Letters to the Editor
-
Bill Clinton as president of the World Bank?
Hmm. Could be interesting.
-
i don't think
they're letting Bush I make the appointments...
-
That opening
will have to do, at least until the 22nd Amendment is repealed. *sigh*
Great item, Andrew, as always.
-
Huh?
I don't get what his point is: the solution to overpopulation is more population growth in the place where there wouldn't be any if it weren't for immigration?
-
Hmm
I don't get what his point is: the solution to overpopulation is more population growth in the place where there wouldn't be any if it weren't for immigration?
Not a bad summation. What aren't you getting?
-
You people REALLY don't care about honesty do you?
I love his politics, for the most part. I voted for him myself.
But he's one of those kinds of people for whom reality is just never good enough.
He's one of those kinds of people who will always feel the temptation to embellish reality to get the response from the public that he wants.
And he's usually willing to succumb to that temptation when he rationalizes for himself that his lying is for the greater good.
So you can expect him to lie, and you can expect him to be telling himself the whole time that he's lying for your own good.
I do not want someone like THAT in charge of the World Bank, sorry.
He's a wonderful politician, but the World Bank needs to remain a reality-based organization.
-
Advice from the NAFTA guy
Bill Clinton is looked upon with nostalgia by Democrats the way Republicans look upon Reagan. It's easy to look good in hindsight when the guy that followed you is the worst in the country's history.
The last guy to head the World Bank lost his job because of a sex scandal, so replace him with a guy who was impeached because of a sex scandal.
So we should take advice on immigration from the guy who was responsible for NAFTA.
TO SUM UP HIS WISDOM ON IMMIGRATION:
If people in poor countries over reproduce, the solution is to bring them ------ HERE.
We must do this or there will be upheaval, explosions and war.
The world population is expanding from 6.5 to 9 billion people. Our country has .3 billion people and the increase of world population will be 2.5 billion. What portion of that increase should we take?
With urban crime, pollution, global warming, housing shortages, traffic congestion and increasing inequities in income and wealth, how would such an increase effect our country.
-
Good for the grads
I was pleased that he gave that commencement talk at my alma mater and I was able to watch live on their website (while I was at work, but don't tell). I enjoyed it and more than that I thought it was a good inspirational talk for the graduates. I'm not sure how much young adults get the "give to the world" speeches these days.
I wouldn't make him pres of the World Bank though, as if Bush would even consider him. He's doing fine with his foundation. He mentioned that he'd just flown in from Europe and had given several talks there. He also mentioned that he talked to Hilary that morning as she was headed to Iowa. I couldn't tell if the audience reacted to that, though.
-
One small hurdle
And all these trends are going to get worse unless we deal with them.
Problem is, the only thing we can do that will have the required effect is the one thing most people would violently oppose: limiting births. (Well, it's either that or increasing deaths.) Nothing else will ever solve the problem, because you're talking about numbers jumping higher and higher every year from the one-two punch of expanding birthrate and shrinking deathrate. Unless you stop multiplying, you're gonna be drowning in numbers. And the real drain on the planet comes not from poorer countries, where the standard of living is so low, but from the developed nations. Especially the US, which uses up resources wildly out of proportion to its share of the world population.
But try telling that to people and have them take you seriously. Sure, they'll shake their heads sadly over the idea of overpopulation, but ask them if they'd be willing to give up reproducing and they'll respond with some variant of "Are you fucking nuts?" It's a choice everyone else should make, never themselves. And that is essentially why the population problem will never be solved voluntarily - when the numbers go down, it'll be because they were forced down, because we simply will not stop making more humans.
Hardly surprising. It's a hallmark of this era that most people would sooner see the world go to hell than give up something significant for the greater good. Switch to another car or stop eating tuna, sure. But the really important stuff? Never happen.
At least, not without some major meltdown in the modern psyche, whether caused by events external or internal. Who knows how things will go?
-
And about the speech
Nowhere in there was President Clinton dictating solutions. His point was that "the issue is complicated and unfortunate, so people give the guys in Congress a break 'cause they have a hard job". Next time, give the guy a break and read what he actually said.
As to the anon who went on about Clinton being a liar? It amazes me how, after six years of the most ostentatiously mendacious, obfuscatory and deliberately dishonest and deceitful administration in history, anybody can even remember that nonsense. It shows a mind so steeped in paralogia, it approaches the bizarre.
-
And He Should Know
NAFTA kicked Mexico in the collective groin, and it wasn't great for most people in the USA or Canada either. How many times do we have to repeat it: so-called "Free Trade" is a very destructive oxymoron. It's neoliberalism: welfare for the rich and free markets for the poor. It's responsible for the majority of the world's poverty. Reverse it, repeal it, and precedents show that things get much better. Make trade fair.
As I've said before, maybe the only other option is "The Ukraine Model:" Collapsing birth rates without a fall in rates of death and/or emigration.
-
Typical
Typical rhetoric from the hero of one of our so-called parties - so-called because they have completely lost track of anything resembling the ideologies they are supposed to represent, true of every party except the Libertarians who are merely inept.
Advice on dealing with poverty on a global level from a man who's first considered act as an ex-President, after being told that asking the taxpayers to pay millions in rent to give him offices in the WTC would be bad for Hillary's presidential aspirations, was to destroy a large percentage of the small businesses in Harlem by putting his offices there - instantly driving rents through the roof.
Most immigrants, the poor ones, don't come here because we are the land of opportunity, not any more. And they don't come here because we are a bastion of liberty, because we aren't any more. They come here for the social programs, and we can't and will never be able to afford to take enough people in to stop wars or end suffering as long as they are in place. That's the reality of the situation, and BC doesn't grasp it.
If he really wants to help the world's poor, he'll push for us to return to where we were before the Great Society, when an honest, hard working immigrant could give his children a good life. The last thing we need is a World Bank president who thinks we can solve all the world's problems with government cheese and housing projects.