Oops, Mike I missed this. Where's the information? We're not in a court where each side expresses itself and a judge/jury makes decisions as to who is right? All I've read are questions that no one can deal with, as noted above. . . . The mechanisms for discourse are limited (there's no courtroom or hearing). In this region, the political and civil leaders are in control of the conversation, and even some of the analysis that's making it into the public domain (i.e., Rand's stuff) is not as well grounded as some of us might hope. We're not in good shape. Accordingly, I think you're making a dichotomy our of analysis and logic, as presented in my e-mail, may be interpretated by some as an acceptance of the inevitable -- no change, we'll be okay, things will take care of themselves, our leaders are doing the best they can, etc.
And I replied:
I'm a lawyer, but I'm happy to move forward before a jury has reached its verdict. Lawyers often are. Do we have no information at all, or do we have incomplete information? I suspect that we agree that the latter is the case. Is the information we have sufficient for properly motivated people to take steps to move the region forward -- politically, economically, culturally -- even if we don't know precisely what the end-game is? I tend to think so, but there's plenty of room for disagreement. Do we have the right people, with the right openness and the right motivation, in control, who are willing to participate in a conversation about how to move forward? Clearly not. We agree on the fact that control of the political / civic discourse in the region has been concentrated for too long in the hands of people who have no interest in progress. > If anything that I may have said in reply to your email that could be read as implicit endorsement of acceptance of the inevitable, or of current leadership, . . . then I obviously erred almost catastrophically. (I can admit 3 mistakes before lunch!) Nothing could be further from my views!The conversation continues!