Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

This is a good sound bite, but a straw man argument. Those of us who would allow the mosque reason that in a free society you're supposed to (1) protect the rights of minorities against majority opinion, (2) not punish an entire group for what a few members of it did, and (3) not give government the right to deny rights based on a religious litmus test.

That's wonderful. I'm not questioning those who support it. I'm just saying that those who are against are hardly limited to the Gingrichs and Palins of the world.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

That's wonderful. I'm not questioning those who support it. I'm just saying that those who are against are hardly limited to the Gingrichs and Palins of the world.

Absolutely, just like those who support it aren't just radical chic poseurs.

On the TPers, I enjoyed this column, which I somehow missed when it came out 6 months ago. I particularly like the comparison of Glenn Beck to Abbie Hoffman -- it works on a lot of levels.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

I do think that slowly america eventually corrects itself and while we may wish we solved issues faster, that may be the cost of our system (which has many more positives).

If we do so, we'll be defying world history, which shows that nations in decline, as we are, almost never correct themselves to regain their former status.

 

[Shirtless Guy]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

If we do so, we'll be defying world history, which shows that nations in decline, as we are, almost never correct themselves to regain their former status.

Wouldn't be the first time that America defied world history would it?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

If we do so, we'll be defying world history, which shows that nations in decline, as we are, almost never correct themselves to regain their former status.

Well, part of that is observing empires after the fact, identifying the zenith, and then observing that afterward they declined. In other words, it may be a circular argument.

There have been plenty of nations that have risen and fallen cyclically: England, France, and the Germanic states to name three outstanding examples. China has waxed and waned for three thousand years. I love Macro-history but it's easy to put too much stock in metaphors and analogizing histories.

Our task is to restore fiscal sanity. The very fact that people as politically diverse as us agree on this tells me we can make smart political choices as a nation. Probably not without massive pain, but what nation, ever, improved itself except with enormous effort and against the will of a large portion of its population?

We already see in the wholesale rejection of the status quo, first the GOP, now the Dems, that most people are worried. At some point, some enterprising politico will realize that the way to stop the wheel of fortune with them at the top is to attack the root problem head on, cut spending, raise taxes, and eschew the emotional gimmicks both sides have hidden behind. Whatever that philosophy is -- perhaps liberal-libertarianism, perhaps a revival of paleoconservatism -- we may yet see the day where we both vote for the same candidate.

 

[pirate]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

If we do so, we'll be defying world history, which shows that nations in decline, as we are, almost never correct themselves to regain their former status.

You mean someday China will pass a resolution renaming American Cheese?

It could never get that bad, could it?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Well, part of that is observing empires after the fact, identifying the zenith, and then observing that afterward they declined. In other words, it may be a circular argument.

There have been plenty of nations that have risen and fallen cyclically: England, France, and the Germanic states to name three outstanding examples. China has waxed and waned for three thousand years. I love Macro-history but it's easy to put too much stock in metaphors and analogizing histories.

Europe as a whole rose and fell, with particular nations reaching their apex at somewhat different points (France with Napoleon, Victorian England, etc.). But the cycle is clear and it's clear which way it is headed and has been for awhile. Rome, Babylonia, Assyria, and others show generally the same pattern. But it is hard to identify any great nation/empire that, when it was on its downward slide, stopped, took stock of itself, made massive painful adjustments, and was able to arrest the slide and possibly regain some status. I can't think of a single case of this happening, but it's possible one is out there somewhere in the annals of history.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Europe as a whole rose and fell, with particular nations reaching their apex at somewhat different points (France with Napoleon, Victorian England, etc.). But the cycle is clear and it's clear which way it is headed and has been for awhile. Rome, Babylonia, Assyria, and others show generally the same pattern. But it is hard to identify any great nation/empire that, when it was on its downward slide, stopped, took stock of itself, made massive painful adjustments, and was able to arrest the slide and possibly regain some status. I can't think of a single case of this happening, but it's possible one is out there somewhere in the annals of history.

There is a great book on this subject that I read, I don't know, maybe 20 years ago. I think it was called something like "The Rise and Fall of Great Powers" or "The Rise and Fall of Great Nations" by a guy named Kennedy. If I recall correctly, his primary argument was that a nation's supremecy is dictated by it's natural resources available, either locally (like the U.S.) or obtained through empire building (i.e. Great Britain, Rome), and a country's ability to industrialize those resources. The end comes when, through empire building, a desire to protect what it already has, some sort of manifest destiny complex, or similar reasons, that country overextends itself economically when it has to pour more and more resources into its military and military battles.

A good lesson for our country.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

A good lesson for our country.

I see. So, those Americans who don't have a job should... probably just stop looking and be glad for the pittance the government allows them. Good to know!

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

That's wonderful. I'm not questioning those who support it. I'm just saying that those who are against are hardly limited to the Gingrichs and Palins of the world.

Leave it to Kepler to make a strawman argument while calling out a strawman argument.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

I see. So, those Americans who don't have a job should... probably just stop looking and be glad for the pittance the government allows them. Good to know!

I'm not real sure what this response has to do with Kennedy's thesis (with which I agree) that continued deficit spending to fund military ventures is one sure way to hasten the decline of a great power.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

There is a great book on this subject that I read, I don't know, maybe 20 years ago. I think it was called something like "The Rise and Fall of Great Powers" or "The Rise and Fall of Great Nations" by a guy named Kennedy. If I recall correctly, his primary argument was that a nation's supremecy is dictated by it's natural resources available, either locally (like the U.S.) or obtained through empire building (i.e. Great Britain, Rome), and a country's ability to industrialize those resources. The end comes when, through empire building, a desire to protect what it already has, some sort of manifest destiny complex, or similar reasons, that country overextends itself economically when it has to pour more and more resources into its military and military battles.

A good lesson for our country.

Sounds like a good read. I'll have to try to find a copy when I have some free reading time. I don't think there's a single equation that explains all the falls of great nations, though that is a reasonable hypothesis. I'm not sure how it really applies to the U.S. situation. We, our military, and our resource sources, really aren't in that much risk (though of course things could change).

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

In other news, 58% of Middle Eastern Muslims are opposed to the mosque near Ground Zero.

But it's definitely a white racist thing to be opposed to it.

First, I don't know of any that accuse many of being racist who oppose the mosque. IMO what people are saying is that the issue that matter is the right to locate the mosque there...as in, should it be stopped. And that if we stay true to American values...it shouldn't be forceably stopped.

Second, your poll highlights a point that many of us have known...Muslims by and large are not extremists. In fact, its surprising just how closely the numbers align with the average American...even though this is about their religion. I do wonder if you'd see numbers like this if we were talking about a major cathedral...and Christians. Maybe, maybe not.

If we do so, we'll be defying world history, which shows that nations in decline, as we are, almost never correct themselves to regain their former status.

I am of the belief the US will be just fine. Is it in decline? Maybe in a relative sense...other countries have been way below their potential and are now growing quickly.

But the US will hang in there just fine. This will be fueled by two factors IMO:

- The US is the most innovative country and will remain so for lifetimes. Nobody can match the US in idea creation and application of those ideas. Content, business innovation, technology...all will remain the US' domain going forward.

- The US is being fueled by social reinvention. Between immigration and higher education system...we have the ability to attract new folks to go after business opportunities and generate the skill sets to execute on them. The only countries that match us here are the one's with endless supplies of their own...China and India...but they still don't match our ability to get those people the right skills.

We won't match the rest of the world in growth but we'll be just fine.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Europe as a whole rose and fell, with particular nations reaching their apex at somewhat different points (France with Napoleon, Victorian England, etc.). But the cycle is clear and it's clear which way it is headed and has been for awhile. Rome, Babylonia, Assyria, and others show generally the same pattern. But it is hard to identify any great nation/empire that, when it was on its downward slide, stopped, took stock of itself, made massive painful adjustments, and was able to arrest the slide and possibly regain some status. I can't think of a single case of this happening, but it's possible one is out there somewhere in the annals of history.

This may be because nations come into being on top of tectonic plates (technological, demographic, religious). The plates shift, the nations heave and splinter and realign.

Although I actually prefer to think in terms of Toynbee's civilizations as the basic unit -- nations are mostly accidental (what is really, fundamentally the difference between the US and UK from a global-historical view?). Our civilization is either the English speaking world or the "West." In each case, the main tenets of the civilization -- political and economic freedom in the 18th century sense -- are at least above the mean of what they have been during most of the civilization's tenure. Our economic power is straining to support our military hegemony, just like Paul Kennedy told us it would in Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, and the bread and circuses model of keeping the crowd quiet at home.

Western dominance of the East was an artifact of the West having much more efficient market economies (and better navies). American dominance of Europe was an artifact of the devastation of WW2. It isn't so much that America is in "decline," as the rest of the world is no longer impoverished. For the first time, we are competing on reasonably fair terms with the rest of the world.

 

[Red Cloud]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

I'm not real sure what this response has to do with Kennedy's thesis (with which I agree) that continued deficit spending to fund military ventures is one sure way to hasten the decline of a great power.

Fire the military. Close the VA.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

I'm not real sure what this response has to do with Kennedy's thesis (with which I agree) that continued deficit spending to fund military ventures is one sure way to hasten the decline of a great power.

The vast majority of the U.S. deficit isn't due to military spending. It's part of the problem, but nowhere near all of it. The U.S. could eliminate the military and we'd still be nowhere near a balanced budget.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

The vast majority of the U.S. deficit isn't due to military spending. It's part of the problem, but nowhere near all of it. The U.S. could eliminate the military and we'd still be nowhere near a balanced budget.

Kennedy's thesis can be interpreted to mean over-extension in general. You're certainly right that we have a domestic entitlement "empire" that's much bigger than our actual overseas empire, although the Mil-Ind alliance also warps American industry (and many of our most industrious and inventive thinkers) away from more productive activity, since military research and development is itself financed by the government. It cuts both ways, though, since government investment insulated from immediate market demands is very often the best way to develop and deploy revolutionary technologies -- in just our own history: mining, shipbuilding, canals, railroads, aircraft, telecommunications, computers, the internet. The government does a lot wrong, but it thinks long-term much better than business, because it can depend on being around in the long-term. That's been going on ever since the first governments formed around the first major technologies: agriculture and irrigation.

Suffice that if we were in Japan's shoes, with a big brother holding the military umbrella and allowing us to concentrate on making useful products that people would like to buy, we'd be in a lot better shape.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

First, I don't know of any that accuse many of being racist who oppose the mosque. IMO what people are saying is that the issue that matter is the right to locate the mosque there...as in, should it be stopped. And that if we stay true to American values...it shouldn't be forceably stopped.

Mm, that's a good point. Racist is probably the wrong word. I think I was looking for "anti-Islam". Because if being opposed to the mosque is anti-Islam, then 58% of the Middle East needs to do some serious soul searching.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

Mm, that's a good point. Racist is probably the wrong word. I think I was looking for "anti-Islam". Because if being opposed to the mosque is anti-Islam, then 58% of the Middle East needs to do some serious soul searching.

Well, they may also be coming at it from the other direction: we don't want a sacred building tainted by nearness to a seat of fanatical American power.

It's no more fair to yell "anti-Muslim" at somebody who opposes the mosque than to yell "socialist" at someone who opposes extending Bush's tax cuts for the rich. Yeah, the target group probably fits completely inside the larger group, but that's like saying all whites are Klansmen because all Klansmen are white. Well, almost. <-- Totally unsafe for work.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XV: Now, with 20% more rage

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=188647

Well, Jonathan Pollard is in the news again. This nasty, traitorous dog should have been juiced long ago. Interestingly, the kamikaze defense of his supporters is the same offered by the Reds and deluded liberals who supported Alger Hiss to the bitter end: "after all, he was spying for a friendly government." Time does not permit a refutation of this nonsense.

No confirmation from the PM's office, but I would remind you that at the end of the Wye River conference (literally on the way out the door) Netanyahu asked President Clinton to free this bastiche. To his great credit, the president said no. Bibi would have flown into Tel Aviv and arrived to a "hero's" welcome. I say no, never, ever. I admire and respect Israel, and they are generally a huge benefit to us in a part of the world not known for its support of America and democracy. But there are limits to everything, and Pollard represents the limit to me. Just as the attack on the USS Liberty represented the limit. Pollard betrayed his country in service to another government, his many crimes damaged our security and should keep him in prison 'til he dies, period.

What will our current president do?