Larry, I've been meaning to do this myself for several years, and this thread has finally clinched it. That's where I'll be this time next year. I wouldn't be surprised if I find a country that many millions of deprived American citizens would consider better than their take on the USA.

On taxation, a large proportion of the British electorate, but sadly not a clear majority, think that the overall tax burden should be higher than it actually is. But Lonesome is right that VAT (which is a European Union requirement) is iniquitous. That's because it's a tax on spending, and as such it hits rich and poor equally. Taxes on income, obviously, are income-related. Thatcher's and succeeding governments have increasingly gone for indirect taxes like VAT, rather from income tax.It helps explain why the gap between rich and poor has widened faster in the UK in the past 20-odd years than in any developed country in the world except NZ. But the gap is still nowhere near as wide as in the US.

Uncle Sam can afford to tax lightly, whether directly or indirectly, because of the scale on which it exploits other countries' economies; its own natural resources, and its unchecked consumption of finite resources like fossil fuels, which is warming up the world for all of us.

In a way, it seems only fair that at least a few of the chickens that are coming home to roost from all of this are doing so in north America. At the economic level there are extreme social tensions arising from a wall between the haves and have-nots that even Governor Bush has had to acknowledge - to the extent that the USA squanders more of its population-resource in prisons than almost any country on earth. At the ecological level the Alaskan permafrost is getting nearer meltdown by the minute (which would have a knock-on effect across the whole continent); there are more and more twisters, and they are getting more fierce; and of course forest fires all over the place, as for instance right now in the western states. In fact Lonesome had one on his doorstep not long since.

Some of these catastrophes would have happened anyway, but if you look at US Government sites monitoring climate change, it is obvious there's a trend. It's obvious that the burning of aviation fuel and auto gazolene accelerates that trend, and it's obvious that US politicians know full well what's going on. But there are no votes in long-term strategy, only in Me, Now.

But the worst thing about democracy USA style, and for that matter UK-style, is the smug hypocrisy and self-deception. When anyone points out that it ain't working, someone just cites expediency and compromise. And that makes it all right. (But not all right in Cuba,of course.) Thus there is inordinate pride in a constitution that allows its citizens to accumulate the means of indiscriminate mass murder, but denies them basic freedoms like travelling to Cuba. Just a pity Senator McCarthy let a few Commie-lovers slip through the net, or we need never have been troubled with debates like this, and Cuba could have been nuked years ago.

inOBU/Larry, I think the name might be Malvinas? Whatever the name, it was a disgraceful adventure by Thatcher (aided by much logistical and intelligence support from the States). And I'm afraid it was not ten, but more than 18 years ago.*BG*