Aohell

Suggestions for Republicans that Want to Leave the Nation

When Bush won in 2000 and 2004, many liberals threatened to leave the US. They had lots of left-leaning places to choose from: everything from North Korea to Canada, with France, England, and Mexico in between.

Now right-wingers are talking about leaving the nation. Where are they going to go? OK, there are right-wing dictatorships with death squads here and there, but those might not be the cup of tea for freedom-lovin' American Republicans.

Another right-winger problem is that they don't want to move anywhere that doesn't speak American. If American can't be had, English might be all right, but not if it's spoken with a funny accent. Even so, the politics of the English-speaking world is pretty darn liberal. The grass looks greener over there because it is greener, thanks to their signing the Kyoto Protocol and working harder to protect their environment. Buncha hippie tree-huggers over in them other places in the world.

Maybe the Republicans should consider internal migration to states with lots of mountains where they can hunker down and live off the land - so long as the gas and electricity doesn't get cut off. Idaho and Utah already got plenty of Republican fellow travelers. But those are cold states. If a righty wants a warmer climate, consider the swamps of South Carolina and Louisiana. True, they take a direct hit from a hurricane every now and then, but with Bush out of office, federal aid might actually get there in time to do some good.

McCain may have lost, but at least he said he'd stay around to help do what he could. That's what a real patriot does. Suck it in, crybaby Republicans: you now have an opportunity to be the loyal opposition. Obama will make plenty of mistakes and if you're outside the borders of the US, how will you be able to take advantage of them?

Fiscal Policy

Questions for a Future Debate...

Having seen the debates thus far, I have to say I'm disgusted at the way the politicians dodge some issues, make no mention of others, and beat the drum on real vote-getters. Is that all democracy has done for the US? Produce men that have no desire to care for their nation, but to get to the top of the greasy pole of politics?

I don't think I'll ever be in a position to ask these questions point-blank to any candidate. I'm not in the major media groups, and even if I was, asking these questions would likely get me fired, transferred, or otherwise shoved under a bus. That's the irony of this whole thing... we have a free press, but it has no ability to air its views or truly reach the nation's leaders. That reach is reserved for the corporations and the lobbies that know how to act as corporations.

Anyway, my questions:

1. Haiti is the nation with perhaps the longest-running "nation-building" relationship with the United States. Given the conditions there - people scrounging around to find the least toxic dirt to eat - what hope do you have that what the US is doing in Iraq or Afghanistan won't eventually end in similar failure?

And, yes, least toxic dirt. The poor of Haiti can't afford food, so they are forced to turn to a certain kind of dirt that can be mixed with a little butter and salt and sun-baked into a cake. It has next to no nutritive value, but helps to end the pains of hunger. The toxins in the dirt, however, are themselves debilitating. Eating the dirt cakes is known as "bleaching the belly". This is a nation the US has tried to rebuild since 1914. Nearly a century later, they are eating toxic dirt. If there was oil there, things would be worse, I guess...

2. If the American-Israel PAC told you to wear underwear on top of your head, would you wear boxers or briefs and would you make it a campaign issue about how slow your opponent was to don his undergarments in the AIPAC-requested fashion?

Honestly, the US should just make Israel the 51st state. That way, no other nation on earth could attack it and it would prosper with all the guarantees the United States grants its minority populations with substantial amounts of cash. They would further rest assured that the Arabs would be given an alternative ethnic descriptor with loads more syllables in it so they could be properly ignored like all of the US' minority populations without substantial amounts of cash.

3. Given how much money the candidates are receiving from the banking, insurance, and real estate industries, will either really, really take care of the current financial mess in a way that does not somehow enrich further the very people who created it?

Opensecrets.org has information on industry donors by sector. $116 million of corporate spending came from banking, finance, and real estate. That's the single-largest set of contributions. I'm sorry, but I simply can't look at that and smile. This next president will be bought and paid for, that's what it looks like. Whether or not it's like other presidents makes no difference: it's still a nauseating tragedy.

4. Can we trust either of the candidates with our tax dollars?

Hold on, this question was asked in the debate. Neither candidate managed an answer that didn't sound like some kind of used car sales pitch. I'm not convinced we can trust any of them.

5. Why are candidates that are neither Republican nor Democrat excluded from participation in the debates by the bi-partisan Federal Election Commission?

Oh, snap. It's because a bipartisan commission doesn't want to upset the apple cart with any views other than the existing currently carefully-scripted ones. Heaven forfend someone outside the influence of corporate America should speak his mind in a well-attended public forum.

6. What is your position on nuclear disarmament?

7. If a rising tide is supposed to lift all boats, why does the increasing GDP of the USA leave an increased disparity between the richest Americans and its poorest citizens? Does the government of America truly represent all people or only the ones able to purchase access to government bodies?

8. What assurances can the candidates give us that the recently-announced NATO authorization to go after heroin producers in Afghanistan isn't a move to wipe out the producers that compete with the associates of the brother of Afghanistan's president? How do we know this isn't a move designed to boost heroin prices worldwide to benefit the heroin producers working with the Afghan government at the expense of the heroin producers working for al-Qaeda and the Taliban?

I'm sure I could think of more questions. I'll let these stand for now.

The Winner of the Debate Is...

... the lady that asked, "How can we trust either of you with our money?"

Seriously.

How can we trust either party? They're in cahoots with each other and major corporations. Fie on both Republicans and Democrats. Fie, fie, fie.

Fall of the Euro?

The very fact that such a question could seriously be asked is indicative of how severe the current financial crisis is.

Truly, can the Euro area keep it together? Some European nations are suffering a collapse in their real estate markets. Others are not. One currency and one monetary policy simply can't cover both kinds of situations. It will reward one and beggar the other.

Either way, it's not good. And breaking up the Euro? That's not good either. In a world financial market searching for stability, the last thing it needs is the possibility of a stable currency, the Euro.

Here's hoping the Euro can make it, but I'm not optimistic...

Survivalists Take Note...

Many survivalists plan on the end of civilization: they have food stores, seeds, shelter, generators... and weapons. But I'll wager they lack what will be needed if those weapons are used: a lime pit.

When you kill the marauder that seeks your food store, you gotta do something about the corpse. Burial is too much work and burning uses up too much precious firewood. No, just have an open pit where you can dump the body and then cover it in lime - sodium hydroxide, not the fruit - which will both disinfect and dissolve the corpse.

If you'd rather not want to consider a future where considerations such as this are important, then do what you can to reduce your consumerism, that you might have a more sustainable sort of lifestyle.

There really is hope for the world, but it involves abandoning the temptation of riches.

Palin on Pakistan

The Devil We Know...

WaMu was wiped out with an electronic bank run. There is panic in the world of banking, and although the whole idea of spending as much money as was spent on five years of war in Iraq at a stroke to rescue the credit markets makes reason stare and stomachs turn, it must be done.

If that panic isn't halted, WaMu's failure will pale in the face of business closures due to an inability on their part to secure financing for day-to-day operations. Banks have suspended lending to each other and they need a sign from Washington that there is something substantial propping up the system.

Yes, these are guys that serve Mammon, not God. We want to see them burn for their sins. But if we don't move to prop up the market now, they'll take us all down to hell with us.

I would say this episode shows the bankruptcy of unregulated free-market capitalism. It's as pollyanna as notions of socialist workers' paradises. We live in a world with evil men afoot, and no pure system is going to succeed once they latch on to it for fun and profit. Better to have the annual growth rates slashed a percent or two and have a smoother climb up than risk an unregulated crash into the ground.

JP Morgan and the US Government

Why is it a bank that had connections to the WorldCom fraud and the Enron scandal allowed to take up deals to pick up assets from Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual? JP Morgan Chase has just picked up its second cherry in the US banking/finance collapse, thanks to the federal government.

But wait - there's more! Henry Paulson, the US Treasury Secretary, is a former CEO of Goldman Sachs, and his proposed bailout plan would not wipe out the share values of that company's stock. It'll boost it, in fact.

The chaos in the Russian government and economy in the early 90's led to kleptocracy there. Are we witnessing a similar situation here?

EDIT: On the debates, McCain just said, "Iran has a terrible government, so they have a terrible economy." Oh McCain! Judge another nation not, lest thy nation be judged by the same measure...

Central Asia: Graveyard of Empires

In the study of World History, Central Asia is an anomaly. There isn't a lot of civilization originating out of there, but a whole lot of civilizations get involved with it. It's not really entirely part of any other region because of all the influences on it. It's also one of the last things empires touch before they fizzle out into the shades of history.

The people of Afghanistan have a saying, "Nobody wins in Afghanistan, not even the Afghans." Consider:

* Medes: take it and then get overthrown by the Achaemenids

* Achaemenids: they start out with Central Asia, but it's only a matter of time for them before Al the Great cleans their clock.

* Alexander the Great: conquers Bactria, dies soon thereafter, empire collapses.

* Selucids: they can't hold the area and hand it over to the Mauryans, then get owned by the Romans.

* Mauryans: They lose Bactria to a Greek rebellion, then fall apart

* Bactria: Does not end well for them. Overrun by nomads. Not a good way to go, at all.

* Indo-Greek Empire: Conquers Bactria, then implodes due to civil war.

* Han China: gets out that way, then collapses.

* Parthia: Takes the region from the Scythians, then loses it in rebellion, then collapses as an empire

* Persia: rises in glory, conquers Central Asia, fights with the Byzantines and then is utterly destroyed by the rise of Islam

* Islamic Caliphate... gets out that way, then the Umayyads fall and their empire collapses.

* Tang Dynasty: undone after a disastrous Central Asian battle.

* Khwarezmids: They proudly conquer Central Asia in 1205. Mongols arrive in 1219, which is bad news for the Khwarezmids...

* Mongols: Like Alexander, they take Central Asia early on, then their empire fractures and fades.

* Timurids: They start off as a Central Asian empire. It does not end well for them, although one of their rulers has a great re-invention as the founder of the Moghul Empire in India... never gets Central Asia back, though...

* Safavids: They take Afghanistan, and then stir up a massive uprising there that results in the Afghans invading Persia and ruining the place... then the Persians rise up and destroy the empire of their Afghan rulers, conquer Afghanistan, then collapse as an empire utterly.

* Durranis: Local dynasty that manages to rule for about 70 years, then collapses due to infighting.

* British: They lose an entire army in Afghanistan in the 1840s and don't take over the place until the 1880s... and then their empire starts to unravel in a series of increasingly successful independence movements.

* Russia: Takes over Central Asia after running out of Siberia and Europe... completely destroyed in revolution soon afterward.

* Soviet Union: Yeah, like *they* had staying power. They didn't even last as long as the Durranis before things started to unravel for them in 1989... a collapse accelerated by their attempt to take Afghanistan.

* Taliban: Nope. They did not win in Afghanistan, and they're still ruining everyone's day over there.

* USA: oooh, this is the raw nerve... but the sad fact remains that when a nation's soldiers are being shot at by weapons soldiers traded to the resistance for drugs, it's not going to win that war.

I admit a bit of a cavalier approach in some of my assessments... stretching points here and there... but it's a nice survey of Central Asia, all the same.

Come Visit Beautiful Central Asia: Graveyard of Empires!