Very thoughtful and good article.

I suspect that if we're nominating significant events then the "hanging chad" and a biased electoral system and supreme court had more to do with Bush winning Florida than Elian Gonzales

Shal,
I think that the author made his point. Had Elian Gonzalez not been rescued the Florida election would not have been so close and that therefore, probably, the whole presidential election would not have depended on the hanging chad or the USA Supreme Court.

I don't agree that Gore, as president, would have started his lies about the cause of climate change earlier. Being president would have been enough even for his big,fat ego.

Foyle,
Chicken or egg?

my point was that it wasn't really that close. If the electoral system had been fair and a whole raft of voters were not disenfranchised, and if the Supreme Court had not taken a totally partisan position, then it was game over and Gore is president and Gonzales is a footnote in history (as i suspect he will be anyway). in any event Gavrilo Princip may have been the catalytic spark that initiated WW1. But he didn't cause the war.

I was under the distinct impression that we were still in the early part of the 21st century. We can only really tell turning points or really significant moments looking back. Obviously the Treaty of Versailles was a mistake, and various commentators did point it out at the time, but we can only agree on this well after the event.
Similarly with the Iraq war. How significant is it compared with, say, the 10 year Iran-Iraq war, or the seemingly endless troubles elsewhere in the region?
As for global warming.. what happens if its all forgotten in a decade or so when the world refuses to warm as required - in fact continues to cool as it has been doing? The author should not be so ready to call significant events..

Why is that whenever people play the "what-if" game they always somehow see only the bad things not happening? Let's try a different scenario. Gonzales drowns - Gore wins - Iraq remains untouched in the 911 response which involves lobbing a few Cruise missiles into the Afghan hills - Saddam gets his nuke - decides to take on the pan-Arab leadership by taking out Tel Aviv - whole of M-E goes up in nuke clouds - half of the world's oil becomes unusable - world goes into massive economic decline - someone writes an article in OLO postulating how much better the world would be if only that Cuban kid could swim.

I thought Muslim extremists flying airplanes into the World Trade Center in New York would have been the defining event of the 21st century so far. (Without that, President Bush may have had a very neutral presidency.)

Of course it was President Bush's election, or even PM Howard's reelection - (let's keep that blame game going, so much hate so few targets currently available)/sarc.

Al Gore tried to steal an election in 2000 is another way of looking at it, but fortunately failed and not for want of trying with a huge legal battle to win in court rather than at the ballot box.

There has been many good articles published in OLO, and unfortunately a fair amount of crap. This article firmly belongs to the latter group. Clearly, the most significant event of all was Adam obtaining the first erection - all else proceeds from that momentous event.
Perhaps the author should stick to cartooning, or at least take some philosophical instruction re causation.

I don’t think the event that will set the tone for the 21st Century has quite arrived yet. I think it is still gently coming along on the tide, but is on the way. I have been looking at the growth of Christianity in Africa, and the growth of Christianity in China, and the increasing mititancy of Islam, and the failure of the Bush campaign to impose what they call democracy on them. I think that what will define the 21st Century could very well be an example from Australia.

The governments of the whole world are based upon one of two systems. One believes all authority comes down from the top, and the other believes all authority comes up from the bottom. Only one can prevail. They are incompatible in any way with each other, and had a battle royal in England between 1600 and 1688, when the English embraced the second model, government from the grass roots up.

It may well be that the elections of George Bush, and his mate JH in Australia have set the tone for the peaceful revolution, that is quietly drifting in on the tide. It could well be that the election of KR on 24th November 2007, will be the start of that. You see the Australian Constitution is an absolutely near perfect model of good government. Unless a person has been a regular attendee at a Protestant Christian Church it is almost impossible to understand why. The people who framed it took the best from America and blended it with the best from the United Kingdom. Protestant Christianity asks its followers to read the Book for themselves.

One honest man, somewhere in a federal court in Australia will realize that the mantle has fallen on his shoulders, and adopt the principles of Australia’s Constitution, and give another man a fair trial. As a consequence of that, the exploitative and rapacious State and Federal governments will be curbed, the dishonest media will become honest, and an enormous amount of wealth accumulated under a sixty year long run of corruption will be redistributed

It's no good getting old, if you don't get lucky, & boy, didn't I & the rest of the western world get lucky.

If we'd had that ratbag Gore, & his get rich quick, [for him] global warming laws, we, the whole west, would now be bankrupt.

That was one lucky escape, but now, with Gore's fellow traveler ratbag in the white house, our luck may have just run out.

I wonder how long it will take for the US, & us to see the light?

I love this mind game ... if I hadn’t stopped to tie my shoelaces the sheet of steel sliding off the truck would have sliced me in half rather than flying harmlessly over my head into the embankment. I completely disagree with those who think the article is a lot of crap.

Of course the little boy in the boat wasn’t necessary for a Republican win in the 2000 presidential election, but his story turned out to be a significant current in the flow that brought Bush to power, so it’s entertaining to extend this flow to the events that followed. At worst, this type of thinking is an idle mind game. At its best, it reminds us that all of our actions have repercussions, that sometimes the most inconsequential acts can have the most far-reaching effects. This type of thinking forces us to remember that we are all connected.

It struck me at the time that Spain would never have legalised same-sex marriage in 2005, had not George Bush persuaded José Maria Aznar to commit Spanish forces to the war in Iraq, against the will of 90 % of the population http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3509744.stm The Aznar government was already on the ropes when the Madrid bombings occurred on 11 Mar 2004. Three days later the Spanish people elected a Socialist government with the huge majority needed to get the same-sex marriage law through parliament without amendment.

This complete equality for Spanish same-sex couples can also be traced back to that Cuban boy who didn’t drown.

Even better, the sky hasn’t fallen on Spain, and the Socialist government has survived a subsequent election, so same-sex marriage is now safely entrenched there. Governments can now approach the idea of equality for same-sex couples without fear that it will cause them to be turfed out. We’re seeing this now in the US, as state after state legalises same-sex marriage.

Is this one of the defining features of the 21st century? Damned right it is. By the end of this century, people will be shaking their heads wondering what all the fuss was about.

I think the event that set the course for 21st century Australia occurred in the High Court in 1996. The High Court established what they call the “Kable Principle”. Everyone has ignored it, the High Court refuses to let it be enforced, but it will not go away. It virtually declared illegal nearly fifty years of meddling by Parliaments with courts. It struck down one Act. One Statute, made by the Parliament of New South Wales and the grounds were that it was unconstitutional. Lawyers hate the decision, because it kills their God. They have refused to admit it is law. It actually kills atheism, and secular government. It marks the start of the restoration. It came down in John Howard’s first year.

All Kevin Rudd has to do to bring Australia into an unbridled prosperity, is apply that decision. Justice Mary Gaudron said: Were they free to abolish their courts, the autochthonous expedient, more precisely, the provisions of Ch III which postulate an integrated judicial system would be frustrated in their entirety. To this extent, at least, the States are not free to legislate as they please. What that means is NO State is free to legislate as it pleases.

That includes the Commonwealth. Applying the “Kable Principle” the Federal Government must accept that it must repeal S 39 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 and Order 46 Rule 7A Federal Court Rules and let the reforms introduced by Paul Keating’s government take effect.

The autochthonous expedient Justice Gaudron was talking about, was the decision in 1903, by the Parliament of the Commonwealth to leave ownership of State courts, with the States. Paul Keating’s government introduced a National Competition Policy. However the policy is unenforceable while the Courts of Australia remain in the hands of lawyers. They will not compete. They indulge in exclusive dealing, and they completely destroy democracy. Democracy is not just a vote every three years. It is also the right to be part of a court, in your town in your community, and this decision restores that right to you. Insist upon it

Curmodgen, talking about the Iraq-Iran War, please remember that by backing Iraq, it was America's chance to get her own back against Iran even putting in another fake Shah.

With Rumsey spending so much time advising Saddam it's a wonder Iran was able to make even more of a fool of Americana.

With Americana still out to get Iran some bloody how, let's hope Obama can do something more decent somehow.

As for a long time now, the biggest tension points for future war happen to be two-fold.

However, it's hard to pick between the two?

Certainly they do not conjoin, knowing the future horrid possibilities?

But without a doubt, firstly tiny little Israel with not only fingers pointing, but nuclear-loaded missiles aiming skyward perfectly calibrated to drop on Tehran.

No need to say any more, just another tragic part of history either ready to happen or no one's got the guts or commonsense to prevent.