Senate apologises over lynchings

Originally Posted by U.S. Senate

expresses the deepest sympathies and most solemn regrets of the Senate to the descendants of victims of lynching

Perhaps I and others have too often shrugged off his concerns. To wit:

Originally Posted by Mr. Noah Isenberg

Nowhere in Nossack's short work does one detect anger at what has occurred or anger directed at those who dropped the bombs. Although he refers to the air raids as "punishment" (in German the word he uses is Gericht, which comes from juridical language and means "tribunal" or "judgment"), he is also quick to insist, "I have not heard a single person curse the enemies or blame them for the destruction. When the newspapers published epithets like ‘pirates of the air' and ‘criminal arsonists,' we had no ears for that." It's almost as if he quietly accepts the bitter hand dealt by the Allied attacks and sees them as a justified response to the Nazi megalomania: "We felt our fate to be the end." It is, perhaps, this remarkable candor and humility that first prompted Sebald to champion Nossack as the sole German writer who "was ready or able to put any concrete facts down on paper about the progress and repercussions of this gigantic, long-term campaign of destruction."

Was this self hatred or the realization of something closer to justice? Germany takes another backward glance at the Last Crisis.

Dresden Mon Amour

To me yesterday's Supreme Court decision allowing local governments to use eminent domain's powers to accelerate private development is evidence that we are still 3T, a turning which, unfortunately, seems to glorify greed. This is scary, and I wonder what the impact of this is going to be. I am afraid that governments will start getting more aggressive concerning condemnations. What can ordinary citizens now do to protect themselves against such seizures?

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

To me yesterday's Supreme Court decision allowing local governments to use eminent domain's powers to accelerate private development is evidence that we are still 3T, a turning which, unfortunately, seems to glorify greed. This is scary, and I wonder what the impact of this is going to be. I am afraid that governments will start getting more aggressive concerning condemnations. What can ordinary citizens now do to protect themselves against such seizures?

Make sure that your State Government has laws that prevent such takings for the profit of other private interests. It may delay things until the SCOTUS and Federal Government expand the reach of their arm into your property.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

To me yesterday's Supreme Court decision allowing local governments to use eminent domain's powers to accelerate private development is evidence that we are still 3T, a turning which, unfortunately, seems to glorify greed. This is scary, and I wonder what the impact of this is going to be. I am afraid that governments will start getting more aggressive concerning condemnations. What can ordinary citizens now do to protect themselves against such seizures?

Arm yourself to the teeth, and go out at least with a BANG??? :shock:

We are still almost totally 3T. We have and Administration using 4T rhetoric to camouflage 3T aims. It's a very dangerous situation.

Lincoln worked with War Democrats and, sadly, chose one as his VP in 1864. FDR appointed Republicans as Secretaries of State and War in 1940 and worked with Republicans in Congress. Obviously nothing like that is happening, or is likely to happen, today.

Meanwhile, everyone who dares to point out that the Administration is violating international law and destroying our reputation is branded a traitor. Cute.

David K '47

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

We are still almost totally 3T. We have and Administration using 4T rhetoric to camouflage 3T aims. It's a very dangerous situation.

I think it's the other way around: 3T rhetoric (partisan divisiveness) to attempt to achieve 4T (remake the Middle East) aims. I wonder how liberal Democrat soldiers feel knowing that their Commander in Chief publicly supports the belief that - by definition - they are not behind his war? In the line of fire, but not supporting his war, per official White House statements. Un-freaking-believable.

.. ..I suspect they assume there are no Democratic soldiers. That's false, but they are in a minority.

I don't think the effort to remake the Middle East is really seroius. I have heard on excellent authority that Cheney, for one, is not serious about it. In any case we are not following the policies or committing the resources that could conceivably make it happen.

David K '47

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

.. ..I suspect they assume there are no Democratic soldiers. That's false, but they are in a minority.

It can't be so small a minority that they warrant such a brutal snub. And thing is, Millennials lean Democrat, and value honesty and long-term thinking. So this admininistration is unfriendly to Democrats, has a credibility problem, and can't present a plan to end the insurgency - well no wonder there's a huge drop in recruitment!

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I have heard on excellent authority that Cheney, for one, is not serious about it.

Can you elaborate?

Originally Posted by Steve Barrera

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

.. ..I suspect they assume there are no Democratic soldiers. That's false, but they are in a minority.

It can't be so small a minority that they warrant such a brutal snub. And thing is, Millennials lean Democrat, and value honesty and long-term thinking. So this admininistration is unfriendly to Democrats, has a credibility problem, and can't present a plan to end the insurgency - well no wonder there's a huge drop in recruitment!

Good analysis.

Oooo, look what I found:

http://takeittokarl.blogspot.com/

Originally Posted by Steve Barrera

Oooo, look what I found:

http://takeittokarl.blogspot.com/

Good analysis.

Libs need more of this sort of Bush, er, Karl, bashing. It's served them very well since 2001, it ought to continue to do so. 8)

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Steve Barrera

Oooo, look what I found:

http://takeittokarl.blogspot.com/

Good analysis.

Libs need more of this sort of Bush, er, Karl, bashing. It's served them very well since 2001, it ought to continue to do so. 8)

Yes, part of his "evil genius" plan. Someone in the comments in the blog above points that out. Someone else links to the blog below:

http://ivaw.net/

If you're interested in more Iraq blogs, check out the sidebar of The Mudville Gazette:

http://www.mudvillegazette.com/

Originally Posted by Steve Barrera

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Originally Posted by Steve Barrera

Oooo, look what I found:

http://takeittokarl.blogspot.com/

Good analysis.

Libs need more of this sort of Bush, er, Karl, bashing. It's served them very well since 2001, it ought to continue to do so. 8)

Yes, part of his "evil genius" plan.

That's right, plan, evil, Rove, Bush, GOP, keyword, insert, yes, I get it now... we're programmed, a mere dot in the com, a mere penny in the till, a mere cog in the wheels of the crushing, Marxist elite!

Up with people, down with the Establishment! Stop the War, Mr. Bush, before the war kills Amerika. 8)

Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate

Up with people, down with the Establishment! Stop the War, Mr. Bush.

There were a whopping 4 vets for peace walking in yesterday's parade here.

That's not really all that large a march pictured above (and below) in Fayetteville, NC, in March.

Originally Posted by Steve Barrera

That's not really all that large a march pictured above (and below) in Fayetteville, NC, in March.

An major anti-war rally in Red N.C.???

Interesting.

. . .willl be found at

http://takeittokarl.blogspot.com/

I challenge any of Rove's defenders there to go over and make a post.

David K '47

It seems as if trade war fervor has suddenly gripped Congress and many national leaders. A Chinese oil firm has made an $18 billion bid for US oil company Unocal.

Trade War With China Looms
Congress threatens retaliation if Bush doesn't respond to Communist country's Unocal bid.

By JONATHAN WEISMAN and PETER S. GOODMAN
The Washington Post

Political fears of China's economic might intensified Thursday following China's unsolicited bid to take over a U.S. oil company, with lawmakers from both political parties warning that Congress will take retaliatory action against Chinese trade practices if the Bush administration fails to respond.

Under a barrage of questions, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and Treasury Secretary John W. Snow warned the Senate Finance Committee against punitive legislation that could trigger a trade war and ultimately harm the U.S. economy.

"Resorting to isolationist trade policies would be ineffective, disruptive to markets and damaging to America's special role as the world's leading advocate for open markets," Snow said.

But the $18.5 billion bid Wednesday by China's third-largest oil producer to buy California-based Unocal Corp. put such sentiments on weaker ground. Already, lawmakers from both parties had stockpiled bills to punish China, and President Bush's ongoing effort to ratify the Central American Free Trade Agreement had stirred up political forces against further trade liberalization. Lingering discontents about the economy had politicians looking for a new outlet to voice their concerns. The bid by a state-run Chinese oil company to swallow a U.S. competitor "threw gas on the fire," said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), who has coauthored legislation that would impose a 27.5 percent tariff on Chinese imports unless China allows its currency to rise in value.

"Fighting back is not protectionism," Graham told Greenspan and Snow. "No more saber-rattling. We want results."

The takeover bid by China's state-controlled CNOOC Ltd. may have been the clearest sign yet of an emerging economic power's global ambitions, but it came at an inopportune time.

The Senate is set to vote July 27 on the currency tariff bill, coauthored by Graham and Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.). Momentum is building on legislation, written by Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), to allow the Commerce Department to respond to allegedly illegal Chinese export subsidies. And new legislation is being drafted to penalize China for intellectual property violations.

China maintains it is being used in Washington as a scapegoat for the inevitable decline of U.S. manufacturing as jobs continue to slip to lower-cost countries. Nevertheless, anti-China sentiment has infected virtually every trade issue in Washington, leaving Bush with an uphill battle to secure passage even of the relatively minor CAFTA.

"CAFTA is more than a trade agreement," Bush pleaded Thursday in a speech in Washington. "It is a signal of our nation's commitment to democracy and prosperity for the entire Western Hemisphere."

Now, China has added national security concerns to economic anxieties, with lawmakers expressing fear that China is aggressively seeking to corner a strategic asset, oil, and create its own captive supply. House and Senate members demanded an administration review of the bid, required under the Defense Production Act, to determine potential economic and security risks. Treasury officials indicated they would agree to the request if Unocal accepts CNOOC's offer.

"If you don't review this one, that law is meaningless," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) told Snow, adding, "I don't think being a free trader is synonymous with being a sucker and a patsy."

For a world still absorbing the emerging force of a newly capitalist China, CNOOC's bid is the clearest sign yet of how China's appetite for resources is reshaping global commerce.

The bid sets up a once-unthinkable spectacle: a potential takeover battle between an American oil giant, Chevron Corp., and a Chinese firm still controlled by the Communist Party government. Unocal's board had already accepted Chevron's $16.5 billion offer in April. CNOOC's move underscores the urgency of China's drive to secure new stocks of energy at a time when its rapid growth and embrace of the automobile are pressuring global stocks, generating new tensions in the already complex geopolitics of oil.

More broadly, CNOOC's bid for Unocal reinforced the mission of China's largest and best-financed state companies to look beyond domestic confines and invest abroad in what has become known as Beijing's "Go Out Strategy." CNOOC's move came days after a consortium led by China's largest home-appliance maker, Haier Group, launched a pursuit of Maytag Corp., hoping to secure one of America's most recognizable household brands.

Last year China's largest computer maker, Lenovo Group Ltd., agreed to pay $1.75 billion to take control of International Business Machines Corp.'s home computer business, capturing a corporate icon synonymous with American technological prowess. China's largest television maker, TCL Corp., bought the TV business of France's Thomson SA, and with it the rights to the venerable name of RCA.

All of these deals point to China's increasingly lofty ambitions as it relinquishes a past defined by Marx and Mao for a future governed by free enterprise. In the quarter-century since China began experimenting with market reforms, the country's economic ascendance has been propelled by low-wage factories that churn out mass-produced goods distinguished by their low prices. The recent foreign takeovers signal that China's largest companies are intent on establishing themselves as globally recognized brands that can gain a premium for their products.

That, in turn, has stoked anxieties in the United States. Many small manufacturers feel threatened by China's low labor costs and willingness to bend the rules of international trade. Now they fear a broader Chinese takeover.

Many analysts are dubious of China's new economic course, noting that China has shown great skill at copying existing products and figuring out how to make them cheaply but demonstrated little inclination for innovation, which is critical to the success of a brand.

Most of the Chinese companies buying foreign operations are heading abroad out of weakness: Fierce competition at home -the result of too much credit nurturing too many factories producing too many goods -- has driven prices so low that few can profit.

"Chinese companies cannot make any money at home so they are going abroad to try to make money there," said Arthur Kroeber, managing editor of the China Economic Quarterly.

Decades ago, few imagined that companies such as Sony and Samsung could become global brands, sprung as they were from Japan and Korea, the low-cost producers of the age. But those countries protected their markets against imports, ensuring fat profit that homegrown companies could fold into global expansion campaigns. China's markets are comparatively open, depriving Haier and Lenovo and the rest a similar home-field advantage. The foreign takeover wave appears to signal that China's companies have learned this lesson: The only way they are going to become major brands is to buy them.

CNOOC's acquisition of Unocal would be the largest ever purchase of a foreign company by a Chinese firm. Analysts say it is being pressed by Beijing to secure energy supplies at a time when China is rationing electricity in industrial areas to cope with shortages. Now the world's second-largest consumer of oil, China depends on imports for one-third of its needs, according to government statistics.

"The Chinese government is urging Chinese companies to go overseas because China needs more oil," said Chen Fengying, a senior fellow at the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations in Beijing, a research institution linked to state policymakers. "CNOOC will benefit, and China will benefit."

That is precisely why the purchase has become so politicized in Washington, with lawmakers from both parties searching for political advantage. Democrats Thursday accused the Bush administration of complacency in the face of a foreign threat, while Republicans pushed for more oil production in the United States.

"I believe strongly in a free global marketplace. However, we cannot determine whether CNOOC would be doing the bidding of the free market or the Chinese government as it views its energy, economic and security interests," warned Rep. Richard W. Pombo (R-Calif.), who had sent a letter to Bush on June 17 requesting a review of the bid even before it was announced.

But some Chinese analysts said American opposition could backfire. "The reaction from the United States will affect Chinese companies' confidence in the American advocacy of free trade principles," said Han Xiaoping, an analyst at China Energy Net in Beijing.

Goodman reported from Istanbul. Special correspondents Jason Cai and Eva Woo contributed from Shanghai.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

. . .willl be found at

http://takeittokarl.blogspot.com/

I challenge any of Rove's defenders there to go over and make a post.

David K '47

How delightful. Dick Durbin likens the U.S. industrial military complex to the Nazi machine, and liberals say

Rove then calls liberals a bunch of pussies, and you'd thot he personally threatened to drop an atomic bomb on ground zero. This is just too good. The more noise liberals make on Rove only serves to amplify their silence on Durbin.

Boy, is that Rove guy a genius or what? 8)

Sen. Norm Coleman (MN-RINO) will support the CAFTA after getting assurances that sugar exporters in the region will be paid not to send product into the United States.

Originally Posted by AP

The USDA agreed to do this by either compensating exporting countries for not sending sugar here, or converting the excess sugar into ethanol.

Wouldn't this be helpful for domestic energy producers, if we paid OPEC compensation for not sending their oil to the U.S.? GM could be aided by payments to Japan, Korea and Germany for not sending us Nissans, Kias, and VWs. The Euros could be paid for not selling Americans Airbus planes.

This Free Trade Agreement will break us when we have to start compensating the Celestials. :shock:

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Sen. Norm Coleman (MN-RINO) will support the CAFTA after getting assurances that sugar exporters in the region will be paid not to send product into the United States.

Originally Posted by AP

The USDA agreed to do this by either compensating exporting countries for not sending sugar here, or converting the excess sugar into ethanol.

Wouldn't this be helpful for domestic energy producers, if we paid OPEC compensation for not sending their oil to the U.S.? GM could be aided by payments to Japan, Korea and Germany for not sending us Nissans, Kias, and VWs. The Euros could be paid for not selling Americans Airbus planes.

This Free Trade Agreement will break us when we have to start compensating the Celestials. :shock:

Excellent reductio ad absurdum argument, Mr. Saari.

I am starting to really feel 4t vibes. There's a lot going on, including oil upping 62/bl, wholesale gasoline hitting a new high, the NYSE losing 100pts, more terrorist attacks, china looking at unocal and the semiconductor deal.

How much longer before joe sixpack starts to feel like his own well being is on the line?