COLLECTIVE MADNESS


“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."

Sunday, August 16, 2009

While US dissipates its power in Asian sands, Asia focuses on Latin America.



Stupidity on steroids. Hugo Chavez outsmarts our rulers and masters.

While US politicians dissipate real power in the Middle East and create domestic programs fed by borrowing from Asia, Asia develops business and trade with the Americas. All for what?

_______________

The dragon in the backyard
Aug 13th 2009
From The Economist print edition

Latin America is tilting towards China, Iran and the global “south”—and away from the United States


IF ALL goes to plan, by 2012 the first shipments of copper from Toromocho, a mine in the Peruvian Andes, will be sent by train and truck to a new $70m wharf in the port of Callao. From there, they will be shipped across the Pacific to China. The mine is being developed at a cost of $2.2 billion by Chinalco, a Chinese metals giant. Both it and the wharf will be the most visible symbols of the burgeoning trade and investment that are fast turning China into a leading economic partner for Peru and many other Latin American countries.

In the first six months of this year China became Brazil’s biggest single export market for the first time (partly because Brazil’s manufacturing exports fell sharply in the recession). During two days of talks in Beijing in May between Brazil’s president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, and his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao (pictured above), an agreement was signed under which the China Development Bank and Sinopec, a Chinese oil company, will lend Brazil’s state-controlled oil company, Petrobras, $10 billion in return for up to 200,000 barrels a day (b/d) of crude oil for ten years from the country’s new deep-sea fields. Weeks earlier China offered Argentina a currency-swap arrangement involving use of yuan worth $10 billion, and lent cash-strapped Jamaica $138m to enable it to stave off a debt default. Chinese companies have bought stakes in oilfields in Ecuador and Venezuela, and are talking of building a refinery in Costa Rica. This week China National Petroleum Corporation and CNOOC, another oil firm, were reported to have bid at least $17 billion for the 84% stake in YPF, Argentina’s biggest oil company, held by Spain’s Repsol.


It is not just China that is taking a much bigger interest in Latin America. So too, in different ways, are India, Russia and Iran. These developments are prompting some to declare the end of the Monroe Doctrine—America’s traditional insistence, voiced by President James Monroe in 1823, that any meddling by outsiders in its hemisphere is “dangerous to our peace and safety”. Never mind that Yanqui dominance has always been disputed by Latin American nationalists as well as by Europe, and never mind that the United States (and Europe) are still far bigger traders and investors in Latin America as a whole than China, let alone India or Russia (see chart 1). What is clear is that there are new and potentially powerful actors in the region.

{...}

Business and politics
Chinese officials insist that their closer relations with Latin America are driven by two things: a shared diplomatic interest in a multipolar world, and mutually beneficial economic and business ties. “We’re not seeking special influence. We have reiterated [to the United States] that our relations with Latin America aren’t a threat to anyone,” says Qiu Xiaoqi, China’s ambassador in Brasília. It is also of interest to China that half of the 24 mainly small countries around the world that still recognise Taiwan rather than China are in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Despite a flurry of presidential and ministerial visits in both directions, and mounting mutual curiosity, China and Latin America are hardly close. There are no direct flights between the two. Few Chinese are knowledgeable about the region (Mr Qiu speaks no Portuguese, though he is one of the relatively few Chinese diplomats who speak Spanish). But sooner or later China’s economic involvement in Latin America seems certain to have geopolitical ramifications, requiring it to make choices. That is because of political developments within Latin America, and in particular the rise of more or less anti-American governments in some countries.

Venezuela under Mr Chávez has sought closer ties not just with China but also with Russia and Iran. During the cold war the Soviet Union bankrolled Cuba for almost three decades, and supported left-wing movements and governments throughout the region. Last year Dmitry Medvedev became the first Russian president since those days to visit Latin America. Russia also sent a small naval flotilla to the Caribbean for joint exercises with Venezuela and Cuba. This was a tit-for-tat gesture after the United States sent ships to support Georgia after its brief war with Russia last summer.

Russia’s abiding interest in Latin America is focused on arms sales. Between 2005 and 2008 Mr Chávez bought Russian weapons worth $4.4 billion, including 24 Sukhoi fighters. As the oil price sank last year, shrinking Mr Chávez’s kitty, Russia offered a $1 billion credit line for further arms purchases. This month Mr Chávez said he would seek “battalions of tanks” from Russia on his next visit to Moscow, in response to an agreement letting America use military bases in neighbouring Colombia. But his most worrying purchase was of 100,000 Kalashnikov automatic rifles and a production line to build more. Colombian officials fear that some of these rifles will end up with the FARC guerrillas.

Mr Chávez has also gone out of his way to court his Iranian counterpart, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In 2007, in Tehran, he joined the Iranians in declaring an “axis of unity” against the United States. There has been talk of nuclear co-operation. Venezuela and Cuba, along with Syria, were the only countries to support Iran’s nuclear programme in a vote in 2006 within the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency. Mr Ahmadinejad has made two visits to Latin America, taking in Nicaragua, Ecuador and Bolivia, as well as Venezuela on both occasions. His government has opened embassies in Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Uruguay. Under an investment programme sponsored by the two governments, Iranian firms are making tractors and cars in Venezuela, and building housing for the poor.

Iran this month offered Bolivia a loan of $280m, in addition to spending $200m on building two cement factories and three milk facilities. Mr Ahmadinejad also promised Nicaragua $1 billion in aid, and Iran has announced plans to invest in Ecuador’s oil industry. But as with many of Mr Chávez’s announced investments, little cash seems to have been disbursed.

Iran’s cultivation of radical Latin American governments appears aimed partly at securing diplomatic allies in international bodies, while irritating the United States. Some analysts see a more sinister dimension, pointing to the presence in Venezuela of sympathisers with Hizbullah, the Lebanon-based Shia militia. An Argentine judge, with government backing, has issued arrest warrants for seven Iranian officials and a member of Hizbullah in connection with the bombing of the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires in 1992 and of a Jewish community centre two years later that killed a total of 114 people and injured more than 500. But there is no firm evidence of a continuing and active Iranian-inspired terrorist presence in the region.

For China, the international entanglements of Mr Chávez and his friends are a complication rather than an attraction. “China is not very interested in radicalisms,” says Pan Wei, a political scientist at Peking University’s School of International Studies who recently spent a sabbatical term at Lima’s Catholic University; “China is not going to stir up political troubles in this area, nor have a military presence.” He points out that China forged warm relations with Chile during the dictatorship of General Augusto Pinochet.

China makes much of its pragmatic, non-judgmental approach to foreign affairs. But that might just set it on a collision course, in which it has to choose between its strategically vital relationship with the United States and Venezuelan oil. Expect it to do everything possible to avoid being faced with such a choice.

(continue at the Economist)





57 comments:

  1. Man - o - man!

    Can Obama manage an economic rebound, or WHAT!?!?

    US stocks have risen almost 50 per cent from their lows in March, a turbo-charged performance that ranks as the best post-war market rebound.

    Five months and counting since the lows in March has the S&P up 49 per cent, eclipsing the 43 per cent rally reached 105 trading days after the lows of August 1982
    .

    Investors in other established equity markets have also enjoyed big rallies from their March lows.

    Japan’s Nikkei 225 index has bounced 50 per cent, London’s FTSE 100 climbing 36 per cent and the FTSE Eurofirst 300 as much as 45 per cent.

    Emerging market equities have recorded bigger rises with investors banking on stronger growth outside the US and particularly in Asia.

    Hong Kong is up 85 per cent from its March low while Brazil has rallied 57 per cent
    .

    Tasting pudding, all that wealth that Team Obamamerica has "created" in just five months!

    Why it is the "best" stockmarket rebound EVER, since WWII anyway !!!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Why It's Smart To Be Optimistic.
    Sure, it has been a harrowing storm. And now is no time to discount the dangers that still exist. But opening your mind to optimism can help you seize the opportunities ahead
    .
    By Peter Coy

    ReplyDelete
  3. To the world...

    Enjoy China & Iran...

    To America...

    Enjoy Obama....


    I have seen it before...

    Hitler, Haman, Hamas, Hezbollah, FATAH, USSR & more

    But the world is stupid and needs a good BORG-like asskicking every once in a while...

    ReplyDelete
  4. China is our number one trading partner, Iran fuels their economy. India's, too.

    Want to set the Wahabbist extremists back? Encourage China to help the Iranians improve their oil infrastructure.

    Hitler and the USSR are on the ash heap of history.
    Those other fellows mentioned afterwards, all together don't add up to a bucket of warm piss.

    ReplyDelete
  5. But no one wants to set the Wahabbists back.

    The fury has been spent.

    Pissed away for no gain.
    Not even the sweet taste of cold revenge.

    ReplyDelete
  6. All Venezuela has is an ever-diminishing supply (they'll be out of the oil-exporting business in ten years) of "lumpy," low-value crude. China's welcome to them.

    All I can say about China is, as some Wag put it years ago, "No man is more harmlessly employed as when he's trying to make a buck."

    ReplyDelete
  7. Well. My daughter arrives in a handful of hours for her last hurrah in Bogota. How much shopping, eating, and drinking can be done in two days? We are poised to find out.

    Can any and all foreign policy issues be safely ignored by me? You betcha.

    China's on the rise! We're ignoring Latin America! The Middle East and South Asia are no fun! Argy bargy!

    It's Sunday. Tomorrow's a holiday (natch). It's not yet raining. The wind is not yet blowing. And I didn't hear a single word that a single talking head had to say this fine morn.

    Gimme a glass of champagne and we'll call it "brunch," barkeep.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Oh, but President Uribe did come out officially in favor of the referendum.

    Trish is not responsible for the poor choices of even faithful allies. Or the long term consequences. It is what it is, and that's that.

    Fo mo months, bitches, and this will all be a curious and distant dream. She hopes.

    ReplyDelete
  9. And the house guest that became violently ill on his way back in last night, leaving vomit all up and down the elevator shaft?

    He's very sorry.











    Cheney/Rumsfeld 2012. Think about it. Palin at Foggy Bottom. Gingrich at, I dunno, someplace he can chew a vein. Who would they put in at DOD? Victor Davis Hanson? Ralph Peters? I'm constructing the Pajamas Media dream team.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Oh, no, wait: John Bolton at the Pentagon. That should've been obvious.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Looks like The "Public" Option is Dead.

    First, Kent Conrad, and then Kathleen Sebelius.

    ReplyDelete
  12. linear and viktor,

    Is this better ;-)

    Jump Jive

    Pennsylvania 6-5000

    Sing Sing That's Harry James on trumpet and Gene Krupa on drums.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Bing West further opines, about Afpakistan

    our riflemen are trained to engage the enemy. That’s how they protect the population. If we’re not out in the countryside night and day – and we’re not – then the Taliban can move around as they please and intimidate or persuade the population.

    I’m not arguing that we Americans can ever dominate the Taliban gangs. There’s a level of understanding and accommodation among Afghans in the countryside that culturally surpasses our understanding. During the May poppy harvest, the shooting stops on both sides and men from far and wide head to the fields to participate in the harvest. That’s an Afghan thing. Only the Afghans can figure out what sort of society and leaders they want.

    That said, we should strive to do a better job of what we are doing for as long as we are there.
    ... our riflemen are trained to engage the enemy. That’s how they protect the population. If we’re not out in the countryside night and day – and we’re not – then the Taliban can move around as they please and intimidate or persuade the population.

    I’m not arguing that we Americans can ever dominate the Taliban gangs. There’s a level of understanding and accommodation among Afghans in the countryside that culturally surpasses our understanding. During the May poppy harvest, the shooting stops on both sides and men from far and wide head to the fields to participate in the harvest. That’s an Afghan thing. Only the Afghans can figure out what sort of society and leaders they want.

    That said, we should strive to do a better job of what we are doing for as long as we are there
    .

    ReplyDelete
  14. Then, it just gets better and better, in a asarcastic sense.

    Simply put, our ground forces are not inflicting heavy losses on the enemy. However, the annual bill for the US military in Afghanistan exceeds $70 billion, with another four to six billion for development. We’ve already spent $38 billion on Afghan reconstruction. Congress may eventually balk at spending such sums year after year. The problem is we’re liable to be gradually pulled out while the Taliban is intact. Nation-building alone is not sufficient; the Taliban must be disrupted.

    Our soldiers only get a small number of chances to engage the enemy. Our battalions average one arrest every two months, and one platoon-sized patrol per day per company that infrequently makes solid contact. On average, a US rifleman will glimpse a Taliban once a month. The Taliban initiate the fights because they know they can escape. Our patrols have firepower but lack mobility. Our soldiers are carrying 70 pounds; a Taliban is carrying ten pounds. The Taliban have the distinct edge in mobility. Because the Taliban are well-concealed and scoot away, our superior firepower does not yield precision aim points to do severe damage.

    More senior-level attention must be paid to inflicting severe enemy losses in firefights and to arresting the Taliban, so that their morale and networks are broken. A recent directive forbids applying indirect fires against compounds where civilians might be hiding. That directive upholds human decency and may reduce enemy propaganda. But indirect fires – helicopter gunships and jets – used to be called “precision fires” and gave the US its enormous advantage in combat. Now that such fires are restricted, what provides our advantage when the enemy sensibly fights from compounds? Don’t expect Afghan soldiers to do it for us. We have equipped and trained the Afghans in our image. They are as heavy and slow-moving on the ground as we are, and rely upon our advisors to call in the firepower
    .

    ... the annual bill for the US military in Afghanistan exceeds $70 billion, with another four to six billion for development.

    With unemployment over 10% and Federal revenues sinking, the Goals of the Afpak Mission should be fully explained by the President, to the people of both Afpakistan and the United States.

    How does Mr Obama define victory, now that his best Generals can supply him a fully informed briefing.

    ReplyDelete
  15. You couldn't credibly make that up.

    ReplyDelete
  16. cavalry to the rescue

    Of course, exhaustive study will be absolutely mandatory, not to mention an environmental impact assessment.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Do the math :
    US cost for one year in Afghanistan is $76 billion.

    32 million Afghans
    Ave income less than $270 per annum.
    Solution:

    Cut every Afghani a stimulus check for NINE YEARS INCOME, which would be $2430. That is $77 billion.

    Leave.

    ReplyDelete
  18. When Hillary was asked about China's Contracts in Africa

    This is our Secretary of State. Our number one Diplomat.

    ReplyDelete
  19. 2nd option:

    Burn all the poppy fields. Blow up all the houses. Land mine all the mountain passes.

    Leave.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Pin a note to Karzai's underwear:

    Don't Make Us Come Back.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hey, why won't she channel Bill? As I recall, she talked to Eleanor Roosevelt.

    ReplyDelete
  22. 3rd option:

    Just Leave.

    ReplyDelete
  23. We seem to be counting on Pakistan to take care of the Taliban.

    ReplyDelete
  24. allen said...
    linear and viktor,

    "Is this better ;-)

    Jump Jive

    Pennsylvania 6-5000

    Sing Sing That's Harry James on trumpet and Gene Krupa on drums."

    Thanks for Sing Sing.

    But Brian Setzer?

    What have we done to deserve this? Whatever it is, I profoundly apologize on behalf of both of us. We are both crying "uncle."

    :-)))

    ReplyDelete
  25. Allen

    I am an adrenalin junkie. Last week, a friend and I went out on a stretch of road, which I call the Sardis Flats, and took his Lambo up to about 290 clicks.

    Drag racing is my avocation. The car I race has over 1700 HP and goes from 0 to 190 in a little over 7 secs.

    And this is the music which suits me.

    here

    here

    and here

    Just so you know where I comin' from.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Vik, that is a great story. I think we did a post on that one. I know someone here posted it.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Whit, I am all for killing the Taliban when they support attacks on the US. If they leave us alone, then we should leave them alone. There is a lot of bad shit that goes down everywhere. This is a tough planet. We have to pick and choose our fights.I think we could get the Taliban to stab AQ in the ass in exchange for an understanding.

    ReplyDelete
  28. The President offered the Taliban a pass, if they handed over Osama. So, obviously in October of 2001 they were consider legitimate, by the US.

    Obviously there are multiple terrorist training opportunities available to those so inclined.

    As well as multiple locales for that training. From Pakistan to Somalia. The US cannot occupy all of them, all the time.
    Not if we are to remain in Korea and Europe, too.

    There is no applicable US doctrine for utilizing native auxiliaries and there is no will to develop a military capable of all the current taskings, plus the "hot spots". The money has been spent on maintaining old infrastructure weaponry, payroll, benefits and some of the fanciest hardware ever not used.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anyone that supports "Womens Rights" has got to object to the United States subsidizing Sharia Law, in Afghanistan.

    But, since it is part of our "War Effort", guess it's be unAmerican to do so, aye.
    Maybe even seditious.

    If the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan was a declaration of war against terrorism, as a subtext it was also viewed by many as a war against oppression and against the oppression of women in particular.

    In the days after the fall of Kabul, Western journalists scoured the streets for women throwing off their burkhas and embracing a new liberal age. It is something of a shock for many in the West that the regime of Hamid Karzai seems determined to rewind the clock with the sort of legislation more associated with the Taleban regime.

    The Shia Family Law regulates the obligations of men and women, including the obligations of women to satisfy men sexually. Indeed, it allows a husband to withhold maintenance (ie, food) from a wife who refuses to satisfy his demands.

    Human rights activists and the tiny women’s rights movement in Kabul are incensed. It was this small minority that organised protests against the new law in May, though it is worth remembering that violent counter-demonstrations in favour of the legislation were several times the size. The US Government led wider international protests that apparently persuaded President Karzai to back away from the law, arguing that he “hadn’t read” it and could not be blamed for its content.

    But it has now been signed into law by Mr Karzai. The timing is deliberate. With five days until the country’s elections the Shia Family Law is a sop to the fundamentalists and rural conservatives who increasingly form the President’s core supporters
    .

    The United States is propping up Islamic fundamentalists that have instituted Sharia Family Law.

    What was George W Bush thinking?
    What is Barack obama thinking?

    Looks like we're in a fundamental clusterfuck.

    ReplyDelete
  30. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  31. From the AP wire:

    Mexico replaced all 700 of its customs inspectors with agents newly trained to detect contraband, from guns and drugs to TVs and other big-ticket appliances smuggled to avoid import duties.

    The shake-up — part of a broader effort to root out corruption and improve vigilance at Mexican ports with new technology — doubled the size of Mexico's customs inspection force.

    The inspectors at all 49 of Mexico's customs points were replaced with 1,400 better-educated agents who have undergone background checks and months of training, Tax Administration Service spokesman Pedro Canabal said Sunday.

    He said the inspectors were not fired. Instead, government did not rehire them when their contracts expired, Canabal said.

    The main focus of the overhaul is to combat tax evasion, although Mexico is also trying to seize more guns smuggled in from the United States and elsewhere that end up in the hands of ruthless drug gangs. Mexican cartels are responsible for the majority of cocaine smuggled from South America to the United States.

    Canabal said the government hopes to improve its tax collection with the new system, noting that more than 40 percent of Mexico's value-added tax is collected at customs. However, he said the main benefit will be stopping the flood of pirated and cheap goods that he said undermine Mexican industries.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Country Joe asked the question, forty years ago.

    doug blames the demise of Western Civilization on the Woodstock Generation, not the US Government and the Military Industrial Complex represented by Robert McNamara, Vietnam, the rest of the Federal Socialists or even the Communists.

    A conclusion I'd not have come to, myself. Never thought Richie Havens was a cultural power broker, just a representation of Freedom, baby.

    You too can feel like a motherless child.

    ReplyDelete
  33. DR said:

    "doug blames the demise of Western Civilization on the Woodstock Generation, not the US Government and the Military Industrial Complex represented by Robert McNamara, Vietnam, the rest of the Federal Socialists or even the Communists."

    Woodstock Generation or The Military Industrial Complex? Which caused the cultural revolution of the late 50's and 60's? Or was it something else? This is an area that professional Historians will have to unravel.

    My own feelings on the matter is that the cultural revolution had its genesis in the social consequences of WW2.

    Hundreds of thousands of men, away for many years, coming home physically, mentally, and morally exhausted, were unable to resist the influence of the left as they promoted social change.

    The left promoted permissiveness as a means of escaping the traditional social restrictions normally enforced by adult males. The lack of enforcement of traditional social norms provided the window of opportunity the left needed to begin their "long march on the institutions."

    If I were younger, I would make the post-war cultural revolution the focus of my career.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Yeah, they protested for "Civil Rights," and against the stupidest war the United States ever fought.

    They "tuned in," "turned on," and didn't support Anheuser Busch, and Seagram's lock on recreational drugs.

    They were for freedom from Jim Crow, and the woman's right to "equal" pay for equal work.

    They invented Missile Defense, the B-2, and the "Internet." They invented drugs to, if not "cure" cancer, to at least give it a fight, and their seeds took us from 70 bu/acre corn, to 160.

    They, overall, fed, and protected the world for a generation.

    They were, surely, a bunch of bums.

    ReplyDelete
  35. And here I was gong to postulate it was the cumulative effect of the GI Bill, sending all those veterans into the hallowed halls of academia, that transformed 'em into liberals.

    But that the "Progressive Reforms" that statutized the populist or leftist trends were turn of the century endevours. Which well predated either the First or Second World Wars and the socializing effects either may have had on the country.

    The social programs that FDR introduced all predated WWII.

    It may be that the incessant expansion of Government since WWII was the driver that lit the fuse.

    ReplyDelete
  36. One could say, viktor, that the cultural revolution was just another advance of civilization.

    The combining of Science, in the control of fertility. Industry, in the ability to mass produce the "Pill". Government, by allowing the "medicine" to be deemed "healthy" for individuals and society. All coming together to advance the culture on the trail towards a progressive civilization.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Rufus

    While what you say is, for the most part, correct, it is beside the point. Sarcasm is not a legitimate substitute for reasoned argument.

    Rat

    I do not deny that the left has had an influence in America for many years before the war, its major influence on popular culture did not occur until after WW2.

    Do the both of you deny that there was a cultural revolution after WW2?

    If you answer "yes" then there had to be a reason.

    If you answer "no" then you are at odds with the entire sociological body of opinion on the matter.

    Reasonable people can disagree on the causes of the cultural revolution. But I would suggest to you that to deny that there was such a revolution is not reasonable.

    However, if you have a case to make against conventional opinion you are free to make it. In fact, I would encourage you to make it.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I thought I had just made the case for the post War shift in cultural mores.

    Mass education, beyond readin' 'ritin' and 'rithmatic, for the first time in the country's, or anyone's history.

    Fertility suppression by methods other than rhythm.

    ReplyDelete
  39. People "Like" a little "Socialism." It makes them feel better about themselves.

    However, I thought the references were to the "Woodstock Generation." Sorry, if I misunderstood. I'm just kind of tired of folks pounding on us poor old "boomers" all the time. I chaps my ass.

    Personally, I think a "Just" society has a better chance of enduring. I could be wrong. Even if I am, though, such a society is a lot more pleasant to live in.

    Remember, all those old "Austrian" economists never ran so much as an ice cream shop.

    They could explain to you how the "Free" market would solve this problem, or that problem; but they never got around to mentioning that the "fix" could, many times, easily take a hundred years, or more.

    A lot of "Free Market" Economics is just bloviating, mumbo-jumbo. Sometimes you just have to pitch in, and Fix the Problem.

    ReplyDelete
  40. The cultural change was not driven by testosterone, but by women gaining control of their biology.

    Fertility control, marketed as a personal lifestyle choice.
    Mass higher education, which women now successfully complete at higher rates than men.

    I think your cause and effect, aimed at testosterone, is off target.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Victor, the catalyst was "Boom Times." We were the last Industrial Power standing. Times were good. We were getting wealthy.

    Wealthy people can afford Altruism, and Environmentalism. "Television" changed the world. People SAW Bull Connors, and his dogs.

    They, also, SAW Kennedy, and his Inaugural address. They SAW the Moon Landing, and Martin Luther King give his "I Have a Dream" Speech.

    The 20th Century probably started sometime in the middle to late 50's.

    The "Greatest Generation," Saved Our Skins. The Korean War Vets got an education, and went to work.

    The Baby Boomers "Changed the World." For Better, or Worse (you decide,) They Changed it.

    ReplyDelete
  42. And, the Music was Good.

    No Rap.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Rat

    I was busy writing my comment and missed your 10:31 comment.

    You said:

    "One could say, viktor, that the cultural revolution was just another advance of civilization.

    The combining of Science, in the control of fertility. Industry, in the ability to mass produce the "Pill". Government, by allowing the "medicine" to be deemed "healthy" for individuals and society. All coming together to advance the culture on the trail towards a progressive civilization."

    The same state of technology exists worldwide. But different cultures absorb and apply it in different ways.

    The difference is the value system that the technology is filtered through.

    I do not deny the advances in technology. What I am saying is that there was an upheavel in the value system. What came to be allowed was an expression of a post war value system that differed substantially from pre-war values.

    It is my assertion that soldiers returning from the war were physically and morally exhausted.

    Do you disagree? And if you disagree, do you say that they were unaffected? And if you say that they were affected but not in the way I speculate upon, then how were they affected and what was the consequence of that?

    We have an additional complication of the war. Women were in the work force and a great many wanted to remain in it.

    Further, there was a minor revolution about sexual mores during such a long war. Both men and women separated for long periods of time do what is normal under the circumstances: they strayed.

    Both men and women had to accept that this was so. There was probably a reluctance to enforce a strict moral code after the war because of vague feeling of hypocrisy. Unwarranted but, nonetheless, there.

    This is a complicated subject, Rat and Rufus. I do not claim to know the complete story.

    But I do claim that WW2 had an enormous affect on America. I don't see how it is possible to argue otherwise after such a cataclysmic event.

    ReplyDelete
  44. As duece noted during the GI Bill discussion, only 10% of High School graduates attended college, before WWII.

    Now 65% do.

    Institutionalized education.
    Female equality in fertility.

    Seem to be the drivers with extended "reach".

    ReplyDelete
  45. desert rat said...
    "The cultural change was not driven by testosterone, but by women gaining control of their biology.

    Fertility control, marketed as a personal lifestyle choice.
    Mass higher education, which women now successfully complete at higher rates than men.

    I think your cause and effect, aimed at testosterone, is off target."

    Say What??

    Testosterone? Where the heck did that come from?

    ReplyDelete
  46. desert rat said...
    "As duece noted during the GI Bill discussion, only 10% of High School graduates attended college, before WWII.

    Now 65% do.

    Institutionalized education.
    Female equality in fertility.

    Seem to be the drivers with extended "reach"."

    "Insitutionalized Education": now we're talking!

    This is how the left wing was able to proselytize and plant the seeds of cultural revolution.

    ReplyDelete
  47. "School Integration" was an Enormous thing. When the Governor of the State of Arkansas stood aside and let those little black girls walk through the door to that school Jim Crow was a Dead Man Walking.

    I'm glad we had/have affirmative action, and a Black President. I don't have to "feel guilty" driving down the street, or walking into a store. Me, or mine, haven't done crap to hurt, or "hold back" anyone, there.

    You're "On your Own, Bubba." You got your college degree, and your "guy" in the White House. "Fight, Fuck, or Go For Your Guns." All's the same to me.

    Oh, yeah, birth control. Pretty big, I think. Not just for the wimmin, though. It allowed us to keep our families down to a size that we could provide for them, and educate them. Big move up.

    Have I mentioned Computers, and Computer Chips, Communications, yet?

    ReplyDelete
  48. Victor, I started to say, "I think you worry a little "too much" about "Socialism." Then I thought better of it, and decided that, since Too Much Socialism is definitely not a Good thing, it's probably good that SOMEONE Is worrying about it.

    On the other hand, as Hannity would say, "Let not your heart be TOO troubled." We just saw an ENORMOUS Outpouring of Energy from the American People when a New President tried to introduce TOO MUCH Socialism.

    It MIGHT be possible, some day, to wrest the reins of power completely away from the hands of the American People, But, That Day isn't TODAY.

    BTW, the "Public Option" is Dead.

    Expired. Shuffled off the Mortal Coil. Joined the Choir, Galactic. Kicked the Bucket. Given up the Ghost. Met it's expiry date. Gone to Meet its Maker. Tits Up.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Good night, all. I'm worn out.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I would not say they were either morally or physically exhausted, not the majority of them.

    Within five months of V-J Day, 8.5 million servicemen and women had been mustered out, ...

    The vast majority of which never saw any combat. When considering the tooth to tail, most were part of the extended tail, of which there were hundreds for every combat tooth.

    I would also reference the explosive economic expansion that followed WWII as exemplifying the vitality of the returning veterans, not their general state of lethargy.

    Which is not to claim that there were not some that suffered from what today would be described as post-tramatic stress. But not the majority of those 8.5 million veterans.

    The population of the US, in 1945 was 132,481.000. The mass demobilization, those 8,500,000 discharged, making up only 6.4% of the population.

    Enough, perhaps to light a fuse, but not enough for an explosion.

    There just were not enough of them, to cause the "revolution", they were just swept along with everyone else.

    It was the emancipation of the ladies that was the primary driver. The cultural accelerant as it were.

    First as Rosie the Riveter, then after being freed from reproductive biology, to be all they could be.

    ReplyDelete
  51. NEW YORK (Reuters) - Chrysler Group is planning to produce Fiat SpA's (FIA.MI) Fiat 500 subcompact at a Chrysler plant in Mexico, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing people familiar with the matter.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Rat

    When we are talking about any major
    social change, the underlying causes need not be major.

    There are always various forces at work in any social dynamic. A major change can occur with relatively small changes. Sometimes it does not take much to alter the tipping point.

    Next, the men who came home from the war were adult males of breeding age. The fact that they were only 6% of the overall population does not reflect the importance of this many potential new fathers and the affect that they would wield as such on a new generation.

    That said, I agree with many of the points that you bring up. However, I see them as effects rather than causes.

    At this stage of our little debate I can only say that we will have to agree to disagree.

    This was a good round, Rat. I enjoyed it.

    ReplyDelete
  53. State of the Art, back in the day.

    Though if those were the only two toys a fella had, he'd be doin' okay, even today.

    ReplyDelete