| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Slouching Toward Guatamala |
| 2011-08-01 |
| God it's wonderful--really diverting in a macabre sort of way, at least if you have a diseased sense of humor and enough Padre Kino red. Which I do. As I write the world's only delusional superflower, perennially in love with itself, navel-gazing as narcissistically as ever, ignorant, self-indulgent, gurbling like an insane relative in the attic and fondling electro-trinkets from Japan, is broke. Yes, we see a beautiful dive from the high board, two somersaults and a half-twist, into the Third World. And so richly deserved. Much more at the link. Pretty good assesment. |
| Posted by:Deacon Blues |
| #14 South Korea and Finland among others are far more advanced in their internets. I've heard this rant before. South Korea is about the size of Kansas. A quarter of it's entire population is resident around Seoul. Makes implementation rather easy compared to linking up 50 separate state public utility commissions and sets of regulations over a continent and ocean. But hey, if all you need is a king/dictator to make it happen, just a small price to pay for efficiency, right? /rhet question |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2011-08-01 23:11 |
| #13 Anthony Bourdain IMHO, but not solely liberal. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2011-08-01 22:24 |
| #12 South Korea and Finland among others are far more advanced in their internets. Health care in America is first-priced and second-rate. The country is thirty-third in infant mortality. Schooling would be pathetic if we could raise it to that level, the universities largely farces. The Russians and Chinese have manned space programs; we don't. Industry. So much misleading info in that paragraph. Finland and South Korea have advanced internet because of smaller homogeneous markets, its not a huge advantage and harly a perminant thing. US medical is hardly second rate despite what the media bleats. Infant mortality rates are higher in the USA because we try to save preterm births instead of aborting them. This is a sign of strength often misused. Schooling is another misuse of statistics The US keeps kids in school until 18 rather than shifting them off to trade schools you might disagree with the politics of that choice but it creates apple and orange comparisons when they compare high school seniors internationally. Saying the Chinese and Russians have manned space programs also takes advantage of a small window between launch vehicles and ignoring the private sector launches that are improving daily while giving the Chinese a lot of credit for their one (or is it two now?) manned launch. The writer is trying to be a Victor Davis Hanson lite with his listing of facts only he comes up short by picking misleading facts. |
| Posted by: Rjschwarz 2011-08-01 20:34 |
| #11 A few disagreements, but not going to parse this honest rant. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2011-08-01 17:01 |
| #10 Our cities are a problem. They're dying. They're dying because they're run by Democrats. Cities are the natural place for manufacture of diverse goods since they have a large enough population to staff the plants and the supporting ecosystem. Since America has decided to outsource most manufacturing, cities have no function but to warehouse the unemployed and entertain them with ever diminishing bread and circuses. |
| Posted by: Eohippus Phater7165 2011-08-01 14:19 |
| #9 You touch on it but the real basis for spending on national defense is the Threat(tm), not what you'd like it to be or ignored. Some of that can be modified by displacing, discarding, or refusing to perform alinements that incur other people's threats and thus the implied defense burden. Yes, if we pumped our own oil, the need to keep sea lanes open for international trade would be greatly reduced. Piracy will fill the vacuum eating into international trade. However, if the imports are not critical or strategic, then you do without or pay a premium for the luxuries. Of course, the flip side of that is that you're not going to do a lot of exporting either, meaning capital and growth would have to be largely internally driven. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2011-08-01 14:08 |
| #8 Interesting anecdote, having nothing to do with the subject - I got one of Fred's random-generated 'names', and it said I'd commented 21 times on Rantburg... I don't think we're slouching toward Guatemala. We do not have a military that believes it's the keeper of 'government'. We are not "diving into the third world". We are still one of the most prosperous nations in the world, and will get out from under the Obamanations we're currently saddled with, whether it takes an election or two, or if it takes using the cartridge box. We are a nation of free people, and we will find a way to remain free. Our cities are a problem. They're dying. They're dying because they're run by Democrats. Until that changes, the only changes to cities will be their further decline. Welfare and drugs only work for a while. When one group has better, and CONSISTENTLY has better, there will be resentment, anger, frustration, and eventually, enlightenment. "Why do they have more, better, than I do? It can't be all class warfare." It will finally percolate through a few heads, and those will leave. They find out why the people OUTSIDE the cities have it better. They'll be followed in a few years by their relatives, and then more and more. Eventually, the cities will lose so much population they collapse, much as Detroit has collapsed. A few cities will reorganize and adapt, most will not. In the end, the ones that won't will die. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2011-08-01 14:05 |
| #7 Well, you know who is preventing US from mining our own resources. |
| Posted by: newc 2011-08-01 14:02 |
| #6 No one mentions how much of our 'defense' expenditures are there to support our supply of cheap imported oil. Maybe Fred has, once in the last 10 years. If the US didn't need to buy its energy from people who want to destroy it, how different would the WOT have turned out over the last 10 years? |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2011-08-01 13:23 |
| #5 Lots of similar comments all over the media & the internet, not on the front pages however. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2011-08-01 13:21 |
| #4 I think Fred Reed was being a bit sarcastic about entitlements. They aren't really our friend, but they do jeep the cities from burning. For the time being. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2011-08-01 12:07 |
| #3 Entitlements are our friend. Welfare is the price we pay for not having the cities burn. A similar argument was made a few months ago by a public health mental-health provider for why he wrote prescriptions for narcotics and antidepressants. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2011-08-01 11:53 |
| #2 But actually the Dems have the best of the argument of national security. Entitlements are our friend. Welfare is the price we pay for not having the cities burn. No. The cities burned after the Great Society(tm) as initiated. Before then most of the burning cities gig was done by General Sherman. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2011-08-01 11:24 |
| #1 Ouch. Geez, this guy is brutal...but honest. Wow, I think we have Cassandra on the internet. I hope the electorate is more willing to listen than Priam... |
| Posted by: Bill Clinton 2011-08-01 11:05 |