Letters to the Editor
-
I think it's a bit of both.
There is not one thing that has changed so much as the character of the current regime. As much as I hated the Clinton follies, he did no permanent damage to our image; he was instead loved and admired outside our borders. But this crew, they’re a whole nother matter. Their evil is paraded for all to see; as if they really don’t care what we may think of them.
Personally, the more I dig into the real history of this country the more ashamed and disgusted I become. It was recently the 40th anniversary of the deliberate attack on the navy ship Liberty. Seems the president at the time, Johnson, recalled air cover en route to the ships distress calls. Our own president sacrificing our troops, for what?
Just this week the so-called “family Jewels” were released. If the CIA lets this stuff out, what are they still hiding? Murder, extortion, drug running. Seems to me our government has a long history as a criminal organization.
I too have read John Perkin’s books; is there an evil we have not practiced?
How come we didn’t know these kinds of things before? I believe the internet has played the key role in getting previously well hidden information out. So yes, I can agree with both viewpoints. One, previous administrations were able to snowball mass media. The fiction of a largely benevolent empire was easily accomplished. Of course, underneath, it was the same corrupt and murderous regime that is now apparent under Bush.
Two, it’s as if TPTB don’t even try to hide anymore. All their nastiness is out in the open, taunting as to try and stop them. Of course, a leopard never changes its spots so I can’t even imagine all the evil going on beneath the surface now.
Our standing in the world has suffered enormously, and also in my own head. If, in the sure to ensue calamity ahead, only the guilty suffer, I would say, “bring it on.” But, that’s not the way things work, so we’ll all pay for the evil done in our name.
-
Q: How dumb is LWM?
Q: What does LWM put behind his ears to attract dates?
A: His ankles.
-
Mona,
Have you perhaps lost your mind? You really are a fine example of the amorphous nature of so-called "libertarianism". In many ways it is just like the current GOP. Real Name and I have very little affinity for one another but his comment was just a joke, hardly Coulteresque, and wasn't broadcast beyond 10 or 12 computers. If you are what passes for a "libertarian" I never want you to come to power. It is not what an individual says that worries me. It is how that expression gets amplified and broadcast without some concern for balance, or regulation, by the very corporate media that your misguided religion protects. Oh,yeah... he's on your side. Right, but prowar. It's getting complicated, isn't it? We are going to see a very unusual political realignment. Gonna be one for the text books.
Oh, and fuck off and die, anonymous.
William,
I will not make deals with the devil at home. I would make deals with the devil outside of the home to fight a real enemy, if we had one. To give up progressive causes here at home just to end this war, I just will not do it. It won't end the war. It won't end the encroachment on civil liberties. Promises are tomorrow, not today and any deal with the devil never benefits you.
I don't think Mona is the devil. She just hangs out with the devil.
-
Q: How dumb is LWM?
A: He thinks Honoré de Balzac is the French term for his favorite midnight snack.
-
Deals with the devil
"I will not make deals with the devil at home."
Not to worry, LWM. We are not interested in making a deal with you. We're pretty sure We already have you in the product pipeline.
We're making a list, checking it twice ....
-
I'd rather listen to libertarians argue than anonymous's jokes
Although I'm not sure what that means.
-
Back to the USA
Upthread someone was lamenting that the US has pretty much always left a trail of brown or red corpses in the wake of its history and has therefore pretty much always failed to live up to our own standards of decent behavior. This may be true, but since I'm travelling this week, I have a seemingly unrelated observation that nevertheless comes into play. In the grand scope of history, commercial air travel is an exceedingly new development. Our dependence on oil is likewise a very recent phenomenon when measured against the extent of written human history. In both cases even though, these are new developments, our infrastructure has grown up around them to the point that life without them would be close to unimaginable.
What I assert is that our notions of human equality are experiencing a similar pace of development. In the face of the face of the racism inherent in the cries against "Islamofascism" or "Illegal Aliens", you may think this assertion odd but if you consider that human slavery was only marginalized a mere 150 years ago, then perhaps the notion that all people should have an equal stake in the future of our planet is likewise a new development that nevertheless has taken on a life of it's own and represents the new benchmark against which our actions can be measured.
-
Anonymous is Dimwit reaching out for the Dimness
I'd rather listen to libertarians argue than anonymous's jokes
Although I'm not sure what that means.
Clevland Steamer?
You are a sick bastard. How does one know this kind of thing?
It's fine if you want to do it and I assume you have. I'd bet you were not the shitter but the shitee.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_steamer
-
Q: How dumb is LWM?
A: He got waitlisted by Chico State.
-
Self-Interest vs. Profit Motives
There have been a few responses to Glenn’s post about how self interest has always been and will continue to be the driving force behind US foreign policy. I would agree that self interest has traditionally been the driving force behind US policy, but I am not sure that matters. What is more disturbing is that under the Bush administration profit motives have replaced nationalistic self interest as the driving force behind many decisions.
It doesn’t matter whether you approach international relations from a realist, liberal, or constructivist perspective, one point that can generally be agreed upon is that States are inherently self interested. An individual’s theoretical affinities will of course color their policy choices and understanding of how States can and should interact. Liberals will often favor carrots in situations where realists will favor big sticks, but both parties analyze whatever situation they are looking at from the perspective of what is best for their country and fellow citizens. I would argue that the fundamental role of a government official whether a faceless bureaucrat at State, a hill staffer, or an administration official is to think about what is best for their country. Whether we are from the left or the right, we elect people to look out for our interests.
Self interest in and of itself is not necessarily a problem. It is entirely possible to see the promotion of policies that support human rights, democracy, free speech, and improved living standards among the world’s poor as self interested. At the same time, an entirely self interested policy is a problem if it blinds us to others’ needs for the same basic opportunities and freedoms that we want for ourselves. This type of blindness has led our country to commit some of its worst acts, including (in my view) the current war in Iraq.
What I am arguing here is that, while I often don’t agree with the self interested positions taken by our government officials and think that these positions are harmful, if I don’t reject the fundamental notion of the nation state then I have to accept the fact that decisions made by those working for the state are going to be made with the interests of the state taking priority. I also believe that the government officials making decisions, even those who I disagree with, are usually trying to make decisions that they believe are for the greater good of those they serve.
The change that the Bush administration has wrought is that they have taken power out of the hands of the traditional government bureaucracies and have put it into the hands of private contractors. The dominant question these actors ask is not, “what is best for MY country,” but rather “what is best for me.” The self interest of the state actors that normally drive our foreign policy decision making has been changed into a corporate profit motive. We may have always provided development assistance to the poor in other countries because we thought it was in our interest, but once aid started flowing, our first concern was to better the lives of the people to whom we were providing assistance. I don’t believe that this is the case any longer.
The Bush administration has destroyed traditional US foreign assistance mechanisms. USAID is now nothing more than a shell. Most USAID assistance is now given out in the form of huge multi-million dollar contracts to for profit corporations that oversee the implementation of development programs throughout the world. Not only do these business entities oversee the provision of aid, they often carry out the management and oversight functions that USAID used to take on. This has helped shrink government, but at the cost of quality programming. The aim of for profit contractors is to make money on the programs they implement, which in this instance means profiting off of the world’s poor and down trodden. Yes, it can be argued that these same corporations are providing vital services on a scale that it is impossible for small non-profits to match. However, it has been my experience that people in other countries receiving assistance can tell that they are being used as commodities in a profit making scheme. They can tell that there is a qualitative difference in how aid is being given.
Our foreign assistance policy has never been perfect, but it is even worse now and people see this change. When this is combined with torture, detentions without trial, domestic spying, domestic corruption scandals, etc., all of which people see, can it possible be as surprise to anyone that the world’s perception of the US is changing?
(Of course none of this has mattered in 2007 as the government still hasn’t approved a foreign assistance budget! That’s right, no new development aid for the world’s poor during 2007. Not even our traditional .07% of GDP. )