# The United States of America **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [August 27, 2005, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-united-states-of-america/318861 "2005-08-27T13:50:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2005, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-united-states-of-america/318861/61 "2005-08-28T18:29:21Z")
Are you saying that education might be a useful tool in this battle, **Gorsnak**? That’s just crazy enough to work! 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2005, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-united-states-of-america/318861/62 "2005-08-28T19:16:40Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > House of Lords? 😕 There’s no House of Lords in this country. See my post above where I also referenced Parliament in the United Kingdom. > [@](#): > > Our Senate is rather undemocratic, being an appointed body, but as it has scarcely more power than the Governor General that’s a moot point. Actually, it’s not. You referred to our Senate as being undemocratic. It’s not. Also, our Senate has power for the very good reason which I also mentioned above. > [@](#): > > I guess I’m just baffled by why you’d think that a minor industry convincing the rest of the country to break a treaty with your largest trading partner when doing so even absent retaliation is bad for the country as a whole is an example of avoiding the tyranny of the majority. It seems like a prime example of the evils of special interest groups wielding disproportionate power to me. I’m not talking about the minor industry. I’m talking about your assertion that my country’s system of government isn’t democratic. ---
**Author:** ![Netbrian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/71e660/32.png) [@Netbrian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Netbrian)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2005, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-united-states-of-america/318861/63 "2005-08-28T19:28:58Z")
> [@adam yax](#): > > The recent talks on FTAA have ground to a halt, probably because free trade sure doesn’t seem to equal fair trade. I would disagree, and say that free trade would indeed equal fair trade. The problem we have here is that the definition of free trade used by American politicians is too often “trade that happens to be unfair in our favor, and doesn’t worry any of our favorite lobby’s pretty little heads”. See also our agreement with Australia, which happened to nicely ignore sugar, one of the areas that might actually improve American prices. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2005, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-united-states-of-america/318861/64 "2005-08-28T19:35:08Z")
> [@grienspace](#): > > I’d like to inform **Monty** that if he ever comes up to Canada this time of year he should leave his snow skis at home. I cordially invite you also to re-read my posting above where I referenced the UK Parliament. I am also aware that certain parts of Canada are not covered with snow year-round. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2005, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-united-states-of-america/318861/65 "2005-08-28T19:38:17Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > You’re not serious, are you? You thnk there’s even a remote chance that the U.S. would invade Canada? Not at present, no. It’s not currently in their national interest. > [@](#): > > And before we go throwing out the baby with the bathwater, we have to remember that Free Trade is a very good thing for us. DR-CAFTA is a good thing for us. NAFTA is a good thing for us. What we want to do is to get the U.S. to live up to those agreements - not to destroy them. Well, we can’t do it by kowtowing to them on missile defense and such; helping out on 9/11 and fighting in their defense in Afghanistan doesn’t even earn us a thank you from their President. But a trade war’s not in our interest, either. I’m suggesting using the drive towards DR-CAFTA to force them to respect the trade agreements they’ve already signed. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2005, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-united-states-of-america/318861/66 "2005-08-28T19:47:16Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > I’m not talking about the minor industry. I’m talking about your assertion that my country’s system of government isn’t democratic. All I meant by undemocratic was that some people’s votes count for more than those of others. If you don’t wish to characterize that as undemocratic, fine. I don’t really care. But it’s an undeniable aspect of the structure of the US Senate. My original point was that this dispute is an illustration of the downside of the non-proportional representation in your Senate. It allows a minor industry to have disproportionate political clout by virtue of being concentrated in several small states. You disputed that. Apparently, having a small special interest group convince the your country to hurt itself economically whilst simultaneously inciting a potentially devastating trade war doesn’t count as a downside for you. I think that makes it clear that, at least with regards to this particular issue, you’re an idiot. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2005, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-united-states-of-america/318861/67 "2005-08-28T20:00:23Z")
And you’re a rude snot who obviously doesn’t know jack. Yet the thing I’m talking about was directly related to what you actually said. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2005, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-united-states-of-america/318861/68 "2005-08-28T20:11:02Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > And you’re a rude snot who obviously doesn’t know jack. Yet the thing I’m talking about was directly related to what you actually said. Yes, I’m very rude. You’re the one who waltzed into this thread and dismissed the complaints of the OP, as if it is somehow unacceptable to expect the US to actually live up to its treaty obligations. And then you take offense when I make an entirely innocuous statement about the political reality which has generated the dispute. What, exactly, have I said in this thread which indicates that I don’t know jack? I beg to be illuminated. Fight my ignorance, please! Am I wrong that representation in the US Senate is non-proportional? Am I wrong that the lumber tariffs do more harm to the US economy in general than they help the US lumber industry? Am I wrong that the lumber tariffs are the result of the US lumber industry lobby having substantial influence in a number of small states? Am I wrong that this result is a downside to the structure of the Senate? What, precisely, don’t I know jack about? ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2005, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-united-states-of-america/318861/69 "2005-08-28T20:23:51Z")
Read for comprehension. I didn’t dismiss the claims. What I did do, though, was tell you that your opinion of the democratic nature of my country’s congress is misguided. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2005, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-united-states-of-america/318861/70 "2005-08-28T20:26:39Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > Am I wrong that representation in the US Senate is non-proportional? While (naturally) I agree with you on most points here, I can see what’s putting a hair up **Monty** ’s butt about this. “Non-proportional” =/= “Undemocratic.” While European and Canadian folks may naturally be more inclined to feel that proportional representation is something to aim for than U.S. folks do, there is nothing fundamentally _undemocratic_ about an explicitly majoritarian system. We can argue about whether or not it’s _better_, but it is flat-out wrong to say that a majoritarian system in undemocratic. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2005, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-united-states-of-america/318861/71 "2005-08-28T20:40:05Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > Read for comprehension. I didn’t dismiss the claims. What I did do, though, was tell you that your opinion of the democratic nature of my country’s congress is misguided. No, what you did was disagree with my statement that the softwood dispute is a downside of the structure of your Senate. You can either defend that position substantively or continue nitpicking my posts, as you please. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2005, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-united-states-of-america/318861/72 "2005-08-28T21:06:50Z")
No, what I did was address the simple assertion you made that the structure of my country’s congress is undemocratic. Again, read for comprehension. This time, read what’s actually written. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2005, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-united-states-of-america/318861/73 "2005-08-28T21:12:38Z")
FTR: I have made no assertions regarding the desirability of the decisions made by either the current US administration or the US Congress. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2005, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-united-states-of-america/318861/74 "2005-08-28T21:18:18Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > I don’t buy this line of reasoning at all. I mean, I’m sure that Carolyn Parrish has done nothing to aid the cause of the Canadian lumber industry, let’s be real here. The dispute over softwood lumber trade has been going on since 1982. Mulroney and Reagan got on famously, but that didn’t do anything to resolve the issue. Nor did good relations between Chretien and Clinton. The simple fact of the matter is that the issue is driven by the structure of the US Senate. The US lumber industry is concentrated in several smallish states, and small states have power out of proportion to their size in the Senate. That is the beginning and the end of the explanation for the US position on softwood lumber. If the US construction industry were concentrated in the same way, the matter would be resolved within days in some backroom Senate horsetrading. But construction, while vastly larger than forestry in the US, is spread out and doesn’t have decisive power in any one State, and hence doesn’t have as powerful a lobby.\*\* It’s a nice illustration of the downside to the non-proportional representation scheme.\*\* > [@Monty](#): > > It’s also a nice illustration of the upside that small states don’t get walked all over by the larger states. It’s one of the reasons I see the US system as more of a real federation than the Canadian system. Although, I like how the lower house of Parliament works in both the United Kingdom and in Canada, I recognize that applying that rule to the upper house of the United States Congress is not workable. This is where the dispute started. As you can clearly see, my initial point was strictly about the non-proportional representation in the US Senate. As you can also clearly see, you’re disagreeing that the lumber dispute illustrates a downside to that system. And _I_ am the one with reading comprehension problems? Look, I completely withdraw the ‘undemocratic’ thing. Actually, I already did: > [@Gorsnak](#): > > All I meant by undemocratic was that some people’s votes count for more than those of others. If you don’t wish to characterize that as undemocratic, fine. I don’t really care. I completely don’t care how you characterize the system whereby the senatorial vote of a guy in South Carolina is 5x more significant than the vote of the guy in New York. I. Don’t. Care. All that I’m saying is that it’s this non-proportional thing that’s responsible for the lumber issue, and that the lumber issue illustrates how a minor special interest group can hijack your international trade policy to the detriment of the nation as a whole, and that that’s a down side of the Senate’s structure. I don’t care that there are also upsides. I don’t care that those upsides might outweigh the downsides. All I’m bloody saying is that the fucking lumber dispute is a downside. Now unknot your panties and address the substantive point or shut the fuck up already. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2005, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-united-states-of-america/318861/75 "2005-08-28T21:24:45Z")
How about you pull your head out of your ass and communicate the freaking point already? Here’s a quick run-down, you jackass, on the voting in the United States Senate: the vote of one senator is equal to the vote of another senator. It’s freaking designed that way for a freaking reason. Regardless of the structure of the legislature, minor special interest groups with sufficient funds can sway said legislature. Now, in this instance, you may be right and you may be wrong. You’re still a collossal jackass, and rude. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2005, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-united-states-of-america/318861/76 "2005-08-28T21:26:15Z")
p.s., jackass, I clearly used the word also regarding what it illustrates. Avail yourself of a dictionary to learn the meaning of that particular word. ---
**Author:** ![Nanoda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ce73a5/32.png) [@Nanoda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nanoda)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2005, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-united-states-of-america/318861/77 "2005-08-28T21:37:22Z")
Well, at the risk of drawing ire, count me as another one who doesn’t know what **Monty** ’s problem is. 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2005, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-united-states-of-america/318861/78 "2005-08-28T21:37:44Z")
Oh for crying out loud. I’m perfectly aware that the Senate is set up that way for a reason. I’m perfectly aware that there are upsides to it. I even think that it might be on balance a good thing. But - and here’s “the freaking point” - the structure means that if an industry is concentrated in a several small states, the way that the lumber industry is, it can be a small industry on the global stage and yet a major industry in those several small states. Being a major industry in those several small states gives the industry significant influence over the senators for those several small states, and hence a degree of political clout all out of proportion to the industry’s importance on the national stage. In this case, the lumber industry has more political clout than the construction industry, in spite of being a small fraction of the size. Get it? The construction industry has far more money than the lumber industry, because it’s far larger. And yet it has less political clout. This leads directly to the current situation, where the lumber industry has convinced the nation as a whole to abrogate its treaty obligations with the result that your economy has been damaged and you’re on the verge of precipitating a major trade war. Damaging your economy and precipitating a trade war is a Bad Thing. It’s furthermore a Bad Thing that’s a direct result of the structure of the Senate. That makes it a downside to the structure of the Senate. What part of that do you disagree with, exactly? ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2005, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-united-states-of-america/318861/79 "2005-08-28T21:38:31Z")
The problem is some jackass pontificating on how undemocratic the US Senate is when he obviously doesn’t understand it nor care to understand it. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2005, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-united-states-of-america/318861/80 "2005-08-28T21:38:51Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > it can be a small industry on the global stage and yet a major industry in those several small states. That should read “a small industry on the national stage” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-united-states-of-america/318861.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-united-states-of-america/318861.md?page=5)