DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: BSB on October 20, 2011, 07:24:13 PM
-
Some fine minds have been warning about a period of social/class unrest/warfare here in America for the past couple of years. You know, haves vs the have not's.
In order for that to occur you need to have a breakdown of the major pressure relieving institutions like the banks/loaning institutions, government, public education, etc. I would say that a sufficient breakdown in some, but not all, of those institutions has occurred already.
So, what now? Revolution? Sorry Snowblower, this isn't a revolutionary moment and you need look no further than Cuba, and its total failure, to know why.
Resurrect, and modernize, the institutions? That gets my vote. What stands in the way of that, however, is a lack of leadership to guide us through the change. Obama? Proven to be unqualified. Romney? At this point I have seen very little leadership potential, certainly of the kind needed now. The rest of the GOP field? Nothing.
Where's this leadership going to come from then? When we hit the beaches on D-Day, and officers were killed by the hundreds, the ordinary soldier stepped forward and took command. That was the major difference between us and the German Army. Their soldiers were better trained and had more experience, but they had an officer culture that made it very difficult, if not impossible, for an ordinary infantryman to take charge when a leader fell. So, where are we, America, now? Do we have an elite officer corps that precludes those who aren't in it from stepping forward, or are we still the old America that produces leadership from across the ranks?
BSB
-
<<Sorry Snowblower, this isn't a revolutionary moment>>
No, I agree. Things haven't gotten bad enough yet. The collapse and failure of capitalism is just in its initial phases. As I wrote in an earlier post, this is like the 1905 revolution in Russia, just a precursor, and that's how it'll appear in about 2020, when the first history of the real Second American Revolution is written.
BTW, for success of communism, I'd look more to China than Cuba - - the Cuban picture is somewhat clouded over by American sabotage and the blockade.
For failure of capitalism, I'd just look all around you; and over to Europe as well.
-
Wow, that is a good question.
It is so good a question that I suspect you have an answer.
-
What has produced China's economic resurgence? They allowed a free market to takeover in certain areas and then slowy increased it in size and scope.
BSB
-
If it's such a good question, plane, why not try and answer it?
BSB
-
Well, it is a good one but a hard one.
Democrats are highly disillusioned , the initial illusion was so beautiful.
Republicans can smell the victory , but the front runner is a diffrent guy each week.
Governor Christie is beloved for the lovely moderate he is , but the problems the next president must deal with made him conclude that Governorship is enough.
You have to be a peculiar person to be President , you need to be kinda keen on yourself but never seem like a snob, you have to be a competent administrator and deligator willing to assume the ultimate responsibility of firring your best friends and assigning scapegoats.
Could it be that there are never really a lot of good candidates?
A courageous platoon leader might be made from half of the platoon , but the nation seems to have only five or six serious candidates for President.
Ever.
-
Americans are still capable of rising to the challenge of whatever comes our way, isn't that what tea parties and #OWS is really all about? Filling the void.
-
I wouldn't doubt that thousands of Americans have the administrative skill required of a President .
And that 99% of these don't want it.
-
That doesn't answer the question though, plane.
If a leader steps forward from the ranks, will he be able to lead? In the German Army he couldn't. In our Army he could. It wasn't just who stepped forward. It was the willingness of our military to accept that process.
Can a leader sit in the oval office and lead, or does he have to follow? It looks to me like Obama is following. It didn't look to me like Bush led anybody anywhere. He just pointed his finger at the devil and said lets get him.
Are we willing to vote in a leader and then allow him to lead? Can congress debate the soundness of a proposal and then get behind it if its found to be warranted? Do we, as a nation, have that kind of courage anymore? Do we have what it takes to accept change? Not radical change that won't last, but real change that will put us in a better position to handle future events? Or are we so lacking in belief and courage now that we have to tie everything up with the rope of bipartisanism?
BSB
-
I wouldn't doubt that thousands of Americans have the administrative skill required of a President .
And that 99% of these don't want it.
Then why do you think Obama wanted the job?
-
I would be sorry to have a strong leader that was leading in a bad direction.
I understand that historians sometimes divide Presidents into "strong" and "weak" presidents. Not on the basis of their strength of personality but on the basis of how much they allow the constitution to limit their power. In this continuuom George Washington is a weak president and Abriham Lincon was a strong one.
If George Washington had of respected the Constitution less he would have injured the constitution and the rule of law, it is very good that he was "weak " in this respect.
If Abraham Lincon had of hewed close to the letter of the law he might have been unable to avoid the dissolution of the Union.
Are we really good at chooseing what we need , lucky or has God been good to us quite often?
I think that Presidential quality does cycle , like many another thing does.
-
I thought plane's comment about both the TP and the OWS "rising to fill the [leadership] void" was the most perceptive comment in the thread.
A lot of people who aren't professional politicians just know there's a void in the leadership of both parties and they're just stepping forward when they see nobody else willing to take the helm. They want leadership and they sense there isn't any.
IMHO, the Democratic Party lost its ability to lead when they began chasing corporate and Wall Street donors instead of relying on their traditional base of organized labour and middle-class liberals and progressives. They can't lead when they are trying to serve two masters, their base and their Wall Street donors. Obama exacerbated the problem because he's too eager to please and too eager to compromise.
-
If Abraham Lincon had of hewed close to the letter of the law he might have been unable to avoid the dissolution of the Union.
===============================
Lincoln was inaugurated March 4. South Carolina seceded on April 12, 1861, simply because Lincoln was from the slavery party.
The only thing Lincoln could have done was resign. It was not anything Lincoln did that caused the South to secede, it was Lincoln winning the election. The Oligarchy of the South was unwilling to make any concessions, and managed to convince the poor Whites to fight the war for them.
-
Americans are still capable of rising to the challenge of whatever comes our way, isn't that what tea parties and #OWS is really all about? Filling the void.
Hey BT , do you ever mistake yourself for me?
-
Only when I'm in the vicinity of Middle Georgia
-
That doesn't answer the question though, plane.
If a leader steps forward from the ranks, will he be able to lead? In the German Army he couldn't. In our Army he could. It wasn't just who stepped forward. It was the willingness of our military to accept that process.
...................BSB
Ever hear of this guy?
He had an air of command , he was bold, he was up to no good.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/9039865/the_captain_of_koepenick_caper_1906.html?cat=37 (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/9039865/the_captain_of_koepenick_caper_1906.html?cat=37)
(http://l.yimg.com/ck/image/A2016/2016007/300_2016007.jpg)
-
Obviously we have checks and balances to stop a strong leader from going too far "in a bad direction". The problem is those checks and balances are now being used to freeze the process that enables change. You have to trust the whole process, and have the courage to let it work. You can't be so afraid of change that you stop using the process the way it was meant to be used.
That's what's going on now. The country has been overcome by a fear of change. America no longer has the guts it once had. It's afraid of its own shadow. One side says, look out, they're going to raise your taxes. The other side says, look out, they're going to cut your SS. The thing is neither side has the guts to do either one. It ALL has to be done. We all have to eat a shit sandwich. But no, it's, "Hey, your not an officer, I'm not following you up that hill. I might get killed."
The T-Party? I haven't seen any changes to medicare, medicade, the tax structure, etc.
The Wall St occupiers? No changes yet.
BSB
-
The T-Party? I haven't seen any changes to medicare, medicade, the tax structure, etc.
The Wall St occupiers? No changes yet.
Patience grasshopper
-
Never having been on Medicaid I didn't spell it very well.
I'd like for the Tea Party to be something worthy of its name, but so far it hasn't lived up to it.
Grasshopper
-
They took back the House in 2010, and almost got the senate. I don't know how much influence they will have on the executive branch come 2012. I think the Establicans are finessing the primaries, moving the states up, and basically anointing Mitt to go up against Obama. I'd rather they let the contest play out.
But there is important work that can be done downstream, at the state and municipal level. And maybe that will be where you see better results from the Tea Party.
The Owwies need to better define who they are if they expect to be a political movement. Right now they are a "happening". That could change or they could be co-opted.
-
BTW, for success of communism, I'd look more to China than Cuba - - the Cuban picture is somewhat clouded over by American sabotage and the blockade.
============================
Cuba is NOT any sort of success in any terms that Americans or anyone from a consumer society could understand.
Cuba cannot feed itself. Despite two and even three growing seasons and fertile land, the farms are taken over by weeds. Too few Cubans can be persuaded to farm.
Cuba gets most of its rice and beans from the US: Arkansas and Louisiana. There is a shortage of coffee, which Cuba used to export. Sometimes there is a shortage of sugar. And there is no toothpaste and salt.
There is a lack of organization when a tropical island country surrounded by an ocean has a shortage of salt. The US embargo is definitely not responsible for that.
-
<<There is a lack of organization when a tropical island country surrounded by an ocean has a shortage of salt. The US embargo is definitely not responsible for that.>>
They're a small island under the threat of constant subversion from the US and its puppet states in the region, as well as having to cope with the embargo. Central planning has to deal with ALL the needs of the domestic economy as well as deal with subversion and the embargo. PRIORITIES MUST BE SET. If salt and desalination plants weren't on the top of the priorities list, BFD - - presumably, for the central planners resonsible, other priorities than salt grabbed the limited resources available to the nation and were met instead. This in no way indicates a failure of communism, but is a tribute to the abilities of the central planners to set their priorities and survive as long as they have in the face of embargo, subversion and threats from the World's Only Terrorist Superpower.
-
Historically I don't think it's been indicated that the presence of a movement like the T-Party is a necessary precursor to recapturing one of the houses of congress during a mid-term election. Therefore I couldn't say whether the T-Party got them the House back or not. They might have gotten it back anyway. What does seem apparent, though, is that who was sent to Washington this last time around WAS highly influenced by the T-Party's choices.
Where the party goes from here is above my pay grade. I have no crystal ball. If I were to hazard a guess? I'd say it slowly dissolves.
BSB
-
Where the party goes from here is above my pay grade. I have no crystal ball. If I were to hazard a guess? I'd say it slowly dissolves.
From what i gather from self identified tea party believers, the GOP may be the party that dissolves.
-
The GOP is in tough shape no doubt about it.
-
"but is a tribute to the abilities of the central planners..."
Ha ha, yeah man, their failure is a tribute.
Wow, where'd you get this stuff?
It must be laced with acid man.
Did you see that snake fly through the window?
Wow, I saw it to. I think it was a King Cobra man.
Heavy.
BSB
-
BTW, for success of communism, I'd look more to China than Cuba - - the Cuban picture is somewhat clouded over by American sabotage and the blockade.
============================
Cuba is NOT any sort of success in any terms that Americans or anyone from a consumer society could understand.
Cuba cannot feed itself. Despite two and even three growing seasons and fertile land, the farms are taken over by weeds. Too few Cubans can be persuaded to farm.
Cuba gets most of its rice and beans from the US: Arkansas and Louisiana. There is a shortage of coffee, which Cuba used to export. Sometimes there is a shortage of sugar. And there is no toothpaste and salt.
There is a lack of organization when a tropical island country surrounded by an ocean has a shortage of salt. The US embargo is definitely not responsible for that.
Rice and beans?
Have we embargoed everything except what they need to keep going?
-
Nice thread. I think you have asked the $64,000.00 question, BSB, but I'm darned if I can answer it. I consider myself a Republican, but the party is filtering people like me out. I am not a slave to strict conservativism, and that makes me a RINO in some people's eyes. I would vote for Romney, but a lot of folks won't just because of his religion. I would vote for Cain but a lot of people won't just because of his color (and trust me, nobody is saying that, but it's true). I WON'T vote for Rick Perry because I am having a personal backlash reaction against his supporters trashing my faith. (Huckabee lost my interest last election for the same reason.) So ridiculous reasons are dividing our party.
Last election, we all "settled" for John McCain, even though many in the party didn't like him. Predictably, a fired-up Democratic base behind a relatively unknown leader took the day. Obama was a rock star, McCain was the guy we settled for. Will Romney be our next McCain?
The more we divide ourselves into "strict" conservatives and liberals, the less room there will be for compromise and moderation. In this regard, I think both the Tea Party and the OWS movement are hurting the country. As to how to solve that, I haven't got the slightest idea. We Americans need to be able to compromise, or nothing will ever get accomplished. Maybe it's time to face the fact that our government is too big to change, and needs to be replaced not by a smaller government. But by smaller governments.
-
The more this current crop of "conservatives" opens their mouths, Pooch, the less of a difference I see between Saudi Arabia and us.
BSB
-
<<Ha ha, yeah man, their failure is a tribute.>>
Nope, their survival in the face of The World's Only Terrorist Superpower is a tribute.
So is the survival of Fidel a tribute, in the face of the murder of world leaders from Patrice Lumumba to Ghaddafi and the dozens in between, and forcible regime change from Guatemala to Libya.
A tribute to Cuba and its heroic leaders and a giant Fuck You to those crusaders for world domination whose names we all know.
-
Wow man, righteous indignation.
Heavy.
You got any peanut bridle Mr. Crusader man?
BSB
-
PRIORITIES MUST BE SET. If salt and desalination plants weren't on the top of the priorities list, BFD - - presumably, for the central planners resonsible, other priorities than salt grabbed the limited resources available to the nation and were met instead. This in no way indicates a failure of communism, but is a tribute to the abilities of the central planners to set their priorities
===========================================
Oh come on. Everyone knows people need salt. The technology to produce salt from seawater when there are thousands of idle hands is simply due to the fact that the government is incompetent. No sophisticated equipment is required. The same thing goes for growing rice and beans, instead of importing them from the US.
Cuba is very poorly run in many ways. Cubans are better off than Hondurans and Salvadoreans and maybe even some Puerto Ricans, but there is no excuse for Cuba not feeding itself. The embargo is a joke, and serves only to support a small number of people here in Miami that ship packages and provide phone service. It serves Raul and Co. as a pretext for their incompetence.
-
I am not a slave to strict conservativism,
Neither is the Republican party leadership.
-
<<Oh come on. Everyone knows people need salt.>>
In certain minimal qualities, probably yes. I'm sure the Cuban diet provides all the salt they need, otherwise you'd see the results showing up as some form of clinical malnutrition. As seasoning for food, that's another question. Salt's basically bad for you and a major factor in coronary artery disease. The government may well have decided that enough is enough.
<<The technology to produce salt from seawater when there are thousands of idle hands is simply due to the fact that the government is incompetent. No sophisticated equipment is required.>>
Incompetent or that they found better uses for the limited amount of construction materials they have than to waste them on salt evaporating ponds. I'm sure that at some point the matter was given due consideration. If the people really want their salt, nothing prevents them from forming collectives, asking the government for materials and designs for salt evaporation ponds and doing it themselves, but somewhere the state priorities for salt have been set. Somehow it ranks somewhere below food, housing, education and health-care. TS.
<< The same thing goes for growing rice and beans, instead of importing them from the US.>>
That's an even easier priorities calculation. The planners figure out the volume of rice and beans needed, the cost of growing and distributing them internally and the cost of bringing them in from the outside and distributing them internally. The costs would include "opportunity costs," i.e., what if instead of growing rice and beans we grew another crop for export on the same land we need for rice and beans? Say a crop like sugar, which can be exported and in effect traded for petroleum? All things considered, it might cost a lot more than you think to grow their own rice and beans.
<<Cuba is very poorly run in many ways. Cubans are better off than Hondurans and Salvadoreans and maybe even some Puerto Ricans, but there is no excuse for Cuba not feeding itself. >>
I'm sure there are inefficiencies there as everywhere. Lots of room for improvement. If the inefficiencies in the Cuban market were as great as the inefficiencies in the capital market in the USA, the whole fucking island would probably be under 300 feet of water by now. Probably better not to even mention the inefficiencies in the US health-care delivery, educational and housing systems in that context.
<<The embargo is a joke, and serves only to support a small number of people here in Miami that ship packages and provide phone service.>>
It's no joke here. There is only one major Canadian mining company that dares to do business in Cuba because of the Helms-Burton Act. If it weren't for the Chinese, there'd be no exploitation of their offshore oil reserves; Canadian firms won't touch them, and the economies of doing it from closer to home are lost. It always strikes me as hilarious when critics of the Cuban system claim that the embargo is totally ineffective, claim that they are against the embargo, and yet year after year, the US government maintains the embargo. Oh, I forgot - - it's all for the benefit of a tiny group of gusanos in Florida, who have the means to direct US foreign policy. They've got their own AIPAC. Right.
<<It serves Raul and Co. as a pretext for their incompetence.>>
Well, whatever incompetence there is - - and I'm sure there has to be some, just like everywhere else - - you gotta admit, it's a great excuse.
-
That's an even easier priorities calculation. The planners figure out the volume of rice and beans needed, the cost of growing and distributing them internally and the cost of bringing them in from the outside and distributing them internally. The costs would include "opportunity costs," i.e., what if instead of growing rice and beans we grew another crop for export on the same land we need for rice and beans? Say a crop like sugar, which can be exported and in effect traded for petroleum? All things considered, it might cost a lot more than you think to grow their own rice and beans.
=========================================================
That might make sense if Cuba had any appreciable agricultural exports. Cuba does not export any appreciable quantities of any agricultural products. A lot of good farmland is covered with weeds.
It is true that Cuban food has way too much salt in it, but people will still find a way to get salt, and it will deplete money for other things they buy. Cubans use way more sugar than could possibly be good for anyone, but in recent years they have imported sugar from Brazil.
The problem was that all the children are taught "Yo quiero ser como el Che", and they took it to heart. El Che never planted anything. The kids all want to move to the city and follow fashion trends. This means that they will not be in the country planting or harvesting anything.
-
I'm sure the Cubans must export a lot of sugar and tobacco, at the very least. "How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm?" is a universal problem, can't be limited to Cuba. Other countries have their own heroes, none of them so far as I know are farmers, so I wouldn't be so quick to blame El Che.
I know Cuba exports nickel as well, only because one of our mid-size mining companies is down there mining the stuff. We could probably have other Canadian miners there as well, but they're all scared of Helms-Burton. Sheritt-Gordon Mines doesn't give a shit about Helms-Burton.
A friend of mine spent a year in Cuba and he's going back for another one. There are lots of shortages there, electricity is in shot supply and stealing from the grid is common, but the people are healthy and happy and they are living a good life, which I guess is what it's all about.
-
Maybe it's time to face the fact that our government is too big to change, and needs to be replaced not by a smaller government. But by smaller governments.
Sure give the states more rights and autonomy from the Feds but when one makes bad decisions don't expect the rest of the states to step in for a bale out like Greece.
California will surely become part of Mexico.
-
What el Che did in Cuba, he did well. In Africa and Bolivia, not so well.
But el Che is not responsible for campesinos wanting to come to the cities and towns, where there is good water, electricity, and schools and medical care. You are correct, that is universal in Latin America. In Paraguay, the huge dams at Iguazu and Ycyreta brought electricity to many farms, and there seem to be fewer people leaving.
In Mexico and Santo Domingo, people leave the farms because there are too many people for the land to support.In Cuba, the government does not spend enough to make farming desirable. The government pays little for produce and then sells it at a huge markup in dollar stores in the cities.
In Mexico overpopulation drives people off the land. In Cuba, there is plenty of land, but the system does not reward the farmer, and he leaves.
-
<<The government pays little for produce and then sells it at a huge markup in dollar stores in the cities.>>
So how much more can they pay before it becomes cheaper to import the food from the USA where economies of scale bring the unit cost down substantially?
-
................................and a giant Fuck You to those crusaders for world domination whose names we all know.
Don't assume that the same names spring to my mind as yours.
-
<<Don't assume that the same names spring to my mind as yours.>>
Perish the thought!
-
So how much more can they pay before it becomes cheaper to import the food from the USA where economies of scale bring the unit cost down substantially?
======================================
Cuba has high unemployment and cannot grow enough food to feed its people. I am not an expert in how much it costs in rice and beans to grow them in Cuba, but it has to be cheaper than growing them in Arkansas and Louisiana. Cuba certainly is a huge market for rice and beans,and should be able to have an economy of scale. Thailand exports rice, Vietnam exports rice, even India exports some rice.
-
Where Are We? - BSB
Did you forget today's dose?
-
<< I am not an expert in how much it costs in rice and beans to grow them in Cuba, but it has to be cheaper than growing them in Arkansas and Louisiana. >>
Of course, but you're only looking at half the equation. How much sugar could they grow on the same land you want them to plant rice and beans on, what is THAT worth in oil-producing nations, i.e., what's it worth in terms of petroleum products that can be bought with the proceeds of sugar sales?
Also it's quite possible that any kind of agriculture in Cuba requires imported fertilizer. I remember hitch-hiking with my wife in Cuba in 1986 in Granma (formerly Oriente) Province and our ride out of Media Luna was a truck bringing a load of urea from a Soviet freighter in Manzanillo harbour. I assume that the urea was fertilizer, its likeliest use at the time.
Combine those deliberations with the reluctance of young rural people to farm, hardly a problem unique to Cuba and you may have a central planning decision of "Fuck it, ain't worth the hassle of forcing these young, spirited folk into a lifetime of drudgery down on the farm where they don't want to be for the minimal benefits of some rice and beans which we can buy with the foreign exchange we get from selling sugar." I don't know because obviously I'm not privy to the deliberations of the economic planning committees of the Cuban Communist Party. But that is one AWESOME Communist Party, IMHO. I'm sure they know what they are doing.
-
But that is one AWESOME Communist Party, IMHO. I'm sure they know what they are doing.
=====================================================
Cuba is in pretty decrepit shape, from all I have seen. They may know what they are doing, but it does not seem to be working.
-
The more this current crop of "conservatives" opens their mouths, Pooch, the less of a difference I see between Saudi Arabia and us.
I agree. But that is only in terms of ultra-right philosophy. Thank God we still have an effective constitution that reigns in the nutcases on both ends. That's the difference between us and SA. What worries me is that people on both sides seems hell-bent on dismantling it. I never used to worry about that, but I have started.
-
I'm not sure what you mean by "decrepit shape."
As far as I could see, the Revolution had abolished illiteracy, its first major task, and then went on to provide housing, medical care and education to the entire population. The older buildings, apart from tourist icons like the Tropicana, seemed to be pretty neglected but the people were well-fed and cheerful.
The only thing that had me worried was a decline in Revolutionary spirit among the young people, who seemed a lot more interested then in pocket calculators (this was the mid-80s,) blue jeans and rock-n-roll tapes than in building socialism.
Maybe there's a propaganda failure. And leadership, since Fidel really hasn't tried to bring dynamic young Communists in to carry forward the next wave of socialist struggle. It does have the look of a self-perpetuating oligarchy, and there is nothing Revolutionary in that.
So getting back to my first question, why "decrepit?"
-
The more this current crop of "conservatives" opens their mouths, Pooch, the less of a difference I see between Saudi Arabia and us.
I agree. But that is only in terms of ultra-right philosophy. Thank God we still have an effective constitution that reigns in the nutcases on both ends. That's the difference between us and SA. What worries me is that people on both sides seems hell-bent on dismantling it. I never used to worry about that, but I have started.
This might change your mind on that comment.
A federal judge has refused an emergency request to restore a blogger's 2nd Amendment rights after a state judge in Arizona apparently agreed that the writer's online discussion about the "wages of sin is death" suggested a threat to the life of a reader.
The case developed for Mike Palmer, a a 55-year-old Christian missionary from Phoenix, when a reader, Melody Thomas-Morgan from Prescott, Ariz., complained that the online discussion was a threat to her life.
Her legal allegations alleged Palmer was threatening her with "death," with that word in quotes in the legal filings.
Palmer explained, "It is true that the blog, 'That Woman Jezebel,' talks about spiritual life and spiritual death. ... Spiritual 'death' as in 'The wages of sin is death.' (Romans 6:23) ... It is not true that the blog ever mentions the 'death' of Miss Thomas-Morgan."
Read more: Federal judge won't restore 2nd Amendment rights http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=351825#ixzz1bWu8qywA (http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=351825#ixzz1bWu8qywA)
-
Wackos who quote the Bible to threaten the death of others should NOT be permitted to walk around carrying guns. END of story.
-
Wackos who quote the Bible to threaten the death of others should NOT be permitted to walk around carrying guns. END of story.
according to the article he didn't do that.