in college from books. And before you talk about academic studies again, we are talking about history here. What you learn in History class is the same things you read in books, only presented in your professor's perspective. Sure, you could be doing academic research and such, but what are you doing that from?

Not just that. In my studies, I get the complete (yeah well, what is 'complete') world history. One could of course read a book about the history of France, Italy, Corsica or whatever, or - God forbid - a book called 'History of Europe'; yet you'd have to read a heck of a lot of pages to be on par with what you can learn by going to classes in college every day for a whole year.

Note that I'm also not parroting any professors here. I am actually doing academic research on the formation of nationstates (the formation of Castille and Aragon to be precise, and perhaps later on Spain if I have enough pages left) right now. So there.

Meh, then you could call the Battle for Britain a turning point instead of a decisive battle too. I, for one, consider it to be a decisive battle - otherwise we'd probably all be speaking Russian now.

But that would also mean that the Russian Campaign was the deciding factor in Napoleon's defeat. The Battle of Britain was both decisive and a turning point because it prevented German expansion into the British Isles, and preserved a Springboard for a new front in the West. The Luftwaffe was incorporated as a part of the Army. It wasn't a seperate branch dedicated to a different type of warfare like modern airforces, which is part of the reason the Germans lost the Battle of Britain. The blow struck to the Luftwaffe devastated the German war effort, not just their capabilities in the air, as by this time the air war was an integral part of the ground war.

Allright, so let's call the battle of Trafalgar and the Battle of Britain 'a decisive battle AND a turning point' then. Seems like a pleonasm to me, though.

 

[Bradylama]

Sorry I went back and added this to my statement when I realized it lacked polish, but:

To further expand on this concept: the key purpose of naval warfare is to reserve the ability to project force across the oceans, or to prevent an opponent from projecting his force on you. In this sense, Trafalgar didn't actually damage Napoleon's ability to wage war. It instead strengthened it, as his resources were then more dedicated to his armies.

What I'm saying is that Trafalgar wasn't instrumental in Napoleon's defeat because it didn't actually damage his abilities to wage wars with the rest of Europe. The Russian Campaign accomplished this, however, because it devastated his manpower. Yes, if Trafalgar had never occurred then Napoleon's army wouldn't have frozen to death on the Steppes, but what if Napoleon never invaded Russia? You're basing your argument on a what-if, which is easily countered by another.

Note that I'm also not parroting any professors here. I am actually doing academic research on the formation of nationstates (the formation of Castille and Aragon to be precise, and perhaps later on Spain if I have enough pages left) right now. So there.

Yet, you can also accomplish this in a library.

 

[Dapper Dan Man]

I only want to make one point regarding this, as I could all to easily be drawn into this argument and I just don't have the time.

The definition of a nation-state is a country of territorial boundaries encapsulating people of a set ethnicity (this is for non-pol sci majors). Not a good comparison to countries, as they are somewhat like apples to oranges.

Now, as you said, you consider France as integral to many of our basic structures of civilization to day. Could one counter that it was never the intention of the French to do so, and, in a realist sense, counterproductive? I would argue that civilization is an amalgram of a vast array of ideas stolen from previous cultures and formed into new and interesting patterns. To say the French helped develop Europe is a horrendous disservice to the cultures it had borrowed ideals from.

I would be exceedingly reluctant to classify any culture as responsible for the formulation of anything regarding culture, as oftentimes, it is in dirrection opposition to either a percieved threat, a security dilemma, or some facet on politics in the region. If France developed some unique properties of civilization, it only did so based upon philosophers, current events in the time period (thus owing other cultures France was in opposition to for credit), and some measure of globalization in the world.

 

[Jebus]

Now, as you said, you consider France as integral to many of our basic structures of civilization to day. Could one counter that it was never the intention of the French to do so, and, in a realist sense, counterproductive? I would argue that civilization is an amalgram of a vast array of ideas stolen from previous cultures and formed into new and interesting patterns. To say the French helped develop Europe is a horrendous disservice to the cultures it had borrowed ideals from.

I mean no disrespect to the Romans, the Greeks or whoever. But what does that matter?

See Jefferson example supra.

I would be exceedingly reluctant to classify any culture as responsible for the formulation of anything regarding culture, as oftentimes, it is in dirrection opposition to either a percieved threat, a security dilemma, or some facet on politics in the region. If France developed some unique properties of civilization, it only did so based upon philosophers, current events in the time period (thus owing other cultures France was in opposition to for credit), and some measure of globalization in the world.

This is also a fairly pointless statement.

"French culture developed in reaction to the times and because of great philosophers!"


NO SHIT SHERLOCK

 

[Dapper Dan Man]

Then why are you making such a stupid claim about France being responsible for world culture, if you understand all of what I just said?! Your entire frigging argument is hypocritical.


Seriously, this is just sounding like a nationalist rant or a dick length comparison:

"France was so important because it created this this and this"

"Nuh uh, Germany created this this and this"

Monarchy was more important than socialism! Communism was more influential than capitalism! The submarine was more important than the battleship!

How the hell do you arbitrarily measure such comparisons while being objective? Being a social scientist means at least ATTEMPTING to study more than just one level of analysis. It also means trying to be at least faintly objective.

 

[Bradylama]

What everybody is saying, Jebus, is that France inspiring Europe to come and ride this Nation Train isn't necessarily the most important factor in the state of the modern world.

It could be effectively argued that colonialism has a much deeper impact, which is tied to the Age of Exploration. The Age of Exploration is tied to the desire for East Asian trade goods, a demand generated by the Crusades, started by the Pope, and blah blah blah blah Vikings.

See where I'm going with this?

 

[Jebus]

Then why are you making such a stupid claim about France being responsible for world culture, if you understand all of what I just said?! Your entire frigging argument is hypocritical.

Ehehe. Slightly off nuance here:

If you were to read history, you'd know that France is most likely the single most important nation for the creation of the world as it is today. There's no end to what we owe to the French.

I didn't say 'responsible for world culture', I said they were probably the most important nation for the world as it today. There's a difference.

Also,

if you understand all of what I just said?! Your entire frigging argument is hypocritical.

What you said was pretty logical. Yet, does that change anything? Einstein only did Project Manhattan in response to the Pacific war, yet does that make his effort any less brilliant?

France responded to what was happening in Europe: decentralisation, selfishness, and weakness against the Mongols, Moors and Arabs because of internal discord. They adopted, they survived. Other countries saw that is was possible to forge a nation out of the primal soup Europe was, and they followed later. Other countries saw how the Edict of Nantes brought internal unity in France, and they ehm... didn't follow until centuries later. And ever since the enlightenment, French influence is fairly obvious.

What gives, peeps? Don't want to give credit to the French, yet you want to give the credit to the Romans, Greeks, Babylonians, English, Chinese, Hottentots or whoever?

Whatever floats your boat. I'm just tired of the constant French-bashing amongst you Americans.

 

[Jebus]

What everybody is saying, Jebus, is that France inspiring Europe to come and ride this Nation Train isn't necessarily the most important factor in the state of the modern world.

That's not what I said, either. This is just one facet of my original statement everybody keeps attacking.

It could be effectively argued that colonialism has a much deeper impact, which is tied to the Age of Exploration. The Age of Exploration is tied to the desire for East Asian trade goods, a demand generated by the Crusades, started by the Pope, and blah blah blah blah Vikings.

See where I'm going with this?

As I noted above, I never claimed the creation of the nation state was the only important factor in the creation of the modern world. Not by a long shot.

 

[Dapper Dan Man]

Constant French bashing? Much of the world hates America, and America is NOT a nation-state, nor is there a unified belief about anything. If it pisses you off about French bashing in America, again, why do you hypocritically condemn John Uskglass/CCR for it? It seems so passe` to attack the United States for just about everything, and caricature Americans, which is even less justified than would be in a nation-state.

Maybe just make a disclaimer saying "I am about to offer my own subjective opinion" instead of trying to pretend college education makes your opinion any more valid than the shmuck down the street.

I am not saying you are right or wrong, or that my opinion or theirs' are worth more than your's, but none of this is somehow more "true" because it comes from someone studying political science. First of all, several of us are studying the same topic as you. Second, it might make you more knowledgeable on the subject, but there are normative and there are factual comments. Everything here has been normative. If "experts" disagree, what makes your claim if anything more valid than any others?