Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

If it, in fact, falls that way... that we become a corporate version of Orwell's 1984... what would you bet the core issue of the New Consciousness Revolution will be circa 2050???

Nihilist apocalypse.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Well, the choices were a bit limited. You had all these horrible results and then two positive ones, one which is widely unrealistic. If you wanted to be optimistic but not over the top, you only had one choice.

Yeah, and it was even italicized.

I plead guilty to being a bit wishy-washy on this question. Not too long ago I speculated that America would break up along regional or cultural lines, but Catfishncod talked me out of it above.

I just don't think the younger Xers or the Millennials are going to let this happen. They will overwhelm the tribalism of the older Boomers and the apathy of Gen Jones.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I just don't think the younger Xers or the Millennials are going to let this happen. They will overwhelm the tribalism of the older Boomers and the apathy of Gen Jones.

I hope you're right!

I'm actually starting to see some movement in the microcosm of my office to shake off some of that Joneser apathy. This summer, I and two of my Joneser/Atari-wave cohorts have decided that we will not let the Millie law students sink or swim as usual, we will actually be proactive about helping the kids on the front end. We will take them to lunch at the beginning of the summer (instead of waiting until the end), we will each be a "mentor" to one of them, we will show them how to use the fax machine . . . Sounds pretty basic, but in my do-your-own-thing office (which the Xer in me loves), it is practically revolutionary.

Originally Posted by Neisha '67

I hope you're right!

I'm actually starting to see some movement in the microcosm of my office to shake off some of that Joneser apathy. This summer, I and two of my Joneser/Atari-wave cohorts have decided that we will not let the Millie law students sink or swim as usual, we will actually be proactive about helping the kids on the front end. We will take them to lunch at the beginning of the summer (instead of waiting until the end), we will each be a "mentor" to one of them, we will show them how to use the fax machine . . . Sounds pretty basic, but in my do-your-own-thing office (which the Xer in me loves), it is practically revolutionary.

In order for our nation to survive we will have to dismantle the corporate state, and basically declare independence from the WTO/UN/commercial empire. Our national orientation must be less sea-faring commercial and more continental. We must establish a north american empire with canada and mexico; central america, south america, and carribean. This region must be satellized into a self sufficient economic zone with near total autarky in regards to trade with eurasia. Only then will our nation be secure and our future survival ensured.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

In order for our nation to survive we will have to dismantle the corporate state, and basically declare independence from the WTO/UN/commercial empire.

Um, to misquote Jefferson Starship, "We built this city." The WTO, the UN, the whole worldwide trade network -- it was our idea. This is what we set up to replace the collapsed imperial system. What you are advocating is tantamount to decapitation and cardiectomy, Dr. A. van H.'s recommended treatment for vampirism.

This is also closely akin to what was done at this point last saeculum -- the Smoot-Hawley Tarriff of 1930, designed to shut down our international trade. Every economic historian agrees this was a MASSIVE mistake.

Our national orientation must be less sea-faring commercial and more continental.

Not likely. We were founded by sea-faring commercialists; it has been the foundation of our economy literally since Day One. Moreover, seafarers have always been more successful in war and commerce. This goes double for aviation and quadruple for spacefaring.

Asking Americans to stop being trade-oriented is like asking Russians to stop being xenophobic, or Chinese to stop being integrationist.

We must establish a north american empire with canada and mexico; central america, south america, and carribean. This region must be satellized into a self sufficient economic zone with near total autarky in regards to trade with eurasia. Only then will our nation be secure and our future survival ensured.

You sound like Praetor used to. We can make economic deals with the rest of the Western Hemisphere, but there's no way they will accept complete hegemony OR stop trading with the Old World, with which they retain massive cultural and economic ties.

You want thirty Iraqs simultaneously? That would be the result of your plan.

But Jefferson and the other founding fathers while they believed in trade with the old world they also believed that europe and asia needed to be kept at arms length. They did not envision our entire policy revolving around keeping eurasian trade routes open. Wilson was naive in my opinion as a simple reading of history would have proven his ideals could not be realistically implemented.

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

In order for our nation to survive we will have to dismantle the corporate state, and basically declare independence from the WTO/UN/commercial empire. Our national orientation must be less sea-faring commercial and more continental. We must establish a north american empire with canada and mexico; central america, south america, and carribean. This region must be satellized into a self sufficient economic zone with near total autarky in regards to trade with eurasia. Only then will our nation be secure and our future survival ensured.

You're still loony, I see...

Originally Posted by Cynic Hero '86

But Jefferson and the other founding fathers while they believed in trade with the old world they also believed that europe and asia needed to be kept at arms length. They did not envision our entire policy revolving around keeping eurasian trade routes open. Wilson was naive in my opinion as a simple reading of history would have proven his ideals could not be realistically implemented.

O rly?

First Barbary War: US intervenes to open Mediterranean sea lanes from North African pirates.

Quasi-War: US prevents France from interfering in its Atlantic shipping.

War of 1812: started to establish the freedom of all the seas without impressment of citizens into foreign war service.

1854: Commodore Matthew Perry, USN, intervenes to open Japan to Western trade.

Open Door Policy, 1898-1931: US intervenes repeatedly to maintain free and open trade relations between China and all Western powers.

It is the long-term and consistent policy of the United States to maintain free and open commerce between all nations. We usually stick our head in the oven when our commerce is being threatened (naturally: we have more cause and it brings us more profit), but we have always espoused the general principle that all trade should be free and open. This goes back to the Navigation Acts of the British empire, the laws of mercentile imperialism that were a long-standing impediment to American commerce... and one of the causes of the Revolution.

If you think we're doing too much to maintain the Persian Gulf trade routes... well... you're right. That's because we have too many people profiting from that trade in positions of influence, and an economy too dependent on those trade routes. Once we get some energy independence, we can tell them to go to hell -- which they seem in rather a hurry to send each other to.

That doesn't mean we should stop patrolling, say, the Straits of Malacca or the East China Sea or the Panama and Suez Canal approaches. World trade is still world trade.

Speaking of which, d'ya think we should dust off the old Nicaragua Canal plans?

Originally Posted by catfishncod

... Speaking of which, d'ya think we should dust off the old Nicaragua Canal plans?

No. The best route is the sea-level route through Panama. Actually, Jimmy Carter had that in mind when he pushed to handover the current canal to the Panamanians. Nicaragua was always a fall-back option.

It's a given. The Panamanians can't do it alone, and we, being good guys and giving them the old canal and all, ... well, we're right here, ready and willing. If they tell us to p!ss off, then we talk to the Nicaraguans.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

No. The best route is the sea-level route through Panama. Actually, Jimmy Carter had that in mind when he pushed to handover the current canal to the Panamanians. Nicaragua was always a fall-back option.

Panama is of course superior, but there is a serious concern that there will not be sufficient water in the mountain lake to operate an expanded Panama Canal. Further increases in transoceanic shipping then necessitate making the Horn (yuk), the Northwest Passage (double yuk even with global warming)... or building the Nicaraguan Canal.

It's a given. The Panamanians can't do it alone, and we, being good guys and giving them the old canal and all, ... well, we're right here, ready and willing. If they tell us to p!ss off, then we talk to the Nicaraguans.

You have seen the reports suggesting that the current operator of the Panama Canal is owned, via several dummy companies, by the People's Liberation Army Navy?

Originally Posted by catfishncod

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

No. The best route is the sea-level route through Panama. Actually, Jimmy Carter had that in mind when he pushed to handover the current canal to the Panamanians. Nicaragua was always a fall-back option.

Panama is of course superior, but there is a serious concern that there will not be sufficient water in the mountain lake to operate an expanded Panama Canal. Further increases in transoceanic shipping then necessitate making the Horn (yuk), the Northwest Passage (double yuk even with global warming)... or building the Nicaraguan Canal.

I think you're referring to the third-lock option. There is also a fully developed plan for a sea-level canal across Panama (alternately: Nicaragua or Mexico) that will require no fresh water. The only locks will be those that compensate for tidal action.

Originally Posted by catfishncod

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

It's a given. The Panamanians can't do it alone, and we, being good guys and giving them the old canal and all, ... well, we're right here, ready and willing. If they tell us to p!ss off, then we talk to the Nicaraguans.

You have seen the reports suggesting that the current operator of the Panama Canal is owned, via several dummy companies, by the People's Liberation Army Navy?

I also know that we have declared that the canal is a strategic waterway, that it must never be closed or its operation interrupted, and that we reserve the right to take control if either occurs. I doubt the Chinese will try to stop us in our own back yard.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I think you're referring to the third-lock option. There is also a fully developed plan for a sea-level canal across Panama (alternately: Nicaragua or Mexico) that will require no fresh water. The only locks will be those that compensate for tidal action.


I also know that we have declared that the canal is a strategic waterway, that it must never be closed or its operation interrupted, and that we reserve the right to take control if either occurs. I doubt the Chinese will try to stop us in our own back yard.

The chinese should not do so, considering their historical behavior large scale "binge" conquests are unlikely from them. More likely is a small slow gain of influence in regards to chinese interests in the western hemisphere.

So far the optimists are way ahead. Let's hope that they are right.

Our track recored is quite good. Think of how badly the earlier 4Ts could have gone for America -- and how well we came through three of the four. (Had Reconstruction succeeded, empowering freedmen and discrediting the racism that contributed to fascist and nazi thought, then we'd be four-four-four with no qualifications).

Democracy works better than anything else. It's better than monarchical absolutism, better than military rule, better than fascism, and better than communism in giving people moral choices between political alternatives. If I were some theocrat in Iran, I'd be very scared of taking on America or any other democracy.

Like many I was afraid that America was headed toward either a single-party dictatorship or to a Blade Runner corporatocracy, either of which could have started an apocalypse with ruin for America. But democracy works, and Karl Rove's vision of an America in which a totalitarianized GOP could render most Americans politically impotent has failed. We barely did it, but we succeeded in defeating the #3 leader in the GOP-dominated Senate, we drove the crookedest Senator (Conrad Burns) out of office, and we ousted a Senator (George Allen) whose aides started to enforce the Senator's 'honor' with thuggish tactics. With no majority, Karl Rove can no longer exercise his majority of a majority tactic that mimics the Bolshevik method of wielding power.

We have a very poor President, to be sure, a pathological liar, a glory-seeking adventurer, a misuser of political power on behalf of backers at the expense of everyone else. To our credit as a people we have proved ourselves better than that. Far from selling out we have shown that we demand better, and even some of his erstwhile supporters have begun to create distance between themselves and the bad President.

We are yet to enter the inevitable 4T. Those with some vision can imagine some of the distress that we will have to deal with. Economic inequality is one of the more obvious. Soon enough we will have to address the obvious fact that inequality of circumstance ensures that many people -- the poor -- are doomed to failure to achieve up to the standards necessary for a good society. We will have to deal with the seams of our political system, seams that Karl Rove attempted to exploit. We face the exhaustion of oil, yet we allow the oil companies to set the policies on transportation that accelerate the consumption of oil. Our military-industrial complex has become a power in itself.

So long as the United States remains a democracy, it will defeat any dictatorial power that challenges it. (In my opinion, the catastrophe in Iraq demonstrates more the degradation of American democracy than it does the power or cleverness of America's enemies). That includes even China. But there's a catch: America must remain true to the political principles of responsible government. It's easy to see coalitions of free countries that could take on and defeat an American despotism.

If we need an SDI to defend ourselves from a genuine attack, we will have it even if it forces us to double our taxes. If we have to establish maglev trains and build covered bicycle paths to meet the reality of vanishing petroleum, then we will do so. If we have to reform the educational system to ensure that every child has a chance and that those who get the education become good, productive citizens, then we will do so.

George W. Bush may prove the best thing that ever happened to America even as the worst President since Buchanan, except perhaps for Karl Rove shattering our complacency about the certainty of democracy. When the 4T happens, we will have already demanded more from our politicians than having a famous father and keeping his agenda to himself. We will recognize the need for principled, decisive, visionary leadership at the time of its greatest need.

We may end up seeing our 44th President after all this is done in much the same way as we see our 1st, 16th, and 32nd.