George W. Bush has been a lameduck president since about the middle of 2005. He came into office on a whim, got a chance to basically do whatever he wanted after 9/11, and watched his presidency die in three simple steps: the failure of his post-electoral victory plan to reform Social Security, the realization that there was no plan B for Iraq, and the inability of our authorities to react appropriately to Hurricane Katrina.Now that I am back here in the US I can feel the necessity for leadership. People are extremely tired of the Bush Administration. Unlike in 2002, where you might get beat up for saying anything bad about Bush, in 2007 people just can't wait until this presidency is over.
Of all the Democratic candidates in the race, the one I oddly find myself leaning towards is Barack Obama. I say 'oddly' because I think that Senator Obama has gone far on his charisma and has produced relatively little. Yet at the same time it is his inexperience coupled with his ambition that makes me believe that an Obama presidency might achieve what no post-Nixon presidency has managed to do: Bury the Nixon Administration, once and for all.
"Nixon?" You might say. "His presidency was up in 1974 and he's been dead since 1993!" Yes, yes, I know that Nixon is dead. But all the senior players in the current Bush administration, in Washington in general -- Cheney, Wolfowitz, Gates -- they all go back to the Nixon-Ford Administrations. Who did George W. Bush sit next to at the Republican National Convention in Miami in 1972? Why it was Donald Rumsfeld, of course. This grouping has been in and out of power for nearly 40 years. And this is the end of their tenure in the driver's seat.
With Obama you get a guy who has been in politics for a relatively short amount of time -- unlike Hillary Clinton -- and who by the virtue of defeating Clinton in the primaries will have alienated the other power base in Washington -- the Clintonistas -- the Paul Begalas, James Carvilles, Sandy Bergers, et al.
We could have a president that's only 18 years older than I am, who is so post-Baby Boomer politics that he probably can't even remember the Kennedy Assassination, let alone get into arguments about whether he served or got a deferment. This is an opportunity to bury aging camps of political opportunists and the culture wars -- if America is ready. I doubt it will be, but let's see what happens between now and November 2008.
54 kommentaari:
Tere! Ei ole siiani teadnud Teiest ega Teie Itching for Estonia "blogist". Olen 60-aastane valis-eestlane Kanadas, tulles noorelt uuele mandrile ja kelle eesti keel on puudlik.
Loodan Eestimaale jalle tulla oma helilooja naisega jargmistel aastatel!
Minu abigaasa on Kanada hasti tuntud helilooja ja Kanada naiste heliloojate seltsi (ACWC) esinaine pr. Elma Miller, kelle helilooing "Kivihaldjate Haaled" sai Eestimaas esietendus prof.dr. P. Lassmanni poolt Tallinnas paar aastat tagasi.
Oleks hea Teielt veel kuulda.
Voite e-post mulle saata aadressil aadu.pilt@ontario.ca
Lugupidamistega,
Teie
Prof Dr Aadu Pilt
But what do u think about Clinton?
To me she seems a kind of down-to-earth person. I like Clinton. It might be also because I don't know too much about the other candidates. To be honest I don't know much about Clinton either. I only hope she can make right decisions - for example bring the troops out of Iraq and maybe get some troops into Iran, because Iran is the real enemy. Iraq has nothing to do with the 9/11. The (US) government/troops is/are in Iraq only for the money. I've learned this, because I watch "The View" and What Rosie Odonnell says, seems to be true.
Yessss!!!
I've asked Americans specifically, and apparently the prevailing sentiment is that it's a hell of a lot more likely that a black president will get elected than a woman president. And that it's mostly the women voters who don't want to see Hillary in office.
I think Hillary's best chance is to feed into the nostalgia for the Clinton administration; Clinton is now seen as naughty, but competent. Hillary should encourage the understanding that her candidacy is a loophole to get Team Billary back into the Oval Office and return to days of a balanced budget and increasing healthcare availability. Of course, it seems like this is the one thing she is not doing.
And last week I read your blog October 2006 - December 2006 and I found out that you know a lot more about Estonia than I do. I knew it even before that, actually. I can honestly say that I know almost nothing about the Estonian history and I don't care about it either. I only care about America. Here's one silly example: I don't watch "Eesti otsib superstari" but I love right now the 6'th season of American Idol. I also watch The Late Show With David Letterman and many other shows. I order my stuff from amazon.com/USA and I have an American flag hanging on my wall. I try to be as American as I possibly can. (as much as humanly possible in Estonia. lol. And as much as I have money.)Respect though.
Looking from Estonia, Clinton and McCain seem to be better options. Obama seems too soft on you-know-who.
Sten, if U.S. would really take the troops out of iraq and into Iran, the World War III would start so quickly that we would barely have time to spell "Russian occupation".
plasma-jack: explain
Looking from Estonia, Clinton and McCain seem to be better options. Obama seems too soft on you-know-who.
I don't think Obama has a track record on you-know-who. I have actually been paying a lot of attention to Mr. Kasparov's activity. It's nice to see some dissidents rising in Russia, even though everyone insists that the Russians don't care because thanks to Putin they can now renovate their apartments.
And last week I read your blog October 2006 - December 2006 and I found out that you know a lot more about Estonia than I do. I knew it even before that, actually. I can honestly say that I know almost nothing about the Estonian history and I don't care about it either.
Estonian history is very interesting because you get to watch how very big themes in history -- communism -- effect a small, basic country.
Estonia is a very basic country. It's people don't have a highly developed "culture" like France or Italy. It's a country of farmers and fisherman, it's a Lutheran country without the imperial pasts of Denmark or Sweden.
So every historical current that comes through -- the crusades, communism, etc. -- has an effect on a survivalist, base culture.
Because Estonia has survived, it shows you that "the basics" are stronger than all of this intellectual fluff -- whether it be Christ delivered by sword, or the "sun of Stalin."
Thats' sort of whay it is interesting.
In other words, what Justin just said is that that we are "metslased." :-)
I am not going to argue with that.
My computer is frustratingly slow today and deleted my previous comment. But I can sum up my views on Middle East:
Iraq is a big mess. Neighbouring states will get involved and even more people will get killed in the near future. If similar chaos is extended to Iran, it will affect the whole world.
Estonia is a very basic country. It's people don't have a highly developed "culture" like France or Italy. It's a country of farmers and fisherman, it's a Lutheran country without the imperial pasts of Denmark or Sweden.
Estonia is very much like the USA in this regard, so I can understand Guistino's admiration for his adopted country.
Yeah, very much like the USA minus the corn-syrup induced morbid obesity and all-out school shootings.
So far.
"I can honestly say that I know almost nothing about the Estonian history and I don't care about it either. I only care about America."
______________________________
How odd. Here I am American born and bred, and my family has been here since the 1700s. But I have no interest in America whatsoever. I lost all interest by 1985 when I realized that America was SO corrupt... that no HONEST man could ever be elected here. The system is so far above the average man that only the rich crooks, or a hell of a Flim-Flam man could ever be elected in America from then on out. You see.. we're all about shallow interests now. We find Hollywood to be MUCH more interesting than politics. Why? Because we can! We're all so damned fat and lazy over here that it's unbelievable! America has turned into a nation of toads that who's main interest is waddling to the next all-you-can-eat buffet.
And then... there's Estonia, which has more history in it's little finger than the US has in it's entire body. Estonia, who has suffered greatly throughout history and yet still survives pretty much intact. Estonia, who is showing the rest of the world how to become prosperous in the face of adversity.
Young man: Do not emulate Americans. Like everything that becomes "too" successful and then collapses... so too will America. We have lost our way. We are no longer the proud nation we once were. I'm not saying that we're bad. I'm saying that we're just riding on former glory, and that glory is running out.
I'm in NO way anti American. I am if anything, anti-what-America-has-become.
I am not a liberal nor hard core conservative. I am the guy in the middle that simply knows right from wrong. And I'll tell you this:
NONE of the candidates for president are worth the honor! Hillary is the most horrible female in the history of American politics. Oboma? What a joke. The token black guy that sounds like a white guy. The Blacks hate him and the whites aren't ready for a Black. But more importantly.. what has he don't to deserve to be the president of the United States? Absolutely nothing. So why not just go grab someone off the street and ask HIM to run?
The bottom line is that it doesnt matter WHO gets elected because America IS IN TOO DEEP now. People like me know it and we know that Americans will never change unless they are FORCED too.. by some sort of tragedy like World War III or a complete economic collapse. Only THAT will turn America around. Until that happens, only lightweights like Hillary and Obama will be trotted out.
WvSky and everybody: could some one please explain to me - why is Hilary so horible??? :)
NONE of the candidates for president are worth the honor! Hillary is the most horrible female in the history of American politics.
No she's not. But Hillary is accurately portrayed as an opportunist, and when she says that she wants to "have a conversation with America" I don't believe her. I think she just wants to be president. And I am probably right.
Oboma? What a joke. The token black guy that sounds like a white guy. The Blacks hate him and the whites aren't ready for a Black.
Obama is both white and black. His mother is a English-American from Kansas. His father was from Kenya. And he was born in Hawaii. So he's from both communities.
But more importantly.. what has he don't to deserve to be the president of the United States? Absolutely nothing. So why not just go grab someone off the street and ask HIM to run?
Isn't that what we've had after four years of W.? What did he really do other than inherit positions through the influence of his family?
I think that we in America are eating ourselves alive. Al Gore was a fine candidate in 2000 and he'd be a fine one in 2008. But he can't win because he's been misquoted as saying he invented the Internet, or he's too stiff, or he's too nerdy.
I mean the guy was a congressman, a senator, and the vice president of the United States. And he was in Vietnam, and he was a journalist, and he's been in the private sector and he's been a professor, and, now, he's a environmentalist thought guru.
The guy by all measurements would be a great president. But America rejects him because we reject ourselves. We'd rather beat each other up. We'd rather stare at each tree rather that take a look at the forest. We have the potential to be great, but we're wasting it.
Estonia is a very basic country. It's people don't have a highly developed "culture" like France or Italy. It's a country of farmers and fisherman, it's a Lutheran country without the imperial pasts of Denmark or Sweden.
A curious statement. Have you found a way to travel back in time and are actually writing from the 18th century? :-P
Or, what does "culture" actually mean to you? To me it means the way of doing things. Every form of human activity carries with with it the culture - the way of doing it.
How do you measure how developed a culture is? Is the French culture more advanced, because the French know more varieties of wine and cheese? Or is the Estonian culture "better", because our citizens are better able to protest without violence and damage to property?
I think we haven't been "metslased" or "matsid" for well more than a century already. By now, we very much share the civilization of Greece and Rome as a nation.
So in that respect, whatever happened to us in the 20th century, did not happen to a "basic" nation. And I don't see that we currently have much more of "the basics" (whatever Giustino means by that) than the French, or much less civilization than the Italians, for example.
It would be interesting to read more about how Estonia is "basic" and what it means.
I assume there are many levels to this "basics."
How do you measure how developed a culture is? Is the French culture more advanced, because the French know more varieties of wine and cheese? Or is the Estonian culture "better", because our citizens are better able to protest without violence and damage to property?
"Culture" is a loaded term, right? Let me put it this way, through the ages, there have been relatively few wider institutions in Estonia that had their root in Estonia.
From the Baltic German culture to Russian Communist culture -- Estonia has been sort of tossed in a sea of larger European ideas.
And unlike Denmark and Sweden -- who once had wider visions of 'Swedishness' and 'Danishness' that served their imperial interests (broad enough to include possessions like Greenland, the Faroes, Iceland, and Norway, not to mention Finland and Estonia), Estonianness has been limited to living in Estonia and speaking Estonian.
Those things that are "purely" Estonian are associated with folk culture. This is what I mean as "basic" -- I am talking about a culture that predates many of those "European storms" I mentioned above and survived them too.
So in that respect, whatever happened to us in the 20th century, did not happen to a "basic" nation. And I don't see that we currently have much more of "the basics" (whatever Giustino means by that) than the French, or much less civilization than the Italians, for example.
Let me ask you this, and I ask it openly. Was Estonian communism different from Latvian communism? Were Estonian communists different from Finnish communists? Where was the "Estonian" component in its communist period?
Because I think that given their weighty historical backgrounds, France (the country that guillotined its royals) and Italy (the remnants of Rome that only became a country in the 1860s) cannot help but react to 'Europe-wide' movements or international movements -- like communism -- without undergoing some kind of differentiation whereby it becomes "Gallic communism" or "Italo-communism" -- with its own goals relative to those nations' histories.
So what about Estonian communism. In what way was it 'Estonian' and not just Russian communism grafted by force onto Estonia?
Because I am sure that the Estonian communists had their own ideas about how to make Estonia communist that didn't simply mean rendering the country a constituency of the USSR.
Vares, Lauristin, Ruus, Andreson -- they may have been naive, but they weren't idiots either.
So it would helpful if I could see how this Europe-wide movement had its own special Estonian component that was a reaction to Estonian history -- not just serving the interest of a foreign power or movement.
It would be interesting to read more about how Estonia is "basic" and what it means.
I assume there are many levels to this "basics."
Think about it like an experiment. Estonia is like the controls. It's not like other European countries where you have wacky institutions that ruin your experiment (like the Mafia in Italy).
Instead, it *was* a nation of farmers and fishermen. It's a survivalist culture with these very everyday, northern European institutions -- the Lutheran church, the university.
Unlike Sweden and Denmark, it has no imperial past. Which puts in it the same bucket as say Norway or Finland as far as northern European countries go -- definitely not Holland and Germany or even Poland and Lithuania, which have significant imperial pasts.
Estonia's great aspiration has always been to go about its own business and to manage its own affairs.
Has that been France's aspiration? The UKs? Absolutely not. So Estonia is like Ireland or Finland -- a country that is 'basic' in its aspirations.
What makes Estonia interesting is that it got swept up in so many winds of history, the Teutonic Crusades, the Viking age, Swedish then Russian empire, communism, 19th century romantic nationalism. It's done it all, and it's small, and it's sort of easy to get a handle on. That's what I mean by basic.
Giustino,
I think, most generally, you see qualitative differences where I see quantitative ones, and consequently it is really hard for me to really get what you're trying to say. I'm unable to answer in any sort of comprehensive way.
But perhaps these notes will help build the bridge:
- the Estonian nation has been a protagonist on the world stage very rarely. It was until 1227 (although the Estonian people then were not a unified nation), it was from 1918-1940, and it is now, since 1991.
- before 1227, it was common for Estonian tribes to make raids against their neighbours both by land and by sea.
- Estonian communism wasn't Estonian because it wasn't directed from Estonia - the Estonian nation was essentially subjected to the Russian.
Wouldn't you say, though, for example that the European ideas of capitalism and democracy have acquired a distinctly Estonian flavour in Estonia - and that they are directly a reaction to our history - now that the Estonians are the dominant nationality on this territory?
That was also the gist of my rather misunderstood joke in the previous thread: Tallinn's old town, for example, is not in any real way a part of the history of the Estonian nation.
The territory was dominated by the German nation then, and of course all the European ideas had a German flavour to them at that time in Estonia. Etc.
And, I guess, for the sake of historical accuracy, when talking about medieval times, it is actually more correct to call our ancestors the native people of the territory that is now known as Estonia, as they were not called Estonians before the 19th century.
I think I understand what Justin means by "basic" when he refers to Estonian culture. Estonians have been the "maa- ja metsarahvas" (country and forest people) for centuries, that's where our roots are. We didn't have a highly civilized culture thousands of years ago, like the Romans did, or like the ancient Greeks had their democracy while Estonians were still living in tribes and hunting for game in the woods.
We descend from the peasant culture, and the same down-to-earth common sense and doggedness that our forefathers had has, funnily enough, been the main key of our existence today. Come to think of it, it's kind of amazing really, how we have survived all the horrible times and the numerous conquerors and not become extinct, considering the rather small number of our population, is it not? A lot of small related nations in Russia have unfortunately not been so lucky...
Also, much closer, our cousins, the Livonians..
It's good that you understand, Anna, because I with my closed mind still don't.
I mean, now, in a unified European cultural space, with very similar circumstances and education - how is the Estonian basic, while the French/Italian/Greek is not?
"When you prick him, does he not bleed?" :-P
Hm... I think Estonian culture is more basic compared to the "old European cultures" (such as French/Greek/British/etc) in the way that we are still more connected to our roots, folk culture and nature than they are. I could give you a very simple example. For instance, I really don't have any western European friends who would go picking mushrooms or berries in the forest and then make home-made jelly from it (not mushroom jelly! :)) That's just one every-day example I have come across, but there are many others that show that most of Western Europe (and the U.S) have grown apart from the nature and traditional life style.
... but the topic above has nothing to do really with the original post by Justin, about Bush the lameduck. :)
I mean, now, in a unified European cultural space, with very similar circumstances and education - how is the Estonian basic, while the French/Italian/Greek is not?
Kristjan, you are the penultimate Estonian. Always willing to debate until the last foreigner throws in his tired towel :-)
Also the truly penultimate Estonian thing is to demand "tõde and õigus" (no matter what the cost).
Estonians also like to rip each other apart. I mean I did that interview on ETV, and at least four people said nasty things about Kiur, who happened to be a generous and welcoming host that plied us with free whiskey. What's up with that?
if estonians go berry picking still to this day, that shows they are more in touch with their culture and history, and perhaps makes estonia more advanced culturally! i have no illusions about the "advanced" nature of the french or british. they are perhaps more likely than some to spend the day playing their xbox than appreciating some of their great art works, or considering the wonders of a bygone imperium, no doubt now lamented by those colonies themselves. i'd much rather be estonian than french OR british, and as an estonian, would feel as though i had more to be proud of NOW than most other countries. as an australian of finnish descent, perhaps i'm no-one to comment. :)
It's tempting to view Estonia as a real-life version of the Shire and Estonians as hobbits going about their basic business but actually Estonia has probably the same proportion of potential dictators, world leaders and members of the elite, murderers and saints as any other country.
And what about Suur-Eesti. In the 1920s a lot of people in the intellgentsia had a vision of a larger Estonia, a more general pan-Finno-Ugric union.
Human nature plus resources adds up to the same ambitions, anywhere and everywhere. But Estonia's lot is that it is relatively poor and geographically hard to defend.
I think common folk are largely the same everywhere i.e. interested in going about their own business. Tolkien modelled his hobbits on provioncial Brits of the time (no, not Estonians...). Likewise, elites and government are largely also the same from place to place -- mercantilist, expansionist.
Re prez elections, I\m as dying for an alternative as anybody.
Odd, though, our love for white-looking media darlings -- just this side of Anthony Hopkins's turn as a black man in that movie. And yet for eight years in the 1990s the US already had a honorary black president who probably did more for racial relations in the US than electing a candidate whose name is one letter away from being Public Enemy #1 would.
The conventional wisdom on McCain is that he has too much of a temper. The funny thing is, I can almost live with corruption and religious zealotry (after all I have survived six years of Bush) but anger and nuclear buttons really do not mix, apart for the need for a cool head which is a daily requirement for being an effective prez.
But with posse comitatus pretty much abolished by Bush, I don't think that just scaremongering to say that presidential elections can be taken for granted. You don't do the things that Bush did in 2000 and 2001 just to cede power peacefully eight years later.
I'd like to hear more about why Obama seems a nicer guy than other democrats. Only because of "his inexperience coupled with his ambition"? And what about that guy called Edwards?
I'd like to hear more about why Obama seems a nicer guy than other democrats. Only because of "his inexperience coupled with his ambition"? And what about that guy called Edwards?
I don't think that he's a 'nicer guy' -- and I am not endorsing him. I am simply saying what I wrote -- that one of the missions for 2008 is to clean house -- to "throw the bums out" -- and that an Obama presidency would probably be able to accomplish some of that.
Doesn't Obama's lack of experience worry you? The Bush presidency has set the standard for the number officials who have no experience or expertise being assigned to senior posts only to lead to disaster. Isn't it time we got back to having experienced leaders in the White House? Obama seems to have a lot of great qualities but his 2-3 years in the Senate doesn't seem like enough federal experience in high power politics.
Oh, and how tough will it be getting elected with a name like Barrack Hussein Obama. :)
Doesn't Obama's lack of experience worry you? The Bush presidency has set the standard for the number officials who have no experience or expertise being assigned to senior posts only to lead to disaster.
Dick Cheney had plenty of experience too.
Right about that awful name. A guy with a name of Eidolph Heetler would have about the same chance of getting elected. Nothing personal. Just the name.
Joy Behar on "The View" accidentally said Obama Bin Laden :D
Obama... Osama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDcSC7SoJRw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UJrPq6pm10
Looks like Obama is campaigning on a different circuit, though. Putin is not running for a third term, and that is a definite money shot. Look at that far-sighted squint into the distance. Or -- must be chilly in short sleeves -- is he just thinking about buying a bufaika at the GUM?
Right about that awful name. A guy with a name of Eidolph Heetler would have about the same chance of getting elected. Nothing personal. Just the name.
I went to school with a guy named Barack -- a Jewish guy from Maryland. So his first name doesn't seem so foreign to me. As for Obama -- well most Americans have interesting last names. However, other than Eisenhower, we haven't had much luck electing guys that don't have basic English last names.
US presidents with non-English names? I can only think of Martin Van Buren, both Roosevelts and J.F.Kennedy.
Well, I support Barack Obama as well.
In my opinion, there are only two 'real' candidates in Democratic party for the 2008 elections - Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Yes, there is also John Edwards, but somehow I have a feeling that he would be left out. So, the battle goes between Obama and Clinton, where (at list I am hoping so) Obama will come out as the "winner." Don't really thing the US is ready for a female president- at least not yet.
It is also important to mention that I am democrat!
Republican party have some strong candidates on their side, such as Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, or so one.
Overall, I am hoping that the US people would vote for whoever would represent the democratic party because of the fact that they are disappointed with the current President; therefore, with the Republican party.
O.k. The Clintons wrote their biographies. You can sympathize with them or not. But they love the political details, they go through the whole procedure, they love the details: Health insurance!
When Bush was elected the first time I'm remembering the reaction of two Afro-Americans from the US in Berlin. At the Zoo Central Station while wathing a public tv screen: 'The Americans don't like intellectuals as president!!!'
Clinton and Obama are going to dilute the democratic vote, republicans are going to rally behind one candidate and the result is that they are going to win again. And it is going to be yet another Bush. Jeb has been groomed for years for that moment and at least by appearance he comes off slicker than his dimwitted bro. Every checkered flannel shirt out with a yellow ribbon sticker on his Toyota Tundra will vote for him, even if it gets all his bucktoothed cousins maimed and killed overseas. Never underestimate the stupidity of this nation. We are number one, we are number one, we are number one!
Clinton and Obama are going to dilute the democratic vote, republicans are going to rally behind one candidate and the result is that they are going to win again.
I agree, the Republicans will definitely win again. Probably John McCain, for no other reason other than he has a solid anglo sounding name.
Clinton and Obama are going to dilute the democratic vote, republicans are going to rally behind one candidate and the result is that they are going to win again.
This doesn't really make affect anything. Clinton and Obama (and don't count out Edwards and Gore) will fight it out for the Democratic nomination and the winner will go head to head against the Republican nominee so there is no vote splitting.
[i]Overall, I am hoping that the US people would vote for whoever would represent the democratic party because of the fact that they are disappointed with the current President; therefore, with the Republican party.[/i]
I am a conservative but no longer a Republican. The Republicans represent me about as much as the Democrats do. Having said that, Bush and a handful of cronies do not represent the real Republican party. They only represent themselves.
And they've learned the hard way that real conservatives wont tolerate the stupidity of the current Republican party. That's why I, along with many others are now "Independents". And don't think for a moment that the Republican party isn't taking notice.
The Democrats wont save us. This country is basically broke. We haven't had the gold to back-up the paper money we've been printing now for 25 years. We're surviving on credit. And the Democrats want to give away even MORE money that we don't have. This will be the downfall of America. And it really doesn't matter WHO's in office because when it comes to fiscal matters, you cant tell one party from another now.
It would be nice if more and more americans began thinking for themselves and stop mindlessly lapping up all the crap that is given to them by their leaders. Stop identifying themselves along the party lines. For crissake, learn from Estonians - we do not rally behind any of our leaders and never have. We don't trust them and we certainly do not celebrate them. (Well, that is another extreme, but at least it speaks a lot for having clear and independent minds that can judge for themselves.)
[i]And it really doesn't matter WHO's in office because when it comes to fiscal matters, you cant tell one party from another now.[/i]
Well that's true- they are kind of the same these days, but still - I'd go for Democratic Party anytime over Republican P. One of the reasons would be simply the fact that Clinton did better than Bush, in my opinion. So- after the bad years with Bush (and Republicans) it's time to try Democrats again. Somehow I think Obama (or even Clinton) would make a difference.
When it comes to the "Country is broke" issue, then there's nothing much the leadership can do. Well, there is, but it won't be efficient, UNLESS the whole people in US understand it as well.
I'm Estonian, lived in Atlanta for almost two years now. I've learned that most people here think that US is the no 1 country in the world in any way, but they do not realize the potential of European Union (who, by the way, is passing US any moment now), and also all the foreign students from India, China, etc, who sooner or later will return to their home countries with all that knowledge!
The reason for US downfall is simple - its people's lack of education on that field.
Postita kommentaar