babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » Some Americans Still Don't Get It

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Some Americans Still Don't Get It
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 01 August 2008 02:40 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I tried not to die laughing... too much.

quote:
We Americans are about to enter our 19th consecutive year of Truman-envy. Ever since the Berlin Wall fell, people have looked at the way Harry Truman, George C. Marshall, Dean Acheson and others created forward-looking global institutions after World War II, and they've asked: Why can't we rally that kind of international cooperation to confront terrorism, global warming, nuclear proliferation and the rest of today's problems?

(...)

Today power is dispersed. There is no permanent bipartisan governing class in Washington. Globally, power has gone multipolar, with the rise of China, India, Brazil and the rest.

This dispersion should, in theory, be a good thing, but in practice, multipolarity means that more groups have effective veto power over collective action. In practice, this new pluralistic world has given rise to globosclerosis, an inability to solve problem after problem.

(...)

A few years ago, the United States tried to break through this global passivity. It tried to enforce UN resolutions and put the mantle of authority on its own shoulders. The results of that enterprise, the Iraq war, suggest that this approach will not be tried again anytime soon.


That last part really slayed me. Does this navel-gazing moron that epitomizes all I dislike about the United States and a good chunk of its citizenry (the insularity, the inability to admit the US's own problems, the reflexive insistence that the US may be bad but the rest of the world is worse...) not get that 1940s America had a moral cachet that his idol Dubya Bush pissed away completely?


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 01 August 2008 04:11 PM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
For a second there I got this clown mixed up with David Brock, who wrote Blinded By the Right.

quote:
In each case, the logic is the same. Groups with a strong narrow interest are able to block larger groups with a diffuse but generalized interest. The narrow Chinese interest in Sudanese oil blocks the world's general interest in preventing genocide. Iran's narrow interest in nuclear weapons trumps the world's general interest in preventing a Middle East arms race. Diplomacy goes asymmetric and the small defeat the large.

Gag.


From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Robespierre
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15340

posted 01 August 2008 04:55 PM      Profile for Robespierre     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Stockwell Day would have enjoyed that piece. Maybe even the Canadian PM, eh?

I try my best never to be fooled by appearances; things like border lines drawn on a map, national flags, and especially one ruling-class being critical of another. That's all interchangeable, right-wingers all do the same basic dance if given an opportunity. And the working-classes oppressed by each of them will be fed with the same basic bourgeois ideology in order to keep them down and tame. The flavor may vary but the ingredients are going to be the same.

I do wish that more Canadian voters weren't as susceptible to lies and tricks as their neighbors to the south. There may be fewer lies but then of course you don't need as many votes to get a Steven Harper into office as a George W. Bush.


From: Raccoons at my door! | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 01 August 2008 05:03 PM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Now that you are an Official Honorary Canadian you now must refer to Stockwell Day by his rightful name - Stockboy Day.

quote:
I do wish that more Canadian voters weren't as susceptible to lies and tricks as their neighbors to the south. There may be fewer lies but then of course you don't need as many votes to get a Steven Harper into office as a George W. Bush.

Argh!!! I know. And believe me, I hate this man with a passion. Okay, not quite as much as I hated Mike Harris but pretty close.

We are all in this horrible mess together. Now we have to try to figure out how to get the hell out. Another thread on here said we may have Helmet Head for another year plus!


From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Robespierre
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15340

posted 01 August 2008 05:12 PM      Profile for Robespierre     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Stockboy and Helmet head. Thanks, stargazer. I'd never have known what their proper name were because if the U.S. media dares to ever mention Canada (and, it is frowned upon because you all have comminist healthcare) it's usually about the British Royals visiting, or hockey scores.
From: Raccoons at my door! | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44

posted 01 August 2008 05:26 PM      Profile for Doug   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stargazer:
Now that you are an Official Honorary Canadian you now must refer to Stockwell Day by his rightful name - Stockboy Day.

Wasn't it Doris Day? I thought we voted.


From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 01 August 2008 05:34 PM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Doug, I think you are correct. Doris Day it is.
From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 01 August 2008 08:03 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Now that you are an Official Honorary Canadian you now must refer to Stockwell Day by his rightful name - Stockboy Day.

I see no need to insult entry-level retail workers.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 02 August 2008 01:40 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Robespierre:
I do wish that more Canadian voters weren't as susceptible to lies and tricks as their neighbors to the south. There may be fewer lies but then of course you don't need as many votes to get a Steven Harper into office as a George W. Bush.

At one time the FBI, I have read, had placed so many moles into the CPUSA that they had a majority on its national executive.

I have no reason to believe that Robespierre is who he claims to be. He is just as likely to be an agent provocateur on the staff of the FBI.

Either way, his presumptuous comments are of no value or interest. I wish he would go away and amuse himself somewhere more appropriate.

"Robespierre, we do not attack banned babblers, and your comments are not ok. Stop."

In fact, just stop.


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Robespierre
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15340

posted 02 August 2008 01:45 AM      Profile for Robespierre     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wilf Day:

At one time the FBI, I have read, had placed so many moles into the CPUSA that they had a majority on its national executive.

I have no reason to believe that Robespierre is who he claims to be. He is just as likely to be an agent provocateur on the staff of the FBI...


Mars, actually. You people insisted on landing your rocket ships on our planet, and now you gotta pay!


From: Raccoons at my door! | Registered: Jul 2008  |  IP: Logged
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061

posted 02 August 2008 04:24 AM      Profile for Stargazer     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
At one time the FBI, I have read, had placed so many moles into the CPUSA that they had a majority on its national executive.

I have no reason to believe that Robespierre is who he claims to be. He is just as likely to be an agent provocateur on the staff of the FBI.

Either way, his presumptuous comments are of no value or interest. I wish he would go away and amuse himself somewhere more appropriate.

"Robespierre, we do not attack banned babblers, and your comments are not ok. Stop."

In fact, just stop.


This is a personal attack. This is what you were telling others not to do. And because of your assumptions you have called someone a mole, a troll and disruptive. I have seen NONE of that coming from Robespierre. In fact, just the opposite. Yet here you are, trying to get someone banned because you think he is an FBI plant? Jesus H. Christ, this is silly and clearly a personal vendetta enjoyed by you (who clearly started it) and now John K, who apparently can't think for himself.

If Robespierre is a "plant" I will gladly eat my hat (and dirt) but I think you are the one who has gone to far now. Not all Americans are suspect, and that is what I see happening here. Just like another American babbler whose contributions were welcomed, he left. Wonder why that happened? Ever?


From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 02 August 2008 06:05 AM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I can't think of a single reason why the fbi would infiltrate babble. It's really, really, really ridiculous

Back on topic:

quote:
.... people around the world lose faith in their leaders.

a small sign of hope I only wish it were the case that people were losing faith in their rulers. These people are simply acting on their behalf. We need a deeper, more thorough-going, and informed loss of faith.

[ 02 August 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]


From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 02 August 2008 06:37 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I can't agree with that sentiment. I agree with Lou Reed; you need a busload of faith to get by.

But Lou wasn't talking about religious faith or a belief in a supernatural entity. He meant something else.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
RosaL
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13921

posted 02 August 2008 06:38 AM      Profile for RosaL     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
I can't agree with that sentiment. I agree with Lou Reed; you need a busload of faith to get by.

But Lou wasn't talking about religious faith or a belief in a supernatural entity. He meant something else.


I was talking about "faith in our leaders", the loss of which is decried in the article cited in the opening post.

I don't think faith simpliciter is either good or bad - that (i.e., whether it is good or bad) depends on the object of faith, amongst other things.

[ 02 August 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]


From: the underclass | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 02 August 2008 06:48 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yea, sorry about that. The remarks of David Brooks remind me of the recent op-ed column by Thomas Friedman in the NY Times in which Friedman lamented that not enough Afghans were willing to die "for the kind of government we want". What unadulterated hubris.
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 02 August 2008 08:13 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
In fact, just stop.

Any decent schoolmarm would crack you over the knuckles with a ruler for writing a sentence like this.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 02 August 2008 08:42 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Okay folks, already dealt with elsewhere, just letting you know so that people don't come to this thread and think a moderator didn't step in. Let's continue.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 02 August 2008 08:36 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
What really got me was the way the guy was holding up Democrats as the ideal of strong-men running the USA who told the world what to do and everybody all jumped and said "how high?"

This myth of American order-giving belies the truth: FDR and Truman, more so than the conservative idols Nixon, Reagan, Bush and Little Shrublet, at least attempted to cooperate internationally and try to develop a global consensus in setting up a United Nations and the Bretton Woods institutions.

American exceptionalism has always been an unwelcome current in the world, and social inertia continues to blind at least some Americans as to the depths of resentment their arrogance has provoked.

I'm only surprised Shrublet didn't nuke Iraq and wag his sanctimonious finger at the UN saying "If yer not with us yer agin' us, and I meant it."


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 02 August 2008 09:22 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
DrConway: I'm only surprised Shrublet didn't nuke Iraq and wag his sanctimonious finger at the UN saying "If yer not with us yer agin' us, and I meant it."

Perhaps not such a surprise. Chess players, especially those that think ahead a little, have a saying; the threat is stronger than the execution. The nuclear threat against Iraq, like the current threats against Iran, are probably seen as useful by the current administration.

There is also the matter of pumping all that oil out of Aye-rak, which would undoubtedly be slowed down by a nuclear conflagration. Rhetoric is one thing but business is business. Why else let the National Museum at the cradle of civilization between the Tigris and the Euphrates be freely looted while protecting the oil ministry and the HQ of the Iraqi secret police?


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca