So went the famous 2003 quote from Gen. David Petraeus concerning the Iraq war. More about him later. But as the Great Disruption once again sends us further down the mountainside, it's an apt question for the American experiment in self-government, the economy, our society.
One way it doesn't end is with a great backlash against the extremism that now controls the Republican Party. Wisconsin gave its best shot with fierce protests and recall elections but failed. Reactionary Republicans still hold power in the home of Robert La Follette. When this week's recall contests were over, it was clear that corporate money will have its way. Not only that, but majorities in suburbia, which is most of the country, will vote GOP no matter whether this is in their economic or civic interests. Whatever the polls say about Republican unpopularity, not much will change in the next election. For that to happen, America would need a viable opposition party.
It doesn't end with President Hoover "finding his voice." The listless recitation of pleas for balanced approaches and bipartisanship we heard on Monday, as the stock market was panicking, is his voice. He is weak. He is passive. He is a creature of the Robert Rubin/bankster wing of the Democratic Party, which shares the dream of "reforming entitlements." He will not fight for the middle class, for jobs, for fair play. I think of the late Jeff MacNelly's brutally on-target political cartoons of Jimmy Carter, who became smaller and smaller in the presidential chair.
The empire is unsustainable. So, too, are 30 years of tax cutting, not only at the federal level but in states and localities. But we'll keep spending trillions on these as we defund Amtrak, NPR, close local libraries, raise eligibility ages for Social Security and Medicare — sorry, no jobs for you people. A jobs stimulus, building infrastructure...that would be anti-American. We have a debt crisis. We're broke. Both parties are to blame. Taxes and regulations are holding back job creation. None of these four statements are true, but we see them endlessly repeated in the media. And I'm just talking about the news from respected outlets for average, relatively intelligent Americans — not the fiery propaganda of the right-wing krackpots. So we will pay any price and bear any burden to maintain this status quo and protect the oligarchs' looting of the collective wealth it took a century to amass. Worst income inequality since, at least, the eve of the Depression? Why, that's just an opinion. Shhhh.
With our leaders unwilling to tell us the truth or enact policies that could actually arrest our national collapse, I can't tell you how it ends. Instability will grow. When China senses us at the end of our tether, it may try to take Taiwan. Or maybe the breaking point comes when the Tea Party demands an end to "free trade," or China tries to dump Treasuries and we simply default. We might have the capability to take out Beijing's small number of ICBMs in a first strike from our submarines. Unfortunately, China targets our cities, so we'd better be damned sure. But who knows? Rationality has slipped the leash, starting in 2001 if not before. Even the transnational corporate masters might not be able to control the spiraling gyre.
The damage done to the republic by these genuinely anti-American extremists and their anti-American puppet-masters is greater than most realize. At the least it opens the door to a Petraeus type, with the stars and medals, a good part of the armed forces behind him and the willingness, like Julius Caesar, to declare the republic dead and rule.
Ten years ago I couldn't imagine writing such an essay. Ten years from now, I can't imagine.
Tell me how this ends?
One thing that won't happen is rioting like we're seeing in Britain. For that to happen, you need real cities. Yes, there will be "flash mobs" of inner-city youths but that will be politically disconnected, random nihilism. It will feed the radicalism of the white-right, however, who will vote even more adamantly for the party that promises to restore Mayberry, cut taxes, ignore reality, and get tough on minorities.
The new normal should be in place by 2021. The middle-class will now be 25% of the population. The top 1% will control 60% of the wealth. Unemployment should hover around 30 to 35%. Hundreds of colleges will close down because too few students can afford to pay the tuition. ACA will be repealed and replaced with subsidies for insurance companies to offer clients healing-through-prayer services. The Supreme Court will decide the Constitution does not separate church and state. Nor is privacy a right implicitly guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
Arizona will unfold a new ad campaign called Some Like It Hot. Quartzite's famous swap meets will be spotlighted in The New York Times' 36 Hours in Arizona along with colorful pictures of Mohave County's burgeoning "Obamavilles". Timothy McVeigh's statue will stand in front of the courthouse in downtown Kingman.
Phoenix's population will fall for the first time in history to about 1.25 million. Mesa will overtake Tucson as the second-largest city, and Yuma will apply for federal disaster loan assistance because of summertime temperatures in excess of 130 degrees.
Before completing his second term, President Perry will agree to limit White House hangings to no more than six a month. A nation sighs in gratitude that they have such a Solomonic leader.
Posted by: soleri | August 11, 2011 at 01:18 PM
Badly.
Posted by: eclecticdog | August 11, 2011 at 04:15 PM
"Some Like It Hot", hehe. You are too much, soleri! How about "Join the All-American barbecue! (with Mexican side dishes)"?
My own view: as the seven lean years (biblical for lost decade or deleveraging cycle) drag on and progressivism in the face of decline fails to come up with robust answers (for whatever reason - Obama reportedly has got a huge ego and wants to be one of the famous ones on the wall. So why not more forcefullness or 'boldness'?) a sizable portion of Americans [in desperation] discover their proclivity for electing maniacs. Which will further fuel the death spiral of American supremacy. 2012 or 2016, the Republican rebound is complete, peak oil starts in earnest, class warfare is brimming along. Living standards and life expectancy are in obvious decline. The sheer size of the underclass which has got a new bridgehead in the formerly middleclass brings 'favela chic' into the mainstream (hip hop culture has nothing on this). Dysfunctional federal and state governments will accelerate the tug of war between wealthier cities and burnt-out rural areas. AZ will become a battleground state (not in the electoral sense) - some really do like a hot TexMex barbecue.
The Chinese are smart enough not to attack Taiwan directly. They have a strategy in place to increase economic and political ties to the island until it falls into their hands like a ripe apple. They will have to deal with their own internal crises and the duties of imperialism in Asia.
An interview excerpt about the long-term picture:
JMG: My view is almost exactly half way between these two. What I think is most likely, is an extended period of uneven collapse in which you have a series of crises followed by periods of relative stabilizations… followed by new crises. It’s like the stairs. Instead of just falling straight from the second floor to first floor, we go through a process of sliding down, thump, thump, thump, through a series of crises. The reason why I hold this idea is that historically speaking, this is the way civilizations always go down.
...AA: Do you see a peaceful transition or it will be very, very rough? It is a very broad question...
JMG: In theory it could be a peaceful transition. It has never happened. Either of the two transitions we are facing here in America. We are facing the end of our empire. That never happens peacefully.
...AA: They just do not let it quietly...
JMG: Nobody is just going to say: It was enough for us, we had a grand time, we will take our troops back home, we are going to decrease our standard of living by 40, 50 percent... no we are fine, really… It would be nice but it does not happen that way.
http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2010-10-20/america-most-people-have-no-conception-anything-can-really-change-radically-inter
Posted by: AWinter | August 11, 2011 at 05:27 PM
With a whimper...
And a lot of small bangs.
It will fall apart piece by piece by piece.
Just the way it is.
No money for police forces...
No money to fix bridges to somewhere...
Rising poor on poor on middle class crime...
Permanent unemployment and rampant tattooing...
You won't be able to sit down for a E.coli burger without hearing the f-word ricocheting off the crap-stained walls...
Steady, debasing erosion and entropy.
The moral heat death of America...
Like a fragile coastline getting pummeled by waves.
It all washes out to sea...
Until one day the electricity won't come on.
And when you call the privatized utility company to ask "When?" they don't and won't pick up.
That's when you know it is truly over.
I won't be alive then. But if you are: that's the moment you want to toast a shot of your finest to Norquist, Limbaugh, and Murdoch, and then raise the gun to your head, say God Bless America, and make one more little bang.
Posted by: koreyel | August 11, 2011 at 05:39 PM
Please forgive me if this sounds like an "I've got mine" post, because that's not my intention. To me, one element from this and other discussions like it is the realization that some folks have developed a certain wisdom about providing for their future. One element is frugality: it is not necessary to have the latest and greatest or the biggest and most exciting. This might mean living in a bungalow with a short commute. Another element is thinking into the future . . some would call it trend analysis, figuring out how to take advantage of what's unfolding. This might mean moving out of the desert. And another element is viewing so-called "financial advisors" with a jaundiced eye since so many of them are little more than used car salesmen. This might mean actually studying why we own the investments we own.
So enough already: I could go on but the message to me is more about lighting a candle rather than cursing the darkness!
Posted by: morecleanair | August 11, 2011 at 06:33 PM
Ditto, BADLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: cal Lash | August 11, 2011 at 06:43 PM
would you all please go back to the last thread and answer my "headknocker" question, please.
I did say please.
Posted by: azrebel | August 11, 2011 at 06:45 PM
Well, you know how old guys repeat themselves (not reproduce). The answer lies in the 1946 book by Simak, "City"
"and the dogs sat around the campfires and debated the possible existence of man."
or maybe small roving bands of food gathers led by female polygamists.
I fear all you dark brooding pessimists have run off the fresh Horses like Phoenix Sun Fan, a true optimist.
Posted by: cal Lash | August 11, 2011 at 06:51 PM
I'm still here reading Cal, don't worry. I must say, however, that I am not so optimistic that I think all is well or that it will "work itself out" in the end. I believe that the country, if 2012 continues on an extreme Republican trajectory, will continue losing its middle class. Furthermore, this is sadly also a necessary contraction due to the unsustainable spending that most Americans became accustomed to by using credit to prop-up their lifestyle choices.
As the economy contracts more, less will be the norm. This may prove beneficial to cities and aid their revivals. This has been true throughout history and especially true of Europe (especially Germany). If any of you had the opportunity to study demographics and corresponding changes in our nation the last few decades there was an anticipation of this "conservatization" of the American political landscape. A rising minority population was sure to scare the crap out of the rising and aging white population (even one-time hippies). I'm not sure this conservative movement will outlast the liberal and minority growth of the next decade. All is not lost. More on this later...
Posted by: phxSUNSfan | August 11, 2011 at 07:18 PM
Azrebel, humans, like most things in nature take the path of least resistant until a formidable force changes the course.
Posted by: phxSUNSfan | August 11, 2011 at 07:37 PM
Azrebel:
When I refer to those who can "knock heads and write checks," I mean the CEOs of major companies, big investors and important philanthropists. All of whom are passionately, personally, committed to a city. Good intentions, meetings, charrettes and "community involvement" are all well and good. But they can't actually deploy capital to make things happen, create the well-paying jobs, build the skyscrapers and fill them, fund the world-class universities, parks, museums, etc. It's un-PC, but I don't know of any truly great city without such leaders.
Posted by: Rogue Columnist | August 11, 2011 at 07:57 PM
Morecleanair,
Point taken. Alas, we have "candles" everywhere in our peculiar American unwillingness to face reality. Everything can be fixed by a positive attitude and adapting, and things aren't so bad anyway!
One result of this brightsiding is that we can't and won't take the steps we actually could to avoid disaster. I am not "cursing the darkness" when I talk about serious infrastructure investment or ending the Bush/Obama tax cuts. I am the one lighting the candle.
Beyond that, the cruelty, unfairness, inequality and poverty facing us from a future of GOP rule — the near impossibility of reaching the middle class or staying in it with the casino capitalists in charge, all this makes me skeptical of a new society of frugal savers.
This will not be the America any of us over 50 knew. The consequences will be profound.
Posted by: Rogue Columnist | August 11, 2011 at 08:07 PM
Jon: guess I didn't make myself clear. Midst the murky scenarios, there lies the opportunities for many of us to operate in a more enlightened fashion. That's not "bright-siding" at least in my book. I have friends and contemporaries who have dug themselves into bad situations by not being responsible in how they've run their lives. Now, a lot of them are having fits about the direction of our country and not admitting that they've contributed in some way to their own circumstances.
Posted by: morecleanair | August 11, 2011 at 08:17 PM
"...all this makes me skeptical of a new society of frugal savers." -Rogue
I'm not so sure, and not to be un-PC myself, but the fastest growing population in the U.S. (and Phoenix for that matter) happens to be Latinos and Asians. Groups that traditionally save more than whites and use less credit. Latinos are also less shy of certain government services and traditionally vote democratically. The question is how much gas does the GOP have and can it sustain the momentum to assure themselves a future in which they rule? It may be that they are approaching their peak, if not already there.
Posted by: phxSUNSfan | August 11, 2011 at 08:17 PM
Also to make myself clear, when I say that Latinos traditionally "save more" than whites I mean in a manner that they put away actual cash (not in accrual of wealth from all sources)for purchases. Mainly because they do not have easily accessible credit.
Posted by: phxSUNSfan | August 11, 2011 at 08:21 PM
I agree with that, morecleanair. If Americans will do so. At the same time, I've worked full-time since I was seventeen-and-a-half, paying taxes to maintain a social compact, and now I'm being told that for my generation Social Security and Medicare are "entitlements." They must be downsized and even eliminated because we're "broke." My 401(k) — I was too young to benefit from pensions — is in the hands of crooks and liars on Wall Street. Etc.
phxSUNSfan: I don't see how Latinos avoid being hurt by casino capitalism. Indeed, they have been hurt worst by measures I see. Meanwhile I hope there's something left when the majority of Latinos decide to get politically involved. Or will they just go along with the white-right? I'm serious here. Arizona wouldn't be as messed up as it is if more Latinos voted.
"Gonna come a time when we all gonna hafta ante up. Ante up and kick in like men. LIKE MEN!" as the Morgan Freeman character says in "Glory.
Let me put it another way for all: The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men and women to do nothing.
Posted by: Rogue Columnist | August 11, 2011 at 08:34 PM
"I hope there's something left when the majority of Latinos decide to get politically involved." -Rogue
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men and women to do nothing." - Rogue
So true and these two statements are closely related. But it isn't just Latinos or minorities that fail to get involved in politics. Aside from 2008, young voters (of all races) have failed to make themselves heard again. All these groups together outnumber the extremists in the GOP. I can't keep track of the number of people I know under 30 who aren't even registered to vote. A huge problem especially in Phoenix as highlighted by the lackluster voter turnout expected for the mayoral election.
Posted by: phxSUNSfan | August 11, 2011 at 08:42 PM
It is true that Latinos have been hurt disproportionately by the recession. Particularly by losing a measure of "wealth" via equity. However, buying power remains strong and is growing despite the recession. This is from 2010;it will be interesting to see if growth continued in 2011, AND like you said if it can survive Latino disengagement with politics.
http://www.terry.uga.edu/news/releases/2010/minority-buying-power-report.html
Posted by: phxSUNSfan | August 11, 2011 at 08:52 PM
oops..."via equity in their homes," it should read.
Posted by: phxSUNSfan | August 11, 2011 at 11:22 PM
This will end badly, of course, with widespread poverty, third-world levels of inequality, and a full conversion to Russian-style crony capitalism. The relative civic and economic progress of the last 100 or so years was never the norm.
Posted by: CDT | August 12, 2011 at 06:00 AM
Rogue:
"Let me put it another way for all: The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men and women to do nothing."
Which is exactly why in my little nihilistic ditty I suggested the toast to Murdoch, Limbaugh, Norquist, followed closed on by the little self-destructive bang.
I assumed good men and woman did nothing and allowed the visions of these bastards to come to fruition. If we allow that to happen (we let the bastards destroy it), that final toast is deserved...
In no way do I think my version of the boot heel in the face of humanity is inevitable. I'm just portending the trend and assuming more of the same passivity towards the ever-gathering right-wing storm...
Posted by: koreyel | August 12, 2011 at 06:10 AM
The slow to no growth economy will grind down wages and employment opportunities for years. Americans with their love of religion and nationalism will buy into the well funded voices of the right.
These voices will encourage lower wages, fewer social services and less civil rights for the greater good. Taxes will be decreased on the well off and increased on the rest. Spending will increase on military and police agencies. Prison will be looked upon as a right of passage and their operations will be one of the few growth industries in the new American order.
Medicare will be greatly curtailed and result in the culling of boomers whose generation now weakens productivity figures and causes a negative cash flow for the social security taxing scheme.
Unless China has internal problems causing it to retrench internationally, the US will have to take military steps against it. A blockade of oil or other natural resources will do. In any event, the US government isn't going to give up it power simply because China is bigger and economically stronger.
Posted by: jmav | August 12, 2011 at 07:29 AM
Good men and women have been trying to something and there's no news coverage or its written off as "liberal, progressive, socialist, communist, left-wing treeing hugging bullshit". Other than good people doing evil things, there is no hope.
The elections are fixed by the myth of our two-party "democracy". The tiny fraction of wealth the oligarchs put into politics has our "leaders" groveling and snarling like starved dogs for another crumb. I remember a time when supply-side economics was something only commies approved of!
Posted by: eclecticdog | August 12, 2011 at 11:26 AM
China has frozen all high-speed rail projects over concerns of costs, malfunctions/equipment failure, and "rising" criticisms from within. I wonder what other issues they won't talk about lead to this decision?
Posted by: phxSUNSfan | August 12, 2011 at 12:14 PM
Another reason why "they" hate us:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2011/08/12/iraq_hussain
Posted by: eclecticdog | August 12, 2011 at 12:49 PM
China and Saudi Arabia have now invested big time in the Euro. The US is on its way to being a third world country.
Posted by: cal lash | August 12, 2011 at 01:04 PM
It is so hard to believe that there are enough bat-shit, crazy people in the U.S. that someone like Bachmann would be considered a serious presidential candidate...it is hard not to laugh at her ridiculous beliefs.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2011/08/michele-bachmann-is-worried-about-the-renaissance.html
Posted by: phxSUNSfan | August 12, 2011 at 01:10 PM
Cal, because China has invested in Europe you've concluded that it will lead to a "third-world" America? How does that exactly work in your opinion?
Posted by: phxSUNSfan | August 12, 2011 at 01:13 PM
It might be that corporate America's lack of investment in the U.S. is a bigger threat than lack of Chinese investment. And like we've discussed on this blog, politics in our country is mostly to blame (from taxation, to foreign policy, etc)and 2012 will be a telling year for our trajectory:
http://www.economist.com/node/21525839
Posted by: phxSUNSfan | August 12, 2011 at 01:29 PM
China has no national interest in "dumping" U.S. Treasuries: for one thing, that's where much of its foreign investment is, and dumping drives prices down; for another, China is an export economy and relies heavily on the United States as a market for its goods. Unilateral actions sending the U.S. financial system into a tailspin not only undermine the value of its own investment, they undermine a major export market for its goods (probably more than one, since if the United States goes down the crapper, Europe is likely to follow, or at least suffer).
Nuclear warfare over Taiwan simply isn't in the cards. If the U.S. wasn't going to war over the Soviet invasion of Hungary in '56 and Czechoslovakia in '68, at the height of Cold War rhetoric and tensions, against a competing economic system expanding its sphere of influence by absorbing two major countries in Europe, it certainly isn't going to war over the little island of Taiwan, in the post-Communist era, against a major capitalist trading partner like China.
To answer your question, phxSUNSfan, I understand that the recent high-speed rail crash killing 40 in China was the straw that broke the camel's back of a program that has been criticized domestically for its high expense, technical problems and mismanagement. The state owned train manufacturer has just announced a recall of 54 bullet trains.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | August 12, 2011 at 01:53 PM
Unfortunately, even respected news outlets here will characterize what's happening in China as a repudIation of high- speed rail. It's not. HSR works beautifully in Europe and Japan. Watch Obama go along with defunding Amtrak
Posted by: Rogue Columnist | August 12, 2011 at 02:09 PM
Emil, our leaders in the Cold War were not crazy. In 2012 or 2016, they might be
Posted by: Rogue Columnist | August 12, 2011 at 02:10 PM
"...even respected news outlets here will characterize what's happening in China as a repudIation of high- speed rail." - Rogue
Maybe, but really the issue is lax regulation in China. Who speaks for the people put in danger when manufacturers of high-speed rail are not held to certain standards. Europe and Japan operate on a high standard of safety (especially Japan and their earthquake sensing technology and seismic stability) compared to China. China would not have progressed as fast had they followed such regulations. This is true of most Chinese industry; from nuclear energy to their military (building an air-craft carrier out of an aged skeleton of a Soviet ship).
Posted by: phxSUNSfan | August 12, 2011 at 02:25 PM
Well, I agree that comparative lack of corporate (or other business) investment in America is a problem; but the real problem is lack of domestic consumer demand. Corporations are making good profits -- selling to or in developing markets like China -- but sales are lackluster in the United States. Businesses are spending excess cash on capital investment -- machinery to increase productivity and decrease costs (read: "labor costs") but not hiring. No businessman with a plan is going to hire new workers in response to lackluster sales.
Domestic demand is low for structural reasons: high levels of consumer debt; a large portion of consumer wealth lost when home prices and the stock market crashed (the former has not even begun to recover in many markets and and the stock market is still well below its pre-recession high); the inability of most consumers to augment their stagnant or decreased real incomes with credit-card borrowing or home loans in a booming real estate market, as they did pre-recession); the aging of the Baby Boomers (retirees generally make less than their household working incomes, and spend more on health-care, with less left over for discretionary consumer spending); inflation in the health-care and energy sectors eating away at discretionary income; and other factors. There is also a psychological component, as consumers are reluctant to spend until hiring improves and the economy stabilizes, but even without this the structural components remain.
So, any theory of economic growth needs to incorporate increased domestic demand as a basic premise for increased economic growth. (The U.S. is unlikely to shift enough of its economy into exports to make up for this, given its competition.) How do you increase domestic demand?
My answer is redistribution of income to the bottom third of households by income, via an expanded earned-income tax credit, supported by increased taxation on the wealthy (i.e., that portion of their income currently unused for consumer spending).
No more online time today -- gotta run.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | August 12, 2011 at 02:26 PM
Cal, because China has invested in Europe you've concluded that it will lead to a "third-world" America? How does that exactly work in your opinion?
Posted by: phxSUNSfan
Ask Travis Smiley, it's a quote from his show today with an economist.
Posted by: cal Lash | August 12, 2011 at 02:32 PM
What would it take to galvanize a Romney/Huntsman ticket to at least provide an enlightened discussion during the 2012 silly season? They may not have enough clout to counterbalance the radical right, but it would be a more desirable scenario. At least Bachmann's star has ecliped Palins paint-pealing voice!
Posted by: morecleanair | August 12, 2011 at 02:50 PM
It would be interesting to see Emil's "Trickle Up" theory in action.
It would have a much better chance of working than the much disproven trickle down theory.
Just to hear it described as Emil did would kill most Republicans. Hey, he may be on to something. The conservative heart attack/stroke plan.
Posted by: azrebel | August 12, 2011 at 02:55 PM
Morecleanair, a double-Mormon ticket? I'd pay for that just to see Pat Robertson have a stroke.
I'm tending to think Rick Perry is going to be their guy, which from the Democrats' perspective must seem like a gift from heaven. "George W Bush on steroids" would spike the Culture War into a full-blown conflict.
Emil's economic prescription is well-stated and wise, but without powerful advocates in Washington, unlikely to ever happen. Obama bought his ticket on the Deficit Train and seems content to ride that from here to Austerity. The Tin Man is going to Oz.
I don't mean to brag on my pessimism, but I used to worry about our country enduring another Depression, but this time without the social capital and community bonds that made the Great one somewhat tolerable. We're about to find out the hard way what we're made of or so it seems. Is there an upside here? Say, people coming together, cooperating, helping each other, learning new skills, becoming humbler and harder-working? If so, my pessimism was, perhaps, a mistake.
I'd probably bet on a Mad Max/Blade Runner bummer as the probable outcome. We have lived through an unusual period of human history where prosperity became an expectation and then an entitlement. So much of the Bad Feeling politically is a response to this sudden shift. This is despite Obama's resolute invocation of civic Good Feeling as an antidote: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/08/07/barack-obama-his-good-intentions-may-destroy-his-presidency.html Personally, I've absorbed it so completely that I'm ready to dive into any river that can cleanse me of this sin. I hate feeling this lousy.
Posted by: soleri | August 12, 2011 at 03:36 PM
Hey! The Tin Man always did have a heart!
Posted by: eclecticdog | August 12, 2011 at 04:08 PM
Soleri, U been finding them little paper chicken figurines around? Look over your shoulder I think the man from "America Me" didnt die in prison and is following you around. He is probably wearing a "Zoot Suit." And is from East LA.
I agree with most of your comments but then maybe us old guys have seen to many reruns of the same ole bull shit.
Posted by: cal Lash | August 12, 2011 at 06:56 PM
A theocratic world, Mohamed and Joe Smith? Now thats an ugly thought for this militant agnostic!
Posted by: cal Lash | August 12, 2011 at 07:07 PM
I try to fix grammar typos with regular commenters. But never with Cal. Cal straight up, uncensored and unabridged and raw...it's poetry.
Posted by: Rogue Columnist | August 12, 2011 at 07:33 PM
U da man, JON
Posted by: cal lash | August 12, 2011 at 08:06 PM
At this point, our discussion is only in theory.
The only recent American event which we can look to as a "How will this end" event is Katrina.
To this day I am still bothered by the folks who stayed to face the storm, with the plan that "them government folks" would come along and save them.
That lack of the instinct to RUN in the face of certain danger concerns me. Are they worth saving?
I see it evey day in local parking lots. If a person does not have the common sense to look both ways before crossing in front of a 3,000 pound vehicle, shouldn't it be our duty to run them over, thus cleaning up the gene pool? It sure is tempting.
I read an interesting article recently about America breeding out all the Alpha males in our society, while elsewhere in the world, the alpha males are growing strong through natural selection. Very harsh natural selection.
Without a doubt we are also selectively breeding, sickly and dumb people.
Now I don't want to go all Nazi master race on you all. However, isn't the opposite of the master race problematic as well.
You know I reference the movie "IDIOCRACY" quite often , however, my daily travels only strengthen my belief that we are headed in that direction.
Us boomers have accomplished pretty much nothing, other than good music. Other than that, we've pretty much screwed up eveything else. Now as we hand the baton to the next generation, they don't even know what a baton is.
Posted by: azrebel | August 12, 2011 at 09:22 PM
When the question, "Tell me how this ends?" is asked, the response is too often, "I don't care, I won't be around."
Even when veiled by a thin laugh, the contemptible thinking behind such a conception cannot be disguised. Such thinking delivers doom.
Posted by: Rate Crimes | August 13, 2011 at 08:21 AM
"Us boomers have accomplished pretty much nothing, other than good music."
Much like everything, the post-war period produced and distributed A LOT of music. In such quantity, a portion of the music was - speaking statistically - bound to be exceptional. Thank oil, technology, and the musicians: not the Boomers.
Posted by: Rate Crimes | August 13, 2011 at 08:36 AM
"as we hand the baton to the next generation, they don't even know what a baton is."
I think you're dealing in dangerous metaphors: Both 'generations' and 'batons' propagate delusive concepts that can quickly become counterproductive.
Are we truly relaying hollow emblems in a blind race on a loop whose end we'll never see? Is the baton even in hand? Who built this damned track?
Cheers, from the bleachers.
Posted by: Rate Crimes | August 13, 2011 at 08:59 AM
Ian Welsh has some interesting things to say on this subject, as well.
Posted by: Petro | August 13, 2011 at 09:21 AM
Gah - embedded link didn't seem to take:
http://deconstructingthemanifest.blogspot.com/2011/08/unraveling-according-to-ian.html
Posted by: Petro | August 13, 2011 at 09:21 AM
"but the real problem is lack of domestic consumer demand."
May I suggest the book, "Super Imperialism" by Michael Hudson.
http://michael-hudson.com/books/super-imperialism-the-economic-strategy-of-american-empire/
Posted by: Rate Crimes | August 13, 2011 at 09:44 AM
AZREBEL, Ole guys like U and I need to be more tolerant, more reflective, more understanding, more forgiving. Need to avoid solutions that suggest that most of the human population is stupid and just trying to survive by any means possible. It’s like Camus suggesting its “Absurd.” Just keep rolling your rock Buddy. With regard to New Orleans, been there done that. But you can build another NO in a lot of safe places as opposed to a river bottom swamp. I didn’t agree with saving or rebuilding the town. NO and the whole delta would look a lot better as a swampy mangrove wilderness inhabited by Saber Tooth tigers and huge crocodiles. But then I have the same plan for Florida. Since you and I have “got ours. (I am probably going to grieve all day as a result.) I did the Mountain for two hours this morning and now write to you as I enjoy my 32 ounce Americano and Vegan Peach Scone. ”So Rebel relax and take your wife and go on a canoe trip down the Buffalo River. A river man has not dammed.
PS - JON this is from my laptop as opposed to most of my responses here are from my cell phone with a really little key board and no grammar program. But then I am the only person I know that flunked “Bonehead English” at Phoenix College.
and thanks all U guys for the great comments and links to really interesting stuff. Good thing I am retired since I am slightly retarded.
Posted by: cal Lash | August 13, 2011 at 10:19 AM
I'm with you cal. I love the comments and links on this blog. I'll be heading for 6500 feet elevation this afternoon. Plan A is to relax. Also, up there the folks still know to look both ways before they cross a street. I'm guessing the less dense air relieves the pressure on their brains and they can think clearer.
Adios
Posted by: azrebel | August 13, 2011 at 11:35 AM
I agree with both Mr. Talton (when he says that high speed rail is not the problem per se) and phxSUNSfan's characterization of Chinese malfeasance.
European projects were built in the tradition of Social Democracy; Japan's Shinkansen lines were built by a public/private consortium in a similar spirit, but with national pride and a strong sense of social order motivating quality control.
China, by contrast, has no real socialist tradition: they have always had autocratic rulers, including the nominally Communist Party which has always valued propaganda, ideological utility, and bureaucratic control over quality, environmental safety, and public welfare. Now, the Party has taken the role of crony capitalists. Like the robber-barons who sold the U.S. Army substandard goods, the main concern seems to be amassing huge fortunes without getting caught (or having the right connections to render this irrelevant) while fulfilling (or appearing to fulfill) statistical production requirements on or ahead of schedule. Remember the pet food made in China using toxic fillers to save money, then sold to U.S. consumers, resulting in the injury and death of countless pets?
There is no question that quality-control laws and inspections, workplace safety rules and enforcement, minimum wage laws, unemployment insurance, independent unions, and all of the laws, rules, and regulations of the social safety net, increase the cost of doing business. That is why the federal government (instead of the states) establishes such laws for all companies operating in the United States: to insure a level playing field for economic competition here.
This is why it is so galling that U.S. trade, tax, and capital movement laws allow U.S. corporations to escape these and other overhead costs by moving to China (partnering, inevitably, with Party controlled state ventures as a condition of access), without assessing taxes, tariffs, and penalties to offset these and other unfair competitive practices. What's the point of prohibiting such practices to American businesses operating on U.S. soil, if we're going to allow them to do so on foreign soil? Nothing, apparently, except to drive transplantable jobs overseas in the great rush to the bottom.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | August 13, 2011 at 02:26 PM
Mr. Talton wrote:
"Emil, our leaders in the Cold War were not crazy. In 2012 or 2016, they might be."
They'd have to be a complete moonhowler. The only possibility I can see (as a practical proposition) is an evangelical-type president with a highly developed sense of the apocalyptic and (perhaps under stress) delusions of his place in God's scheme of things. You know, Armageddon and all that.
The thing about this is, so far as I can see, the Commander-in-Chief is both solely authorized and solely equipped (i.e., with launch codes) to order a nuclear strike. Even wholesale insubordination among those receiving such orders wouldn't do any good unless it were complete, for the simple reason that, if a few (or even just one) nuclear missile struck, it would unleash a devastating counterstrike, and in turn an assured full response by the U.S. military.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | August 13, 2011 at 03:06 PM
Petro, on the subject of Ian Welsh (I had a look at your blog, not his original):
I tend to think that "soft" methods of political control are much more effective, and they've certainly been developed to a high degree in all of the advanced nations (particularly the United States) without a strong social democratic tradition.
When states were no longer able to include property ownership clauses as a condition of voting, when minorities, women and poor Whites were given the electoral franchise, and when the U.S. Senate became an institution elected by direct vote, the economic aristocracy needed new methods of political control to supplement the old.
Those methods include the use of concentrated wealth to influence the viability of political candidates via campaign contributions to candidates and parties (and by so-called "independent" expenditures); the use of concentrated wealth to influence the messages of mass media by means of ownership of radio, television, and newspaper chains; the use of concentrated wealth to influence both politicians and the media by means of lobbying and by means of "think-tanks" and institutes funded for the sole purpose of advancing their class interests (e.g., anti-tax, anti-union, anti-regulation positions and in general those opposed to economic democracy, social justice, and other expensive propositions).
It's much more effective to cultivate a culture of apathy, ignorance, and distraction, led by ideologically manipulated incompetents who sit in the hip-pockets of the wealthy, than it is to organize overt repression, which tends to alienate many of those needed to run the system (e.g., the middle-class).
Once you let the genii of violent repression out of the bottle, only a police state will do, and that would go against the grain of Americans and American institutions such as a "free" media", because blood on the streets simply can't be kept under wraps and within the desired spin-control without an official state media and a ban on all others. (Even this is difficult in a modern era of Twitter, etc., but I'm sure that the United States could do a better job monitoring and disrupting this than third-world Arabic regimes.)
All of that, along with other police-state methods, ultimately gives government bureaucrats a great deal of control, which means that the private sector would largely be working against its own best interests in supporting such a regime. Once the hired help gets power, it becomes more a system of cronyism in which the wealthy are parasitized by the bureaucracy at least as often as the other way round.
None of this is to say that the system doesn't respond with repression of various types, particularly when a serious, well-organized, well-funded popular movement threatens to change the rules of the game: political surveillance; covert propaganda placed with knowing or unknowing (but trusted) media sources designed to undermine a movement or to split it (or its potential supporters among the general population); infiltration and acts of provocation designed to disrupt or discredit a movement; politically motivated prosecutions of movement leaders (when possible) as "terrorists"; the seizure of movement assets under provisions of racketeering laws originally intended to operate against organized crime; black-bag jobs (warrantless entry and searches -- or the use of secret courts to rubber-stamp such activities under color of law); the secret funding and organization of opposition groups; and so forth.
It has done so in the past, but the "iron fist" is ugly, difficult to keep secret, and difficult to continue justification of, particularly in the case of a broad-based, popular, mass political movement, so that it's much preferred to avoid the need by preventing such movements from arising to begin with.
The United States is the undisputed master of this "non-democracy democracy". How else could you have a "free press" without an official-secrets act, universal sufferage, and other trappings of democracy, and yet maintain a two-party system that effectively excludes anyone catering to the economic interests of the majority? How else could you have a majority whose household incomes have seen a decades-long stagnation and decay, many of whom are one medical emergency away from personal bankruptcy, unemployment, and homelessness; yet not only without a party to represent their interests, but actually failing to clamor for the creation of such a party?
No health care? Shoulders shrug. We don't want to be like Canada, do we, where bureaucrats control your fate; never mind that here, private bureaucrats at HMOs and insurance companies have the same power, and their use of gatekeeping criteria (and a shortage of general practitioners because specialist medicine pays so much better) insures similar delays in most cases, except for those wealthy enough to get special treatment. The days of "me and my doctor and nobody in between" have long since vanished, and Obamacare has nothing to do with it.
Private healthcare providers (i.e., those actually paying for healthcare) are, like any other business, in business to make a profit, and the biggest profit possible for their shareholders; that means rationing healthcare, since if everyone gets to see a doctor whenever they want, and get treatment whenever they need it, they end up paying out too much of their revenues on actual healthcare, and not keeping enough as profits.
Why this shrill clamor by our elected leaders for privatization (e.g.,of prisons) when private institutions have every administrative overhead that public ones do -- they have to do the same things -- only with the need for additional profits (and for executive management salaries generally much higher than comparable public positions)? How can this possibly be cheaper? Only by cutting corners (e.g., understaffing). It's simple economics and business 101, but the brainwashing machine spins all day and all night long, and as a result few seem to understand or care.
Here in Arizona, childless adults cannot get medical insurance even if they are below the poverty line, because the legislature and governor have frozen enrollment in the state's Medicaid program. (The very fact that this very important function, healthcare for the poor, was parcelled out to states decades ago, instead of kept under federal control, shows just how long we've been sliding downhill.)
Obamacare, quite aside from being delayed in its implementation for years, now faces legal battles of questionable winnability (this isnt't the most liberal Supreme Court, and a federal appeals court has just ruled against it) as well as a Republican controlled legislature intent on hobbling its funding if it can't repeal its statutes.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | August 13, 2011 at 04:40 PM
Correction: that should have read "the need for profits..." not "additional profits".
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | August 13, 2011 at 04:43 PM
So appreciating Emil's eloquence, research and depth.
Moonhowler? Bachmann just won the Iowa straw poll and Perry just announced for president.
In fact, the SIOP (nuclear war plans) historically gives theater commanders some latitude in the use of nukes. This is ostensibly in case D.C. and/or other command centers, such as Offutt Air Force Base are taken out and communication is lost. But who knows what might happen in a time of crisis, with the republic breaking apart, and a rogue commander decided to take matters into his or her hands? The SIOP and entire nuclear war system is very complex, and therefore prone to mistakes.
Finally, such a war would be in neither nation's interest. But neither was World War I. The German Army and Kriegsmarine were, however, spoiling for a fight. Much like elements in the People's Liberation Army. And into the war, the Kaiser and civilian government increasingly lost control. Germany became a military dictatorship.
A repeat is unlikely, but not impossible. And, believe me, our war planners have thought of many China scenarios (and would be remiss if they didn't). But missile defense ain't gonna guarantee protection if we try a counterweight first strike.
Sorry...Cold War kids never die...
Posted by: Rogue Columnist | August 13, 2011 at 06:17 PM
Nice post Emil!
RC: I think the possibility of war with China low. The USA is primarily an air and sea power, the People's Republic is land-based. But the Chinese have a long history of using trade and tribute to get what they what (power, wealth, Han supremecy) and a poor history of success using their army and navy outside their own borders.
Posted by: eclecticdog | August 13, 2011 at 11:09 PM
The Art of War is as old as "manunkind"
Posted by: cal lash | August 14, 2011 at 08:26 AM
Thanks for clicking through, Emil, and I too applaud your thoughtful input.
Posted by: Petro | August 14, 2011 at 01:08 PM
"Palo Verde nuclear response a worry"
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2011/08/14/20110814palo-verde-nuclear-safety.html
Posted by: Rate Crimes | August 14, 2011 at 01:51 PM
Thanks to Mr. Talton and others for their kind feedback. I was afraid that comments appearing on the continuation page might receive limited exposure.
Regarding the nuts and bolts of SIOP, apparently the President is accompanied wherever he goes by a military aide carrying a Zero Haliburton briefcase nicknamed "the football" and it is this that contains the launch codes along with some other (largely informational) items. Before any launch or strike can be carried out, the Secretary of Defense must verify the authenticity of the order by means of something called "the biscuit", which is (or was) a plastic card containing a special code identifying the President. (Apparently, Reagan carried the biscuit on his person and it was found in the ER after his clothes were cut off following the assassination attempt.)
All of this gave me the idea for a suspense novel involving a terrorist plot to seize and use these items. (The title "Pass Intercepted" suggested itself, but that strikes me as a bit bland.) The key to making such a book entertaining would be performing as close a study of the technical and logistical details of this system as open source documents permit, then coming up with a clever and reasonably plausible scenario where the terrorists would have at least a 25 percent chance of carrying off such a scheme. Of course, they would fail (no doubt due to technical advances they are unaware of -- the times they are a changin' and technology centered systems most of all) but the reader would be unaware of this until the penultimate chapter.
The fact that the Secretary of Defense doesn't verify the identity of the President directly, but rather, using the "biscuit" (at the very least, in certain circumstances) seems to offer possibilities. Also, if the Secretary of Defense were eliminated, the task would fall to a less experienced, less knowledgeable individual more likely to be less demanding of "the President"). I'm not sure exactly what the chain of command is, but under certain circumstances it would be possible to hit quite a number of them simultaneously (e.g., at a political gathering on the Hill in D.C.).
Some of the technical safeguards might be sidestepped since the system is designed to function during a time of crisis when (for example) communications systems may function imperfectly if at all.
Obviously, some critical situation -- even if only a ploy designed by the terrorists to create the necessary atmosphere -- would be necessary to make the possibility of, say, a limited nuclear strike (one weapon) plausible to both the general public and the military (in the novel), so that such a command would not appear completely at odds with the world geopolitical situation. Obviously, this is more than a little vague, and the devil is in the details for the author.
Another idea is to replace the terrorists with an ambitious insider group using a fictitious terrorist attack as a means both of seizing power and eliminating those in the chain of command above them (i.e., someone fairly low in the chain of Executive ascendency who would legally assume the position of Commander-in-Chief if the President and others down the chain were to die). A nuclear strike on Washington, D.C. would be ideal for this combined purpose, but obviously there is no way to order a strike against American targets, short of some improbable plot device involving (for example) the reprogramming of nuclear strike codes by a member of the conspiracy.
Perhaps a more plausible plot along these lines would involve the use of an improvised (or stolen, say, from looted Soviet labs) tactical nuclear device, used by the conspirators against Washington (the former would be conveniently absent that day), with the attack attributed to Al Qaida or some other group. This would allow the conspirators to legally gain command, eliminate those ahead of them in the chain of command assumption, and make the subsequent imposition of martial law (or other fascistic consolidations of power) much more acceptable to the public, the (remaining) political establishment, the media, and the military. Obviously, (fraudulent) threats of additional nuclear attacks on other cities would make such measures all the more cogent: the public would practically be begging to have their rights taken away from them in the name of efficient security.
Posted by: Emil Pulsifer | August 14, 2011 at 04:29 PM
So, Emil, who R U?
Posted by: cal lash | August 14, 2011 at 06:10 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/steven-pearlstein-blame-for-financial-mess-starts-with-the-corporate-lobby/2011/08/08/gIQA3zMlDJ_print.html
Posted by: soleri | August 15, 2011 at 05:25 AM
"Palo Verde nuclear response a worry"
The bigger worry is the poll at the end of the article which essential is if the people who live around aren't against it, why worry? What? Me Worry? (thank you Alfred E. Newman).
I have to thank you all for the links, it took up my entire weekend trying to read them. From Petro's excellent blog to Ian Welsh and Fred Reed and others my pea brain can't remember. But don't worry, George Bush's evil twin Rick Perry is in the race and it will be all righted again.
Posted by: eclecticdog | August 15, 2011 at 09:11 AM