some of your numbers are a bit iffy—http://www.morganstanley.com/GEFdata/digests/20050318-fri.html#anchor0 & http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/charting/2005/0302.html & http://www.gao.gov/cghome/intergovchallenge.pdf—prehapes provide better, and far more dire numbers, morgan-stanley alone seem to think the economic rubicon has been crossed and nothing is going to stop it.
Posted by LamontCranston on Mar 31, 2005 at 7:16 AM
Bravo for the fine article. While one can dispute exact numbers, I sense that the overall thrust of this paper is right on the money. When half the people in America will not even consent to reading such data, it seems we have little hope of backing off this track. I will keep trying to educate the closed minds, however, as we all must.
Posted by Margaret on Mar 31, 2005 at 9:19 AM
“To avoid this we must bring our massive trade and fiscal deficits under control”
As always, a writer on the left criticizes our trade and fiscal deficits but offers no solution to the trade deficit (and, naturally, offers only tax increases as a solution to the fiscal deficit).
His analogy to insulting your banker is weak because it assumes lenders have all the power and nothing to gain by having you as a customer. Sometimes that is the case, but sometimes it is not. Look and see how a banker kisses the butt of its best customers. Bankers are acting in self interest. Likewise, China is acting in self interest. It’s not charity when they buy our government debt. We are China’s best customer. China needs our trade as much as we need them to finance our budget deficit (and, as it pertains to the trade deficit, run a capital deficit - which is another name for their trade surplus). Maybe even more. It’s the main reason the Chinese government buys U.S. treasuries: to maintain the peg with the dollar, which is at a level that results in a trade surplus, which is how they want it. If they didn’t intervene to maintain the peg, the Chinese currency would rise relative to the dollar and the trade deficit would decline if not disappear. Japan acts in the same manner. So much the better for us.
By the way, any ideas from anyone on how to reduce the trade deficit? Nobody ever offers a solution.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Mar 31, 2005 at 9:25 AM
“Bush instead joined Ariel Sharon in his expropriation and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. As a result, the United States has lost all credibility,”
This writer loses all credibility when he describes Israel’s actions as “ethnic cleansing.”
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Mar 31, 2005 at 9:35 AM
“In July 2004, Zogby International Surveys polled 3,300 Arabs in Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates. When asked whether respondents had a “favorable” or “unfavorable” opinion of the United States, the “unfavorables” ranged from 69 to 98 percent.”
Gee, I wonder how they felt before Bush? They probably loved us!
To point out that they don’t like us now does little to make the case that it’s Bush’s fault (which is the point of this article, right?) without similar survey results prior to Bush. I’m sure such a survey would demonstrate that they’ve never liked us.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Mar 31, 2005 at 9:41 AM
“A cut-off of Saudi Arabia’s ability or willingness to sell its oil to us would, at the present time, constitute an economic catastrophe.”
This is similar to the “don’t insult your banker” misunderstanding. Saudi Arabia needs us as much as(if not more than) we need them. Obviously, our economy can take rising oil prices since it has demonstrated such over the last year and since energy is a relatively small part of our economy. But for them, the sale of oil dominates their economy.
Also, oil is fungible. If Saudi Arabia doesn’t sell to us but still puts the oil on the market, they’ll sell the same amount and we’ll buy the same amount, just not directly.
This writer is a pretty shallow thinker. He seems to think all these countries are so charitable to the U.S., a country he thinks they hate (and on the hate point alone he’s probably as close to correct as he gets). If the world hates us so, why continue to do business with us? Why are they charitable with countries they hate?
The answer is they’re not charitable. He’s wrong. They are acting out of self-interest.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Mar 31, 2005 at 9:51 AM
“By using currently available automotive technologies as well as those being incorporated today in new Toyota and Honda automobiles, we could end our entire dependency on Persian Gulf oil. We should do that before we are forced to do so.”
It is unbelieveable how little this writer understands that which he writes about. If we reduce our demand for oil such that marginally profitable wells no longer operate, the middle east will have a greater share of the oil market, as none of their wells are marginally profitable (middle east oil is the lowest cost oil on the planet; it will be the last to cut production).
I’m not saying there wouldn’t be benefits to less oil consumption in the U.S. I’m only saying that it won’t lead to less imports from the middle east, as this writer believes. It will lead to less imports from high cost producers.
Sincerely,
J Craig
p.s. I hope this is my last message about this article, but I still have a few paragraphs left to read.
Posted by J Craig on Mar 31, 2005 at 9:59 AM
“To point out that they don’t like us now does little to make the case that it’s Bush’s fault (which is the point of this article, right?) without similar survey results prior to Bush. I’m sure such a survey would demonstrate that they’ve never liked us.”
You missed the point. Whether they “loved” us before Bush isn’t the issue—in fact no, we weren’t widely adored in the Arab world prior to the Bush presidency, largely for the foreign policy choices referred to by Mr. Johnson. The point is that our actions have swung the pendulum even further in the extremists’s favor. Rather than making the world safer by defusing the reasons for people to *become* terrorists, we’ve helped to manufacture more. We are now at odds with most of our traditional allies on a wide variety of issues directly related to our foreign policy, an additional cost of our international behavior.
Most of your fiscal arguments are fatuous. If countries like China, India and Japan benefit so from our being in debt to them, one is left to wonder why they are quietly moving to enhance their stocks of Euros.
It’s easy to whitewash an opponent’s argument by stuffing them into a neat cubbyhole: “a writer on the left”, yadda yadda. Try dropping the Fox News window dressing and engage the writer in an actual debate. Being snide doesn’t make your points any more convincing. In fact, as you yourself said, you “lose all credibility” by failing to do anything more than hamstring.
Posted by A Waters on Mar 31, 2005 at 10:17 AM
“You missed the point. Whether they “loved” us before Bush isn’t the issue—in fact no, we weren’t widely adored in the Arab world prior to the Bush presidency, largely for the foreign policy choices referred to by Mr. Johnson. The point is that our actions have swung the pendulum even further in the extremists’s favor.”
I don’t miss the point, which is that they like us even less. Without numbers prior to Bush, his citing of this survey does nothing to support his point.
“If countries like China, India and Japan benefit so from our being in debt to them, one is left to wonder why they are quietly moving to enhance their stocks of Euros.”
If they don’t benefit, one wonders why they bought our debt in the first place. Charity? This writer seems to believe it was charity, and that charity will come to an end. It may come to an end, but it won’t be because they no longer will feel charitable. It will be because they find benefit to their self-interest elsewhere.
“Most of your fiscal arguments are fatuous.”
Really? Which ones?
“It’s easy to whitewash an opponent’s argument by stuffing them into a neat cubbyhole: “a writer on the left”, yadda yadda. Try dropping the Fox News window dressing and engage the writer in an actual debate.”
I spend one sentence (correctly) labeling him a lefty, and the rest debunking some of his weak points, and you focus only on the lefty comment and ignore the remaining debating points?
“Being snide doesn’t make your points any more convincing.”
Perhaps, but I don’t rely on being snide. I reread all my comments. Here’s the only thing I found that was snide: “It is unbelieveable how little this writer understands that which he writes about.” And he dragged it out of me with his consistently bad points.
“Being snide doesn’t make your points any more convincing. In fact, as you yourself said, you “lose all credibility” by failing to do anything more than hamstring.”
Is the second sentence supposed to follow from the first? In the first you’re saying I’m snide (which I was, but so minimally it was irrelevant) and it doesn’t help. Then, as if it follows, you say that I lose all credibility because I “hamstring.”
I looked up the definition of hamstring in an effort to decipher your meaning. The best I could find was this:
“To destroy or hinder the efficiency of; frustrate: ‘These worthwhile books are often hamstrung by unimaginative formats and inaccurate art’ (Don Lessem).”
Is that what I do? Hamstring? And if so, why does that cost me all credibility?
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Mar 31, 2005 at 11:09 AM
“First and foremost, we should get out of Iraq and demand that Congress never again fail to honor article 1, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution giving it the exclusive power to go to war.”
—
Would someone kindly remind the author that, right or wrong, congress did authorize the war in Iraq in 2002. The president went to congress and got approval. Now he may not have received it from the UN, but he doesn’t need it.
Posted by Michael P on Mar 31, 2005 at 11:40 AM
When a liberals uses the term “WE” to describe the United States, beware. Why is the U.S “WE”? The U.S is controlled by a tiny ruling class. WE in fact have no country, WE are the workers and peasants of the world. WE have the same interests, the paper pusher in Bombay and the paper pusher in Miami have no conflicting interests. WE are the American working-class army privates shooting at WE the Afghan working-class insurgents. WE are the Kurdish peasant peshmarga, killing WE the Sunni peasant rebels. WE are cannon fodder in all conflicts on every side. WE kill each other and wave THEIR flags.
When the author speaks of “WE” as the U.S, he displays his servitude to the ruling class. The author disagrees with the American Enterprise Institute on how best the rulers must rule. The author wishes to return us to the glory days of Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton. The glory days when THEY could exploit US and have US kill each other without too much protest from too many sectors.
WE should not concern ourselves with what THEY the U.S, or THEY China, or THEY Cuba, or THEY Moqtada al-Sadr do to each other. WE are artificially pitted against each other on immaterial categories such as race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and yes nationality. OUR unity is a material reality based on our position in the global economy. WE face the dismantling of the welfare state everywhere on earth, from Russia to France to Norway to Argentina. NONE of the problems of the world, NONE can be solved until WE understand who WE truly are, then take control of our planet before it’s too late. Workers of the world unite.
Madimilian AL-Dakari
Posted by Maximillian Al Dakari on Mar 31, 2005 at 11:56 AM
Maximillian, that was a parody, right?
Posted by J Craig on Mar 31, 2005 at 12:18 PM
While it seems that J. Craig has a different view point than the writer of this article and more or less my own, I think it is a completely valid point that too much emphasis is placed on Bush. Bush, it seems to me, is a very small part of a much larger problem. I am not an economist so I can’t feel confident proposing solutions to national debt etc. But I can say that the level of inequity in the world is not a natural phenomenon, it is designed by men. Compassion and sound moral judgment are, I believe, natural phenomenon in men. But in the institution of business and industry these traits do not exist.
The institutions that men have created were not created with the intention of benefiting society at large, or being socially responsible. They were created to increase the personal profit of individuals. This, perhaps, is something that should be observed prior to discussions of this nature. As it is not necessarily the fault of the individuals within these institutions but rather it is the fault of the institutions themselves.
Posted by Derek on Mar 31, 2005 at 12:20 PM
WELL stated Derek.
J Craig, I dont argue with rightists, only leftists who argue with rightists.
Posted by Maximillian Al Dakari on Mar 31, 2005 at 12:25 PM
Max, you only argue with leftists who argue with rightists? Why?
Posted by J Craig on Mar 31, 2005 at 12:43 PM
J Craig,
I believe most ordinary people who move towards leftist positions are moved by a genuine concern for solving the world’s problems. However I try to explain that both the right and the left are ruling class ideologies. The debate is how best to rule. Fifty years ago the arguments were: should the rulers rule with a more or less unadulterated free market (conservative/libertarian) or with a social safety-net (liberal-socialist). THere was even the Stalinist “alternative” of state-owned capital and a ruling class organized in a party bureaucracy, full of Psuedo-marxist rhetoric about communism and equality and such. Cuba for example is a state-capitalist country with its own version of exploitation. The argument was basically based on how much one feared the workers. The liberal elite felt the workers were a threat and should be appeased with social security, welfare, collective bargaining rights etc. The conservative elite felt workers would be motivated by a free market in which they had a chance to advance if they worked hard etc. The stalinists believed the rulers could simply echo all the marxist-sounding words while ensuring that the key tennet of Marxsim, Worker’s control was subdued brutally.
Today the debate is how quickly should the welfare state be dismantled. How nakedly should imperialist ambitions be pursued?
My appeal to workers who move to the left is that it is a ruling class ideology and that leftist governments are just as responsible for the crap we witness. France is no better than the U.S. Kerrry is no better than Bush. As for non-elite rightists I can explain my positioins to them but they sound like Martian to them so why argue? They don’t bother much with the plight of mankind and as such they are simply the enemy.
Posted by Maximillian Al Dakari on Mar 31, 2005 at 1:11 PM
Max, I’m beginning to understand what kinds of systems of governance you don’t want. If you could decide, what would you replace these systems with?
Posted by J Craig on Mar 31, 2005 at 1:16 PM
J Craig,
I don’t think this is just about governance. It is about undertanding the entire arc of human social development since we emerged as a species. IT is too long and complicated to fit on this site, but here’s an ouline.
Homo sapiens in an icredibly social animal. As our primitive ancestors faced the harsh world, they organised communist societies. Equality was not the result of the goodness of these folks, but on the objective condition in which they lived. Selfishness was suicidal, as banishment from the band meant certain death.
As the productivity of labor increased we produced surpluses which freed some people from having to work. A class of people arose to organize the surplus, to defend it against rivals, to tax, to rule. Private property, female subjugation etc are once again the result of objective reality. Each era is conditioned by increases in the productive forces of the economy. THis in turn leads to a social organization, an ideology, and a state apparatus. THus the Slave society of antiquity, the feudal era and the capitalist age each arose out of a new and highet level of productive capacity. Each era creates the conditions for the next but the transitions from one to another are often violent.
Capitalism has created the preconditions for a return to communism based not on scarcity but on abundance. The productive forces are so advanced that the economy and the social structure are at odds with each other. THere is a contradiction between an immensely social organization of work, and the pivate owneship of the profits. There is a contradiction between the global economy and the nation-state system. Such contradictions are symptomatic of an epoch at the end of its life. It has oulived its usefullness. That’s why so many people feel as if things are getting worse and the world has gone mad.
So what is to be done. First of all recogniise a force in the world that can change it because it has no interest in exploiting anybody and has no interest in being used as cannon fodder. The international working class is te force that can change society. We replace the governments with soviets. If you don’t know what that is ask me. This is not about me and what I want. It is about humanity’s journey.
Posted by Maximillian Al Dakari on Mar 31, 2005 at 2:00 PM
Conceding, for the sake of argument, that the Israeli/neocon mafia has crossed the “Rubicon” leading to the end of the U S experiment “with democracy” and establishment a military dictatorship in its place, anarchy or annihilation are all the future can hold.
Posted by theloneous on Mar 31, 2005 at 2:22 PM
“Conceding, for the sake of argument, that the Israeli/neocon mafia has crossed the “Rubicon” leading to the end of the U S experiment “with democracy” and establishment a military dictatorship in its place, anarchy or annihilation are all the future can hold.”
We can concede that for argument, but not for anything resembling reality. There is no military dictatorship, or did I miss the coup? As far as I can tell, our elected president remains the commander in chief of the military.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Mar 31, 2005 at 3:28 PM
Max,
“Capitalism has created the preconditions for a return to communism based not on scarcity but on abundance.”
Exactly. And without capitalism, the fruits of capitalism will wither. If you eliminate the system, you won’t have the product of that system for long, and I sense the system that you think would replace it would offer significantly less abundance.
“THere is a contradiction between an immensely social organization of work, and the pivate owneship of the profits.”
Don’t get me wrong: there is immense wealth in the hands of a relatively small number (which I don’t mind). But in so many cases, the line between the laborer and the owner of the profits is getting blurred. By the time many middle and upper middle class people reach their mid-50’s (to say nothing of retirement in their 60’s), they have a significant stake in the ownership of profits. I just don’t see things getting worse for the broadest segment of society. I see things getting better.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Mar 31, 2005 at 3:36 PM
J Craig,
Unfortunately my definintion of “the broadest segment of society” is precislely that: the broadest segment of society. You seem to define this as middle and upper middle class folks in rich countries. I think the rest of mankind thinks things are getting worse.
Also, a new economic and social system arises out of the old one. At a certain point the old system is full of too many contradictions to sustain itself. A new one arises that conforms to the higher productive level and continues the progress of society. Primitive communism cannot be maintained once the productive forces advance to the point of creating surpluses, since selfishness is no longer suicidal but quite beneficial. Fuedalism could not be maintained with the rise of finance capital and the generalised production of commodities. The gains of feudalism didn’t wither away when the serf was emancipated and became a “free” worker in the new capitalist society. Likewise capitalism (a society based on the generalised production of commodidties, thus including Cuba and the old USSR) can’t be maintained when there is so much abundance, when labor is so socialised, when the economy is so globalised. Once again selfishness is suicidal, but not to the individual alone but to the community at large. It is destroying the planet, and leading rival states into a frenzied race for finite resources. There’s no reason to believe that a global society run by soviets would fare any worse in replacing the present order.
There’s nothing wrong with optimism, or faith in the system. However if you think things are getting better, when tuition is skyrocketing, when the gap between rich and poor is increasing (FACT) at an unprecedented rate. When the social safety-net is being dismantled in every country When workers face a race to the bottom of thier wages, as companies simply move to the nearest source of cheaper labor. If you think things are improving, then you’re the one living on Mars.
The fact is that capitalism will end. The question is how. Either the international working class takes control or civilization, nay the very survival of our species, is at stake.
Posted by Maximillian Al Dakari on Mar 31, 2005 at 5:07 PM
the neo-cons always blame the democrats for not having a plan,look at #ss bush does’nt have a plan but blames the democrates. His plan private accounts, it doesn’t save social scurity, and he can’t tell you where he is going to get 2-3 trillion to back his plan. Medicare is out of control, where is his plan, don’t have one blame the democrates. Trade deficit, don’t have a plan blame you know who. Clinton, national deficit 52 billion surplus I guess democrates did have a plan. Iraq war 1.6 billion a week when our we going to leave? don’t have a plan, blame the democrates.
Bush 3 months into second term approval rating? today 41%, hey let’s blame the democrates.
Bush and the neo-ss-cons won’t take the blame for anything, it will always be someone elses fault.
If bush’s ratings drop 10% more he might as well stay in texas on his ranch. He is loosing his fight on social security and even the neo-cons are seeing through his bs.
Posted by brian on Mar 31, 2005 at 7:11 PM
J. Craig
“As far as I can tell, our elected president remains the commander in chief of the military.”
You’re living in a fantasy world. Be a good boy and commit yourself.
Posted by theloneous on Mar 31, 2005 at 7:38 PM
Why do people engage with J. Craig? He has a right to his views, but they are libertarian of the Ayn Rand variety. The value of this site would be enhanced if people of broadly similar views actually engaged each other with ideas, views and information about what is happening, what they think about what is happening, and finally and most imporantly, what needs to be done to change the things we think need changing. J.Craig doesn’t believe anything needs changing much, except perhaps greater and greater dollops of market libertarianism.
There is no point trying to change his mind. So move on folks, and deal with the issues and ideas that need to be dealt with, in a way that moves us forward instead of moving in ever decreasing circles around points of reference that just don’t connect.
Finally, I have always found that one of the best ways to get a handle on the present is to have some idea of how we arrived here. Historical approaches to a range of issues can yield valuable insights, not the least being an insight into the history of empires and the trajectories they follow. While care should always be taken not to make unwarranted comparisons, or inapplicable analogies, it is fascinating to compare the trajectory of the old European empires with the current progress of the US.
IMO, the US is facing crises on a number of fronts, but the biggest crisis is the social crisis in ‘at home’. Looking at the US from the outside, with a not unsympathetic eye, it is clear to me at least that the US ruling class has unforunately just got what it wished for-always dangerous. Populist mobilisation from below, on issues concerned with the ‘moral order’, in order to prop up support for foriegn adventures abroad, and distract from growing social dislocation at home. The problem for the US as for all empires which must utilise this kind of social control strategy to deal with empire’s costs and burdens, is that when you run out of rope (meaning the ability to juggle the competing pressures) all hell breaks loose. While the British Empire could be said to have ended not with a bang, but with a whimper, never forget that the death blow was the salughter of WW1. Empire in trouble is not a pretty sight.
Posted by Jane Doe on Mar 31, 2005 at 8:07 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/24/opinion/polls/main619122.shtml
another 10% and it will be better than an impeachment.
Posted by brian on Mar 31, 2005 at 8:51 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com
Posted by brian on Mar 31, 2005 at 8:52 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/24/opinion/polls/main619122.shtml
Posted by brian on Mar 31, 2005 at 8:57 PM
A few musings based on the article and some of the posted responses…
I can’t help but be distressed at Americans’ long-standing (and potentially self-destructive) cultural aversion to anticipating outcomes beyond a few years hence. As I read the article, that idea recurred; neither Bush nor the country at large seems to grasp that there’s a future to consider, beyond the next election and beyond the next purchase at the mall.
It can only be the outcome of faith, a blind faith that, no matter what we do, we’ll win in the end. Nothing else explains the refusal to consider reducing our addiction to oil-based energy, nor our short-sighted erosion of civil rights (e.g. the USA Patriot Act), nor our bull-in-a-china-shop hubris in relations with other societies, nor our continued borrowing while allowing the economic base from which those debts would be paid to weaken.
There’s a detachment from reality in hand when Americans aren’t more distressed by Abu Ghraib, or by the revelation that the whole reason the Coalition of the Willing was assembled turned out to be false, or by long term detentions without trial or even charge in direct violation of our own constitutional principles.
Actually, that’s best-case, a post-9/11 trauma syndrome, a nation-wide psychological defense mechanism. Worst case is that people in America just don’t give a damn any more whether their actions are aligned with their stated principles, as long as they feel like winners.
Whether the rest of the world loves us or thinks we suck, are there not some principles that we ought to keep alive for our own sake? Is there nothing we ought to live up to, or is all that just passe?
“Wake Up” indeed. It’s an understatement!
Posted by Kuya on Mar 31, 2005 at 10:37 PM
J. Craig, you’re right that calling what Israel is currently doing is not ethnic-cleansing, if you only consider ethnic-cleansing to be mass-slaughter of one sort or another.
But if you do not consider mass-evictions, taking of one peoples land and handing it over to another people simply because their god says it is theirs, fenced-in in smaller and smaller blocks of land, and on and on and on, then yes it is not ethnic-cleansing, barely.
It is more akin to apartheid, barely. But it is far more violent & horrific, with the cycle-of-violence far more destructive & horrendous than anything they had in South-Africa, and at its current state of affairs it could very easily tip from apartheid to what you would consider to be a traditional form of ethnic-cleansing.
Posted by LamontCranston on Apr 1, 2005 at 12:28 AM
Theloneus,
Am I the one living in a fantasy world? Who does control the military? Does he answer to Bush?
You should be able to support your ridiculous comments.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Apr 1, 2005 at 8:19 AM
Dear Jane Doe,
I think plenty of things need changing.
“J.Craig doesn’t believe anything needs changing much, except perhaps greater and greater dollops of market libertarianism.”
Translation: don’t waste your time with him. This is a communists’ (sorry, “progressives’”) site only.
“There is no point trying to change his mind.”
Shouldn’t you be telling me that there is no point in trying to change the minds of any of the regulars here? Can your mind be changed? Are you open to my ideas?
Why would I be any more inclined to follow your lead than you would be to follow mine? You think my ideas stink. Likewise, I think yours stink.
I’m not here to change minds. It’s impossible. I’m here to point out flaws (and what a treasure-trove it is).
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Apr 1, 2005 at 8:28 AM
Dear Kuya,
“As I read the article, that idea recurred; neither Bush nor the country at large seems to grasp that there’s a future to consider, beyond the next election and beyond the next purchase at the mall.”
Are you kidding? Do you think Bush makes decisions because they are politically popular? From a political popularity perspective, Iraq was a crazy, unnecessary risk. Bush is thinking long-term on plenty of issues, and it costs him political points frequently.
“It can only be the outcome of faith, a blind faith that, no matter what we do, we’ll win in the end.”
It could be blind faith, but it could also be that we genuinely and rationally think we’re right.
“Nothing else explains the refusal to consider reducing our addiction to oil-based energy”
Sure there are other explanations. One is that there is enough oil for at least the next 100 years at current and projected usage rates because the oil sands and clay and shale become profitable to produce at current prices. That’s 64 years (at least) beyond social security’s problems, and apparently the majority of the left-of-center thinks there’s no crisis there, so why worry about 100 years?
“nor our continued borrowing while allowing the economic base from which those debts would be paid to weaken.”
By what measure is it weakening? Do you see no signs of strength?
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Apr 1, 2005 at 8:44 AM
Dear Lamont,
“But it is far more violent & horrific”
You’ve lost me. Are you referring to Palestinian terrorism?
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Apr 1, 2005 at 8:47 AM
J Craig:
Mr. Johnson’s use of the Rubicon analogy as his premise presumes the beast administration is leading the U S as we know it toward certain ruin. Obviously you don’t agree with this premise and you’ve explained at length why. From my perspective, that of a 45 year old working class family man, the analogy is dead on target and I believe the crooks that have taken over the federal government are hell bent on destroying it. As for supporting my argument I would have to show you my 2004 tax return indicating how much and the percentage of my income taken by your president vs. the value of government services I received in return. I don’t subscribe to any political party platform or ideology so don’t assume I’m influenced one way or another, I just know from personal experience that I’m getting ripped off by a government that does not act in my best interest. I would support within reason any economic scheme the beast administration pursued if it met any of my financial or social objectives but that’s not happening. Whatever it is these things in the white house are doing is in fact diminishing the quality of life for me and my family.
Posted by theloneous on Apr 1, 2005 at 11:27 AM
J. Craig,
As a well-heeled business owner, I am as deep in the throes of capitalism as one can be. However, I am progressive and disagree deeply with the actions of this Administration. I do not believe in the “social Darwinism” they espouse any more than I believe in Communism. All I see is the rise of empire with the aid of snotty self-annointed pundits, such as yourself. If you’re so in love with fascism, “lead of McDuff”.
Posted by Margaret on Apr 1, 2005 at 11:48 AM
So busy earning big bucks to back the impeachment of Bush that I mistyped…“lead ON”... is correct.
Posted by Margaret on Apr 1, 2005 at 11:50 AM
Dear Theloneous,
I’m sorry life isn’t working out for you as well as you want. But your entire message has little to do with supporting your ridiculous comment that I am living in a fantasy world because I believe the President is in charge of the military.
So I’ll ask again: Who does control the military if not Bush? Does he answer to Bush?
“I don’t subscribe to any political party platform or ideology so don’t assume I’m influenced one way or another”
Just curious: who was the last Republican presidential candidate you voted for?
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Apr 1, 2005 at 12:25 PM
Dear Margaret,
“If you’re so in love with fascism, “lead of McDuff”.”
What specifically have I said that could reasonably lead you to conclude that I have any affection for fascism? Certainly you can back up you’re implicit, if not explicit, charge, right?
“with the aid of snotty self-annointed pundits”
And all this time I thought we were friends.
Sincerely,
J Craig
p.s. I am also progressive.
Posted by J Craig on Apr 1, 2005 at 12:31 PM
Isn’t it “Lay on, Macduff…”?
Posted by J Craig on Apr 1, 2005 at 12:48 PM
The United States does not face bankruptcy. Eery tme they try to balance the budget or pay off the National Debt it wrecks the economy. The Industrial sector has several hundreds of trillions of dollars in unassayed assets as acoounts receib\vable, For an exp;aination see my personal web pge at <www.voicenet.com/~chseitz> and click on its the Economy Stupid!—Chas
Posted by Charles H. Seitz on Apr 1, 2005 at 1:34 PM
Thank you again, Chalmers Johnson, for being a cogent, thoughtful historian and analyst of trends in American foreign policy.
For those that aren’t familiar with Mr. Johnson’s earlier work, Blowback, he essentially predicted that Osama bin Laden would strike back at the U.S. and foreshadowed 9-11.
So, his prognosticative abilities are considerable. Those who are dismissive of his predictions simply don’t know what they are talking about.
America is clearly in decline, and this is to be expected, given that the trajectory of most fascist regimes. They are self-cannabalizing. Johnson recognizes this and his piece is cognizant of this fact.
Intelligent people ignore this cautionary tale at their own peril - which excludes most of the Bushies.
Posted by Stephen Kriz on Apr 1, 2005 at 1:39 PM
Hey J Craig,
too much talkie talkie!!!!
Posted by the great went on Apr 1, 2005 at 1:41 PM
“Bush is thinking long term on plenty of issues”
Apart from reinforcing Repuplican hegemony for the next couple of decades I have difficulties seeing other long term issues.
Perhaps the environment? Given your government’s dismal domestic and international trackrecord I don’t think Mr Craig had this one in mind.
Maybe education? Lots of cuts on this one too it seems so we can call this one off too.
Surely democracy in the Middle East, the cornerstone of your government’s foreign “policy”.
Might be in for some rough seas ahead the moment a democratically elected coalition of Muslim parties starts demanding the withdrawal of US troops out of Iraq so looking a little shaky as well.
BTW Why hasn’t anything been done about North Korea, surely a much bigger threat than Iraq ever has been. Apparently tracking down WMD’s might be a lot easier there.
What about Sudan where thousands of innocent civilians have been and are still being slaughtered…
But then again those 2 countries don’t happen to sit on the world’s largest oil reserves.
Posted by chris p. on Apr 1, 2005 at 1:59 PM
J Craig:
My life is going well enough, I hope yours is too, thanks for caring.
You ask, “Who does control the military if not Bush? Does he answer to Bush?
I’m not sure who or what controls the U S military but I’m sure bush doesn’t and whoever it is doesn’t answer to bush. As far as “supporting your ridiculous comment that I (J Craig) am living in a fantasy world because I believe the President is in charge of the military”, I don’t feel I need to support my opinion anymore than bush needed actual supporting evidence to justify invading Iraq. However, the reason I feel its obvious bush is not calling the shots militarily (or otherwise) is because the American people are not, directly or indirectly, beneficiaries of the U S military’s missions. It stands to reason then that the primary benefactors of the military’s efforts are most likely its controlling interest, just as in any organization. While bush himself may be a part of the group that make up the primary benefactors he is too stupid and unstable to direct any military operation and has passed on that responsibility to someone or something else. As such, bush is in breach of his fiduciary relationship with the American people as presiding officer of their elected representatives. You seem intelligent enough to have realized this so I assumed you just wish to believe otherwise, thus the fantasy.
Also, I’ve never voted for a republican presidential candidate, however I have voted for a republican for Govornor.
Have you ever voted for a non republican presidential candidate?
Posted by theloneous on Apr 1, 2005 at 2:24 PM
Dear chris p.,
Bush thinking long term: the middle east, the economy, social security, education, health care, and even the environment, to name just a few. Naturally, his ideas don’t appeal to your kind. Oh well. Looks like he won’t have the support of the readership of ITT.
“Maybe education? Lots of cuts on this one too it seems so we can call this one off too.”
Cuts?? Federal education spending has increased about 70% under Bush.
“Might be in for some rough seas ahead the moment a democratically elected coalition of Muslim parties starts demanding the withdrawal of US troops out of Iraq so looking a little shaky as well.”
Rough seas? Rather, that sounds like it would be a good result. What more can you realistically ask? Did you ever expect a totally secular government?
“BTW Why hasn’t anything been done about North Korea, surely a much bigger threat than Iraq ever has been.”
What did you have in mind?
“What about Sudan where thousands of innocent civilians have been and are still being slaughtered…”
Sounds like you’re saying because we can’t take up every worthy cause we shouldn’t take up any. I’d say you have to prioritize, and with what we knew about Saddam Hussein’s history and based on his behavior regarding inspections, our priorities were right. It doesn’t matter that he didn’t have WMD. What mattered was that he was supposed to comply with the inspections process, which he didn’t, so we couldn’t be certain he didn’t have WMD, AND he acted like he had WMD. What did he expect to come of this? Did he really think French opposition to military action would save him from his just desserts for his non-compliance with the inspection process?
So thanks to Bush, one big concern knocked off the checklist, and a middle east democracy in the making. The sweet smell of success.
“But then again those 2 countries don’t happen to sit on the world’s largest oil reserves.”
Neither does Iraq.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Apr 1, 2005 at 2:26 PM
Dear Theloneous,
“the American people are not, directly or indirectly, beneficiaries of the U S military’s missions.”
I disagree. I think in the long run the U.S. will benefit if Iraq’s attempt at democracy succeeds. We spend very little time, energy and money on unproductive, adversarial aspects of relationships with other democracies.
“You seem intelligent enough to have realized this…”
Realize what? You make a weak case.
“Have you ever voted for a non republican presidential candidate?”
Yes (only once, for the Libertarian), but it’s not really relevant because I never claimed to be non-partisan. I have a set of beliefs, and the Republican party is the best viable representative of those beliefs by a long shot.
You, on the other hand, did claim to be non-partisan, which is why I asked you the question.
What state are you in that you voted for a Republican governor? Rhode Island? New York? Hawaii? New Jersey? Please don’t tell me it was Whitman. Have you ever voted for a mainstream Republican?
I think you are more partisan than you are letting on (or than you know).
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Apr 1, 2005 at 2:56 PM
Dear great went,
Are my words that irresistible?
I have a suggestion: go to the bottom of messages before you read them. If you see my name as the author, don’t go back up to read it.
How’s that sound?
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Apr 1, 2005 at 3:09 PM
J Craig
You are more dangerous than the bushies themselves. Because you justify them. Here is a question for you. And you answer it please only if you are an American fIrst then a Republican. If you are a Republican Republican, meaning you are a nation among our nation, don’t bother.
WHERE THE HELL IS OSAMA BEN LADIN???????????
Have you ever asked this question to the Commander in Chief?
again: where is the Islamist Fascist who killed 3000 of our brothers and sisters? I tell you where he is. In a bungalow in Pakistan eating hommus and sending us video infomeRcials.
meanwhile: 1500 our kids dead, more than 10000 injured, tens of thousands iraqi civilians dead, 300 billion the cost - while we are as afraid as ever before. you call that a vision for middle east?
you are dellusional! and a hypocrite.
You can worship your idols as much as you want. you can even mumify them and keep them in the museum, like Lenin. But please don’t insult our intelligence with your phony patriotism, because true patriots have a god given ability to QUESTION.
You are a FOX NEWS mole on these airways. Not because you have a different opinion but because you are a blind conformist.
and before you go - whenever you find out who leaked Valery Plums name to Mr. Novak, please post it here. you might illuminate us.
and yes don’t forget the Israeli mole in Douglas Faith’s ofiice - maybe you know who he is too.
we don’t and we’d like to know!
Posted by independent jake on Apr 1, 2005 at 3:10 PM
The latest Gallup Poll also shows the highest public pessimism over the economy in two years, with 33 percent saying it is getting better and 59 percent saying it is getting worse.
the sweet smell of sucsess.President Bush’s approval rating dropped from 52% last week to 45% this week. If the survey is correct, he is losing support from male Republicans.Thirty-five percent of those surveyed said they approved of the way Bush is handling Social Security, down three points since January and the lowest level of support for Bush on this issue ever recorded in Post-ABC polls.
Yes the american people are waking up,too bad it’s 5 months to late.
Posted by brian on Apr 1, 2005 at 3:46 PM
“So thanks to Bush, one big concern knocked off the checklist, and a middle east democracy in the making. The sweet smell of success.”
Wow, wasn’t aware that it smelled exactly like bullshit.
“I have a suggestion: go to the bottom of messages before you read them. If you see my name as the author, don’t go back up to read it.”
Which names should we ignore, just your current screen name? What about Tom Finley Jr. and Ron?
“I have a set of beliefs, and the Republican party is the best viable representative of those beliefs by a long shot.”
So you believe in Nixonian government secrecy, large federal deficits, suppressing minority voting, pillaging the environment, having corporations set public policy, going to war on false premises, and suppression of opposition viewpoints? OK then, good party selection there.
“Have you ever voted for a mainstream Republican?”
You know, the kind who think gays are sub-human, that black people really shouldn’t be allowed to vote, and that you really don’t have to tell the American public the truth on small things like going to war.
You are pretty transparent TFJ.
Posted by Matt Harris on Apr 1, 2005 at 3:49 PM
Dear independent jake,
“WHERE THE HELL IS OSAMA BEN LADIN???????????”
I don’t know.
“Have you ever asked this question to the Commander in Chief?”
No.
“again: where is the Islamist Fascist who killed 3000 of our brothers and sisters? I tell you where he is. In a bungalow in Pakistan eating hommus and sending us video infomeRcials.”
Perhaps.
“meanwhile: 1500 our kids dead, more than 10000 injured, tens of thousands iraqi civilians dead, 300 billion the cost - while we are as afraid as ever before. you call that a vision for middle east?”
No. I call democracy a vision for the middle east. Why are you as afraid as ever before? If nothing else, Iraq proved we’ll take very serious action against perceived threats. That in itself offers security. If one of their goals is to get us out of the middle east, it is not achieved by threatening or harming us, which demonstrably has had the opposite effect.
OBL (9/11) and Iraq (flouting the inspections process) are related in very few ways. As it pertains to Iraq, 9/11 was a wake up call to take threats seriously. Certainly, Iraq was perceived as a threat by not just GWB but also by previous administrations. The only reason we know that he didn’t have WMD (even though we don’t know this as he may have moved them to Syria - but I’ll stipulate for arguments sake: he didn’t have them) is because we went to war with him. Thank you GWB. There could have been another way to know that without war: HE COULD HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE INSPECTORS AND NOT ACTED LIKE HE HAD THEM. Because of his own behavior, he had it coming.
Anothe way you could say they are related is the way all military operations are related: we have to make choices. You may think Iraq was an unnecessary diversion from the search for OBL. I think it was a worthwhile mission. So we disagree.
“you are dellusional! and a hypocrite.”
Interesting charges. Make your case.
“But please don’t insult our intelligence with your phony patriotism,”
There is nothing phony about it.
“because true patriots have a god given ability to QUESTION.”
As do I. I’m satisfied with the answers in this case.
“You are a FOX NEWS mole on these airways.”
The old Fox News bogeyman again, eh?
“Not because you have a different opinion but because you are a blind conformist.”
Again, interesting charge: I’m a blind conformist. Make your case. (The truth is that you say this - your denials notwithstanding - because I have a different opinion than yours.)
Sincerely,
J Craig
p.s. are you really independent? If not, I wonder why so often those on the left feel the need to hide it. I don’t notice the same shame among those on the right.
Posted by J Craig on Apr 1, 2005 at 3:49 PM
With precision Mr. Johnson has summed up the state of our affairs. I would only add to his fine treatise that the public image of President Bush as a well or ill-meaning, bumbling fool is a misperception that has been nurtured by both his detratcors and his advocates.
Seem’s not the case. It chills those who, for the first time contemplate an American president who has so much more on his dinner plate than the rest of us.
Who asks, “What have you done for us lately?’” A few get to. I’d bet on more folks thinking, “What have you done for us…ever?”, very consistently in the long run.
Posted by Richard Ray Harris on Apr 1, 2005 at 3:56 PM
Dear Matt Harris,
“So you believe in Nixonian government secrecy,”
Nixonian? No, not Nixonian.
“large federal deficits,”
Medium size federal deficits.
“suppressing minority voting,”
Absolutely not.
“pillaging the environment,”
Of course not.
“having corporations set public policy,”
No. Legislatures, governors, and presidents should set public policy. Are you aware of incidences of corporations setting public policy? I know of no corporations that cast votes in any legislature.
“going to war on false premises,”
I’m not in favor of knowingly going to war on false premises. Fortunately, we didn’t knowingly go to war on false premises, and the guy we did go to war with had the means to demonstrate that the premises were false (he could have complied with the inspectors), but he chose not to. Bad choice on his part.
“and suppression of opposition viewpoints?”
Not at all.
“OK then, good party selection there.”
What do you know? The typical angry lefty laundry list.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Apr 1, 2005 at 3:59 PM
“Fortunately, we didn’t knowingly go to war on false premises”
Pretty much says it all. You have no credibility.
Posted by Matt Harris on Apr 1, 2005 at 4:03 PM
Dear Matt Harris,
me: “Fortunately, we didn’t knowingly go to war on false premises”
you: “Pretty much says it all. You have no credibility.”
Why exactly? (Does anybody on the left ever explain their charges?)
Please, explain in detail. You will find yourself unable to adequately explain.
Good luck.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Apr 1, 2005 at 4:13 PM
waiting…
Posted by J Craig on Apr 1, 2005 at 4:19 PM
To Big Chief Craig,
Who pays you for your time, Big Chief Craig?
You do seem to have a lot of it to waste.
Is it the Conninng Neo-con Klan?
little indian
Posted by little indian on Apr 1, 2005 at 4:23 PM
Dear little indian,
No time to talk. Busy waiting for Matt Harris’s attempt at an explanation. I don’t expect anything good, but I look forward to it nonetheless.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Apr 1, 2005 at 4:27 PM
I see nothing in J. Craig’s postings that indicate any affiliation other than Republican. I think that not one person on this site believes that you are progressive. And you’re wrong that Dems don’t believe there are things that need fixing with SS. I don’t know a single non-Rep. that thinks everything is dandy. It’s just that only a minor tweaking is needed, not a total demolition. The baby boomer glitch can be handled by removing the taxation cap and reversing Bush’s tax cuts for the rich. End of statement. That incurs no further borrowing and will see us comfortably for many, many decades to come. Let those who wish to invest take out IRA’s or 401(k)‘s. Everybody with half a brain can see that the goal of the Republicans is to dismantle the most efficient and successful program in U.S. history simply because it is a Democratic invention. Nothing you could say would convince myself or, according to the polls, nearly 3/4’s of the American people. No, Bush has lost this one, and rightly so.
Posted by Margaret on Apr 1, 2005 at 4:34 PM
p.s.
Ever hear of the 911 Report, J. Craig? You have zero credibility. How amusing it is to watch you mentally jerk-off, thinking that you are impressing anyone. What a pathetic loser you are.
Posted by Margaret on Apr 1, 2005 at 4:39 PM
Dear Margaret,
“I see nothing in J. Craig’s postings that indicate any affiliation other than Republican.”
I am Republican.
“I think that not one person on this site believes that you are progressive.”
pro·gres·sive
adj.
1. Moving forward; advancing.
2. Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments: progressive change.
3. Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods: a progressive politician; progressive business leadership.
4. Progressive Of or relating to a Progressive Party: the Progressive platform of 1924.
5. Of or relating to progressive education: a progressive school.
6. Increasing in rate as the taxable amount increases: a progressive income tax.
7. Pathology. Tending to become more severe or wider in scope: progressive paralysis.
See #3 above. That’s me. I promote or favor such policies. They’re not Progressive. They’re progressive.
“And you’re wrong that Dems don’t believe there are things that need fixing with SS.”
Did I say that?
“The baby boomer glitch can be handled by removing the taxation cap and reversing Bush’s tax cuts for the rich.”
(Leaving private accounts aside) I’m not at all surprised that your solution involves only tax increases and no benefit cuts.
“Everybody with half a brain can see that the goal of the Republicans is to dismantle the most efficient and successful program in U.S. history simply because it is a Democratic invention.”
Why is it efficient and successful? Because those that received checks cashed them? Welfare would also have been a raving success if we also expected nothing of welfare recipients but to cash the checks.
“Nothing you could say would convince myself or, according to the polls, nearly 3/4’s of the American people. No, Bush has lost this one, and rightly so.”
Was I arguing that he won on this issue? I think all I said was that he is thinking long-term. What he wants probably won’t happen.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Apr 1, 2005 at 4:48 PM
start with his overall approval rating of 45 percent, down 5 points since early February. Then consider his approval rating on the economy, at just 42 percent with 51 percent disapproval. And his rating on Iraq, at 41 percent with 54 percent disapproval, is his worst ever in this poll.
I hope this is not the democrates fault. I guess the neo-cons are worried about loosing seats in the house and senate in 2006.
Posted by brian on Apr 1, 2005 at 4:48 PM
“p.s. Ever hear of the 911 Report, J. Craig? You have zero credibility. How amusing it is to watch you mentally jerk-off, thinking that you are impressing anyone. What a pathetic loser you are.”
Desperate insults. Also not surprising.
(Explain exactly why I have no credibility. Can ANYONE on the left support one of their assertions????)
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Apr 1, 2005 at 4:50 PM
“I guess the neo-cons are worried about loosing seats in the house and senate in 2006.”
The house, maybe. The Senate is a long shot. The terrain is just too good for the Republicans in 2006 in the Senate. In a bad scenario, they’ll break even or maybe lose one. Best case scenario, they’ll pick up three, maybe four (four would get them to 59!). 2008 will be tough for Republicans. About 22 out of 33 or 34 seats to defend.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Apr 1, 2005 at 4:54 PM
waiting…..
Posted by J Craig on Apr 1, 2005 at 4:55 PM
President Bush said on Wednesday he would not send Congress a specific plan to change Social Security because it would be “dead on arrival” and admitted his idea of personal accounts would not fix the retirement system.”
Turning to health care, including Medicare, only 34 percent say they approve of the job Bush is doing, compared to 56 percent who say they don’t, also a low for Bush in this poll. Bush also hits new lows on the environment (41 percent approval), on energy policy (35 percent approval, with 45 percent disapproval—also his first net negative rating in this area) and on the federal budget deficit (29 percent approval with 60 percent disapproval). And his job rating on education, 46 percent, is tied for his lowest ever in that particular area.
everybody take a look at what the american people are saying. Bush is a lame duck in his second term. Won’t be much in his library when he retires.
Posted by brian on Apr 1, 2005 at 5:22 PM
waiting for lefty to support his assertion…
Posted by J Craig on Apr 1, 2005 at 6:05 PM
Republicans fear midterm losses
March 20, 2005
BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
Analysts at the Republican National Committee have sent this warning to the House of Representatives: The party is in danger of losing 25 seats in the 2006 election and, therefore, of losing control of the House for the first time since the 1994 election.
Although some Republicans on Capitol Hill believe the RNC is just trying to frighten them, concern about keeping the present 232-202 edge pervades GOP ranks. The second midterm election of an eight-year presidency often produces heavy congressional losses for the party in power.
And also these ghouls are exploiting a brain-dead woman for the purpose
of saving their selfish political asses.
The senate approval rating is below 50%. We will have to see how pissed off the american people are at the time of election for the senate.
Posted by brian on Apr 1, 2005 at 6:36 PM
“The senate approval rating is below 50%. We will have to see how pissed off the american people are at the time of election for the senate.”
You have to look at the specific seats in play. Even under the worst circumstances it is nearly impossible for the Republicans to lose more than two seats in the Senate. They have a built in advantage in the Senate as there are 31 red states and only 19 blue states (I think). In this era of relatively even numbers nationwide, the party of small states has a structural advantage in the Senate over the party of big states. Notice that this was born out in the 2004 Senate races (when several red state seats went Republican). In a pretty even year (a tight presidential race, nearly no change in the House), the Senate races are what made 2004 appear to be a blowout Republican year.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Apr 1, 2005 at 6:58 PM
It will still be hard for bush to push his agenda through if house goes back democrate. The senate will stay republican by a narrow margin. The problem is republicans are going against bush in the senate, on alot of his ideas, which will make him a lame duck president.
Posted by brian on Apr 1, 2005 at 7:13 PM
Actually Bush is getting Republican resistance in the Senate on very few issues. He can easily get 50 or 51 votes on most issues as about 48 Republicans are rock solid and he can pick up 2 or 3 from the remaining 7 weak knees. His problem is overcoming Democratic filibusters. He’ll get a lot of important things through in the next two years, but probably not what he wants on social security. I wouldn’t bank on Republican losses in 2006. Things would have to get pretty bad. There’s just no major realignment in the works like there was in 1994. If circumstances stay roughly similar to what they are now (slow progress in Iraq, a decent to strong economy, very very modest improvement in the budget deficit, no social security change passes), mark my words: little change in the house (R +/- 5 to 7) and a slight gain in the Senate (R + 0 to 2). Despite what people say issue by issue, on the big issues (the economy and defense), Democrats are out of touch.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Apr 1, 2005 at 7:56 PM
J Craig,
“Federal education funding has increased 70% under Bush”
In the fiscal 2006 $2.7 trillion budget your government intends to terminate 48 education programs (most of them aimed at helping disabled or immigrant students)thereby “saving” $4.8 billion while reinvesting $2.3 billion in new initiatives(most of them aimed at benefitting wealthier schools and districts). Looks like a $2.5 billion cut to me which ever way you look at it.And he’s thinking long term here as a two-tier social class system is definitely taking shape.
“Neither does Iraq”(sit on one of the world’s biggest oilfields) Way off base pal. You’ll say anything to justify that bloody mistake. “The sweet smell of succes” To Halliburton yes, but not the tens of thousands of civilian casualties and thousands of American and foreign troops that have to endure hell every day.Iraq possesses the world’s SECOND LARGEST PROVEN oil reserves- 112.5 billion barrels (11% of the world’s total plus immense gasfields and additional undiscovered oil reserves. Your government knew damn well what they were moving in for.
Posted by chris p. on Apr 1, 2005 at 10:02 PM
Oh yes, in the meanwhile your government has decided to increase the military budget by a whopping $20 billion (including $40 billion to further develop lethal nuclear weapons) Bush has been doing some serious long term thinking indeed.What sort of vision is that?
Posted by chris p. on Apr 1, 2005 at 10:08 PM
Just goes to validate my “New Darwinian” theory that mankind is an evolutionary dead end.
Posted by Gary Batterson on Apr 2, 2005 at 1:59 AM
“Dear Lamont,
“But it is far more violent & horrific”
You’ve lost me. Are you referring to Palestinian terrorism?
Sincerely,
J Craig”
Referring to both Israelis and Palestinians. But if you wish to be blind and believe that the Israelis do no wrong or that either side is worse than the other then that is your prerogative.
Posted by LamontCranston on Apr 2, 2005 at 2:13 AM
Apparently J Craig’s thoughts are piecemeal, is he coming up with a retort dependent on each subsequent bottle of beer?
Posted by George on Apr 2, 2005 at 5:28 AM
If you look at all the countries that are pulling out of iraq this year, we will truely be going it alone.Bush talks about leaving when iraq gets their shit together, yet we are building 16 bases there.Iraq oil brings in 16.9 billion a year, yet we spend 1.6 billion a week to stay there, you do the math.That money could save social security,save medicare, open hospitals in our country.It would pay prescription drugs for our old, and sick. Remember we put sadam in power in 1979, binladen was backed by u.s. This next puppet gov. we will be fighting in the next 20 years, when they cut off the oil or charge us to much for it. Meanwhile iran and north korea are making nukes on bush’s watch. Remember if you have a nuke the u.s. won’t mess with you.
Look how bogged down we are in iraq, what is going to happen when china takes back taiwan, like we could win a war with china, or north korea, hell iran would be to much for us now.
Posted by brian on Apr 2, 2005 at 7:13 AM
On countries leaving, it is indeed ironic to note that on the same day Negroponte was announced as the new ambassador/pro counsel to Iraq that Honduras pulled out their small contingent, synchronicity or their response? In addition, my country has finally been persuaded to send an extra 450, in order to replace the 1,300 the Norwegian are pulling out, understandably this 450 is putting a rather sizable strain on an already over-stretched defence-force.
As for the cost, the point of controlling the middle east isn’t to supply the USA with oil, the USA can easily live off of what’s in the western hemisphere, the point is to control the rest of the worlds supply.
Finally a minor quibble, but important to note, he was not put in power by the USA in 1979 - he and his uncle were put in power around 1976, he merely staged a coupe and deposed his uncle in 1979 with full support of the USA & the west.
Posted by LamontCranston on Apr 2, 2005 at 7:38 AM
I agree with you 100%.
Posted by brian on Apr 2, 2005 at 8:15 AM
But what control do we truely have over the oil? If they want to put the oil at 80 dallors a barrel what are we going to do? every time they raise the price on oil the stock market goes down. They have us and are economy by the balls.
Posted by brian on Apr 2, 2005 at 8:27 AM
Now that that idiot has finally left to go take part in some covert KKK activity, let me state that Social Security is the most efficient program in U.S. history because it uses less than 1% of its funds to self-administer. The checks have gone out faithfully since its inception and, if the Repubs hadn’t pilfered a trillion or so out of its coffers, it would be running smoothly now and for some time to come.
Also, anyone who doesn’t realize that our government is currently slipping down that proverbial slope to fascism doesn’t really understand the definition of fascism. Power and wealth is absolutely in the hands of the financial elite and the Washington power brokers as never before. The only times you’ll see this sort of power/wealth grab at the cost of the “average Joe” was during Jackson’s administration and in the Harding and Hoover years, both of which led to the Great Depression. So if you wonder why all the programs that benefit “average Joe” keep getting cut or underfunded to the point that they are completely ineffective (i.e. “No Child Left Behind”), it’s to keep the “little man” unable to come after the powers that keep profiting off their misfortune.
I am not a Socialist, or a Communist, or an Anarchist. I am a patriotic American who believes that if people don’t start fighting back against Bush, his policies and the mignons who take his word as gospel, we will continue sliding down that slope until we have a one-party government whose only goal is to establish absolute power at home and increasing power abroad in their pursuit of world domination. Just read the documents from Cheney in ‘99 and he states pretty clearly that those are his ambitions. Also, Rumsfeld’s recently leaked Pentagon reports saying essentially the same thing.
Also, a “progressive” Republican is not the same as a neocon, which J. Craig definitely is. Him saying he’s “progressive” is like me (a mother of 2) saying I’m a virgin.
Posted by Margaret on Apr 2, 2005 at 10:35 AM
To loosen that tight squeeze on the US balls how about refusing to buy the petrol guzzlers most Americans seem so hell bent on driving. Buy small fuel efficient cars and consume locally produced organic food. Cuts out a lot of guzzlers…think global and act local… and keep on spreading the facts to counterbalance the republican propaganda machine.
Posted by chris p. on Apr 2, 2005 at 10:44 AM
J Craig, TFJ, Ron, or as I like to call you The Rambler,
Here is your post from a week ago on the “How to Turn Your Red State Blue” thread under the name of Tom Finley Jr.:
“I shall continue to read ITT regularly, but this is the last of my posts to ITT articles.”
This was approximately the 20th of your posts on that thread. Several hours later you posted on another thread as Ron. Now you are back as J Craig and have posted in excess of 30 posts on this thread.
cred’i*ble adj. Worthy of belief.
“Please explain in detail. You will find yourself unable to adequately explain.”
Detail not necessary. See above. However, if you’d like detail on the whole going to war on false premises thang, go do some reading or check out the documentary “Uncovered: The War on Iraq”. Intellectual sloth is no excuse.
In his post, little indian insinuates that you are a paid troll. I hope he is right for your sake, because otherwise you are just tragically pathetic. After my response to you yesterday you apparently were sitting at your computer waiting for me to respond to your pathetic attempt at debate for at least a couple hours ON A FRIDAY EVENING.
Meanwhile, I was picking up my daughter at daycare, playing soccer with her in the yard and then going out for a relaxing family dinner. The beer I had at dinner was particularly enjoyable.
I can see that you are the type that would even seek to debate that last point. When you’ve done it go out and enjoy some life. I won’t be back to the site for at least a couple days (believe this as I truly am credible), so no need for you to pathetically await my response.
Posted by Matt Harris on Apr 2, 2005 at 11:34 AM
Hi, my screen name is Traesom, and my real name is truly immaterial. I have just been reading the last few days of this string going back to the 30th (maybe it was the 31st), and at first I was a bit overwhelmed. I’m one of the little guys out here, and your conversations reminded me of the West Wing, which I thoroughly enjoy. Having listened (or read) for a while, however, it occurs to me that while your language and knowledge are impressive (to me at any rate), your scope is sometimes rather limited to a bunch of specifics that in the long view may or may not mean anything. For instance, all this back and forth about Bush’s poll numbers mean absolutely nothing. Those things, along with the American electorate, tend to change at the drop of a hat, so I don’t see poll numbers as being anything particularly signficant. There are also other things like that, but it would take too much time and space to speak of them now.
I am myself currently without any party allegiance, and I see both parties as being the antithesis of what I would hope a govenment was, or should strive to be. T. Craig, is it, certainly sticks to his guns, but has made a few statements that I think most probably reflect from where he is coming. To wit: he mentioned that he was on this blog not to engage in debate but rather to point out others’ flaws. I’m afraid someone will have to help me with that? Truth doesn’t matter? The condition of this once great nation doesn’t matter? What matters is only that he gets to point to others’ flaws?
There has also been some discussion about how successful the Social Security sytem is. By what criteria? How do you measure the success of a sytem that gives people (such as myself, for instance) some hope, and assurance (even if we are kidding ourselves)? I don’t really think that any accounting method can do that with accuracy - although the numbers are no doubt great fun to throw around.
I also believe we have already become a fascist state. With the possible exception of Mussolini’s Italy, I don’t believe any fascist state actually called itself that - perhaps its citizens weren’t even aware at the time. Only with perspective and hindsight can we now see that they were fascist.
Anyway, there’s lots else to say, but I’m probably already way out of line here saying what I just have, so hi, and look forward to following you guys’ (and gal’s) arguments. If nothing else they are fascinating. It’s kinda like watching West Wing for the first time.
Best regards, Traesom.
Posted by Traesom on Apr 2, 2005 at 1:58 PM
Chalmers Johnson makes the case that the US policy is seen by other countries as creating major problems. However, he stops short of drawing a conclusion of what could happen if these policies continue. In World War I, both England and the US were competing with Germany in trade, alternately weighing which set of countries to ally themselves with. In the end, England did not ally with Germany, and helped set in motion the trade frictions that led to war with Germany—the talks over defense shipping allowed being one serious manifistation of the underlying problems. One of the causes blamed also was secret treaties.
In WWII, the basic tensions continued, and if you read the Italian and Japanese versions of the causes of the war, a key factor was that they were getting short shrift as trade partners.
The practise of secret treaties continued, despite the bloodshed of WWI.
The problem now becomes that, where there is one dominant superpower, it is natural that tensions will arise. But if the process of continuing trade tensions and secret treaties is not revised, then this time it might be the other countries that decide in some way to retaliate against the US. In this regard, the role of England is once again potentially critical. As a possessor of the hydrogen bomb, England is potentially an important ally.
Yet the historical record shows that England will consistently do what she thinks is best for England. That makes the upcoming elections for Parliament particularly important. From what I read, sentiment has been strong against Blair. If the populace is able to make that sentiment carry the election, and England shifts into an alliance—overtly or more historically consistent behaviour—covertly—then the stage could be set for a nasty trade war, and potentially a shooting war, this time on US soil.
The Neocons are pushing a dangerous strategy, it seems to me, which historically has had an unhappy ending for the country pursuing it.
Posted by Joseph F Dunphy MBA MFP on Apr 2, 2005 at 1:58 PM
Hi, Joseph,
You know, I just got a little message on my machine that told me someone had responded to what I had just written, but I must confess I’m not entirely certain how the two fit together.
Nevertheless, I will respond to what you have just written by saying that while I’m certainly not an economist (the furthest I ever got was Adam Smith, and Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom”), but I do agree, albeit not necessarily on economic grounds, that the U.S. is in deep trouble, in almost every dimension. I was an Army and then civilian brat and grew up mostly in post war Europe, and I know that what was once thought (felt) about America is no longer extant, and that soft power, or the higher moral ground, tends to be very persuasive at times, and it seems as though we have lost that completely.
This probably doesn’t do justice to your response (if indeed that is what it was), but it’s all I can really offer at the moment without hogging too much time and space.
Posted by Traesom on Apr 2, 2005 at 2:14 PM
Hey, Traesom and Joseph, I just found a terrific link for the author with a eye-opening hour-long video (must have RealTime player installed on your system, but that takes a couple seconds and no money to do) with Chalmers Johnson and Harry Kreisler. Try the link globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people4/CJohnson/cjohnson-con0.html
If you can’t get in, just type Chalmers Johnson on a search engine and it will come up as one of the choices.
This stuff will blow your mind and open your eyes, not saying that you aren’t already showing in your blog that you are aware of the Empire.
Spread the news.
Posted by Margaret on Apr 2, 2005 at 4:22 PM
sorry, should read html
Posted by Margaret on Apr 2, 2005 at 4:23 PM
Best article in decades! What happened to the early 1970’s!!!
* * * * *
To Michael P:
Re: “fail to honor article 1, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution”
I took note instantly too and thought more of the phrasing: “to honor”. Congress had/s first crack at war, but the point is that the precedent itself is being set by being able to pass that privellege off to another entire branch of the three branch governemnt - like a deli order.
To Maximillian Al Dakari:
Bravo!
* * * * *
“Can the United States adjust peacefully to the reemergence of China—the world’s oldest, continuously extant civilization—this time as a modern superpower? Or is China’s ascendancy to be marked by yet another world war like those of the last century?”
This is a story written by someone who reads my mind.
_____
“This small incident is evidence of the knife-edge on which we are poised.”
Conversly, it reminded me of the opposite surface, the balloon about to burst.
_____
“These deficits and dependencies represent unusual economic statistics for a country with imperial pretensions.”
Only in America is it so patriotic to laugh out loud as I did. True dat.
_____
“we need, at once, to reverse President George W. Bush’s tax cuts, including those on capital gains and estates (the rich are so well off they’ll hardly notice it), radically reduce our military expenditures, and stop subsidizing agribusinesses and the military-industrial complex.”
This my friend is the crux of one biscuit. We allot a certain predjudice in our minds when accounting for the investment expertise of the rich. We assume they are smart enough to earn money - whatever the law happens to be. But what of long term tact? It is readily acceptable that free will allows an investor to do what they wish, and I’m not saying control should be taken from them, but rather - that they are incapable of generating anything OTHER than profit. Frankly social security is fine, yet it SHOULD run a surplus.
_____
“A cut-off of Saudi Arabia’s ability or willingness to sell its oil to us would, at the present time, constitute an economic catastrophe.”
The drunk of the desert.
_____
If you’ve read this far you know that green is also a color, much like blue and red.
Posted by shubert1966 on Apr 2, 2005 at 5:54 PM
Well written and to the point. But…the reference to D. Rumsfeld and R. Cheney as “ugly Americans” is illustrative of the shallow research and incomplete homework which went into this article.
I have read The Ugly American by Wm. Lederer and Eugene Burdick, which Mr. Chalmers, and the many other American writers who refer to “the Ugly American” as the bad-hats, apparently have not!
In their book, The Ugly American, Burdick and Lederer cast their good-guy hero, Homer Atkins, as “the ugly American” simply because he has an ugly face; perhaps a suggestion that you cannot judge the character of a man by his appearance, since the bad-hats in the book are all handsome and neatly dressed, as most American Officials are presumed (in literature {sic}) to be.
Mr. Chalmers is not alone in his ignorance of the implications of the epithet “Ugly American.” Many other writers follow the same ignorant mistake, and “ugly American” has become a metaphor to epitomise the foolish, clumsy, arrogant, self-indulgent, gauche and self-serving American tourist, Official, and American in general.
This is not the way Burdick and Lederer saw him, and only illustrates the trap of using metaphore without familiarity with its source; a heretofore essential, but lately neglected, responsibility of all writers.
Earlaiman Abd. Gale
Posted by Earlaiman on Apr 2, 2005 at 6:00 PM
Okay, I’m watching the video. I watch this show a lot, by the way, and I seem vaguely to remember this one, or at least the birkenstocks are familiar. For the first 30 years of my life I had a military, or a DoD, ID card, and grew up overseas, so much of the first part of the tape is super familiar to me. I myself did duty in Vietnam, Korea, and on Guam, so I’ve got experience in the Orient as well. Currently one of my step-sons (who I helped raise since he was knee high to a piss-ant) is currently a green-beret and was wounded in Afghanistan. My othe step-son is a teacher (as are both sons’ wives, along with my ex), so I and mine have done our bit for America, I can tell you. And some other time perhaps we can talk about that! I have also, by the way, voted Republican, many moons ago - when there still such a thing as the Republican party, and not some theocratic junta.
For the moment, though, the subject is the Empire and as an ex-history and humanities teacher (high-school), I am so disenhearted by what I observe it’s incredible. This is nothing short of a science-fiction nightmare with are faced with today. I simply cannot believe it is happening, although I know that it is. My kids and grandkids have not much of a life to look forward to in this corporate-fascist state, not in my estimation at least. I also don’t really see the Democrats (though I voted for them) doing anything in the least wise productive. They, too, are captives of (or in many instances are) the oligarchs.
At any rate, that is a bare start at an introduction of sorts into my opinions and we’ll see how it goes from there. Thanks for the URL about the movie; I didn’t realize (or at least didn’t think about) them being available. By the way, I’m sixty and my fingers do a lot of crazy things on the keyboard, and my spelling has never been anything to brag about anyway, so please excuse whatever typos, etc. show up. I also have a web-blog-site, so if anyone thinks it’s appropriate and interested, I’d be glad to give my URL for that.
Posted by Traesom on Apr 2, 2005 at 6:08 PM
Dear Maximillian Al Dakari,
I must say I am impressed by your analysis (I can sense the elaborate texture and the fabric of knowledge behind it). I agree with your statement that leftist people are moved by a genuine concern for world problems. On the other hand, the ‘leftist’ (or liberal, progressive etc.) elite in the U.S., people like Mr. C. Johnson, perhaps, who have regular access to media, have reached a level of hypocrisy that is disconcerting—as you clearly demonstrated with your initial reply. There are of course many brilliant exceptions on the left, starting from N. Chomsky, but sometimes I feel that there is not really a left in this country—only variation of the right.
I think you are correct to argue that change is inevitable—it always was and always will be. You correctly state that “capitalism will end. The question is how.” However, I do not share your optimism about the working class, or about humanity for that matter. Like everything else, humanity will end too.
Productivity of labor is an important factor but it can be quite misleading when examined in isolation. Seeking the cause behind the effect, we can identify technology and globalization (at all levels) as the cause (and the portent) in our times. Technology would eventually generate super-intelligent agents (within this century according to my own calculations) and globalization would turn the entire planet into an enormous factory.
Productivity would be so high that a worker with conscience and understanding would merely not fit the equation. They would be replaced by dedicated low-intelligence agents who would merely follow orders. Civilization would not end but it would change radically. Humanity, on the other hand, is most likely doomed. (If we consider Chenney, Bush and the neocons, we may conclude that we deserve to be doomed.) The only question in my mind is what would happen to the billions of people on the planet. There are of course multiple routes: poverty, war, decease, malnutrition, pollution etc. But they all lead to the same dark conclusion. The historical irony would be, I believe, that homo sapiens, a communal being, would end with a system like capitalism!
Posted by John X. on Apr 2, 2005 at 6:41 PM
To Earlaiman,
Actually one of the reasons they periodically update dictionaries is because word meanings (and associated phrases) change (legitimately, not necessarily ignorantly) over time. I wasn’t the one using the phrase in this case, but I have read the book, and still have it around here somewhere, but it’s present day connotation is perfectly acceptable to use - it communicates! You don’t really wish to get into good language, bad language do you?
Posted by Traesom on Apr 2, 2005 at 6:45 PM
Earlier this evening I responded to something, dealing with metaphors, that perhaps I should not have. However, it rubbed me wrong then, and it has continued to rub me wrong the longer I’ve thought about it. All of you seem youngish (comparatively speaking), highly intelligent, and harbor great energies. It is that more than anything else perhaps that kept eating at my mind until I finally put it all down on paper (metaphorically speaking, of course, it was actually keyed in on the computer). Whatever worth it may or may not have for you, it has helped me considerably to have gotten it off of my chest. Please see below, or ignore it as you wish.
Actually, it occurs to me that this magazine primarily deals with matters social, economic and political. At the moment this country is in grave danger and is split in ways I’ve never seen it before, and I’m sixty years old. Whoever or whatever is leading - and whatever lies and untruths and misinformation they spew - has failed the test of uniting the country in this great time of peril. The leadership is, in fact, dividing us against one another in harmful and despicable ways, has spent enough discretionary cash for a decade (for dubious or nonexistent ends), and continues to arrogantly administer in the most moronic of fashions.
Perhaps as many as 100,000 lay dead in Iraq, the environment is going to hell, the poor keep getting poorer, the middle-class continues to decline, our Constitution has been wrangled and mangled into some sort of la-la-land neo-Con manifesto, Darwin has been overturned, religious charismatics roam the streets seeking spiritual epiphanies, our government has degenerated into tyranny, all others on the globe find us deplorable and untrustworthy and frightening, our balance of trade has fallen clear off the scale, we display hatred and contempt for all other cultures, the world teeters on the brink of Armageddon, and you, Sir, are worried about some (dubiously conceived ) misspoken metaphor? Give me a break!
In the first place, if, as you say, the metaphor is misunderstood at this point by the majority of whoevers, and if knowing that you would anyway insist upon some ancient and now long forgotten meaning, then you, and not the author, are the fool. You will soon be left standing in a field with no one left to babble to. Worse, ere very much longer no one but you and I, perhaps, will be left who even remembers the phrase comes from a book, and others will be helpless to comprehend our allusions. Time marches forward, things change, meanings develop alternative subtleties, and the rest are left to wallow in the quagmire of yesterday’s realities.
Let us unite in spirit and comradeship, and at least bitch about something important. These other diversions are more suitable for a relaxed and rainy day when all else in the world has become utterly boring. In the meanwhile there is real work to be done to regain our Nation.
Dubya succeeded in the first place because people such as yourself, instead of developing and using their talents to help and maintain the integrity of our culture, have instead seen fit to only pretend great wisdom, and play at parlor games while the world disintegrates around them. Grow up, get over your magnificence, and put your talent to work in saving our collective asses!
Posted by Traesom on Apr 2, 2005 at 8:47 PM
Joseph F Dunphy, you are correct in believing the rest will respond, although it will not be a military response, to see how they are going to stop the USA, look at the 3 links I originally posted—http://www.morganstanley.com/GEFdata/digests/20050318-fri.html#anchor0 & http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/charting/2005/0302.html & http://www.gao.gov/cghome/intergovchallenge.pdf—I think these three links will provide some insite as to how they are already working against the USA.
Posted by LamontCranston on Apr 3, 2005 at 12:18 AM
this is absolutely brilliant, i would like to be able to write this way one day
Posted by bobby on Apr 3, 2005 at 1:07 AM
When I studied in England thirty-odd years ago, Chalmers Johnson was one of the gods of International Relations. Quite the opposite of Henry Kissinger and that ilk. I’ve read much of Chalmer’s work since then and it’s all been brilliant and thought-provoking.
The one disagreement I have with his argument here is the statement that the American people actually VOTED for this fool and his policies. I taped CNN all day and into the night on November 2nd, 2004, and I sure didn’t see the American people voting for George Bush! I saw huge lines of people who HATED Bush and his policies. The polls were showing that 51% of Americans were voting for Kerry and 48% for Bush. How did Bush get a three and a half million vote majority from that?
Well, the same way he “won” Florida and a handful of other States in 2000! The Republicans cheated! As a tipsy Congressman Peter King said (on film!) at a Bush victory party on the White House lawn the afternoon of election day, “It’s already over. The election’s over. We won! ... It’s all over but the counting. And we’ll take care of the counting!”
The Europeans are quite a bit brighter when it comes to voting. They would trust the most fundamental expression of democracy to open-source software and a paper trail, rather than secret, proprietary software and ephemeral, nonextant “ballots,” as we do.
The latter Orwellian vision is the kind of “democracy” that Bush wants to spread in the world.
————————————————
May I be allowed one suggestion? Put the comments to your articles on a separate page so that the readers of your articles can read the responses only if they choose to do so, rather than dilute the article with trash replies.
Posted by jimmymac on Apr 3, 2005 at 7:28 AM
Dear chris p,
“In the fiscal 2006 $2.7 trillion budget your government intends to terminate 48 education programs (most of them aimed at helping disabled or immigrant students)thereby “saving” $4.8 billion while reinvesting $2.3 billion in new initiatives(most of them aimed at benefitting wealthier schools and districts). Looks like a $2.5 billion cut to me which ever way you look at it.”
Was that future possible spending level intended to refute the fact of how much education spending INCREASED under Bush?
“(most of them aimed at benefitting wealthier schools and districts)”
Evidence please.
You: “But then again those 2 countries (N Korea and Sudan) don’t happen to sit on the world’s largest oil reserves.”
Me: “Neither does Iraq.”
You: ‘Neither does Iraq”(sit on one of the world’s biggest oilfields)’ Way off base pal.
Am I? You said Sudan and North Korea don’t happen to sit on the world’s largest oil reserves. I said neither does Iraq (Iraq sits on the world’s second largest oil reserves). Then you changed your wording to “one of the world’s biggest oilfields” and tried to tell me I was way off. No no. I was right on.
“Iraq possesses the world’s SECOND LARGEST PROVEN oil reserves-...”
Exactly. Second, not first. You seem to emphasize the word “proven.” Do you know something about their unproven oil reserves that moves them past Saudi Arabia? I doubt it. (By the way, keep in mind Canada and their trillions of barrels of oil in the sands.)
“...112.5 billion barrels (11% of the world’s total plus immense gasfields and additional undiscovered oil reserves. Your government knew damn well what they were moving in for.”
Moving in for? Has the U.S. government seized the oil fields? Since the answer to that is no, I guess if it was “all about oil” the goal would have been at least to get oil flowing. But wouldn’t that have been much easier and less costly by simply allowing Saddam Hussein to sell oil without interference? Yes. This was about quite a bit more than oil.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Apr 3, 2005 at 1:16 PM
Dear chris p,
“Oh yes, in the meanwhile your government has decided to increase the military budget by a whopping $20 billion (including $40 billion to further develop lethal nuclear weapons) Bush has been doing some serious long term thinking indeed.What sort of vision is that?”
Is every single policy you disagree with by default “short-sighted”? It seems that way.
You say “your government.” Are you not a US citizen?
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Apr 3, 2005 at 1:19 PM
Dear Lamont,
“But if you wish to be blind and believe that the Israelis do no wrong or that either side is worse than the other then that is your prerogative.”
I do not believe the Israelis do no wrong.
I do believe that the Palestinians are worse than the Israelis. One would be blind to think otherwise.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Apr 3, 2005 at 1:23 PM
Dear brian,
“Iraq oil brings in 16.9 billion a year, yet we spend 1.6 billion a week to stay there, you do the math.”
Excellent point, Brian. The numbers make it clear. Obviously, the war was about much much more than oil.
“This next puppet gov.”
Governments that are puppets of the U.S. aren’t also elected by the people of that country.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Apr 3, 2005 at 1:27 PM
Dear brian,
“They have us and are economy by the balls.”
Do they? Why hasn’t the economy tanked as the price of oil has more than doubled? In fact, oil doubling and the economy picking up coincided. How does that reconcile with your comment?
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Apr 3, 2005 at 1:31 PM
Dear Margaret,
“Now that that idiot has finally left to go take part in some covert KKK activity,”
Have I said a single thing that should lead a reasonable person to think I am racist?
And let me translate: now we like-minded people can continue in our group think.
“let me state that Social Security is the most efficient program in U.S. history because it uses less than 1% of its funds to self-administer.”
Of course it is not costly to administer. It is nothing more than a transfer of funds from one party to another. But the only reason it is a success is because we expect recipients to do nothing but cash the checks.
“if the Repubs hadn’t pilfered a trillion or so out of its coffers,”
What exactly are you referring to? Please, provide some detail.
Your comments on wealth had little to do with demonstrating that we are on the road to fascism.
“So if you wonder why all the programs that benefit “average Joe” keep getting cut or underfunded to the point that they are completely ineffective (i.e. “No Child Left Behind”)”
No Child Left Behind was a massive spending increase. Spending simply did not reach its authorized limit. That happens all the time. They virtually always put caps on authorized spending, and it is not uncommmon for ultimate spending to not reach the cap, even though massive spending does occur. Must you believe everything Ted Kennedy says?
“a one-party government whose only goal is to establish absolute power at home and increasing power abroad in their pursuit of world domination. Just read the documents from Cheney in ‘99 and he states pretty clearly that those are his ambitions.”
Why don’t you provide quotes?
“Him saying he’s “progressive” is like me (a mother of 2) saying I’m a virgin.”
No it’s not. Yours would be a lie. Mine is absolutely true. Did you read definition #3? I’m clearly a progressive. Anyone who wants change to make things better is a progressive. (Does the left feel it owns the term?) We just come to the improvement in conditions from very different perspectives.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Apr 3, 2005 at 1:47 PM
Dear Matt Harris,
still waiting…............
“Detail not necessary. See above. However, if you’d like detail on the whole going to war on false premises thang, go do some reading or check out the documentary “Uncovered: The War on Iraq”. Intellectual sloth is no excuse.”
What a surprise. You said I was not credible because I said “knowingly going to war on false premises.” I asked you to support it. You didn’t. (Rather, you couldn’t.)
Why not? Because it is not supportable.
Sincerely,
J Craig
p.s. you put your daughter in daycare while you surf the web?
p.p.s. can anyone on the left support their charges???????????
Posted by J Craig on Apr 3, 2005 at 1:53 PM
Mr. Johnson,
Very good article with one major oversight. You state in the conclusion that “Reviving our constitutional system would do more than anything else to protect our peace and security.” That is exactly right. Yet you also state “In 2004, he (Bush) garnered 3.5 million more votes than John Kerry. The result is that Bush’s war changed into America’s war and his conduct of international relations became our own.”
That is exactly wrong. Bush did not receive more votes than Kerry in 2004. I suggest you do more research into election fraud and rigging, because thats what happened, and thats the root of all these problems, including terrible foreign policy.
Posted by Colin Donoghue on Apr 3, 2005 at 3:30 PM
It is so interesting how J. Craig distorts facts to represent his own beliefs. In fact, we have seized the oil fields. I specifically remember the command that the “oil fields and pipelines” were to be protected in March-April 2003, not the museums or any other institutions. In the meanwhile, Iraq has received little compensation for the oil pumped, and Dubya isn’t interested in where the 9B$ went.
You talk a lot to people who don’t care what you say because most of what you say is a twisted logic that circles back around and bites itself in the butt. You say much, but all it means is that you support the continuing impoverishment of the working class to allow an uberclass to rule in the neocon vision of world domination. Why don’t you just be truthful with yourself? I’m sure you enjoy your cheap holidays in other people’s misery.
Matt is right…you truly are pathetic and probably paid to be so. Go away, troll, because all your words do on this site is strenghten our resolve. I’ll throw roses for you when I dance on DeLay’s political grave shortly.
Posted by Margaret on Apr 3, 2005 at 5:18 PM
p.s. Go to oldamericancentury.org and you will find both articles I referenced. Also, John Kerry pointed out the underfunding, not Kennedy. And I would believe him EVERY time over you.
Also, SS is efficient and cost-effective because the goverment is not having to put money in, workers and employers do that. But, then again, you are so unpatriotic that you would rather not pay any taxes because everything should be free, apparently. Of course, once you remove all safety nets and rape the working class, it provides a better environment in which to run your fascist state. How can the destitute fight back? And, yes, what you propose as a neocon is fascism, pure and simple. Look up the word, as you’re so fond of us wanting to understand progressive. Your definition nevertheless, does not make you a good progressive. You “progress” the cause of fascism, and that is the truth.
Posted by Margaret on Apr 3, 2005 at 5:27 PM
Seriously J Craig….WAAAAY too much talkie talkie!!!
if you’re going to hog this forum than at least you could try and be entertaining!
sheesh!
Posted by the great went on Apr 3, 2005 at 5:59 PM
Dear Margaret,
“It is so interesting how J. Craig distorts facts to represent his own beliefs.”
Give one example. It’ll have to be better than the one you tried to give.
“I specifically remember the command that the “oil fields and pipelines” were to be protected in March-April 2003, not the museums or any other institutions. In the meanwhile, Iraq has received little compensation for the oil pumped, and Dubya isn’t interested in where the 9B$ went.”
Are you under the (mistaken) impression that we are profiting from Iraq’s oil sales?
“most of what you say is a twisted logic that circles back around and bites itself in the butt.”
Please give an example. (Can anybody on the left support their charges?????????)
“Matt is right…you truly are pathetic and probably paid to be so. Go away, troll, because all your words do on this site is strenghten our resolve. I’ll throw roses for you when I dance on DeLay’s political grave shortly.”
Such hostility on the left! Go read what I’ve written. For the most part I’ve been a perfect gentleman, while so many of you are seething with venom.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Apr 3, 2005 at 6:58 PM
I think that J. Craig appears to have slept through a lot of history classes when he was in school. Or perhaps his point of view can be explained by early-onset Reaganomics. The resemblance to the ideology of Tucker Carlson is extraordinary, which of course makes him a derivative thinker, loosely speaking, rather than an original one. Perhaps such posts should be accompanied by a smiley with a bow-tie, as a sort of warning-label for first-time viewers. The topic at hand is Chalmers Johnson’s analysis, and whether or not you agree, disagree, or not, and why.
The inability to remain on topic, and the easy resorting to ad hominem arguments, are characteristic of arguments unable to carry the day, because they are NOT based on substance. This is actually a step BELOW the brute-force sliming practiced, say, against candidates with adopted children, and campaigning in a South Carolina election.
Please, let’s elevate the conversation with accurate facts. Not color-by-numbers talking points, that change with the political winds.
An electron is a terrible thing to waste. 4-3-05.
Posted by Joseph F Dunphy MBA MFP on Apr 3, 2005 at 6:59 PM
Dear Margaret,
More venom.
“you are so unpatriotic that you would rather not pay any taxes because everything should be free, apparently.”
No, we should all pay less taxes, and we should all get (and expect) less government. Just my opinion, of course.
“Of course, once you remove all safety nets and rape the working class, it provides a better environment in which to run your fascist state.”
Again with the fascist charge, yet again no support for it.
“How can the destitute fight back?”
They won’t be destitute. We’ll all do better under what I want than what you want.
“And, yes, what you propose as a neocon is fascism, pure and simple.”
Such as???? Do you see how you repeatedly make the charge yet you never support it?
“Your definition nevertheless, does not make you a good progressive. You “progress” the cause of fascism, and that is the truth.”
I’m about as far from fascism as they come. What is a fascist policy I support? (More and more I’m convinced you don’t understand the definiton of this word you so lightly throw around.)
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Apr 3, 2005 at 7:04 PM
Dear Joseph F Dunphy MBA MFP,
“I think that J. Craig appears to have slept through a lot of history classes when he was in school.”
Support the charge. (Can anyone on the left do that?) What specifically leads you to this conclusion?
“The resemblance to the ideology of Tucker Carlson is extraordinary, which of course makes him a derivative thinker, loosely speaking, rather than an original one.”
Maybve I’m the original, and Tucker is the derivative.
“The topic at hand is Chalmers Johnson’s analysis, and whether or not you agree, disagree, or not, and why.”
Not familiar with a string, are you? They often move from the original topic.
“the easy resorting to ad hominem arguments,”
Example please? (Can anyone on the left support their charges?)
“Please, let’s elevate the conversation with accurate facts.”
What fact have I offered that’s not accurate?
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Apr 3, 2005 at 7:11 PM
Let us start with your comment “did I miss the coup?” Many would argue that you did. There is a case made quite strongly by Greg Palast that there is an unelected resident in the White House, allowed to remain by the negligence of the Supreme Court which is not exactly a think-tank of brilliant jurists. There is a strong argument in the “Blowback” trilogy that Osama bin Laden group was trained by our own CIA, for about $6 billion over time, and that this “weapon” was turned against the US by 1) the US setting up bases on Saudi Soil, or 2) a US encouraged or allowed attack on the twin towers—with the persistent efforts to suppress the investigation into the 9/11 incident raising legitimate questions as to why. This is the event that “allowed” the current administration to stay in power.
Need another coup? Maybe the first-strike incursion against Iraq, a country, in the inimitable words of radio talk show host Lionel, “didn’t even have a can of RAID!” (a little hyperbole, but actually not much). For further evidence of this, not Colin Powell’s persistent claims that he was “mislead” by the “intelligence.” This lie, in spite of persistent complaints inside the CIA that the intelligence was being manipulated for political purposes, and even Congress was surprised at the heavy handedness of Dick Cheney going repeatedly to the CIA before the incursion.
Thus, there are at least two “coups” that have taken place. Tom DeLay’s assault on Congressional re-districting a second time, after the census was done, and redistricting already set, may yet get DeLay booted from the Congress—despite the notorious stench of corruption coming from the current investigation.
The assault on Social Security is an on-going attempted coup—aimed principally at crushing labor unions. And it is no secret that the court-stuffing with conservative justices is an attempt to reverse affirmative action, reduce civil rights, and entrench the courts with conservatives. There is no attempt to work out bi-partisan nominees, with give-and-take on both sides. It is raw power grabbing, with no attempt at being democratic (small d).
Not to mention the torture memos, and the disgrace of Negroponte, notoriously involved with the death squads of Battalion 316 in Latin America.
Thus, if you have been unable to see a coup, perhaps it has something to do with your prescription lenses? I would hazard a guess that you are not in the sign business.
4-3-04.
Posted by Joseph F Dunphy MBA MFP on Apr 3, 2005 at 8:18 PM
Theloneous,
You have so eloquently summarized my thoughts and the thoughts of so many others. Well done.
Posted by R Campbell on Apr 3, 2005 at 9:38 PM
Dear Joseph F Dunphy MBA MFA,
“There is a case made quite strongly by Greg Palast that there is an unelected resident in the White House, allowed to remain by the negligence of the Supreme Court which is not exactly a think-tank of brilliant jurists.”
What’s the jist? That Gore really won the ballot count? Isn’t he aware of the group of newpapers that concluded that Bush would have won any recount anyway by all the methods they used except one? So I’m lacking in historical education because I don’t buy this fella’s argument? (Let me guess. He has no axe to grind whatsoever, quite unlike those Bush-backing hacks at the New York Times and other right wing rags that did the recount.)
RE: OBL conspiracy theory. Again, I’m somehow lacking? Why? Because I don’t buy into this conspiracy theory? (I hear HRC murdered Vince Foster.)
“Need another coup? Maybe the first-strike incursion against Iraq”
First strike? Was it not a resumption of the war that ended with a surrender agreement (to say nothing of the fact that it never really ended in the no-fly zones)? If a country surrenders in war, agrees to surrender terms, doesn’t fully comply with that agreemetn, then the victor resumes the war, would you really call that a first strike?
“This lie, in spite of persistent complaints inside the CIA that the intelligence was being manipulated for political purposes,”
Really? Not according to the report of the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction. It was delivered just days ago.
http://www.wmd.gov/report/index.html
Go to Page 50 of the WMD report: “The Commission found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community’s prewar assessments of Iraq’s weapons programs.”
“Thus, there are at least two “coups” that have taken place.”
Only in lefty conspiracy land.
“The assault on Social Security is an on-going attempted coup”
Stretching a bit, aren’t we? Calling a change in a government program a “coup”? Your credibility is on the ropes with this one.
“There is no attempt to work out bi-partisan nominees, with give-and-take on both sides.”
Correct, but this is nothing new whatsoever when one party controls both the White House and the Senate. And I’m the one lacking in historical education?
Now what about those examples of ad hominem arguments by me? Let’s see em.
Sincerely,
J Craig
p.s. Can I quote you? “The topic at hand is Chalmers Johnson’s analysis, and whether or not you agree, disagree, or not, and why.” Thanks for joining me on this little OT excursion.
Posted by J Craig on Apr 3, 2005 at 9:38 PM
Dear JFD MBA MFA,
I just went back and read this:
“then the stage could be set for a nasty trade war, and potentially a shooting war, this time on US soil.”
Do I read you correctly? With England? On U.S. soil? A British invasion? Do you really believe this is even worth mentioning? I think you might be extrapolating from past events just a little too liberally.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Apr 3, 2005 at 9:47 PM
Dear Matt Harris,
Still waiting…...........................
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Apr 3, 2005 at 9:50 PM
The Palestinians worse than the Israelis? hah! ahaha! hah! Go look up what the Israelis do and compare it to what the Palestinians do. The Settlements, the Settlers, the land-grabs and evictions from homes & demolition of homes for the Settlers, the fortified checkpoints, The Wall*, the poison gas [I’ve seen video of the affects and seen & heard the doctors diagnosis of it, so don’t you dare tell me that’s Palestinian propaganda], the group-punishment, the bulldozers used against unarmed non-violent protestors & the elderly who can’t get out of their houses in time, and on and on and on.
The Palestinians frequently use unlawful and violent methods – particularly against civilians - there’s no denying that and there is very little justification for that, those that do that must be punished to the full extent of the law with no exceptions, but there is no way what-so-ever you can say that their actions are not in response to what the Israelis do, nor can you say that the Israelis do not frequently precipitate and worsen the events through their actions and responses, and finally you can not say their actions are worse than what the Israelis do. Or at least you would not be able to honestly say these things if you bothered to look into what the Israelis do.
I strongly suggest you go look into the examples I provided as well as all the rest of the things the Israelis do.
*The Wall might not actually be all that bad an idea - IF it followed the internationally agreed upon border, rather than following a new path that often times delves deep into Palestinian land for the sole purpose of further annexing land for future settlements.
Posted by LamontCranston on Apr 3, 2005 at 10:25 PM
Let’s get back to Chalmers Johnson. How much do people in the uS understand how they appear to other people in the world? Have you seen the news about a poll conducted by an Austrlian think tank-the Lowy Institute-of the views held by asurtalians about the US? The results were interesting and discomforting to our neo-con lite copy cat conservatives in this country. The implications for US allies let alone their enemies are interesting/.
Posted by Jane Doe on Apr 3, 2005 at 11:29 PM
Dear J. Craig,
Are you an internet troll by the definition below?
Internet troll
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
An Internet troll is either a person who sends messages on the Internet hoping to entice other users into angry or fruitless responses, or a message sent by such a person.
I’m waiting for your response, (yes or no), along with an explanation of why you believe you either are or are not a troll.
Posted by Merlin on Apr 3, 2005 at 11:35 PM
To the idiot who thinks the Palestians are worse than the Israelis (you know who you are).
Between 27 September 2000 and 10 February 2003 Palestinians were responsible for the deaths of 709 Israelis. During the same time period Israeli soldiers killed 2007 Palestinians.
Yes, you read that correctly, two thousand and seven dead Palestians, compared to seven hundred and nine Israelis. Go check it out.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/845157/posts
If you like that then you’re in for a real treat. Do an internet search for the number of Iraqi civilians estimated to have been killed by American forces. Go to as many different sources as you can. Here’s a good one,
iraqbodycount.net
These guys have counted only those deaths reported by at least two different news sources.
Their minimum number is more than 17000.
Yep, George W. Bush is responsible for more than seventeen thousand cilvilian deaths. Osama Bin Laden would have to kill fourteen thousand more civilians to catch him up.
Are we waking up and smelling the coffee yet, Einstein?
Posted by Matilda Gatsby on Apr 4, 2005 at 2:49 AM
A minor quible, but in my opinion an important one - comparing the 17,000* dead Iraqis to the 3,000 who died on September 11th is a bit of a misleading association since no Iraqis, nor the Saddam government, had anything whatsoever to do with with Semtember 11th. [Although even if they did it does not warrent 17,000 dead]
*Is that since occupation began or alternatively starting at when the ‘war’ began? Although if it were truly honest then it’d start at the end of the first Gulf War and take into account all those who the Americans allowed to die in the failed uprisings that followed shortly after the Gulf War and then all those who died in the following 10+ years due to the sanctions, the nations shattered infrastructure, radiation from DU, etc, etc in which case the number would have 5 or 6 zeros after it.
Posted by LamontCranston on Apr 4, 2005 at 6:41 AM
Dear J. Craig,
You oviously have two much time on your hands.
W. Lawler
Posted by W. D. Lawler on Apr 4, 2005 at 6:46 AM
And too many brains in his head.
Posted by allen drews on Apr 4, 2005 at 6:50 AM
As a liberal minded independent, i am rather disappointed that J Craig seems to be quite a bit more informed than “my” side. I find it even more disappointing that virtually all of the personal attacks are made by the left against this man (worse yet, he appears to be gentlemanly even in this hostile environment, demonstrating great maturity in such difficult circumstances).
Is there really no arguments against what he is claiming? Or is it just no one here is able to make them? Surely calling him a fascist, KKK wanabee, or other nonsense does not help “our” side. . .
Furthermore, if his claims are too hard to counter, perhaps the poster who suggested he be ignored should be considered. Merely attacking someone who disagrees with your point of view does nothing to bolster your opinion. Rather it makes it look weak and indefensible.
Just my $0.02.
Posted by Kurt on Apr 4, 2005 at 7:05 AM
The article mentions Bush abandoning “the policies of all previous American administrations to seek an equitable peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians”. This is just not true. Since 1967, the United States has given Israel at LEAST 104 billion in direct aid. AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobby groups control over half of the campaign contributions to both parties, and other 75% of the Democrats. Also, the United States has continuously ignored or downplayed Israel’s crimes against humanity for the last several decades.
Until this situation changes, the middle east will continue to be a quagmire, and furthermore the muslim world will continue to hate us for sponsoring what they see as terrorism.
Posted by Steve on Apr 4, 2005 at 8:04 AM
Kurt,
I know it seems wrong to get hostile when someone who only wants to disrupt a fruitful conversation between like-minded individuals comes into the “yard” and starts breaking everyone’s toys. But the truth is, we all hear plenty of his mindset everyday in the mainstream media. I come here and a few other sites to gain further information of a non-neocon bent and opinions with which to forge my own.
Every link or fact that is given to J. Craig or any other troll is immediately deemed wrong and irrelevant, no matter how much data there is to support it. Heaven knows, there a facts a plenty in both the article and in many of your replies.
And, one last note to all, not everyone is a political pundit with a photographic memory who instantly recalls every detail of each article they’ve read, and when and where they read it. Some people do actually read a great deal in research, and then meld the data into a comprehensive world view that they then espouse. While I understand that people want quotes, verification, etc., I think that J. Craig’s “desire” for such verification is merely a ruse to take us off track.
In fact, we should all pay particular attention to the data in Mr. Johnson’s article as it seems to have provoked J. Craig into a frenzy.
p.s. - I was given the sage advice to simply ignore him and all trolls. I think Jane Doe is right, forget him. We could show him a blue sky and he would argue it really isn’t blue because, scientifically, blah, blah, blah. It still doesn’t change the facts, and distortion and disorientation is all he attempts to do.
Posted by Margaret on Apr 4, 2005 at 8:22 AM
p.s. I would disagree that he is gentlemanly—he is smarmy. It is an obvious false courtesy and I don’t agree that he is better informed. In fact, I find most of his assertion biased in an erroneous manner.
Posted by Margaret on Apr 4, 2005 at 8:23 AM
Dear Lamont,
“Go look up what the Israelis do and compare it to what the Palestinians do. The Settlements, the Settlers, the land-grabs and evictions from homes & demolition of homes for the Settlers, the fortified checkpoints, The Wall*,”
I wonder why they do this? Could it be that the Israelis are willing to co-exist peacefully (and just years ago offered the Palestinians 95% of their demands, in response receiving a jihad), while the Palestinians want to drive them into the sea? I don’t agree with all that they are doing in the territories, but on balance, they have the moral high ground by a long shot. None of it would have happened if the Israelis didn’t take the lands in a war they didn’t want.
“the poison gas”
That’s Palestinian propaganda.
“and finally you can not say their actions are worse than what the Israelis do.”
Their actions are worse than what the Israelis do.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Apr 4, 2005 at 8:25 AM
Dear Merlin,
“An Internet troll is either a person who sends messages on the Internet hoping to entice other users into angry or fruitless responses, or a message sent by such a person.”
No, I am not an internet troll. My hope is not to entice other users into angry or fruitless responses. That often is the result, but it is not my hope.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Apr 4, 2005 at 8:32 AM
Dear Matilda Gatsby,
It is clear that you think body count is the sole determinant of right and wrong.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Apr 4, 2005 at 8:37 AM
I agree with William Greider, as quoted in this essay, when he argues that this “administration has become increasingly delusional…and blind to the adverse balance of power accumulating against it.”
Indeed, this delusional state extends well beyond economic considerations—and certainly into the realm of military supremacy. As the increasingly smug “sole remaining superpower” in the world, we’re conducting ourselves as though no one could possibly stand against us, so we have no consequences to fear from our behavior. But military supremacy is not the same as military invincibility—and we are supreme only in our ability to project conventional power to remote locations. Nonetheless, we seem to be suffering from a national delusion that we are capable of enforcing our will anywhere we like.
It may be true that no one is able to project conventional power anywhere in the world to the extent that we are—for example, Russia and Red China could not contest with us for Australia or Hawaii—it simply isn’t true that we could expect to defeat them on their own soil.
Posted by Robert Crawford on Apr 4, 2005 at 8:50 AM
Dear Margaret,
“Every link or fact that is given to J. Craig or any other troll is immediately deemed wrong and irrelevant, no matter how much data there is to support it.”
Every? How about one? Please give one example of me doing this. (Please support something you say.)
“While I understand that people want quotes, verification, etc., I think that J. Craig’s “desire” for such verification is merely a ruse to take us off track.”
I’ve asked for evidence (such as links and sources) extremely minimally.
What I’ve mostly been asking is for you and others to support your assertions with arguments. An assertion means nothing if it can’t be supported. I’ve also frequently asked for evidence (cut and paste) of something I’m alleged to have done. Nobody ever follows up with the cut and paste. (For an example, see above where I ask you to provide an example of something you say I always do. All you have to do is look back through a few of my posts. If I always do what you say, it should be a pretty easy task. Yet for some reason - experience? - I have a hunch you won’t do it.)
Here’s another example:
“In fact, I find most of his assertion biased in an erroneous manner.”
Show me one example. You made an assertion (that most of my assertions are biased in an erroneous manner). You should be able to support your assertion with at least one example.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Apr 4, 2005 at 8:53 AM
I am generally loathe to address people directly since ad hominen attacks are a hallmark of elected officials, particularly Republicans, but Mr. J. Craig should consider doing a bit of research before posting comments.
Here is what you need to know about oil. Saudi Arabia is not our biggest supplier, Canada is. Venezuala is second. http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/gene/peakoil/node2.html
And Israel is committing apartheid and ethnic cleansing. But this is not something that can be discussed rationally by anyone right of center, because they just don’t understand what is happening there because they never get the truth reported. What Israel has done to the Palestinian people since they lauched their aggressive war of 1967 and occupied Palestinian land is qualitatively worse than what white South Africa did to their black population before the end of Apartheid. It is as bad as the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, worse than the Russian occupation of Chechnya, and almost as bad as the US occupation of Iraq, in which some 120,000 innocent civilians lay dead for “freedom”.
Pshaw!
I am being very precursory here because I don’t have time to dissect every point, but I do believe the article is spot-on, and I believe, although marginally well-argued, that Mr. J. Craig has no real idea of what he speaks.
Charles Shaw
Publisher/Editor-in-Chief
Newtopia Magazine
www.newtopiamagazine.net
Posted by Charles Shaw on Apr 4, 2005 at 8:54 AM
Thank you for some sanity, Mr. Shaw.
Once again, in stating that some people form their views from various research sources and life experiences rather than becoming a “verification” catalog, you are right about the Israelis.
In college I had an Israeli roommate. She left Israel at 14 because she looked more like an Arab (though she had no Arab blood) and her parents feared for her safety. Despite being a Jew, she was spat upon, pushed down, hit and verbally assaulted by other Jews who thought her to be Arabic/Palestinian. She told me that, while she loved her faith and her people, “my people really have to change in their approach to the Palestinians.”
While I do support Israel and also a new Palestinian state, I KNOW from her personal experience that both sides are guilty on this issue.
Posted by Margaret on Apr 4, 2005 at 9:16 AM
J Craig—Did I miss the coup, etc.?
My reponse cited several published sources, Palast and the Blowback Trilogy, that make the case for a stolen election, and CIA involvement in training OBL.
Your response is to assert—with no citations or proof—“Conspiracy theory.” That does not win points in a debating contest. Thus you offer nothing substantitive in response.
On the matter of the report of the intelligence committee, surely you are aware that there was serious committee-stuffing of members who would turn a blind eye to the Administration’s failures. Since you fail to point that out, I make the point. Whether you did not know that, or deliberately omitted the fact, I can not tell, but it points to slipshod research on you part.
Thus, on these three points alone, you have arrived at the scene without credible evidence.
If you would read more non-fiction, it would have a salutary effect on your debating abilities.
As to the point of keeping the discussion on Chalmers Johnson, one of the main points he makes is the need for effective reform in spite of the difficulties posed by the policies of the administration.
My points are on the need for effective election reform, proper oversight of the CIA and the intelligence community, and of the executive itself. People are not off-topic just because you say so in print.
Others can see the arguments for themselves. And so far, it seems that no one has accused anyone else but you of being a troll. As Kenny Rodgers would sing: “Know when to fold ‘em.”
4-4-05.
Posted by Joseph F Dunphy MBA MFP on Apr 4, 2005 at 9:28 AM
Dear Charles Shaw,
“Here is what you need to know about oil. Saudi Arabia is not our biggest supplier, Canada is. Venezuala is second.”
Who said Saudi Arabia is our biggest supplier? I assume you are referring to my earlier exchange. If so, “our biggest supplier” was not the question.
“What Israel has done to the Palestinian people since they lauched their aggressive war of 1967”
You mean the attack they executed in response to the muslim nations’ preparations for attacking Israel? Should they have waited? Had they waited, would you be condemning the muslim nations for striking first?
For those who believe “first strike” and “death count” are the measures of right and wrong: I couldn’t disagree more.
“and I believe, although marginally well-argued, that Mr. J. Craig has no real idea of what he speaks.”
Please, do tell me more. Give examples of my mistakes. (One more unsupported assertion from the left!)
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Apr 4, 2005 at 10:07 AM
No personal offense meant sir, but you don’t merit the time or effort. I believe there is little hope of you acknowledging the truth or having an honest awakening about your views.
Point of clarification: I am not “on the left”. I despise Democrats as much as Republicans, they are in my opinion all corrupt, warmongering, Globalizing imperialists, and I believe partisan politics is used in the nation to divide the population and keep them adverserial to each other, rather than trhe oligarchy that controls and loots all of us. I am definitly not Socialist, but consider myself in spirit equal parts Green, Libertarian, and Anarchist.
And it has been wonderful chatting with you. Take care, and be well to your family.
Posted by Charles Shaw on Apr 4, 2005 at 10:14 AM
When in a discussion of topics, different viewpoints
lead to a disagreement.When an assertion is refuted,
proven unsound and invalid, and untrue, and still
used as a “fact”, there is no discussion, just the argument room from Monty Python.
GWB stated several times “Saddam Hussien has weapons
of mass destruction”
“He must be dissarmed”
Rice, Rumsfeldt, Powel, Cheney, repeated ad nauseum
Mr. Craig: “Fortunately, we did’t knowingly go to
war on false premises
Not one mention of democracy in IRAQ was ever mentioned before
the “weapons” were “not found”
Mr Craig: “One more unsupported assertion from the left”
Is this the argument room ?
Yes it is
No it isn’t
Mr Shaw is correct
Posted by R.B. on Apr 4, 2005 at 11:49 AM
J Craig,
You responded:
“No, I am not an internet troll. My hope is not to entice other users into angry or fruitless responses. That often is the result, but it is not my hope.”
I have given your response considerable thought, going back through this thread and rereading your responses. I wish I could believe that what you say above is true. Your words tell me a different story.
Whether a person is a troll or not (by the definition in previous post), is subjective. Therefor my opinion is as valid as yours regarding whether you are or are not. I think and believe you are a troll by that definition. Here are a few quotes from your posts in this thread (there are more, but these will be enough to explain the case) that in my view shows you as trolling. You are attempting to provoke anyone foolish enough to respond to your “emotional poking,” into remarks that you can sweetly, and as a “perfect gentleman,” (in your words,) use against them in an emotional manner. I find this type of communication deceptive and dishonest. It, and the person using it, (you in this case) are an impediment to any person or group trying to understand, grow or learn.
In as much as you are constantly asking for folks to “support their charges”, (although support is neither necessary nor possible in this case as it is simply my opinion,) my “reading” of your statements below is in parenthesis.
“p.s. you put your daughter in daycare while you surf the web?”
(This comment is, IMO, designed to impugn Matt Harris as a neglectful father. I believe you know that you are doing that, and the “little boy” in you is really enjoying the “I’m better than you are!” arrogance you feel.)
“p.p.s. can anyone on the left support their charges???????????”
(What is the reason for all those redundant question marks if not to say in unsaid terms, “Now I’ve got you, you SOB.” (Check out Eric Berne’s book “Games People Play” for an explanation of this most insidious psychological Game.) I suspect (no fact here, just my suspicion, J Craig) you are a rather angry man whose main pleasure in life is “one upping” other people, and being very smug about it. It is your reason for existence and you spend a lot of time thinking and planning how to do it. Witness your copious posts here. As “the great went” said, “WAAAAY too much talkie.” talkie!!!)
“Not familiar with a string, are you?”
(Ouch! What an angry retort! Done with the pseudo smile of the self righteous and a rising inflection in your voice as you say “are you”. The odd Bush “smirk” that I have seen so often flashes before me. Come to think of it, that look goes along with the head being tilted a bit backward pushing the chin out as if to say, “Go ahead, hit me! Just try it!”)
“For the most part I’ve been a perfect gentleman, while so many of you are seething with venom.”
Sincerely,
(And this remark tells the whole psychological story! You are “innocent” while others (who have fallen for your “emotional poking”) are guilty. What a farce! Arrogance is always ugly, J Craig!
And BTW, ending with “Sincerely…” just puts psychological icing on the cake for me! In my view, you are not honest in using that remark in your posts. Your use of the closing “Sincerely” really sounds to me like it says “I am “Sincerely” enjoying showing you how much better I am than you are.” In response to this judgement, would you dare to say “Who me? I am just using ordinary words that are always used when writing letters!” Nah. You know better than to say that, because it is rarely done on threads like this. Hmmm, I wonder what you COULD say to defend your remarks listed here without sounding ridiculous?)
Now here is something for you to think about. If you respond to this post will you win? If you don’t respond (silence is consent, you know) you lose. What do you choose.
Posted by Merlin on Apr 4, 2005 at 12:01 PM
“You mean the attack they executed in response to the muslim nations’ preparations for attacking Israel? Should they have waited? Had they waited, would you be condemning the muslim nations for striking first?”
Do you have verifiable proof of this attack? Your view is ONE side of the story. The Muslims have the other. The fact is that until GW Bush, our country did not condone pre-emptive war, which you are doing in your statement.
“For those who believe “first strike” and “death count” are the measures of right and wrong: I couldn’t disagree more.”
YOUR opinion, and your welcome to it.
Rather than tell everyone else what THEY should believe, or question what they believe, why don’t you share what do you actually believe?
That is the basis for discussion.
Posted by Liberal AND Proud on Apr 4, 2005 at 12:05 PM
When seeing a “discussion” panel after this eye-opening article, I continued to read on. After reading several of J. Craig’s attacks on the author and other readers, where is the discussion? Every “empire” falls. Any one who is educated on the history of the world knows that every powerful empire that over extends itself financially and in land acquired through war, disintegrates. The fall begins with none of its citizens willing to fight in the armies, big money makers hiding their capital and stop paying taxes, social programs are cut. When the last huge empire (Rome) dissolved, it left Western Europe in the Dark Ages for over a 1,000 years. Empires do not go in a big bang, it is a slow process. The USA empire is showing all the signs of falling, evidence of this is seen in our news: recruitment goals of the armed forces are not met, corporations hiding money off shore so to not pay taxes, and the current fight to cut huge amounts of our social programs from this year’s federal budget. We can stop the fall of our once united nation, by again coming together. It is unfortunate that the current parties in power appear to scorn such ideas by attacking each other and encouraging their supporters to do the same. No one can get close to the current President to have a “discussion”. There is no discussion, it is “either you are with us or against us” attitude. There is no worst death then hope. And for many, hope is already dead. So let us have civil discourse; let us bring hope back to those who have lost it.
Posted by Cynthia Gay Hollin on Apr 4, 2005 at 12:21 PM
Lamont Cranston, of course Iraq had nothing what so ever to do with the Sept 11 attacks. My intention in comparing Bin Laden’s body count to Bush’s was to compare one mass murderer to another. Bush is by far the bigger of the two criminals. Bush in fact diverted funds away from the real defence of this country in order to kill a load of Arabs.
J Craig, actually, yes, body count is usually a good indicator of who the biggest criminal is. If you’re answer to this is to say that Iraq was a threat to us, then like half the country you’re living in a media induced dream world. Wake up!
Posted by Matilda Gatsby on Apr 4, 2005 at 12:33 PM
Dear Charles Shaw,
“No personal offense meant sir, but you don’t merit the time or effort. I believe there is little hope of you acknowledging the truth or having an honest awakening about your views.”
It’s your way or no way, eh? That’s mighty condescending of you, thanks.
“I am definitly not Socialist, but consider myself in spirit equal parts Green, Libertarian, and Anarchist.”
I sympathize with the liberatarian in you, but not so much the other two. By the way, the libertarian in you and the green in you must have some pretty heated debates, huh?
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Apr 4, 2005 at 12:36 PM
The game’s up J. Craig, Merlin has sleuthed you out! A rare combination of Jung, Freud and Sherlock Holmes, you can run but you can’t hide from this wizard. Facts, be damned! A willingness to debate the left at their place, be damned. Patience and solictude, be damned. Yours is a sick psychology, the oracle has spoken.
Posted by Gandolf on Apr 4, 2005 at 12:40 PM
Dear Merlin,
Who was provoking whom? This by me:
“p.s. you put your daughter in daycare while you surf the web?”
was in response to him insinuating that I am a loser. In this case, clearly Matt would be the troll, and I’m just the respondent. (By the way, if impugning people is the criteria for being a troll, I’d say there are plenty here in opposition to me more worthy of the label “troll” than me.)
Then there’s this by me:
“p.p.s. can anyone on the left support their charges???????????”
and you ask “What is the reason for all those redundant question marks?”
To get people to support their arguments. It is remarkably lacking here.
You say “you are a rather angry man whose main pleasure in life is “one upping” other people,”
No, I just want people who are making arguments to actually make arguments and not just assertions.
In this case by me:
“Not familiar with a string, are you?”
again, I’m the respondent, not the troll. You should look at these in context.
Then there’s this by me:
“For the most part I’ve been a perfect gentleman, while so many of you are seething with venom.”
Read the history. I was a perfect gentleman, and so many that responded to me have been seething with venom. Shall I catalog all the insults in just this string? (Off the top of my head I can think of at least three “idiots”, a “smarmy”, not to mention, VERY RECENTLY, a “smug”, and a “little boy.”)
It’s weird. You hold me to such a higher standard than you hold all of those so full of venom here.
“If you respond to this post will you win? If you don’t respond (silence is consent, you know) you lose. What do you choose.”
Actually, silence is not consent, but I will respond.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Apr 4, 2005 at 12:57 PM
Dear Liberal AND Proud,
“The fact is that until GW Bush, our country did not condone pre-emptive war, which you are doing in your statement.”
1. Are you saying that we never went to war with a country until they attacked us? Never?
2. You are correct. I have no blanket opposition to pre-emptive war. There are circumstances when it is acceptable.
“YOUR opinion, and your welcome to it.”
Agreed, it is just my opinion.
“Rather than tell everyone else what THEY should believe,”
When have I ever told anyone what they should believe?
“or question what they believe,”
What’s wrong with that? My opposition here does that as consistently as I do.
” why don’t you share what do you actually believe?”
I’ve done plenty of that. In fact, plenty here have been asking me to stop sharing.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Apr 4, 2005 at 1:04 PM
Dear Matilda Gatsby,
“J Craig, actually, yes, body count is usually a good indicator of who the biggest criminal is.”
You speak as if body count is the only indicator.
“If you’re answer to this is to say that Iraq was a threat to us, then like half the country you’re living in a media induced dream world. Wake up!”
Iraq was an apparent threat, an appearance that Hussein foolishly helped to create. He would still be an apparent threat had we not gone to war. All along, he had the power to change this by fully complying with the inspections process. He chose not to. Regardless of whether or not he was a threat, he agreed to a surrender then did not follow the terms. That’s a horrible precedent to allow. I was a supporter of resuming the war with him long before Bush came to office.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Posted by J Craig on Apr 4, 2005 at 1:12 PM
In the natural sciences, where i “live” people like J Craig keep us on our toes. We actually have to defend our beliefs; that is, either provide data or logical arguments to support our assertions.
Is there no analogy in the social sciences? Is it that both the facts and the logic used are so mallable that impressions and emotional overtones rule the social “science” roost?
One thing we do have in common - where deeply held views are challanged, often it results in insults. Usually, but not always, by the side with the weaker arguments (sometimes just because some people like to be rude, or at least are unable to contain themselves).
Anyway, i would love to see point by point rebuttals. For my own edification, if nothing else. (Who said: “if you can’t argue all sides of an issue, it means you don’t truly understand it”?
Posted by Tom on Apr 4, 2005 at 1:24 PM
SAVE 53% OFFTHE NEWSSTAND PRICE!
Reader Comments
some of your numbers are a bit iffy—http://www.morganstanley.com/GEFdata/digests/20050318-fri.html#anchor0 & http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/charting/2005/0302.html & http://www.gao.gov/cghome/intergovchallenge.pdf—prehapes provide better, and far more dire numbers, morgan-stanley alone seem to think the economic rubicon has been crossed and nothing is going to stop it.
Bravo for the fine article. While one can dispute exact numbers, I sense that the overall thrust of this paper is right on the money. When half the people in America will not even consent to reading such data, it seems we have little hope of backing off this track. I will keep trying to educate the closed minds, however, as we all must.
“To avoid this we must bring our massive trade and fiscal deficits under control”
As always, a writer on the left criticizes our trade and fiscal deficits but offers no solution to the trade deficit (and, naturally, offers only tax increases as a solution to the fiscal deficit).
His analogy to insulting your banker is weak because it assumes lenders have all the power and nothing to gain by having you as a customer. Sometimes that is the case, but sometimes it is not. Look and see how a banker kisses the butt of its best customers. Bankers are acting in self interest. Likewise, China is acting in self interest. It’s not charity when they buy our government debt. We are China’s best customer. China needs our trade as much as we need them to finance our budget deficit (and, as it pertains to the trade deficit, run a capital deficit - which is another name for their trade surplus). Maybe even more. It’s the main reason the Chinese government buys U.S. treasuries: to maintain the peg with the dollar, which is at a level that results in a trade surplus, which is how they want it. If they didn’t intervene to maintain the peg, the Chinese currency would rise relative to the dollar and the trade deficit would decline if not disappear. Japan acts in the same manner. So much the better for us.
By the way, any ideas from anyone on how to reduce the trade deficit? Nobody ever offers a solution.
Sincerely,
J Craig
“Bush instead joined Ariel Sharon in his expropriation and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. As a result, the United States has lost all credibility,”
This writer loses all credibility when he describes Israel’s actions as “ethnic cleansing.”
Sincerely,
J Craig
“In July 2004, Zogby International Surveys polled 3,300 Arabs in Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates. When asked whether respondents had a “favorable” or “unfavorable” opinion of the United States, the “unfavorables” ranged from 69 to 98 percent.”
Gee, I wonder how they felt before Bush? They probably loved us!
To point out that they don’t like us now does little to make the case that it’s Bush’s fault (which is the point of this article, right?) without similar survey results prior to Bush. I’m sure such a survey would demonstrate that they’ve never liked us.
Sincerely,
J Craig
“A cut-off of Saudi Arabia’s ability or willingness to sell its oil to us would, at the present time, constitute an economic catastrophe.”
This is similar to the “don’t insult your banker” misunderstanding. Saudi Arabia needs us as much as(if not more than) we need them. Obviously, our economy can take rising oil prices since it has demonstrated such over the last year and since energy is a relatively small part of our economy. But for them, the sale of oil dominates their economy.
Also, oil is fungible. If Saudi Arabia doesn’t sell to us but still puts the oil on the market, they’ll sell the same amount and we’ll buy the same amount, just not directly.
This writer is a pretty shallow thinker. He seems to think all these countries are so charitable to the U.S., a country he thinks they hate (and on the hate point alone he’s probably as close to correct as he gets). If the world hates us so, why continue to do business with us? Why are they charitable with countries they hate?
The answer is they’re not charitable. He’s wrong. They are acting out of self-interest.
Sincerely,
J Craig
“By using currently available automotive technologies as well as those being incorporated today in new Toyota and Honda automobiles, we could end our entire dependency on Persian Gulf oil. We should do that before we are forced to do so.”
It is unbelieveable how little this writer understands that which he writes about. If we reduce our demand for oil such that marginally profitable wells no longer operate, the middle east will have a greater share of the oil market, as none of their wells are marginally profitable (middle east oil is the lowest cost oil on the planet; it will be the last to cut production).
I’m not saying there wouldn’t be benefits to less oil consumption in the U.S. I’m only saying that it won’t lead to less imports from the middle east, as this writer believes. It will lead to less imports from high cost producers.
Sincerely,
J Craig
p.s. I hope this is my last message about this article, but I still have a few paragraphs left to read.
“To point out that they don’t like us now does little to make the case that it’s Bush’s fault (which is the point of this article, right?) without similar survey results prior to Bush. I’m sure such a survey would demonstrate that they’ve never liked us.”
You missed the point. Whether they “loved” us before Bush isn’t the issue—in fact no, we weren’t widely adored in the Arab world prior to the Bush presidency, largely for the foreign policy choices referred to by Mr. Johnson. The point is that our actions have swung the pendulum even further in the extremists’s favor. Rather than making the world safer by defusing the reasons for people to *become* terrorists, we’ve helped to manufacture more. We are now at odds with most of our traditional allies on a wide variety of issues directly related to our foreign policy, an additional cost of our international behavior.
Most of your fiscal arguments are fatuous. If countries like China, India and Japan benefit so from our being in debt to them, one is left to wonder why they are quietly moving to enhance their stocks of Euros.
It’s easy to whitewash an opponent’s argument by stuffing them into a neat cubbyhole: “a writer on the left”, yadda yadda. Try dropping the Fox News window dressing and engage the writer in an actual debate. Being snide doesn’t make your points any more convincing. In fact, as you yourself said, you “lose all credibility” by failing to do anything more than hamstring.
“You missed the point. Whether they “loved” us before Bush isn’t the issue—in fact no, we weren’t widely adored in the Arab world prior to the Bush presidency, largely for the foreign policy choices referred to by Mr. Johnson. The point is that our actions have swung the pendulum even further in the extremists’s favor.”
I don’t miss the point, which is that they like us even less. Without numbers prior to Bush, his citing of this survey does nothing to support his point.
“If countries like China, India and Japan benefit so from our being in debt to them, one is left to wonder why they are quietly moving to enhance their stocks of Euros.”
If they don’t benefit, one wonders why they bought our debt in the first place. Charity? This writer seems to believe it was charity, and that charity will come to an end. It may come to an end, but it won’t be because they no longer will feel charitable. It will be because they find benefit to their self-interest elsewhere.
“Most of your fiscal arguments are fatuous.”
Really? Which ones?
“It’s easy to whitewash an opponent’s argument by stuffing them into a neat cubbyhole: “a writer on the left”, yadda yadda. Try dropping the Fox News window dressing and engage the writer in an actual debate.”
I spend one sentence (correctly) labeling him a lefty, and the rest debunking some of his weak points, and you focus only on the lefty comment and ignore the remaining debating points?
“Being snide doesn’t make your points any more convincing.”
Perhaps, but I don’t rely on being snide. I reread all my comments. Here’s the only thing I found that was snide: “It is unbelieveable how little this writer understands that which he writes about.” And he dragged it out of me with his consistently bad points.
“Being snide doesn’t make your points any more convincing. In fact, as you yourself said, you “lose all credibility” by failing to do anything more than hamstring.”
Is the second sentence supposed to follow from the first? In the first you’re saying I’m snide (which I was, but so minimally it was irrelevant) and it doesn’t help. Then, as if it follows, you say that I lose all credibility because I “hamstring.”
I looked up the definition of hamstring in an effort to decipher your meaning. The best I could find was this:
“To destroy or hinder the efficiency of; frustrate: ‘These worthwhile books are often hamstrung by unimaginative formats and inaccurate art’ (Don Lessem).”
Is that what I do? Hamstring? And if so, why does that cost me all credibility?
Sincerely,
J Craig
“First and foremost, we should get out of Iraq and demand that Congress never again fail to honor article 1, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution giving it the exclusive power to go to war.”
—
Would someone kindly remind the author that, right or wrong, congress did authorize the war in Iraq in 2002. The president went to congress and got approval. Now he may not have received it from the UN, but he doesn’t need it.
When a liberals uses the term “WE” to describe the United States, beware. Why is the U.S “WE”? The U.S is controlled by a tiny ruling class. WE in fact have no country, WE are the workers and peasants of the world. WE have the same interests, the paper pusher in Bombay and the paper pusher in Miami have no conflicting interests. WE are the American working-class army privates shooting at WE the Afghan working-class insurgents. WE are the Kurdish peasant peshmarga, killing WE the Sunni peasant rebels. WE are cannon fodder in all conflicts on every side. WE kill each other and wave THEIR flags.
When the author speaks of “WE” as the U.S, he displays his servitude to the ruling class. The author disagrees with the American Enterprise Institute on how best the rulers must rule. The author wishes to return us to the glory days of Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton. The glory days when THEY could exploit US and have US kill each other without too much protest from too many sectors.
WE should not concern ourselves with what THEY the U.S, or THEY China, or THEY Cuba, or THEY Moqtada al-Sadr do to each other. WE are artificially pitted against each other on immaterial categories such as race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and yes nationality. OUR unity is a material reality based on our position in the global economy. WE face the dismantling of the welfare state everywhere on earth, from Russia to France to Norway to Argentina. NONE of the problems of the world, NONE can be solved until WE understand who WE truly are, then take control of our planet before it’s too late. Workers of the world unite.
Madimilian AL-Dakari
Maximillian, that was a parody, right?
While it seems that J. Craig has a different view point than the writer of this article and more or less my own, I think it is a completely valid point that too much emphasis is placed on Bush. Bush, it seems to me, is a very small part of a much larger problem. I am not an economist so I can’t feel confident proposing solutions to national debt etc. But I can say that the level of inequity in the world is not a natural phenomenon, it is designed by men. Compassion and sound moral judgment are, I believe, natural phenomenon in men. But in the institution of business and industry these traits do not exist.
The institutions that men have created were not created with the intention of benefiting society at large, or being socially responsible. They were created to increase the personal profit of individuals. This, perhaps, is something that should be observed prior to discussions of this nature. As it is not necessarily the fault of the individuals within these institutions but rather it is the fault of the institutions themselves.
WELL stated Derek.
J Craig, I dont argue with rightists, only leftists who argue with rightists.
Max, you only argue with leftists who argue with rightists? Why?
J Craig,
I believe most ordinary people who move towards leftist positions are moved by a genuine concern for solving the world’s problems. However I try to explain that both the right and the left are ruling class ideologies. The debate is how best to rule. Fifty years ago the arguments were: should the rulers rule with a more or less unadulterated free market (conservative/libertarian) or with a social safety-net (liberal-socialist). THere was even the Stalinist “alternative” of state-owned capital and a ruling class organized in a party bureaucracy, full of Psuedo-marxist rhetoric about communism and equality and such. Cuba for example is a state-capitalist country with its own version of exploitation. The argument was basically based on how much one feared the workers. The liberal elite felt the workers were a threat and should be appeased with social security, welfare, collective bargaining rights etc. The conservative elite felt workers would be motivated by a free market in which they had a chance to advance if they worked hard etc. The stalinists believed the rulers could simply echo all the marxist-sounding words while ensuring that the key tennet of Marxsim, Worker’s control was subdued brutally.
Today the debate is how quickly should the welfare state be dismantled. How nakedly should imperialist ambitions be pursued?
My appeal to workers who move to the left is that it is a ruling class ideology and that leftist governments are just as responsible for the crap we witness. France is no better than the U.S. Kerrry is no better than Bush. As for non-elite rightists I can explain my positioins to them but they sound like Martian to them so why argue? They don’t bother much with the plight of mankind and as such they are simply the enemy.
Max, I’m beginning to understand what kinds of systems of governance you don’t want. If you could decide, what would you replace these systems with?
J Craig,
I don’t think this is just about governance. It is about undertanding the entire arc of human social development since we emerged as a species. IT is too long and complicated to fit on this site, but here’s an ouline.
Homo sapiens in an icredibly social animal. As our primitive ancestors faced the harsh world, they organised communist societies. Equality was not the result of the goodness of these folks, but on the objective condition in which they lived. Selfishness was suicidal, as banishment from the band meant certain death.
As the productivity of labor increased we produced surpluses which freed some people from having to work. A class of people arose to organize the surplus, to defend it against rivals, to tax, to rule. Private property, female subjugation etc are once again the result of objective reality. Each era is conditioned by increases in the productive forces of the economy. THis in turn leads to a social organization, an ideology, and a state apparatus. THus the Slave society of antiquity, the feudal era and the capitalist age each arose out of a new and highet level of productive capacity. Each era creates the conditions for the next but the transitions from one to another are often violent.
Capitalism has created the preconditions for a return to communism based not on scarcity but on abundance. The productive forces are so advanced that the economy and the social structure are at odds with each other. THere is a contradiction between an immensely social organization of work, and the pivate owneship of the profits. There is a contradiction between the global economy and the nation-state system. Such contradictions are symptomatic of an epoch at the end of its life. It has oulived its usefullness. That’s why so many people feel as if things are getting worse and the world has gone mad.
So what is to be done. First of all recogniise a force in the world that can change it because it has no interest in exploiting anybody and has no interest in being used as cannon fodder. The international working class is te force that can change society. We replace the governments with soviets. If you don’t know what that is ask me. This is not about me and what I want. It is about humanity’s journey.
Conceding, for the sake of argument, that the Israeli/neocon mafia has crossed the “Rubicon” leading to the end of the U S experiment “with democracy” and establishment a military dictatorship in its place, anarchy or annihilation are all the future can hold.
“Conceding, for the sake of argument, that the Israeli/neocon mafia has crossed the “Rubicon” leading to the end of the U S experiment “with democracy” and establishment a military dictatorship in its place, anarchy or annihilation are all the future can hold.”
We can concede that for argument, but not for anything resembling reality. There is no military dictatorship, or did I miss the coup? As far as I can tell, our elected president remains the commander in chief of the military.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Max,
“Capitalism has created the preconditions for a return to communism based not on scarcity but on abundance.”
Exactly. And without capitalism, the fruits of capitalism will wither. If you eliminate the system, you won’t have the product of that system for long, and I sense the system that you think would replace it would offer significantly less abundance.
“THere is a contradiction between an immensely social organization of work, and the pivate owneship of the profits.”
Don’t get me wrong: there is immense wealth in the hands of a relatively small number (which I don’t mind). But in so many cases, the line between the laborer and the owner of the profits is getting blurred. By the time many middle and upper middle class people reach their mid-50’s (to say nothing of retirement in their 60’s), they have a significant stake in the ownership of profits. I just don’t see things getting worse for the broadest segment of society. I see things getting better.
Sincerely,
J Craig
J Craig,
Unfortunately my definintion of “the broadest segment of society” is precislely that: the broadest segment of society. You seem to define this as middle and upper middle class folks in rich countries. I think the rest of mankind thinks things are getting worse.
Also, a new economic and social system arises out of the old one. At a certain point the old system is full of too many contradictions to sustain itself. A new one arises that conforms to the higher productive level and continues the progress of society. Primitive communism cannot be maintained once the productive forces advance to the point of creating surpluses, since selfishness is no longer suicidal but quite beneficial. Fuedalism could not be maintained with the rise of finance capital and the generalised production of commodities. The gains of feudalism didn’t wither away when the serf was emancipated and became a “free” worker in the new capitalist society. Likewise capitalism (a society based on the generalised production of commodidties, thus including Cuba and the old USSR) can’t be maintained when there is so much abundance, when labor is so socialised, when the economy is so globalised. Once again selfishness is suicidal, but not to the individual alone but to the community at large. It is destroying the planet, and leading rival states into a frenzied race for finite resources. There’s no reason to believe that a global society run by soviets would fare any worse in replacing the present order.
There’s nothing wrong with optimism, or faith in the system. However if you think things are getting better, when tuition is skyrocketing, when the gap between rich and poor is increasing (FACT) at an unprecedented rate. When the social safety-net is being dismantled in every country When workers face a race to the bottom of thier wages, as companies simply move to the nearest source of cheaper labor. If you think things are improving, then you’re the one living on Mars.
The fact is that capitalism will end. The question is how. Either the international working class takes control or civilization, nay the very survival of our species, is at stake.
the neo-cons always blame the democrats for not having a plan,look at #ss bush does’nt have a plan but blames the democrates. His plan private accounts, it doesn’t save social scurity, and he can’t tell you where he is going to get 2-3 trillion to back his plan. Medicare is out of control, where is his plan, don’t have one blame the democrates. Trade deficit, don’t have a plan blame you know who. Clinton, national deficit 52 billion surplus I guess democrates did have a plan. Iraq war 1.6 billion a week when our we going to leave? don’t have a plan, blame the democrates.
Bush 3 months into second term approval rating? today 41%, hey let’s blame the democrates.
Bush and the neo-ss-cons won’t take the blame for anything, it will always be someone elses fault.
If bush’s ratings drop 10% more he might as well stay in texas on his ranch. He is loosing his fight on social security and even the neo-cons are seeing through his bs.
J. Craig
“As far as I can tell, our elected president remains the commander in chief of the military.”
You’re living in a fantasy world. Be a good boy and commit yourself.
Why do people engage with J. Craig? He has a right to his views, but they are libertarian of the Ayn Rand variety. The value of this site would be enhanced if people of broadly similar views actually engaged each other with ideas, views and information about what is happening, what they think about what is happening, and finally and most imporantly, what needs to be done to change the things we think need changing. J.Craig doesn’t believe anything needs changing much, except perhaps greater and greater dollops of market libertarianism.
There is no point trying to change his mind. So move on folks, and deal with the issues and ideas that need to be dealt with, in a way that moves us forward instead of moving in ever decreasing circles around points of reference that just don’t connect.
Finally, I have always found that one of the best ways to get a handle on the present is to have some idea of how we arrived here. Historical approaches to a range of issues can yield valuable insights, not the least being an insight into the history of empires and the trajectories they follow. While care should always be taken not to make unwarranted comparisons, or inapplicable analogies, it is fascinating to compare the trajectory of the old European empires with the current progress of the US.
IMO, the US is facing crises on a number of fronts, but the biggest crisis is the social crisis in ‘at home’. Looking at the US from the outside, with a not unsympathetic eye, it is clear to me at least that the US ruling class has unforunately just got what it wished for-always dangerous. Populist mobilisation from below, on issues concerned with the ‘moral order’, in order to prop up support for foriegn adventures abroad, and distract from growing social dislocation at home. The problem for the US as for all empires which must utilise this kind of social control strategy to deal with empire’s costs and burdens, is that when you run out of rope (meaning the ability to juggle the competing pressures) all hell breaks loose. While the British Empire could be said to have ended not with a bang, but with a whimper, never forget that the death blow was the salughter of WW1. Empire in trouble is not a pretty sight.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/24/opinion/polls/main619122.shtml
another 10% and it will be better than an impeachment.
http://www.cbsnews.com
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/24/opinion/polls/main619122.shtml
A few musings based on the article and some of the posted responses…
I can’t help but be distressed at Americans’ long-standing (and potentially self-destructive) cultural aversion to anticipating outcomes beyond a few years hence. As I read the article, that idea recurred; neither Bush nor the country at large seems to grasp that there’s a future to consider, beyond the next election and beyond the next purchase at the mall.
It can only be the outcome of faith, a blind faith that, no matter what we do, we’ll win in the end. Nothing else explains the refusal to consider reducing our addiction to oil-based energy, nor our short-sighted erosion of civil rights (e.g. the USA Patriot Act), nor our bull-in-a-china-shop hubris in relations with other societies, nor our continued borrowing while allowing the economic base from which those debts would be paid to weaken.
There’s a detachment from reality in hand when Americans aren’t more distressed by Abu Ghraib, or by the revelation that the whole reason the Coalition of the Willing was assembled turned out to be false, or by long term detentions without trial or even charge in direct violation of our own constitutional principles.
Actually, that’s best-case, a post-9/11 trauma syndrome, a nation-wide psychological defense mechanism. Worst case is that people in America just don’t give a damn any more whether their actions are aligned with their stated principles, as long as they feel like winners.
Whether the rest of the world loves us or thinks we suck, are there not some principles that we ought to keep alive for our own sake? Is there nothing we ought to live up to, or is all that just passe?
“Wake Up” indeed. It’s an understatement!
J. Craig, you’re right that calling what Israel is currently doing is not ethnic-cleansing, if you only consider ethnic-cleansing to be mass-slaughter of one sort or another.
But if you do not consider mass-evictions, taking of one peoples land and handing it over to another people simply because their god says it is theirs, fenced-in in smaller and smaller blocks of land, and on and on and on, then yes it is not ethnic-cleansing, barely.
It is more akin to apartheid, barely. But it is far more violent & horrific, with the cycle-of-violence far more destructive & horrendous than anything they had in South-Africa, and at its current state of affairs it could very easily tip from apartheid to what you would consider to be a traditional form of ethnic-cleansing.
Theloneus,
Am I the one living in a fantasy world? Who does control the military? Does he answer to Bush?
You should be able to support your ridiculous comments.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Dear Jane Doe,
I think plenty of things need changing.
“J.Craig doesn’t believe anything needs changing much, except perhaps greater and greater dollops of market libertarianism.”
Translation: don’t waste your time with him. This is a communists’ (sorry, “progressives’”) site only.
“There is no point trying to change his mind.”
Shouldn’t you be telling me that there is no point in trying to change the minds of any of the regulars here? Can your mind be changed? Are you open to my ideas?
Why would I be any more inclined to follow your lead than you would be to follow mine? You think my ideas stink. Likewise, I think yours stink.
I’m not here to change minds. It’s impossible. I’m here to point out flaws (and what a treasure-trove it is).
Sincerely,
J Craig
Dear Kuya,
“As I read the article, that idea recurred; neither Bush nor the country at large seems to grasp that there’s a future to consider, beyond the next election and beyond the next purchase at the mall.”
Are you kidding? Do you think Bush makes decisions because they are politically popular? From a political popularity perspective, Iraq was a crazy, unnecessary risk. Bush is thinking long-term on plenty of issues, and it costs him political points frequently.
“It can only be the outcome of faith, a blind faith that, no matter what we do, we’ll win in the end.”
It could be blind faith, but it could also be that we genuinely and rationally think we’re right.
“Nothing else explains the refusal to consider reducing our addiction to oil-based energy”
Sure there are other explanations. One is that there is enough oil for at least the next 100 years at current and projected usage rates because the oil sands and clay and shale become profitable to produce at current prices. That’s 64 years (at least) beyond social security’s problems, and apparently the majority of the left-of-center thinks there’s no crisis there, so why worry about 100 years?
“nor our continued borrowing while allowing the economic base from which those debts would be paid to weaken.”
By what measure is it weakening? Do you see no signs of strength?
Sincerely,
J Craig
Dear Lamont,
“But it is far more violent & horrific”
You’ve lost me. Are you referring to Palestinian terrorism?
Sincerely,
J Craig
J Craig:
Mr. Johnson’s use of the Rubicon analogy as his premise presumes the beast administration is leading the U S as we know it toward certain ruin. Obviously you don’t agree with this premise and you’ve explained at length why. From my perspective, that of a 45 year old working class family man, the analogy is dead on target and I believe the crooks that have taken over the federal government are hell bent on destroying it. As for supporting my argument I would have to show you my 2004 tax return indicating how much and the percentage of my income taken by your president vs. the value of government services I received in return. I don’t subscribe to any political party platform or ideology so don’t assume I’m influenced one way or another, I just know from personal experience that I’m getting ripped off by a government that does not act in my best interest. I would support within reason any economic scheme the beast administration pursued if it met any of my financial or social objectives but that’s not happening. Whatever it is these things in the white house are doing is in fact diminishing the quality of life for me and my family.
J. Craig,
As a well-heeled business owner, I am as deep in the throes of capitalism as one can be. However, I am progressive and disagree deeply with the actions of this Administration. I do not believe in the “social Darwinism” they espouse any more than I believe in Communism. All I see is the rise of empire with the aid of snotty self-annointed pundits, such as yourself. If you’re so in love with fascism, “lead of McDuff”.
So busy earning big bucks to back the impeachment of Bush that I mistyped…“lead ON”... is correct.
Dear Theloneous,
I’m sorry life isn’t working out for you as well as you want. But your entire message has little to do with supporting your ridiculous comment that I am living in a fantasy world because I believe the President is in charge of the military.
So I’ll ask again: Who does control the military if not Bush? Does he answer to Bush?
“I don’t subscribe to any political party platform or ideology so don’t assume I’m influenced one way or another”
Just curious: who was the last Republican presidential candidate you voted for?
Sincerely,
J Craig
Dear Margaret,
“If you’re so in love with fascism, “lead of McDuff”.”
What specifically have I said that could reasonably lead you to conclude that I have any affection for fascism? Certainly you can back up you’re implicit, if not explicit, charge, right?
“with the aid of snotty self-annointed pundits”
And all this time I thought we were friends.
Sincerely,
J Craig
p.s. I am also progressive.
Isn’t it “Lay on, Macduff…”?
The United States does not face bankruptcy. Eery tme they try to balance the budget or pay off the National Debt it wrecks the economy. The Industrial sector has several hundreds of trillions of dollars in unassayed assets as acoounts receib\vable, For an exp;aination see my personal web pge at <www.voicenet.com/~chseitz> and click on its the Economy Stupid!—Chas
Thank you again, Chalmers Johnson, for being a cogent, thoughtful historian and analyst of trends in American foreign policy.
For those that aren’t familiar with Mr. Johnson’s earlier work, Blowback, he essentially predicted that Osama bin Laden would strike back at the U.S. and foreshadowed 9-11.
So, his prognosticative abilities are considerable. Those who are dismissive of his predictions simply don’t know what they are talking about.
America is clearly in decline, and this is to be expected, given that the trajectory of most fascist regimes. They are self-cannabalizing. Johnson recognizes this and his piece is cognizant of this fact.
Intelligent people ignore this cautionary tale at their own peril - which excludes most of the Bushies.
Hey J Craig,
too much talkie talkie!!!!
“Bush is thinking long term on plenty of issues”
Apart from reinforcing Repuplican hegemony for the next couple of decades I have difficulties seeing other long term issues.
Perhaps the environment? Given your government’s dismal domestic and international trackrecord I don’t think Mr Craig had this one in mind.
Maybe education? Lots of cuts on this one too it seems so we can call this one off too.
Surely democracy in the Middle East, the cornerstone of your government’s foreign “policy”.
Might be in for some rough seas ahead the moment a democratically elected coalition of Muslim parties starts demanding the withdrawal of US troops out of Iraq so looking a little shaky as well.
BTW Why hasn’t anything been done about North Korea, surely a much bigger threat than Iraq ever has been. Apparently tracking down WMD’s might be a lot easier there.
What about Sudan where thousands of innocent civilians have been and are still being slaughtered…
But then again those 2 countries don’t happen to sit on the world’s largest oil reserves.
J Craig:
My life is going well enough, I hope yours is too, thanks for caring.
You ask, “Who does control the military if not Bush? Does he answer to Bush?
I’m not sure who or what controls the U S military but I’m sure bush doesn’t and whoever it is doesn’t answer to bush. As far as “supporting your ridiculous comment that I (J Craig) am living in a fantasy world because I believe the President is in charge of the military”, I don’t feel I need to support my opinion anymore than bush needed actual supporting evidence to justify invading Iraq. However, the reason I feel its obvious bush is not calling the shots militarily (or otherwise) is because the American people are not, directly or indirectly, beneficiaries of the U S military’s missions. It stands to reason then that the primary benefactors of the military’s efforts are most likely its controlling interest, just as in any organization. While bush himself may be a part of the group that make up the primary benefactors he is too stupid and unstable to direct any military operation and has passed on that responsibility to someone or something else. As such, bush is in breach of his fiduciary relationship with the American people as presiding officer of their elected representatives. You seem intelligent enough to have realized this so I assumed you just wish to believe otherwise, thus the fantasy.
Also, I’ve never voted for a republican presidential candidate, however I have voted for a republican for Govornor.
Have you ever voted for a non republican presidential candidate?
Dear chris p.,
Bush thinking long term: the middle east, the economy, social security, education, health care, and even the environment, to name just a few. Naturally, his ideas don’t appeal to your kind. Oh well. Looks like he won’t have the support of the readership of ITT.
“Maybe education? Lots of cuts on this one too it seems so we can call this one off too.”
Cuts?? Federal education spending has increased about 70% under Bush.
“Might be in for some rough seas ahead the moment a democratically elected coalition of Muslim parties starts demanding the withdrawal of US troops out of Iraq so looking a little shaky as well.”
Rough seas? Rather, that sounds like it would be a good result. What more can you realistically ask? Did you ever expect a totally secular government?
“BTW Why hasn’t anything been done about North Korea, surely a much bigger threat than Iraq ever has been.”
What did you have in mind?
“What about Sudan where thousands of innocent civilians have been and are still being slaughtered…”
Sounds like you’re saying because we can’t take up every worthy cause we shouldn’t take up any. I’d say you have to prioritize, and with what we knew about Saddam Hussein’s history and based on his behavior regarding inspections, our priorities were right. It doesn’t matter that he didn’t have WMD. What mattered was that he was supposed to comply with the inspections process, which he didn’t, so we couldn’t be certain he didn’t have WMD, AND he acted like he had WMD. What did he expect to come of this? Did he really think French opposition to military action would save him from his just desserts for his non-compliance with the inspection process?
So thanks to Bush, one big concern knocked off the checklist, and a middle east democracy in the making. The sweet smell of success.
“But then again those 2 countries don’t happen to sit on the world’s largest oil reserves.”
Neither does Iraq.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Dear Theloneous,
“the American people are not, directly or indirectly, beneficiaries of the U S military’s missions.”
I disagree. I think in the long run the U.S. will benefit if Iraq’s attempt at democracy succeeds. We spend very little time, energy and money on unproductive, adversarial aspects of relationships with other democracies.
“You seem intelligent enough to have realized this…”
Realize what? You make a weak case.
“Have you ever voted for a non republican presidential candidate?”
Yes (only once, for the Libertarian), but it’s not really relevant because I never claimed to be non-partisan. I have a set of beliefs, and the Republican party is the best viable representative of those beliefs by a long shot.
You, on the other hand, did claim to be non-partisan, which is why I asked you the question.
What state are you in that you voted for a Republican governor? Rhode Island? New York? Hawaii? New Jersey? Please don’t tell me it was Whitman. Have you ever voted for a mainstream Republican?
I think you are more partisan than you are letting on (or than you know).
Sincerely,
J Craig
Dear great went,
Are my words that irresistible?
I have a suggestion: go to the bottom of messages before you read them. If you see my name as the author, don’t go back up to read it.
How’s that sound?
Sincerely,
J Craig
J Craig
You are more dangerous than the bushies themselves. Because you justify them. Here is a question for you. And you answer it please only if you are an American fIrst then a Republican. If you are a Republican Republican, meaning you are a nation among our nation, don’t bother.
WHERE THE HELL IS OSAMA BEN LADIN???????????
Have you ever asked this question to the Commander in Chief?
again: where is the Islamist Fascist who killed 3000 of our brothers and sisters? I tell you where he is. In a bungalow in Pakistan eating hommus and sending us video infomeRcials.
meanwhile: 1500 our kids dead, more than 10000 injured, tens of thousands iraqi civilians dead, 300 billion the cost - while we are as afraid as ever before. you call that a vision for middle east?
you are dellusional! and a hypocrite.
You can worship your idols as much as you want. you can even mumify them and keep them in the museum, like Lenin. But please don’t insult our intelligence with your phony patriotism, because true patriots have a god given ability to QUESTION.
You are a FOX NEWS mole on these airways. Not because you have a different opinion but because you are a blind conformist.
and before you go - whenever you find out who leaked Valery Plums name to Mr. Novak, please post it here. you might illuminate us.
and yes don’t forget the Israeli mole in Douglas Faith’s ofiice - maybe you know who he is too.
we don’t and we’d like to know!
The latest Gallup Poll also shows the highest public pessimism over the economy in two years, with 33 percent saying it is getting better and 59 percent saying it is getting worse.
the sweet smell of sucsess.President Bush’s approval rating dropped from 52% last week to 45% this week. If the survey is correct, he is losing support from male Republicans.Thirty-five percent of those surveyed said they approved of the way Bush is handling Social Security, down three points since January and the lowest level of support for Bush on this issue ever recorded in Post-ABC polls.
Yes the american people are waking up,too bad it’s 5 months to late.
“So thanks to Bush, one big concern knocked off the checklist, and a middle east democracy in the making. The sweet smell of success.”
Wow, wasn’t aware that it smelled exactly like bullshit.
“I have a suggestion: go to the bottom of messages before you read them. If you see my name as the author, don’t go back up to read it.”
Which names should we ignore, just your current screen name? What about Tom Finley Jr. and Ron?
“I have a set of beliefs, and the Republican party is the best viable representative of those beliefs by a long shot.”
So you believe in Nixonian government secrecy, large federal deficits, suppressing minority voting, pillaging the environment, having corporations set public policy, going to war on false premises, and suppression of opposition viewpoints? OK then, good party selection there.
“Have you ever voted for a mainstream Republican?”
You know, the kind who think gays are sub-human, that black people really shouldn’t be allowed to vote, and that you really don’t have to tell the American public the truth on small things like going to war.
You are pretty transparent TFJ.
Dear independent jake,
“WHERE THE HELL IS OSAMA BEN LADIN???????????”
I don’t know.
“Have you ever asked this question to the Commander in Chief?”
No.
“again: where is the Islamist Fascist who killed 3000 of our brothers and sisters? I tell you where he is. In a bungalow in Pakistan eating hommus and sending us video infomeRcials.”
Perhaps.
“meanwhile: 1500 our kids dead, more than 10000 injured, tens of thousands iraqi civilians dead, 300 billion the cost - while we are as afraid as ever before. you call that a vision for middle east?”
No. I call democracy a vision for the middle east. Why are you as afraid as ever before? If nothing else, Iraq proved we’ll take very serious action against perceived threats. That in itself offers security. If one of their goals is to get us out of the middle east, it is not achieved by threatening or harming us, which demonstrably has had the opposite effect.
OBL (9/11) and Iraq (flouting the inspections process) are related in very few ways. As it pertains to Iraq, 9/11 was a wake up call to take threats seriously. Certainly, Iraq was perceived as a threat by not just GWB but also by previous administrations. The only reason we know that he didn’t have WMD (even though we don’t know this as he may have moved them to Syria - but I’ll stipulate for arguments sake: he didn’t have them) is because we went to war with him. Thank you GWB. There could have been another way to know that without war: HE COULD HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE INSPECTORS AND NOT ACTED LIKE HE HAD THEM. Because of his own behavior, he had it coming.
Anothe way you could say they are related is the way all military operations are related: we have to make choices. You may think Iraq was an unnecessary diversion from the search for OBL. I think it was a worthwhile mission. So we disagree.
“you are dellusional! and a hypocrite.”
Interesting charges. Make your case.
“But please don’t insult our intelligence with your phony patriotism,”
There is nothing phony about it.
“because true patriots have a god given ability to QUESTION.”
As do I. I’m satisfied with the answers in this case.
“You are a FOX NEWS mole on these airways.”
The old Fox News bogeyman again, eh?
“Not because you have a different opinion but because you are a blind conformist.”
Again, interesting charge: I’m a blind conformist. Make your case. (The truth is that you say this - your denials notwithstanding - because I have a different opinion than yours.)
Sincerely,
J Craig
p.s. are you really independent? If not, I wonder why so often those on the left feel the need to hide it. I don’t notice the same shame among those on the right.
With precision Mr. Johnson has summed up the state of our affairs. I would only add to his fine treatise that the public image of President Bush as a well or ill-meaning, bumbling fool is a misperception that has been nurtured by both his detratcors and his advocates.
Seem’s not the case. It chills those who, for the first time contemplate an American president who has so much more on his dinner plate than the rest of us.
Who asks, “What have you done for us lately?’” A few get to. I’d bet on more folks thinking, “What have you done for us…ever?”, very consistently in the long run.
Dear Matt Harris,
“So you believe in Nixonian government secrecy,”
Nixonian? No, not Nixonian.
“large federal deficits,”
Medium size federal deficits.
“suppressing minority voting,”
Absolutely not.
“pillaging the environment,”
Of course not.
“having corporations set public policy,”
No. Legislatures, governors, and presidents should set public policy. Are you aware of incidences of corporations setting public policy? I know of no corporations that cast votes in any legislature.
“going to war on false premises,”
I’m not in favor of knowingly going to war on false premises. Fortunately, we didn’t knowingly go to war on false premises, and the guy we did go to war with had the means to demonstrate that the premises were false (he could have complied with the inspectors), but he chose not to. Bad choice on his part.
“and suppression of opposition viewpoints?”
Not at all.
“OK then, good party selection there.”
What do you know? The typical angry lefty laundry list.
Sincerely,
J Craig
“Fortunately, we didn’t knowingly go to war on false premises”
Pretty much says it all. You have no credibility.
Dear Matt Harris,
me: “Fortunately, we didn’t knowingly go to war on false premises”
you: “Pretty much says it all. You have no credibility.”
Why exactly? (Does anybody on the left ever explain their charges?)
Please, explain in detail. You will find yourself unable to adequately explain.
Good luck.
Sincerely,
J Craig
waiting…
To Big Chief Craig,
Who pays you for your time, Big Chief Craig?
You do seem to have a lot of it to waste.
Is it the Conninng Neo-con Klan?
little indian
Dear little indian,
No time to talk. Busy waiting for Matt Harris’s attempt at an explanation. I don’t expect anything good, but I look forward to it nonetheless.
Sincerely,
J Craig
I see nothing in J. Craig’s postings that indicate any affiliation other than Republican. I think that not one person on this site believes that you are progressive. And you’re wrong that Dems don’t believe there are things that need fixing with SS. I don’t know a single non-Rep. that thinks everything is dandy. It’s just that only a minor tweaking is needed, not a total demolition. The baby boomer glitch can be handled by removing the taxation cap and reversing Bush’s tax cuts for the rich. End of statement. That incurs no further borrowing and will see us comfortably for many, many decades to come. Let those who wish to invest take out IRA’s or 401(k)‘s. Everybody with half a brain can see that the goal of the Republicans is to dismantle the most efficient and successful program in U.S. history simply because it is a Democratic invention. Nothing you could say would convince myself or, according to the polls, nearly 3/4’s of the American people. No, Bush has lost this one, and rightly so.
p.s.
Ever hear of the 911 Report, J. Craig? You have zero credibility. How amusing it is to watch you mentally jerk-off, thinking that you are impressing anyone. What a pathetic loser you are.
Dear Margaret,
“I see nothing in J. Craig’s postings that indicate any affiliation other than Republican.”
I am Republican.
“I think that not one person on this site believes that you are progressive.”
pro·gres·sive
adj.
1. Moving forward; advancing.
2. Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments: progressive change.
3. Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods: a progressive politician; progressive business leadership.
4. Progressive Of or relating to a Progressive Party: the Progressive platform of 1924.
5. Of or relating to progressive education: a progressive school.
6. Increasing in rate as the taxable amount increases: a progressive income tax.
7. Pathology. Tending to become more severe or wider in scope: progressive paralysis.
See #3 above. That’s me. I promote or favor such policies. They’re not Progressive. They’re progressive.
“And you’re wrong that Dems don’t believe there are things that need fixing with SS.”
Did I say that?
“The baby boomer glitch can be handled by removing the taxation cap and reversing Bush’s tax cuts for the rich.”
(Leaving private accounts aside) I’m not at all surprised that your solution involves only tax increases and no benefit cuts.
“Everybody with half a brain can see that the goal of the Republicans is to dismantle the most efficient and successful program in U.S. history simply because it is a Democratic invention.”
Why is it efficient and successful? Because those that received checks cashed them? Welfare would also have been a raving success if we also expected nothing of welfare recipients but to cash the checks.
“Nothing you could say would convince myself or, according to the polls, nearly 3/4’s of the American people. No, Bush has lost this one, and rightly so.”
Was I arguing that he won on this issue? I think all I said was that he is thinking long-term. What he wants probably won’t happen.
Sincerely,
J Craig
start with his overall approval rating of 45 percent, down 5 points since early February. Then consider his approval rating on the economy, at just 42 percent with 51 percent disapproval. And his rating on Iraq, at 41 percent with 54 percent disapproval, is his worst ever in this poll.
I hope this is not the democrates fault. I guess the neo-cons are worried about loosing seats in the house and senate in 2006.
“p.s. Ever hear of the 911 Report, J. Craig? You have zero credibility. How amusing it is to watch you mentally jerk-off, thinking that you are impressing anyone. What a pathetic loser you are.”
Desperate insults. Also not surprising.
(Explain exactly why I have no credibility. Can ANYONE on the left support one of their assertions????)
Sincerely,
J Craig
“I guess the neo-cons are worried about loosing seats in the house and senate in 2006.”
The house, maybe. The Senate is a long shot. The terrain is just too good for the Republicans in 2006 in the Senate. In a bad scenario, they’ll break even or maybe lose one. Best case scenario, they’ll pick up three, maybe four (four would get them to 59!). 2008 will be tough for Republicans. About 22 out of 33 or 34 seats to defend.
Sincerely,
J Craig
waiting…..
President Bush said on Wednesday he would not send Congress a specific plan to change Social Security because it would be “dead on arrival” and admitted his idea of personal accounts would not fix the retirement system.”
Turning to health care, including Medicare, only 34 percent say they approve of the job Bush is doing, compared to 56 percent who say they don’t, also a low for Bush in this poll. Bush also hits new lows on the environment (41 percent approval), on energy policy (35 percent approval, with 45 percent disapproval—also his first net negative rating in this area) and on the federal budget deficit (29 percent approval with 60 percent disapproval). And his job rating on education, 46 percent, is tied for his lowest ever in that particular area.
everybody take a look at what the american people are saying. Bush is a lame duck in his second term. Won’t be much in his library when he retires.
waiting for lefty to support his assertion…
Republicans fear midterm losses
March 20, 2005
BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
Analysts at the Republican National Committee have sent this warning to the House of Representatives: The party is in danger of losing 25 seats in the 2006 election and, therefore, of losing control of the House for the first time since the 1994 election.
Although some Republicans on Capitol Hill believe the RNC is just trying to frighten them, concern about keeping the present 232-202 edge pervades GOP ranks. The second midterm election of an eight-year presidency often produces heavy congressional losses for the party in power.
And also these ghouls are exploiting a brain-dead woman for the purpose
of saving their selfish political asses.
The senate approval rating is below 50%. We will have to see how pissed off the american people are at the time of election for the senate.
“The senate approval rating is below 50%. We will have to see how pissed off the american people are at the time of election for the senate.”
You have to look at the specific seats in play. Even under the worst circumstances it is nearly impossible for the Republicans to lose more than two seats in the Senate. They have a built in advantage in the Senate as there are 31 red states and only 19 blue states (I think). In this era of relatively even numbers nationwide, the party of small states has a structural advantage in the Senate over the party of big states. Notice that this was born out in the 2004 Senate races (when several red state seats went Republican). In a pretty even year (a tight presidential race, nearly no change in the House), the Senate races are what made 2004 appear to be a blowout Republican year.
Sincerely,
J Craig
It will still be hard for bush to push his agenda through if house goes back democrate. The senate will stay republican by a narrow margin. The problem is republicans are going against bush in the senate, on alot of his ideas, which will make him a lame duck president.
Actually Bush is getting Republican resistance in the Senate on very few issues. He can easily get 50 or 51 votes on most issues as about 48 Republicans are rock solid and he can pick up 2 or 3 from the remaining 7 weak knees. His problem is overcoming Democratic filibusters. He’ll get a lot of important things through in the next two years, but probably not what he wants on social security. I wouldn’t bank on Republican losses in 2006. Things would have to get pretty bad. There’s just no major realignment in the works like there was in 1994. If circumstances stay roughly similar to what they are now (slow progress in Iraq, a decent to strong economy, very very modest improvement in the budget deficit, no social security change passes), mark my words: little change in the house (R +/- 5 to 7) and a slight gain in the Senate (R + 0 to 2). Despite what people say issue by issue, on the big issues (the economy and defense), Democrats are out of touch.
Sincerely,
J Craig
J Craig,
“Federal education funding has increased 70% under Bush”
In the fiscal 2006 $2.7 trillion budget your government intends to terminate 48 education programs (most of them aimed at helping disabled or immigrant students)thereby “saving” $4.8 billion while reinvesting $2.3 billion in new initiatives(most of them aimed at benefitting wealthier schools and districts). Looks like a $2.5 billion cut to me which ever way you look at it.And he’s thinking long term here as a two-tier social class system is definitely taking shape.
“Neither does Iraq”(sit on one of the world’s biggest oilfields) Way off base pal. You’ll say anything to justify that bloody mistake. “The sweet smell of succes” To Halliburton yes, but not the tens of thousands of civilian casualties and thousands of American and foreign troops that have to endure hell every day.Iraq possesses the world’s SECOND LARGEST PROVEN oil reserves- 112.5 billion barrels (11% of the world’s total plus immense gasfields and additional undiscovered oil reserves. Your government knew damn well what they were moving in for.
Oh yes, in the meanwhile your government has decided to increase the military budget by a whopping $20 billion (including $40 billion to further develop lethal nuclear weapons) Bush has been doing some serious long term thinking indeed.What sort of vision is that?
Just goes to validate my “New Darwinian” theory that mankind is an evolutionary dead end.
“Dear Lamont,
“But it is far more violent & horrific”
You’ve lost me. Are you referring to Palestinian terrorism?
Sincerely,
J Craig”
Referring to both Israelis and Palestinians. But if you wish to be blind and believe that the Israelis do no wrong or that either side is worse than the other then that is your prerogative.
Apparently J Craig’s thoughts are piecemeal, is he coming up with a retort dependent on each subsequent bottle of beer?
If you look at all the countries that are pulling out of iraq this year, we will truely be going it alone.Bush talks about leaving when iraq gets their shit together, yet we are building 16 bases there.Iraq oil brings in 16.9 billion a year, yet we spend 1.6 billion a week to stay there, you do the math.That money could save social security,save medicare, open hospitals in our country.It would pay prescription drugs for our old, and sick. Remember we put sadam in power in 1979, binladen was backed by u.s. This next puppet gov. we will be fighting in the next 20 years, when they cut off the oil or charge us to much for it. Meanwhile iran and north korea are making nukes on bush’s watch. Remember if you have a nuke the u.s. won’t mess with you.
Look how bogged down we are in iraq, what is going to happen when china takes back taiwan, like we could win a war with china, or north korea, hell iran would be to much for us now.
On countries leaving, it is indeed ironic to note that on the same day Negroponte was announced as the new ambassador/pro counsel to Iraq that Honduras pulled out their small contingent, synchronicity or their response? In addition, my country has finally been persuaded to send an extra 450, in order to replace the 1,300 the Norwegian are pulling out, understandably this 450 is putting a rather sizable strain on an already over-stretched defence-force.
As for the cost, the point of controlling the middle east isn’t to supply the USA with oil, the USA can easily live off of what’s in the western hemisphere, the point is to control the rest of the worlds supply.
Finally a minor quibble, but important to note, he was not put in power by the USA in 1979 - he and his uncle were put in power around 1976, he merely staged a coupe and deposed his uncle in 1979 with full support of the USA & the west.
I agree with you 100%.
But what control do we truely have over the oil? If they want to put the oil at 80 dallors a barrel what are we going to do? every time they raise the price on oil the stock market goes down. They have us and are economy by the balls.
Now that that idiot has finally left to go take part in some covert KKK activity, let me state that Social Security is the most efficient program in U.S. history because it uses less than 1% of its funds to self-administer. The checks have gone out faithfully since its inception and, if the Repubs hadn’t pilfered a trillion or so out of its coffers, it would be running smoothly now and for some time to come.
Also, anyone who doesn’t realize that our government is currently slipping down that proverbial slope to fascism doesn’t really understand the definition of fascism. Power and wealth is absolutely in the hands of the financial elite and the Washington power brokers as never before. The only times you’ll see this sort of power/wealth grab at the cost of the “average Joe” was during Jackson’s administration and in the Harding and Hoover years, both of which led to the Great Depression. So if you wonder why all the programs that benefit “average Joe” keep getting cut or underfunded to the point that they are completely ineffective (i.e. “No Child Left Behind”), it’s to keep the “little man” unable to come after the powers that keep profiting off their misfortune.
I am not a Socialist, or a Communist, or an Anarchist. I am a patriotic American who believes that if people don’t start fighting back against Bush, his policies and the mignons who take his word as gospel, we will continue sliding down that slope until we have a one-party government whose only goal is to establish absolute power at home and increasing power abroad in their pursuit of world domination. Just read the documents from Cheney in ‘99 and he states pretty clearly that those are his ambitions. Also, Rumsfeld’s recently leaked Pentagon reports saying essentially the same thing.
Also, a “progressive” Republican is not the same as a neocon, which J. Craig definitely is. Him saying he’s “progressive” is like me (a mother of 2) saying I’m a virgin.
To loosen that tight squeeze on the US balls how about refusing to buy the petrol guzzlers most Americans seem so hell bent on driving. Buy small fuel efficient cars and consume locally produced organic food. Cuts out a lot of guzzlers…think global and act local… and keep on spreading the facts to counterbalance the republican propaganda machine.
J Craig, TFJ, Ron, or as I like to call you The Rambler,
Here is your post from a week ago on the “How to Turn Your Red State Blue” thread under the name of Tom Finley Jr.:
“I shall continue to read ITT regularly, but this is the last of my posts to ITT articles.”
This was approximately the 20th of your posts on that thread. Several hours later you posted on another thread as Ron. Now you are back as J Craig and have posted in excess of 30 posts on this thread.
cred’i*ble adj. Worthy of belief.
“Please explain in detail. You will find yourself unable to adequately explain.”
Detail not necessary. See above. However, if you’d like detail on the whole going to war on false premises thang, go do some reading or check out the documentary “Uncovered: The War on Iraq”. Intellectual sloth is no excuse.
In his post, little indian insinuates that you are a paid troll. I hope he is right for your sake, because otherwise you are just tragically pathetic. After my response to you yesterday you apparently were sitting at your computer waiting for me to respond to your pathetic attempt at debate for at least a couple hours ON A FRIDAY EVENING.
Meanwhile, I was picking up my daughter at daycare, playing soccer with her in the yard and then going out for a relaxing family dinner. The beer I had at dinner was particularly enjoyable.
I can see that you are the type that would even seek to debate that last point. When you’ve done it go out and enjoy some life. I won’t be back to the site for at least a couple days (believe this as I truly am credible), so no need for you to pathetically await my response.
Hi, my screen name is Traesom, and my real name is truly immaterial. I have just been reading the last few days of this string going back to the 30th (maybe it was the 31st), and at first I was a bit overwhelmed. I’m one of the little guys out here, and your conversations reminded me of the West Wing, which I thoroughly enjoy. Having listened (or read) for a while, however, it occurs to me that while your language and knowledge are impressive (to me at any rate), your scope is sometimes rather limited to a bunch of specifics that in the long view may or may not mean anything. For instance, all this back and forth about Bush’s poll numbers mean absolutely nothing. Those things, along with the American electorate, tend to change at the drop of a hat, so I don’t see poll numbers as being anything particularly signficant. There are also other things like that, but it would take too much time and space to speak of them now.
I am myself currently without any party allegiance, and I see both parties as being the antithesis of what I would hope a govenment was, or should strive to be. T. Craig, is it, certainly sticks to his guns, but has made a few statements that I think most probably reflect from where he is coming. To wit: he mentioned that he was on this blog not to engage in debate but rather to point out others’ flaws. I’m afraid someone will have to help me with that? Truth doesn’t matter? The condition of this once great nation doesn’t matter? What matters is only that he gets to point to others’ flaws?
There has also been some discussion about how successful the Social Security sytem is. By what criteria? How do you measure the success of a sytem that gives people (such as myself, for instance) some hope, and assurance (even if we are kidding ourselves)? I don’t really think that any accounting method can do that with accuracy - although the numbers are no doubt great fun to throw around.
I also believe we have already become a fascist state. With the possible exception of Mussolini’s Italy, I don’t believe any fascist state actually called itself that - perhaps its citizens weren’t even aware at the time. Only with perspective and hindsight can we now see that they were fascist.
Anyway, there’s lots else to say, but I’m probably already way out of line here saying what I just have, so hi, and look forward to following you guys’ (and gal’s) arguments. If nothing else they are fascinating. It’s kinda like watching West Wing for the first time.
Best regards, Traesom.
Chalmers Johnson makes the case that the US policy is seen by other countries as creating major problems. However, he stops short of drawing a conclusion of what could happen if these policies continue. In World War I, both England and the US were competing with Germany in trade, alternately weighing which set of countries to ally themselves with. In the end, England did not ally with Germany, and helped set in motion the trade frictions that led to war with Germany—the talks over defense shipping allowed being one serious manifistation of the underlying problems. One of the causes blamed also was secret treaties.
In WWII, the basic tensions continued, and if you read the Italian and Japanese versions of the causes of the war, a key factor was that they were getting short shrift as trade partners.
The practise of secret treaties continued, despite the bloodshed of WWI.
The problem now becomes that, where there is one dominant superpower, it is natural that tensions will arise. But if the process of continuing trade tensions and secret treaties is not revised, then this time it might be the other countries that decide in some way to retaliate against the US. In this regard, the role of England is once again potentially critical. As a possessor of the hydrogen bomb, England is potentially an important ally.
Yet the historical record shows that England will consistently do what she thinks is best for England. That makes the upcoming elections for Parliament particularly important. From what I read, sentiment has been strong against Blair. If the populace is able to make that sentiment carry the election, and England shifts into an alliance—overtly or more historically consistent behaviour—covertly—then the stage could be set for a nasty trade war, and potentially a shooting war, this time on US soil.
The Neocons are pushing a dangerous strategy, it seems to me, which historically has had an unhappy ending for the country pursuing it.
Hi, Joseph,
You know, I just got a little message on my machine that told me someone had responded to what I had just written, but I must confess I’m not entirely certain how the two fit together.
Nevertheless, I will respond to what you have just written by saying that while I’m certainly not an economist (the furthest I ever got was Adam Smith, and Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom”), but I do agree, albeit not necessarily on economic grounds, that the U.S. is in deep trouble, in almost every dimension. I was an Army and then civilian brat and grew up mostly in post war Europe, and I know that what was once thought (felt) about America is no longer extant, and that soft power, or the higher moral ground, tends to be very persuasive at times, and it seems as though we have lost that completely.
This probably doesn’t do justice to your response (if indeed that is what it was), but it’s all I can really offer at the moment without hogging too much time and space.
Hey, Traesom and Joseph, I just found a terrific link for the author with a eye-opening hour-long video (must have RealTime player installed on your system, but that takes a couple seconds and no money to do) with Chalmers Johnson and Harry Kreisler. Try the link globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people4/CJohnson/cjohnson-con0.html
If you can’t get in, just type Chalmers Johnson on a search engine and it will come up as one of the choices.
This stuff will blow your mind and open your eyes, not saying that you aren’t already showing in your blog that you are aware of the Empire.
Spread the news.
sorry, should read html
Best article in decades! What happened to the early 1970’s!!!
* * * * *
To Michael P:
Re: “fail to honor article 1, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution”
I took note instantly too and thought more of the phrasing: “to honor”. Congress had/s first crack at war, but the point is that the precedent itself is being set by being able to pass that privellege off to another entire branch of the three branch governemnt - like a deli order.
To Maximillian Al Dakari:
Bravo!
* * * * *
“Can the United States adjust peacefully to the reemergence of China—the world’s oldest, continuously extant civilization—this time as a modern superpower? Or is China’s ascendancy to be marked by yet another world war like those of the last century?”
This is a story written by someone who reads my mind.
_____
“This small incident is evidence of the knife-edge on which we are poised.”
Conversly, it reminded me of the opposite surface, the balloon about to burst.
_____
“These deficits and dependencies represent unusual economic statistics for a country with imperial pretensions.”
Only in America is it so patriotic to laugh out loud as I did. True dat.
_____
“we need, at once, to reverse President George W. Bush’s tax cuts, including those on capital gains and estates (the rich are so well off they’ll hardly notice it), radically reduce our military expenditures, and stop subsidizing agribusinesses and the military-industrial complex.”
This my friend is the crux of one biscuit. We allot a certain predjudice in our minds when accounting for the investment expertise of the rich. We assume they are smart enough to earn money - whatever the law happens to be. But what of long term tact? It is readily acceptable that free will allows an investor to do what they wish, and I’m not saying control should be taken from them, but rather - that they are incapable of generating anything OTHER than profit. Frankly social security is fine, yet it SHOULD run a surplus.
_____
“A cut-off of Saudi Arabia’s ability or willingness to sell its oil to us would, at the present time, constitute an economic catastrophe.”
The drunk of the desert.
_____
If you’ve read this far you know that green is also a color, much like blue and red.
Well written and to the point. But…the reference to D. Rumsfeld and R. Cheney as “ugly Americans” is illustrative of the shallow research and incomplete homework which went into this article.
I have read The Ugly American by Wm. Lederer and Eugene Burdick, which Mr. Chalmers, and the many other American writers who refer to “the Ugly American” as the bad-hats, apparently have not!
In their book, The Ugly American, Burdick and Lederer cast their good-guy hero, Homer Atkins, as “the ugly American” simply because he has an ugly face; perhaps a suggestion that you cannot judge the character of a man by his appearance, since the bad-hats in the book are all handsome and neatly dressed, as most American Officials are presumed (in literature {sic}) to be.
Mr. Chalmers is not alone in his ignorance of the implications of the epithet “Ugly American.” Many other writers follow the same ignorant mistake, and “ugly American” has become a metaphor to epitomise the foolish, clumsy, arrogant, self-indulgent, gauche and self-serving American tourist, Official, and American in general.
This is not the way Burdick and Lederer saw him, and only illustrates the trap of using metaphore without familiarity with its source; a heretofore essential, but lately neglected, responsibility of all writers.
Earlaiman Abd. Gale
Okay, I’m watching the video. I watch this show a lot, by the way, and I seem vaguely to remember this one, or at least the birkenstocks are familiar. For the first 30 years of my life I had a military, or a DoD, ID card, and grew up overseas, so much of the first part of the tape is super familiar to me. I myself did duty in Vietnam, Korea, and on Guam, so I’ve got experience in the Orient as well. Currently one of my step-sons (who I helped raise since he was knee high to a piss-ant) is currently a green-beret and was wounded in Afghanistan. My othe step-son is a teacher (as are both sons’ wives, along with my ex), so I and mine have done our bit for America, I can tell you. And some other time perhaps we can talk about that! I have also, by the way, voted Republican, many moons ago - when there still such a thing as the Republican party, and not some theocratic junta.
For the moment, though, the subject is the Empire and as an ex-history and humanities teacher (high-school), I am so disenhearted by what I observe it’s incredible. This is nothing short of a science-fiction nightmare with are faced with today. I simply cannot believe it is happening, although I know that it is. My kids and grandkids have not much of a life to look forward to in this corporate-fascist state, not in my estimation at least. I also don’t really see the Democrats (though I voted for them) doing anything in the least wise productive. They, too, are captives of (or in many instances are) the oligarchs.
At any rate, that is a bare start at an introduction of sorts into my opinions and we’ll see how it goes from there. Thanks for the URL about the movie; I didn’t realize (or at least didn’t think about) them being available. By the way, I’m sixty and my fingers do a lot of crazy things on the keyboard, and my spelling has never been anything to brag about anyway, so please excuse whatever typos, etc. show up. I also have a web-blog-site, so if anyone thinks it’s appropriate and interested, I’d be glad to give my URL for that.
Dear Maximillian Al Dakari,
I must say I am impressed by your analysis (I can sense the elaborate texture and the fabric of knowledge behind it). I agree with your statement that leftist people are moved by a genuine concern for world problems. On the other hand, the ‘leftist’ (or liberal, progressive etc.) elite in the U.S., people like Mr. C. Johnson, perhaps, who have regular access to media, have reached a level of hypocrisy that is disconcerting—as you clearly demonstrated with your initial reply. There are of course many brilliant exceptions on the left, starting from N. Chomsky, but sometimes I feel that there is not really a left in this country—only variation of the right.
I think you are correct to argue that change is inevitable—it always was and always will be. You correctly state that “capitalism will end. The question is how.” However, I do not share your optimism about the working class, or about humanity for that matter. Like everything else, humanity will end too.
Productivity of labor is an important factor but it can be quite misleading when examined in isolation. Seeking the cause behind the effect, we can identify technology and globalization (at all levels) as the cause (and the portent) in our times. Technology would eventually generate super-intelligent agents (within this century according to my own calculations) and globalization would turn the entire planet into an enormous factory.
Productivity would be so high that a worker with conscience and understanding would merely not fit the equation. They would be replaced by dedicated low-intelligence agents who would merely follow orders. Civilization would not end but it would change radically. Humanity, on the other hand, is most likely doomed. (If we consider Chenney, Bush and the neocons, we may conclude that we deserve to be doomed.) The only question in my mind is what would happen to the billions of people on the planet. There are of course multiple routes: poverty, war, decease, malnutrition, pollution etc. But they all lead to the same dark conclusion. The historical irony would be, I believe, that homo sapiens, a communal being, would end with a system like capitalism!
To Earlaiman,
Actually one of the reasons they periodically update dictionaries is because word meanings (and associated phrases) change (legitimately, not necessarily ignorantly) over time. I wasn’t the one using the phrase in this case, but I have read the book, and still have it around here somewhere, but it’s present day connotation is perfectly acceptable to use - it communicates! You don’t really wish to get into good language, bad language do you?
Earlier this evening I responded to something, dealing with metaphors, that perhaps I should not have. However, it rubbed me wrong then, and it has continued to rub me wrong the longer I’ve thought about it. All of you seem youngish (comparatively speaking), highly intelligent, and harbor great energies. It is that more than anything else perhaps that kept eating at my mind until I finally put it all down on paper (metaphorically speaking, of course, it was actually keyed in on the computer). Whatever worth it may or may not have for you, it has helped me considerably to have gotten it off of my chest. Please see below, or ignore it as you wish.
Actually, it occurs to me that this magazine primarily deals with matters social, economic and political. At the moment this country is in grave danger and is split in ways I’ve never seen it before, and I’m sixty years old. Whoever or whatever is leading - and whatever lies and untruths and misinformation they spew - has failed the test of uniting the country in this great time of peril. The leadership is, in fact, dividing us against one another in harmful and despicable ways, has spent enough discretionary cash for a decade (for dubious or nonexistent ends), and continues to arrogantly administer in the most moronic of fashions.
Perhaps as many as 100,000 lay dead in Iraq, the environment is going to hell, the poor keep getting poorer, the middle-class continues to decline, our Constitution has been wrangled and mangled into some sort of la-la-land neo-Con manifesto, Darwin has been overturned, religious charismatics roam the streets seeking spiritual epiphanies, our government has degenerated into tyranny, all others on the globe find us deplorable and untrustworthy and frightening, our balance of trade has fallen clear off the scale, we display hatred and contempt for all other cultures, the world teeters on the brink of Armageddon, and you, Sir, are worried about some (dubiously conceived ) misspoken metaphor? Give me a break!
In the first place, if, as you say, the metaphor is misunderstood at this point by the majority of whoevers, and if knowing that you would anyway insist upon some ancient and now long forgotten meaning, then you, and not the author, are the fool. You will soon be left standing in a field with no one left to babble to. Worse, ere very much longer no one but you and I, perhaps, will be left who even remembers the phrase comes from a book, and others will be helpless to comprehend our allusions. Time marches forward, things change, meanings develop alternative subtleties, and the rest are left to wallow in the quagmire of yesterday’s realities.
Let us unite in spirit and comradeship, and at least bitch about something important. These other diversions are more suitable for a relaxed and rainy day when all else in the world has become utterly boring. In the meanwhile there is real work to be done to regain our Nation.
Dubya succeeded in the first place because people such as yourself, instead of developing and using their talents to help and maintain the integrity of our culture, have instead seen fit to only pretend great wisdom, and play at parlor games while the world disintegrates around them. Grow up, get over your magnificence, and put your talent to work in saving our collective asses!
Joseph F Dunphy, you are correct in believing the rest will respond, although it will not be a military response, to see how they are going to stop the USA, look at the 3 links I originally posted—http://www.morganstanley.com/GEFdata/digests/20050318-fri.html#anchor0 & http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/charting/2005/0302.html & http://www.gao.gov/cghome/intergovchallenge.pdf—I think these three links will provide some insite as to how they are already working against the USA.
this is absolutely brilliant, i would like to be able to write this way one day
When I studied in England thirty-odd years ago, Chalmers Johnson was one of the gods of International Relations. Quite the opposite of Henry Kissinger and that ilk. I’ve read much of Chalmer’s work since then and it’s all been brilliant and thought-provoking.
The one disagreement I have with his argument here is the statement that the American people actually VOTED for this fool and his policies. I taped CNN all day and into the night on November 2nd, 2004, and I sure didn’t see the American people voting for George Bush! I saw huge lines of people who HATED Bush and his policies. The polls were showing that 51% of Americans were voting for Kerry and 48% for Bush. How did Bush get a three and a half million vote majority from that?
Well, the same way he “won” Florida and a handful of other States in 2000! The Republicans cheated! As a tipsy Congressman Peter King said (on film!) at a Bush victory party on the White House lawn the afternoon of election day, “It’s already over. The election’s over. We won! ... It’s all over but the counting. And we’ll take care of the counting!”
The Europeans are quite a bit brighter when it comes to voting. They would trust the most fundamental expression of democracy to open-source software and a paper trail, rather than secret, proprietary software and ephemeral, nonextant “ballots,” as we do.
The latter Orwellian vision is the kind of “democracy” that Bush wants to spread in the world.
————————————————
May I be allowed one suggestion? Put the comments to your articles on a separate page so that the readers of your articles can read the responses only if they choose to do so, rather than dilute the article with trash replies.
Dear chris p,
“In the fiscal 2006 $2.7 trillion budget your government intends to terminate 48 education programs (most of them aimed at helping disabled or immigrant students)thereby “saving” $4.8 billion while reinvesting $2.3 billion in new initiatives(most of them aimed at benefitting wealthier schools and districts). Looks like a $2.5 billion cut to me which ever way you look at it.”
Was that future possible spending level intended to refute the fact of how much education spending INCREASED under Bush?
“(most of them aimed at benefitting wealthier schools and districts)”
Evidence please.
You: “But then again those 2 countries (N Korea and Sudan) don’t happen to sit on the world’s largest oil reserves.”
Me: “Neither does Iraq.”
You: ‘Neither does Iraq”(sit on one of the world’s biggest oilfields)’ Way off base pal.
Am I? You said Sudan and North Korea don’t happen to sit on the world’s largest oil reserves. I said neither does Iraq (Iraq sits on the world’s second largest oil reserves). Then you changed your wording to “one of the world’s biggest oilfields” and tried to tell me I was way off. No no. I was right on.
“Iraq possesses the world’s SECOND LARGEST PROVEN oil reserves-...”
Exactly. Second, not first. You seem to emphasize the word “proven.” Do you know something about their unproven oil reserves that moves them past Saudi Arabia? I doubt it. (By the way, keep in mind Canada and their trillions of barrels of oil in the sands.)
“...112.5 billion barrels (11% of the world’s total plus immense gasfields and additional undiscovered oil reserves. Your government knew damn well what they were moving in for.”
Moving in for? Has the U.S. government seized the oil fields? Since the answer to that is no, I guess if it was “all about oil” the goal would have been at least to get oil flowing. But wouldn’t that have been much easier and less costly by simply allowing Saddam Hussein to sell oil without interference? Yes. This was about quite a bit more than oil.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Dear chris p,
“Oh yes, in the meanwhile your government has decided to increase the military budget by a whopping $20 billion (including $40 billion to further develop lethal nuclear weapons) Bush has been doing some serious long term thinking indeed.What sort of vision is that?”
Is every single policy you disagree with by default “short-sighted”? It seems that way.
You say “your government.” Are you not a US citizen?
Sincerely,
J Craig
Dear Lamont,
“But if you wish to be blind and believe that the Israelis do no wrong or that either side is worse than the other then that is your prerogative.”
I do not believe the Israelis do no wrong.
I do believe that the Palestinians are worse than the Israelis. One would be blind to think otherwise.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Dear brian,
“Iraq oil brings in 16.9 billion a year, yet we spend 1.6 billion a week to stay there, you do the math.”
Excellent point, Brian. The numbers make it clear. Obviously, the war was about much much more than oil.
“This next puppet gov.”
Governments that are puppets of the U.S. aren’t also elected by the people of that country.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Dear brian,
“They have us and are economy by the balls.”
Do they? Why hasn’t the economy tanked as the price of oil has more than doubled? In fact, oil doubling and the economy picking up coincided. How does that reconcile with your comment?
Sincerely,
J Craig
Dear Margaret,
“Now that that idiot has finally left to go take part in some covert KKK activity,”
Have I said a single thing that should lead a reasonable person to think I am racist?
And let me translate: now we like-minded people can continue in our group think.
“let me state that Social Security is the most efficient program in U.S. history because it uses less than 1% of its funds to self-administer.”
Of course it is not costly to administer. It is nothing more than a transfer of funds from one party to another. But the only reason it is a success is because we expect recipients to do nothing but cash the checks.
“if the Repubs hadn’t pilfered a trillion or so out of its coffers,”
What exactly are you referring to? Please, provide some detail.
Your comments on wealth had little to do with demonstrating that we are on the road to fascism.
“So if you wonder why all the programs that benefit “average Joe” keep getting cut or underfunded to the point that they are completely ineffective (i.e. “No Child Left Behind”)”
No Child Left Behind was a massive spending increase. Spending simply did not reach its authorized limit. That happens all the time. They virtually always put caps on authorized spending, and it is not uncommmon for ultimate spending to not reach the cap, even though massive spending does occur. Must you believe everything Ted Kennedy says?
“a one-party government whose only goal is to establish absolute power at home and increasing power abroad in their pursuit of world domination. Just read the documents from Cheney in ‘99 and he states pretty clearly that those are his ambitions.”
Why don’t you provide quotes?
“Him saying he’s “progressive” is like me (a mother of 2) saying I’m a virgin.”
No it’s not. Yours would be a lie. Mine is absolutely true. Did you read definition #3? I’m clearly a progressive. Anyone who wants change to make things better is a progressive. (Does the left feel it owns the term?) We just come to the improvement in conditions from very different perspectives.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Dear Matt Harris,
still waiting…............
“Detail not necessary. See above. However, if you’d like detail on the whole going to war on false premises thang, go do some reading or check out the documentary “Uncovered: The War on Iraq”. Intellectual sloth is no excuse.”
What a surprise. You said I was not credible because I said “knowingly going to war on false premises.” I asked you to support it. You didn’t. (Rather, you couldn’t.)
Why not? Because it is not supportable.
Sincerely,
J Craig
p.s. you put your daughter in daycare while you surf the web?
p.p.s. can anyone on the left support their charges???????????
Mr. Johnson,
Very good article with one major oversight. You state in the conclusion that “Reviving our constitutional system would do more than anything else to protect our peace and security.” That is exactly right. Yet you also state “In 2004, he (Bush) garnered 3.5 million more votes than John Kerry. The result is that Bush’s war changed into America’s war and his conduct of international relations became our own.”
That is exactly wrong. Bush did not receive more votes than Kerry in 2004. I suggest you do more research into election fraud and rigging, because thats what happened, and thats the root of all these problems, including terrible foreign policy.
It is so interesting how J. Craig distorts facts to represent his own beliefs. In fact, we have seized the oil fields. I specifically remember the command that the “oil fields and pipelines” were to be protected in March-April 2003, not the museums or any other institutions. In the meanwhile, Iraq has received little compensation for the oil pumped, and Dubya isn’t interested in where the 9B$ went.
You talk a lot to people who don’t care what you say because most of what you say is a twisted logic that circles back around and bites itself in the butt. You say much, but all it means is that you support the continuing impoverishment of the working class to allow an uberclass to rule in the neocon vision of world domination. Why don’t you just be truthful with yourself? I’m sure you enjoy your cheap holidays in other people’s misery.
Matt is right…you truly are pathetic and probably paid to be so. Go away, troll, because all your words do on this site is strenghten our resolve. I’ll throw roses for you when I dance on DeLay’s political grave shortly.
p.s. Go to oldamericancentury.org and you will find both articles I referenced. Also, John Kerry pointed out the underfunding, not Kennedy. And I would believe him EVERY time over you.
Also, SS is efficient and cost-effective because the goverment is not having to put money in, workers and employers do that. But, then again, you are so unpatriotic that you would rather not pay any taxes because everything should be free, apparently. Of course, once you remove all safety nets and rape the working class, it provides a better environment in which to run your fascist state. How can the destitute fight back? And, yes, what you propose as a neocon is fascism, pure and simple. Look up the word, as you’re so fond of us wanting to understand progressive. Your definition nevertheless, does not make you a good progressive. You “progress” the cause of fascism, and that is the truth.
Seriously J Craig….WAAAAY too much talkie talkie!!!
if you’re going to hog this forum than at least you could try and be entertaining!
sheesh!
Dear Margaret,
“It is so interesting how J. Craig distorts facts to represent his own beliefs.”
Give one example. It’ll have to be better than the one you tried to give.
“I specifically remember the command that the “oil fields and pipelines” were to be protected in March-April 2003, not the museums or any other institutions. In the meanwhile, Iraq has received little compensation for the oil pumped, and Dubya isn’t interested in where the 9B$ went.”
Are you under the (mistaken) impression that we are profiting from Iraq’s oil sales?
“most of what you say is a twisted logic that circles back around and bites itself in the butt.”
Please give an example. (Can anybody on the left support their charges?????????)
“Matt is right…you truly are pathetic and probably paid to be so. Go away, troll, because all your words do on this site is strenghten our resolve. I’ll throw roses for you when I dance on DeLay’s political grave shortly.”
Such hostility on the left! Go read what I’ve written. For the most part I’ve been a perfect gentleman, while so many of you are seething with venom.
Sincerely,
J Craig
I think that J. Craig appears to have slept through a lot of history classes when he was in school. Or perhaps his point of view can be explained by early-onset Reaganomics. The resemblance to the ideology of Tucker Carlson is extraordinary, which of course makes him a derivative thinker, loosely speaking, rather than an original one. Perhaps such posts should be accompanied by a smiley with a bow-tie, as a sort of warning-label for first-time viewers. The topic at hand is Chalmers Johnson’s analysis, and whether or not you agree, disagree, or not, and why.
The inability to remain on topic, and the easy resorting to ad hominem arguments, are characteristic of arguments unable to carry the day, because they are NOT based on substance. This is actually a step BELOW the brute-force sliming practiced, say, against candidates with adopted children, and campaigning in a South Carolina election.
Please, let’s elevate the conversation with accurate facts. Not color-by-numbers talking points, that change with the political winds.
An electron is a terrible thing to waste. 4-3-05.
Dear Margaret,
More venom.
“you are so unpatriotic that you would rather not pay any taxes because everything should be free, apparently.”
No, we should all pay less taxes, and we should all get (and expect) less government. Just my opinion, of course.
“Of course, once you remove all safety nets and rape the working class, it provides a better environment in which to run your fascist state.”
Again with the fascist charge, yet again no support for it.
“How can the destitute fight back?”
They won’t be destitute. We’ll all do better under what I want than what you want.
“And, yes, what you propose as a neocon is fascism, pure and simple.”
Such as???? Do you see how you repeatedly make the charge yet you never support it?
“Your definition nevertheless, does not make you a good progressive. You “progress” the cause of fascism, and that is the truth.”
I’m about as far from fascism as they come. What is a fascist policy I support? (More and more I’m convinced you don’t understand the definiton of this word you so lightly throw around.)
Sincerely,
J Craig
Dear Joseph F Dunphy MBA MFP,
“I think that J. Craig appears to have slept through a lot of history classes when he was in school.”
Support the charge. (Can anyone on the left do that?) What specifically leads you to this conclusion?
“The resemblance to the ideology of Tucker Carlson is extraordinary, which of course makes him a derivative thinker, loosely speaking, rather than an original one.”
Maybve I’m the original, and Tucker is the derivative.
“The topic at hand is Chalmers Johnson’s analysis, and whether or not you agree, disagree, or not, and why.”
Not familiar with a string, are you? They often move from the original topic.
“the easy resorting to ad hominem arguments,”
Example please? (Can anyone on the left support their charges?)
“Please, let’s elevate the conversation with accurate facts.”
What fact have I offered that’s not accurate?
Sincerely,
J Craig
Let us start with your comment “did I miss the coup?” Many would argue that you did. There is a case made quite strongly by Greg Palast that there is an unelected resident in the White House, allowed to remain by the negligence of the Supreme Court which is not exactly a think-tank of brilliant jurists. There is a strong argument in the “Blowback” trilogy that Osama bin Laden group was trained by our own CIA, for about $6 billion over time, and that this “weapon” was turned against the US by 1) the US setting up bases on Saudi Soil, or 2) a US encouraged or allowed attack on the twin towers—with the persistent efforts to suppress the investigation into the 9/11 incident raising legitimate questions as to why. This is the event that “allowed” the current administration to stay in power.
Need another coup? Maybe the first-strike incursion against Iraq, a country, in the inimitable words of radio talk show host Lionel, “didn’t even have a can of RAID!” (a little hyperbole, but actually not much). For further evidence of this, not Colin Powell’s persistent claims that he was “mislead” by the “intelligence.” This lie, in spite of persistent complaints inside the CIA that the intelligence was being manipulated for political purposes, and even Congress was surprised at the heavy handedness of Dick Cheney going repeatedly to the CIA before the incursion.
Thus, there are at least two “coups” that have taken place. Tom DeLay’s assault on Congressional re-districting a second time, after the census was done, and redistricting already set, may yet get DeLay booted from the Congress—despite the notorious stench of corruption coming from the current investigation.
The assault on Social Security is an on-going attempted coup—aimed principally at crushing labor unions. And it is no secret that the court-stuffing with conservative justices is an attempt to reverse affirmative action, reduce civil rights, and entrench the courts with conservatives. There is no attempt to work out bi-partisan nominees, with give-and-take on both sides. It is raw power grabbing, with no attempt at being democratic (small d).
Not to mention the torture memos, and the disgrace of Negroponte, notoriously involved with the death squads of Battalion 316 in Latin America.
Thus, if you have been unable to see a coup, perhaps it has something to do with your prescription lenses? I would hazard a guess that you are not in the sign business.
4-3-04.
Theloneous,
You have so eloquently summarized my thoughts and the thoughts of so many others. Well done.
Dear Joseph F Dunphy MBA MFA,
“There is a case made quite strongly by Greg Palast that there is an unelected resident in the White House, allowed to remain by the negligence of the Supreme Court which is not exactly a think-tank of brilliant jurists.”
What’s the jist? That Gore really won the ballot count? Isn’t he aware of the group of newpapers that concluded that Bush would have won any recount anyway by all the methods they used except one? So I’m lacking in historical education because I don’t buy this fella’s argument? (Let me guess. He has no axe to grind whatsoever, quite unlike those Bush-backing hacks at the New York Times and other right wing rags that did the recount.)
RE: OBL conspiracy theory. Again, I’m somehow lacking? Why? Because I don’t buy into this conspiracy theory? (I hear HRC murdered Vince Foster.)
“Need another coup? Maybe the first-strike incursion against Iraq”
First strike? Was it not a resumption of the war that ended with a surrender agreement (to say nothing of the fact that it never really ended in the no-fly zones)? If a country surrenders in war, agrees to surrender terms, doesn’t fully comply with that agreemetn, then the victor resumes the war, would you really call that a first strike?
“This lie, in spite of persistent complaints inside the CIA that the intelligence was being manipulated for political purposes,”
Really? Not according to the report of the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction. It was delivered just days ago.
http://www.wmd.gov/report/index.html
Go to Page 50 of the WMD report: “The Commission found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community’s prewar assessments of Iraq’s weapons programs.”
“Thus, there are at least two “coups” that have taken place.”
Only in lefty conspiracy land.
“The assault on Social Security is an on-going attempted coup”
Stretching a bit, aren’t we? Calling a change in a government program a “coup”? Your credibility is on the ropes with this one.
“There is no attempt to work out bi-partisan nominees, with give-and-take on both sides.”
Correct, but this is nothing new whatsoever when one party controls both the White House and the Senate. And I’m the one lacking in historical education?
Now what about those examples of ad hominem arguments by me? Let’s see em.
Sincerely,
J Craig
p.s. Can I quote you? “The topic at hand is Chalmers Johnson’s analysis, and whether or not you agree, disagree, or not, and why.” Thanks for joining me on this little OT excursion.
Dear JFD MBA MFA,
I just went back and read this:
“then the stage could be set for a nasty trade war, and potentially a shooting war, this time on US soil.”
Do I read you correctly? With England? On U.S. soil? A British invasion? Do you really believe this is even worth mentioning? I think you might be extrapolating from past events just a little too liberally.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Dear Matt Harris,
Still waiting…...........................
Sincerely,
J Craig
The Palestinians worse than the Israelis? hah! ahaha! hah! Go look up what the Israelis do and compare it to what the Palestinians do. The Settlements, the Settlers, the land-grabs and evictions from homes & demolition of homes for the Settlers, the fortified checkpoints, The Wall*, the poison gas [I’ve seen video of the affects and seen & heard the doctors diagnosis of it, so don’t you dare tell me that’s Palestinian propaganda], the group-punishment, the bulldozers used against unarmed non-violent protestors & the elderly who can’t get out of their houses in time, and on and on and on.
The Palestinians frequently use unlawful and violent methods – particularly against civilians - there’s no denying that and there is very little justification for that, those that do that must be punished to the full extent of the law with no exceptions, but there is no way what-so-ever you can say that their actions are not in response to what the Israelis do, nor can you say that the Israelis do not frequently precipitate and worsen the events through their actions and responses, and finally you can not say their actions are worse than what the Israelis do. Or at least you would not be able to honestly say these things if you bothered to look into what the Israelis do.
I strongly suggest you go look into the examples I provided as well as all the rest of the things the Israelis do.
*The Wall might not actually be all that bad an idea - IF it followed the internationally agreed upon border, rather than following a new path that often times delves deep into Palestinian land for the sole purpose of further annexing land for future settlements.
Let’s get back to Chalmers Johnson. How much do people in the uS understand how they appear to other people in the world? Have you seen the news about a poll conducted by an Austrlian think tank-the Lowy Institute-of the views held by asurtalians about the US? The results were interesting and discomforting to our neo-con lite copy cat conservatives in this country. The implications for US allies let alone their enemies are interesting/.
Dear J. Craig,
Are you an internet troll by the definition below?
Internet troll
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
An Internet troll is either a person who sends messages on the Internet hoping to entice other users into angry or fruitless responses, or a message sent by such a person.
I’m waiting for your response, (yes or no), along with an explanation of why you believe you either are or are not a troll.
To the idiot who thinks the Palestians are worse than the Israelis (you know who you are).
Between 27 September 2000 and 10 February 2003 Palestinians were responsible for the deaths of 709 Israelis. During the same time period Israeli soldiers killed 2007 Palestinians.
Yes, you read that correctly, two thousand and seven dead Palestians, compared to seven hundred and nine Israelis. Go check it out.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/845157/posts
If you like that then you’re in for a real treat. Do an internet search for the number of Iraqi civilians estimated to have been killed by American forces. Go to as many different sources as you can. Here’s a good one,
iraqbodycount.net
These guys have counted only those deaths reported by at least two different news sources.
Their minimum number is more than 17000.
Yep, George W. Bush is responsible for more than seventeen thousand cilvilian deaths. Osama Bin Laden would have to kill fourteen thousand more civilians to catch him up.
Are we waking up and smelling the coffee yet, Einstein?
A minor quible, but in my opinion an important one - comparing the 17,000* dead Iraqis to the 3,000 who died on September 11th is a bit of a misleading association since no Iraqis, nor the Saddam government, had anything whatsoever to do with with Semtember 11th. [Although even if they did it does not warrent 17,000 dead]
*Is that since occupation began or alternatively starting at when the ‘war’ began? Although if it were truly honest then it’d start at the end of the first Gulf War and take into account all those who the Americans allowed to die in the failed uprisings that followed shortly after the Gulf War and then all those who died in the following 10+ years due to the sanctions, the nations shattered infrastructure, radiation from DU, etc, etc in which case the number would have 5 or 6 zeros after it.
Dear J. Craig,
You oviously have two much time on your hands.
W. Lawler
And too many brains in his head.
As a liberal minded independent, i am rather disappointed that J Craig seems to be quite a bit more informed than “my” side. I find it even more disappointing that virtually all of the personal attacks are made by the left against this man (worse yet, he appears to be gentlemanly even in this hostile environment, demonstrating great maturity in such difficult circumstances).
Is there really no arguments against what he is claiming? Or is it just no one here is able to make them? Surely calling him a fascist, KKK wanabee, or other nonsense does not help “our” side. . .
Furthermore, if his claims are too hard to counter, perhaps the poster who suggested he be ignored should be considered. Merely attacking someone who disagrees with your point of view does nothing to bolster your opinion. Rather it makes it look weak and indefensible.
Just my $0.02.
The article mentions Bush abandoning “the policies of all previous American administrations to seek an equitable peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians”. This is just not true. Since 1967, the United States has given Israel at LEAST 104 billion in direct aid. AIPAC and other pro-Israel lobby groups control over half of the campaign contributions to both parties, and other 75% of the Democrats. Also, the United States has continuously ignored or downplayed Israel’s crimes against humanity for the last several decades.
Until this situation changes, the middle east will continue to be a quagmire, and furthermore the muslim world will continue to hate us for sponsoring what they see as terrorism.
Kurt,
I know it seems wrong to get hostile when someone who only wants to disrupt a fruitful conversation between like-minded individuals comes into the “yard” and starts breaking everyone’s toys. But the truth is, we all hear plenty of his mindset everyday in the mainstream media. I come here and a few other sites to gain further information of a non-neocon bent and opinions with which to forge my own.
Every link or fact that is given to J. Craig or any other troll is immediately deemed wrong and irrelevant, no matter how much data there is to support it. Heaven knows, there a facts a plenty in both the article and in many of your replies.
And, one last note to all, not everyone is a political pundit with a photographic memory who instantly recalls every detail of each article they’ve read, and when and where they read it. Some people do actually read a great deal in research, and then meld the data into a comprehensive world view that they then espouse. While I understand that people want quotes, verification, etc., I think that J. Craig’s “desire” for such verification is merely a ruse to take us off track.
In fact, we should all pay particular attention to the data in Mr. Johnson’s article as it seems to have provoked J. Craig into a frenzy.
p.s. - I was given the sage advice to simply ignore him and all trolls. I think Jane Doe is right, forget him. We could show him a blue sky and he would argue it really isn’t blue because, scientifically, blah, blah, blah. It still doesn’t change the facts, and distortion and disorientation is all he attempts to do.
p.s. I would disagree that he is gentlemanly—he is smarmy. It is an obvious false courtesy and I don’t agree that he is better informed. In fact, I find most of his assertion biased in an erroneous manner.
Dear Lamont,
“Go look up what the Israelis do and compare it to what the Palestinians do. The Settlements, the Settlers, the land-grabs and evictions from homes & demolition of homes for the Settlers, the fortified checkpoints, The Wall*,”
I wonder why they do this? Could it be that the Israelis are willing to co-exist peacefully (and just years ago offered the Palestinians 95% of their demands, in response receiving a jihad), while the Palestinians want to drive them into the sea? I don’t agree with all that they are doing in the territories, but on balance, they have the moral high ground by a long shot. None of it would have happened if the Israelis didn’t take the lands in a war they didn’t want.
“the poison gas”
That’s Palestinian propaganda.
“and finally you can not say their actions are worse than what the Israelis do.”
Their actions are worse than what the Israelis do.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Dear Merlin,
“An Internet troll is either a person who sends messages on the Internet hoping to entice other users into angry or fruitless responses, or a message sent by such a person.”
No, I am not an internet troll. My hope is not to entice other users into angry or fruitless responses. That often is the result, but it is not my hope.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Dear Matilda Gatsby,
It is clear that you think body count is the sole determinant of right and wrong.
Sincerely,
J Craig
I agree with William Greider, as quoted in this essay, when he argues that this “administration has become increasingly delusional…and blind to the adverse balance of power accumulating against it.”
Indeed, this delusional state extends well beyond economic considerations—and certainly into the realm of military supremacy. As the increasingly smug “sole remaining superpower” in the world, we’re conducting ourselves as though no one could possibly stand against us, so we have no consequences to fear from our behavior. But military supremacy is not the same as military invincibility—and we are supreme only in our ability to project conventional power to remote locations. Nonetheless, we seem to be suffering from a national delusion that we are capable of enforcing our will anywhere we like.
It may be true that no one is able to project conventional power anywhere in the world to the extent that we are—for example, Russia and Red China could not contest with us for Australia or Hawaii—it simply isn’t true that we could expect to defeat them on their own soil.
Dear Margaret,
“Every link or fact that is given to J. Craig or any other troll is immediately deemed wrong and irrelevant, no matter how much data there is to support it.”
Every? How about one? Please give one example of me doing this. (Please support something you say.)
“While I understand that people want quotes, verification, etc., I think that J. Craig’s “desire” for such verification is merely a ruse to take us off track.”
I’ve asked for evidence (such as links and sources) extremely minimally.
What I’ve mostly been asking is for you and others to support your assertions with arguments. An assertion means nothing if it can’t be supported. I’ve also frequently asked for evidence (cut and paste) of something I’m alleged to have done. Nobody ever follows up with the cut and paste. (For an example, see above where I ask you to provide an example of something you say I always do. All you have to do is look back through a few of my posts. If I always do what you say, it should be a pretty easy task. Yet for some reason - experience? - I have a hunch you won’t do it.)
Here’s another example:
“In fact, I find most of his assertion biased in an erroneous manner.”
Show me one example. You made an assertion (that most of my assertions are biased in an erroneous manner). You should be able to support your assertion with at least one example.
Sincerely,
J Craig
I am generally loathe to address people directly since ad hominen attacks are a hallmark of elected officials, particularly Republicans, but Mr. J. Craig should consider doing a bit of research before posting comments.
Here is what you need to know about oil. Saudi Arabia is not our biggest supplier, Canada is. Venezuala is second. http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/gene/peakoil/node2.html
And Israel is committing apartheid and ethnic cleansing. But this is not something that can be discussed rationally by anyone right of center, because they just don’t understand what is happening there because they never get the truth reported. What Israel has done to the Palestinian people since they lauched their aggressive war of 1967 and occupied Palestinian land is qualitatively worse than what white South Africa did to their black population before the end of Apartheid. It is as bad as the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, worse than the Russian occupation of Chechnya, and almost as bad as the US occupation of Iraq, in which some 120,000 innocent civilians lay dead for “freedom”.
Pshaw!
I am being very precursory here because I don’t have time to dissect every point, but I do believe the article is spot-on, and I believe, although marginally well-argued, that Mr. J. Craig has no real idea of what he speaks.
Charles Shaw
Publisher/Editor-in-Chief
Newtopia Magazine
www.newtopiamagazine.net
Thank you for some sanity, Mr. Shaw.
Once again, in stating that some people form their views from various research sources and life experiences rather than becoming a “verification” catalog, you are right about the Israelis.
In college I had an Israeli roommate. She left Israel at 14 because she looked more like an Arab (though she had no Arab blood) and her parents feared for her safety. Despite being a Jew, she was spat upon, pushed down, hit and verbally assaulted by other Jews who thought her to be Arabic/Palestinian. She told me that, while she loved her faith and her people, “my people really have to change in their approach to the Palestinians.”
While I do support Israel and also a new Palestinian state, I KNOW from her personal experience that both sides are guilty on this issue.
J Craig—Did I miss the coup, etc.?
My reponse cited several published sources, Palast and the Blowback Trilogy, that make the case for a stolen election, and CIA involvement in training OBL.
Your response is to assert—with no citations or proof—“Conspiracy theory.” That does not win points in a debating contest. Thus you offer nothing substantitive in response.
On the matter of the report of the intelligence committee, surely you are aware that there was serious committee-stuffing of members who would turn a blind eye to the Administration’s failures. Since you fail to point that out, I make the point. Whether you did not know that, or deliberately omitted the fact, I can not tell, but it points to slipshod research on you part.
Thus, on these three points alone, you have arrived at the scene without credible evidence.
If you would read more non-fiction, it would have a salutary effect on your debating abilities.
As to the point of keeping the discussion on Chalmers Johnson, one of the main points he makes is the need for effective reform in spite of the difficulties posed by the policies of the administration.
My points are on the need for effective election reform, proper oversight of the CIA and the intelligence community, and of the executive itself. People are not off-topic just because you say so in print.
Others can see the arguments for themselves. And so far, it seems that no one has accused anyone else but you of being a troll. As Kenny Rodgers would sing: “Know when to fold ‘em.”
4-4-05.
Dear Charles Shaw,
“Here is what you need to know about oil. Saudi Arabia is not our biggest supplier, Canada is. Venezuala is second.”
Who said Saudi Arabia is our biggest supplier? I assume you are referring to my earlier exchange. If so, “our biggest supplier” was not the question.
“What Israel has done to the Palestinian people since they lauched their aggressive war of 1967”
You mean the attack they executed in response to the muslim nations’ preparations for attacking Israel? Should they have waited? Had they waited, would you be condemning the muslim nations for striking first?
For those who believe “first strike” and “death count” are the measures of right and wrong: I couldn’t disagree more.
“and I believe, although marginally well-argued, that Mr. J. Craig has no real idea of what he speaks.”
Please, do tell me more. Give examples of my mistakes. (One more unsupported assertion from the left!)
Sincerely,
J Craig
No personal offense meant sir, but you don’t merit the time or effort. I believe there is little hope of you acknowledging the truth or having an honest awakening about your views.
Point of clarification: I am not “on the left”. I despise Democrats as much as Republicans, they are in my opinion all corrupt, warmongering, Globalizing imperialists, and I believe partisan politics is used in the nation to divide the population and keep them adverserial to each other, rather than trhe oligarchy that controls and loots all of us. I am definitly not Socialist, but consider myself in spirit equal parts Green, Libertarian, and Anarchist.
And it has been wonderful chatting with you. Take care, and be well to your family.
When in a discussion of topics, different viewpoints
lead to a disagreement.When an assertion is refuted,
proven unsound and invalid, and untrue, and still
used as a “fact”, there is no discussion, just the argument room from Monty Python.
GWB stated several times “Saddam Hussien has weapons
of mass destruction”
“He must be dissarmed”
Rice, Rumsfeldt, Powel, Cheney, repeated ad nauseum
Mr. Craig: “Fortunately, we did’t knowingly go to
war on false premises
Not one mention of democracy in IRAQ was ever mentioned before
the “weapons” were “not found”
Mr Craig: “One more unsupported assertion from the left”
Is this the argument room ?
Yes it is
No it isn’t
Mr Shaw is correct
J Craig,
You responded:
“No, I am not an internet troll. My hope is not to entice other users into angry or fruitless responses. That often is the result, but it is not my hope.”
I have given your response considerable thought, going back through this thread and rereading your responses. I wish I could believe that what you say above is true. Your words tell me a different story.
Whether a person is a troll or not (by the definition in previous post), is subjective. Therefor my opinion is as valid as yours regarding whether you are or are not. I think and believe you are a troll by that definition. Here are a few quotes from your posts in this thread (there are more, but these will be enough to explain the case) that in my view shows you as trolling. You are attempting to provoke anyone foolish enough to respond to your “emotional poking,” into remarks that you can sweetly, and as a “perfect gentleman,” (in your words,) use against them in an emotional manner. I find this type of communication deceptive and dishonest. It, and the person using it, (you in this case) are an impediment to any person or group trying to understand, grow or learn.
In as much as you are constantly asking for folks to “support their charges”, (although support is neither necessary nor possible in this case as it is simply my opinion,) my “reading” of your statements below is in parenthesis.
“p.s. you put your daughter in daycare while you surf the web?”
(This comment is, IMO, designed to impugn Matt Harris as a neglectful father. I believe you know that you are doing that, and the “little boy” in you is really enjoying the “I’m better than you are!” arrogance you feel.)
“p.p.s. can anyone on the left support their charges???????????”
(What is the reason for all those redundant question marks if not to say in unsaid terms, “Now I’ve got you, you SOB.” (Check out Eric Berne’s book “Games People Play” for an explanation of this most insidious psychological Game.) I suspect (no fact here, just my suspicion, J Craig) you are a rather angry man whose main pleasure in life is “one upping” other people, and being very smug about it. It is your reason for existence and you spend a lot of time thinking and planning how to do it. Witness your copious posts here. As “the great went” said, “WAAAAY too much talkie.” talkie!!!)
“Not familiar with a string, are you?”
(Ouch! What an angry retort! Done with the pseudo smile of the self righteous and a rising inflection in your voice as you say “are you”. The odd Bush “smirk” that I have seen so often flashes before me. Come to think of it, that look goes along with the head being tilted a bit backward pushing the chin out as if to say, “Go ahead, hit me! Just try it!”)
“For the most part I’ve been a perfect gentleman, while so many of you are seething with venom.”
Sincerely,
(And this remark tells the whole psychological story! You are “innocent” while others (who have fallen for your “emotional poking”) are guilty. What a farce! Arrogance is always ugly, J Craig!
And BTW, ending with “Sincerely…” just puts psychological icing on the cake for me! In my view, you are not honest in using that remark in your posts. Your use of the closing “Sincerely” really sounds to me like it says “I am “Sincerely” enjoying showing you how much better I am than you are.” In response to this judgement, would you dare to say “Who me? I am just using ordinary words that are always used when writing letters!” Nah. You know better than to say that, because it is rarely done on threads like this. Hmmm, I wonder what you COULD say to defend your remarks listed here without sounding ridiculous?)
Now here is something for you to think about. If you respond to this post will you win? If you don’t respond (silence is consent, you know) you lose. What do you choose.
“You mean the attack they executed in response to the muslim nations’ preparations for attacking Israel? Should they have waited? Had they waited, would you be condemning the muslim nations for striking first?”
Do you have verifiable proof of this attack? Your view is ONE side of the story. The Muslims have the other. The fact is that until GW Bush, our country did not condone pre-emptive war, which you are doing in your statement.
“For those who believe “first strike” and “death count” are the measures of right and wrong: I couldn’t disagree more.”
YOUR opinion, and your welcome to it.
Rather than tell everyone else what THEY should believe, or question what they believe, why don’t you share what do you actually believe?
That is the basis for discussion.
When seeing a “discussion” panel after this eye-opening article, I continued to read on. After reading several of J. Craig’s attacks on the author and other readers, where is the discussion? Every “empire” falls. Any one who is educated on the history of the world knows that every powerful empire that over extends itself financially and in land acquired through war, disintegrates. The fall begins with none of its citizens willing to fight in the armies, big money makers hiding their capital and stop paying taxes, social programs are cut. When the last huge empire (Rome) dissolved, it left Western Europe in the Dark Ages for over a 1,000 years. Empires do not go in a big bang, it is a slow process. The USA empire is showing all the signs of falling, evidence of this is seen in our news: recruitment goals of the armed forces are not met, corporations hiding money off shore so to not pay taxes, and the current fight to cut huge amounts of our social programs from this year’s federal budget. We can stop the fall of our once united nation, by again coming together. It is unfortunate that the current parties in power appear to scorn such ideas by attacking each other and encouraging their supporters to do the same. No one can get close to the current President to have a “discussion”. There is no discussion, it is “either you are with us or against us” attitude. There is no worst death then hope. And for many, hope is already dead. So let us have civil discourse; let us bring hope back to those who have lost it.
Lamont Cranston, of course Iraq had nothing what so ever to do with the Sept 11 attacks. My intention in comparing Bin Laden’s body count to Bush’s was to compare one mass murderer to another. Bush is by far the bigger of the two criminals. Bush in fact diverted funds away from the real defence of this country in order to kill a load of Arabs.
J Craig, actually, yes, body count is usually a good indicator of who the biggest criminal is. If you’re answer to this is to say that Iraq was a threat to us, then like half the country you’re living in a media induced dream world. Wake up!
Dear Charles Shaw,
“No personal offense meant sir, but you don’t merit the time or effort. I believe there is little hope of you acknowledging the truth or having an honest awakening about your views.”
It’s your way or no way, eh? That’s mighty condescending of you, thanks.
“I am definitly not Socialist, but consider myself in spirit equal parts Green, Libertarian, and Anarchist.”
I sympathize with the liberatarian in you, but not so much the other two. By the way, the libertarian in you and the green in you must have some pretty heated debates, huh?
Sincerely,
J Craig
The game’s up J. Craig, Merlin has sleuthed you out! A rare combination of Jung, Freud and Sherlock Holmes, you can run but you can’t hide from this wizard. Facts, be damned! A willingness to debate the left at their place, be damned. Patience and solictude, be damned. Yours is a sick psychology, the oracle has spoken.
Dear Merlin,
Who was provoking whom? This by me:
“p.s. you put your daughter in daycare while you surf the web?”
was in response to him insinuating that I am a loser. In this case, clearly Matt would be the troll, and I’m just the respondent. (By the way, if impugning people is the criteria for being a troll, I’d say there are plenty here in opposition to me more worthy of the label “troll” than me.)
Then there’s this by me:
“p.p.s. can anyone on the left support their charges???????????”
and you ask “What is the reason for all those redundant question marks?”
To get people to support their arguments. It is remarkably lacking here.
You say “you are a rather angry man whose main pleasure in life is “one upping” other people,”
No, I just want people who are making arguments to actually make arguments and not just assertions.
In this case by me:
“Not familiar with a string, are you?”
again, I’m the respondent, not the troll. You should look at these in context.
Then there’s this by me:
“For the most part I’ve been a perfect gentleman, while so many of you are seething with venom.”
Read the history. I was a perfect gentleman, and so many that responded to me have been seething with venom. Shall I catalog all the insults in just this string? (Off the top of my head I can think of at least three “idiots”, a “smarmy”, not to mention, VERY RECENTLY, a “smug”, and a “little boy.”)
It’s weird. You hold me to such a higher standard than you hold all of those so full of venom here.
“If you respond to this post will you win? If you don’t respond (silence is consent, you know) you lose. What do you choose.”
Actually, silence is not consent, but I will respond.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Dear Liberal AND Proud,
“The fact is that until GW Bush, our country did not condone pre-emptive war, which you are doing in your statement.”
1. Are you saying that we never went to war with a country until they attacked us? Never?
2. You are correct. I have no blanket opposition to pre-emptive war. There are circumstances when it is acceptable.
“YOUR opinion, and your welcome to it.”
Agreed, it is just my opinion.
“Rather than tell everyone else what THEY should believe,”
When have I ever told anyone what they should believe?
“or question what they believe,”
What’s wrong with that? My opposition here does that as consistently as I do.
” why don’t you share what do you actually believe?”
I’ve done plenty of that. In fact, plenty here have been asking me to stop sharing.
Sincerely,
J Craig
Dear Matilda Gatsby,
“J Craig, actually, yes, body count is usually a good indicator of who the biggest criminal is.”
You speak as if body count is the only indicator.
“If you’re answer to this is to say that Iraq was a threat to us, then like half the country you’re living in a media induced dream world. Wake up!”
Iraq was an apparent threat, an appearance that Hussein foolishly helped to create. He would still be an apparent threat had we not gone to war. All along, he had the power to change this by fully complying with the inspections process. He chose not to. Regardless of whether or not he was a threat, he agreed to a surrender then did not follow the terms. That’s a horrible precedent to allow. I was a supporter of resuming the war with him long before Bush came to office.
Sincerely,
J Craig
In the natural sciences, where i “live” people like J Craig keep us on our toes. We actually have to defend our beliefs; that is, either provide data or logical arguments to support our assertions.
Is there no analogy in the social sciences? Is it that both the facts and the logic used are so mallable that impressions and emotional overtones rule the social “science” roost?
One thing we do have in common - where deeply held views are challanged, often it results in insults. Usually, but not always, by the side with the weaker arguments (sometimes just because some people like to be rude, or at least are unable to contain themselves).
Anyway, i would love to see point by point rebuttals. For my own edification, if nothing else. (Who said: “if you can’t argue all sides of an issue, it means you don’t truly understand it”?
Posting Security