Readers’ Responses to Our Question (42)

Bob

“…The best the opposition can do is go back to hammering on a statement she made years ago about Latino women? In all of her years as a prosecutor and judge this is what the republicans can come up with?…”

From Krauthammer, “Sotomayor, Rebut then Confirm”, May 29, 2009.

“…Ricci is a New Haven firefighter stationed seven blocks from where Sotomayor went to law school (Yale). Raised in blue-collar Wallingford, Conn., Ricci struggled as a C and D student in public schools ill-prepared to address his serious learning disabilities. Nonetheless he persevered, becoming a junior firefighter and Connecticut's youngest certified EMT.
After studying fire science at a community college, he became a New Haven "truckie," the guy who puts up ladders and breaks holes in burning buildings. When his department announced exams for promotions, he spent $1,000 on books, quit his second job so he could study eight to 13 hours a day and, because of his dyslexia, hired someone to read him the material.
He placed sixth on the lieutenant's exam, which qualified him for promotion. Except that the exams were thrown out by the city, and all promotions denied, because no blacks had scored high enough to be promoted.
Ricci (with 19 others) sued.
That's where these two American stories intersect. Sotomayor was a member of the three-member circuit court panel that upheld the dismissal of his case, thus denying Ricci his promotion….”

New Haven denied the promotion on the basis of race. Sotomayor upheld the ruling by the city of New Haven. That’s racism. Plain and simple. Now, you - as a classic liberal - may argue that affirmative action is right, but its still racism. This is in addition to what she said about white males.

 “…"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."…”

Now, if Alito or Roberts had said this (in reverse), liberals would have (rightly) screamed “racism”, and neither one would have (rightly) been confirmed.  That’s the hypocrisy of the left.

“…What really bothers you about Sotomayor? Is it the part where she is one of the best legal minds our society has to offer that happens to be a Latino?…”

The raison d’etre of being a liberal. The left wants so hard to believe that conservatives are bigots and racist, even as most are not. Thus, you accuse me of racism for no apparent reason that I can determine. Its gutless and cowardly to say the least, but that’s the way liberals “discuss” the issues. That’s the way liberals attacked Republicans in the 2008 elections and, of course, all previous elections dating back awhile. Its unfounded, but that never stops liberals from trashing people with unfounded accusations.

Calling Obama a centrist is a joke, Bob. Only a liberal will travel around the world apologizing for his own country, Bob - or sit in a room (quietly) while other heads of state trash his country (South America). He is no centrist by any stretch of your imagination; however, promoting human rights is a positive to me. If a liberal is going to govern, then I would hope that some emphasis will be put on human rights. Currently, I’m behind his work in the Middle East and am willing to wait and watch before criticizing him too harshly. To me, his plan borders on extreme appeasement, but its possible that he could pull this off. That’s way more than you would have ever done for Bush. Gee Bob, did the surge work?

“…If anything the guy is a Centrist. He's no socialist, he's not a Muslim, he's not a terrorist and frankly he's not even very liberal…………………………..Anyway, good luck in your pursuit to paint Obama as a racist, socialist, terrorist Muslim out to destroy America….”

Why do you fabricate accusations like these?

“…Newsweek editor Evan Thomas brought adulation over President Obama’s Cairo speech to a whole new level on Friday, declaring on MSNBC: "I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."Thomas, appearing on Hardball with Chris Matthews…”

Our media might as well be state run…..

Tom,

I've never claimed otherwise. I'm just sick of the repub's either outrightly claiming outlandish things about him or insinuating them. Politics is politics, but if it has come down to turning a blind eye to truth and basic human decency then what good is it?

Bob

"...Anyway, good luck in your pursuit to paint Obama as a racist, socialist, terrorist Muslim out to destroy America..."

Sometimes you are a complete and total idiot, Bob.

Tom,

I can't you let you get away with this,

"I personally believe that Obama is all about the “victims” of an unjust, racist, class-driven society. Isn’t the selection of Sotomayor for the Supreme Court just a confirmation of that?"

Political rhetoric is political rhetoric, but when it borders on the absurd it's pretty much rubbish. Of course Obama is concerned about the disenfranchized. Any caring human being should be. However, to say he "all" about that is simply not true. This is a man who has been educated in the best schools America has to offer. Elected to both the Illinois House and the US Senate before being elected President. He has played the game of politics and he has played it well. In fact he played it much better then McCain. In order to pull this off you can't be "all" about anything and you know it. If one doesn't bring a balanced approach to government they stand little chance of success. GW campaigned on compassionate conservatism. He won on that platform. Eventhough we already knew he was anything but compassionate by the time of his second election 9/11 and the ever present terrorist under every rock allowed him to win that election. By mid way through his second term the country had it up to their foreheads with his governance style. Why was this? It was because GW was about his agenda and not about the people's agenda. (and yes there is a difference) This is lesson most relatively young politicans have learned today. Obama is no exception. If anything the guy is a Centrist. He's no socialist, he's not a Muslim, he's not a terrorist and frankly he's not even very liberal.

As to Sotomayor give me a break. The best the opposition can do is go back to hammering on a statement she made years ago about Latino women? In all of her years as a prosecutor and judge this is what the republicans can come up with? Words like filabuster are being thrown around over one line in a talk? Maybe you aren't capable of seeing how ludicrous this is, but most of us are. What really bothers you about Sotomayor? Is it the part where she is one of the best legal minds our society has to offer that happens to be a Latino?

Of course race plays a part in politics. Race has always played a part in our life time. Religion plays a part in politics. Sex plays a part in politics. Unions play a part in politics. K Street and special interests play a part in politics. Just about everything in America plays a part in politics. Do you for one instant believe any politican with two or three equally qualified candidates resumes sitting on their desk won't choose the one that is within their best political interest to choose? So what? That's politics. Ragging on Sotomayor because she isn't a neocon is one thing. Calling her a racist is something entirely different. Even one of your de facto leaders, Michael Steele, has requested this line of attack be toned down. The vast majority of people don't believe Sotomayor is a racist. The vast majority believes the right wing of the republican party will just say anything regardless of validity to keep pushing a failed agenda. (It's the sore loser syndrome)

Anyway, good luck in your pursuit to paint Obama as a racist, socialist, terrorist Muslim out to destroy America. The longer this line of attack keeps up the more seats the R's will lose in the next election.

Shiveh:

Obama responding to Joe the Plumber:

“…Obama also said, "It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success, too… My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off [...] if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody…”

I personally believe that Obama is all about the “victims” of an unjust, racist, class-driven society. Isn’t the selection of Sotomayor for the Supreme Court just a confirmation of that?

There is a good article in the Wall Street Journal by Shelby Steele about Obama and race (“Sotomayo and the Politics of Race”).

Yeolds,

Price of a product is set by profit optimization (considering how many can be sold at any given price) and competition. The profit that a corporation makes is spent on new equipment, expansion, dividends, stock buy backs, bonuses, and acquisitions. Let’s say we drop all of the taxes that corporations pay. Where do you think the extra money will go? No need to guess! They’ll use it to buy other companies (acquisition), give themselves higher bonuses, increase the dividends and buy back stocks (to increase the value of their own stock) … and they’ll still sell their products at the price that will bring highest profit.

It is true that only consumers pay taxes but corporation taxation is a way to more evenly distribute the wealth of a country.

Shiveh:

If the health care system of the USA includes some form of state insurance as most OECD countries [aside from medicare, Vet adminstration, Congress members, etc at present, that is for the 40% uninsured], then in short order the insurance companies will loose lot of useless paper-shuffling jobs - as their cost will be higher than that of the government. Presumably Mr. Obama also plans to rationalize prices for similar treatments, offering similar outcomes [at present same treatment can vary by over 100% among various parts of USA].

Whereas administration/profit of approx 20% will cease to be [Canada France etc has appox 2% administrative costs], Whereas corporations will wash their hands of insurance, lowering their costs [they are asking for it], therefore either their net income will rise [so they can pay more dividends/taxes] or their product prices will lower [thus loosing some of the disadvantage versus other advanced economies, where the health insurance is by the state - Canada among others].

Aside from the above, corporations do not pay taxes, their taxes are part of the production costs, all taxes are paid in the end by the final consumer [member of species homo sapiens] via higher prices for goods.

Corporate tax as an idea is created to fool the citizen that they are not the only ones paying taxes. That the citizens believe this is the reason that Value Added Tax is so unpopular - for VAT puts all taxes [aside from income real-estate] on the citizens' checkbook. That is the reason that certain goods in Canada have 0% Vat [perscription drugs, groceries etc].

Taking into account the expereince of OECD countries as the total medical costs relate to GDP, and considering that the USA is rather far back in healthcare statistics, it appears that proper state offered medicare as per OECD, would save the USa in excess of 260 billion dollars and have a bonus of better medical outcomes.

Zolko,

Good post. Are you starting a revolution here? I must take “Lord of the flies” off the bookshelf before my son finds it!

Tom,

Your evaluation of Obama’s psyche should make his personal psychologist jealous. I saw one sentence in there that although feels right, I could not find solid grounds for. You say “He believes in a bottom up economic philosophy - and he considers redistribution of wealth to the poor, disadvantaged and minorities as just and fair. Part of that just means that the rich (especially corporations) should pay for welfare, health care and education through taxes.” On what basis? Obama differs with Bush on taxation policies, but this can be attributed to balancing a policy that was tilted too much towards the rich. His Health Care ambitions are not class oriented. It just might be the only avenue left to fix an industry we can not afford as is. He is also talking about the welfare system (Medicare, SSI, …) but the only way he can tackle that system is by reducing benefits which will hurt the poor more than the rich. So, other than some rhetoric (which I can’t put my finger on), what has he done that makes you believe he wants a grounds up economy?

yeolds:

"Two of the so called PRIME examples of democracy, the USA and the UK, have managed to wreck the world economy. Both of these so called democracies managed to turn into penury the next generations."

"One addition to the democracy issue: World wide all "democratic States" are running PONZI_SCHEMES by promising/delivering that which the Government/State can not pay for [let the next generation pay for it]"

very true: while the 20-th century was about class disputes, the 21-st will be about generation disputes. The "papy-boomers" had it easy, their parents had killed themselves by millions and petrol was flowing aplenty, so they built the consumer society, built on an unsustainable model, wrecking the ecosystem and slaying and starving millions of the poor.

Now, this generation goes in retirement, and expects the same benefits that they have promised to *themselves*. They expect my generation to pay for their pensions, while the millions of poor that they have killed (well, their children) are now hating*me, and come over here because their country is destroyed !!!

And this insane political model that is "representative democracy" gives those many papy-boomers the power: this is democracy, remember ? Look at Berlusconi: he's an old papy for whom the old papys (and mammies) vote ! Sarkozy talks about "working more to earn more" and the elder retired vote for him (of course *they* want *me* to work more)

Well, mammies and papys, I have bad news for you: it ain't going to happen that way !

The US is using regulation to revise money flows. Others want US regulations to subordinate to global regulation. Regulation is a game just as confidence is a game. US will probably win in the short run because there is no other alternative. US will probably lose in the long run because too much of the game has been divulged.

Daniel:

China is not socialist, it is not communist [except in name] it is an authoratian society reflecting about 5000 years of experience in different forms of social organization. It appears that they prefer authoratian government, for there is a chance that the Warring States [different language groups, different areas] will not reappear.

China has a mixture in economic organization with the State owning some basic industries and there is also private ownership. At present the discrepency/inequality in their society reflect that in USA, especially during the robber baron stage. Having had monetary collapse due to inflation/devaluation due to paper currency [they had it first] the government is rather strong on banking regulations. The soviet union was socialism/cummnism with almost total state ownership of the means of production, housing, tranport, banking etc. They collapsed due to ill conceived economic palns and the war in Afganistan. Russia's education system was free for all [very elitist in post secondary] and basic health care was state provided. Technologically it was not on par with the west in all areas., but excelled in some [remember Sputnik].

I am not against democracy as a form of government where the area of the unit and the population thereof is reasonably small. At present Switzerland comes to mind as a xxi-st century example of the governing concept DEMOCRACY.
It is possible that the USA's several [smaller] states come close to this ideal, but the larger states and the Federation has succumbed to oligarchy pressures, due entirely to the mistaken axiom of the Supreme Court of the USA that uncontrolled election donations and the subsequent servitude of the elected members [Congress, State House/Senate or City Government of the major Cities] isw a form of freedom of speech.
Observe and analyse K-12 since Brown vs. Topeka: while to a large extent the discrimination based on color has been attained, the inequality of corriculum availability leaves much to desire. This aspect is entirely due to the Supreme Court's vision on freedom of speech versus purchasing politicians. Those who have no money, have no effective representation.

For the 13 trillion dollars the Treasury and the Feds allocated to various efforts [not all spent] to save the banks most mortgages [could have been paid off] or some other means could have been found to help the poorere section of society, seeing that your welfare/unemployment ystems are rather low grade.

Soicalism is NOT SOCIAL DEMOCRACY, not even close, OLIGARCHY is closer to dictatorship as far as the poorer sections of society are concerned than the difference between socialism and social democracy.

To Salamon from Daniel. We seem not to understand each other on this problem of you saying "democracy is incapable of handling a large number of people". You criticize democracy in this regard and associate it a little too much with totalitarian states and seem to believe that somehow socialism or at least social democracy is more capable of handling large groups of people.

I contend that the easiest method of handling large groups of people is to resort to despotism--whether it be monarchy, regular dictatorship or empire building. the next easiest is the democratic impulse. And the worst track record goes to social democracy and socialism.

Obviously over the last century we saw the failures of socialism to deal with large groups of people. The Soviet Union simply collapsed and fragmented. China moved more and more to capitalism while preserving socialism in somewhat more than name--but even this socialism of China was more a dictatorship than socialism (everyone equal, yes, but some more capable of running the country than others). The only secure place socialism seems to have found is in Cuba and that of course is an island not only separated from other influences, it is an island of few people.

As for social democracy being better than democracy, perhaps you are right. Perhaps you are even right that socialism is better than democracy. But we are not discussing which form of society is better. We are talking about what you asserted, that democracy is not that good at handling large groups of people. And social democracy has a worse record than democracy at that--although somewhat better than socialism. You notice that the greatest successes of social democracy are in--no surprise--Western civilization countries--the civilization with the best record of moving from despotism to consideration of democracy, socialism and social democracy. maybe social democracy is not only better than democracy as a desirable system, maybe it is better at handling large groups of people--but only in Europe or Canada or Japan (advanced societies).

The advanced societies seem more capable of considering socialism and social democracy than the less advanced societies--those second or third in having the technological revolution. Unfortunately the less advanced societies not only seem all too often to not be capable of democracy, socialism or social democracy, they seem able to be held together only by a form of despotism. And of course now that the world is becoming more globalized we can expect--since we are dealing with not only the largest grouping of people possible, the entire planet, but all too many people second and third in the technological revolution--that of course despotism of some type will be easier and more profitable to establish than democracy or socialism or social democracy worldwide.

I am not arguing as to the merits of this system or that--although of course I am against falling into forms of despotism--I am simply considering how the larger groups of people can be dealt with politically with man's limited organizational ability in mind. At the moment I am reading Michel Foucault's "Discipline and punish" and he tirelessly points out that in the West not only has the prison system been organized according to a scientific, schematic analysis/synthesis method, but that the hospital, military, educational system--all are revolutions in organization and are similar and all have been born in the West.--And this is why in the West we can move beyond despotism better than any other civilization. We have a greater sense of division of labor, a greater analysis of individual capability, and a greater ability to make productive combinations of people. The other civilizations are lagging behind--although of course nations such as Japan are keeping pace.

Quite simply we can argue all day as to what political/economic system is best, but the fact remains that the more sophisticated political/economic organizations can spread over and manage a large group of people only if the people have managed to a large degree to be able to move beyond the despotisms and consider alternative methods of organizing the populace. And this by the way is also why your attempt to associate democracy--and of course the U.S.--with despotism and separate especially social democracy from the preceding is nonsense. The U.S. is heir to European civilization--is a Western country (to state the obvious). The U.S. according to a Foucault is capable of great sophistication as to political/economic system and cannot be cheaply discounted to the level of some form of despotism.

I hope that clarifies things a bit. An interesting subject this one.

i think that if america stop war in Afganistan and Iraq it will help them out to stable their economy.they are spending a handsome amount of money in these countries.being a student my personal thinking about the whole scenario is the reason behind all this would be poverty.Instead of launching war against these terrorist.A complete infrastructure should be build to make these region a business oriented so that their financial position could be better and they will not be attracted toward the terrorism that give them more than what they want.

Yeold (codger)

Its fairly easy to pick at certain areas of the US and say that democracy failed. So what? Our energy policy is a mess, and our government has failed in that respect. No one ever claimed that we were perfect, or that we don't have areas that need improvement.

People immigrate to areas of economic opportunity, and the US and the EU have been areas of great opportunity for immigrants - thus we have seen millions of immigrants come to the US (and the UK) because of despotic governments in countries which lack any economic opportunity. That’s a significant positive statement about the US and the UK in itself.

Here’s the problem for your position on this argument. Democracies offer the best opportunity for people. Plain and simple.

“…It is not that I am against democracy, it is that democracy is incapable to deal with large number of people…”

I agree that democracies have problems in countries that have a tremendous diversity. India has 1600 dialects under one flag. Japan is relatively homogeneous. Its amazing that India is still democratic. What you are saying is that a diverse, multicultural society needs a totalitarian government to hold the society together. I understand now why you opposed the invasion of Iraq. Saddam was actually good for the Iraqis. He was ahead of his time. Kill a few hundred thousand of your own people, and they’ll tow the line….

“…wherein China, the dictatorship, designed the only solution, while the so called democracy of India is totally incapable to face reality…”

What is reality? Subjugate their people? Crack down on dissent. Torture and murder ethnic minorities. Invade and annex countries. Never allow criticism of the regime. Are you a Chinese agent? Salamon Ying? You call India a “so called” democracy like its wrong that they are even trying to be democratic. Yes, I wonder about you Salamon.

China may have designed the only solution - to hold China together. That doesn’t make it right, and if you are a Tibetan, then you might disagree with that solution (but, of course, you have no say). How can you criticize the US and UK for supporting the worst dictators on earth and congratulate China for finding the “only solution” to hold a complex society together (a dictatorship). Consider their human rights record, Salamon. And also consider that they also support the worst regimes on the planet - like Sudan. Aren’t you being somewhat hypocritical? If you are an authoritarian regime its OK to support dictators, but if you are a democracy, its not?

“…Both democarcies and totalitarian governments devote tons of effort to hide reality from their respective populations…”

Actually, I agree with that statement, but I feel comfortable in saying that the US probably hides less….

“…As example Hungary had one of the best educdation systems all free [to 1958] til the USA persuaded the democrtats to change to USA type. Quality decreased, and costs increased. In this measure of common good democracy failed the youth of Hungary…”

My God, Salamon, we are a bad country. We forced educational change on Hungary. Damn those neocons…...

“…Tom's glorious view of democracy [do recall he/she [e-mail address was a she] thinks that Israel is democratic…”

Dang it, Salamon, you are going to get me in trouble. That’s my wife. I use her e mail address, but you can call me Pam if you like.

Blund:

Mostly you are correct in your posting, excluding excellence of k-12 [though there are good schools in this group, they are the exception with respect to the lower social strata.

Without doubt you meant that the USA's post secondary education is tops, not the others. I agree. There are excellent post secondary places in other countries also - the USA based ranking is somehat questionable from past perusal of same [look at patent applications in last few years].

While illigal immigrants do pose problems for the USA, you can not really blame the Central/South Americans to get to a better place. Beside Mexico the USa is Paradise [as my daughter related after student exchange - Church based to central Mexico's poorer sections].

Please do not misunderstand me, I do not think that the USA is a basket case [it was heading there under Bush], my points were attempt to answer Tom's glorious view of democracy [do recall he/she [e-mail address was a she] thinks that Israel is democratic.

The problem of USa and Canada and UK is that we all adapted the notion that all can succeed in school, if we re-inforce self-esteem, not the demands of curricula. This was a mistake, as shown by International Baccalaurate in the Slums of Los Angeles [a few years ago] succeeding with right leadership. We the Anglos-Saxon worlds do not wish to glorify trades, and do anything not to stream students in High Schools toward trades. A Civilization can survive without corporate lawyers but any large city would collapse in less than a year without tradesmen/women.

As the Constitution demands a democracy based on rule by the people for the people, the present system is not democracy according to your constitution. Closest I would adjudge it is an oligaqrchy based on money, and ability to organize/finance sections of K-Street [federal] or pressure groups in States, which leads to the mess in California.

Daniel:

Please do not confuse Social Democratic political system with socialism. I lived under both, and also under the so called democracy of Anglos-Saxon world [Hungary, Austria and Canada].

Socialist governments owned the means of production and planned the economy - there were many failures, but health care was state-run, education was free [though elitist with respect to admission to post secondary - money could not buy admittance]. Housing was owned by the state, you did not have to live on the street [I was in LA saw the USA's view on tent ccities - or the homeless in Calgary, the richest province in Canada].

Social democracy is quite vibrant in most of EU land. Germany managed the greatest corporate take-over, when they assimilated E. Germany - the cost was in trillions Marks, they still paying for it, but they also have positive balance of payments, less inequality in incomes, state run [with extra insurance] health care system, almost free post secondary [my second Daughter's cost there was less than it cost in Canada for 1 month including Room and Board, fees, books,etc]. The means of production are essentially privqate, the regulations tougher - but you need that in densely populated areas anyway.

The Anglos-Saxon laisse faire system is destructive of social cohesion. Sure there are problems with new immigrants in EU land, but nowhere as bad as some areas in USA. Even those "discriminated against immigrants" have acccess to the free education system , free daycare [if needed] free health care and public transport availability., more generaous unemplym,ent and social welfare crutches if needed.

Yeolds,

Let's be fair. The US and Britian didn't wreck the world economy. They certainly have dented it, but they haven't wrecked it yet. However, it could be argued even if they did since they were primarily responsible for creating it, so what.

There are many things you can rag on the US about. Our health insurance system is a scandal. We have 20 million illegal immigrants. We arrest just over 3% of our population each year (9 million men and 2 million women). We have the highest incareration rate of any developed country. Only 25% of our adult population has a college degree. We can show people being blown up on television, but it costs a network $500,000 for a nanosecond shot of Janet Jackson's breast. We put more cops on the streets to reduce crime only to find out crime goes up when we do it. Our primary education system goes from dismal to outstanding depending on your school district. Large sections of our cities are slums.

Okay, now let's look at the other side. People come from all over the world to take advantage of our advances in medicine. Illegal immigration has acted as an additional form of foreign aid to Latin America and America actually gets something in return. (novel concept) Our judicial system is in need of serious repair, but I'm not naive enough to think it will happen any time soon. We have the best secondary education system in the world. The sheer number of outstanding colleges and universities is amazing. Primary education needs work in the poorer rural areas and the inter cities, but this needs to be tied into social changes that organizations like ACORN are trying to affect. (I know that will make Tom shiver as he only wants to think of them as a negative organization). On balance though we have a large number of outstanding primary education facilities and the majority of our youth have the opportunity to avail themselves of our educational system. While the middle class fled the inner cities in the 60's and 70's to move to suburbia that trend is now reversing. I have noticed over the years block after block in DC being redeveloped and there is no end in sight.

Anytime you take a body of work as large and complex as the US you will find both amazing and repulsive things have taken place. I am one who would argue the amazing far outweighs the repulsive. Everytime I have driven across this country I am in awe of the diversity, beauty and wealth.

It will be real easy to see if the day comes that America is really in trouble. You will witness large numbers of Americans seeking other places to live. When we start jumping fences to go live in Mexico and India your point will have merit.

Obama in the Muslim world. Or more directly, the truth or falsity of the statements of the U.S. with respect to the Islamic world.

The United States generally takes the position with respect to the Islamic world of saying that U.S. values, technological advancement are compatible with Islam and that the U.S. is only troubled by Islamic extremism and does not hold any grudge against the less extreme members of Islam. The U.S. says that it believes in freedom of religion and that any religion has a place in the U.S. so long as it does not descend into extremism. I contend that the position of the U.S. above is at best ignorance and at worst a flat out lie. In the United States--and the Western world generally--what has occurred where once man looked up to God and had more invested in God than in practicalities on the ground is an upsurge of practicality and what has come to be called science. Where once cathedrals were erected to God a new foundation and sensibility has sprung up.

The average Westerner lives in a world which is a man made instrumentality which has brought down as much God into Western civilization as possible by paradoxically not being really concerned about God at all and instead being concerned about structures of all types which stand out from nature and which even though circumscribing an individual's life, curtailing many freedoms, works out on average to give the individual a quite comfortable life and the possibility of conceiving more efficient and rewarding instrumentalities in the future. Whereas religion in general (as understood by the monotheistic religions) demands certain rituals for a bringing of God into one's life and an elevation of man to God--a reconciliation between man and God--the modern society in the West has each person as best as possible utilizing what he is capable of and fitting into a structure which demands daily to become more sophisticated, more capable of utilizing human capital, and ideally one day creating humans by biological methods who are super capable at creating instrumentalities which in turn create even more sophisticated humans...

Religion in such a political/economic situation as we see in the West becomes more and more a thing of the individual, something private no matter how much religion strives to remain an outward and visible organization, a meeting of like minds before God. What remains of true religion becomes "cultic behavior" and/or "religious fundamentalism". Religion watered down, less and less true religion, becomes going to church every now and then and more and more a thing to be kept to oneself--for if there is to be outward and visible organization it must become more and more modern instrumentality toward an increased efficiency of human capital and eventually the creation of more and more sophisticated humans. Where once man looked up and saw God (in Western civilization) now he looks up and conceives a better body politic--future comes more and more to be a better human society and not a city of God let alone God. A city of God does not resemble modern society let alone the direction man is heading. As a society becomes more and more sophisticated it becomes a city in which for all curtailing of freedom (rampant behavior as seen in less sophisticated societies) man comes to be breathed out as if petals on a flower, and there is no God worshipped--rather man is thankful for and to himself. The city born is one of man's humility and pride, vanity, jealousy and envy cast aside and a society of increasing mutual respect born, God in the details--and the details paradoxically explaining more and more, details reinforcing one another, a consistency seen, society firm and capable of being developed indefinitely...

And such a society is not at all compatible with the monotheistic religions--or possibly any religion for that matter. Certainly it is not compatible with Islam. To believe such is to be ignorant--or at worst a liar. I believe that with each passing day ignorance in this matter is being dispelled but that man cannot just come out into the open and state what is occurring. An indefinite period of lying occurs. But the best educated must see what is occurring--and the politics and economy of a modern society depend on the best educated, so...our officials are lying. Eventually one day the truth will have to be faced. And hopefully at least Christians and Jews will take it well...But as for Islam, that might be another problem. We should face the problem head on. It really is man against religion because he is more and more becoming able of taking care of himself.

To Blund from Daniel on the China/N. Korea/Taiwan/ U.S. problem. The way you framed the question--whether the U.S. should let Taiwan go in exchange for a guarantee from China that China will not support N. Korea, etc, etc.--already answers things. In other words, picture a hand (the U.S.) holding a desirable object (Taiwan) and this desirable object at the moment being tugged (by China) almost out of the hand holding the object (U.S.) and then the hand holding the object (U.S.) saying it will exchange its object (Taiwan) for another (N.Korea) from the hand tugging (China) the object. I think the hand tugging the object is in a much better position and will not trade anything for the object it is now tugging on. But in receiving the object it might find that it was not exactly what it wanted--and in fact that it might have been dangerous to acquire it because the object says "democracy" on it and the hand acquiring the object has a likeness of Karl Marx tattooed on it....

To Salamon from Daniel. You made a colossal blunder. You said essentially that democracy becomes impossible as population increases, that democracy is possible with only small groups of people. Then you went on to say you are a social democrat--and you have constantly demonstrated a left wing view. I have news for you: your socialistic ideas are even less viable according to your formula than democracy. Right before our very eyes over the last century we have seen socialism's difficulty in dealing with large groups of people. Democracy has a much better record. This is not to say you should discard your socialistic impulses--it may very well be that eventually the world will become capable of socialism over a great many people. But at the present date democracy has a better record. Of course the best record so far at handling large groups of people goes to Monarchy/dictatorship/empire. Democracy in comparison to the latter is more difficult to sustain--and socialistic tendencies are most difficult of all to sustain. So what does that mean for the world--globalization trying to take in the billions of the globe? The answer is obvious: precisely because Monarchy/dictatorship/ empire is the the most reliable method so far of controlling large groups, it will make itself felt the most even though democracy and socialism will struggle valiantly to bring a better, less totalitarian world into existence. Obviously the more powerful nations should be on guard and work together so that man's more idealistic impulses do not give way to the gravity of less desirable social systems. Of course I might be wrong as to what I have written here....

TOM:

Democracy in action USA special:

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20090606_most_bankruptcies_caused_by_medical_bills/

Please explain this statistics from the USA - Augsut issue of The American Journal of Medicine -
within the understood term of democracy for the people by the people.

Tx

TOM:

Two of the so called PRIME examples of democracy, the USA and the UK, have managed to wreck the world economy. Both of these so called democracies managed to turn into penury the next generations. Both of these democracies organized the supreme crime against law, invasion of a third country. Both of these two countries have among the worst records in k-12 education among developed countries. Both of these two countries partook and organized wide-spread turture, rendition, extra-legal assissinations, while the USA has approx 1.5-2% of its population in jail of one sort or another. Both of these countries support the most troublesome dictatorships on earth in ME. Both of these powers devoted the last 9 moths to save the moneyed elite, while disregarding their own poor citizens.

The difference between the Richest "democracy" let the mess/sufering death after Katherina, while the poor dictatorship, Cuba. opffered help [was refused]. This same poor dictatorship survived two catastrophic storms last year, and had less death than the USA from a single weaker storm.

It is not that I am against democracy, it is that democracy is incapable to deal with large number of people. It is similar though the reverse of the Malthus' theory re population. Democracy is possible for smaller units [area and population e.g. Switzwrland it's Cantons and Federal limited powers] and unmanagable in lartger units [at least under the past 100+ years] Malthus's theory was not applicable 100+ years ago, but it is reality in today's 6.5 billion and growing polulation - wherein China, the dictatorship, designed the only solution, while the so called democracy of India is totally incapable to face reality.

Both democarcies and totalitarian governments devote tons of effort to hide reality from their respective populations. Both types devote tons of energy to propaganda to support the ruling elites. Both types of government are corrupt to their bone, though some leaders do not try to amass great wealth, the various members of Congress, area governments of China, etc are all purchased by the moneyed class and or industry. {K-Street and military industrial complex comes to mind in USA -similar in Canada, versus the provinvial and city corruption in China].

The question for the citizens: is life bearable or not. the answer varies under both forms of government with respect to the social status of the polled member.
While Blund claims to be a liberal I claim to be a social democrat with respect to the organization of society, my measure is the common good within the nation regardless of governmental type.
As example Hungary had one of the best educdation systems all free [to 1958] til the USA persuaded the democrtats to change to USA type. Quality decreased, and costs increased.
In this measure of common good democracy failed the youth of Hungary.

Salamon

“…There is no possible "representative democracy" for 1.3 billion people not withstanding the Western Spin that India with 1.1 billion inhabitants has democracy. Democracy is only viable in localized communities, even states such as California are too big for the concept [money purchces political power, or the concerted action of a small sub-group - in case Teacher unions as example]. Only China, Russia and Persian Gulf countries leadership has power to act on a whim: e.g China decreed need for Nuclear power sources, then ordered 8 to start consturction without the benefit of democratice red tape - the USA did not build any in 30 years, notwithstanding presidential noise that oil use be curtailed…”

Well, partially true. When authoritarian governments have made all the economic decisions as well, then these regimes have failed to a large degree (communism, in particular). People thrive from economic freedom. When the Chinese government allowed a degree of economic freedom (capitalism), the economy of China took off. If that’s not convincing, then - as Bob said - 50% of the world’s wealth is split between the US and the EU - mostly accumulated in democratic societies. That’s not just luck, Salamon. Democracy provides the best environment for humans to reach their potential - especially economically.

Yes, the Chinese can build 12 nuclear plants whenever they want, but its erroneous to view one advantage of authoritarian regimes and conclude that democracies cannot achieve overall as well as dictatorships. Doesn't the proof lie in the pudding? Besides, my body just doesn’t hold up very well to the weight of tanks…

India is relatively democratic.

Blund:

Yes I knew that the USA has only 32000+/- troops in S. Korea - cut back due to Afganistan Iraq. What I do not know is what armaments, planes, bombers, rockets, spying equipment etc the 32000 command has.

Methinks that the USA would not look kindly to a Russian or Chinese military base in Cuba or Nicaragua consisting of bombers, 32 000 troops etc. Therefore I think my analysis s correct.

Yeolds,

Thanks for your response. I'm not sure I buy your buffer argument. The US only has 32,000 troops in Korea. We'd love to have zero troops there. It would take extraordinary circumstances for the US to even consider going to war with China. (They have nukes to). I sincerely doubt China is worried about a US threat to their borders. Since obviously Korea even unified is no threat to China I've considered it more of a "gotcha" or an "in your face" to the US. I think China likes the fact North Korea is a thorn in the US's side. Privately, I believe China encourages and promotes North Korea acting badly. Publicly, they only pay minor lip service to North Korea's actions. Countries that should cringe over the thought of that whacko running North Korea having a nuclear weapon(s) are China, South Korea and Japan. You can't detonate a nuclear device in that part of the world without affecting all of them.

Tom,

Nope, as much as you try to keep telling us Liberals don't love America the opposite is true. Conservatives egos are so large they believe if you don't agree with them then you can't love America. Liberals consider this an intellectually challenged condition conservatives suffer from.

Bob

Stability of the North Korean regime - a nuclear power - is the most important consideration for China. For China to cut off foreign aid to North Korea would produce unpredictable results, probably regime change and a flood of immigrants to China. In addition, China has no interest in another democratic state on her border. The Chicom leadership fears democracy like the plague which could cause an implosion in the Chinese state. Tiananmen was proof of that.

China is patient regarding Taiwan and the two will be reunited in the future anyway. Hopefully on peaceful terms with some stipulations for a relaxed political system in Taiwan?

The Chinese hold a tremendous amount of sway with the North Koreans, so we should just back away from the six party talks and re impose sanctions on North Korea. The Japanese are capable of producing enough nuclear weapons in a relatively short amount of time to threaten and motivate China to rein in North Korea - using whatever means necessary to prevent a nuclear arms race on the Korean peninsula. No more economic blackmail of the US.

Daniel

Right on the money (so to speak).

Blund:

Re Democracy:

One addition to the democracy issue: World wide all "democratic States" are running PONZI_SCHEMES by promising/delivering that which the Government/Stae can not pay for [let the next generation pay for it]. Even my home Province, Alberta, - after 5 years of boom claiming the SPIN: NO DEBT is running a deficit and is loaded with an unfunded liablity of some 8.5 billion just with repect of bribing teacher unions. The Spin is evident in claiming "EXCELLENT K-12 education" while the age cohort graduation rate is only 75% or so [including all mentally/physically disabled, who are supported come hell or high water UP to the tune in excess of $50 000 /annum student by the State. This indicates that the regular cohort has higher drop out rate.

Re: Your Q on Korea, China, Formosa:

The question is excellent. My opinion on why China supports N. Korea:

1., do not want the state to fail completely, for the outcome would involve mass migration to China, and the area North of N. Korea is an economically poor area in relation to the vibrant [til last year] export areas.
2., Short of Officially ending the Korean War [it is truce this at present] China wants a BUFFER ZONE between the South Korea's USA {not quite occupied, neither non-occupied] directed/supported political system which was in an armed conflict with China in the past.
3., No country enjoys a warmonger on its border, thus China want to insure that there is space between the USA's armed forces and the Chinese Border. This especially in view of the USA propaganda & spin trying to blame China for the fiscal, monetary, banking, Balance of payment, essential deindustrialization mess occuring in USA.
4., In my opinion the present balance of terror between N. K and USA [via endangering Tokyo/Seaul] will continue at leqast as long as there are USA armed Forces/bases in S. Korea and surrounding areas [Japan, Guam, etc].

Formosa/Taiwan:

There will be political unification whether the USA agrees or does not based on economic cultural and historical ties between China and the loosing Chinese faction against Mao's revolution. The interest of Japan, China and Taiwan is similar: access to raw materials, acces to oil which access is in conflict with USA and EU. The errouneous belief in Washington that military control of Opec lands in the Persian Gulf is sufficient to insure USA access to oil/gas does not meet the test of reality. As posted earlier, noone can blackmail/ sanction a military power who has access and owns ICBM-s and Nuclear weapons. PEAK OIL [as of 2005, peak liquid production 2008/9] put an end to monopolization of Oil; and any other necessary commodity.

While the USA looks to Taiwan and Guam as major military offence outposts [a permament carrier group] it is a mistaken belief: One the USA can not afford these forward abses, two there is no defence against ICBM-s and various extremely high speed rockets with evasive type flight pattern. At present Russia and China are ahead of the game in this respect, at least as described by a military/foreign affaitrs US blog.

My contention that the unraveling of the USA post 1956 [Suez Crisis] hegemony is unraveling in N. Koreea Taiwan China issue as the first unsolvable [from USA politica stnadpoint] enigma.

perhaps you will find my exposwition faulty, and point out your disagreement in the near future.

Sorry for the delayed response Bob. What do you think is going to happen if after all this talk of doomsday, US economy brushes off the losses and goes back to profitability in early next year? Invincibility is in appearance; otherwise as you mentioned this is a finite and renewing world we live in.

I do believe that Obama is sincere in his speeches; also it looks like he gives up too easily (or pragmatically!) and it is a tough road ahead.

The relationship between the US and Islam has not been a smooth one. First Dr. Brzezinski as President Carter’s National Security Advisor plans “The Green Belt” around USSR by empowering Islamic forces inside neighboring countries (in effect causing Iranian revolution), then US has to fight back the same Islamic forces who soon after turned on us for our unconditional support of Israel. President Obama is trying to turn back the tide once again but he is alone in a sea of opposition. From what I hear of the other side it looks like they suspect that he’ll become “pragmatic” again; that is why you’ll probably see no appreciable rapprochement until there is solid action behind the rhetoric.

Bibi is in a tight spot. The way out is in manufacturing a distraction either in America (What is Monica doing these days?) or in the region (Was it Ahmadinejad’s hair in that IED?) or something like that!!

Thanks for the reply Tom. I just saw it, but gotta go back to work soon.

Bob

"...I'm going to make Tom proud here. Bashing the largest and most powerful economy is great sport, but rarely mirrors reality..."

There is always a danger that someone will post using your name. Is that you, Rush?

Shiveh

Obama is driven (at least politically) by social justice. This should not be a surprise to anyone since he has a background as a community organizer. He spent 20 years in the church of Jeremiah Wright - which is based on Black Liberation Theology. He worked for Acorn, and Acorn received over three billion dollars from the stimulus bill. He has been immersed in Chicago politics, and an environment of “victimology” in the black community. He believes in a bottom up economic philosophy - and he considers redistribution of wealth to the poor, disadvantaged and minorities as just and fair. Part of that just means that the rich (especially corporations) should pay for welfare, health care and education through taxes. Obama is also a master politician, and is able to use wedge issues like race to his benefit.

I fully believe that Obama would love to solve the Palestinian issue - not only for a major accomplishment for his Presidency, but because he views the Palestinians (rightly) as victims of a brutal war. No one can view the plight of your average Palestinian civilian as anything but a victim of the worst possible circumstances - most completely out of their control for the past 60 years (due to failed policies of the very poor Palestinian leadership). Nothing about Obama’s past would suggest to me that this is not a sincere effort. In fact, its consistent with his background.

US policy in the Middle East (under Obama) means setting the priority of achieving a piece in Palestine over all other goals including democratic change (thus embracing Mubarak and the Saudis). One step at a time in the ME. Peace will not be achieved by undermining the Egyptian leadership at this point in time. In addition, the US administration believes that a resolution of the Palestinian - Israeli conflict could undermine Iranian regional hegemony, and their nuclear program. Furthermore, the Iranian Presidential elections are just around the corner, so Obama may also hope to influence the outcome.

The Muslim world, thus far, has welcomed the change in US policy, and the speech in Cairo could go a long ways toward reconciliation of Middle East leadership with the US (and, of course, Muslims in general). Some were disappointed because democratic change was hardly mentioned, but overall, he has been received well in the ME

Obama and Netanyahu are already locked in an early test of wills. What the modern left hates so much about the US, they now embrace - the use of “cowboy diplomacy” to bully a sovereign state. During their first meeting, Obama ceded a timetable to diplomatically convince the Iranians to give up their nuclear enrichment program. In return, Obama expects Netanyahu to freeze any building in the West Bank - even within existing settlements that are expected to remain in Israel as a part of any two state solution. In every respect, Obama has backed himself into a corner diplomatically with this demand. There doesn’t seem to be any middle ground. There has to be consequences if Israel doesn’t comply - or else the Arabs will lose confidence in this administration. Failure or success of US policy in the Middle East could rest on this one demand. He is walking a tight rope, politically.

I’m taking a wait and see approach to the Obama plans. Of course, I would like to see Obama defend the good accomplished by the US emphasized more, but right now, Obama has a specific plan for the Middle East - and if it brings peace and ends the Iranian nuclear program - then more power to him and his methods to achieve peace. Personally, I don’t believe that settlement construction undermines peace since Olmert offered something like 95% of the West Bank in addition to part of Jerusalem as a capital to a new Palestinian state - but taking a tough stand against Israel is how Obama is convincing the Arabs (and Europeans) of a more neutral US approach in the Middle East.

Convincing the Europeans of a “new” US diplomatic approach also may pay dividends if the Iranian nuclear talks fail - and they more than likely will fail. The EU may then (finally) feel compelled to get on board with some significant sanctions - like a refined gas embargo, for example.

Questions:

1. Have China and the world lost confidence in America's ability to manage the global economy?
2. If so, what can the U.S. do to gain that confidence back?

Suggestions:

1. There is no need for any one nation to manage (in parts by proxy) the so-called global economy, least of all the United States of America. With a radically new wold order in the making, it is clear the vast majority of the world population in no way supports financial and economic hegemony, assuming it ever did...

2. There is nothing the United States of America can do to return to the good ol' business as usual. It should be noticed that so far, all its attempts to do so have only contributed, ultimately, to a further decline of the nation.

ADDENDUM (re: key questions that are not being asked) -- What the United States of America needs to do is:

1. Spend a decade or two, at least, cleaning up its own multifaceted Mess.

2. Abandon the idea of having its citizens live off its diversified, destructive and ruinous military-industrial complex. All Americans have the right, and must come, to earn a living doing something really useful and humanely significant.

3. Come to terms with being only one nation, however influential, among many. Only one, very much on the decline.

I have a question I'd like to pose.

It's obvious China has no desire to assimilate North Korea. It's also well known China wants Taiwan (Formosa) back as they feel they have historical claims on the island. Currently, the US is blocking China's goals in bringing Taiwan back into the Republic of China and China has been able to respond by propping up North Korea which has been a thorn in just about everybodies side. Hence, should the US recognize China's claim on Taiwan and vow not to interfere with China's actions over Taiwan for China's assurance they will cease trade and foreign aid with North Korea and agree not to interfere with in Korea. This most likely would lead to China taking over Taiwan and the South taking over the North. Would this be a smart move?

Blund:

I agree with you regarding the problem of high consumption in EU [though considerably lower than USA on per capita basis].

No individual country can leave the EU for the individual's own benefit. My opinon is that the EU will survive in its present form, though with some economic changes in the next 10-15 years - being heavily populated [vis a vis USA/Canada/ Australia - though not vis-a-vis the Nile Valley or parts of Idida/China other parts of Asia or Africa] they are far more aware of the importance of ecology. They have less debt and fairly decent manufacturing industry [compared to Uk/USA finance crazed economics].

The major changes coming are not due to any political system, but by the resources of the Earth. We SHALL all share reasonably equally, or there will be WWIII. The greatest adjustment will be in USA [and Canada] for we are the most profiligate abusers of resources [do not fix things, throw them out]. An article in New Scientist [referred to Science magazine of USA] in the near past had an interesting discussion as to the % of natural resources [metals, usable wood products, etc] which was disposed in USA to dumps since 1800 - as related to that mined in USA or purchased form other nations. The tremendous waste [I am sure Canada would be somewhat similar]. Did you look at the pictures of abandoned oil rigs in Texas from the Simmons oil gas analysis I cited in last blog?

Please do understand that I am not a China superpower proponent. It is undeniable that China has grown tremendously at the expense of ecology [the world tranferred most destructive industries to save their own environment]. But China has major problems [water, smog, dust storms etc] completely aside form q political system

There is no possible "representative democracy" for 1.3 billion people not withstanding the Western Spin that India with 1.1 billion inhabitants has democracy. Democracy is only viable in localized communities, even states such as California are too big for the concept [money purchces political power, or the concerted action of a small sub-group - in case Teacher unions as example]. Only China, Russia and Persian Gulf countries leadership has power to act on a whim: e.g China decreed need for Nuclear power sources, then ordered 8 to start consturction without the benefit of democratice red tape - the USA did not build any in 30 years, notwithstanding
presidential noise that oil use be curtailed.

With respect to the energy needs of the State, democracy has failed the USA [as it did fail in health care, suburbia/exurbia, lack of public transport etc]. I shall not analyze the democratic failures of the last 8 years. You claim to be liberal [I believe you], thus there is no need for lengthy expositions.

Yeolds,

There is a huge difference between being proud of one's country and turning a blind eye to reality. I am fully aware the US will more then likely not continue to be 25% of the world's economy in the future. As you point out we are 5% of the worlds population. However, when this changes is nothing but a guessing game based on the variables we see today and the thousands we don't see yet.

I'm going to make Tom proud here. Bashing the largest and most powerful economy is great sport, but rarely mirrors reality. If the US was number two then whoever was number one would be getting bashed. The combined EU already has a slightly larger GDP then the US, but is yet to be seen as a unified entity. Population estimates place the EU with around 499 million. Combine this with the 320 million in the US and less then 14% of the world's population has over 50% of the wealth.

The same arguments used against the US could also be used against the EU and their excesses. Since I'm not willing to bash the US for it's economy I'm not going to engage in bashing the EU for theirs. We'll both make attempts at moving forward and raising living standards. Will we succeed? Who knows, but we'll try. Basically, Europeans bashing the US economy is pretty much like the pot calling the kettle black.

Blund:

On the prognostication on the length of USA dominance three points are of essence:

1., EU has larger population and higher total GDP [and better education system]

2., The physical constraints of the Planet Earth indicate that perpetual growth in World's GDP is impossible.

3., The USA consists of 5 % of the world's population with very limited natural resources [oil, rare earth, many steel alloying elements, etc] which indicates that the 20-25 % of world's natural resource use by the USA can not be sustained, if the other 80% or so of developing countries are to gain any economic traction.

As an aside: my opinion on the military control of Middle East does not equate control of oil/gas in the international market, for denying oil gas to China, or India, or EU might lead to nuclear war:

If your actions are assessed to disable my economy, then my choice is to submit [ and i suffer while you win], or present you with hobson's choice: free the oil/gas market [thus hurting your self] or face my Nuclear arsenal [also hurting your self and myself - thus we both suffer].

Of course, the above sceniaro applies to all natural resources which are constrained by availability and need by the economy to function.

The peak oil/gas/coal facts indicate that in at most 10-15 years there has to be major changes in economic lfe of the planet. Were the major economic powers waste resources by waging war [thus destroying economic goods and speeding the depletion rate of some limited resources] then the shock of adjustment to an energy poor enviroment will be lot harsher then if the effort related to war would have been used to intall ifrastructure to adjust to declining energy availability.

Shiveh,

No country, political or economic system is invincible including the US's. History teaches us that. Anyone who has viewed the US's system as invincible is naive. What we have been is the most dominant economic force in the world since WWII and still are. How long will this last? I don't know. Maybe 25 years, maybe 50 years, maybe another 250 years. It all depends on what assumptions you use and the variables are endless.

Obama's speech in Cairo? It was the same theme Obama has been pushing from the campaign through today. There is no reason to believe this theme will not define his presidency. He looks for common ground between sides (Centrist/Pragmatist) and preaches responsibility to bring about positive change (almost Humanist). These two positions are at times opposed to each other and so far he has defaulted to the Centrist/Pragmatist position when they are and reserves responsibility as the ideal. He continually says things like, "I wish I din't have to......or until such and such happens I don't have a choice." Color me silly, but I think this approach will be severely tested by the Israeli/Palestinian issue over time. It's been quite apparent both sides in this conflict only want peace on their individual terms and those terms are diametrically opposed. If he can pull off a true Palestinian State and Israel pulling back to agreed upon borders Obama will be my hero since I'm not convinced this is even possible given the schism that exists.

PS: this is a terrible question. I would have thought given current events the Chinese, North Korean, South Korean, US and Taiwanese question would have been more stimulating.

TOM:

You are showing yourself to be a USA society's enemy, for you did not analyse the meaning of your statement:

"Who the hell cares what China thinks? They are watching the US print money like we’re in a game of monopoly, so inflation is a real danger to their two trillion dollar investment"

If they loose even 20% of their approx $1.5 US denominated paper assets, then the USA is on the verge of Hyperinflation, which will destroy the USA economy and society -- the 270 000 000 guns in private hands will lead to a very bloody resolution of societal inequity, or conversely turn the USA into a fascist dictatorship - with the USA army doing the job of Mubarak's secret police/armed forces in the USA.

Of course this loss of paper investment does not only touch China, but has impact on all Asia, EU land, Russia, and OPEC. If you think that they will keep on cheering your efforst at war, propaganda, BS speeches in Cairo [for without action there is no value to the speech, recent actions of USA contradicted the cheerful Obama Noise], then you are mistaken.

Try running your society sans 60% oil, sans rare earth metals for your wind turbines, solar panels, computers etc - and enjoy eating only what is grown in USA, with no machine tool imports etc.

Your best hope is that the Fed and Administration realize that the USA's economic problems are not solvable by the printing presses. Every country [or political entity] has collapsed as a vibrant society when inflation got out of hand. Greece Rome, China [5 or 6 times] Germany, Hungary, Zimbabwe and most nations in S. America once or twice.

Because of the current economic crisis the United States does not look invincible anymore. It is just like losing a AAA rating, people start looking for alternatives just in case the company falters even more. It does not mean US has lost its first place positioning or that the world does not expect us to lead the recovery; it only means that we have to prove reliable again and meanwhile other governments will not keep all their eggs in our basket. It is up to us to pull it together, dust off and hit the ground running. The world is watching.

Tom, it is not Fareed, it’s David that is taking a break from controversial political issues (it’s only the second question but it feels like eternity!!) Losing sponsorships? Hoping for an expanded participation?

What do you think about the Cairo speech? What I hear mostly from people he is trying to court is essentially, where is the beef? They think they might be seeing an abusive husband being nice before the next beating starts! Are they mistaking?

Tom,

You have been listening to Rush too long. Liberals don't love China. What's to love? They are a tolatarian state. Their list of transgressions against people is long and documented. Add to this fact liberals blame China for North Korea acting badly and your liberal bashing rhetoric is hollow.

If it wasn't for China that two bit whacko running North Korea would never have even come to power and by chance he did he would never have been able to stay in power without Chinese aid.

When it comes to this question we agree. Who cares? Besides, what choice does China have? None. We're the morons who opened up our borders to cheap inferior Chinese products to satisfy our desire for cheap consumer goods while China sat back and manipulated it's currency to their benefit at the expense of the US and world community. Did Rush really tell you liberals liked China? Oh that's right, we need to forgive him because he's high most of the time and wouldn't know truth if it slapped him in the face. Both Rush and Newt certainly flip flopped on Sotomayor. From a liberal racist who they never would support to someone they can see supporting in a two week time span. (I know it's not nice to pick on sick people or sick political parties, but I can't help myself)

I guess its appropriate on the week where hundreds or thousands were killed in Tienanman Square in China 20 years ago, the discussion revolves around a US failure - in this case the economy. Hardly surprising.

Let me take a wild guess. Fareed came up with this question. There are more interesting questions. Just in the last couple of weeks, reports (from the Times) indicate as many as twenty thousand civilians may have been killed in the Sri Lanka civil war. The terrorist organization - the Tamil Tigers - used Tamil civilians as shields to protect them from the Sri Lanka army - kind of like Hamas. Note that at one time, India provided support for the Tamils.

Who the hell cares what China thinks? They are watching the US print money like we’re in a game of monopoly, so inflation is a real danger to their two trillion dollar investment. I got some advice. Diversify your portfolio next time - and quit whining. You made the decision. No one forced you.

In the mean time, you’re a gutless two-bit dictatorship. Western China is a police state. You don’t tolerate political dissent. You still force abortions, and sterilize women. Only God can answer why the left loves you - despite an atrocious human rights record. China’s communist Party is composed of a bunch of cowards.

The end.

Has the world lost confidence in America's ability to manage the global economy?

If so I would like to hear what the world would do differently. I would like to hear all those great economic plans the world has, which apparently it decided not to share with the U.S.--which it apparently never tried to implement regardless of the U.S.

We hear a lot of talk these days such as the talk of a Brazilian who said "it was blond haired and blue eyed" people who ruined the economy. Or we hear that Sharia law is better. Or we hear the same old Marxist refrain.

The truth of the matter is that the world had better place trust in the U.S., and if advising the U.S. (and the U.S. should really take criticisms from everywhere seriously) proceed discreetly and with caution and not raise any unnecessary antagonisms, because if the U.S. is not leading the way the way will fall to Europe and/or China and/or Japan.

And can these default economies do anything better? Maybe they can. But they never saw what has occurred to the economy--they cannot claim any better foresight. They are left asserting they have better methods. But where is the proof of that--these better methods? Everyone knows that what we typically mean by economics is a particular art and science of managing a particular aspect of society--and we know that it is largely a Western phenomenon.--In fact largely born of England and France.

So what does the world have to offer in place of the line of great economists we are familiar with in Western universities? It seems to me the world is talking a bit too much, boasting of a capability it does not have. And is anything more guaranteed to upset the economy than a bunch of powers criticizing the U.S., trying to force in place a "new and better" economics which of course has never been implemented before, and which is trial and error staring us in the face?

Talk about a bank run. We need to keep to fundamentals and proceed cautiously--or if proceeding rapidly quickly funneling the best insights and then moving rapidly. What we should not do is listen to whining from peoples that have really no record at all of producing great economists...Brazil, Islamic world, Chinese...

What I do know is this: if the global economy were to collapse and each nation was forced to fall back on only its own resources, not have contact with any other nations, that the Western world would do best economically even if not having oil and being reduced to horse and carriage. People seem to forget that so much of economics is the art and science of managing people and what resources are at hand.

The West has the most experience in that matter so the rest of the world should continue deferring to the West--unless the rest of the world can produce a string of better economists with better results.

No.