Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Newsvine
RedditIn early 2007, The Nation published an extraordinary speech by Bill Moyers. In "A New Story for America," America's media conscience wrote of how "voters have provided a a respite from a right-wing radicalism predicated on the philosophy that extremism in the pursuit of virtue is no vice." Newt Gingrich, architect of the hit job on America--better known as "The Contract With America" --was a key figure of right wing extremism. Or as Moyers called Gingrich and his hearty band --"Ravenous predators...masquerading as a political party of small government, fiscal restraint and moral piety..."
In a much-publicized May 6th post at Human Events magazine, "My Plea to Republicans: It's Time for Real Change to Avoid Real Disaster," Gingrich seems to echo Moyers, who continued in that 2006 Nation article to argue that "the conservative movement stands intellectually and morally bankrupt...."
The long night of the junta is not yet over. We have more than 200 days until Bush and Cheney depart the White House, But the Republican loss in the special election for Louisiana's Sixth Congressional District last Saturday should be --and even Gingrich warns of this --a sharp wake up call for Republicans.
And it's not just that special election that augurs bad times for a GOP --a once fat and smug party led by subrpime leaders who would drown government in a bathtub. Democrats look to pick up as many as six Senate seats in November. And according to the National Committee for an Effective Congress's most recent polls, Democrats already have Senate seats locked up in New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Virgina and hold a small lead in Colorado. Al Franken is poised to win Minnesota's seat--displacing Norm Coleman. In Maine, the decent Tom Allen has a chance to defeat Chafee look-alike Susan Collins. Even Alaska, with all three members of its Congressional delegation in either a felonious or pre-felonious state, could have a Democratic Senator come November.
Either Congressional Republicans chart a bold course of real change, Gingrich argues--though God (or, rather, James Dobson) knows what the hell that means these days - or the GOP faces a landslide defeat and disaster in November.
It's hard to agree with Gingrich--he's a predator who proffered Americans a raw deal which, to this day, afflicts our politics. But I think he's right. These are potentially tectonic- shifting times. For all the primary season's obsession with the white working class in rust belt states--and any progressive coalition worth its salt and grain does need to speak to speak to the white working class, bring them into a strong multiracial coalition--the US is changing rapidly across all racial, generational and ethnic lines.In fact, the US is on track to become a majority-minority nation in the next few decades. And with all its imperfections, the Democratic party looks more like America--diverse, multicultural, younger--than a retrograde, smug, corrupt, mendacious Republican party which doesn't have a single African-American in its entire Congressional delegation.
For those reasons--and more--I believe we are on the edge of a progressive moment comparable to that of more than 40 years ago when Lyndon Johnson occupied the White House. A moment when with a real majority in the Senate --displacing Joe ("I do not leave John McCain's side") Lieberman as the swing vote, and ending "Dr. No" Minority leader Mitch McConnell filibuster of everything to death, we could see sweeping progressive legislative victories.
The parallels remain sobering, however. We still have too many Dems who, as Moyers wrote for The Nation," talk about a 'new direction' without convincing us they know the difference between a weather vane and a compass." We have a war without end which could undermine possibilities at home and abroad.
It will demand a movement politics of sanity and savvy to push this new Congress beyond its comfort zone --and launch a campaign to rebuild our country and take back this country from those like Gingrich who have plundered its promise.
deja vu...all over again?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/08/2008 @ 4:41pm
I must have been dreaming...
Posted by ttr at 05/08/2008 @ 4:45pm
ok, katrina...
i know you are a busy woman and all, but you can't just repost the same blog entry over and over...
at least wait a few days...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/08/2008 @ 4:57pm
Posted by Mask at 05/8/2008 | ignore this person
i mean...its a really good post...just...kinda wierd...
hey - say stuff tha will piss katrina off and see if she responds...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/08/2008 @ 5:08pm
Republican party which doesn't have a single African-American in its entire Congressional delegation.
KVH what's that suppose to mean? Do you honestly think you dems have done a better job with people of color? If I were you, I'd keep that thought to myself.
My people are getting pretty sick and tired of all of your empty rheteric. Just about every piece of legislation concerning people of color has been nothing but poison to us. To you and other libs, people of color are nothing but a "voting bloc".
Posted by ACook at 05/08/2008 @ 5:48pm
I saved it all guys.
got to post it in bits and pieces though.
1. good luck. i share your prayers, ms. kvh. unfortunately, there's a lot of money to pay back. a lot. interest on interest on interest...... 1/2 of u.s. government debt is owned by the u.s. government*!!! that's insane! plus an economy that needs to restart after running on the methamphetamine of paying for itself by borrowing 37 times against more debt! that's insane! i'm pleased to see the demise of the nefarious GOP. but i unfortunately doubt the donkey dudes will behave (or be able to do) much better because a) they have the same corporate sponsors and, b) there ain't no money oh, i almost forgot. there's that big ol' iraqi albatross to take care of... Thursday, May 8, 2008 12:04:13 AM Posted by frosty zoom at 05/7/2008 | ignore this person 2. here's a very interesting list of debt holders: http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt mexico? egypt? russia? the phillippines? wacky....... Posted by frosty zoom at 05/8/2008 | ignore this person 3. The writing has been on the wall for all to see for quite some time. Anyone who can look at what the Republican Party has done over the last 8 years without disgust and contempt truly has no morals. Posted by Balrog at 05/8/2008 | ignore this person 4. kudos, KATRINA. you are 100% on target. the obverse democratic fascists are indeed in serious trouble (though still, like a vicious cornered animal, dangerous). the "have you no decency" moment of our times approacheth at last and won't it be glorious when it arrives? but there are many miles to go before we sleep peacefully yet and monsters to slay. stay not the hand when the moment arrives... Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/8/2008 | ignore this person 5. Anyone who can look at what the Republican Party has done over the last 8 years without disgust and contempt truly has no morals. Posted by Balrog at 05/8/2008 or is a sniveling moral coward... Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/8/2008 | ignore this person 6. Anyone who can look at what the Republican Party has done over the last 8 years without disgust and contempt truly has no morals. Posted by Balrog problem is, a whole bunch of people never bother to look. Thursday, May 8, 2008 12:29:30 AM Posted by frosty zoom at 05/8/2008 | ignore this person 7. a whole bunch of people never bother to look. Thursday, May 8, 2008 12:29:30 AM Posted by frosty zoom at 05/8/2008 yup. ever watched a whole episode of "big brother"... whew! if anybody wants to torture me into a vegetative drooling coma, just strap me down, tape my eyes open, and force me to watch several hours of that rot... i'd far rather be waterboarded... Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/8/2008 | ignore this person
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/08/2008 @ 5:51pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/8/2008 | ignore this person
well done shepherd! not sur why, but...well done!
lol...
i'm still fer mask pissing off KVH...she hates him...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/08/2008 @ 5:54pm
Or you could just link to the old article too. I'm guessing it was a categorization problem, and not a reaction to any posts.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters/319003
Posted by srjenkins at 05/08/2008 @ 6:03pm
Here is the link for the previous thread if someone wants to copy it in. I have to run to an appt with a client.
http://tinyurl.com/6ekhpm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/08/2008 @ 6:03pm
Posted by srjenkins at 05/8/2008
sharp minds think alike!
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/08/2008 @ 6:05pm
I'm wondering if someone should be worried, LVL and I in the same mental space for a moment...
Posted by srjenkins at 05/08/2008 @ 6:05pm
Now is our time, now is our moment... to usher in a new era in progressive politics that will govern for decades!
Posted by Metteyya at 05/08/2008 @ 6:27pm
Our long national nightmare began with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, and degenerated to bizarre Orwellian surrealism after gwb was appointed president. While the election of a Democratic majority would be a most welcome relief, I'm not sure when, if ever, we'll recover from the disastrous tenure of the right-wingers in Washington.
Posted by billtc at 05/08/2008 @ 6:59pm
I'm wondering if someone should be worried, LVL and I in the same mental space for a moment...
Posted by srjenkins at 05/8/2008
eek! it's a celestial earthquaker!
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/08/2008 @ 7:15pm
So our long dark national nightmare is over, eh KVH?
From your fingertips to god's ear, my dear.
Experience instructs me that the Democratic Party "never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity," to coin a phrase. In the echo of the Fordian quote alluded to above, I am reminded of the "extinction" of the GOP predicted by giddy Dems back then. After the corruption of the Nixon White House, the wholesale subornation of law, constitution, public trust, and plain ol' "common human decency" everyone but everyone thought the Repugs were finished, kaput, phooey.
But something happened. A wave of giddy Dems were elected to congress and they behaved . . . well, like giddy Dems. They repealed the laws of common sense, the flouted public opinion, they mollified special interest groups from the merely nutty to the lunatic fringe, they cavorted in the Patomac basin with strippers, they sold cocaine to fake shieks, and behaved like there was no tomorrow. And they were right. Along came Papa Reagan with his smarmy one-liners and his smug assurance that if we would only turn the clock back to the Hollywood Old West that never was, all would be well. And the public bought it--anything after the prodigality of the hell-bent Dems of the 1970s.
We haven't recovered since.
So here's to change. Here's to reason. Here's to a common sense understanding of real world problems. Here's to the reemergence of science and a sane approach to fiscal policy. Here's to foreign and military policy based on 21st century realities, multilateral diplomacy, and a recognition that the US does not hold the deed to the entire planet. Here's to a rational approach to the domestic economy, education, health care, and revitalizing a crumbling infrastructure.
And here's to hoping that any of that happens.
Because if it doesn't, and another huge wave of Dems takes over Washington and behaves like the last bunch did, you can kiss your country good bye for another 30 years. And if that happens, we'll probably take the planet with us down that dark, dim rabbithole into some future Bushworld Wonderland we'll never recover from.
"Mein Fuhrer! I can walk!"
Posted by goyadad at 05/08/2008 @ 7:19pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/8/2008
Or a cranial skullcracker. With both of our heads so hard, I suspect it would cause very little damage.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/08/2008 @ 7:20pm
well - there's a canceous, self aggrandizing tumor on the democratic party named clinton...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/08/2008 @ 7:21pm
Or a cranial skullcracker.
Posted by srjenkins
careful,
you may cause a black hole,
enveloping earth and even the republicans......
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/08/2008 @ 7:25pm
1. The electoral map. Currently Obama is trailing in both Ohio and Florida. You cannot win without at least one of those two states. McCain has solid leads in Virginia and New Mexico, two states Obama must take to have any chance. McCain has taken the lead in Wisconsin, another must win state for Obama.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 05/8/2008 | ignore this person
Hmmm...interesting. Not so according to this information...
http://www.electoral-vote.com/
In New Mexico, McCain's lead is 1 point...a virtual dead heat.
And, in Wisconsin, Obama LEADS McCain by 4 points.
The vote ACTUALLY looks today like a small lead for Obama, 264 electoral votes to 263 for McCain.
The biggest problem for McCain in the above...is that it is OVERLY generous to McCain.
In Ohio and Florida, Obama only trails McCain by a single precentage point...again, at best, a statistical dead heat (but showing in McCains totals above.) However, Clinton beats McCain in those states by 10 and 8 points respectively. When push comes to shove, those Clinton voters will go for Obama., not McCain (despite the rhetoric.) Then, it's over for McCain. (And Indiana is irrelevant.)
Of course, bear in mind that the Dems haven't even BEGUN to focus on McCain. When they do, the first time we have a debate between the young, virile, intelligent black man...and Grandpa Munster...Indiana goes to the Dems as do Ohio and Florida, and the close states like New Mexico, South Carolina, and Nebraska all turn from Red to Blue...and the tidal wave starts.
By November it's a win by 140 electoral votes.
Posted by Lillian at 05/08/2008 @ 7:26pm
Sorry--the correct quote is "simple human decency" not 'common'.
We know that nothing is "common" now. It's all "special."
(My apologies to Max Schumacher.)
Posted by goyadad at 05/08/2008 @ 7:27pm
By November it's a win by 140 electoral votes.
Posted by Lillian
whew!
i'm glad that's done.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/08/2008 @ 7:33pm
"Indiana goes to the Dems as do Ohio and Florida, and the close states like New Mexico, South Carolina, and Nebraska all turn from Red to Blue...and the tidal wave starts.
By November it's a win by 140 electoral votes."
<Posted by Lillian at 05/8/2008>
Wow.
I've got to find out what your shrink has been prescribing & get that scrip from my doc. This Zoloft just ain't cutting it.
Seriously--you consider NEBRASKA and SOUTH CAROLINA "close" states? Close to what? Close to secession from the Union? Close to reviving Jim Crow? Close to imposing a Texas-style polygamist regime based on pederasty and incest? That kind of close?
(BTW, I remember round about Texas primary time, someone on this blog saying something about Texas being the hub of loony-bird universe. Was he right or what?)
Posted by goyadad at 05/08/2008 @ 7:39pm
We may , in fact, be on the tipping point of a generational shift. These kids seem less motivated by profit at all cost and they also seem to have a social conscience that may serve us all well.
Posted by julien38 at 05/08/2008 @ 7:57pm
"generational shift"
<Posted by julien38 at 05/8/2008>
We'll see--if they can find their way to the polls. But there are still a lot of Reagan voters lingering on the scene.
And dammit, those bastards VOTE.
Posted by goyadad at 05/08/2008 @ 8:01pm
well...as long as she respects you...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/08/2008 @ 8:11pm
Posted by goyadad at 05/8/2008 | ignore this person
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Obama/Maps/May08.html
Posted by Lillian at 05/08/2008 @ 8:29pm
Posted by Mask at 05/8/2008 | ignore this person
u think she likes "big brother"? that crap gives me an aneurism...
i don't get it...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/08/2008 @ 8:39pm
Obama/Seacrest '08
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/08/2008 @ 10:11pm
obama/dexter '08
Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/08/2008 @ 10:46pm
Could we be in for the good old days of Jimmy Carter? Ahh Happy days are here again!
Posted by dscott at 05/09/2008 @ 08:32am
No, that's what Bush is giving us NOW.
Posted by Mask
actually, i'd say it's much worse.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/09/2008 @ 09:14am
i don't think carter was listening to you talk to your aunt mildred, either.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/09/2008 @ 09:35am
Too bad he was such a pussy!
Posted by vertigoskippy at 05/09/2008 @ 09:37am
actually,
i lot of the current mess in the middle east can be attributed to:
<I><I><I><I><I><I><I><I><I><I><I><I><I><I><I><I><I><I>
The Carter Doctrine was a policy proclaimed by President of the United States Jimmy Carter in his State of the Union Address on 23 January 1980, which stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf region. The doctrine was a response to the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union, and was intended to deter the Soviet Union--the Cold War adversary of the United States--from seeking hegemony in the Persian Gulf. After stating that Soviet troops in Afghanistan posed "a grave threat to the free movement of Middle East oil," Carter proclaimed:
Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.
</I></I></I></I></I></I></I></I></I></I></I></I></I></I></I>
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/09/2008 @ 09:45am
Mask, you must be 25 years old or younger...or possibly dementia has set in. Jimmy Carter's administration is responsible for the phrase "Misery Index" GWB term is conparative heaven when you stack up the economics of the 2 periods.
Posted by dscott at 05/09/2008 @ 09:54am
Mask
reagan, bush......
those are some difficult spots to wash off.....
Friday, May 9, 2008 11:26:09 AM
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/09/2008 @ 11:20am
"Could we be in for the good old days of Jimmy Carter? Ahh Happy days are here again!"
<Posted by dscott at 05/9/2008>
I'm going to assume Scottie intended this literally. Indeed, if we had a man of Carter's acumen and judgment in charge we definitely would NOT have the mess we're in now.
We had Volker (a Carter appointee) cleaning up the horrid mess Nixon & Ford left (at some cost in regard to near term interest rates). We had a negotiated peace between Israel and primary Arab belligerent (Egypt). We had an actual energy policy. And we had a firm strategic military & diplomatic policy in the Mideast without bleeding our forces dry and depleting our treasury. We also were not funding the military build up of one of our strategic antagonists with imports of cheap crap that poisoned up half the time (China).
(BTW, we have funded deep-water subteranean ballistic missile sub bases in China. Do the genius right wingers on this blog know that? It's confirmed by satellite imagery from foreign intelligence services who are actually concerned about this sort of thing. Way to go, Bushies.)
Posted by goyadad at 05/09/2008 @ 12:29pm
GWB term is conparative heaven when you stack up the economics of the 2 periods.
Posted by dscott at 05/9/2008 | ignore this person
quick, what was the deficit during the Carter administration? any wars? any torturing going on? record foreclosures?
yes, the Bush years were a golden age for America.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/09/2008 @ 12:35pm
What strategic or tactical purpose would it serve to put missile bases underwater
Posted by Mask at 05/9/2008
obviously they are for destroying u.s. missle defence systems.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/09/2008 @ 1:10pm
Newt Gingrich to GOP--Wake Up <b>AND</B> Perish
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/09/2008 @ 1:20pm
"What strategic or tactical purpose would it serve to put missile bases underwater, if they could be spotted by satellite imagery and could be easily taken out by depth charges in the event of war?" <Posted by Mask at 05/9/2008>
Perhaps I typed a bit too hastily. Allow me to clarify.
The base is for support of a submarine fleet. The submarines are nuclear powered. The submarines are of a size & capability suitable for launching ballistic missiles, not unlike those the US has for its Trident fleet. The base is an underground base located in Hainan Island, China.
My outrageous tinfoil-hat club source for this report was NPR. <http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90309537>
I'll let you be the judge if NPR should be put on the list of RESE-ist loony-bird sources or not.
As for countermeasures, the NPR report insinuated that this might be a mission for British Agent 007, since he neutralized such a threat on celluloid back in the 1960s.
Posted by goyadad at 05/09/2008 @ 1:51pm
Posted by Mask at 05/9/2008
You need submarine bases and tenders to support a deep water capability, particularly if you are dealing with a primarily non-nuclear powered submarine fleet. This base has existed for three decades but has only recently become visible to commercial satellite imagery.
If you have a deep water capability, then if someone takes out the base, you will be in a state of war, and part of the whole MAD approach to war is that you don't want to go there if the result will be ballistic missile submarines deployed at sea that have no base to return to.
I don't see anything talking about U.S. involvement in the funding, and it would surprise me if it were true. goyadad, you have any evidence to support this claim?
http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/category/china
http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2006/02/elusive_chinese_submarine_cave.php
Posted by srjenkins at 05/09/2008 @ 2:05pm
BTW, a man with the improbably apropos name of Jeremy Bentham, who is an executive with forecasting & planning responsibilities at Shell Oil, has sketched two likely futures for world energy supplies.
One he calls the "blueprint," where corporations & governments act like grownups and plan for energy alternatives to the finite and dwindling petroleum reserves. The other he calls the "scramble" where insufficient planning, policy, and development of alternatives leads to regional and global conflicts over increasingly scarce and valuable petroleum.
Now I know that Iraq has been all about the spreading of democracy. Iraq War I & II had nothing to do with the scramble to secure access to crude oil. But who is to say it won't happen in the future? Maybe the suppply of oil is not endless like the buffalo or the whales. And when supplies grow scarce, might it be possible that nations like the US & China will use military force to protect access to supplies? And to block adversaries from access to same?
Take Sudan. Is China in Sudan because they like the military govt. & its political policies in Sudan? Or is it because of access to oil there? One wonders. And when China signs a pact with Iran for all the oil that Iran produces in return for protection of their nuclear weapons laboratories and other installations, including the staging of Chinese nuclear subs in the Arabian Sea and perhaps the carrier task force that China has had in the planning for the last 6-8 years, will that be a problem for US defense policymakers?
I don't know. But it does seem like a problem that someone might worry about. The issue is, will it be too late to worry then when we have already provided China with all the economic means they need for such developments by buying the junk they have shipped us via Walmart and Overstock.com? And who was making the policy decisions that assisted this process?
Posted by goyadad at 05/09/2008 @ 2:40pm
Now I know that Iraq has been all about the spreading of democracy.
hahahahahha. that's really funny.
yeah right. democracy is spread with shock and awe. it's spread by torture and death, the Iraqis are so democratic now that a quarter of their population is displaced and made refugees, and the 100,000 dead Iraqis is a small price to pay for democracy, right?
the bones of the dead are spread like manure to fertilize the soil and make democracy grow.
peace is breaking out ALL OVER THE REGION. Turkey attacks Iraq, civil war in Lebanon, Israel democratizing the West Bank, the US saber rattling against Iran. it's really working now. thanks for pointing it out to us.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/09/2008 @ 2:57pm
"I don't see anything talking about U.S. involvement in the funding, and it would surprise me if it were true. goyadad, you have any evidence to support this claim?" <Posted by srjenkins at 05/9/2008>
No, I didn't say that Dick Cheney was funding them through a Bill Casey style slush fund.
It's just an inference of mine. But check it out.
Before "capitalism" in the People's Republic: backyard iron smelters and a low-yield nuclear test followed by painfully slow development of delivery systems & modest offensive capabilities.
After death of Mao & under Deng along with successors: "liberalization" and development of the Chinese oligarchy; increased trade with the West; huge transfers of capital to Chinese manufacturers & government; about $500 billion in US govt. debt held by China, along with undetermined amounts of US dollar assets in sovereign wealth accounts. PLUS a massive increase in China's technical capability, weapons systems, and ability to project offensive power in the East Asia region. All they need now is offensive nukes on subs as well as a carrier task force to enable them to be a globally capable strategic player.
How did they pay for all this? Tons of cheap crap Americans buy at Walmart, etc.
Posted by goyadad at 05/09/2008 @ 4:50pm
Tons of cheap crap Americans buy at Walmart, etc.
Posted by goyadad at 05/9/2008 | ignore this person
I don't believe all that China exports is cheap crap. that is a myth.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/09/2008 @ 4:57pm
here is the quote that was mangled above.
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!
Barry Goldwater
Posted by emile duBois at 05/09/2008 @ 5:52pm
Posted by goyadad at 05/9/2008
I see. So, you mean it in the broadest sense possible - in terms of balance of trade, and not that the U.S. government has been directly involved in some way. I took U.S. reliance on Chinese manufacturing as a given, which was why I was thinking you might be saying more than that.
I think they already have offensive nukes on subs. However, I think China doing carrier operations in the Arabian Sea is a bit of a stretch.
Carriers require an entire battle group to protect them that include destroyers, guided missile cruisers, nuclear class submarines, and so forth. Not to mention all the incidentals like carrier capable aircraft, electronic warfare, support ships such as tenders, amphibious ships for troops delivery, logistical capability to deliver all the fuel these operations require, technical ability such as replenishment at sea, etc.
Not that I don't think the Chinese can't get all that done - but it's not trivial. I think I read somewhere a typical carrier costs around a trillion dollars for the U.S. to build.
You also should consider the fact that the U.S. Navy has more than 50 years of best practices behind them. And given some of the missile technology out there, aircraft carriers might be a great way to throw a lot of money in a hole in the ocean.
Posted by srjenkins at 05/09/2008 @ 8:44pm
China with all the economic means they need for such developments by buying the junk they have shipped us via Walmart and Overstock.com?
Posted by goyadad
with american "brand" names, of course.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/09/2008 @ 11:29pm
the chinese are stealing any jobs.
they are being given them.
Friday, May 9, 2008 11:40:16 PM
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/09/2008 @ 11:35pm
and yes,
MOST (sheesh) is poorly made.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/09/2008 @ 11:36pm
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=frosty%20zoom
I don't think you are in any position to make this kind of a blanket statement.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/10/2008 @ 11:54am
<Posted by srjenkins at 05/9/2008>
"I took U.S. reliance on Chinese manufacturing as a given"
Understood. Not always that way, though. They used to need us for technological initiative, financing, and markets. Now they can get along quite nicley without us. I think it was typical capitalist stupidity and greed to empower China as policy makers have. ___________________________
"I think China doing carrier operations in the Arabian Sea is a bit of a stretch."
It is today. But it is also an imperative that China develop the kind of global strategic capability that will be required in the "scramble" for oil. They can't afford not to play. That is why defense analysts are watching very closely for indications that China is building a carrier group. The "trillion dollar" price tag you cite is US costs. As we all know too well, China can do it much more cheaply. The real challenge for them is to develop the advanced fighter & A2A missile systems. They already have some very impressive airframes. But they will need something that will compete with the carrier version of the F-22. ___________________________
"given some of the missile technology out there, aircraft carriers might be a great way to throw a lot of money in a hole in the ocean."
Well, this is likely to be basic to China's strategy. They will allow the US to put carrier groups in position first, where they can be attacked with anti-ship missiles launched from land-based aircraft (assuming Iran as a regional strategic partner), submarines & missile frigates. Once the US carrier forces are damaged or sunk, China would be able to put its own group in place, taking care to ensure adequate air cover from regionally based aircraft. Of course, this is the scenario of 15 years from now. And by then, deterioration of US economy and military systems might be so extensive that China will be taking on the equivalent of today's Russian navy, not the US Navy we see in tv ads today.
You see, this is my beef against the neocons' "imperial" ambitions that have led us into all this crap in the Mideast. It is not only evil, it is stupid and dangerous. (Gen. Sanchez's new book is yet the latest on the stupidity of the GOP goons that have been running things since 2001.) If all the stupid crap actually had worked, it might be forgivable. But it hasn't. That's why the GOP is going to be annihilated in the congressional elections this fall. There will be seats lost in places like Mississippi and Oklahoma that no one could imagine changing hands.
But the WH goes to the GOP. Bubba will vote the flag just like always. And we all know that the flag is uffishal GOP propity.
Posted by goyadad at 05/10/2008 @ 4:14pm
But the WH goes to the GOP. Bubba will vote the flag just like always. And we all know that the flag is uffishal GOP propity.
Posted by goyadad at 05/10/2008 | ignore this person
you're kidding, right?
Posted by emile duBois at 05/10/2008 @ 4:48pm
I don't think you are in any position to make this kind of a blanket statement.
Posted by emile duBois
well,
i
think
i
can.
∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞ ∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞ ∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞ ∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
(obviously i don't purchase everything made in china)
∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞ ∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞ ∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞ ∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞
we sweep our inflation under the rug by subcontracting the production of our thneeds to the lowest possible pricer.
we reduce the price by:
i) paying "low" salaries to
a) people who are hungry and/or b) hypnotized by the "dream"
ii) completely ignoring the environmental needs of the planet we are made from
and
iii) making shitty crap.
ask any walmarteer -- the stuff costs 1/3 less, but lasts 2/3 fewer nanoseconds.
sure, this computer rocks and it's made in china (crafted in california -- in mexican we call this "mamón"). lots of cool stuff is. but lots of crap is, too. just like madeinjapan was and is today. i believe madeingermany went through the same thing.
because it hides the inflation cheaply.
oh well, we can always get another planet we are made of.
btw i don't blame the chinese (if one could generalize about something so big). god bless them, they deserve a better life*. i worry about them, however. yet i worry about their exploiters more.
*i really don't think becoming "us" is in either their or our interest. hopefully things will even out and humans will step a big step forward.
Saturday, May 10, 2008 7:03:14 PM
i hope this makes sense -- no time to reread. off to search for towhees**.
** pronunciation exercise #3: Pipilo erythrophthalmus***.
***phth?
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/10/2008 @ 7:00pm
I only know that for a government as bad as the Bush govt. was, the polling numbers between McCain and the two Dems are not conclusive by any means, and that is a pity and very hard to understand. So, I don't see clearly that vertical down trend. Is the American people still voting for the perceived personalities of candidates and not the substance? Have these years passed in vain?
KvH is right about Gingrich: its hard to agree with him. But he is an historian and when historians read the present they tend to exaggerate it and compare it with some of the worst moments in the past; Gingrich is too dramatic: when he was an active politician, and now as an outsider. For me, Gingrich does not have a sense of balance, he is too extremist even in his judgments.
The core question should be what are the Reps offering for the future to the American people if they completely loose the religious sticker (that they have stole) of their brand? A club of golf players? A small town gathering of white businessmen? A defender of the stock market? An ever increasingly patriotic and militaristic party? (Some resemblances to Nazis are not out of question today).
I think that their arguments have been extinguishing for long time now, but they still play the religious card, the nationalistic (security!)card, and the big corporation card and know how to appeal to people with those in the sense of calling for an internal pride of being American "in that way", a malicious way. They have nothing to offer to any "plain Joe" but they want to appear as another one. And they win elections because of that and still McCain ( not being the favorite of course) has possibilities of winning the next one.
Reality is that after all these years still 28% support G. Bush. These are staunch Reps and will not change in a 1,000 years. If Mc Cain is averaging say 45% that surplus 17% can only be:
1) Misogynists or racists that don't want either of the Dem candidates.
2) National security neurotics
3) Specific anti-Hillary brand of independents. ( the Clinton-hater brand which was partly Gingrich's doing).
4) People that think that either Obama or Clinton are "far to the left" but perceive McCain in the center or "not too hard core Republican" (wrong!) .
The Democratic party should at state level, adopt things that are dear to people like for example the Massachusetts health plan, and make them known to the rest of the country. We must sell people the fact that we are superior in the issues.
Posted by Frank42 at 05/11/2008 @ 2:05pm
if Gingrich is a historian he must be from the Josef Goebbels school.
Posted by emile duBois at 05/11/2008 @ 4:00pm
Is anyone here assuming that the democrats will take us out of the scramble for oil (which is ultimately doomed, as the oil coal and natural gas will eventually run out, and we will spend so much capital on the fight for oil that we wont develop an alternative system, and will face global societal collapse when it does run out). This is of course assuming that Avian Flu Virus doesn't knock out enough people in enough key positions that the rest of us end up screwed because those who died were the only ones able to perform this specific task that is absolutely vital to the rest of the planet. Why they hell aren't we coming up with a solution to this virus that kills 64% of humans that contract it?(probably for similar reasons that were not coming up with an affordable cure for the virus that has a 100% kill rate (HIV)).
Posted by shadow master at 05/12/2008 @ 03:41am
2) National security neurotics
NSN ANONYMOUS
thanks so much, frank42.
Posted by frosty zoom at 05/12/2008 @ 1:21pm