When we claim the right to move against a regime because we are convinced they are a danger to us--as we have, formally--we are denying the sovereignty of other states and preaching international anarchy. We are establishing a principle which we would never concede to others. Couldn't Bin Laden claim that the WTC and Pentagon attacks were justified because we were a threat to him? Couldn't any Arab terrorist claim that we were a threat, through Israel, to Palestine? Etc.

As the richest nation (in absolute terms only) in the world, we have more to gain from international stability and less to gain from anarchy than any other. That is why this policy, for the United States, is lunacy.
It is also, as we have discovered, way beyond our capability to enforce.

I am more and more inclined to think that this 4T will begin, and quite shortly, with the eclipse of US influence on the world stage. It will then be fought out at home.

David K '47

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

When we claim the right to move against a regime because we are convinced they are a danger to us--as we have, formally--we are denying the sovereignty of other states and preaching international anarchy. We are establishing a principle which we would never concede to others. Couldn't Bin Laden claim that the WTC and Pentagon attacks were justified because we were a threat to him? Couldn't any Arab terrorist claim that we were a threat, through Israel, to Palestine? Etc.

As the richest nation (in absolute terms only) in the world, we have more to gain from international stability and less to gain from anarchy than any other. That is why this policy, for the United States, is lunacy.
It is also, as we have discovered, way beyond our capability to enforce.

I am more and more inclined to think that this 4T will begin, and quite shortly, with the eclipse of US influence on the world stage. It will then be fought out at home.

David K '47

And in the end America will be utterly, totally destroyed, and it's land, remaining wealth, and few remaining survivors will be portioned out amongst our conquerors, as the fitting spoils of victory. :wink:

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Here you assume for some strange reason that installing a democracy is somehow necesary to get the oil. Why not a more pliant dictator? Our whole falling out with Saddam was due to a misunderstanding. This is the weakness of your argument. The United States has never promoted democracy in Third World nations as a means of advancing our own economic interests.

We are having enough trouble trying to install a friendly democratic government. Setting up a puppet would fail even more miserably, unless the puppet was free to use the same methods as Saddam.

Tis true that during the Cold War, and earlier during the imperialistic era, the US and many other powers would set up puppet autocratic regimes. During the Cold War, the crimes of the dictators would be oft overlooked. The Us v Them conflict was deemed more important than human rights or democracy for a small handful of people far away. Saddam was one of our puppets.

I can't prove this, but gut feeling, the world has changed. We can no longer remove Saddam and replace him with another Saddam. The UN wouldn't let us. The Arab League would not let us. The people of Iraq would not let us. Al Quaida would not let us. The Democratic Party would have won E2K+4 had Bush tried it. The mess on the ground in Iraq would be far worse if we had tried classic 19th Century Imperialism. No way would we get oil out that way.

How do I know this? I don't really. But I haven't seen it proposed by anyone but you. Each crisis does change expectations and values. While I respect much of what you do on this site, this time I think you have been dwelling too deep in history to long.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Setting up a puppet would fail even more miserably, unless the puppet was free to use the same methods as Saddam.

I outlined a simple way the US could have installed another dictator about six months ago. Rather than race for Bagdad, secure the non-Sunni parts of the country (where the oil fields are) first. Secure the weapons facilities in order to look for WMDs. Leave Saddam in Bagdad and leave the Baathist government in charge of the central third of the country, including the Sunni triangle. Now we have a still very much active Saddam still in place and so the Shiites and Kurds don't want us to leave. So no al Sadr problems. We don't have a problem with Fajullah and other Sunni cities because these are still in Baathist hands. We are still at war, so Bagdad and other Sunni positions are bombed daily. Our position is simple. We categorically refuse to talk peace as long as Saddam or his family remains in power. And while we are waiting for somebody in the Baathist government to overthrow Saddam we start rebuilding local government structures in the Kurdish and Shiite areas, i.e. "Free Iraq". We can begin rebuilding in the parts of the country we control and maintain a front between Baathist Iraq and Free Iraq. It would be exremely difficult for Sunni insurgents to operate in Free Iraq without the support of the non-Sunni locals. Rather than conquerors, the US forces will the only thing between the Shia and Kurds and Saddam. If an insurgency were to develop the US would simply leave and this means the Kurds and Shites get slaughtered by Saddam. You see how this changes the complexion of the conflict in our favor?

The disadvantage of this approach is we can't control the form of postwar government. If the Baathists depose Saddam quickly a new strongman could emerge with whom the US could deal and we could work out a peace treaty and a form of the old government would continue on, perhaps with some token liberalizations.

The most likely situation is that Saddam would be deposed after some time, a treaty signed, and a federal-like power-sharing arrangement put into place until the US pulls out. Then there would be a civil war. The US backs the likely winner and we get our new client state in Iraq.

But suppose Saddam isn't diposed. This is a real risk. The country would then become permanently divided. And we would probably have a US-friendly autocratic Shiite state in the south, a semi-democratic Kurdish state (also US friendly) in the north and the rump of the Baathist state in the middle, implacably hostile to the US. The Shia and Kurds would beg the US to leave troops in their new nations at least until they can build an army sufficient to defend themselves from Saddam.

But we didn't do this. Instead we raced to Bagdad and captured/killed all the senior members of the Baathist government. In other words we made it impossible for a new strongman to emerge--forcing a complete rebuilding of the government from the ground up. That means elections. a new consitution, all the things we are actually doing now. In other worlds the actions of the US in Iraq are completely consistent with a goal of establishing democracy from the very beginning. It doesn't look like replacing Saddam with another dictator was even considered.

I can't prove this, but gut feeling, the world has changed. We can no longer remove Saddam and replace him with another Saddam. The UN wouldn't let us. The Arab League would not let us. The people of Iraq would not let us. Al Quaida would not let us. The Democratic Party would have won E2K+4 had Bush tried it. The mess on the ground in Iraq would be far worse if we had tried classic 19th Century Imperialism. No way would we get oil out that way.

Now you are making my point. I claim that Bush has changed from the past. The reason is the world has changed, that is, 911 (al Qaeda) changed everything, which is exactly what a crisis trigger is supposed to do. And so now Bush behaves as a progressive in the same way as Nixon did, not because he has seen the light, but because the times (i.e. the 4T) requires it.

Bob, where do you get the idea that "we" could replace Saddam's regime? The Iraqis obvously have very strong (although very differing) feelings about who should govern them, but the Kurds are the only ones among them whose beliefs can be reconciled with ours. Sunnis want another Sunni dictatorship, Shi-ites want a religious state. No one wants American, pro-Israel puppets-and every day we remain increases the hostility towards us. It's really all very simple. ..

David K '47

P.S. I'm convinced the Iraqis are considerably more hostile towards our presence than the Vietnamese were, taken on the whole.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

When we claim the right to move against a regime because we are convinced they are a danger to us--as we have, formally--we are denying the sovereignty of other states and preaching international anarchy. We are establishing a principle which we would never concede to others.

What the professor is trying to say here is that Neville Chamberlain was on to something in 1938: Nazi Germany, like Iraq in the Clinton 90s, could blatantly violate the "no fly zones" of the Treaty of Versailles with absolute impunity. In response, the League of Nations would simply pass another resolution with a veiled threat of "grave consequences" should Hitler/Saddam continue to violate the terms of the treaty they signed. Then, when the thug amasses the weapons whereby he can hold the free world hostage, Professor KaiserD2 can simply wave his little piece of paper and declare "We have peace in our time" (Several millions dead, a short time later, notwithstanding).

I wonder if the good professor is currently researching his new book: Neville Chamberlain, The Misunderstood Prophet?

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Couldn't Bin Laden claim that the WTC and Pentagon attacks were justified because we were a threat to him? Couldn't any Arab terrorist claim that we were a threat, through Israel, to Palestine?

Oh, what deep, penetrating queries! Couldn't Nazi Germany have partitioned the Sudetenland, invaded Poland, blitzkrieged the impenetrable Siegfried Line, and justify it because they were a threat to him (Hitler did do just that, btw)?

Oh, yes, then we shall have peace in our time!

I am well pleased to hear the professor continue with this new and exciting way of thinking. As proven with the last 14 election cycles since Harry Truman, it's a sure fire way to permanent status as the minority party. 8)

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

When we claim the right to move against a regime because we are convinced they are a danger to us--as we have, formally--we are denying the sovereignty of other states and preaching international anarchy. We are establishing a principle which we would never concede to others. Couldn't Bin Laden claim that the WTC and Pentagon attacks were justified because we were a threat to him? Couldn't any Arab terrorist claim that we were a threat, through Israel, to Palestine? Etc.

As the richest nation (in absolute terms only) in the world, we have more to gain from international stability and less to gain from anarchy than any other. That is why this policy, for the United States, is lunacy.
It is also, as we have discovered, way beyond our capability to enforce.

I agree with you, but only to a point. If Bush was actually handed intelligence that told him that Hussein had given WMD's to Al Qaeda or that Hussein had agents here with WMD, I don't see how a President could not act pre-emptively.

That is one reason why I support Israel in the '67 War. It would've been insane to not have attacked first when the enemy is manifestly mobilizing and you intelligence tells you an attack is imminent. To do otherwise is treason.

BUT BECAUSE pre-emptive war must be taken so seriously it is just as treasonous to use it without those conditions in place, as Bush did. He has in my opinion, as a result, damaged our nation enormously in all sorts of ways.

BTW, I must also agree with you that openly stating our intentions of pre-emption as stated in the infamous June 2002 Bush Doctrine was a bone-headed move.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I am more and more inclined to think that this 4T will begin, and quite shortly, with the eclipse of US influence on the world stage. It will then be fought out at home.

Curious. How at home? Terrorism, or some kind of Red Dawn scenario?

Hey, my sister gave me a Red Dawn DVD for Christmas. I opened it up and watched it right away, much to my wife's displeasure. Took me right back to my Reaganite High School days. "Wolverines!!!" "Son, Avenge Me !!!"

Ah, what a guilty pleasure.

First, I think everyone would agree that if another country was really poised to attack, yes, striking the first blow would be justified, but that certainly was not the case with respect to Iraq. It's not even altogether clear that it was the case for Israel in '67, but Nasser certainly overplayed his hand and asked for it. Still, I believe the most recent book suggests Nasser didn't want war.

I think the 4T at home will be over the economic, social and cultural future of the US. I really do. Things have gone too far and we are too closely divided to turn back. When even the NY Times and Wash Post have to realize what Bush and company really intend, we'll be off and running.

David K '47

Re: Pre-emption be damned

Originally Posted by KaiserD2, then,

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

When we claim the right to move against a regime because we are convinced they are a danger to us--as we have, formally--we are denying the sovereignty of other states and preaching international anarchy.

First, I think everyone would agree that if another country was really poised to attack, yes, striking the first blow would be justified...

Thou speaketh out both sides of thy mouth, my dear professor.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Bob, where do you get the idea that "we" could replace Saddam's regime? The Iraqis obvously have very strong (although very differing) feelings about who should govern them, but the Kurds are the only ones among them whose beliefs can be reconciled with ours. Sunnis want another Sunni dictatorship, Shi-ites want a religious state. No one wants American, pro-Israel puppets-and every day we remain increases the hostility towards us. It's really all very simple. ..

Me, I didn't think the preemptive unilateral route was a good idea before the invasion, and nothing much has changed my mind since. Dictators can be contained, have been contained, should be contained. Forcing a populace to adopt a new form of government is a last resort sort of thing, perhaps justified in Afghanistan where international terrorist training camps were operating virtually openly, and where we are very tolerant when the people stick with existing forms. Afghanistan is still more a warlord area than a functioning modern democracy.

Mike's proposal for splitting Iraq is interesting. There are problems with it. Turkey has too many Kurds to tolerate a Kurdish state on its borders, and would oppose creation of such. Many would be nervous that a small independent Iraqi Shiite neo-state would attach itself to Iran. If we seized the oil without looking for WMDs in the Sunni middle, Bush's first cover story would be intolerably thin. Getting rid of Saddam -- the second cover story -- wouldn't work if Saddam was left alone. In short, there are lots of folks who do not want to see Iraq carved up into ethnic slices, thus a 'federal' Iraq one state solution was seen as the better bet.

I can see how balkanization worked in the Balkans. Setting up ever smaller states where the ethnic majority is in control worked there. In the Middle East, most of the oil states were arbitrarily created by France and Britain. It was easier to create puppet dictatorships a century or so back. They didn't bother with national borders that matched ethnic borders. In abstract, it might be nice to throw away all the national borders, and start from scratch along ethnic lines.

But none of the established governments in the area are particularly eager to start down that road. It is a large can of worms. Balkanizing one country while expecting all the neighboring countries to remain stable and neutral would be unrealistic. Thus far, the United States is treating the arbitrary imperialistic era British / French borders as more important than the ethnic prejudices and hatred that long predate the oil borders. Cultures might need changing. Forms of government might need changing. Hinting that the borders might change to reflect ethnic reality... No way. Bush 43 will stick with less radical safer principles, like preemptive unilateral invasion.

But who knows what will happen down the road?

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Mike's proposal for splitting Iraq is interesting.

I did not propose to split Iraq. I described a method to replace Saddam with another dictator. Spliting Iraq is one possible unintended outcome of applying the method.

The original Iraq policy of Bush I was regime change with replacement by another dictator. This is a conservative policy in that it would accomplish an obviously desirable goal (getting rid of Saddam) in an inexpensive (financially and politically) manner. The architects of Desert Storm believed that by waging low-grade war with Iraq (the embargo, continuous overflights of Iraqi airspace and actual actual air strikes are all acts of war) they would so discredit Saddam that he would be ripe for a coup. It didn't happen. The policy failed. Instead, it goaded bin Laden into declaring jihad against the US, which led to 911.

What I proposed was a method to increase the pressure on Saddam's Baathist underlings to goad them into staging the coup. Under our pre-2003 policy Saddam retained control of the nations's resources. Life as one of Saddam's favored was still good, while attempting a coup was frought with risk. Potential coup stagers could not count on support.

The policy I proposed cut Saddam's underlings off from the resources of the nation. Also the homes and property of Saddam's underlings would be gradually destroyed by US bombing, which would eventually reduce all infrastructure in Baathist Iraq to rubble. In other words, staying loyal to Saddam would increasingly mean poverty and misery for you and your family. All that would be needed to stop this is to kill Saddam, take charge, and negotiate with the Americans. The longer Saadam's supporters wait to get rid of him, the more they lose. Perhaps with this degree of pressure somebody in Saddam's inner circle would shoot the bastard, or Saddam himself, sensing the threat, would flee the country.

However, suppose nobody in Saddam's government possessed any balls? This could be, Saddam's had more than twenty years to selectively weed out those of his followers who have testicles. In that case, Saddam would stay in power and the nation would end up divided.

It is possible that the Bush adminstration believed that Sadaam was the only bull in a corral of steers. In that case the neocon proposal for forcibly installing democracy may have looked like the best bet.

The solons of the U.S. Senate have taken up the nomination of Mr. Alberto "Torture Memo" Gonzales for the 80th AG.

He will join such worthies as #50 A. Mitchell "Red Scare" Palmer, #51 Henry Micajah "Teapot Dome" Daugherty, #64 Robert "Tailgunner Joe's gopher" Kennedy, #66 Ramsey "defend a whacko-mole" Clark, #67 John Newton "Tit in the Wringer" Mitchell, #75 Edwin "Cufflinks" Meese III, #78 Janet "Crispy Christian Children" Reno, and the #79 John "Bare Boob" Ashcroft.

I think Mr. Gonzales is the non 4T equal of such giants and should be confirmed as quickly as possible. :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

The solons of the U.S. Senate have taken up the nomination of Mr. Alberto "Torture Memo" Gonzales for the 80th AG.

He will join such worthies as #50 A. Mitchell "Red Scare" Palmer, #51 Henry Micajah "Teapot Dome" Daugherty, #64 Robert "Tailgunner Joe's gopher" Kennedy, #66 Ramsey "defend a whacko-mole" Clark, #67 John Newton "Tit in the Wringer" Mitchell, #75 Edwin "Cufflinks" Meese III, #78 Janet "Crispy Christian Children" Reno, and the #79 John "Bare Boob" Ashcroft.

I think Mr. Gonzales is the non 4T equal of such giants and should be confirmed as quickly as possible. :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

Gonzales will have to be Daugherty because we just had the reincarnation of Palmer.

Just pay attention to the mood expressed in this article. Back in the early 1960s, the mood was a much more innocent one, and one that was much brighter and more innocent.

Today, at the end of 3T, the general mood of MLK Day is one of despair, and has much more of a bitter ring to it. Regardless of whether or not you agree that there is an anti-black ring to the political and social ideologies and institutions of today, this is indicative of rising cultural walls within society.

But at the end of the 3T, this person finally notes that it is not the government that will achieve the dream of MLK, but rather, solidarity among people, with care towards each other, and trust that will achieve the dream. This view of social justice is similar to that of prior Crisis Eras, such as the Great Depression and the Revolution.

The author of this article notes that

Hope And Despair On King Day

by Marcellus Andrews
January 17, 2005
Martin Luther King Jr. day is a melancholy holiday for many black and poor people because King's movement for social justice has been abandoned by the powers that be?both conservative and liberal, says Marcellus Andrews of the New America Foundation. But the day can be reclaimed by remembering that King's legacy is his belief that justice grows not only from government power, but from people treating each other with respect and care every day.

Marcellus Andrews is a Bernard L. Schwartz Senior Research Fellow at the New America Foundation.

A holiday in honor of Martin Luther King is a painful and bitter thing in these times of war and growing inequality. For some, King is a symbol of the nation's painful yet ultimately successful struggle to end segregation as public policy. For others, including a growing number of black Americans, King is a failed prophet whose movement for justice and equality has lost to the political heirs of those who were indifferent to racial oppression or fought to hold onto American apartheid.

One senses great despair about the future among black Americans. We are anxious for our kids, too many of whom are barred from a chance at a good life because we are too poor and too black to live in communities with good schools. We are poorer than our white counterparts because we were not given access to decent schools, and our kids will be forced to inherit our deficits in a viciously competitive global economic environment. Housing, health and safety are less available to us than our white counterparts because we are poorer than they are.

Some of our problems are, to be sure, made worse by our own self-destructive ways. We are sicker than other Americans because we have lousy eating habits and treat our bodies quite badly. We are less safe than we might be because we hurt and kill each other out of anger or spite. Too many of our well-off kids do not achieve in schools because they do not take the academic enterprise seriously. In these and other ways, we disgrace the memory of King and ourselves by not seizing the opportunities made possible by his work and ultimate sacrifice.

But our primary problem is that our country has turned its back on King's message of justice and equality. When black folks meet and talk politics these days, they lament the long "winter in America" that has reigned in the 25 years since Ronald Reagan came to office. The doors to good schools and hospitals remain closed to so many of us because conservatives resist real equal opportunity in the name of small government and low taxes. We live in a time where good public education is a privilege for those who can buy into the right community, instead of a right for all kids?just as health care is a disappearing job benefit instead of a basic social good.

The conservatives who rule the country despise most blacks, which is not surprising given their forebears and their current public. But the liberals have also abandoned King by concluding that the fight for justice can only be waged when they run the government. The liberals forget King's most basic lesson: Justice is alive when we treat each other with great love, respect and care. Justice is a collective achievement of people committed to each other's well-being. Without that commitment, justice is nothing more than an election-day slogan or a pleasant, maybe desperate daydream.

Government is a limited tool for realizing real freedom and therefore justice. Too many liberals believe that income redistribution is the substance of justice and equality, not realizing that justice begins with solidarity?real intimacy and trust in daily life?so that all persons see themselves as harmed when any of their countrymen are threatened by fear, deprivation or violence. When the political tide turned against the liberals, too many gave up the fight for justice because they couldn't win elections, not understanding that the fight for justice is first about erasing the dividing lines that keep us penned in our little ghettos. King, the radical Christian voice for social justice, shriveled to Martin Luther King, liberal Democratic mascot.

King's day is a sad day, in part because we know that the political forces that control the government are driven by deep animus toward black people and poor people. But King's day can be a great day if we remember that the battle for justice is far more than a contest for power or political advantage. The fight for justice is, in the end, a struggle to tear down the barriers that split us from each other, and from our better selves. Governmental power is always less important than the community of men and women who commit themselves to each other's well-being, and fight for each other's freedom. If we remember King's lessons about solidarity as the basis for justice, we will be ready to do battle with our conservative

Originally Posted by Shemsu Heru

Originally Posted by Marcellus Andrews

Martin Luther King Jr. day is a melancholy holiday for many black and poor people because King's movement for social justice has been abandoned by the powers that be

Just pay attention to the mood expressed in this article. Back in the early 1960s, the mood was a much more innocent one, and one that was much brighter and more innocent.

Hmm, the Bush admistration is stocked full of blacks and minorities. But Michael Kinsley writes in today's Washington Post:

• Will President Bush actually have the guts to nominate Clarence Thomas for chief justice when that opportunity arises, which will probably be soon? You know he's just aching to do it. Because of their shared judicial philosophy, of course. But also because of that arrogant willfulness Bush has that a more generous person than myself might even call integrity. Heck, why be president if you can't rub your critics' noses in it?
  
  And will the Democrats have the guts to oppose Justice Thomas's elevation to chief, resisting all the cries of, "Oh, for mercy's sake, you people -- not that again"? Those cries are starting preemptively, in an effort to cow the opposition party out of opposing a Thomas nomination. I wish I could be as confident of the Democrats' guts as I am of the president's.

Oh, I see, it's not really about blacks and minorities at all. Rather it's really all about the way blacks and minorities think. It's not enough to merely have black skin, according to liberals. To be truly black one must believe that without government help and handouts it is quite impossible for any minority to be successful like the white folk. To believe that a black can achieve any thing of true significance without the governments help is to betray King and his "Dream."

Ergo, Thomas, according to liberals, is not truly black, but rather a white man in a black man's body.

Methinks this is truly pathetic, and the real reason that "Martin Luther King Jr. day is a melancholy holiday for many black and poor people," because it is their leadership, those of the Jesse Jackson stripe, who have abandoned the "Dream" in search of mere entitlement.

Mr. Lamb: Reread the article.



Hope And Despair On King Day

by Marcellus Andrews
January 17, 2005
Martin Luther King Jr. day is a melancholy holiday for many black and poor people because King's movement for social justice has been abandoned by the powers that be?both conservative and liberal, says Marcellus Andrews of the New America Foundation. But the day can be reclaimed by remembering that King's legacy is his belief that justice grows not only from government power, but from people treating each other with respect and care every day.

Marcellus Andrews is a Bernard L. Schwartz Senior Research Fellow at the New America Foundation.

A holiday in honor of Martin Luther King is a painful and bitter thing in these times of war and growing inequality. For some, King is a symbol of the nation's painful yet ultimately successful struggle to end segregation as public policy. For others, including a growing number of black Americans, King is a failed prophet whose movement for justice and equality has lost to the political heirs of those who were indifferent to racial oppression or fought to hold onto American apartheid.

One senses great despair about the future among black Americans. We are anxious for our kids, too many of whom are barred from a chance at a good life because we are too poor and too black to live in communities with good schools. We are poorer than our white counterparts because we were not given access to decent schools, and our kids will be forced to inherit our deficits in a viciously competitive global economic environment. Housing, health and safety are less available to us than our white counterparts because we are poorer than they are.

Some of our problems are, to be sure, made worse by our own self-destructive ways. We are sicker than other Americans because we have lousy eating habits and treat our bodies quite badly. We are less safe than we might be because we hurt and kill each other out of anger or spite. Too many of our well-off kids do not achieve in schools because they do not take the academic enterprise seriously. In these and other ways, we disgrace the memory of King and ourselves by not seizing the opportunities made possible by his work and ultimate sacrifice.

But our primary problem is that our country has turned its back on King's message of justice and equality. When black folks meet and talk politics these days, they lament the long "winter in America" that has reigned in the 25 years since Ronald Reagan came to office. The doors to good schools and hospitals remain closed to so many of us because conservatives resist real equal opportunity in the name of small government and low taxes. We live in a time where good public education is a privilege for those who can buy into the right community, instead of a right for all kids?just as health care is a disappearing job benefit instead of a basic social good.

The conservatives who rule the country despise most blacks, which is not surprising given their forebears and their current public. But the liberals have also abandoned King by concluding that the fight for justice can only be waged when they run the government. The liberals forget King's most basic lesson: Justice is alive when we treat each other with great love, respect and care. Justice is a collective achievement of people committed to each other's well-being. Without that commitment, justice is nothing more than an election-day slogan or a pleasant, maybe desperate daydream.
Government is a limited tool for realizing real freedom and therefore justice. Too many liberals believe that income redistribution is the substance of justice and equality, not realizing that justice begins with solidarity?real intimacy and trust in daily life?so that all persons see themselves as harmed when any of their countrymen are threatened by fear, deprivation or violence. When the political tide turned against the liberals, too many gave up the fight for justice because they couldn't win elections, not understanding that the fight for justice is first about erasing the dividing lines that keep us penned in our little ghettos. King, the radical Christian voice for social justice, shriveled to Martin Luther King, liberal Democratic mascot.

King's day is a sad day, in part because we know that the political forces that control the government are driven by deep animus toward black people and poor people. But King's day can be a great day if we remember that the battle for justice is far more than a contest for power or political advantage. The fight for justice is, in the end, a struggle to tear down the barriers that split us from each other, and from our better selves. Governmental power is always less important than the community of men and women who commit themselves to each other's well-being, and fight for each other's freedom. If we remember King's lessons about solidarity as the basis for justice, we will be ready to do battle with our conservative
[/quote]

Originally Posted by cbailey

Mr. Lamb: Reread the article.

Hope And Despair On King Day

When black folks meet and talk politics these days, they lament the long "winter in America" that has reigned in the 25 years since Ronald Reagan came to office. The doors to good schools and hospitals remain closed to so many of us because conservatives resist real equal opportunity in the name of small government and low taxes. We live in a time where good public education is a privilege for those who can buy into the right community, instead of a right for all kids?just as health care is a disappearing job benefit instead of a basic social good.

The conservatives who rule the country despise most blacks...

Ok. So what? Sounds to me like the guy likes to speak out both sides of his mouth about the role of government in people's lives. Plus, it is quite clear that he believes black Republicans, like Condi Rice and Justice Thomas, must "despise most blacks," too, else they wouldn't be Republicans.

p.s. Funny how the Copperhead Party, and the Party that filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for nearly two months, the Democrats, have "overcome" their racist past so well, and that the Party of, the Great Emancipator, Abe Lincoln now must therefore "despise most blacks." Why, I'd say it's a real miracle! :wink:

Originally Posted by cbailey

Mr. Lamb: Reread the article . . .

Don't even bother. He needs pictures.

A 4T plan to to beat Wal-Mart.


_________________


Random Walk,
by Rob Peebles
http://www.prudentbear.com/randomwalk.asp


An embarrassment of riches
January 30, 2005

There something a little embarrassing about the giant Proctor & Gamble/Gillette merger. Well, something other that all that contemporary art frantically being cranked out to snare investment bankers who suddenly have $270-$500 million to spend.



There?s also that windfall for Berkshire Hathaway, Gillette's largest shareholder with almost 100 million shares. The New York Times figures that Berkshire's Gillette holdings are worth more than $5.1 billion. That?s a darn good return from a $600 million investment made in 1989. The Times did the math and found the same amount invested in the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index would be worth about $2.2 billion today (not counting dividends). But that?s not the embarrassing part.



The embarrassing part is that Warren Buffett turned that profit without any help from computer trading software. Nor did he need guaranteed 30-second executions to make Berkshire?s portfolio sizzle. Buffett experts even bet that Mr. B. doesn?t subscribe to a single newsletter offering ?Six stock ideas to boost your portfolio 2,000% in six months!?



Instead, Buffett just bought Gillett and held it and held it. And bought some other stuff and held them too. He didn?t sell anything to buy a new, hot ETF, nor did he check stock quotes on what he did own with a wireless device during lunch at his favorite Omaha diner. And unlike increasing numbers of investors, Berkshire has not allocated a portion of the portfolio to a basket of OTC Bulletin Board companies, including one with a renewable energy source based on dryer lint.



Luckily for the financial services industry, not everyone is Warren Buffett. Otherwise, the CyberTrader ad on CNBC would go something like this: ?When you?re ready to sell in twenty years, we?ll be ready too. Call CyberTrader!?



Somehow the Berkshire portfolio has produced outstanding performance without once being rebalanced to the Morningstar Cornhusker Index or any other ?benchmark? selected by committee and monitored by consultants. This has annoyed the efficient market, pro-indexing academic crowd to such a degree that have had enough of Mr. Buffett. They have proclaimed him an outlier.



Speaking of outlying, the Mayor of Napa Valley says he?s happy that Wal-Mart came to town. He?s so happy that that?s he sharing his special kind of ecstasy in a heartwarming Wal-Mart commercial. And who can blame him? Sure, the wine tours are nice. And these days you can take them by train, or even by balloon! And then there are the spas, the gallery tours and the fine dining. And oh yes, there are the wine tours.



But everyone knows there has been something missing in Napa Valley. Maybe it?s that special meeting place for tourists and locals alike - someplace where people can relax without feelign compelled to debate the merits of natural vs. artificial corks. And if that?s a place that can generate loads of property and sales taxes, so much the better. But is there such a place?



As the guy at the door says, ?Welcome to Wal-Mart!?


Surely the Napa Valley Wal-Mart is not just another store. More likely, it?s an indication of the company?s evolving nature. Already, Wal-Mart has moved from the country to the suburbs to the urban areas. Maybe the tourist market is the next logical step. Don?t people hiking into the Grand Canyon need water bottles and a couple of those chairs that fold up and fit into sacks? Don?t visitors to Old Faithful need a poncho and some Oreo cookies? Don?t you need mosquito repellant before traipsing through the Redwood Forest? And just think of the convenience of buying sun block and a couple of DVDs at the base of Mount Rushmore.



Of course, Wal-Mart executives are hardly provincial thinkers. Perhaps before too long there will be a new Wal-Mart commercial that goes something like this:


"People come from all over the world to visit our store. Some just want an extra blanket. Some buy oxygen bottles. We love them all. We're Wal-Mart, the only store at Everest Base Camp."



Retail observers speculate that the Gillette/Proctor & Gamble merger will increase their clout over Wal-Mart, a company known to squeeze its suppliers like a man squeezing the last bit of toothpaste out of a tube of Crest. Maybe so. But why not really put the pressure on Wal-Mart and open their own stores? They couldconvert some of those empty K-Marts into G-PG Centers. Heck, why not throw in Kellog for good measure?



And here's how to beat them: Carry only one brand of every product. Only one Gillette razors. One brand of shampoo. Maybe two kinds of cereal, but certainly not two aisles worth. The store would still have everything, but only one version of everything. A store the size of Wal-Mart could shrink down to the size of three 7-11s. Shopping would be faster and you could tell the kids there are no Fruity Pebbles so they better learn to like corn flakes.

Now if investment bankers could put together a deal like, that would be worth $500 million.

Originally Posted by Mr. Louis Chevrolet

History is more or less bunk.

Facts, Fictions, Fraud?American History from Bancroft and
Parkman to Ambrose, Bellesiles, Ellis, and Goodwin. by Mr. Peter Charles Hoffer reviewed in the Wilson Quarterly by Mr. David J. Garrow. :cry: :cry: :cry: :arrow: :arrow: :arrow:

Hoffer was one of Brian Lamb's last guests on Booknotes, and he nailed the profession pretty hard. I agree with him that the AHA has become pretty gutless although, unlike David Kaiser who quit in disgust several years ago, I still belong even though I seem to have forgotten why.

Pax,

Dave Krein '42

Originally Posted by cbailey

A 4T plan to to beat Wal-Mart.

Retail observers speculate that the Gillette/Proctor & Gamble merger will increase their clout over Wal-Mart, a company known to squeeze its suppliers like a man squeezing the last bit of toothpaste out of a tube of Crest. Maybe so. But why not really put the pressure on Wal-Mart and open their own stores? They couldconvert some of those empty K-Marts into G-PG Centers. Heck, why not throw in Kellog for good measure?

And here's how to beat them: Carry only one brand of every product. Only one Gillette razors. One brand of shampoo. Maybe two kinds of cereal, but certainly not two aisles worth. The store would still have everything, but only one version of everything. A store the size of Wal-Mart could shrink down to the size of three 7-11s. Shopping would be faster and you could tell the kids there are no Fruity Pebbles so they better learn to like corn flakes.

Now if investment bankers could put together a deal like, that would be worth $500 million.

I have a feeling that a deal like this just might be in the planning...for implementation when the time is right. As the 4T austerity finally kicks in, people won't want to be burdened with excessive choice...or have the money to bother caring about it. There simply won't be a market for 97 different kinds of toothpaste....only two or three.

And if the 4T austerity coincides with an energy squeeze, wal mart is toast anyway.

Originally Posted by mgibbons19 (71)

And if the 4T austerity coincides with an energy squeeze, wal mart is toast anyway.

Yeah!!! :lol:

Martin Luther King dreamed of the day that we would judge each other based on the content of our character. That is what many of us Democrats are trying to do. If we have contempt for Condolezza Rice, Clarence Thomas, and Alberto Gonzales, it has nothing to do with their ancestry--it's because of untruthfulness and shameless sycophancy (Rice), limited intellect and antediluvian views (Thomas), and contempt for the constitution and shameless sycophancy (Gonzales.) (I also was deeply offended by Gonzales' demeanor as he was questioned about torture. He smiled all the way through it, treating the trashing of the Bill of Rights as joke.) We would feel exactly the same way if they were white. To excuse them because they are not would be an act of racism.

Clarence Thomas never asks a question during oral arguments before the court. He says he learned early in life not to speak unless necessary. Does that sound like a man who would make a good Chief Justice?

David Krein is right--I quit the AHA about five years ago after they turned down a panel on the Strauss and Howe theories. (They had also refused to publish several letters to the editor I had written and generally shown contempt for the kind of history I do.) As one whose main glimpse into the profession is now interviews with young job candidates, I am more depressed than ever. Time and again we see very bright young people who have been forced by the current trends in academia to spend several years working on a dissertation topic so trivial that no one else could possibly care about it. My own career has had its ups and downs, but at least I've spent it looking at some pretty big issues. So has David Krein, who was trained in an earlier era. The Third Turning, by the way, is regarded as a good thing in academia, which is going to continue to be a big problem. And liberal academics are living in a dream world. Just last week I got into a fight with one of my oldest friends, a sociologist, who claims that data shows Americans are becoming more and more tolerant of diversity. What is happening in the political world, evidently, doesnt' count.

Incidentally--if you want to understand the Fourth Turning spirit out in the heartland, read What's the Matter With Kansas. The author apparently hasn't read S & H, but he would get it right away. The book is filled with references to Abolitionism and Populism--the transforming social/political movements of the previous two turnings, in the end. This time the action, alas, is on the other side of the fence. . .

I have also just read an interesting review of a new book by Anatol LIeven, a Russian emigre, America Right or Wrong, in which he discusses the apparent American rejection of the Enlightenment during this 4T. Once again I am reminded of how religion/superstition/authority overcame the Enlightenment in Britain in the 1783-1802 crisis there. Eighteenth century England was one of the most rationlistic societies ever. Nineteenth century England took a huge step backward.

David Kaiser '47