you are viewing a single comment's thread.view the rest of the posts
OK, so now I'm an "idiot", too...
Look, this sort of paranoia sums up where you are coming from. I get it, I get it, I get it:
"Will we be murdered if we dare read a book on the forbidden list including the Bible?"
May you never be murdered for reading the Bible... (I mean that). Hallelujah, Sister, Praise the Lord!
Was it funny to you when Hitler exterminated 6 million jews for the sake of his totalitarian government?
Was it funny to you when Stalin took down 20 million jews, christians, and those horrid rich people in the Bolshevick reolution all for the sake of a Marx's totalitarian government?
Was it funny to you when people were executed for simply reading religious material, Bible included? That was China and Russia, Hitler got his share of priests, rabbie, and theologians but was pussy compared to the other two.
Mao - just responsible for the death of around 10 million in his marxist "great leap forward" and cultural revolution. So he makes history books as causing "severe damage to the culture, society, economy, and foreign relations of China."
Did I insult you muskateer? You deserve it for spewing evil Marist untruths!!
I see a theme: Bible, homeschool, republican...
Did Jesus Christ teach that "it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven"?
Karl Marx, himself, was a Jew. Hitler and many others blamed the Jews for Communism, thanks to the number of Jews who played prominent roles in the Russian Revolution.
Hitler sprinkled Mein Kampf with Christian language, most likely to fit with the predominantly Christian German population, and appealed to voters on the strength of his Christian "calling":
"I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."
btdt: You are an hysteric in serious need of medication. May I suggest 16 hours of bible thumping and 10-15 caipirinhas daily.
I've had all I can take of your insulting, rambling, ridiculousness. IGNORE.
Scholar presaged U.S. descent to destitution
Starting in the Clinton years, the retired University of California San Diego professor, China and Japan expert, former Cold War hawk and prolific writer has been warning against the financial collapse of what he calls – without a hint of irony – the American empire.
In the chaotic aftermath of 9/11, Johnson's 2000 book “Blowback” – the first of a trilogy followed by “The Sorrows of Empire” and “Nemesis” – acquired international liftoff for its dead-on prediction of retaliation against what he calls American imperialism.
The analysis hit home, cutting to the quick.
In Johnson's Olympian view, it's a matter of time – and not much of it – until this country is beggared by a largely obsolete and obscenely expensive war machine, the military-industrial complex about which President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned.
With the global economy in cardiac arrest, I figured the 77-year-old historian would be feeling pretty chipper. Johnson's radical world view, it seems, is most relevant when very bad things are happening.
In the Johnson garage, both vehicles sport the same bumper sticker: “Ike Was Right.” Another proclaims: “It's a Planet, Not an Empire.”
I asked Johnson what he would say if Barack Obama sought his advice.
“I'm now going to lecture you about things you refuse to know,” Johnson said, channeling the imaginary conversation.
“I'm going to lecture you about history. History tells us there's no such thing as a successful democracy and also a successful empire. You can be one or the other – but you can't be both. If you are a successful empire, it will destroy your democracy. That's essentially why Britain gave up at the end of World War II. They concluded that just after defeating the Nazis, they couldn't continue to use Nazi methods. It wasn't well done, but they preserved their democracy.”
Though dismantling the military may be political suicide, a third-rail far more electrifying than Social Security, Obama will have to face that task someday, Johnson said.
“It is the essence of leadership to recognize we've gone the wrong direction,” Johnson said. “We're using the wrong weapons. We don't know what we're doing.”
After the fall of the Soviet Union, “I realized we would do anything to protect the military-industrial complex. Nothing scared our government more in the last century than the realization that we got out of the Great Depression because of World War II.”
In other words, we don't believe we can afford to stop waging conventional warfare.
Whether the subject is wasteful arms programs (the F-22 and the F-35 jet fighters come in for special scorn), far-flung garrisons (more than 700 official bases around the world; the Romans and the English made do with maybe 30 in their imperial heydays), or invasions (Iraq and Afghanistan), Johnson returns to his overarching theme – the economic sorrows of incessant war-making on a democracy.
In a recent essay, Johnson thundered against military spending – he figures, all told, a trillion dollars a year – that over the long haul makes the recent bailouts look like loose change:
“If we cannot cut back our long-standing, ever increasing military spending in a major way, then the bankruptcy of the United States is inevitable. As the current Wall Street meltdown has demonstrated, that is no longer an abstract possibility but a growing likelihood. We do not have much time left.” The Johnsons, it's fair to note, are unencumbered by children or stocks, two common articles of faith in the country's prosperity. Johnson's UC pension is secure. He can afford to cast a cold eye on the future.
“It's possible that it's over – and there's nothing to be done,” he told me with a ghost of a smile.
We're the national equivalent of a zombie bank. A dead country walking. And we might not even know it.
Isn't Johnson a Marxist? Not that that would invalidate any particular fact or assertion... Just asking. But no matter what Johnson is or isn't, Dwight Eisenhower was an unimpeachable Patriot and his warnings should be more widely known and taken seriously. That said, in spite of the costs of American Empire, is there anyone around who would prefer that some other state had dominated the world these past 60 years? Like a Stalinist Soviet Union perhaps? Would anyone want to restart history 60 years ago and take the gamble that an alternate outcome would be as good for so many as this one has been? Was there another way that could have led to as much prosperity as there is today? Can anyone articulate a viable mode of economic organization that will be self-sustaining, self-correcting and better, for more people, than the one we've got? In hindsight the answer is, of course, yes. But in that, I only regret that someone like Warren Buffett wasn't in charge of the SEC for the last twelve years. Visualize Buffett with Indiana Jones' bullwhip...crashing into a proverbial smoke-filled room, on the eve of a Christmas-time legislative recess, where various folks are drafting S.3283.
An important question needs to be asked: Can you regulate a market into comfortable stability and security and still have it be a market? It might be that instability is an inherent property of a market. Nevertheless, I'd love to hear a roundtable discussion where Buffett, and other smart people consider whether small numbers of enforced regulations would have prevented, or limited the disaster that is unfolding now. Certainly the housing market would be better off if no one had ever made loans to people who could not afford them, or prove employment. And certainly we'd be better off if everyone who sold default insurance were forced to hold adequate sums of cash to truly cover an avalanche of claims.
Here is a great link: http://www.robertbryce.com/node/223
"In 2002, the world's smartest investor..., Omaha billionaire Warren Buffett, issued his annual letter to the shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway. In it, he called derivatives "financial weapons of mass destruction, carrying dangers that, while now latent, are potentially lethal."
"Back in 2002, in Pipe Dreams, my book on the Enron disaster, I wrote that reforms were needed to deal with derivatives. I quoted one financial analyst who called derivatives "Wall Street's dirty secret." I recommended that "derivatives dealers should be required to post agreed-upon amounts of capital to collateralize their trading positions" and that "the derivatives marketplace must be made more uniform, with policing by regulators who can establish price limits, listing requirements, and other trading parameters."
I don't repeat that to brag about any foresight on my part. Many other people were arguing for the same types of reforms. The point is that the warning signs left by the Enron mess could not have been more clear. The derivatives mess created by Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and the others occurred because of a regulatory vacuum where none of the players were required to post collateral to back up their positions or to disclose to investors the size of their huge derivatives positions. That lack of oversight has spawned a financial crisis that will reverberate through the global economy for years to come.
Thousands of people are losing their homes. Thousands more are losing their jobs. Taxpayer money is being used to bail out private companies that were headed by corporate bosses who routinely helped themselves to multimillion-dollar pay packages. And all of it is happening because the Bush administration and Congress refused to heed the lessons of Enron."