Sometimes it's easy to forget the hard
work put in by so many people, but it's those people who are the
backbone of a country, for they keep everything functioning. So sit
back, relax, and enjoy a few clips dedicated to all of you out there
who are part of this thing we call life. :)
The dedication devoted to this endeavor has never ceased to amaze me. It is truly an inspiration.
Hard work comes in many forms...you gotta love these guy's energy. Yeah, the numbers are way out of date, but the concept hasn't changed. :)
How could I not include Norma Rae? It goes like it goes...
105 comments:
I like. :)
Marcus?
You may find this interesting. Apparently it's all about the umlauts.
I've been avoiding downer subjects to blot Lynnette's feel good post. But thought somebody oughta mention that Russia has now decided to ahead with the sale of advanced S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Iran. (Just to make things tricky at the finish line for the negotiations to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions.)
lol! I thought you were inordinately quiet. I'm afraid I've been busy at work so haven't had a chance to add anything either, except for the Lindstrom, MN link for Marcus.
Be back when I've decompressed...
Just to make things interesting, our congressmen seem bent on making certain that we get the blame in case the Iranian talks don't pan out.
Looks like Congress has gotten their wish.
I'm of two minds about this. I can certainly understand members of Congress wanting a say in whatever we do with Iran. This is a democracy after all and the people have a right to a say in what we do. But it is also true that we have elected one person to represent us on the world stage, and that is the President. He should have a certain amount of power to make deals in our name.
From our standpoint the whole deal rests on whether or not we can trust the Iranians to be compliant on not pursuing nuclear weapons.
It seems the Kurds are closing in on Raqqa.
"I can certainly understand members of Congress wanting a say in
whatever we do with Iran."
This is the same set of clowns who still can't figure out how to come up with a majority to authorize military action against ISIS. I'm not at all comforted by the notion of giving them more ‘say’ in the day-to-day implementation of foreign policy regarding Iran, no matter what their ‘wants’ might be on the matter. Them saying ‘no’ to the Iranians isn't gonna impress the Iranians one little bit. (Maybe they should try a preliminary effort to ‘de-fund’ the ayatollah, see how well that works for them.)
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"…the Kurds are closing in on Raqqa."
And ISIS is closing in on Ramadi; etc.
Lynnette:
"From our standpoint the whole deal rests on whether or not we can trust the Iranians to be compliant on not pursuing nuclear weapons."
That's obviously the main issue. I was about to say it's the only issue, but then I thought better of that. Even if it could be 100% guaranteed Iran aren't pursuing nuclear weapons there are hardliners such as Netanyahu who still wouldn't want any deal that gives any benefit to Iran.
Myself I don't know what to believe. Do they want the bomb? Or have they decided it's too costly to pursue? Or didn't they want one to begin with?
On the last question I'd guess that they indeed tried for nuclear weapons. What I'm uncertain about now is whether to believe they have given up on that or whether they're stalling, buying time but still have that goal down the road. Not sure what to believe there.
The Lindström story was actually picked up in our domestic media, so I had heard of it.
"From our standpoint the whole deal rests on whether or not we can
trust the Iranians to be compliant on not pursuing nuclear weapons."
I decided I'd best address this part too, as Marcus picked up on it in particular.
In my opinion, we cannot trust the Iranians to 'be compliant’. Rather, we can expect the Iranians to try to acquire nukes surreptitiously. We should expect they'll cheat outrageously on any deal that interfers with their plans to acquire nuclear weapons. (Unlike Marcus, I have no doubts at all how to interpret their construction projects to date nor their intentions for the future.)
The only reason they don't have nukes already is because we have effective sanctions imposed on them. (Along with a little sabotage thrown in for good measure.) The only reason the sanctions are effective is that they are multilateral, they are U.N. sanctions observed by the Europeans, Russia, and China. Those guys waffle on the sanctions and the Iranians are off the hook and off to the races. Doesn't matter one damn bit what those congressmen say ‘bout it.
I have yet to hear one single Congressman or Senator willing to acknowledge that what the American Congress wants doesn't matter at all if the rest of the world decides we are the reason the talks broke down, and therefore they're not going to honor the sanctions anymore. Those clowns appear to have no clue how little it matters what they vote up or down. (And some of the other countries are really, really eager to be able to say that we are the problem here, and get back into lucrative business of selling high-tech to the Iranians, as well as locking up some contracts for Iranian oil. The Russians have already announced they'll be selling Iran their best, high-tech anti-aircraft system, just for one instance.)
Lee: "The only reason the sanctions are effective is that they are multilateral, they are U.N. sanctions observed by the Europeans, Russia, and China. Those guys waffle on the sanctions and the Iranians are off the hook and off to the races."
But on the good side here the weakminded Euroweenies don't want Iran to get the bomb and neither do the evil Russians or the scheming Chinese.
Sure many nations are chomping at the bit to do trade with a hydrocarbon superpower like Iran, but no country wants then to go nuclear.
Whether they themselves have such desires, well as I said I just don't know. You seem adamant in your belief that they do though.
Myself when I think about it I come to the conclusion that it would not serve them well at all, and as such they should refrain from it.
But then I think about all the enemy countries you've bombed and the enemy countries you haven't bombed and then I see that going nuclear might very well be seen as an insurance to US-led "regime change" or bombings.
Khadaffi gave up his weapons programs, and much good did it do him (raped to death by a knife by rebels supported by western air supremacy). North Korea kept their and their regime still rules. It does seem like going nuclear is a pretty good insurance policy...
"…and neither do the evil Russians or the scheming Chinese."
The Russians are already selling them the technology they need for that. The Chinese may prefer they not get nukes, but they're not heavily invested in that position (they've allowed the North Koreans to have them and they're both closer and less stable; bigger risk there for China than in Iran)
"You seem adamant in your belief that they do though."
Not much other way to logically interpret all the evidence.
"…North Korea kept their and their regime still rules."
But, not because of the nukes. We couldn't do anything about North Korea because they had Seoul in their sights--10,000 hardened artillery tubes locked into downtown Seoul--they'd have reduced it rubble in a couple of days, maybe three; well before we could blast them out of those mountains. Too high a price, and that was with conventional weapons. Plus, the Chinese don't want a unified capitalist Korea on their border, nor did they want the refugees that'd come streaming over. Wasn't nukes that protected and still protect the crazies in North Korea. But, non-nuclear regimes may look at it and pray it was otherwise, then they can at least hope that getting nukes will somehow insulate them from all harm.
Perhaps I should say instead that the Chinese have allowed the North Koreans to continue to pursue nukes. North Korea's barely got a workable lab experiment going right as of yet. Their test detonations have generally been something of an embarrassment, and that's under controlled conditions. They may still be some years from getting a workable prototype they can put on a delivery system and expect to work.
I'll have to catch up on the comments tonight. I just had to stop in and leave this before I forgot. Did they really believe they would be welcome in Europe after murdering people? Seriously?
"Seriously?"
They probably didn't intend to make mention of it.
Probably should have thought of that before doing it in front of so many witnesses.
Dang it, my browser crashed, now I'll have to re-write my comment. :(
The only reason they don't have nukes already is because we have effective sanctions imposed on them.
Sanctions are really only short term solutions. There is always the danger that they will be broken by someone who is more interested in making money than in keeping a possible danger in check. They also are devastating for the ordinary citizen having to live under them.
Those clowns appear to have no clue how little it matters what they vote up or down.
Clowns is the right word for some.
What I'm uncertain about now is whether to believe they have given up on that or whether they're stalling, buying time but still have that goal down the road. Not sure what to believe there.
I can't imagine that they've given up this easily. The sanctions are hurting and while they seem to have control of their population there is always the very real danger of increased social unrest as the sanctions bite deeper. Well, maybe I should say the sanctions and the nose dive in the price of oil, which has also hurt. So if they can find a way to lift the sanctions it is in their interest to do so. But they still want to come out on top in their rivalry with Saudi Arabia, and nuclear weapons would give them a decided edge. I think that may be of more concern to them then even their fight with Israel, especially after the rise of ISIS. So it is hard for me to believe that they will not try some sleight of hand in regards to the development of nuclear weapons.
The Lindström story was actually picked up in our domestic media, so I had heard of it.
I didn't think things Minnesota were noticed outside of the country, or even much in the country for that matter. :)
The umlauts are back by order of the Governor, btw.
Maybe these were the things Bruno was alluding to when he was talking about problems in South Africa.
Iraqi State TV reporting Izzat al-Douri (the King of Clubs) killed.
Lynnette: "But they [Iran] still want to come out on top in their rivalry with Saudi Arabia, and nuclear weapons would give them a decided edge."
Not sure how that would work. Would they nuke Saudi you think? More likely they would just trigger an arms race.
The only plausible reason I can think of for Iran wanting nukes is as a second strike capability to deterr first strikes on themselves.
How could they use nukes offensively in any way that would benefit them?
About al-Douri, hasn't he been rumored to have been killed a bunch of times by now?
"The only plausible reason I can think of for Iran wanting nukes is
… to deterr first strikes on themselves."
This is called ‘motivated belief’.
Iran's support of the irreligious regime of Bashar Assad, the heretic Shia known as "Houthis" in Yemen, the Sunni Brotherhood offshoot Hamas in Gaza, as well as Hezbollah in Syria would lead one not so motivated as you to conclude that the Ayatollahs in Iran hold expansionist, imperial intentions.
"Al Qaeda’s most lethal branch said today that its top cleric, a man
with a $5 million American bounty on his head, has been killed in
Yemen, as the Arab nation falls deeper into chaos.
"The group said in a statement posted online that former Guantanamo
Bay detainee Ibrahim al-Rubaysh, also spelled al-Rubaish, was killed
in a “crusader strike” over the weekend “after he spent almost two
decades carrying out jihad against America and its agents.” The
statement did not say who exactly AQAP believed carried out the
purported strike."
ABCNews
It is worth noting that Rubaysh once held in Gitmo but he was released by Dubya in 2006.
Guys 'n gals, here's a pretty interesting interview with al-Assad regarding the war in Syria. Subtitled into swedish but the talk is in decent enough english:
http://www.expressen.se/tv/nyheter/utrikes/exklusiv-intervju-med-bashar-al-assad/
Check it out.
Won't play for me. Gives me some crap about a satellite feed and a "buffrar" and feeds me 345kb at a time.
I was able to get the video to load, and Marcus was right, it was interesting.
Some of what Assad said:
1. The terrorists in his country are being supported by outside forces, particularly Turkey, Saudia Arabia & Qatar.
2. The most dangerous leaders of Daesh (ISIS) in the region are Scandinavian.
3. Terrorism is global and we have seen only seen the tip of the mountain in Europe.
4. Terrorism is not a war, it is a state of mind, a culture. You have to deal with it on that level.
5. Assad's government's job is to defend Syria and its people from terrorism.
Maybe try a different computer, Lee.
Lynnette:But they [Iran] still want to come out on top in their rivalry with Saudi Arabia, and nuclear weapons would give them a decided edge.
Marcus: Not sure how that would work. Would they nuke Saudi you think? More likely they would just trigger an arms race.
No, they wouldn't have to nuke KSA, just use the more powerful arsenal as an intimidation factor. And, yes, it would trigger an arms race.
Marcus: The only plausible reason I can think of for Iran wanting nukes is as a second strike capability to deterr first strikes on themselves.
This is giving them credit for rationality. While this may be true of some, it may not be true of all, of the Iranian leadership, now or in the future.
So far their arch enemy Israel, who is rumored to have nuclear weapons, has done little in the way of a first strike against Iran, even in this critical time.
Marcus: How could they use nukes offensively in any way that would benefit them?
I really can't think of any. It would only provoke whoever they struck.
The ayatollahs of Iran are ‘twelvers’; they are Shia who look to the second coming of the 12th imam, the Mahdi, who supposedly is alive on earth but is in hiding awaiting the preparations for his return. Assuming the ayatollahs believe what they preach… He will disclose himself and join with the resurrected and returned Jesus Christ to usher in the end of the world after a time of great troubles and bloodshed. Resurrections, judgments, damnations, genocidal wars, and all that other apocalyptic stuff then ensues, and Allah's Kingdom on earth is re-established, resulting in the elevation of the faithful Shia Twelvers to privilege after their long suppression by everybody else.
They are an apocalyptic sect who believe that they will inherit the earth by the hand of Allah and their imam after the tribulations.
And ya'll wonder if they'd use the bomb if they had it?
*sigh*
I finally get a day off and end up working the whole day around the house. Another busy weekend, but I'm going to take a break and go out to lunch and see a movie today.
Anybody following the dust up between the Pope and Erdogan over the Armenian genocide? Turkey is saying it is all a vast conspiracy against Turkey.
Fareed Zakaria has a good show today if anyone watches him. Topics include the Pope/Turkey fight and also interviews with Henry Paulson and Larry Summers on the problems of the US and global economies.
Mmmmmm....this sounds like an interesting book.
"The Road to Character" by David Brooks
With the wisdom, humor, curiosity, and sharp insights that have brought millions of readers to his New York Times column and his previous bestsellers, David Brooks has consistently illuminated our daily lives in surprising and original ways. In The Social Animal, he explored the neuroscience of human connection and how we can flourish together. Now, in The Road to Character, he focuses on the deeper values that should inform our lives. Responding to what he calls the culture of the Big Me, which emphasizes external success, Brooks challenges us, and himself, to rebalance the scales between our “résumé virtues”—achieving wealth, fame, and status—and our “eulogy virtues,” those that exist at the core of our being: kindness, bravery, honesty, or faithfulness, focusing on what kind of relationships we have formed.
Looking to some of the world’s greatest thinkers and inspiring leaders, Brooks explores how, through internal struggle and a sense of their own limitations, they have built a strong inner character. Labor activist Frances Perkins understood the need to suppress parts of herself so that she could be an instrument in a larger cause. Dwight Eisenhower organized his life not around impulsive self-expression but considered self-restraint. Dorothy Day, a devout Catholic convert and champion of the poor, learned as a young woman the vocabulary of simplicity and surrender. Civil rights pioneers A. Philip Randolph and Bayard Rustin learned reticence and the logic of self-discipline, the need to distrust oneself even while waging a noble crusade.
Blending psychology, politics, spirituality, and confessional, The Road to Character provides an opportunity for us to rethink our priorities, and strive to build rich inner lives marked by humility and moral depth.
"Anybody following the dust up between the Pope and Erdogan
over the Armenian genocide?"
I'd noticed it. Erdoğan got a bit snitty with the Pope over the Pope's taking sides against the Islamists, and then the Armenian thing came up. The Turks are twitchy ‘bout that; they'd prefer it whitewashed away. (And I saw Brooks on the Charlie Rose show the other night peddling his new book too.)
According to this article in Der Spiegel, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the ‘Caliph’ of ISIS is merely a beard, a false face put on a Ba’athi intelligence service plan to create a Sunni state in northern Iraq/eastern Syria. Supposedly the real leader was a shadowy figure from the old Ba'athi regime, best known as Haji Bakr. Of course, the supposed master-mind is now dead, so where it goes from there is anybody's guess.
I gotta admit, I never heard of this guy before this article, and usually I hear something before something like this hits a major venue like Der Spiegel. I'm not used to seeing these sorts of stories pop up fully formed and I didn't even hear a preliminary rumor….
But, it's worth a read.
That was an interesting article, Lee. At this point it is probably irrelevant whether Haji Bakr was the mastermind behind ISIL or not. What is important is the description of the plan that was ultimately followed to construct the so called Caliphate of the Islamic State. Scary stuff, especially if it does result in an all out war between Sunni and Shia across the entire region.
It was reported this evening that ISIL has killed another group of Christians in Libya. Whatever happens between the branches of Islam they do seem intent on spreading their terror even further.
Great article Lee. I had not heard of Bakr at all either.
Also, if that story's correct, it points to a much greater involvment in IS/Daesh from Baathi officers than I had heard of. That they were cooperating when mutually beneficial and that the IS blitzkrieg into Iraq from Syria had a Baathi component I've read about before. But this article suggests that the former intelligence officers basically created and are running IS. If that's true it's complete news to me.
Haji Bakr might have been too clever by half (aside from getting himself killed unnecessarily). The regional divide between the Sunni and Shia was already on, and its progression was very likely inevitable. Bakr managed to get the local Sunni powers (who would have been on his side if he'd openly advocated a new Middle Eastern Sunnistan, with himself as traditional dictator) turned against his newly Islamist creation.
And, I hear the FBI is gonna have an announcement for us coming out of Minneapolis today.
Oh, and I did get that Assad interview to run finally. It was a scripting issue. The Swedish website wanted more leeway to run javascripts on my computer than I usually have to allow. Maybe it's more common in Sweden, but I hadn't seen that configuration before, and hadn't had to allow it.
Our main online tabloids require very loose settings on your browser, because they are overflowing with video and commercials in just about every article. It's how they try to make money in a new age when paper-papers are in sharp decline. That coupled with having the bulk of their material available for free but also in depth aticles and special reports behind a pay-wall. You see the headlines and a plus sign, and you're supposed to become tempted and sign up for a monthly subscription. I don't know if that's worth the cost because I have never signed up to pay for any of those extras.
Lee: "Haji Bakr might have been too clever by half (aside from getting himself killed unnecessarily). The regional divide between the Sunni and Shia was already on, and its progression was very likely inevitable. Bakr managed to get the local Sunni powers (who would have been on his side if he'd openly advocated a new Middle Eastern Sunnistan, with himself as traditional dictator) turned against his newly Islamist creation."
Possible. But it's also possible that the Baathists felt forced into a tactical alliance with AQI way back when. As I remember it there were plenty of sunni non-radical-islamist insurgent groups, like the 1920's brigade and others. They were the more natural allies of the Baathi spy-masters. But they gradually lost out to the more hardcore sectarian sunni-supremacists/wahhabis/islamists.
That said, it may well be that Bakr made a sound tactical choice that has turned into a strategic error. That happens often enough.
@ Lynnette,
"…the Republican plan to destroy Obamacare has become a plan
in which red states subsidize Obamacare in blue states."
VOX
I just re-read the interesting article you posted Lee. I thought about the end remark:
"As the West's attention is primarily focused on the possibility of terrorist attacks, a different scenario has been underestimated: the approaching intra-Muslim war between Shiites and Sunnis. Such a conflict would allow IS to graduate from being a hated terror organization to a central power.
Already today, the frontlines in Syria, Iraq and Yemen follow this confessional line, with Shiite Afghans fighting against Sunni Afghans in Syria and IS profiting in Iraq from the barbarism of brutal Shiite militias. Should this ancient Islam conflict continue to escalate, it could spill over into confessionally mixed states such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain and Lebanon."
We've heard before about the similarities with the sunni-shia divide and the 30-years war in Europe between Catholisism and Protestantism.
What's your take on it? Do you believe muslim countries are doomed to go through a "sectarian war" for real?
Myself I see it as a proxy war, but not an outright war, yet. Not sure if it can be contained or if it will spiral out of control. What do you believe will happen?
I think the two major powers in the area, Saudi Arabia and Iran, have promoted religious hatred as the will of Allah for too long to turn back now. The story's gotten away from them; they are no longer in control of the forces they've set in motion. ISIS is doing what the Saudi only preach. The ayatollahs of Iran have raised up a fervent Revolutionary Guard and the internal-Iranian Basiji, both of whom are even further into their fanaticism than are the ayatollahs, and now even the ayatollahs have to worry about being taken out by their right-wingers.
Iran might descend first into civil war. Barring that, the fight's already on between the Sunni and the Shia, reminiscent of Europe's 30-Years War. It's gone too far to call back now. (The Sunni are too far gone anyway, and they will leave the Shia no choices. The 200 years of Saudi stability via the House of Saud's deal with the Wahabi is now exacting its price.)
If Iran comes apart (and the supposed Iranian ‘moderates’ are not going to get control there without a fight), the Sunni jihadi will simply have a go first at the Sunni who resist them, instead of going for the Shia first.
I think it's gonna degenerate into a free-for-all. That's where it was headed before we tried to intervene with the regime change in Iraq. We failed miserably at changing that course.
Iran might descend first into civil war.
Iran? What about KSA? I'm thinking they have some rather serious internal problems.
That the Ba'ath played a greater role in the rise of ISIS than many first thought probably should come as no surprise. They have always had the organizational ability and the experience of running a dictatorship that your run of the mill religious terrorist organization lacked. What is interesting is that they played the fanatical religious card rather well here, using it as a draw to suck in people from outside the region. It is more likely that foreigners will fight and die for Islam more so than Saddam's Baath.
Haji Bakr, if this is his brainchild, did not plan very well for his own future however, as he ended up dead.
And, I hear the FBI is gonna have an announcement for us coming out of Minneapolis today.
Apparently there were six Somali men from Minnesota who were intent on joining ISIL in Syria. What was a little more unusual in this case was that they were planning to travel to Mexico and from there to Syria. There is someone who is already in Syria recruiting his friends via social media. Of course, "friend" is certainly a loose term in this case.
"Iran? What about KSA? I'm thinking they have some rather serious
internal problems."
Depends on how you define ‘serious’. In most Muslim countries the opposition organizes in the mosques. The Saudi's key to their 250+ year hold on that piece of desert is they made a deal with the mosques. That deal appears to be still holding up. The population is pissed, but not organized enough to act out.
And now a question for Marcus:
There's been around 1,500-1,700 refugees from Africa drowned in the past couple of days in the Mediterranean. That's gotta mean there's tens of thousands of refugees getting across into southern Europe every week or so. What's happening to the ones who don't drown, but manage to make it to Europe? And how many is that?
Lee:
"There's been around 1,500-1,700 refugees from Africa drowned in the past couple of days in the Mediterranean. That's gotta mean there's tens of thousands of refugees getting across into southern Europe every week or so. What's happening to the ones who don't drown, but manage to make it to Europe? And how many is that?"
First of all I think it's awful that human beings are drowning.
BUT the solution to that IMO is not to promote easier passage to Europe, but (as Italy is advocating) to try to stem the flood by targetting the human traffickers who are behind this. And for that to happen Libya, which NATO tore apart by killing off Khadaffi without a plan for the aftermath, must be made whole again. Most of the "boats" set sail from there.
But to answer your question:
Those who make it generally try to make it to what they deem the best place in Europe is. For some nationalities like seegalese it might be France because they have the language already.
But generally speaking the further North in Europe you go the richer the countries are, and the more beneficial the wellfare systems are.
Sweden is #1 without comparasion. Germany is the only country to take in more in actual mumbers but on a per capita basis (where germany are 80 million and sweden only 9 million) Sweden leads by a vast margin.
Of course it's mainly a question of how loose the system is. Norway, for instance, is far richer than Sweden but has harsher rules. So fewer go there.
It's like water - it will always flow in the direction it can most easily flow to.
So, they just pick a place to light and apply for "benefits" and everything's good from there?
A fairly interesting analysis of Putin's Russia, especially as it relates to the Ukraine. NationalInterest
I disagree with the article on the subject of arming the Ukrainians, not because I disagree with the idea that Russia will do whatever they have to do to take down the Ukrainians, but rather because I agree; they're gonna take down the Ukrainians anyway, so it might as well cost them something.
And I still think we should pull out of NATO, an idea that these guys probably can't even conceive of.
That's long, I'll have to read it later, Lee. Gonna go take a nap...
But just a brief comment in regard to the migrants in Europe before I get horizontal.
Stabilizing Libya may certainly help, but I fear that what is happening in various areas of the Middle East will still force large numbers of people to seek shelter elsewhere. And for them that elsewhere will be Europe.
"That's long…"
Yeah, I probably should have mentioned that.
Lee: "So, they just pick a place to light and apply for "benefits" and everything's good from there?"
Well not really. First of all they seek asylum. Not everyone is granted that. But currently Sweden automatically grants alysum to all seekers from Syria, Somalia and Eritrea. Since more than 90% lack identification papers there are some other africans posing as Eritreans and some other arabs posing as Syrians. How many? Impossible to say.
Once granted asylum they are placed in a migration centre where they await a place to call home. With this massive inflow that wait can take a long time. And the places they most want to go to like Stockholm, Malmö, Gothenburg or Södertälje (for christian syrians) are all but full already.
Often a rosier picture has been painted to them than reality will provide. And although there is a wellfare system and they will get benefits it seems to still be a dissapointment to many. Which, of course, is partly baceuse the whole system is bursting at the seams.
I see a great challenge ahead. It will start when we get a recession in the next few years and our housing bubble that never popped when yourse did finally pops. This recession will be the starting point for some by our standards quite serious social ills. Our official self image as a "humanitarian superpower" (yes, words like that are uttered by our politicians in all honesty) will be torn apart, and other countries (denmark, norway) who are already pointing to Sweden as an example of bad policy will be proven right. I believe there will be a good measure of schadenfreude there too, when the self righteous bastards next door stumble and fall.
So, how many Middle-Eastern and African refugees is Europe takin’ on in an average year?
Not sure about those figures, because either it's hard o find them on the EU-level or they are blurred together with other forms of immigration. But what I can say is that while there are countries like Sweden and Germany who get lots and lots of asylum-seekers there are several countries that get basically none at all. For instance most of the former Eastern countries.
I printed it out.
Does that make it smaller?
I see a great challenge ahead. It will start when we get a recession in the next few years and our housing bubble that never popped when yourse did finally pops.
We have experienced that already. What happened in our case was that many of the illegal immigrants from Mexico stopped coming or returned home. Those who were here legally had a difficult time in finding work, just as native born Americans did. What we are still seeing is the creation of more jobs that pay a lower wage then is needed to support a middle class lifestyle. The result being that there are many people out there who are still struggling to make ends meet. That is why we are seeing the $15 minimum wage movement.
Does that make it smaller?
lol!
No, but it gives me a chance to read it in between doing other things. :)
Very good article, Lee.
An increasingly nationalistic Russian public also supports this “challenge the main enemy” approach, which draws its language and inspiration from former Soviet leader Yuri Andropov.
So, history repeats itself...
During the Prague Spring events in Czechoslovakia, Andropov was the main proponent of the "extreme measures." He ordered the fabrication of false intelligence not only for public consumption, but also for the Soviet Politburo. "The KGB whipped up the fear that Czechoslovakia could fall victim to NATO aggression or to a coup." At this moment, Soviet intelligence officer Oleg Kalugin reported from Washington that he gained access to "absolutely reliable documents proving that neither the CIA nor any other agency was manipulating the Czechoslovak reform movement." However, his message was destroyed because it contradicted the fabrications concocted by Andropov. Andropov ordered a number of active measures against Czechoslovak reformers.
I don't think that the US has any desire to go to war with Russia, but it does feel like we may be sliding into another Cold War.
"So, history repeats itself..."
Or, maybe not. Maybe we don't have to cooperate in a repetition.
The authors are seemingly old Cold Warriors, who analyze Putin and Putin's Russia from that perspective. I think that gives them insight, as it would appear that Putin is an unreconstructed Cold Warrior himself. But, some things have changed. We need to approach the subject of handling Putin, and Russia, with an eye to the new realities, as well as a recognition that Putin is trying to re-fight the Cold War (with the idea that Russia wins this time).
That's why I put up the article for you to see in spite of the fact that I don't agree with their recommendations. They've got good insight into what the problem is, but they see the same old solutions, and we're not looking at the same old world anymore. Lots has changed. Putin is among the things that have not, but that don't mean that ain't been lots of things changed. We need to recognize what's changed as well as what's being recycled back around again.
(with the idea that Russia wins this time).
The thing is, that to win this time you have to know why you lost the last time, and judging by Putin's behavior I'm not sure that he does know that.
One thing that kind of bugged me in that article was the author's idea that Obama is trying to humiliate Putin. I don't see that. But I do agree that Obama, or his team, may not know the best way to handle him.
Europe is still on the front line of this situation. They will have to deal with a more resurgent Russia, one that is willing to use coercion through military, economic or, as mentioned in that little paragraph I posted, false intelligence.
Europe may find itself caught between two tidal waves, Russian expansionism and large numbers of immigrants from the Middle East and Africa who bring their beliefs and culture with them. The clash of civilization we hear so much about may actually be between those two forces and it will be fought in Europe.
"One thing that kind of bugged me in that article was the author's
idea that Obama is trying to humiliate Putin."
I think you're seeing the common Cold Warriors' complaint that Obama isn't interested in their anachronistic war anymore.
Lynnette: "Europe may find itself caught between two tidal waves, Russian expansionism and large numbers of immigrants from the Middle East and Africa who bring their beliefs and culture with them."
Myself I'm much less worried about any Russian expansionism. I don't think they are in that game at all, to be honest.
I believe that Russia, like in Lee's article, are acting on cold-war presumptions and they (the regime, and the bulk of the people too) honestly see their actions as defensive. Right or wrong, I believe that's how they see things.
That they would feel a need to expand their turf is almost ludicrous. Their country is twice as big as the US and holds all the natural resources they need for the foreseeable future.
Their most urgent problem is rather they cannot take advantage of their immense natural wealth due to chronic corruption and extremely weak property rights, where their people are not ready to invest for the long haul because they believe that at any moment anything can be taken away from them. And sadly they have every reason to feel that way. This is both an historical and current fact of life in Russia.
But that they are gearing up for invasions to their west, or east or in any other direction is just russophobic bullshit. They will bite back if they think they're being bitten but they won't go on a plundering spree.
"But that they are gearing up for invasions to their west, or east or
in any other direction is just russophobic bullshit."
Putin's popularity increases every time he engages in foreign adventures. Chechnia, Georgia, Crimea, even the Ukraine itself.
With the Russian economy prepped to crash and stay crashed, barely limping along… You tell me why Putin won't wanna be popular again? Maybe you wanna make the case that the Russians will bear economic hardship without apparent end with good cheer?
Or, maybe you wanna make the case that there's no good places for him to rattle sabers in?
Their most urgent problem is rather they cannot take advantage of their immense natural wealth due to chronic corruption and extremely weak property rights,...
In short, due to poor governance. Yes, I agree that a fair government with just laws is critical to the prosperity of a country.
Lee: "Putin's popularity increases every time he engages in foreign adventures. Chechnia, Georgia, Crimea, even the Ukraine itself."
That would be because the russians see involvment in all those conflicts as just causes. It most likely wouldn't be very popular if he thought about invading Poland.
Lynnette: "In short, due to poor governance. Yes, I agree that a fair government with just laws is critical to the prosperity of a country."
Well yes. But there's a legacy also. First you have an inheritance from the vilest ideology ever to plague mankind - communism. It's not easy to instill trust in the rule of law and trust in property rights in a people subjected to that. Then there was the crash-course in liberalism under Jeltzin when the oligarchs ran amok and pillaged the country.
People in Russia are much more pleased with the situation now, and that's because the situation under Putin, while not perfect, is way better than under communism or during the crach-course liberalism.
But you're right too. Russia is poorly governed and has serious internal problems.
"That would be because the russians see involvment in all those
conflicts as just causes. It most likely wouldn't be very popular if he
thought about invading Poland."
And yet, your imagination notwithstanding, he has thought about it; he's even on record talking about it ('could have Russian troops in Warsaw in two days’ he says), and he's as popular as ever.
He is, however, most likely to go after one of the Baltic States first, or forge a land connection with Kaliningrad or take the southwestern Ukrainian coastline along the Black Sea, at least to Crimea, or more likely across to the Russian military outposts already planted in Moldova.
The Poles will fight.
But there's a legacy also. First you have an inheritance from the vilest ideology ever to plague mankind - communism. It's not easy to instill trust in the rule of law and trust in property rights in a people subjected to that.
Yes, what you have is people who have grown up in an environment that does not lend itself to individual enterprise or faith in their government. In the case of Russia I think it goes back farther than the communists, it goes back to the czars and their despotic rule.
You see that in the Middle East as well. People there have been raised in an environment that does not encourage trust in their government because for the most part the governments there are authoritarian in nature. So if there is no trust how can you expect people to put their heart and soul into serving in it? How can an honest person thrive in that environment? So they fall back on what has been done for centuries. That is the problem we ran into in Iraq. I remember reading an account by one of our soldiers who was trying to train Iraqi soldiers in other methods when dealing with suspects, methods that tried to respect civil rights. The Iraqi bluntly told him that those methods wouldn't work, that they needed to do it the "Iraqi way". *sigh* Yes, yes, I know you believe that we were all like that guy Steele as portrayed in your video. But that is not entirely the case.
Anyway, to try to change authoritarian countries like Russia or those in the Middle East, is a huge task. Most of the people within those countries who really desire to live a different life seem to take to their feet and go elsewhere. That is one of the ways the United States gathered like minded people together.
@ Lynnette,
Doyle McManus on the current results of the Citizens United decision. Worth a read.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
(I see no reason to assume that invading Poland for the sake of punishing the Poles for the Solidarność movement of the 1980s wouldn't be wildly popular in Putin's Russia. Absent the fact that the Poles will fight, which will not be popular in Russia for long.)
Lynnette: "You see that in the Middle East as well. People there have been raised in an environment that does not encourage trust in their government because for the most part the governments there are authoritarian in nature."
At least they have their extended families and tribes, and their religion. Communism lagely broke all that as well, for those subjected to it.
"Communism lagely broke all that as well…"
The resurgence of the Russian Orthodox Church in Russia suggests otherwise. The Russian Church looms large in Putin's descriptions of ‘victim’ Russia retaking her place on the world stage in opposition to the materialist West. He even wears a crucifix rather conspicuously in his shirtless persona.
And, just by the way, for Putin's Russia it's ‘The West’ who's the enemy, not just the United States. That's not by accident. He's not done with Europe yet.
If you really wated to scare him you'd go for that Nato-exit and then convince Germany to tool up. Turn their vast industry towards weapons manufacturing.
Problem is that'd scare everyone else also.
Myself I'd say it's better to aim for the common ground and try to build from there.
Putin wants to create a "Eurasion Economic Union" to both compete with the E.U. and to limit the spread of European culture and values (i.e. get rid of that pesky democracy talk and that European inspired nonsense about human rights). I suggest you start thinking about how you can build on your common ground from there.
China is a one-party quasi-communist state with an abysal human rights record. James Baker was interviewed in Time a couple of weeks back and suggested that China and the US aren't destined to be enemies and that they should build on their common ground and adresss their differences in a mutually respectful way.
He's wrong then, I assume you'd think?
I don't know about Lee but for me the term "enemies" implies that we would eventually go to war(militarily speaking) against China. I don't think that is a given, anymore than I think it with Russia. However, the very nature of the political and economic structure of both those countries would, in my opinion, make us rivals.
7.8 magnitude earthquake in Nepal.
I don't recall the last time Jim Baker had an official government position, nor do I know why he might be pontificating on the subject of China, but I'll not ask you to catch me up on account of I don't see it's got much relevance. Let's cut straight to the chase….
Other than you and Putin both favor leaving Assad in power in Syria, Russia seizing the Crimea, and Russia exerting Russia's will over the people of the Ukraine, what other things do you have in common that you wish to "build upon"?
Trade for one thing. Russia is a very important trading partner to the EU. A source of much of the energy we need and a large market for our exports.
Sweden might be one of the nations least dependent on trade with Russia. But for many EU countries it's a very important trading partner.
Especially so if you look at things from the perspective of what I would call an "energy realist".
If that's a roundabout way of saying you think the Europeans should lift the economic sanctions, then you might as well quit going the roundabout way of getting to it.
No roundabouts needed. I was never supportng any economic sanctions on Russia to begin with. So yes, obviously I am of the opinion that we should scrap that counter productive nonsense post haste. Were you in any doubt about me having that opinion?
Having that opinion, no, maybe cautious about admitting it.
Not at all. It's an opinion I stand by not only on the Internet but anywhere and anytime.
Why should I be cautious about admitting such a popular opinion?
That's not to say I only admit to popular opinions, but in this case it turns out i'm even in the majority camp, making my opinion even more easy to stand by.
Your politicians seem to have some trouble coming out with it, preferring perhaps to deal with it under the table.
They are a useless bunch with few exceptions.
Take our minister of finance. She wants to do away with the subsidies on interest payments. Today you can deduct 30% of any interest costs nagainst any sort of income. This has only fuelled the housing bubble and is really a multi-billionn gift from the government to the banks via dangerously indebted individuals.
As I said she wants to phase those rules out. Say at a pace of a 2% decrease over 15 years. But since she knows it would be unpopular and the opposition doesn't agree with her she doesn't have the guts to go ahead. She knowingly does not act in a way she really believes to be right (and I'd agree), because she's afraid the opposition will use it against her in 3,5 years time in our next elections. Talk about spineless.
So yeah, there are few among them who would dare to go against the US-led "consensus" on Russia even if they do believe in it. It would take someone biggger, like erkel, to follow like obedient little puppys before they'd break rank.
Merkel
So your European leaders lie to the Americans about their intentions, what they're willing to do and what they're not willing to do, and you then blame the Americans for the causing the stresses in the relationship.
I said it a long time ago; I'll say it again, I think it would help us get along if ya'll just be honest about what you're willing to do and what you're not willing to do. We've at least made it clear--we're not putting troops into this deal--not gonna put American soldiers on Russia's border--ain't gonna happen; the Ukrainians ain't worth that to us. (It makes it easier that the Ukrainians recognize the danger there, and do not want American troops coming to their rescue; they don't wanna be ground zero in that fight.)
Lee: "We've at least made it clear--we're not putting troops into this deal--not gonna put American soldiers on Russia's border--ain't gonna happen; the Ukrainians ain't worth that to us. (It makes it easier that the Ukrainians recognize the danger there, and do not want American troops coming to their rescue; they don't wanna be ground zero in that fight.)"
That's a very wise decision IMO.
Lee: "So your European leaders lie to the Americans about their intentions, what they're willing to do and what they're not willing to do"
And I blame them for that, just as you do. We have few good leaders in Europe is my firm opinion.
Our own swedish government at the moment is a joke, a tragicomical one. And I'm fully expecting dire times ahead for us as a nation. Myself I'll get through it because I saw it coming, but many will face great difficulties.
And, to further comment on this:
"We've at least made it clear--we're not putting troops into this deal--not gonna put American soldiers on Russia's border--ain't gonna happen"
No, and one reason is that you cannot project enough power to win that fight if a fight broke out (which it would have). Geography doesn't allow for it. No coast to land at it'd be a land invasion, on Russias home turf. Even the mighty US arms forces couldn't pull that one off. You could maybe kill more of them than they killed of yourse but they could and would simply overwhelm by sheer numbers.
"No coast to land at it'd be a land invasion…"
You're assuming the Turks would block the Bosporus Straights against us. (Might be a fair assumption to make.)
Lee: "You're assuming the Turks would block the Bosporus Straights against us."
Anything hostile to Russia entering the Black Sea would be sunk, so long as Russia controls Crimea. You know that.
It'd be like the russian navy trying to attack San Diego. A complete no-go.
Doesn't matter one way or the other how Turkey positions itself.
"Anything hostile to Russia entering the Black Sea would be sunk…"
You start with that assumption, you should know it would begin as an air war, not an overland invasion.
But, they'd probably send a sacrificial through the Bosporus first.
You're assuming the Turks would block the Bosporus Straights against us. (Might be a fair assumption to make.)
I suppose it would depend upon Turkey's view of Russian actions. I don't know how they feel today, but a number of years ago they were apparently willing to kill massive numbers of people whom they felt would support Russia.
Anything hostile to Russia entering the Black Sea would be sunk, so long as Russia controls Crimea. You know that.
I will hope that it is mere coincidence that Russia has now gained control over Crimea and not some kind of pre-positioning for future defensive actions.
Because obviously if Russia believed defensive actions may be necessary it would mean they are planning for a war against...someone...for whatever reason. That seems a little extreme.
Russian fleet had a near-permanent lease on their base in the Crimea, much like our base at Guantánamo. They did not invade to get (or keep) the naval base.
Perhaps they invaded just to show that they could?
That sorta, also it was to check out whether there'd be a serious reaction (preparatory to the incitements and incursions in the eastern Ukraine) before he committed to too much.
Post a Comment