Break from the blog
Bookworm on Aug 09 2009 at 5:59 pm | Filed under: Uncategorized
With luck (that means “weather permitting”), I’ll be away for a week or so, and will be paying minimal attention to the news. (Even obsessive fanatics need a break now and then.) I’ll almost certainly have access to the internet, though, and would love it if you guys would use this week to email to me the guest posts we’ve been talking about for months now. Danny is doing a wonderful job, but I have a deep suspicion that there’s more talent amongst the lot of you.
Even if you’re not planning on writing anything, don’t just ignore this site for the next few days. To begin with, consider this post an open thread. I’ll also try posting open threads as I go throughout the week. And I may even chime in with a full bodied post now and then.
What’s most exciting, though, is that the long-absent Don Quixote might drop in with a few posts to fill the space while I’m away. I’ve seldom seen more exciting and intellectual discussions than those that his posts trigger.
Related posts:
Email This Post To A Friend
29 Responses to “Break from the blog”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I’m so glad this is an open thread – I was wondering if others had had this experience this weekend.
My sister and I went to see the Julie & Julia movie this afternoon – fun movie, by the way – and were disgusted at the line about 3/4 of the way through the movie where Julie’s boss says something along the lines of “if I were a Republican, I would have fired you.”
I’m no longer surprised that this was in a movie. What surprised me was that we were in a packed movie theatre in Evanston, IL (a lefty community) and very few people laughed or even chuckled. It clearly was supposed to be a funny line . . . but it wasn’t.
Part of me wonders if this means the world is coming to an end. The other part thinks that perhaps, with their own guy in the White House and their own people running (ruining?) everything in Washington, it just isn’t fun any more to bash Republicans.
Deana – interesting comment about them not laughing at a political putdown.
I am glad that you told me because I was thinking of going to see that movie and now I won’t be dissappointed when I hear that line. I have always loved watching cooking shows, even before they became popular. Currently, I am watching a lot of the Baking with Julia shows – they are great. And they made me think that I might enjoy the movie. I’ll go see it now, thanks!
On another note, I woulld like to pass a word of thanks to whomever (my apologies for forgetting who) suggested the book Without Warning in one of the comments to a post a few weeks back.
I don’t read much fiction (unless it is by Paul Watkins) so I was surprised at how much I enjoyed this book. Without giving too much away; I second the suggestion to read Without Warning as it does paint an interesting picture of world affairs if the USA were to disappear overnight. Hopefully that’s not too much of a spoiler as it happens within the first chapter. I finished the book in 2 days (I’m currently unemployed and have a lot of time on my hands, okay?), so go read it!
Oh, it’s all fun and games until somebody elects a progressive. Then the harsh reality of good progressive thought comes tearing through the rhetoric. Soon the bourgeois needs of the children win out. Is it any wonder that local co-op is run as a entrepreneurial business? Capitalism is evil until you need to make a profit then it is your friend.
Deane
Thanks for the ‘heads up’ on the film. It is on my to-do list.
Most interesting that the ‘lefty’ packed movie theater hit pause on the laughter button…“if I were a Republican, I would have fired you.”
Maybe they are beginning to sense something … like common sense.
Book:
Enjoy your vacation away from the maddening crowds. We’ll hold down the fort and even protect it (wink wink).
> It clearly was supposed to be a funny line . . . but it wasn’t.
> Part of me wonders if this means the world is coming to an end.
The sun is rising in the west this morning! There was a loud thud against the brick of my house a few minutes ago, too. I went outside, and a pig with wings was laying on the ground, stunned. (It’s been said that they would fly… but not that they’d be good at it.)
Have a great break, Book!
> “if I were a Republican, I would have fired you.”
That gratuitous line reminded me of “Legally Blonde 2″. A gay-rights subplot was inserted into that movie. It was inserted, not integrated. It didn’t mesh at all with the rest of the movie, and was clearly gratuitous and added solely because it was a pet idea of somebody or other. It made no sense in the context of the movie. I was watching it at my liberal neighbor’s house, and she thought it was completely out of place, too.
Now, I’m not against liberal sensibility in movies, though of course I prefer conservative sensibilities in movies. Movies are an art form and honest point-of-view is a part of art. But it should be a genuine part of the movie, not throw-away crap inserted out of pique or because it’s the cause-du-jour.
Red Dawn on the conservative side, The American President on the liberal side… themed movies that made their point with an integrated whole.
Having said that, give me more conservative movies, please.
Watch Gattaca yet, Mike?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQKmGdBHiOw&NR=1&feature=fvwp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwxf_2GFOBc
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/08/shock-video-dems-sneak-union-thugs-into.html
Compilation of the St Louis SEIU videos. For those that want a review of the incident in question.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but without Book I don’t know where to go and riot, or what to think.
Hell, without her I can’t even make up my mind which of two blue-colored Brooks Brothers ties I should select.
Oh, well—Guess I’ll riffle through my Nazi library of “Seventh Heaven” segments and watch them until she returns.
I *was* going to cash my checks from big Insurance and go and harass some innocent grass-roots supporter of health insurance reform, but without guidance, I too will find something else to do. I might as well go camping in the Ozarks and taunt the powerlessness of Mother Nature to even touch my Brooks Brothers tent . . .
The library has three books called Without Warning – do you remember the author, Charles?
Charles Martel…
Wouldn’t matter if you wore the suit, too. Show up, ask a question and they’ll still accuse you of wearing a ‘brown shirt’.
Of course, you could go with ‘just’ the tie
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090810/ap_on_re_eu/eu_france_riot
Restive youths (a French euphemism-read to bottom of article) burn cars in new (not really new) suburban unrest..
So, I got to thinking how nice that AP finds them ‘restive’ after burning cars, buses and mattresses and yet anyone of any age in America, who I add here, have not to the best of my knowledge, have not ‘fired up’ anything more than their anger, are facing the wrath of Congress while they continue to toss accusations quicker than a molotov cocktail in a French suburb.
Marguerite #11
> The library has three books called Without Warning – do you remember the author, Charles?
If this is the book in which America is destroyed by a mysterious calamity, and the rest of the world quickly goes to hell in a handbasket – it would be the new novel by John Birmingham.
I enjoyed it a great deal. It’s essentially conservative, though he’s a bit of a crunchy con with an emphasis on the burning cities and the resultant catastrophic worldwide pollution. And his scenario of a Middle East war, with all of the main characters horrified at Israel’s actions, still has me wondering at his motivations on that part of the plot. Would Israel in fact have done one particular action, in the book, that is in fact rather horrifying???
But overall, a very good, very interesting and fun read. QUITE DEFINITELY Pro-America.
What did the author have the countries do in the absence of America?
What are their geopolitical decisions and from what is it based upon? They are valid or ahistorical?
The Japanese created series, Legend of the Galactic Heroes, is a most invigorating political and war drama.
Their penchant to mix technical descriptions of democratic republican institutions with the Japanese penchant for poetry and metaphor provide a stunningly engrossing political education and entertainment.
Combine this with the history of MacArthur and the reforms and changes he made in Japan, and you have an end artistic product with various interpretations and angles. Here is a sample dialogue.
Yang Wen Li: But it’s a threat not just in terms of military power.It’s a threat because it is succeeding in changing history with power that is not democratic.
Aide de camp: Autocracy is the most effective structure with which to carry out drastic changes.
Yang: On the other hand, democracy is a roundabout thing. And people disenchanted with such roundabout-ness will always say: “Let’s give power to a great politician and have him spearhead revolutionary changes.”
I wonder if the masses have always wanted an autocrat. And they might just be getting the ideal autocrat now. Compared to that brilliant golden idol (Kaiser Reinhard), democracy is nothing but a faded bronze idol.
*Shakes head* No, no! Julian we’re soldiers. And republican democratic structures are often born from the muzzle of guns. But the military, despite engendering democracy, should never boast of its accomplishment. And it is not an unfair thing. Because the gist of democracy lies in control of the people, who have the power. Democracy institutionalizes the control of the power-holders by law and structure. And the military needs this control the most. They fight for the political structure that fundamentally denies them. The military of a democracy must accept that contradictory structure.
The only things the military can demand from its government are a retirement pension and paid leave; thats about it.
In other words, the rights of the workers – they cannot demand for more than that.
(The context is close to after the government pulled a Vietnam on the soldiers. Combined with a George Washington moment, when the Congress refused to pay the Revolutoinary War soldiers afterwards)
Julian: But I wanted you to act upon your personal feelings and self-interest.
Yang: *Surprise* Julian.
Julian: I knew you’d scold me, but those are my honest feelings. As a place for immense talent to act freely, an autocracy is better suited than a democracy. Isn’t that too ironic? If Reinhard von Musel had been born in the Alliance he might have been the second coming of Rudolph (Obama), a dangerous highflier who destroyed democracy from within.
On the other hand, if Admiral Yang had been born in the Empire, you might have become the Emperor instead of him.
Yang: Julian, that’s an extremely useless example.
Julian: *sighs* I know, but…
Yang: It’s not like I’ve rid myself of all personal feelings…
[...]
He’s not necessarily perfect in his character (Kaiser Reinhard) but he’s the most brilliant existence of the past few centuries of history. To destroy that with my own hand… I couldn’t help but feel scared by it.
Historically, Japan has been ruled a combination of military dictators and warlords, under the ostensible authority of the Emperor of Japan. In reality, most of the power went to those with direct field commands, with the Emperor holding an advisory position on religion rather than policy. Yet when the Emperor spoke, it was as the force of law.
If Americans think their system is screwed up, they should check out what other people’s history present to us.
The military aristocracy of Imperial Japan in WWII was overthrown, with many committing hara kiri after the Emperor’s public surrender. But in the end, Japan was once again ruled by the military, in this case, Supreme Allied Commander General MacArthur: the new ruler of Japan. But this time, the autocracy of the military led to political reform and liberal progress.
Japan went from near starvation levels to a stable agricultural template, with the help of US aid. The loyalty of the Japanese to their Emperor never faded. The direct support of Hirohito for MacArthur, the public appearances of the Emperor in favor of policies and actions, cemented MacArthur’s authority in Japan at a level or above that of George Washington as viewed historically. For MacArthur, he had that level of authority in the eyes of Japanese when he had power, not after he had given it up. That’s not to mention the purely human self-interest parts that cemented the feelings of Japanese towards MacArthur.
Even though MacArthur brought in foreign concepts and rammed through reform (autocracy is good for that), he still fit a purely local Japanese template: the American Shogun. MacArthur was foreign, but he also occupied a position of power and authority very familiar to the history of Japan. Combined with MacArthur’s respect for Japanese history and the people, his research into their affairs, and you had a good relationship.
In Iraq, some of the locals told us that the best thing we could do after the invasion was to put up images of Bush everywhere in Iraq: cement the stamp of the conqueror on the conquered. Why? Because that’s the way Saddam stayed in power and the Iraqi people were used to things being done a certain way. They weren’t used to democracy and they didn’t know its advantages or disadvantages. It was a foreign concept to them.
But Bush wasn’t an autocrat. Nor was there a military leader in Iraq that would be put in charge of the nation as a Governor-General. What we got was Bremer, the UN, and orders about not showing American flags.
What a gross and complete ignorance of Iraqi culture and history. Iraq wasn’t a ‘mess’ and it wasn’t a mistake. What was a mess was the ignorance of the people and the policy makers. Their goals were feasible, but the people carrying them out lacked an insider’s appreciation of the culture, the language, and the tribal politics. And they didn’t spend the time before, during, and after the invasion figuring it out, either.
What with the New York Times outputting propaganda to its readers and the total lack of interest on a depressingly predominant part of the American public to educate themselves on military history and socio-economic-political factors, the consequences were obvious. Autocracy was favored over foreign democracy and inefficiencies. If people wanted corruption and inefficiency, they could do it the old way, the safe way, the familiar way. They didn’t need anything from America on this score. And in came Al Qaeda playing on the ‘foreign occupation’ theme. Enough about Iraq.
Let’s talk about the Obamacans, i.e. the Americans that voted for Obama and now see themselves as proud Obamacans.
They voted in an autocrat, somebody that’ll force changes through the inefficient system. But instead of being honest about their intentions, they want to talk about democracy. Do they still feel a need to be shielded by the US Constitution even at this stage of the game? How much do they need to destroy the US Constitution before they no longer feel a need to seek its protection?
Ymar #15:
(By the way, I haven’t seen Gattaca. I rarely watch movies at home; I’m a fan of the big screen…)
> What did the author have the countries do in the absence of America?
> What are their geopolitical decisions and from what is it based upon? They are valid or ahistorical?
If you’ve followed the thread on ‘Without Warning’, and are interested in the book: Some plot details (Spoilers) follow here, to answer Ymar’s question.
THE REST OF THIS IS SPOILERS, PLOT DETAILS.
It’s the first book in a series, opening in 2003, just before the war against Saddam. Because it’s a first book in a trilogy, everything is building in the book. The geopolitical premise is that America functioned as a stabilizer, sort of in fact as the world’s de facto policeman. With that influence gone, quite a few things began to happen.
1. Worldwide financial crisis, caused not only by the disappearance of the dollar, but also of the payment of all the debt. This keeps rippling and spreading. Spreading breakdown in the delivery of services, food, etc.
2. Because the people (and most higher mammalian life) across most of North America have been mysteriously destroyed – and no one outside the mysterious zone can get inside it either – there’s no one to stop the fires. The entire continent basically burns, causing problems for crops worldwide. The environmental effects provoke additional stress.
3. The above two points create a great deal of unrest, in addition to the overnight disappearance of the world’s major superpower. Most countries with restive populations see those populations rise in revolt. France is a central part of the plot’s attention, and it descends into chaos and internal fighting between its pro-Muslim, pro-Muslim Europe contingent, and its patriotic contingent. But everywhere there is urban strife. Most countries *try to* engage in forms of internal repression and closing their borders to try to control the chaos. Most cities are plunged into chaos, fires, running gun battles. As each day passes, chaos spreads just about everywhere that is urban. Hunger, fear, violence…
4. Open seas piracy and barbarism. Part of the plot centers on the Pacific, on and just off the coast of Mexico.
5. Escalating tension between China and Tiawan. Major escalations between India and Pakistan, especially after: I seem to recall some details on military movements and escalations along the Russian-Chinese border as well.
6. Iran implements a plan to destroy Israel, who detects it. Islamic hard-liners are winning across the Middle East in those areas of urban strife and are just about to take over nearly all such countries, with their immediate target being Israel. Israel sees threats in every corner, and responds with overwhelming (and nuclear) force.
7. What is left of American military power is centered in Hawaii, some overseas command centers, and our military forces stationed in the Middle East. Many interesting plot details on how they respond to their wartime situations and to the loss of civilian control of the military. Plot details as well about the two states that lie outside the zone of catastrophe, where they are trying to keep things together in the absence of the national government: Hawaii and small portions of Washington State (those small parts outside the boundary of the zone of catastrophe).
I won’t offer further details about the last quarter of the book, in which some things are resolved, set up for book 2 happens, and a few very surprising twists occur.
Forgot to add: The catastrophe that hits the North American content is clearly not natural; and if technological, appears to be far, far beyond the capabilities of any current human civilization. It’s inexplicable and remains a great mystery (which one can assume would be solved or explained later in the series). This breeds apocalyptic fear that only adds to the massive unrest sweeping the globe…
Especially as foreign news agencies make it clear that the edges of the zone – a highly visible boundary effect through which no higher-order mammalian life can pass and survive – these edges boundary are slightly dynamic – it ripples or moves at times. This thing is not static and it remains in place. Is it going to move, shift, drift?
I think the overall descriptions of geopolitical effects are reasonably drawn out, especially in a general sense: When there is one “great power” in an area that collapses suddenly, chaos results as the current “order” collapses while everyone seeks to win out in whatever new order is developing. It’s a thriller, but uncommonly well written for that genre. As I wrote in another thread some weeks back, it certainly isn’t high literature, but for a thriller it’s quite well done.
Most of the characters are surviving Americans who are dealing with the chaos, each in many separate ways.
My one objection was that Israel’s military *actions* are by far the most pronounced and drastic, and I remain fairly certain that that is not reflective of what would really occur. Seemed unfair in a sense, at least to me.
Marguerite (#11) Mike Devx has answered your question. Yes, the author of Without Warning is John Birmingham. He apparently has written several other books which I may or may not read as I am not a big fan of fiction; but, this book I truly enjoyed.
My only complaint about the book is that there are several plots with different characters going on throughout the book. The plots jump back and forth from one chapter to the next. In other words you will read about one set of characters and their plot in one chapter and then not read about them again until a few chapters later; having read about other characters and other plots in between. I will often have to go back a few chapters to read the last page to remind myself who they were and what they were up to. This is, however, not unique to this author; so many fiction novels use this same “multi-plot” technique – perhaps it is one reason why I do not read a lot of fiction.
Otherwise, it was a very interesting and enjoyable novel. I will wait until my library has the next book of his; If I enjoy that one as much I might go back and read his earlier works.
Mike Devx, it may have been you who suggested Without Warning several weeks ago in another thread -thanks!
I wasn’t too impressed with Birmingham’s Axis of Time series. The modern characters were interesting and refreshing, as it is an alternative timeline to the War on Terror, but the historical characters of WWII pretty much failed.
Perhaps it got better with book 3 or so; parts from 2 didn’t hint at it.
If you have any interest in the “factory farming” issue, this article may interest you. If not, it will probably bore you. Just like so many other issues, things are seldom what they seem – and are usually more complicated than can be addressed by a bumper sticker (though I like them too).
http://www.american.com/archive/2009/july/the-omnivore2019s-delusion-against-the-agri-intellectuals
http://www.orwelltoday.com/readerjfkvietnammacarthur.shtml
This is an interesting overview of certain historical decisions covering numerous Presidencies.
Am I noticing an increase in the use of single word perjoratives or am I noticing them because they are directed at me?
Birther, Denier, Teabagger, and now I even saw Deather used to describe a person who holds the position that a panel of bureaucrats will decide permissible medical procedures.
All of these labels are, of course, intended to distort and ridicule a position that has legitimate points, but immediately puts the position on the defensive.
I think this trend began in the 60′s with hippie accusing every authority figure of being a facist. Of course, they (OK we) didn’t know what a facist really was, other than it sounded mean and evil. I think today the equivalent is the term racist.
Socialist used to mean something, and Commie (not Communist) would get a rise out of someone. These seem to have lost their punch, especially as we move that direction as a country.
- from The Oregonian
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2009/07/health_care_reform_could_cut_m.html
I was reading another blog where that assertion– that Medicare would be trimmed back in an effort to make the Democrat bill appear to be closer to deficit neutral was vehemently denied.
Obama today asserted that AARP supported the Democrat bill, which AARP denied. Even if that provision stuck, how long would it take for the spending for Medicare to be restored?
from the 2008 Democrat Party platform
I had forgotten the pledge to fix Social Security by taxing “the rich”. It seems like the Democrats are going to fix Social Security, pay for universal health care, and reduce the deficit by taxing those making more than $250,000. Did I miss anything?
And while George Bush ran up the debt (curses be upon him), profligate Democrat spending that will pauperize our children is OK, because they do it “in the name of our children”.
This website has all major party platforms since 1840.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/platforms.php
Ymarsakar, I agree with your almost all your post referencing LOGH to Japan’s history and then using that to relate to the reasons for our failures in Iraq. Your right that, if we wanted to set up a government there, it should have been autocratic from the beginning. In the first days, looters should have been dealt with harshly and rule should have been restored. Neither their society nor culture were ready for democracy. If they were, Saddam would have been overthrown without us.
That said, it is impossible for a democratic society to do this in today’s media age. The 1940s were a very different time and WWII was so horrific as to justify about any action taken. The Iraq war against a country that was no direct threat to the US. The government had used fear and nationalism to scare the country into going along with it. Their real reason for doing it was a lofty ideal of spreading democracy throughout the Middle East. Our allies around the world would have reacted much more harshly if we did this through old style authoritarian means and the country would not have reacted well.
I completely disagree with your last part. If there is any administration that has trampled on the US Constitution, it was Bush with the help of Congress. Torture in violations of our treaties, illegal wiretaps, indefinite detention with no right of habeas corpus. Not to mention reducing liberties and abusing power. This is why many of us were not going to vote for the same party again. Sadly, Obama has not sought convictions for some of these violations and has made no effort to close the holes opened or abused by the Bush admin. I don’t see how you can say he’s an autocrat. I don’t see where you can say he violated the Constitution (at least anymore than Bush did). If your talking about liberal policies violating the 10th amendment, that amendment has sadly been rarely enforced by any SCOTUS in the history of our nation. It would take years of Congress passing new laws, basically willingly giving up much of its power. That’s something the Federal government will never do.
Gosh, Mello, I haven’t seen such boilerplate in months. I would have thought by now that after the thorough debunking that all of your very tired, ad naseumedly repeated memes have taken, you would have at least ventured—however timidly—a new tack.
Yes, Mello, the folks here were among the millions of silly sheep that were stampeded into supporting the war in Iraq because we were too scared and too dense to know when we were being manipulated.
Go try that tack on people who truly are witless and manipulable. We sure as hell are not. Bush nailed the case for attacking Iraq with 14 provable instances of its violation of UN demands. Care to repeat back to me the other 13 that you studiously avoid mentioning, or do you want me to do your work for you?
Do memesters like you EVER produce proof, or are you eternally content to spew the same hoary assertions over and over?
Which articles of the Constitution were “trampled?”
What torture (I need provable instances here) in violation of which specific treaties?
“Illegal wiretaps?” How do you wiretap a wireless communication? (And how do you manage to totally disregard the federal courts’ support of these “illegal wiretaps” over and over again?)
What the hell are you talking about regarding habeus corpus? Since when are members of stateless terrorist and jihadist militias guaranteed a right that the Constitution only accords citizens? In wartime, the military determines what happens to enemy combatants. Sorry.
“Not to mention reducing liberties and abusing power.” Tell you what, why not go ahead and list for us rightwing buffoons all those egregious reductions of our liberties and abuses of power that you otherwise can’t be bothered to mention?
You forgot “in violations of our treaties”…
Treaties with whom? We signed a treaty with Iraq regarding torture? With whom did we sign treaties? Afghanistan? Al Quaeda?
Treaties are contracts between nations. They have to have at least two parties. An individual nation can pledge itself to behave in certain ways, but it cannot have a treaty unless there’s another nation involved.
Their real reason for doing it was a lofty ideal of spreading democracy throughout the Middle East.
That said, it is impossible for a democratic society to do this in today’s media age.
Your right that, if we wanted to set up a government there, it should have been autocratic from the beginning.
Given the three different lines I have quoted, I would like to add in something else from my view.
There’s nothing wrong with spreading democracy in the Middle East as a goal. In point of fact, prosperous democracies, in whatever form they take, tend to have the highest living standards as well as the lowest incidences of warfare, civil or foreign. Any other type of government almost always devolves into something like Rwanda sooner or later. Usually later, depending on how tight a grip the local autocracy has on the status quo.
This is different from Russia’s designs, which is to topple and weaken democracies, like Georgia or Ukraine, in order for Russian geo-political schemes to unduly influence their former territories and blocs. Their intention is peace, under Russian rule. That’s not the same thing as giving people the highest living standards through the best economic system.
I mentioned an autocracy in the beginning, because MacArthur in Japan was an autocrat. But he didn’t maintain an autocracy. Autocracy is the best form for pushing through radical changes and reforms without debate or the things you usually see on the news (argument without end, resulting in bribery to break the deadlock) (aka, Obama). Instead of using money and resources to bribe and convince politicians to see things your way, MacArthur just told them what to do and they more or less, with the help of Emperor Hirohito, did it. Much of the details were handled by MacArthur’s military staff, along with some civilian components imported from America’s private and government sectors. These reforms inevitably resulted in Japan regaining their sovereignty in around 5 or so years.
This had nothing to do with Japan being in a time that was immediately after World War II. If not for MacArthur’s strategies, Japan would not have been rebuilt. It would have ended up like North Korea, most probably. It wasn’t more difficult for MacArthur because of the argument that he was in Japan then and not in Iraq 6 years ago. The difficulty level didn’t change, only the details and culture changed.
Neither their society nor culture were ready for democracy.
That doesn’t mean anything. Japan was also not ready for democracy, culturally or politically. That’s not a reason to quit. Nor is it impossible to uplift a society to better standards simply because order was not maintained in the beginning. The progression and evolution of a society is not a one dimensional point. It’s a process over the dimension of time and space. It’s not frozen in one spot simply because somebody took a photo of a car bomb blowing up a market. Life goes on. People mature. They die and new individuals are born.
To attempt to keep a society in stasis is the height of hubris. You won’t be able to accomplish it, and it is also reactionary.
It’s not a choice between stasis and progress. It’s more like a choice between some progress done moderately slowly to get people to adapt to it without bloodshed/job loss and progress via so many changes (healthcare) that people’s lives are broken into very small pieces for the benefit of a few that would benefit from those rapid changes.
Rapid changes, progress, is not beneficial to the great majority of people, in so far as most people prefer a more static, secure, and stabilized environment in order to raise families, conduct business, and achieve self-actualization of their full individual potential. This is easily seen in the analogy of the stock market. If the stock market goes high up really fast, only a few people can benefit. The wealth is spread to the few who had bought the stocks while low, they get the lion’s share, mostly, of the profits. Everybody else can still benefit, yes, but they’ll have to pay a higher price. And if they can’t pay that higher price? They can’t benefit then. The people who had the stock increases, they’ll benefit though. They’ll use their capital gains and their interests from their capital to buy more stocks and gain more, more quickly. This will regain equilibrium so long as stocks keep rising. But that’s gradual. To use another analogy, full bore change and legislation can result in a stock market drop, the bursting of a bubble. And this is mostly helped along by the people who had high stocks, selling those stocks for fear that they will lose their value and won’t grow. Then the market drops. So the people who bought stocks earlier while low, got profit, and now they sell the stocks while high, before it crashes, and they still benefit.
These quick highs and lows do not benefit the great majority of people. In point of fact, it bankrupts the great majority of people. This is called the free market, but the free market has no reason to change things quickly. As it serves the economic interests of every individual, because every individual has a say in the market, the free market doesn’t want to change very quickly. But government legislation, the actions of a few elite rich people owning large amounts of stock and exercising a huge amount of influence on the market, can quickly change the market conditions. This will be so fast a change in conditions that most people won’t be able to adapt in time. their businesses will collapse. Their healthcare will collapse. Their future predictions and plans will collapse. Their plans for their children’s welfare will collapse. Because a few people in the circles of power (Democrats) and money (Fannie Mae paying off Dodd and Frank) decided that it was time to loot the system and bankrupt the great majority of people in the market.
Our allies around the world would have reacted much more harshly if we did this through old style authoritarian means and the country would not have reacted well.
That’s not supported by the evidence. Democrats support Cuba, Venezuella, Zimbabwe, Vietnam, China, Russia, North Korea, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and now Zelaya with money, diplomacy, and resources.
Even if you included some Republicans in this Great Game, it doesn’t really change anything. Because public opinion is and will never be as bad due to America’s relationship with the above, as public opinion was for Iraq.
By public opinion, I do include European opinion as well: along with the Aussies and Zealanders.
If Bush wanted better PR and decided his strategy based upon that, he would never have put boots on the ground in Iraq. Clinton already knew what kind of public backlash will result from troops being killed and shown on the news. To be honest, Americans don’t really care whether America supports autocrats or democracies. They can’t distinguish democracy and autocracy here at home, how are they going to be able to make an informed decision about foreign affairs?
PR, as it is conducted here and in Europe, is decided by the nation’s propaganda apparatuses. It’s not a ‘relationship’; PR is more accurately defined as Public Reaction. You do something and they react. They don’t get to decide as much as people think they do, because they are always reacting to the decisions of their hierarchy.
Not to mention reducing liberties and abusing power.
In light of the various nations and factions I have mentioned, history has already recorded the methodology behind ‘reducing liberties’ and the ‘abuse of power’. Bush isn’t even close on the spectrum. In fact, it doesn’t look like he even is on the spectrum. He didn’t do what Carter did to Iran and Rhodesia. He didn’t fail in Iraq as Nixon, LBJ, and JFK did in Vietnam. Bush stopped a genocide and a mass slaughter, unlike Rwanda:
Between April and June 1994, an estimated 800,000 Rwandans were killed in the space of 100 days.
Most of the dead were Tutsis – and most of those who perpetrated the violence were Hutus.
Even for a country with such a turbulent history as Rwanda, the scale and speed of the slaughter left its people reeling.
The genocide was sparked by the death of the Rwandan President Juvenal Habyarimana, a Hutu, when his plane was shot down above Kigali airport on 6 April 1994.
He didn’t suspend Habeas Corpus like Lincoln did, he didn’t create a Sedition Act with an expiration date like Adams did. Amongst history, even American history, Bush’s actions in war time have not even been close to what history has judged to be abuse of power.
If your talking about liberal policies violating the 10th amendment, that amendment has sadly been rarely enforced by any SCOTUS in the history of our nation.
No, that’s not where I’m arriving from.
In conclusion, the reason why so many people believe Bush is fashioned in certain exact specifications as they do is because of 3 reasons:
1. They never learned history independent of other people’s biases so they are not competent to judge these matters. (history is a broad topic and it is not limited to dates, facts, or events)
2. They have something personal against Bush because of the people that died in Iraq or the economic resources that were diverted from politician’s pet projects.
3. Their interests are not mutually aligned with Bush’s interests as President of the United States of America, so they can’t support him because all their personal allies don’t support Bush.
It is somewhat likely that the topic of “What about the people who disagree with Bush but still support America’s interests” will pop into heads here. There’s an easy answer to that: Petraeus. Those that disagreed with Bush but didn’t want America to lose ended up in Petraeus’ camp, more or less. Petraeus disagreed with Casey’s, Rumsfeld’s, and the President’s strategy in Iraq. But he worked for America, not against her interests. And that’s why the New York Times gave Moveon a 50% discount on a front page ad attacking Petraeus’ character by calling him a traitor.
Bush didn’t persecute people in Petraeus’ camp by calling them traitors or unreliables or un-American. If the charge against Bush is that he was prosecuting or persecuting people who disagreed with him on the basis that they disagreed with him, why didn’t he prosecute those of us who were in Petraeus’ camp? Why did he embrace the Petraeus camp and promoted him to command?
Those that didn’t agree with Bush didn’t have to stay with Bush’s “Stay on Course” methodology or SecDef Rumsfeld’s beliefs. They could have jumped ship, to Petraeus and his staff of COIN strategists. Why did only some do that, while many more did not unless the latter’s interests really did not benefit from American and Iraqi victory?
Do memesters like you EVER produce proof, or are you eternally content to spew the same hoary assertions over and over?
it’s not about proof, Martel. That won’t solve things.
Which articles of the Constitution were “trampled?”
I believe M is referring to something akin to no removal of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness without due process. It’s the due process that is wedded with habeas corpus and GitMo.