"Whatever one thinks of Manning’s actions, that we deserved to know some of what he revealed and that his revelations changed the world are undeniable."
The implication that Manning specifically knew that he was revealing to the world the ten items cited in your post is a real stretch. Manning downloaded and released to Wikileaks more than 700,000 State Department cables and US Army reports. He could not possibly have been aware of the specific content of most (or even any) of them.
Manning no doubt knew the general subject matter (intelligence and Embassy reporting), but The specific contents were revealed only after Wikileaks published them. This is why Manning is not a whistleblower. Nor is he a traitor. He did, however, violate his oath, the terms of his security clearance, and the trust placed in him, not to mention the trust of his fellow US Army colleagues.
I will grant Manning this: He has the courage of his convictions and has been willing to take the consequences of his actions. In doing so, he has shown a degree of courage and a certain integrity that are totally lacking in Edward Snowden.
"Check out the difference from Sgt Lawrence Hutchins who was FREED from charges of kidnapping, killing and hiding the death of an innocent Iraqi retired policeman because he was denied a lawyer for 6 days after his arrest!!!"
What has your non-sequitur got to do with the price of tea in China?
Jonathan Pollard richly deserved his life sentence. That every administration, both Republican and Democratic, has resisted Israel's pressure to release Pollard and allow him to reside in Israel is testament to the fact that Israel and the Israeli lobby (thankfully!) do not always get their way.
And if Pollard's sentence and the US Government's apparent intention to keep him imprisoned deter other would-be spies for Israel, all to the good. I would say the same for Bradley Manning. If the sentence the judge presiding over Manning's court martial hands down has the secondary effect of deterring future unauthorized release of classified information by those who would otherwise violate their oaths and the terms of their security clearances, that, too, will be all to the good.
"So it seems to me that Pope Francis is just saying what many evangelicals say– hate the sin, love the sinner, celibate gays are welcome in the congregation, etc. And he’s putting a further precondition on acceptance, that gays not band together as a pressure group. So they have to be celibate and seen but not heard, sort of like children."
Still, Pope Francis's statement on gays is forward movement for the Church. Don't forget that the Catholic Church is 2,000 years old, and things move forward slowly in its hierarchical, byzantine, and doctrinally-conservative bureaucratic environment.
I'll tell you what would really be a shocking break with hidebound discrimination and ignorance regarding Gays as the Other: If Al Azhar University in Cairo would publicly announce a theological fatwa stating that no Muslim should judge Gays, and that Gays should be an accepted part of Islamic society, attending mosques, and serving as imams (as long as they remain celibate, of course!). Then let's see if the worldwide Islamic Ummah would accept that with the same degree of equanimity as Catholics accepted the Pope's remarks.
"Moreover since the US & Nato’s humanitarian military bombed entire cities to rubble in Libya,..."
Where did you get that information? Which cities were bombed to rubble in Libya? There was no sustained US and NATO bombing campaign that reduced entire cities to rubble in Libya.
"How can we explain Germany’s role in this squalid affair?"
If Germany had denied Morales's aircraft overflight permission, Bolivian officials would have included it, along with France, Spain and Portugal, in their complaint. That they did not is pretty good evidence that Germany was not involved.
To answer your question cited above, there is nothing to explain because Germany was not involved.
"Der Spiegel reported “Several European countries had allegedly denied the Bolivian aircraft overflight rights after rumors began flying that National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden was on board."
Der Spiegel is, of course, correct. Several European countries did deny Morales's aircraft overflight permission: France, Spain, and Portugal.
"After Merkel clicking her heels and saying “Jawohl, mein Fuehrer” to Obama when he told her to deny Evo Morales his right to overfly Germany."
You are seriously misinformed. France, Spain, and Portugal denied Evo Morales's aircraft overflight permission. Germany was not involved. Morales's plane was forced to land in Vienna because it was running low on fuel. Austrian authorities used the stop to check to see if Snowden was on board. Later, Spain allowed the plane to refuel in the Canary Islands, provided Snowden was not on board.
Germany and Chancellor Merkel were not involved in Morales's adventure at all. There was no request to Germany for overflight permission from Morales's aircraft, and thus there was nothing for Germany to either approve or deny.
"Gee, I thought the comment was about
Fox Cable News and a Muslim."
The very first question she asked Rezla Azlan in the interview is, "You're a Muslim, so why did you write a book about the founder of Christianity?" She obviously ignored his background as a scholar. What made her think a Muslim could not write about the founder of Christianity? This is just a display of journalistic ignorance.
Sadly, it is a reflection of the phenomenon to which I referred in my initial comment about the pernicious idea that only Muslims are authorized to comment on Islam, Christians on Christianity, Blacks on Black history, Latinos and Asian on their history, etc. It is pigeonholing of the worst sort: Racial, ethnic, and religious stereotyping masquerading as scholarly authority.
One of the most ignorant and pernicious ideas that has been flogged in the land over the past 30 or so years is that historical, cultural, and religious commentary and writing only has validity if it is produced by someone of the ethnic, racial, or religious background of the subject under discussion. The idea that a Muslim is incapable of writing about Jesus and Christianity, that a non-Muslim is incapable of writing about Islam, that only Blacks have the authority to write about Black history, and so on regarding Latinos, Asians, Europeans, etc., is simply ludicrous. It completely ignores the fact that a sound historiographical approach and good scholarship transcends racial, ethnic, and religious categories.
"You know Bill will never directly come out and call Daniel Ellsberg a traitor at THIS site."
THIS site has nothing to do with it, SUPER390. You need to learn the definition of "traitor" before suggesting what I would or would not call Ellsberg. A traitor is one who commits treason. Treason is defined (in the Constitution, no less, under Article III Section 3) as follows:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
Did Daniel Ellsberg's actions consist of levying war against the US or giving our enemies "aid and comfort," SUPER390? I don't think so, and therefore I don't think Ellsberg was a traitor. The Pentagon Papers exposed the policy debates and prescriptions that went into decisions regarding our involvement in Vietnam, but that did not rise to the level of treason by a long shot.
You would be well-advised to be more precise in your own understanding of Constitutional and national security issues before passing judgment on how you think others would or would not respond to any particular issue.
"Over to you, Bill, for more examples of specious reasoning…"
You have done the work for me with your comment responding to my post about Snowden's Top Secret clearance and how his obligation to abide by its terms applied equally, whether he worked for Booz Allen or the US Government. My only difficulty is in determining whether your comment is an example of specious reasoning, a non-sequitur, or both.
"By the way, Edward Snowden, who revealed Prism’s existence to our elected representatives (we won’t be telling them everything, boys), was not a government employee and the only thing he violated was a confidentiality agreement with Booz, Allen, a private firm."
Edward Snowden had a Top Secret security clearance that granted him access, on a need to know basis, to Top Secret US Government information and documents. Top Secret clearances are granted to individuals with stringent restrictions attached regarding the handling and disposition of information and documents. It does not matter whether one is working as a direct-hire US Government employee or as an employee with a US Government contractor. The restrictions apply equally in both cases.
Snowden is just as guilty of revealing classified information, and thereby violating the terms of his clearance and employment, as he would have been had he been a direct-hire US Government employee. It is specious reasoning to suggest that Snowden's act was any less egregious because he worked for Booz Allen rather than directly with the US Government.
Anthony Weiner is a serial sexter whose sophomoric personal life mirrors his equally sophomoric political views. It takes real chutzpah and gall for him to think he has anything of value to offer New Yorkers.
Equally disgusting is his wife who obviously supports both his serial attempts at "redemption" and his policies. When his wife stood beside him, looking at him with google eyes and "forgiving" him, she was participating in the ritual exercise in self-humiliation. Or, perhaps, she, too, is desperate to live in the New York City Mayor's mansion.
They both deserve each other. New York does not deserve either of them.
"Sir, every work of history I have ever read, quite a few at my age, from a pretty broad scope, carried the stamp of the “historian’s” biases and predilections and loyalties"
I have spent a lifetime reading history and discussing it, first with my family at the dinner table and later with colleagues while attending university, continuing throughout my professional life until today. I can assure you that not all histories are equally biased. Some, in fact, attempt to present a more objective understanding of America, both regarding its domestic developments and its role in the world, than others. Contrary to your belief that history is "an exercise in selective storytelling" (Your tribute to the "postmodern" ethos is touching), some sets of facts are more defensible than mere "storytelling."
I am not dismissing Howard Zinn's "A People's History" out of hand. I stated that I did not agree with attempts to muzzle or suppress him. Zinn's work, however, is just this side of being "agitprop." He clearly has an agenda in his work to relentlessly portray the United States in as negative a light as he can, without appearing to be a card-carrying member of the old Comintern.
You asked for some American history texts that present a more balanced portrayal than Zinn. John Garraty's two-volume "The American Nation" is good for starters. Earlier editions are better, as the later ones, like a lot of texts these days, seem to have been "dumbed down" for students. Another first-rate history is Samuel Eliot Morison's "History of the American People." Morison also wrote the "History of United States Naval Operations in World War II," if you are interested. A fine diplomatic history of the United States is Thomas A. Bailey's "A Diplomatic History of the American People."
Any one of the above, as well as a host of others, do more justice to both the historian's profession and to American history than does Zinn.
"Zinn’s book is popular history, written for a general audience. No, it’s not top-flight academic scholarship, but how many text books used for non-historians (undergraduates, high school teachers doing professional development, and the like) are top-flight, primary-source-based research?"
While my previous posts on the topic reflect my disgust at any attempt to suppress historians (or academics in general) of both the liberal and conservative persuasion, including Zinn, I have to say that criticism of Zinn's work is based on more than just that it lacks rigorous scholarship. Zinn's work deliberately downplays, and in some cases omits, important historical events and data that would undercut his slanted point of view. To answer your question, there are plenty of American history texts that are more balanced in their approach than Zinn's.
"This is a bogus comparison. What politicians have tried to use their power to get Niall Ferguson or Victor David Hanson’s actual historical work removed from classrooms?"
What is bogus is your attempt to suggest Daniels wanted Zinn removed from the classroom, and that I hung my comment on that. He did not, and I did not. Daniels wanted to prevent the state of Indiana from granting professional development credit to teachers who took the class.
If you had read my posts carefully you would have seen that I was using this incident to criticize those on both the Right and the Left who have historically attempted to pressure universities to muzzle or suppress views (whether from the likes of Zinn and Hobshawm or Fergason and Hanson) with which they disagree. If you think that attempts to suppress academic freedom and different points of view come only from the Right, then I have some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you, site unseen.
"I’m saying it is up the academic with the Ph.D. and the appointment to decide what books to use. We don’t know what their teaching goal is in any particular class, and you’d be surprised how little of academic teaching has anything to do with politics or culture wars."
We are in complete agreement, Professor Cole. My concern is that there are always outside forces--Boards of Regents, political figures, alumni contributors--who attempt to pressure the university to suppress, and sometimes even to fire, professors with whom they disagree.
Rarely can they achieve their goal by attacking the teaching, reading material, or ideological slant a professor may engage in, but they try to find another chink in the armor to do their damage. Sort of like putting Al Capone away for tax evasion. Isn't that what happened to Ward Churchill at the University of Colorado? Ward Churchill and I probably would not agree on much of anything, but I thought the witch hunt to get him (If I recall, they found some questionable research as a pretext to fire him.) was pretty disgusting.
Thus, my sense that academics and academia must constantly be alert to attempts by the anti-intellectual mob (of whatever persuasion) to attack.
Those on the Right who want to muzzle Leftist historians such as Howard Zinn and the British Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm are just as disgusting in their anti-intellectualism as those on the Left who want to muzzle the likes of Conservative historians such as Niall Ferguson and Victor Davis Hanson. Such attempts to suppress or muzzle intellectual discourse with which one may disagree are usually thwarted by a strong tradition of intellectual inquiry and competing ideas in the academy. Nevertheless, as the story above demonstrates, one must always be alert to the anti-intellectual current that runs just below the surface of both the Right and the Left in much of the American populace.
It has been the policy of every US administration since the Six-Day War in 1967 to oppose the construction of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. United States policy on settlements was probably best and most succinctly stated by Ambassador Thomas Pickering, who was George H.W. Bush's Ambassador to the United Nations.
On November 27, 1989, Ambassador Pickering stated: "Since the end of the 1967 war, the U.S. has regarded Israel as the occupying power in the occupied territories, which includes the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. The U.S. considers Israel's occupation to be governed by the Hague Regulations of 1907 and the 1949 Geneva Conventions concerning the protection of civilian populations under military occupation."
Under the Geneva Conventions concerning the protection of civilian populations under military occupation, it is illegal for the occupying power to construct settlements and move its own citizens into occupied areas. Since 1967, on both legal and foreign policy grounds, the United States has opposed Israeli settlements on the West Bank. Yet, despite the financial, material, military, and political support Israel receives from its chief benefactor, Israel has thumbed its nose at every administration and gotten away with it.
It is clear that in spite of a cadre of dissenters in Israel, the ruling elite (and not just the Likud Right Wing) has from the very beginning been creating "facts on the ground" in the West Bank. Once those "facts on the ground" have reached a critical mass (and they may already have reached that point), Israel will no doubt consider the West Bank as a de-facto (if not de-juris) part of Israel. Meanwhile, in spite of its stated policy, the United States allows Israel to have its way. A foreign policy that is not pursued robustly in a nation's own national interest is a foreign policy unworthy of the name. Unfortunately, the US has managed to follow such a policy course in the case of Israeli settlements.
To doubt that the United States landed men on the moon on July 20, 1969 is definitely to be on the "fringe." This idea that the moonlanding was a hoax has been around since, well, since men landed on the moon. One of the key components of the conspiracy theorists is that what we all thought were men landing on the moon actually took place and was filmed at an area with a lunar-like landscape near Flagstaff, Arizona. The conspiracy theorists who doubt the lunar-landing are suffering from (forgive the pun) lunacy.
There is ample scientific evidence that the-lunar landing occurred. If it were a conspiracy by the US Government, then literally thousands of scientists, engineers, and others in the US space program at the time would have to have been privy to, and kept silent about, the conspiracy.
The conspiracy theorists rejection of all evidence that the lunar-landing took place ranks up there with the Creationists "proof" that the earth is 6,000 years old; the rejection of evolution and natural selection; the conspiracy theorists who believe that the contrails (condensation trails) left by jetliners are really chemtrails (chemical trails) spreading disaster; and the flat-earthers (for whom there exists a Flat Earth Society).
Thank goodness this know-nothing attitude remains on the fringe. Unfortunately, it still has a potentially destructive possibility, as there are those who argue that such nonsense should be given equal treatment with real science in classrooms and textbooks.
"The Soviet Union’s and U.S. space programs would not have been possible without German WWII V-2 rocket technology."
In the case of the US space program, we have Wernher von Braun to thank. Wernher von Braun was in charge of developing the V-2 for Hitler during World War II, and he was a member of both the Nazi Party and the SS. After the war von Braun was brought to the US under the secret program "Operation Paperclip." His expertise in rocketry was first applied to a US Army program and later to the US space program. One of history's ironies.
"Either these old lefties will die in death camps built by a fascist right they helped into power by sabotaging the Democratic Party while utterly lacking the skills to replace it, or they will be overrun and forgotten by the nonwhite demographic wave that is the only thing that can save democracy from that fascism. I intend to fight alongside those who would die rather than see whites restored to the status of a Master Race."
Overwrought, overheated rhetoric fueled by a fevered imagination and a cartoon version of American history and current events.
"Interesting that you immediately embraced this conspiracy rumor unbacked by documentary evidence."
Before running off and getting rhetorically lathered up and indignant, SUPER390, you might re-read my post. If you had actually read it the first time you would have noted that I prefaced my one-paragraph comment with what is known in grammar as the "conditional verb" form, i.e. "If true,...." I realize that the use and understanding of grammar, such as the conditional verb, is diminished today, but everything that followed was valid "if" Mark Koroi's professor's comment was "true." That should not be too hard to understand.
"A college professor once told me that the 1967 riots were planned by left-wing fellow faculty members and he witnessed the planning."
If true, I wonder if the faculty members involved in the planning are proud of the devastation the riots caused, both in the Black community and in Detroit as a whole. Those left-wing academics involved in the planning certainly gave no thought to the underprivileged minorities who suffered the consequences, while they (the academics) no doubt witnessed it all from the safety of their own elite communities.
But not to the extent that it was creating unemployment in Detroit, as much of robotification does today (and not just in Detroit and the auto industry). After all, it was during the post-war 1950s and 1960s that Detroit and the auto industry were looked on (with good reason) as the engine for pulling workers into the middle class.
As suggested, there are several important reasons for Detroit's decline. Nevertheless, there are two very important, and often overlooked, reasons that led to the precipitous decline of Detroit relative to other cities that were in the "Rust Belt" and came back revitalized, such as Pittsburgh today.
Detroit's decline began long before robotics appeared in the auto industry. The 1967 race riots in Detroit were among the worst in the nation and destroyed whole areas, primarily where the Black community was living. Whatever the reasons that sparked the riots, it was not smart to destroy one's own community and the supporting infrastructure that sustained it. In some sense, Detroit never recovered from that trauma.
The auto industry itself--both the United Auto Workers union and the automobile companies--were in large part responsible for the decline of the industry in Detroit. In the 1970s and 1980s, they cut "sweetheart" contract deals that resulted in workers receiving a package of salary and benefits that totaled $71.00 per hour. They literally priced themselves out of the market, and the Japanese took advantage of it by outselling Detroit with their reliable and economically-priced Toyotas and Hondas. Later, Japanese companies further undercut Detroit by locating plants in places like Kentucky, creating jobs with a salary and benefits package in the neighborhood of $45.00 per hour, hardly chump change.
I do not think Detroit represents in microcosm the "dystopia America is becoming." Former Rust Belt cities like Pittsburgh have shown that with planning and foresight, cities can turn themselves around and flourish. It takes both vision and planning, however, and both seem to be lacking in Detroit.
"about kids living in poverty – do you have data on how many were born to unmarried women?"
You have hit on an important point, Brian, but one that, unfortunately, is considered taboo in certain circles. Study after study has shown that kids who are born in, and grow up with, two-parent families are far less likely to face poverty and lack of education than kids who are born to single mothers and grow up without a father in the household. This is not a value judgment; it is a fact.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan first brought this problem to national attention in 1965 with his seminal report, "The Negro Family: The Case For National Action." Moynihan's report focused on the deep roots of black poverty in America and concluded that the relative absence of nuclear families (those having both a father and mother present) would greatly hinder further progress toward economic and political equality. Needless to say, Moynihan has been proven correct by many subsequent studies. At the time, however, he was attacked by those who charged him with taking the focus off society's failings and instead focusing on social pathologies within the black community.
The use of simple nouns and verbs in declarative sentences should be used far beyond Twitter. They are just as useful in essays, news articles, and other forms of writing.
The gold standard has always been with us. Nothing yet has challenged "The Elements of Style," by Strunk and White, and "On Writing Well," by William Zinsser.
"A question that might be applied to many of us, especially those who leave hanging the implication, unsupported, of deep involvement in, and deep knowledge about, what the Deep Government has been up to. And of course “serious history.” And “serious observation of international affairs.” And I guess the implicit sense of how the rest of us are supposed to sleep on, secure in the belief that it’s all been for our own good."
What relevance the mouth-full quoted above has to the topic of Egypt and political Islam is known only to the author, who must be under the impression that a non-sequitur can pass as insight.
Yours is a very good point, DFSC. One of the reasons that Islam has such a difficult time coming to terms with modernity is its failure to make a distinction between the secular and the sacred. The only country that accomplished it was Turkey under Mustapha Kemal (Ataturk). Ataturk forcibly brought Turkey into the 20th century by, among other things, relegating Islam to the Mosque and keeping it out of government and the public square. It lasted for more than 75 years, but, unfortunately, under Erdogan that important distinction is being chipped away.
I think Morsi left the Freedom and Justice Party after assuming the Presidency simply as a cosmetic gesture to assuage those who were skeptical of him and his Muslim Brotherhood roots from the beginning. The MB roots ran deep in Morsi, however, and his subsequent actions as President demonstrated that he favored an Islamist (or, if you prefer, "Fundamentalist") approach to governing. It seems to me that Morsi maintained an Islamist, Muslim Brotherhood, orientation all along. And why would anyone expect him to change after a lifetime in such circles?
The best history of America's adventure in the Philippines is "In Our Image: America's Empire in the Philippines," by the Asian specialist and historian Stanley Karnow. It was published in 1989, and it covers all aspects of the American experience in the Philippines, from the Defeat of the Spanish fleet in Manila Bay, through the Philippine Insurrection (known as the Philippine-American War in the Philippines), the Commonwealth period, World War II and Japanese occupation, independence in 1946, and relations since. It's a great read and riveting history.
The American war against the Insurrection was brutal, America did not implement land reform, and the US coddled the 40 or so leaders of the elite families and thus ensured their perpetuation even after independence. On the other side of the ledger, the US put great emphasis on education, and US imperialism in the Philippines was relatively benign compared to European imperialism in Asia and Africa. The American record in the Philippines is probably best described as a mixed bag. In any case, if one were to read one history of America in the Philippines, my recommendation would be Karnow's book.
Good post, Mark. You have added a much needed perspective to the above article and demonstrated that simply quoting raw figures alone, without providing perspective, tells us nothing at all.
"As for “the US engineering the coup against Morsi.” that’s a bizarre and inexcusable distortion of what I said, making any reply to whatever point you were trying to make completely superfluous."
In addition to my previous response, Charles II, I would like to reply specifically to your above-cited quote, in which you state that the phrase about "the US engineering the coup against morsi" is a distortion of what you said. Let me offer a direct quote from your comment: "It’s difficult to believe that the Army acted without Washington’s approval. That means that the US, to one degree or another, sponsored the coup."
Your words, And I would suggest that your categorical statement that "the US, to one degree or another, sponsored the coup," and the suggestion that the US "engineered" the coup is a distinction (choose your verb) without a difference.
"Remember the overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chile in 1973, Dr. Mossadegh in Iran in 1953."
Yes, so let's plant the seeds of conspiracy by suggesting that because the US has been involved in past coups (although in Chile the US was not directly involved), it was very likely involved in Morsi's ouster.
This is one more example of Professor Cole's logical fallacy, "post hoc ergo propter hoc." The US has been involved in some past coups, ergo it follows that it was likely involved in Egypt's coup. Once again, the failure to distinguish between correlation and causation. the cock crows and the sun rises day after day; ergo the cock's crow causes the sun to rise. The US has been involved in coups, ergo the US was likely involved in Egypt's coup, and will likely be involved in coups wherever they occur in the future.
This mode of thinking makes analysis of international events easy, because it essentially renders analysis irrelevant.
"Bill, if you actually read my post, I think you’ll find your question is answered. As for “the US engineering the coup against Morsi.” that’s a bizarre and inexcusable distortion of what I said, making any reply to whatever point you were trying to make completely superfluous."
I actually read your post, Charles II, and here, once again, are pertinent quotes from your comment, which you derived and extrapolated from the conspiratorially manipulated Op-Ed piece by Al-Jazeera:
"It’s legitimate to question whether US funding helped to shape popular unrest...and important to question whether the US engineered the coup."
That is your takeaway from the Al-Jazeera Op-Ed that clearly and deliberately tried to conflate State Department funding for democracy activists during the Mubarak era with the coup against Morsi. The Op-Ed was a deliberate and inexcusable attempt to suggest a US conspiracy to remove Morsi by conflating two separate and discrete events.
Regarding your observation that it is "important to question whether the US engineered the coup," why? Because Al-Jazeera says the US was behind it? I stand by my comment: "It is always amusing how gullible some people are who believe the US is behind every change-of-government, coup, or uprising anywhere in the world." When the first reaction is that it is "important to question whether the US engineered the coup," that reveals the very mentality to which I am referring in my statement.
Perhaps Professor Cole said it best when he wrote: "This article is muddled mush, and will be cited by the equally brainless as proof of something. It isn’t."
"It’s legitimate to question whether US funding helped to shape popular unrest… and important to question whether the US engineered the coup."
You do understand, don't you, that the State Department funding for democracy activists occurred during the Mubarak era? How, then, did it shape popular unrest against Morsi?
As for the US engineering the coup against Morsi, It is always amusing how gullible some people are who believe the US is behind every change-of-government, coup, or uprising anywhere in the world. Such thinking tracks with Al-jazeera's breathless, supermarket tabloid conspiracy theory that the State Department's Mubarak era funding to the democratic opposition led to Morsi's removal.
To paraphrase Professor Cole's logical fallacy once again: To the true conspiratorial believers, the fact that the cock crows every morning before the sun rises, followed by the sun's rise, is proof positive that the cock's crowing causes the sun to rise. How could it be otherwise, whether explaining the sun's rise each morning or coups anywhere in the world?
This "brain-dead" Op Ed, like most brain-dead Op Eds, attempts to mask its shallow nonsense with a screaming headline: "EXCLUSIVE: US BANKROLLED ANTI-MORSI ACTIVISTS." The supermarket tabloid format and amateurish attempt to establish a tenuous correlation between the small amounts previously granted by the State Department to democracy activists and the overthrow of Morsi is pathetic.
Your formulation of the logical fallacy "post hoc ergo propter hoc" as the Op-Ed writer's lodestar is spot-on, professor. The problem is, in his obvious ignorance he will fail to understand the logical fallacy inherent in the phrase (whether or not he understands Latin). The ignorant fail to make a distinction between correlation and causation. The writer no doubt is firm in his belief that because the cock crows every day before the sun rises, the cock's crowing causes the sun to rise.
After posting my above comment and giving President de Kirchner's spinal problems careful thought and consulting a physician friend of mine, my recommendation is that she consult the Argentine Presidential physician about the possibility that she is experiencing the beginning symptoms of lumbago.
At several intervals during her Speech, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner said:
"I got chills down my spine when I went back to Bolivia and saw that a fellow president (Evo Morales) had been detained for 13 hours as though he were a thief."
then,
"I got chills down my spine when we discovered that they are spying on all of us through their intelligence services."
and finally,
"I get chills down my spine when I hear the views of directors of other enterprises, including business leaders, who only immerse themselves in minutiae and do not realize what is happening"
"We still need the power to take to the streets, or our enemies will take them instead."
You have the power to take to the streets, SUPER390. No one is preventing you and like-minded colleagues from demonstrating for whatever cause you wish. I live in Washington, DC, and during the "Occupy" movement, there was an entire tent village of "Occupy DC" set up for months in McPherson Square. That some residents agreed with their program but many did not was inevitable and part of the public discourse.
I suspect that your complaint is that you fail to get a majority of Americans to agree with your cause. Your problem is not that you lack free speech or the right to protest; you have the freedom to protest and speak out on any topic you wish: against capitalism, against US foreign policy, against corporations, etc. What I think you fail to comprehend is that because you have the right to protest and advance your causes does not mean that anyone has the obligation to agree with you in advancing those causes. The American public has as much right to disagree with your causes as you have to push for them.
And please don't advance the tiresome, arrogant argument that the American public doesn't agree with your causes because Americans are ignorant and don't know what is in their best interest; that they are manipulated by (fill in the blank--neocons, corporations, the military-industrial complex, etc.). That is an arrogant attitude that demonstrates a lack of nuance regarding what motivates people.
"Just a reminder, in case it’s needed (Bill), that there’s a lot of ‘feel good’ rhetoric involved in America’s still-potential democracy, which is still working things out....The West has little room to preach or suggest."
The United States is not a perfect democracy and has its flaws, NewsNag, but it is, and has been for a long time, much further down the path of democracy and representative government than Egypt and the countries undergoing transition. Anyone who states otherwise either has his head in the sand or is deliberately obfuscating the truth in order to advance his own agenda and Narrative.
Regarding your observation that the West has little room to preach or suggest, did you actually read my comment? Particularly my observation: "All of our hectoring about democracy, human rights, and other issues that animate so much of American and Western activists’ rhetoric will be just so much “feel good” rhetoric, satisfying perhaps, but ultimately empty"? You will note that I am not suggesting that the West's "preaching and suggesting" will have any effect, not because the West has nothing to offer (it does), but because, as I stated in my original comment above, hectoring and preaching about democracy and human rights will do no good. It is only when countries reach a certain "critical mass" that they begin to develop a mature political economy worthy of the name.
Egypt, like all countries in the Near East and elsewhere experiencing transitions, has a long way to go before anyone can say with certainty that democracy has taken root. It is amusing that so many observers, including the US Government under both Republican and Democratic administrations, experience heart palpitations and heavy breathing whenever there is a "free and fair" election in countries that were formerly authoritarian.
Democracy is much more than one or two "free and fair" elections. It truly exists when certain concepts are institutionalized: Citizens petitioning their government, access to the courts, contracts honored, ordinary citizens having access to credit in the financial system, and a whole host of other institutionalized concepts that may take a couple of generations to be established.
In the meantime, observers of both the Left and the Right should not get exercised because democracy has not taken root in various countries as quickly or seamlessly as they would like. There is not much we can or should do about it. Eventually democracy and its underpinning institutions take root if the countries themselves reach a certain "critical mass": A certain level of middle class is reached, a certain standard of living is achieved, the population begins to see a stake in participating in their own government with results, etc. Without that critical mass, there will be no real democracy, and all of our hectoring about democracy, human rights, and other issues that animate so much of American and Western activists' rhetoric will be just so much "feel good" rhetoric, satisfying perhaps, but ultimately empty.
"No, no, no: Bill says it’s all completely legal! Or at least Necessary! Or maybe Justified!"
Actually, I have never addressed or commented on the issue of forced feeding at Guantanamo, Mr. McPhee. You are making that up out of whole cloth, but it tracks with your other attempts to put words in people's mouths with whom you disagree, in order to set up a straw man for your own Narrative. It is sad that apparently you cannot make your case on its own merits without setting up others as straw men.
"Which part of that is not a claim that Morales, and by simple logic the rest of the planet, is not subject to US law?"
You really must learn the difference between being "subject to US law" and "aiding and abetting an international fugitive who is subject to US law." Snowden's activities in the US render him subject to US law. Morales, were he aiding and abetting Snowden's flight from justice, would be acting in contravention of international norms and conventions. While he would not be subject to US law, those very international norms and conventions grant the US the right, in concert with allies, to ensure that he is not aiding and abetting Snowden's fugitive flight from justice.
"at 07/07/2013 at 5:46 pm, Bill sez: “The United States has not, and does not, spirit dissidents out of China or anywhere else on Air Force One.” From what I read, neither did Evo Morales. But that is just as irrelevant as your statement. The point seems to be that it is not illegal for Morales to do so. Folks in other countries do not have to obey our laws, do they?"
It is not a matter of "obeying our laws," Brian. Snowden is an international fugitive from justice, and the United States has a right to request the assistance of other countries to ensure, to the extent possible, that he is not spirited out of Moscow under some subtrefuge, even on Morales's aircraft.
Morales does have the right to grant Snowden asylum in Bolivia, should Snowden legitimately reach Bolivian soil. But just because Morales is President of Bolivia does not give him diplomatic immunity in order to aid and abet Snowden's flight from US justice aboard his aircraft. As it was, Morales did not, but the US had the right to ensure that he did not.
"And yet, if Air Force One was treated similarly while on a visit to China because of the mere possibility that a dissident was on board, you would freak out, Bill."
The United States has not, and does not, spirit dissidents out of China or anywhere else on Air Force One.
"What is lacking in your analysis is: (a) Acknowledgement of the sovereignity of Bolivia (the aircraft carrying the country’s executive is, to the best of my knowledge, sovereign territory of Bolivia)"
Morales's plane is not considered sovereign territory of Bolivia, as an Embassy is, for example. His plane must request and receive permission to overfly the territory of sovereign countries such as France, Portugal, and Austria, and the aircraft must land if so requested. And under international law and convention, a request can be (and was) made to search it.
"(b) A proper analysis of the PROBABILITY – NOT ‘POSSIBILITY’ of Snowden’s presence aboard the aircraft. In order to make a proper analysis of the probability, you would need to provide the hard numbers that went into your calculations … the sources for those hard numbers … and the mathematical algorithms used to calculate those probabilities."
The United States does not need to engage in the mathematical gymnastics suggested by your comment above (algorithms!) to posit the possibility (not probability, possibility is enough) that Snowden might be on the plane. That possibility was enough to justify the action taken.
Everything I wrote about Venezuela's Maduro, three articles down, applies in spades to Morales. Morales's pathetic (not to say bathetic!) suggestion that the Europeans disrespected him because he is an indigenous Bolivian is too cute for words and demonstrates his self-pitying lack of understanding of why his plane was searched.
Regarding the statement that, "The US intelligence's bright idea of telling Western European allies that Snowden was on the Bolivian jet has therefore backfired," lacks any supporting evidence. I seriously doubt that US intelligence told Western European allies that Snowden was "on the Bolivian jet." More likely, US intelligence advised European allies of the possibility that Morales took Snowden with him on his plane, in which case Morales would be aiding and abetting the flight of a fugitive from US justice, without having undergone the process of granting him political asylum.
Were that to be the case, Morales would be an accessory to a crime (aiding and abetting a fugitive). Given Morales's past statements, both against the US and in support of Snowden, that was not a possibility to dismiss lightly. Morales's plane was denied overflight permission and forced to land in Vienna in order to see if Snowden was on it, not because anyone "knew" he was on it.
"Sure seems to me that Bill’s implicit claims...."
If you are going to quote me, Mr. McPhee, then quote me. But don't let your fevered imagination run amok by suggesting that my comments "imply" anything. I have never made, and do not make, "implicit claims." Please do not attempt to suggest such, presumably in order to juxtapose it against your preferred Narrative.
Rather than attempting to smear Hernando de Soto by association, I suggest you read him and determine for yourself what you think of his ideas, Mr. Bodden. In fact, I would encourage everyone to read both Galeano and de Soto. Nothing like reading two different perspectives on Latin America to widen one's horizons.
"For more on this topic read Eduardo Galeano’s "Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent"
For a better, more balanced approach to the topic, read anything by the Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto, but particularly his book, "The Other Path." Hernando de Soto offers a much more nuanced take on the reasons Latin America has failed to develop and reach its potential.
Annon, judging from your completely one-sided, and largely ahistorical, recitation of American history above, it is evident that you are the one who has drunk the Kool Aid. Your cartoon version of American history is so skewed to fit your preferred Narrative that it would be laughed out of any discussion by serious, responsible historians.
Not that you don't have some valid points to make, but they are completely undermined by your selective omission of great swaths of American history that you don't want to acknowledge. Only on the internet, where anyone can post anything, regardless how bizarre and skewed, does such a conspiratorially-inspired Narrative qualify as "history" by the uninformed.
And the point of your little set-piece above is...what, Mr. McPhee?
I suggested that the big talk coming out of Maduro will only have meaning if backed by deeds, and I suggested that no responsible observer should place bets on such an eventuality, given his history of being a blowhard. Rather than promote your conspiratorial view of history, why don't you address the question of Maduro's follow-through on his big talk? Talk is cheap, deeds require more grit. What do you think?
Maduro and Morales are blowhards who are vying for leadership of the Latin American Left after Chavez's death. No responsible international observer should place his bets on any follow-through on the part of these poseurs. Rafael Correa, who is much more astute than either Maduro or Morales, has already backed off regarding asylum for Snowden in Ecuador.
"A charge sometimes casually thrown around is the one about outside or CIA interference."
It is thrown around only by unreconstructed conspiracy theorists who think the various elements of the US government, including the CIA, operate seamlessly to influence every incident that occurs anywhere on earth. It is a childish, naive approach to analyzing international events that is embraced by childish, naive conspiracy theorists. Anyone who actually knows something about how the various elements of the US Government work understands that, while some events have been influenced by the US, the US Government lacks the capacity to operate on the level imagined by the conspiracy theorists.
"And the military (and those who supported the coup) are and will be responsible for every drop of blood."
The responsibility for any bloodshed belongs solely to Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood for attaining power via a democratic election and then, having attained power, attempting to subvert the very democratic process that brought them to power. Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood bear full responsibility for the bait-and-switch tactics they brought to bear against the Egyptian electorate. It's an old story: Gain power via the democratic process and then, once in power, destroy the democratic process for your own ends.
"Also pro-Morsi protest today in: Algiers and most city in the ME, and even in Kabul."
I doubt that the vast majority of Egyptians who are glad Morsi is gone give a damn about pro-Morsi demonstrations in Algiers and Kabul. The demonstrators in Algiers and Kabul didn't have to live under his regime. And if they like his governing philosophy, perhaps they should worry more about their own governments than that of Egypt.
Mohammed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood have only themselves to blame for their downfall and the Egyptian military's assumption of political power. It was clear from the beginning that the MB had not changed its stripes, and that it wanted to impose an Islamist government on Egypt. They showed their hand early-on by stating they would not run a candidate for president and would not contest seats in the upper house of parliament, and then reversing themselves and doing both. It was an obvious bait-and-switch ploy to soften the image of their Islamist history and undermine the wariness Egyptians held regarding the MB agenda.
Let us be spared soulful laments about the democratic process being subverted by the military. It was Morsi and the MB who began subverting the democratic process by ensuring a majority in the upper house of parliament and by ramming through an MB-inspired constitution that was heavily Islamist in content. Democracy is a lot more than just winning an election. Many groups, and I suspect the MB is among them, are quite willing to use the democratic election process to attain power, and then, having attained it, impose a very undemocratic regime on a nation.
The prime example, of course, is the November 1932 election in Germany, in which the Nazi party won the largest number of seats in the Reichtag but failed to win a majority. A coalition government was formed, and in January 1933, President von Hindenburg legally appointed Adolf Hitler Chancellor. In March 1933, through parliamentary maneuvering, Hitler and the Nazis managed to pass the Enabling Act, which granted the Chancellor (Hitler) powers to declare acts and laws without parliamentary input and approval. The beginning of totalitarianism in Germany had been established. All done legally. There was ample precedent for the Muslim Brotherhood to follow.
One hopes that this whole miserable performance by Morsi and the MB, and the military intervention it prompted, will eventually result in a more secular, democratically-elected government. One also hopes that what is occurring in Egypt, the largest, most important country in the Arab World, will have repercussions in other Middle Eastern countries, and that those repercussions will result in more secular governments. Religiously-based governments, whether they be in Christian-majority countries, in Jewish-majority Israel, or in Islamic-majority countries, have no place in a modern political, economic, and social system. Religion should be confined to the church, temple, synagogue, and mosque. It should not be part of the political equation. I realize that this is a hard concept for some to swallow, but there it is. For those who say that were Islam to follow such a course it would not longer be Islam, my response is that the same thing was said of Christianity in the sixteenth century. A rational approach will recognize that religions can evolve, and an enlightened attitude will demand that they do so.
"The worst part about PRISM is that it violated our rights for years in secret."
You appear to be confusing PRISM with the collection of metadata involving telephone Nos., Bill They are two separate programs. PRISM involves obtaining internet and E-mail communications from foreign (i.e., non-US) sources). The metadata sweeping up of telephone Nos. called involves US sources.
Well, Bill, there has been a "war" on traffic fatalities for as long as I can remember. Over the years it has involved everything from red-light and speed cameras to increased police presence on highways during holidays to apprehend drunk drivers.
"Where is the insistance (sic) on a memorial to the victims of June, 2013?"
You really must know the difference between victims of traffic accidents and victims of terrorist attacks, don't you, Bill?
Morsi's undemocratic and hard-line stance, beginning with his ramming through of the MB-inspired constitution and continuing through the current chaos, demonstrates that Neither Morsi nor the Muslim Brotherhood have changed their stripes. It was evident from the beginning that the MB wanted an Islamic state, and their past history indicated they would not countenance a (in their view) watered-down pluralism.
Remember when this all began, spokesmen for the MB stated publicly they would not run a candidate for President, and then they did? It was obviously a bait and switch tactic meant to put the MB in a more favorable light, given their past history. This was so predictable from the very beginning. If the military were to take charge of events, Morsi and his MB minions would have only themselves to blame.
The UNHCR does not just hand out travel documents to anyone claiming to be a refugee. The term "refugee" has a precise definition under the United Nations and under international law. Before the UNHCR could even consider Snowden a refugee, he would have to be processed and interviewed by a UNHCR representative, who would then make a determination on his status.
Even if a UNHCR representative were to determine that Snowden qualified for refugee status (a highly debatable proposition), Snowden would not be issued a travel document until and unless a third country accepted him as a refugee.
Keep in mind that there is a big difference in status and categories between a "refugee" and a "political asylee." Those seeking refugee status have fled their country of origin and must be processed by a UNHCR representative. Those seeking political asylum must be on the territory of the state to which they are applying, and UNHCR representatives have nothing to do with their cases.
"There is certainly nothing in Sweden that he fears."
Your above-cited quote will certainly be news to Assange. Were Assange to be returned to Sweden, he would face charges involving rape, unlawful coercion, and two cases of sexual molestation. It is interesting that you don't consider those anything to be concerned about, as if they were no worse than stealing a candy bar.
"Edward Snowden released a statement from Moscow on Monday, slamming Barack Obama for revoking his passport and rendering him stateless and unable to seek asylum even though Snowden has not been found guilty of any crime."
Edward Snowden has neither lost his citizenship nor been rendered "stateless." Snowden remains a US citizen, and he has a country, the United States, to which he could return if he so desired. Snowden is a fugitive from justice, and as such the US Government has revoked his passport. That is the normal procedure for US fugitives, whether they are in the US or abroad. It is not unique to his case.
What Snowden is beginning to realize is the full effect his decision to violate his oath and the position of trust he held by running away with highly classified information and revealing it to the world is having on his life. His highly inflated and romantic view of himself as a whistle-blower has descended into bathos with his trite and untrue claim that he is "stateless."
Glenn Greenwald is really full of himself these days. Good journalism is not measured by "how angry you make the people your covering." That is a conceit that only Greenwald could come up with.
Good journalism is measured by how deeply, accurately, and objectively one covers a story or event. In doing so, a good journalist may indeed anger those he is covering. But not necessarily so. If Greenwald thinks that good journalism is only that which angers those being covered, he has a very narrow, pinched view of what constitutes journalism.
"Oh, and you are right that Bill could not refute Correa’s claim that the world order is unjust and immoral, whatever Correa’s own misdeeds are."
What? My comment addressed Rafael Correa's campaign against the Ecuadorian news media. It had nothing to do with the "world order." Let's not go off the rails here, SUPER390.
"Since Bill previously has written that Latin American radicalism is unjustified because “they” are to blame for their historical economic woes."
Go back and reread my comment on Hernando de Soto, SUPER390, and you will be reminded that I wrote that Latin American underdevelopment has been due to both foreign exploitation and internal corruption and practices that hinder advancement. Please do not try to misrepresent what I have written in pursuit of your own ideological agenda, SUPER390.
The "unsubstantiated allegations" appear to be made by those who try to make the case that criticism of Correa is nothing but Right-Wing opposition to a beleaguered "populist" trying to make the press available to everyone. That fits neatly into a certain ideological Narrative championed by, well, those such as you, Mr. McPhee.
Weisbrot's piece was the usual Leftist cant and hardly warranted comment. Those who actually follow Latin American affairs (as opposed to reading snatches from internet sources like Mr. Weisbrot's piece in the "Guardian) understand that Correa is muzzling any opposition to him and his policies. Human Rights Watch and the Committee to Protect Journalists have denounced Correa's actions. More importantly, the Inter-American Press Association has described Correa's new media law as "the most serious setback for freedom of the press and of expression in the recent history of Latin America." These are legitimate organizations that are hardly tools of the United States.
Rafael Correa caling the Washington Post editorial "shameless" is rich. What is shameless is the way Correa has tightened restrictions on the Ecuadorian media. His government recently passed a very restrictive press law, and he has expropriated a couple of TV stations that offended him. Shameless indeed!
"Were you there, Bill? or is this just more claiming of authoritative knowledge without referents, other than “You can be sure”?"
I just don't believe in the tooth fairy, Mr. McPhee. It would be foolish to think the Russian FSB, in particular, would not take advantage of Snowden's intelligence trove. Or do you think Russian intelligence is filled with Boy Scouts reciting the Oath and Honor Code?
"As Glenn Greenwald said on “Meet the (Fawning Corporate) Press” Snowden could have sold his information but didn’t. Given your previous comments and this, that is something you would prefer not to believe."
I don't give a damn what Glenn Greenwald said, Mr. Bodden. Neither Greenwald nor you have anything other than Snowden's word on what he has or has not done, and his word has been shown to be worth less than the cost of a cup of coffee.
"This is another piece of BS and a dumb idea you would like to smear Snowden with and probably believe, but a more likely scenario is that whatever hardware Snowden had he and others working with him made sure that it was in a secure place. That would have excluded on his person in foreign places such as HK, China and Russia."
Speaking of BS and dumb ideas, not to mention naivete, after reading your above-cited quote, Mr. Bodden, I would like to make you an offer of some oceanfront property in Arizona, sight unseen, of course. (And I'll throw a bridge in for good measure.)
"In her segment on Snowden’s flight from Hong Kong, she made every effort possible to imply that he really is spying, that he has sold or given loads of secrets to the Chinese or Russians, or that he is not taking any care to prevent the Russians and Chines from *somehow* stealing the documents from him."
I have no idea whether or not Snowden willingly sold or gave classified secrets loaded on his hard drives and thumb drives to the Chinese and Russians. You can be sure, however, that he was in a form of "custody" while in Hong Kong and Moscow, and that Chinese, and particularly Russian, intelligence officers down-loaded everything on his hard drives and thumb drives. He would have had no say in the matter, his own protestations and that of his Wikileaks "handlers" notwithstanding.
"De Soto, surprisingly enough, has numerous critics, that include observations that his remedies for inequality and “fixing” national economies are, shall we say, simplistic?"
It would help to have actually read Hernando de Soto's works, rather than rely on flimsy Wiki quotes without context.
There is a lot to be gained by actually living in and experiencing life in the area under discussion, Origen. People can talk a country to death in the abstract, but to have actually experienced the people and society provides valuable first-hand information. That, plus reading the works of Hernando de Soto I mentioned, provides a completely different take on Latin America than has been presented in this thread.
Have you actually read Hernando de Soto, SUPER390? Or are you just exercising your kneejerk "blame everything on external forces" mantra? I have actually lived in Latin America and know something about it from first-hand experience. Have you experienced Chile first-hand? Or Nicaragua? Or Honduras? Or anything else upon which you have formed such concrete opinions? I wonder if you actually know anything about Hernando de Soto, SUPER 390? For that matter, have you have actually read "Open Veins of Latin America," by Eduardo Galleano? Or do you form your opinions second-hand by what you hear others have read and experienced?
"You applaud the neoliberals wherever they breed, like Chile, but those folks there and here could care less about the huge mass of humans with their sad little lives."
If you actually looked at a country like Chile, Mr. McPhee, you would see that it has a much greater middle class and prospering population than those countries that continue with their shopworn collectivist economies like Bolivia, Venezuela, cuba, Nicaragua, and even Argentina. Drop the scales from your eyes, and ye shall see.
"Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent," by Eduardo Galleano, has some good points to make regarding the exploitation of Latin America by the developed world. (And now China has been getting into the act as well!) Nevertheless, Galleano's book is a wholly one-sided approach to why Latin America has failed to develop. To read his book, one would be left with the impression that Latin America's traditional underdevelopment was completely the product of the West's exploitative practices. It is not.
For a more balanced approach to why Latin America has failed to develop, I recommend the Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto, particularly his two seminal works, "The Mystery of Capital," and "The Other Path," as well as some of his monographs. Hernando de Soto does not deny the exploitation of Latin America by the developed world, including the United States, but he presents a far more nuanced view than does Galleano. He details with myriad examples the stifling bureaucracy and corruption that has been endemic in Latin America and has led to inefficiency and economic waste. De Soto provides examples of the labyrinthine steps that are required to obtain business licenses, and the payoffs and bribes that are required in order to receive them, in effect, locking the poor completely out of the banking and credit system, since they lack even the tiniest bit of collateral needed for loans to start up small enterprises.
De Soto outlines the tax avoidance that passes for sport in much of Latin America, depriving the state of much needed revenue that could by used to enhance education and public services. Instead, the shortfall in revenue through massive tax avoidance is made up, often enough, by printing money, leading to hyperinflation, as has occurred in Argentina, Bolivia, and other countries.
Historically Latin America has been exploited by outside powers, but it has been equally responsible for its lack of development through its own culture of corruption and inefficient use of human capital. The pity in a book like Galleano's is that it confirms in many Latin Americans (and others, I might say) that all their problems are due to external forces, thus absolving them of all responsibility for their condition and diverting them from making those institutional changes that are necessary for a modern, efficient political and economic system. There are signs of changes. Chile has long been a leading light, and Mexico and Peru are improving as well. But others have a long way to go.
"I’ve read them both, Bill. I have no illusions about the Gulags."
Then you will know that while there may be criticisms to be made about the American penal system, it in no way is comparable to the horror of the Gulag camps under Stalin, where thousands perished from overwork, cold, and starvation.
Your feeble attempt to equate the American system with Stalin's Gulag won't wash, SUPER390. Yours is a completely ahistorical approach. No serious student of the Soviet era would buy it.
If you think the Gulags were simply places of incarceration for lawbreakers, like US jails and prisons, you are seriously deficient in your knowledge of Stalin's use of the Gulags. They were located in the harshest climates where opponents of Stalin (real and imagined) were sent with little clothing and less food. Thousands perished of overwork, cold, and starvation.
No, that is not an equivalency worth considering. If you really are interested, I suggest you read the book "Gulag," by Anne Applebaum, not to mention "The Gulag Archipelago," by Alexander Solzhenitzen.
No. 6 states, in part, "Police can take DNA samples of all arrestees, whether they are proven guilty or not."
What is the difference between taking DNA samples for identification purposes and the long-standing practice of taking someone's fingerprints when he is booked?
No. 4 states, in part, "The US holds over two million inmates, and has 6 million people at any one time under carceral supervision– more than were in Stalin’s Gulag." This is a cheap shot, attempting to draw a false equivalence between the US prison population and inmates in Stalin's Gulag. One can decry the number in US prisons without suggesting a "Gulag" equivalency where there is none.
"“The West” has had a lot to do with the political and social structuring of the Balkans, all part of the idiot Great Game that has been in motion for a couple of centuries now, as most responsible historians of the area and its complexities would allow. Without “The West’s” enormous wars and secret pacts and all that, the Balkans would likely be a lot less, er, “Balkanized.”"
You would do well to read some of the "responsible historians" to whom you refer in your cited quote above. Had you actually read some history of the Balkans, you would have learned that the West had a lot to do with forming the former "Balkanized" states of Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, and Montenegro into the newly-formed state of Yugoslavia as part of the post-World War I settlement.
Rather than "Balkanizing" the Balkans as you suggest, the West helped create a less Balkanized area by supporting the establishment of Yugoslavia. But then, to understand that one has to reach beyond the Wikipedia School of Misinformation and actually read some solid history.
I suppose I should be flattered by the amount of ink you feel compelled to spill in addressing my comments, Mr. McPhee. I feel a certain satisfaction in knowing I have that effect on you.
The West certainly did not help to bring about conditions in Kosovo, Bosnia, and Libya that justified Western intervention. This is a complete misreading (or misunderstanding) of history. It was Milosevic's slaughter of Muslims in Bosnia that led to the Western intervention in that conflict. It was Milosevic's ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Muslims that led to Western intervention in that conflict. The West did not create the conditions that led to Milosevic's Balkan Wars and his dream of Serbian supremacy among the wreckage of the former Yugoslavia. It was Milosevic's show from beginning to end.
And as for Libya, Ghaddafi had a decades-long history of anti-Western policies. Even after he had decided to temper his policies and make peace with the West, his erratic behavior and absolute rule created the conditions that led to Western intervention to assist the rebels. He, too, like Milosevic, was responsible for the conditions that led to Western intervention and his downfall. The West had nothing to do with creating those conditions.
"Desert Storm wasn’t a good test case of the Powell Doctrine because all that was needed was an air campaign."
Desert Storm was much more than an air campaign. The US had 500,000 ground troops in Saudi Arabia, and it took a ground campaign to get Iraq out of Kuwait and defeat Saddam Hussein. Desert Storm was a perfect example of the Powell Doctrine succeeding.
Better than shooting at each other along the Line of Control on the Kargil Glacier in Kashmir. As Humphrey Bogart ("Rick") said to Claude Rains ("Capt. Louis Renault") at the end of Casablanca, after Rick shoots the German officer and Renault tells his men to round up the usual suspects, "This could be the start of a beautiful friendship." How can you hate each other when both of you are pirouetting around like peacocks in front of each other!
Since taking office, Morsi has demonstrated that he can be, by turns, bombastic, indecisive, and feckless. He has no political compass and cannot locate True North, always veering back toward the Muslim Brotherhood. Morsi is a political and religious provincial, seemingly unable to rise above his Muslim Brotherhood roots and show leadership. His continued pandering to the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamists bodes ill, both for Egypt and for the United States.
"To be clear, Pashtuns are only a majority of Afghans if you will allow yourself to view the Durand Line as the Pashtuns do."
To understand the dynamics of ethnic politics in Afghanistan it is essential to understand that historically Afghanistan was ruled by Pashtuns from 1709, when they overthrew Persian rule, until 1973 and the overthrow of King Mohammed Zahir Shah. The rulers were from several dynasties and sub-clans, but all were Pashtuns. I would expect that to continue to be the case, whether the US were to remain involved or not.
Further to my reply to Chris M. and Mr. McPhee above, it occurs to me that a basic civics lesson is in order here. Regarding Snowden's spurious claim that the US Government has openly declared him a traitor, and both of your statements supporting said spurious claim, let's examine your examples.
Former V/P Dick Cheney is just that, a former vice president. He in no way represents the US Government today.
John Boehner represents the 8th Congressional District of Ohio and is Speaker of the House. As such, he speaks for his congressional district and, when authorized as Speaker, for one half of the legislative branch. He in no way speaks for the US Government.
Diane Feinstein represents California in the Senate. She speaks only for California or, when authorized by Harry Reid, for one half of the legislative branch. She in no way speaks for the US Government.
John Bolton, former State Department official and UN Ambassador is no longer in government. He in no way speaks for the US Government.
No legitimate representative authorized to speak for the "US Government" has declared Snowden "guilty of treason."
"Snowden maintains that the analysts all have direct access to them at will, and he would know."
Don't be too sure that Snowden "knows" everything of which he speaks. Snowden is beginning to sound a little bit full of himself. In Snowden's internet Guardian Website interview yesterday he claimed that the US Government has "openly declared me guilty of treason." The US Government has done no such thing. The US Justice Department is trying to determine what charges to bring against him, but it has not declared him "guilty of treason."
A second example of Snowden flattering himself over his perceived self-importance was his statement that the US Government cannot cover things up by "jailing or murdering me." This is self-important drivel. No one is going to murder Snowden. The man fantasizes.
His third whopper was his statement that his "leaving the United States was an incredible risk" because "there was a distinct possibility I would be interdicted en-route." While he clearly violated policy by not submitting a travel request in advance, no one was going to "interdict" him en-route. More self-flattering fantasies.
Snowden was a relatively low-level technical employee who had, or gained access to, some material that probably was not even in his portfolio. I doubt that Snowden possesses any intelligence information that the Chinese don't already know more about than he does. It would be in China's interest (and China has the ultimate say in what Hong Kong does) to turn such a self-flattering and bloated purveyor of perceived self-importance over to US authorities.
Morsi has shown himself to be simultaneously authoritarian, unreliable, and feckless. Not that I think the US should make any decisions on Syria based upon Morsi's pronouncements, but in calling for a "no-fly" zone over Syria, I would be interested in what Morsi plans to ante-up in support of such a mission? I suspect Morsi would stand by and let others carry the water.
"France, Britain and America basically attacked Libya for no good reason and did so without the benefit of a UN mandate."
You are woefully misinformed, Mr. Wilson. The coalition, including NATO, intervened in Libya pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, approved in New York on 17 March 2011. UNSC Resolution 1973 authorized military intervention and the consequent "No Fly" zone that was established.
"They only ended because Negroponte ran out of bullets.
The negotiations were window dressing."
Wrong, Brian. Shannon is correct. The Central American wars ended because the leftist guerrillas were stopped by two events. The first was the ongoing support throughout the 1980s given those fighting the guerrillas, such as the Contras in Nicaragua (and others), by the United States. The second, and ultimately probably more important, was the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. The USSR was the primary source of arms for the guerrillas, providing arms for them via Cuba. When that source dried up, coupled with pressure from the anti-leftist coalitions supported by the US, the guerrillas were forced to begin negotiations. Shannon is correct when he notes that "it worked."
"Whatever one thinks of Manning’s actions, that we deserved to know some of what he revealed and that his revelations changed the world are undeniable."
The implication that Manning specifically knew that he was revealing to the world the ten items cited in your post is a real stretch. Manning downloaded and released to Wikileaks more than 700,000 State Department cables and US Army reports. He could not possibly have been aware of the specific content of most (or even any) of them.
Manning no doubt knew the general subject matter (intelligence and Embassy reporting), but The specific contents were revealed only after Wikileaks published them. This is why Manning is not a whistleblower. Nor is he a traitor. He did, however, violate his oath, the terms of his security clearance, and the trust placed in him, not to mention the trust of his fellow US Army colleagues.
I will grant Manning this: He has the courage of his convictions and has been willing to take the consequences of his actions. In doing so, he has shown a degree of courage and a certain integrity that are totally lacking in Edward Snowden.
"Check out the difference from Sgt Lawrence Hutchins who was FREED from charges of kidnapping, killing and hiding the death of an innocent Iraqi retired policeman because he was denied a lawyer for 6 days after his arrest!!!"
What has your non-sequitur got to do with the price of tea in China?
"You sir, have no knowledge of history and so you pass judgement without any perspective."
The comment to which you are replying with your above-cited quote, Chip, is par for the course. As they say in Texas, it is all hat and no cattle.
Jonathan Pollard richly deserved his life sentence. That every administration, both Republican and Democratic, has resisted Israel's pressure to release Pollard and allow him to reside in Israel is testament to the fact that Israel and the Israeli lobby (thankfully!) do not always get their way.
And if Pollard's sentence and the US Government's apparent intention to keep him imprisoned deter other would-be spies for Israel, all to the good. I would say the same for Bradley Manning. If the sentence the judge presiding over Manning's court martial hands down has the secondary effect of deterring future unauthorized release of classified information by those who would otherwise violate their oaths and the terms of their security clearances, that, too, will be all to the good.
"So it seems to me that Pope Francis is just saying what many evangelicals say– hate the sin, love the sinner, celibate gays are welcome in the congregation, etc. And he’s putting a further precondition on acceptance, that gays not band together as a pressure group. So they have to be celibate and seen but not heard, sort of like children."
Still, Pope Francis's statement on gays is forward movement for the Church. Don't forget that the Catholic Church is 2,000 years old, and things move forward slowly in its hierarchical, byzantine, and doctrinally-conservative bureaucratic environment.
I'll tell you what would really be a shocking break with hidebound discrimination and ignorance regarding Gays as the Other: If Al Azhar University in Cairo would publicly announce a theological fatwa stating that no Muslim should judge Gays, and that Gays should be an accepted part of Islamic society, attending mosques, and serving as imams (as long as they remain celibate, of course!). Then let's see if the worldwide Islamic Ummah would accept that with the same degree of equanimity as Catholics accepted the Pope's remarks.
"Moreover since the US & Nato’s humanitarian military bombed entire cities to rubble in Libya,..."
Where did you get that information? Which cities were bombed to rubble in Libya? There was no sustained US and NATO bombing campaign that reduced entire cities to rubble in Libya.
"How can we explain Germany’s role in this squalid affair?"
If Germany had denied Morales's aircraft overflight permission, Bolivian officials would have included it, along with France, Spain and Portugal, in their complaint. That they did not is pretty good evidence that Germany was not involved.
To answer your question cited above, there is nothing to explain because Germany was not involved.
"Der Spiegel reported “Several European countries had allegedly denied the Bolivian aircraft overflight rights after rumors began flying that National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden was on board."
Der Spiegel is, of course, correct. Several European countries did deny Morales's aircraft overflight permission: France, Spain, and Portugal.
"After Merkel clicking her heels and saying “Jawohl, mein Fuehrer” to Obama when he told her to deny Evo Morales his right to overfly Germany."
You are seriously misinformed. France, Spain, and Portugal denied Evo Morales's aircraft overflight permission. Germany was not involved. Morales's plane was forced to land in Vienna because it was running low on fuel. Austrian authorities used the stop to check to see if Snowden was on board. Later, Spain allowed the plane to refuel in the Canary Islands, provided Snowden was not on board.
Germany and Chancellor Merkel were not involved in Morales's adventure at all. There was no request to Germany for overflight permission from Morales's aircraft, and thus there was nothing for Germany to either approve or deny.
"Gee, I thought the comment was about
Fox Cable News and a Muslim."
The very first question she asked Rezla Azlan in the interview is, "You're a Muslim, so why did you write a book about the founder of Christianity?" She obviously ignored his background as a scholar. What made her think a Muslim could not write about the founder of Christianity? This is just a display of journalistic ignorance.
Sadly, it is a reflection of the phenomenon to which I referred in my initial comment about the pernicious idea that only Muslims are authorized to comment on Islam, Christians on Christianity, Blacks on Black history, Latinos and Asian on their history, etc. It is pigeonholing of the worst sort: Racial, ethnic, and religious stereotyping masquerading as scholarly authority.
One of the most ignorant and pernicious ideas that has been flogged in the land over the past 30 or so years is that historical, cultural, and religious commentary and writing only has validity if it is produced by someone of the ethnic, racial, or religious background of the subject under discussion. The idea that a Muslim is incapable of writing about Jesus and Christianity, that a non-Muslim is incapable of writing about Islam, that only Blacks have the authority to write about Black history, and so on regarding Latinos, Asians, Europeans, etc., is simply ludicrous. It completely ignores the fact that a sound historiographical approach and good scholarship transcends racial, ethnic, and religious categories.
"You know Bill will never directly come out and call Daniel Ellsberg a traitor at THIS site."
THIS site has nothing to do with it, SUPER390. You need to learn the definition of "traitor" before suggesting what I would or would not call Ellsberg. A traitor is one who commits treason. Treason is defined (in the Constitution, no less, under Article III Section 3) as follows:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
Did Daniel Ellsberg's actions consist of levying war against the US or giving our enemies "aid and comfort," SUPER390? I don't think so, and therefore I don't think Ellsberg was a traitor. The Pentagon Papers exposed the policy debates and prescriptions that went into decisions regarding our involvement in Vietnam, but that did not rise to the level of treason by a long shot.
You would be well-advised to be more precise in your own understanding of Constitutional and national security issues before passing judgment on how you think others would or would not respond to any particular issue.
Charles Dickens's "Oliver Twist" is still a good read 174 years after it was first published. Glad to see we are a literate group here.
"Over to you, Bill, for more examples of specious reasoning…"
You have done the work for me with your comment responding to my post about Snowden's Top Secret clearance and how his obligation to abide by its terms applied equally, whether he worked for Booz Allen or the US Government. My only difficulty is in determining whether your comment is an example of specious reasoning, a non-sequitur, or both.
"By the way, Edward Snowden, who revealed Prism’s existence to our elected representatives (we won’t be telling them everything, boys), was not a government employee and the only thing he violated was a confidentiality agreement with Booz, Allen, a private firm."
Edward Snowden had a Top Secret security clearance that granted him access, on a need to know basis, to Top Secret US Government information and documents. Top Secret clearances are granted to individuals with stringent restrictions attached regarding the handling and disposition of information and documents. It does not matter whether one is working as a direct-hire US Government employee or as an employee with a US Government contractor. The restrictions apply equally in both cases.
Snowden is just as guilty of revealing classified information, and thereby violating the terms of his clearance and employment, as he would have been had he been a direct-hire US Government employee. It is specious reasoning to suggest that Snowden's act was any less egregious because he worked for Booz Allen rather than directly with the US Government.
Anthony Weiner is a serial sexter whose sophomoric personal life mirrors his equally sophomoric political views. It takes real chutzpah and gall for him to think he has anything of value to offer New Yorkers.
Equally disgusting is his wife who obviously supports both his serial attempts at "redemption" and his policies. When his wife stood beside him, looking at him with google eyes and "forgiving" him, she was participating in the ritual exercise in self-humiliation. Or, perhaps, she, too, is desperate to live in the New York City Mayor's mansion.
They both deserve each other. New York does not deserve either of them.
"Sir, every work of history I have ever read, quite a few at my age, from a pretty broad scope, carried the stamp of the “historian’s” biases and predilections and loyalties"
I have spent a lifetime reading history and discussing it, first with my family at the dinner table and later with colleagues while attending university, continuing throughout my professional life until today. I can assure you that not all histories are equally biased. Some, in fact, attempt to present a more objective understanding of America, both regarding its domestic developments and its role in the world, than others. Contrary to your belief that history is "an exercise in selective storytelling" (Your tribute to the "postmodern" ethos is touching), some sets of facts are more defensible than mere "storytelling."
I am not dismissing Howard Zinn's "A People's History" out of hand. I stated that I did not agree with attempts to muzzle or suppress him. Zinn's work, however, is just this side of being "agitprop." He clearly has an agenda in his work to relentlessly portray the United States in as negative a light as he can, without appearing to be a card-carrying member of the old Comintern.
You asked for some American history texts that present a more balanced portrayal than Zinn. John Garraty's two-volume "The American Nation" is good for starters. Earlier editions are better, as the later ones, like a lot of texts these days, seem to have been "dumbed down" for students. Another first-rate history is Samuel Eliot Morison's "History of the American People." Morison also wrote the "History of United States Naval Operations in World War II," if you are interested. A fine diplomatic history of the United States is Thomas A. Bailey's "A Diplomatic History of the American People."
Any one of the above, as well as a host of others, do more justice to both the historian's profession and to American history than does Zinn.
You
"Zinn’s book is popular history, written for a general audience. No, it’s not top-flight academic scholarship, but how many text books used for non-historians (undergraduates, high school teachers doing professional development, and the like) are top-flight, primary-source-based research?"
While my previous posts on the topic reflect my disgust at any attempt to suppress historians (or academics in general) of both the liberal and conservative persuasion, including Zinn, I have to say that criticism of Zinn's work is based on more than just that it lacks rigorous scholarship. Zinn's work deliberately downplays, and in some cases omits, important historical events and data that would undercut his slanted point of view. To answer your question, there are plenty of American history texts that are more balanced in their approach than Zinn's.
"This is a bogus comparison. What politicians have tried to use their power to get Niall Ferguson or Victor David Hanson’s actual historical work removed from classrooms?"
What is bogus is your attempt to suggest Daniels wanted Zinn removed from the classroom, and that I hung my comment on that. He did not, and I did not. Daniels wanted to prevent the state of Indiana from granting professional development credit to teachers who took the class.
If you had read my posts carefully you would have seen that I was using this incident to criticize those on both the Right and the Left who have historically attempted to pressure universities to muzzle or suppress views (whether from the likes of Zinn and Hobshawm or Fergason and Hanson) with which they disagree. If you think that attempts to suppress academic freedom and different points of view come only from the Right, then I have some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you, site unseen.
"I’m saying it is up the academic with the Ph.D. and the appointment to decide what books to use. We don’t know what their teaching goal is in any particular class, and you’d be surprised how little of academic teaching has anything to do with politics or culture wars."
We are in complete agreement, Professor Cole. My concern is that there are always outside forces--Boards of Regents, political figures, alumni contributors--who attempt to pressure the university to suppress, and sometimes even to fire, professors with whom they disagree.
Rarely can they achieve their goal by attacking the teaching, reading material, or ideological slant a professor may engage in, but they try to find another chink in the armor to do their damage. Sort of like putting Al Capone away for tax evasion. Isn't that what happened to Ward Churchill at the University of Colorado? Ward Churchill and I probably would not agree on much of anything, but I thought the witch hunt to get him (If I recall, they found some questionable research as a pretext to fire him.) was pretty disgusting.
Thus, my sense that academics and academia must constantly be alert to attempts by the anti-intellectual mob (of whatever persuasion) to attack.
Those on the Right who want to muzzle Leftist historians such as Howard Zinn and the British Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm are just as disgusting in their anti-intellectualism as those on the Left who want to muzzle the likes of Conservative historians such as Niall Ferguson and Victor Davis Hanson. Such attempts to suppress or muzzle intellectual discourse with which one may disagree are usually thwarted by a strong tradition of intellectual inquiry and competing ideas in the academy. Nevertheless, as the story above demonstrates, one must always be alert to the anti-intellectual current that runs just below the surface of both the Right and the Left in much of the American populace.
It has been the policy of every US administration since the Six-Day War in 1967 to oppose the construction of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. United States policy on settlements was probably best and most succinctly stated by Ambassador Thomas Pickering, who was George H.W. Bush's Ambassador to the United Nations.
On November 27, 1989, Ambassador Pickering stated: "Since the end of the 1967 war, the U.S. has regarded Israel as the occupying power in the occupied territories, which includes the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights. The U.S. considers Israel's occupation to be governed by the Hague Regulations of 1907 and the 1949 Geneva Conventions concerning the protection of civilian populations under military occupation."
Under the Geneva Conventions concerning the protection of civilian populations under military occupation, it is illegal for the occupying power to construct settlements and move its own citizens into occupied areas. Since 1967, on both legal and foreign policy grounds, the United States has opposed Israeli settlements on the West Bank. Yet, despite the financial, material, military, and political support Israel receives from its chief benefactor, Israel has thumbed its nose at every administration and gotten away with it.
It is clear that in spite of a cadre of dissenters in Israel, the ruling elite (and not just the Likud Right Wing) has from the very beginning been creating "facts on the ground" in the West Bank. Once those "facts on the ground" have reached a critical mass (and they may already have reached that point), Israel will no doubt consider the West Bank as a de-facto (if not de-juris) part of Israel. Meanwhile, in spite of its stated policy, the United States allows Israel to have its way. A foreign policy that is not pursued robustly in a nation's own national interest is a foreign policy unworthy of the name. Unfortunately, the US has managed to follow such a policy course in the case of Israeli settlements.
To doubt that the United States landed men on the moon on July 20, 1969 is definitely to be on the "fringe." This idea that the moonlanding was a hoax has been around since, well, since men landed on the moon. One of the key components of the conspiracy theorists is that what we all thought were men landing on the moon actually took place and was filmed at an area with a lunar-like landscape near Flagstaff, Arizona. The conspiracy theorists who doubt the lunar-landing are suffering from (forgive the pun) lunacy.
There is ample scientific evidence that the-lunar landing occurred. If it were a conspiracy by the US Government, then literally thousands of scientists, engineers, and others in the US space program at the time would have to have been privy to, and kept silent about, the conspiracy.
The conspiracy theorists rejection of all evidence that the lunar-landing took place ranks up there with the Creationists "proof" that the earth is 6,000 years old; the rejection of evolution and natural selection; the conspiracy theorists who believe that the contrails (condensation trails) left by jetliners are really chemtrails (chemical trails) spreading disaster; and the flat-earthers (for whom there exists a Flat Earth Society).
Thank goodness this know-nothing attitude remains on the fringe. Unfortunately, it still has a potentially destructive possibility, as there are those who argue that such nonsense should be given equal treatment with real science in classrooms and textbooks.
"The Soviet Union’s and U.S. space programs would not have been possible without German WWII V-2 rocket technology."
In the case of the US space program, we have Wernher von Braun to thank. Wernher von Braun was in charge of developing the V-2 for Hitler during World War II, and he was a member of both the Nazi Party and the SS. After the war von Braun was brought to the US under the secret program "Operation Paperclip." His expertise in rocketry was first applied to a US Army program and later to the US space program. One of history's ironies.
"Either these old lefties will die in death camps built by a fascist right they helped into power by sabotaging the Democratic Party while utterly lacking the skills to replace it, or they will be overrun and forgotten by the nonwhite demographic wave that is the only thing that can save democracy from that fascism. I intend to fight alongside those who would die rather than see whites restored to the status of a Master Race."
Overwrought, overheated rhetoric fueled by a fevered imagination and a cartoon version of American history and current events.
"Interesting that you immediately embraced this conspiracy rumor unbacked by documentary evidence."
Before running off and getting rhetorically lathered up and indignant, SUPER390, you might re-read my post. If you had actually read it the first time you would have noted that I prefaced my one-paragraph comment with what is known in grammar as the "conditional verb" form, i.e. "If true,...." I realize that the use and understanding of grammar, such as the conditional verb, is diminished today, but everything that followed was valid "if" Mark Koroi's professor's comment was "true." That should not be too hard to understand.
"A college professor once told me that the 1967 riots were planned by left-wing fellow faculty members and he witnessed the planning."
If true, I wonder if the faculty members involved in the planning are proud of the devastation the riots caused, both in the Black community and in Detroit as a whole. Those left-wing academics involved in the planning certainly gave no thought to the underprivileged minorities who suffered the consequences, while they (the academics) no doubt witnessed it all from the safety of their own elite communities.
"Robotification began in the 1950s."
But not to the extent that it was creating unemployment in Detroit, as much of robotification does today (and not just in Detroit and the auto industry). After all, it was during the post-war 1950s and 1960s that Detroit and the auto industry were looked on (with good reason) as the engine for pulling workers into the middle class.
As suggested, there are several important reasons for Detroit's decline. Nevertheless, there are two very important, and often overlooked, reasons that led to the precipitous decline of Detroit relative to other cities that were in the "Rust Belt" and came back revitalized, such as Pittsburgh today.
Detroit's decline began long before robotics appeared in the auto industry. The 1967 race riots in Detroit were among the worst in the nation and destroyed whole areas, primarily where the Black community was living. Whatever the reasons that sparked the riots, it was not smart to destroy one's own community and the supporting infrastructure that sustained it. In some sense, Detroit never recovered from that trauma.
The auto industry itself--both the United Auto Workers union and the automobile companies--were in large part responsible for the decline of the industry in Detroit. In the 1970s and 1980s, they cut "sweetheart" contract deals that resulted in workers receiving a package of salary and benefits that totaled $71.00 per hour. They literally priced themselves out of the market, and the Japanese took advantage of it by outselling Detroit with their reliable and economically-priced Toyotas and Hondas. Later, Japanese companies further undercut Detroit by locating plants in places like Kentucky, creating jobs with a salary and benefits package in the neighborhood of $45.00 per hour, hardly chump change.
I do not think Detroit represents in microcosm the "dystopia America is becoming." Former Rust Belt cities like Pittsburgh have shown that with planning and foresight, cities can turn themselves around and flourish. It takes both vision and planning, however, and both seem to be lacking in Detroit.
"about kids living in poverty – do you have data on how many were born to unmarried women?"
You have hit on an important point, Brian, but one that, unfortunately, is considered taboo in certain circles. Study after study has shown that kids who are born in, and grow up with, two-parent families are far less likely to face poverty and lack of education than kids who are born to single mothers and grow up without a father in the household. This is not a value judgment; it is a fact.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan first brought this problem to national attention in 1965 with his seminal report, "The Negro Family: The Case For National Action." Moynihan's report focused on the deep roots of black poverty in America and concluded that the relative absence of nuclear families (those having both a father and mother present) would greatly hinder further progress toward economic and political equality. Needless to say, Moynihan has been proven correct by many subsequent studies. At the time, however, he was attacked by those who charged him with taking the focus off society's failings and instead focusing on social pathologies within the black community.
The use of simple nouns and verbs in declarative sentences should be used far beyond Twitter. They are just as useful in essays, news articles, and other forms of writing.
The gold standard has always been with us. Nothing yet has challenged "The Elements of Style," by Strunk and White, and "On Writing Well," by William Zinsser.
"A question that might be applied to many of us, especially those who leave hanging the implication, unsupported, of deep involvement in, and deep knowledge about, what the Deep Government has been up to. And of course “serious history.” And “serious observation of international affairs.” And I guess the implicit sense of how the rest of us are supposed to sleep on, secure in the belief that it’s all been for our own good."
What relevance the mouth-full quoted above has to the topic of Egypt and political Islam is known only to the author, who must be under the impression that a non-sequitur can pass as insight.
Yours is a very good point, DFSC. One of the reasons that Islam has such a difficult time coming to terms with modernity is its failure to make a distinction between the secular and the sacred. The only country that accomplished it was Turkey under Mustapha Kemal (Ataturk). Ataturk forcibly brought Turkey into the 20th century by, among other things, relegating Islam to the Mosque and keeping it out of government and the public square. It lasted for more than 75 years, but, unfortunately, under Erdogan that important distinction is being chipped away.
I think Morsi left the Freedom and Justice Party after assuming the Presidency simply as a cosmetic gesture to assuage those who were skeptical of him and his Muslim Brotherhood roots from the beginning. The MB roots ran deep in Morsi, however, and his subsequent actions as President demonstrated that he favored an Islamist (or, if you prefer, "Fundamentalist") approach to governing. It seems to me that Morsi maintained an Islamist, Muslim Brotherhood, orientation all along. And why would anyone expect him to change after a lifetime in such circles?
The best history of America's adventure in the Philippines is "In Our Image: America's Empire in the Philippines," by the Asian specialist and historian Stanley Karnow. It was published in 1989, and it covers all aspects of the American experience in the Philippines, from the Defeat of the Spanish fleet in Manila Bay, through the Philippine Insurrection (known as the Philippine-American War in the Philippines), the Commonwealth period, World War II and Japanese occupation, independence in 1946, and relations since. It's a great read and riveting history.
The American war against the Insurrection was brutal, America did not implement land reform, and the US coddled the 40 or so leaders of the elite families and thus ensured their perpetuation even after independence. On the other side of the ledger, the US put great emphasis on education, and US imperialism in the Philippines was relatively benign compared to European imperialism in Asia and Africa. The American record in the Philippines is probably best described as a mixed bag. In any case, if one were to read one history of America in the Philippines, my recommendation would be Karnow's book.
Good post, Mark. You have added a much needed perspective to the above article and demonstrated that simply quoting raw figures alone, without providing perspective, tells us nothing at all.
"As for “the US engineering the coup against Morsi.” that’s a bizarre and inexcusable distortion of what I said, making any reply to whatever point you were trying to make completely superfluous."
In addition to my previous response, Charles II, I would like to reply specifically to your above-cited quote, in which you state that the phrase about "the US engineering the coup against morsi" is a distortion of what you said. Let me offer a direct quote from your comment: "It’s difficult to believe that the Army acted without Washington’s approval. That means that the US, to one degree or another, sponsored the coup."
Your words, And I would suggest that your categorical statement that "the US, to one degree or another, sponsored the coup," and the suggestion that the US "engineered" the coup is a distinction (choose your verb) without a difference.
"Remember the overthrow of Salvador Allende in Chile in 1973, Dr. Mossadegh in Iran in 1953."
Yes, so let's plant the seeds of conspiracy by suggesting that because the US has been involved in past coups (although in Chile the US was not directly involved), it was very likely involved in Morsi's ouster.
This is one more example of Professor Cole's logical fallacy, "post hoc ergo propter hoc." The US has been involved in some past coups, ergo it follows that it was likely involved in Egypt's coup. Once again, the failure to distinguish between correlation and causation. the cock crows and the sun rises day after day; ergo the cock's crow causes the sun to rise. The US has been involved in coups, ergo the US was likely involved in Egypt's coup, and will likely be involved in coups wherever they occur in the future.
This mode of thinking makes analysis of international events easy, because it essentially renders analysis irrelevant.
"Bill, if you actually read my post, I think you’ll find your question is answered. As for “the US engineering the coup against Morsi.” that’s a bizarre and inexcusable distortion of what I said, making any reply to whatever point you were trying to make completely superfluous."
I actually read your post, Charles II, and here, once again, are pertinent quotes from your comment, which you derived and extrapolated from the conspiratorially manipulated Op-Ed piece by Al-Jazeera:
"It’s legitimate to question whether US funding helped to shape popular unrest...and important to question whether the US engineered the coup."
That is your takeaway from the Al-Jazeera Op-Ed that clearly and deliberately tried to conflate State Department funding for democracy activists during the Mubarak era with the coup against Morsi. The Op-Ed was a deliberate and inexcusable attempt to suggest a US conspiracy to remove Morsi by conflating two separate and discrete events.
Regarding your observation that it is "important to question whether the US engineered the coup," why? Because Al-Jazeera says the US was behind it? I stand by my comment: "It is always amusing how gullible some people are who believe the US is behind every change-of-government, coup, or uprising anywhere in the world." When the first reaction is that it is "important to question whether the US engineered the coup," that reveals the very mentality to which I am referring in my statement.
Perhaps Professor Cole said it best when he wrote: "This article is muddled mush, and will be cited by the equally brainless as proof of something. It isn’t."
"It’s legitimate to question whether US funding helped to shape popular unrest… and important to question whether the US engineered the coup."
You do understand, don't you, that the State Department funding for democracy activists occurred during the Mubarak era? How, then, did it shape popular unrest against Morsi?
As for the US engineering the coup against Morsi, It is always amusing how gullible some people are who believe the US is behind every change-of-government, coup, or uprising anywhere in the world. Such thinking tracks with Al-jazeera's breathless, supermarket tabloid conspiracy theory that the State Department's Mubarak era funding to the democratic opposition led to Morsi's removal.
To paraphrase Professor Cole's logical fallacy once again: To the true conspiratorial believers, the fact that the cock crows every morning before the sun rises, followed by the sun's rise, is proof positive that the cock's crowing causes the sun to rise. How could it be otherwise, whether explaining the sun's rise each morning or coups anywhere in the world?
This "brain-dead" Op Ed, like most brain-dead Op Eds, attempts to mask its shallow nonsense with a screaming headline: "EXCLUSIVE: US BANKROLLED ANTI-MORSI ACTIVISTS." The supermarket tabloid format and amateurish attempt to establish a tenuous correlation between the small amounts previously granted by the State Department to democracy activists and the overthrow of Morsi is pathetic.
Your formulation of the logical fallacy "post hoc ergo propter hoc" as the Op-Ed writer's lodestar is spot-on, professor. The problem is, in his obvious ignorance he will fail to understand the logical fallacy inherent in the phrase (whether or not he understands Latin). The ignorant fail to make a distinction between correlation and causation. The writer no doubt is firm in his belief that because the cock crows every day before the sun rises, the cock's crowing causes the sun to rise.
After posting my above comment and giving President de Kirchner's spinal problems careful thought and consulting a physician friend of mine, my recommendation is that she consult the Argentine Presidential physician about the possibility that she is experiencing the beginning symptoms of lumbago.
At several intervals during her Speech, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner said:
"I got chills down my spine when I went back to Bolivia and saw that a fellow president (Evo Morales) had been detained for 13 hours as though he were a thief."
then,
"I got chills down my spine when we discovered that they are spying on all of us through their intelligence services."
and finally,
"I get chills down my spine when I hear the views of directors of other enterprises, including business leaders, who only immerse themselves in minutiae and do not realize what is happening"
"We still need the power to take to the streets, or our enemies will take them instead."
You have the power to take to the streets, SUPER390. No one is preventing you and like-minded colleagues from demonstrating for whatever cause you wish. I live in Washington, DC, and during the "Occupy" movement, there was an entire tent village of "Occupy DC" set up for months in McPherson Square. That some residents agreed with their program but many did not was inevitable and part of the public discourse.
I suspect that your complaint is that you fail to get a majority of Americans to agree with your cause. Your problem is not that you lack free speech or the right to protest; you have the freedom to protest and speak out on any topic you wish: against capitalism, against US foreign policy, against corporations, etc. What I think you fail to comprehend is that because you have the right to protest and advance your causes does not mean that anyone has the obligation to agree with you in advancing those causes. The American public has as much right to disagree with your causes as you have to push for them.
And please don't advance the tiresome, arrogant argument that the American public doesn't agree with your causes because Americans are ignorant and don't know what is in their best interest; that they are manipulated by (fill in the blank--neocons, corporations, the military-industrial complex, etc.). That is an arrogant attitude that demonstrates a lack of nuance regarding what motivates people.
"Just a reminder, in case it’s needed (Bill), that there’s a lot of ‘feel good’ rhetoric involved in America’s still-potential democracy, which is still working things out....The West has little room to preach or suggest."
The United States is not a perfect democracy and has its flaws, NewsNag, but it is, and has been for a long time, much further down the path of democracy and representative government than Egypt and the countries undergoing transition. Anyone who states otherwise either has his head in the sand or is deliberately obfuscating the truth in order to advance his own agenda and Narrative.
Regarding your observation that the West has little room to preach or suggest, did you actually read my comment? Particularly my observation: "All of our hectoring about democracy, human rights, and other issues that animate so much of American and Western activists’ rhetoric will be just so much “feel good” rhetoric, satisfying perhaps, but ultimately empty"? You will note that I am not suggesting that the West's "preaching and suggesting" will have any effect, not because the West has nothing to offer (it does), but because, as I stated in my original comment above, hectoring and preaching about democracy and human rights will do no good. It is only when countries reach a certain "critical mass" that they begin to develop a mature political economy worthy of the name.
Egypt, like all countries in the Near East and elsewhere experiencing transitions, has a long way to go before anyone can say with certainty that democracy has taken root. It is amusing that so many observers, including the US Government under both Republican and Democratic administrations, experience heart palpitations and heavy breathing whenever there is a "free and fair" election in countries that were formerly authoritarian.
Democracy is much more than one or two "free and fair" elections. It truly exists when certain concepts are institutionalized: Citizens petitioning their government, access to the courts, contracts honored, ordinary citizens having access to credit in the financial system, and a whole host of other institutionalized concepts that may take a couple of generations to be established.
In the meantime, observers of both the Left and the Right should not get exercised because democracy has not taken root in various countries as quickly or seamlessly as they would like. There is not much we can or should do about it. Eventually democracy and its underpinning institutions take root if the countries themselves reach a certain "critical mass": A certain level of middle class is reached, a certain standard of living is achieved, the population begins to see a stake in participating in their own government with results, etc. Without that critical mass, there will be no real democracy, and all of our hectoring about democracy, human rights, and other issues that animate so much of American and Western activists' rhetoric will be just so much "feel good" rhetoric, satisfying perhaps, but ultimately empty.
"Bill and Joe and their staff were consulted about the proper descriptors to apply…"
One more (of many) example of your inability to make your case on the merits, without setting up others as straw men.
Pathetic.
"No, no, no: Bill says it’s all completely legal! Or at least Necessary! Or maybe Justified!"
Actually, I have never addressed or commented on the issue of forced feeding at Guantanamo, Mr. McPhee. You are making that up out of whole cloth, but it tracks with your other attempts to put words in people's mouths with whom you disagree, in order to set up a straw man for your own Narrative. It is sad that apparently you cannot make your case on its own merits without setting up others as straw men.
"Slavery wasn’t unconstitutional. That’s why Congress had to pass the 14th amendment."
Actually the 13th amendment, passed in 1865, abolished slavery, thereby rendering it unconstitutional.
The 14th amendment, passed in 1868, addressed citizenship rights, due process, and equal protection.
"Which part of that is not a claim that Morales, and by simple logic the rest of the planet, is not subject to US law?"
You really must learn the difference between being "subject to US law" and "aiding and abetting an international fugitive who is subject to US law." Snowden's activities in the US render him subject to US law. Morales, were he aiding and abetting Snowden's flight from justice, would be acting in contravention of international norms and conventions. While he would not be subject to US law, those very international norms and conventions grant the US the right, in concert with allies, to ensure that he is not aiding and abetting Snowden's fugitive flight from justice.
"at 07/07/2013 at 5:46 pm, Bill sez: “The United States has not, and does not, spirit dissidents out of China or anywhere else on Air Force One.” From what I read, neither did Evo Morales. But that is just as irrelevant as your statement. The point seems to be that it is not illegal for Morales to do so. Folks in other countries do not have to obey our laws, do they?"
It is not a matter of "obeying our laws," Brian. Snowden is an international fugitive from justice, and the United States has a right to request the assistance of other countries to ensure, to the extent possible, that he is not spirited out of Moscow under some subtrefuge, even on Morales's aircraft.
Morales does have the right to grant Snowden asylum in Bolivia, should Snowden legitimately reach Bolivian soil. But just because Morales is President of Bolivia does not give him diplomatic immunity in order to aid and abet Snowden's flight from US justice aboard his aircraft. As it was, Morales did not, but the US had the right to ensure that he did not.
"And yet, if Air Force One was treated similarly while on a visit to China because of the mere possibility that a dissident was on board, you would freak out, Bill."
The United States has not, and does not, spirit dissidents out of China or anywhere else on Air Force One.
"What is lacking in your analysis is: (a) Acknowledgement of the sovereignity of Bolivia (the aircraft carrying the country’s executive is, to the best of my knowledge, sovereign territory of Bolivia)"
Morales's plane is not considered sovereign territory of Bolivia, as an Embassy is, for example. His plane must request and receive permission to overfly the territory of sovereign countries such as France, Portugal, and Austria, and the aircraft must land if so requested. And under international law and convention, a request can be (and was) made to search it.
"(b) A proper analysis of the PROBABILITY – NOT ‘POSSIBILITY’ of Snowden’s presence aboard the aircraft. In order to make a proper analysis of the probability, you would need to provide the hard numbers that went into your calculations … the sources for those hard numbers … and the mathematical algorithms used to calculate those probabilities."
The United States does not need to engage in the mathematical gymnastics suggested by your comment above (algorithms!) to posit the possibility (not probability, possibility is enough) that Snowden might be on the plane. That possibility was enough to justify the action taken.
Everything I wrote about Venezuela's Maduro, three articles down, applies in spades to Morales. Morales's pathetic (not to say bathetic!) suggestion that the Europeans disrespected him because he is an indigenous Bolivian is too cute for words and demonstrates his self-pitying lack of understanding of why his plane was searched.
Regarding the statement that, "The US intelligence's bright idea of telling Western European allies that Snowden was on the Bolivian jet has therefore backfired," lacks any supporting evidence. I seriously doubt that US intelligence told Western European allies that Snowden was "on the Bolivian jet." More likely, US intelligence advised European allies of the possibility that Morales took Snowden with him on his plane, in which case Morales would be aiding and abetting the flight of a fugitive from US justice, without having undergone the process of granting him political asylum.
Were that to be the case, Morales would be an accessory to a crime (aiding and abetting a fugitive). Given Morales's past statements, both against the US and in support of Snowden, that was not a possibility to dismiss lightly. Morales's plane was denied overflight permission and forced to land in Vienna in order to see if Snowden was on it, not because anyone "knew" he was on it.
"Sure seems to me that Bill’s implicit claims...."
If you are going to quote me, Mr. McPhee, then quote me. But don't let your fevered imagination run amok by suggesting that my comments "imply" anything. I have never made, and do not make, "implicit claims." Please do not attempt to suggest such, presumably in order to juxtapose it against your preferred Narrative.
Rather than attempting to smear Hernando de Soto by association, I suggest you read him and determine for yourself what you think of his ideas, Mr. Bodden. In fact, I would encourage everyone to read both Galeano and de Soto. Nothing like reading two different perspectives on Latin America to widen one's horizons.
"For more on this topic read Eduardo Galeano’s "Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent"
For a better, more balanced approach to the topic, read anything by the Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto, but particularly his book, "The Other Path." Hernando de Soto offers a much more nuanced take on the reasons Latin America has failed to develop and reach its potential.
Annon, judging from your completely one-sided, and largely ahistorical, recitation of American history above, it is evident that you are the one who has drunk the Kool Aid. Your cartoon version of American history is so skewed to fit your preferred Narrative that it would be laughed out of any discussion by serious, responsible historians.
Not that you don't have some valid points to make, but they are completely undermined by your selective omission of great swaths of American history that you don't want to acknowledge. Only on the internet, where anyone can post anything, regardless how bizarre and skewed, does such a conspiratorially-inspired Narrative qualify as "history" by the uninformed.
And the point of your little set-piece above is...what, Mr. McPhee?
I suggested that the big talk coming out of Maduro will only have meaning if backed by deeds, and I suggested that no responsible observer should place bets on such an eventuality, given his history of being a blowhard. Rather than promote your conspiratorial view of history, why don't you address the question of Maduro's follow-through on his big talk? Talk is cheap, deeds require more grit. What do you think?
Maduro and Morales are blowhards who are vying for leadership of the Latin American Left after Chavez's death. No responsible international observer should place his bets on any follow-through on the part of these poseurs. Rafael Correa, who is much more astute than either Maduro or Morales, has already backed off regarding asylum for Snowden in Ecuador.
"A charge sometimes casually thrown around is the one about outside or CIA interference."
It is thrown around only by unreconstructed conspiracy theorists who think the various elements of the US government, including the CIA, operate seamlessly to influence every incident that occurs anywhere on earth. It is a childish, naive approach to analyzing international events that is embraced by childish, naive conspiracy theorists. Anyone who actually knows something about how the various elements of the US Government work understands that, while some events have been influenced by the US, the US Government lacks the capacity to operate on the level imagined by the conspiracy theorists.
"And the military (and those who supported the coup) are and will be responsible for every drop of blood."
The responsibility for any bloodshed belongs solely to Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood for attaining power via a democratic election and then, having attained power, attempting to subvert the very democratic process that brought them to power. Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood bear full responsibility for the bait-and-switch tactics they brought to bear against the Egyptian electorate. It's an old story: Gain power via the democratic process and then, once in power, destroy the democratic process for your own ends.
"Also pro-Morsi protest today in: Algiers and most city in the ME, and even in Kabul."
I doubt that the vast majority of Egyptians who are glad Morsi is gone give a damn about pro-Morsi demonstrations in Algiers and Kabul. The demonstrators in Algiers and Kabul didn't have to live under his regime. And if they like his governing philosophy, perhaps they should worry more about their own governments than that of Egypt.
Mohammed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood have only themselves to blame for their downfall and the Egyptian military's assumption of political power. It was clear from the beginning that the MB had not changed its stripes, and that it wanted to impose an Islamist government on Egypt. They showed their hand early-on by stating they would not run a candidate for president and would not contest seats in the upper house of parliament, and then reversing themselves and doing both. It was an obvious bait-and-switch ploy to soften the image of their Islamist history and undermine the wariness Egyptians held regarding the MB agenda.
Let us be spared soulful laments about the democratic process being subverted by the military. It was Morsi and the MB who began subverting the democratic process by ensuring a majority in the upper house of parliament and by ramming through an MB-inspired constitution that was heavily Islamist in content. Democracy is a lot more than just winning an election. Many groups, and I suspect the MB is among them, are quite willing to use the democratic election process to attain power, and then, having attained it, impose a very undemocratic regime on a nation.
The prime example, of course, is the November 1932 election in Germany, in which the Nazi party won the largest number of seats in the Reichtag but failed to win a majority. A coalition government was formed, and in January 1933, President von Hindenburg legally appointed Adolf Hitler Chancellor. In March 1933, through parliamentary maneuvering, Hitler and the Nazis managed to pass the Enabling Act, which granted the Chancellor (Hitler) powers to declare acts and laws without parliamentary input and approval. The beginning of totalitarianism in Germany had been established. All done legally. There was ample precedent for the Muslim Brotherhood to follow.
One hopes that this whole miserable performance by Morsi and the MB, and the military intervention it prompted, will eventually result in a more secular, democratically-elected government. One also hopes that what is occurring in Egypt, the largest, most important country in the Arab World, will have repercussions in other Middle Eastern countries, and that those repercussions will result in more secular governments. Religiously-based governments, whether they be in Christian-majority countries, in Jewish-majority Israel, or in Islamic-majority countries, have no place in a modern political, economic, and social system. Religion should be confined to the church, temple, synagogue, and mosque. It should not be part of the political equation. I realize that this is a hard concept for some to swallow, but there it is. For those who say that were Islam to follow such a course it would not longer be Islam, my response is that the same thing was said of Christianity in the sixteenth century. A rational approach will recognize that religions can evolve, and an enlightened attitude will demand that they do so.
"The worst part about PRISM is that it violated our rights for years in secret."
You appear to be confusing PRISM with the collection of metadata involving telephone Nos., Bill They are two separate programs. PRISM involves obtaining internet and E-mail communications from foreign (i.e., non-US) sources). The metadata sweeping up of telephone Nos. called involves US sources.
"where’s the war on traffic fatalities?"
Well, Bill, there has been a "war" on traffic fatalities for as long as I can remember. Over the years it has involved everything from red-light and speed cameras to increased police presence on highways during holidays to apprehend drunk drivers.
"Where is the insistance (sic) on a memorial to the victims of June, 2013?"
You really must know the difference between victims of traffic accidents and victims of terrorist attacks, don't you, Bill?
Cheers,
Bill
Morsi's undemocratic and hard-line stance, beginning with his ramming through of the MB-inspired constitution and continuing through the current chaos, demonstrates that Neither Morsi nor the Muslim Brotherhood have changed their stripes. It was evident from the beginning that the MB wanted an Islamic state, and their past history indicated they would not countenance a (in their view) watered-down pluralism.
Remember when this all began, spokesmen for the MB stated publicly they would not run a candidate for President, and then they did? It was obviously a bait and switch tactic meant to put the MB in a more favorable light, given their past history. This was so predictable from the very beginning. If the military were to take charge of events, Morsi and his MB minions would have only themselves to blame.
The UNHCR does not just hand out travel documents to anyone claiming to be a refugee. The term "refugee" has a precise definition under the United Nations and under international law. Before the UNHCR could even consider Snowden a refugee, he would have to be processed and interviewed by a UNHCR representative, who would then make a determination on his status.
Even if a UNHCR representative were to determine that Snowden qualified for refugee status (a highly debatable proposition), Snowden would not be issued a travel document until and unless a third country accepted him as a refugee.
Keep in mind that there is a big difference in status and categories between a "refugee" and a "political asylee." Those seeking refugee status have fled their country of origin and must be processed by a UNHCR representative. Those seeking political asylum must be on the territory of the state to which they are applying, and UNHCR representatives have nothing to do with their cases.
"There is certainly nothing in Sweden that he fears."
Your above-cited quote will certainly be news to Assange. Were Assange to be returned to Sweden, he would face charges involving rape, unlawful coercion, and two cases of sexual molestation. It is interesting that you don't consider those anything to be concerned about, as if they were no worse than stealing a candy bar.
"Edward Snowden released a statement from Moscow on Monday, slamming Barack Obama for revoking his passport and rendering him stateless and unable to seek asylum even though Snowden has not been found guilty of any crime."
Edward Snowden has neither lost his citizenship nor been rendered "stateless." Snowden remains a US citizen, and he has a country, the United States, to which he could return if he so desired. Snowden is a fugitive from justice, and as such the US Government has revoked his passport. That is the normal procedure for US fugitives, whether they are in the US or abroad. It is not unique to his case.
What Snowden is beginning to realize is the full effect his decision to violate his oath and the position of trust he held by running away with highly classified information and revealing it to the world is having on his life. His highly inflated and romantic view of himself as a whistle-blower has descended into bathos with his trite and untrue claim that he is "stateless."
Glenn Greenwald is really full of himself these days. Good journalism is not measured by "how angry you make the people your covering." That is a conceit that only Greenwald could come up with.
Good journalism is measured by how deeply, accurately, and objectively one covers a story or event. In doing so, a good journalist may indeed anger those he is covering. But not necessarily so. If Greenwald thinks that good journalism is only that which angers those being covered, he has a very narrow, pinched view of what constitutes journalism.
"Oh, and you are right that Bill could not refute Correa’s claim that the world order is unjust and immoral, whatever Correa’s own misdeeds are."
What? My comment addressed Rafael Correa's campaign against the Ecuadorian news media. It had nothing to do with the "world order." Let's not go off the rails here, SUPER390.
"Since Bill previously has written that Latin American radicalism is unjustified because “they” are to blame for their historical economic woes."
Go back and reread my comment on Hernando de Soto, SUPER390, and you will be reminded that I wrote that Latin American underdevelopment has been due to both foreign exploitation and internal corruption and practices that hinder advancement. Please do not try to misrepresent what I have written in pursuit of your own ideological agenda, SUPER390.
The "unsubstantiated allegations" appear to be made by those who try to make the case that criticism of Correa is nothing but Right-Wing opposition to a beleaguered "populist" trying to make the press available to everyone. That fits neatly into a certain ideological Narrative championed by, well, those such as you, Mr. McPhee.
Weisbrot's piece was the usual Leftist cant and hardly warranted comment. Those who actually follow Latin American affairs (as opposed to reading snatches from internet sources like Mr. Weisbrot's piece in the "Guardian) understand that Correa is muzzling any opposition to him and his policies. Human Rights Watch and the Committee to Protect Journalists have denounced Correa's actions. More importantly, the Inter-American Press Association has described Correa's new media law as "the most serious setback for freedom of the press and of expression in the recent history of Latin America." These are legitimate organizations that are hardly tools of the United States.
Rafael Correa caling the Washington Post editorial "shameless" is rich. What is shameless is the way Correa has tightened restrictions on the Ecuadorian media. His government recently passed a very restrictive press law, and he has expropriated a couple of TV stations that offended him. Shameless indeed!
"Were you there, Bill? or is this just more claiming of authoritative knowledge without referents, other than “You can be sure”?"
I just don't believe in the tooth fairy, Mr. McPhee. It would be foolish to think the Russian FSB, in particular, would not take advantage of Snowden's intelligence trove. Or do you think Russian intelligence is filled with Boy Scouts reciting the Oath and Honor Code?
"As Glenn Greenwald said on “Meet the (Fawning Corporate) Press” Snowden could have sold his information but didn’t. Given your previous comments and this, that is something you would prefer not to believe."
I don't give a damn what Glenn Greenwald said, Mr. Bodden. Neither Greenwald nor you have anything other than Snowden's word on what he has or has not done, and his word has been shown to be worth less than the cost of a cup of coffee.
"This is another piece of BS and a dumb idea you would like to smear Snowden with and probably believe, but a more likely scenario is that whatever hardware Snowden had he and others working with him made sure that it was in a secure place. That would have excluded on his person in foreign places such as HK, China and Russia."
Speaking of BS and dumb ideas, not to mention naivete, after reading your above-cited quote, Mr. Bodden, I would like to make you an offer of some oceanfront property in Arizona, sight unseen, of course. (And I'll throw a bridge in for good measure.)
"In her segment on Snowden’s flight from Hong Kong, she made every effort possible to imply that he really is spying, that he has sold or given loads of secrets to the Chinese or Russians, or that he is not taking any care to prevent the Russians and Chines from *somehow* stealing the documents from him."
I have no idea whether or not Snowden willingly sold or gave classified secrets loaded on his hard drives and thumb drives to the Chinese and Russians. You can be sure, however, that he was in a form of "custody" while in Hong Kong and Moscow, and that Chinese, and particularly Russian, intelligence officers down-loaded everything on his hard drives and thumb drives. He would have had no say in the matter, his own protestations and that of his Wikileaks "handlers" notwithstanding.
"De Soto, surprisingly enough, has numerous critics, that include observations that his remedies for inequality and “fixing” national economies are, shall we say, simplistic?"
It would help to have actually read Hernando de Soto's works, rather than rely on flimsy Wiki quotes without context.
There is a lot to be gained by actually living in and experiencing life in the area under discussion, Origen. People can talk a country to death in the abstract, but to have actually experienced the people and society provides valuable first-hand information. That, plus reading the works of Hernando de Soto I mentioned, provides a completely different take on Latin America than has been presented in this thread.
Have you actually read Hernando de Soto, SUPER390? Or are you just exercising your kneejerk "blame everything on external forces" mantra? I have actually lived in Latin America and know something about it from first-hand experience. Have you experienced Chile first-hand? Or Nicaragua? Or Honduras? Or anything else upon which you have formed such concrete opinions? I wonder if you actually know anything about Hernando de Soto, SUPER 390? For that matter, have you have actually read "Open Veins of Latin America," by Eduardo Galleano? Or do you form your opinions second-hand by what you hear others have read and experienced?
"You applaud the neoliberals wherever they breed, like Chile, but those folks there and here could care less about the huge mass of humans with their sad little lives."
If you actually looked at a country like Chile, Mr. McPhee, you would see that it has a much greater middle class and prospering population than those countries that continue with their shopworn collectivist economies like Bolivia, Venezuela, cuba, Nicaragua, and even Argentina. Drop the scales from your eyes, and ye shall see.
"Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent," by Eduardo Galleano, has some good points to make regarding the exploitation of Latin America by the developed world. (And now China has been getting into the act as well!) Nevertheless, Galleano's book is a wholly one-sided approach to why Latin America has failed to develop. To read his book, one would be left with the impression that Latin America's traditional underdevelopment was completely the product of the West's exploitative practices. It is not.
For a more balanced approach to why Latin America has failed to develop, I recommend the Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto, particularly his two seminal works, "The Mystery of Capital," and "The Other Path," as well as some of his monographs. Hernando de Soto does not deny the exploitation of Latin America by the developed world, including the United States, but he presents a far more nuanced view than does Galleano. He details with myriad examples the stifling bureaucracy and corruption that has been endemic in Latin America and has led to inefficiency and economic waste. De Soto provides examples of the labyrinthine steps that are required to obtain business licenses, and the payoffs and bribes that are required in order to receive them, in effect, locking the poor completely out of the banking and credit system, since they lack even the tiniest bit of collateral needed for loans to start up small enterprises.
De Soto outlines the tax avoidance that passes for sport in much of Latin America, depriving the state of much needed revenue that could by used to enhance education and public services. Instead, the shortfall in revenue through massive tax avoidance is made up, often enough, by printing money, leading to hyperinflation, as has occurred in Argentina, Bolivia, and other countries.
Historically Latin America has been exploited by outside powers, but it has been equally responsible for its lack of development through its own culture of corruption and inefficient use of human capital. The pity in a book like Galleano's is that it confirms in many Latin Americans (and others, I might say) that all their problems are due to external forces, thus absolving them of all responsibility for their condition and diverting them from making those institutional changes that are necessary for a modern, efficient political and economic system. There are signs of changes. Chile has long been a leading light, and Mexico and Peru are improving as well. But others have a long way to go.
"I’ve read them both, Bill. I have no illusions about the Gulags."
Then you will know that while there may be criticisms to be made about the American penal system, it in no way is comparable to the horror of the Gulag camps under Stalin, where thousands perished from overwork, cold, and starvation.
Your feeble attempt to equate the American system with Stalin's Gulag won't wash, SUPER390. Yours is a completely ahistorical approach. No serious student of the Soviet era would buy it.
If you think the Gulags were simply places of incarceration for lawbreakers, like US jails and prisons, you are seriously deficient in your knowledge of Stalin's use of the Gulags. They were located in the harshest climates where opponents of Stalin (real and imagined) were sent with little clothing and less food. Thousands perished of overwork, cold, and starvation.
No, that is not an equivalency worth considering. If you really are interested, I suggest you read the book "Gulag," by Anne Applebaum, not to mention "The Gulag Archipelago," by Alexander Solzhenitzen.
"Wouldn’t you say exploring your genetic structure is a tad more intrusive?"
I doubt that your local police department is interested in competing with Watson and Crick. Nothing wrong with using it for identification.
No. 6 states, in part, "Police can take DNA samples of all arrestees, whether they are proven guilty or not."
What is the difference between taking DNA samples for identification purposes and the long-standing practice of taking someone's fingerprints when he is booked?
No. 4 states, in part, "The US holds over two million inmates, and has 6 million people at any one time under carceral supervision– more than were in Stalin’s Gulag." This is a cheap shot, attempting to draw a false equivalence between the US prison population and inmates in Stalin's Gulag. One can decry the number in US prisons without suggesting a "Gulag" equivalency where there is none.
"“The West” has had a lot to do with the political and social structuring of the Balkans, all part of the idiot Great Game that has been in motion for a couple of centuries now, as most responsible historians of the area and its complexities would allow. Without “The West’s” enormous wars and secret pacts and all that, the Balkans would likely be a lot less, er, “Balkanized.”"
You would do well to read some of the "responsible historians" to whom you refer in your cited quote above. Had you actually read some history of the Balkans, you would have learned that the West had a lot to do with forming the former "Balkanized" states of Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, and Montenegro into the newly-formed state of Yugoslavia as part of the post-World War I settlement.
Rather than "Balkanizing" the Balkans as you suggest, the West helped create a less Balkanized area by supporting the establishment of Yugoslavia. But then, to understand that one has to reach beyond the Wikipedia School of Misinformation and actually read some solid history.
I suppose I should be flattered by the amount of ink you feel compelled to spill in addressing my comments, Mr. McPhee. I feel a certain satisfaction in knowing I have that effect on you.
The West certainly did not help to bring about conditions in Kosovo, Bosnia, and Libya that justified Western intervention. This is a complete misreading (or misunderstanding) of history. It was Milosevic's slaughter of Muslims in Bosnia that led to the Western intervention in that conflict. It was Milosevic's ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Muslims that led to Western intervention in that conflict. The West did not create the conditions that led to Milosevic's Balkan Wars and his dream of Serbian supremacy among the wreckage of the former Yugoslavia. It was Milosevic's show from beginning to end.
And as for Libya, Ghaddafi had a decades-long history of anti-Western policies. Even after he had decided to temper his policies and make peace with the West, his erratic behavior and absolute rule created the conditions that led to Western intervention to assist the rebels. He, too, like Milosevic, was responsible for the conditions that led to Western intervention and his downfall. The West had nothing to do with creating those conditions.
"Desert Storm wasn’t a good test case of the Powell Doctrine because all that was needed was an air campaign."
Desert Storm was much more than an air campaign. The US had 500,000 ground troops in Saudi Arabia, and it took a ground campaign to get Iraq out of Kuwait and defeat Saddam Hussein. Desert Storm was a perfect example of the Powell Doctrine succeeding.
Better than shooting at each other along the Line of Control on the Kargil Glacier in Kashmir. As Humphrey Bogart ("Rick") said to Claude Rains ("Capt. Louis Renault") at the end of Casablanca, after Rick shoots the German officer and Renault tells his men to round up the usual suspects, "This could be the start of a beautiful friendship." How can you hate each other when both of you are pirouetting around like peacocks in front of each other!
Since taking office, Morsi has demonstrated that he can be, by turns, bombastic, indecisive, and feckless. He has no political compass and cannot locate True North, always veering back toward the Muslim Brotherhood. Morsi is a political and religious provincial, seemingly unable to rise above his Muslim Brotherhood roots and show leadership. His continued pandering to the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamists bodes ill, both for Egypt and for the United States.
"To be clear, Pashtuns are only a majority of Afghans if you will allow yourself to view the Durand Line as the Pashtuns do."
To understand the dynamics of ethnic politics in Afghanistan it is essential to understand that historically Afghanistan was ruled by Pashtuns from 1709, when they overthrew Persian rule, until 1973 and the overthrow of King Mohammed Zahir Shah. The rulers were from several dynasties and sub-clans, but all were Pashtuns. I would expect that to continue to be the case, whether the US were to remain involved or not.
Further to my reply to Chris M. and Mr. McPhee above, it occurs to me that a basic civics lesson is in order here. Regarding Snowden's spurious claim that the US Government has openly declared him a traitor, and both of your statements supporting said spurious claim, let's examine your examples.
Former V/P Dick Cheney is just that, a former vice president. He in no way represents the US Government today.
John Boehner represents the 8th Congressional District of Ohio and is Speaker of the House. As such, he speaks for his congressional district and, when authorized as Speaker, for one half of the legislative branch. He in no way speaks for the US Government.
Diane Feinstein represents California in the Senate. She speaks only for California or, when authorized by Harry Reid, for one half of the legislative branch. She in no way speaks for the US Government.
John Bolton, former State Department official and UN Ambassador is no longer in government. He in no way speaks for the US Government.
No legitimate representative authorized to speak for the "US Government" has declared Snowden "guilty of treason."
"Snowden maintains that the analysts all have direct access to them at will, and he would know."
Don't be too sure that Snowden "knows" everything of which he speaks. Snowden is beginning to sound a little bit full of himself. In Snowden's internet Guardian Website interview yesterday he claimed that the US Government has "openly declared me guilty of treason." The US Government has done no such thing. The US Justice Department is trying to determine what charges to bring against him, but it has not declared him "guilty of treason."
A second example of Snowden flattering himself over his perceived self-importance was his statement that the US Government cannot cover things up by "jailing or murdering me." This is self-important drivel. No one is going to murder Snowden. The man fantasizes.
His third whopper was his statement that his "leaving the United States was an incredible risk" because "there was a distinct possibility I would be interdicted en-route." While he clearly violated policy by not submitting a travel request in advance, no one was going to "interdict" him en-route. More self-flattering fantasies.
Snowden was a relatively low-level technical employee who had, or gained access to, some material that probably was not even in his portfolio. I doubt that Snowden possesses any intelligence information that the Chinese don't already know more about than he does. It would be in China's interest (and China has the ultimate say in what Hong Kong does) to turn such a self-flattering and bloated purveyor of perceived self-importance over to US authorities.
Morsi has shown himself to be simultaneously authoritarian, unreliable, and feckless. Not that I think the US should make any decisions on Syria based upon Morsi's pronouncements, but in calling for a "no-fly" zone over Syria, I would be interested in what Morsi plans to ante-up in support of such a mission? I suspect Morsi would stand by and let others carry the water.
"France, Britain and America basically attacked Libya for no good reason and did so without the benefit of a UN mandate."
You are woefully misinformed, Mr. Wilson. The coalition, including NATO, intervened in Libya pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, approved in New York on 17 March 2011. UNSC Resolution 1973 authorized military intervention and the consequent "No Fly" zone that was established.
"They only ended because Negroponte ran out of bullets.
The negotiations were window dressing."
Wrong, Brian. Shannon is correct. The Central American wars ended because the leftist guerrillas were stopped by two events. The first was the ongoing support throughout the 1980s given those fighting the guerrillas, such as the Contras in Nicaragua (and others), by the United States. The second, and ultimately probably more important, was the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. The USSR was the primary source of arms for the guerrillas, providing arms for them via Cuba. When that source dried up, coupled with pressure from the anti-leftist coalitions supported by the US, the guerrillas were forced to begin negotiations. Shannon is correct when he notes that "it worked."