To: Maurice Winn who wrote (31447 ) 9/23/2009 4:23:44 AM From: saraw1 2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 46821 Dear Mqurice, I do not live in NZ, and cannot claim to be knowledgeable about local experiences, which one can have only when walking on that specific and particularly beautiful piece of the planet. However, I do not think you are helping your argument by constantly invoking communism, socialism, the Kremlin, the USSR, etc. The Cold War ended quite some time ago. When you summon up this kind of hyperbolic image, the de facto message you are sending is: "my argument cannot support itself on its own merits, so I am summoning up the "demons" that scared the living daylights out of my readers when they were children. This will make them abandon their critical thinking faculties and glom onto my arguments out of fear, dread and loathing." I'm guessing that this was not your intention, but your ongoing references to obsolete bogeypeople are accomplishing an effect that you surely did not intend. As an American who has lived for many years in total embarrassment over the ignorant, rude, and boorish behavior of my country's "leaders" and "citizens" alike, this kind of nonsense accomplishes precisely the opposite of its goal: It makes me turn away from anything the person says because it is clear they are not in touch with reality. I don't know if you've noticed, but "communism," "socialism," the Kremlin, the Politburo, etc. are the least of our worries. Al Qaeda is not "The Problem" either. I believe that when people start summoning up scary images (case in point: "Obama's death panels"), it is usually a case of wishful thinking. Life should be so simple.....(but it's not). When great civilizations or empires collapse, it is virtually always from within. This could happen in a very tangible way, as in the case of Rome where the air, water, and food became increasingly laden with lead, causing growth disorders, retardation, etc. Alternatively, the collapse could be a product of intangible characteristics like mass corruption, by which I mean systems of access and influence that are closed circles, impenetrable to 'the other.' Since outsiders typically spark innovation, especially in cultures that are resting on their laurels (actually, haunches), and busily 'taking care of their own' but not minding the store, " exclusivity" is a form of self-inflicted intellectual and economic malnourishment. Rejection of 'the different' literally sucks the life out of any living thing. By the time an invader - any invader - comes along, the glorious empire is just another empty shell. There is a certain pod within the US population that apparently finds whipping itself into a frenzy over stuff that is demonstrably untrue, braying like donkeys in pure outrage over (what? ), and packing heat at public gatherings to be magnificent and life-affirming experiences. There is a technical term for such people: dangerous, raving lunatics. I don't know if you are aware, but paranoics are the most violent of all psychotics -- they typically attack others as a form of prophylaxis, to ensure that the objects of their delusional conspiracy theories don't "get them first." When you start ranting about socialism, or communism, or the Gulag Archipelago, you are aligning yourself with a crowd that will only discredit you. So, can you lose that ridiculous socialism stuff and deal with the issues? My hunch is that people will want to engage with you more if you do.