Only an American would get excited with the possibility of going to war with their closest ally. Second closest, I guess, since Russia is now the closest.
My analysis should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the idea. I think the US annexing Canada is pretty high on the list of dumb things to do. Total waste of time and energy for very nebulously defined benefits.
If I put on my realpolitik hat though, it makes sense why Trump & friends want Canada, same reason they want Greenland: access to the Arctic. Look at a world map and how Canada and Greenland are placed relative to the US. Trump is a real estate guy and lots of land is always the best thing to have.
For Greenland, the United States has no need to flex its military muscle if they want to take it over. The Greenlanders want to be free from Denmark and this is a great opportunity for them to achieve that.
Possible timeline of events:
* Greenland leaves the Danish Realm
* Greenland becomes sovereign nation
* Greenland enters Compact of Free Association with the United States (similar to Kiribati and Micronesia) - boom, best of all worlds for the USA. Juicy real estate, military boost, a local indigenous population that will be able to do nil about it.
* With Greenland secure, the United States finds a pretext for NATO withdrawal.
* The United States either pressures Canada into joining the US or invades outright. European partners do not come to Canada's defence and NATO is officially over. Maybe a European version of it rises in the aftermath.
From there, hard to say what will happen. I would be worried if I was an Icelander.
Good point - these could most likely be exploited as well. That's another way for the US to get there. Break up Canada. The Quebecois get to be their own mini-nation. Not sure what would happen to the Maritimes or Newfoundland. And it's not like Western Canada is uncontroversial, look how much people bag on Alberta.
The thing that would for sure not happen is Canada becoming an actual state in the US. Way too liberal for that and logistically it wouldn't make sense.
Greenlanders don't want to become part of the USA afaik, but they know that in the current situation becoming independent means being invaded, sooner or later, by the USA, Russia or China, so I think that the scenario of Greenland trying to become a sovereign nation is less likely now.
As for Canada, although there are a number of Trump supporters that foam at the idea of invading their neighbor, I think that the invasion would be deeply unpopular (a number of people voted for Trump because he was supposed to stop the wars, not start new ones), especially if the Canadian population offer some kind of resistance although who knows, it is just a matter of enough propaganda...
I believe Vend just launched their online POS yesterday to compete more directly with Shopify. Previously, they were doing well with bricks and mortar stores.
While I agree that most people don't want one person/team winning all the time, I believe that this does generate more interest, ie. Many people will take a vested interest in a baseball game so that they can cheer against the Yankees.
Cheering against the Yankees would be a waste of time if the Yankees literally won all the time. It would increase people's interest in the game the same way that a trick coin increases people's interest in betting on coin flips.
I think that we should try to eliminate the distinction between artistic works and technological/scientific works. They should both go hand in hand. The word technology comes from the Greek word techne which roughly translates to art. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Techne
During the time that the works were collected for the library of Alexandria fewer people could read and write than can today, which made it difficult for people to write books. Today, with blogs and other works available over the internet, we have the capability to create a vast database of everything from the noblest to the most unrefined or unsophisticated works of human achievement. Anybody with access to the internet can publish their opinions online for others to agree or disagree with them in order to find the truth about things. Plus dentistry has come a long way, we deal with toothaches much better nowadays than our ancestors could ;)
Thats an interesting explanation for how art comes to be. It reminds me of the novel 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance', in which the author talks about the beauty and art in technology, and fixing motorcycles.
Very true. Proper grammar is important, and this forum is as good as any place to clear up any questions so that mistakes can be avoided in the future.
I totally agree. I feel that if something is important, than the message should not be only available to people who can afford to read/hear the message, but should be readily available for anyone who is willing to learn. Whenever I read a great book, or hear a great song, I try to promote it as much as possible because I think that it is important that the artist's message is heard and understood by as many people as possible. Some of my favourite 'artists' (such as Franz Kafka and Carl Sagan) held day jobs in professional/scientific fields. I realize that their material is copyrighted, but my point is that art and learning/the spreading of ideas should be done for the sake of art itself or learning itself, not for the sake of profit. I chose those two as examples because they made their living (for the most part) by working at their day jobs, and created their art because they wanted to deliver a message, not because they wanted to get rich.
If someone gets paid for the art they produce, then they can spend their full time on tuning their art. I wonder what the world would be like if Michaelangelo had a day job.
I hope you're saying this tongue in cheek because Michelangelo (like most of our great artists btw) ofcourse did have a dayjob. He was struggling for money for the better part of his life, taking on jobs that he hated. Where do you think the "poor artist" or "suffering for art" memes come from?
There was no such thing as a "record deal" in the old times either. You had to suffer until your popularity would pay for itself - and without the leverage of mass media, too.
I'm not sure if what you are saying is that creative people should give their stuff away and suffer until the off chance they get popular and get paid? Just because you want to get their stuff for free?
There was no such thing as medical treatment in the old times either, doesn't mean we should stop it. Hell, there was no such thing as reproducing someones creative work for zero cost in the old times either. Does that mean we should stop that?
I think our world is better off by having creative people paid to be creative. I know the RIAA are bad news, but I haven't seen any realistic alternative offered.
Evolution makes no offers, it selects and extinguishes. In this case it has extinguished the record industry, at least the part that failed to adapt. It also doesn't care much about laws or the outcome of a pirate bay trial.
Time will tell which of the new models can prevail but one thing is already clear: The middleman is gone. The big monopolies that used to shove Britney Spears down our collective throats are mostly gone.
On youtube nobody cares whether you're Britney Spears. If your music is good then people might push the "donate" button. If your music sucks then you can just as well shave your head...
Yes, this will make it probably harder for individual artists to execute their god-given right of raking in millions on end. Cry me a river.
Perhaps I picked a bad example, but for most of his art he was, in fact, paid for it. And it is hard for me to imagine that he would have had the resources to create, say, the Sistine Chapel ceiling if he were doing it for free.
Of course, nowadays our idea of art is a mashup, so maybe that can mix fine with an anti-market ideology.
Michael-Angelo (one of the greatest artists of all time) is as good an example as any. But I think that he was commissioned to do the Sistine Chapel, he didn't paint the Chapel and then charge admission to it (I think the church took care of that).
If the book is to be believed then he was a sculpter at heart and didn't actually like painting much. He was indeed commissioned to do the chapel but I unfortunately can't remember whether he did it out of free will or whether he was pressed to do it.
Thanks for the book recommendation, thats my favourite way to find new material to read. I've put your recommendation on my ever increasing list of books to read this summer.
The reality is that is usually the marketing force behind an artist that generates his revenue, not actually the art itself. I have met so many extraordinary musicians that can shred the guitar and who write very clever music on a daily basis but will never make any money at it unless someone better looking than them takes their music and performs it. Since Meatloaf, I cannot think of any fat pop musicians. Art driven by profits is not always the best art. Coming from eastern Canada, Friday nights and weekends we have caleighs where anyone can pick up an instrument, sing or clap along, and nobody ever holds out for more money to perform. I do agree with your first sentence though, more time spent on art produces better art. But in the case of Carl Sagan who was a scientist, got his inspiration from his day job, which in turn helped him to produce his art (I include his Cosmos series as part of his art, I don't think we need to get into the debate of what is and isn't art). Its more of a sad reality that most art needs money to exist. I'm not calling for an art revolution or anything, I just wanted to point this out as some food for thought. Inspiration can come from anywhere.
Going at art in this way is backwards from the direction that children need to be taught. Not everyone is a potential scientist, or businessman...What about children who are born to be dancers? Or musicians? With this mind set, the arts will slowly degrade as children are shunned away from them due to an assumed "lack of money" in the business.
I don't believe that any job exists a priori in any person. Although if I were born with a better voice I would be a better singer. Bob Dylan wasn't blessed with a beautiful voice (as opposed to Bocelli) but he is still a great singer because he had the passion to learn how to sing. Nobody is born to be a dancer or accountant, these are skills that must be learned and developed.
