Gazpacho and Ignacio,

Perhaps Booklady could correct me on this but Socrates preached against the "democratic" oligarchy of Athens.
Also, I was taught by a high school teacher (who was and H.L. Mencken wannabe) that the meaning of democracy was two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.

Cogito cogito ergo sum cogito

Yes, Pinguino, while Socrates was critical of the Athenian political machine he was not however in league with the 30 tyrants. He was doomed because of the politics of his two closest associates. He was acused of trumped up charges of corrupting the young, his real crime was being the friend of one of the 30 tyrants and a politician in decline!!! He was judged by his associates, not by what he taught.

Ignacio states:
I agree with you the political machine (in any country) is such that only those who are very wealthy, powerful, or willing to sell themselves become powerful. It has always been this way. Honesty and politicians is an oxymoron. Read Machiavelli for a full discourse of being a politician. Honest politicians who cannot be corrupted are usually killed off by their opposition early on in their careers, or are discredited by the opposition. A perfect example is Camilo Cienfuegos in Cuba, who actually believed in the revolution, Fidel had him killed.

Because, there is no perfection in this world. There are no "good" guys they are only HUMAN BEINGS with the natural failings, regardless of nationality, sex, or race. The key is to vote them out early. We give our presidents only two 4 year terms, Fantastic!! They're out after 4 or at mnost 8 years.

Are you referring to Spain? I thought you liked Mr. Zapatero's policies?

In regards to original Athenian democracy, I would agree with Gazpacho and Pinguino, that it is less desirable, since it excludes so much of the non-voting populace, namely women, only males could vote. Modern democracy and specifically a representative democrary favors human beings best. Most of the world democracies are representative democracies: England, Germany, the U. S. and Spain are in this category. We elect people to represent us.

The best system is the one where political leaders stay in power the least amount of time , so you have continual change over.

I prefer it when the Senate, the House and the President are of opposing parties, that way they do the least amount of harm to the citizen. It's when they are in cahoots that you have to be careful.

See Ignacio, we all have more in common than we think we do!

Bookie,

Great analysis! You are - without doubt - our philosophical voice of reason.

I also agree that Camilo Cienfuegos was executed by Fidel Castro because he was as popular as Fidel. Of the four leaders, Fidel Castro, Raul Castro, Che Guevera, & Cienfuegos, he was the only one who wasn't a Communist. He was an Anarchist, and his leanings were more towards a Republic than the offerings of the Communists.

The story of his plane "vanishing in the ocean" is the cover story that Castro used to keep the people from rising up against him - had they known he had him killed.

By some accounts, even the rebel army would have split, and the majority would have followed Cienfuegos had he decided that the other three were to be ousted.

He also would have had an inordinate amount of support from the populace of Havana, and the outlying regions that knew him. It could have been a different Cuba than the one we've known, had he survived, and had his say in the forming of the government.

I'm adding this link to The Republic, by Plato . It's available, along with most of the fantastic works of the past through Project Gutenberg. http://www.gutenberg.net/etext/150

From this location, people can go to a plathera of sites throughout the world and gain free access to works that have been translated, and are worth spending time visiting. Republic is just one of those works, and each visit is well worth the effort.

It's my favorite resource. I have downloaded and printed an amazing number of works that I have scribbled notes in the margins on, which I wouldn't have done had they been actual books.

Wolf

Well done Booklady,

Yes, the overall feeling I get when reading poor Ignacio's posts, is that he's searching for a reality which doesn't exist. He and his ilk still cling to conciousness preceding existence myth. You and I both know that we have to deal with the one and only reality, the good with the bad, it's all glorious.

And, not surprisingly, and not very unique in his contradictions, he distrust the same people that he advocates as the legitimate providers of the earth, that is, politicians. There is no one you can elect that is ever going to look out for your best interest. It just isn't human nature. We just have to try and do our best, using what intelletual powers we have, to elect who we think is best. This is the only benefit, and an all powerful one, of democracy.

The Philippines also had a very good man who was president for a very short time before his demise. His name was Magsaysay, and he was to the Philippinos as Lincoln was to us, a president of the common man. Many believe, if it hasn't been proven by now, that he was murdered by his adversaries.

C'mon guys, it's not so brilliant. It's sunday morning and I don't feel like writing a lot, but I knew there was going to be polemics with "the greek democracy", and I welcome it to come.

Plato's death was because just previously to reinstaurating democracy, there had been a brief period of oligarchy, and he was blamed of siding with them secretly.

Gazpacho: Old Greek History goes along centuries, and the government forms are different for each city and the region it controlled. Customs were different in each, but I am speaking now of the ones with democracy.

For example, in Sparta there was no democracy, and they never pretended there was. The citizens (I believe it was only the old ones) selected two tyrants, who governed, and there were much more so called "slaves" (or servants with very few rights, more accurately) called "ilotas" than citizens.

About Zapatero, this is my quote. I'll highlight some words for you:

It's obvious that for me, Z is one of these few, and the way he is inmediatly putting in practice his promises proofs he is an idealist.

But I wouldn'd give blind support to anyone. I liked a lot Felipe González, and the outcome (that at first I couldn't believe)was state killings, massive corruption, entrance in the NATO (he had promised the opposite), and so on.

Men change.Rottening is a natural process.

Gazpacho,

Over the years there have been a lot of "airplane accidents" that have claimed the lives of people who would make change in the world. Even two of Franco's "partners" in the uprising against the Spanish Republic died in plane crashes. Then add the two names you and Bookie mentioned and it isn't the end, it's just the beginning.

The thing about these mysterious plane crashes is they all seem to happen in areas where the wreckage will never be found, and nobody can identify any foul play having happened.

Coinicidence? I think not.

Wolf

Anytime a documentary is made whether by one person or organization it's going to be slanted. It doesn't matter if it's Michael Moore, The National Geographic, Greenpeace, etc. They want their side to be heard, they want to broadcast their opinions on a particular topic. There is not true unbiased documentary.

Michael Moore has his opinions regarding politics and other issues such as gun control. Many of the things he mentions in the movie can be found in the newsmedia or public documents regarding the Bush family and the other "cast members" of his film. The Bush family has had ties with the Saudis and Bin Ladins way before either George was President. The Clintons had the white river scandel as well as his sexual escapades. Reagan had Iran-Contra, etc. etc.

Anyone could have made documentaries regarding these issues. Oliver North tried to put his spin on the JFK conspiracy. Michael Moore just did a better job at it!

Take it with a grain of salt. It's not gospel. At least it makes you think. And, yes I agree with MM that all Americans should have the right to question the actions of their leaders.

Ah, the brilliant Wolf,

You know without me having to state it that Magsaysay died in a "plane crash". Did you know the story, or did you look it up?

Hey Michael Moore,

Take your movie and shove it up your large arse. It didn't work.

gazpacho wrote: Ah yes. You're so gracious and humble in victory.

Now Michael Moore will have "4 More Years!" (OR LESS!) of accumulated material for his next exposé on President Bush. Don't think he isn't already in the planning stages for that.

Saludos, MadridMan