1 I am. I'll never forget watching my Dad scramble for his life as yet another firecracker burnt the grass on our front yard. You can't buy those memories.

2 Hehe, see this is why every nation needs a 2nd Amendment: to put the fear of the citizenry into the gov't.

3 Oh, and as a scarred and decorated veteran of many a teen fireworks war, I too am proud to enlist in your cause.

4 I'm with you. Sure I'm hiding behind a tree because I've been popped one to many times in the head by a misguided bottle rocket, but I'm with you. So would I be breaking international laws if we accidentally shipped you a case or two of fireworks?

5 I'm with you. I believe in Social Darwinism, and i know that there is only ONE reason for the "DO NOT PLACE IN MOUTH" warning on fireworks. (still have my original eyebrows, but victim to SEVERAL arm hair-ectomies via 'Fountains of sparks,' too young for the REAL McCoys. Oh, and Yes, you CAN hold in hand after lighting. Heck, in Japan, it's a rite of passage to manhood to hold onto huge fireworks till the bottom explodes out. Is it bad when the parenthetical is longer than the original comment?) :-D

6 If you think this bad, England is trying to impose... knife control.

7 Yeah, I know. Miserable fuckers. We've had metal knives for 5000 years and stone ones for 30,000 years prior to that, and now they decide we're too dumb to handle them?

8 Heh heh heh... I used to have a pyrotechnican's licence. Boom. Heh heh heh...

9 Well, here's hoping you can find some at your nearest equivalent indian reservation.

10 What were the ones that used to come in a tube about the size of a tennis-ball can. I seem to remember some idjits pointing them at each other (they had about five or six firework balls that came out one after another). One guy though he had fired all of his and put the tube down at which point the last one flew out and set his (long) hair on fire - spectacular actually.

1 Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time.

1 It's just so wrong, so irredeemably and inexcusably wrong.

I completely agree, but I like the way Wolfgang Pauli put it - "This paper is so bad it is not even wrong."

2 Oooh! OOOh! I can do it, too! The Franco-Prussian War was fought to make the world safe for the personal computer... The 100 Years War was fought to make the world safe for elevators... The Crusades were fought to make the world safe for a Woman's Right to Choose... See, it's easy! Pick any war, and then pick any concept that didn't exist yet....

3 Umm, that handy little map-link was about the situation the war was in when the tides turned and Reich started losing. They were going for world domination...

4 Finland, for example, aligned itself with Germany because it saw Russia as a graver threat. Nah, we had just had Winter War with Russia a year ago, so there was no way anyone would have fought on the Russian side. Germans had helped us in military conflicts, so of course we helped them when they asked us to.

5 Regarding the handy little map link, the US post office published a series of them on the in 1991 through 1995, here.

6 Nah, we had just had Winter War with Russia a year ago, so there was no way anyone would have fought on the Russian side. True enough. That was a side-effect of the German-Russian non-aggression pact; it left Russia free to attack Finland. You could have fought both, but then you would have lost. Germans had helped us in military conflicts, so of course we helped them when they asked us to. Yeah. Only problem with that is that they were completely insane. Still, caught between Germany and Russia, you were pretty much screwed no matter what you did.

7 We did actually fight 'em both, Russians first, then Germans when the bloodless retreating wasn't good enough for Russians demanding to see some Nazi corpses lying around Lapland.

1 The thing that really annoys me about all this is that you can bet your bottom dollar they are NOT going to consolidate their seats in the UN, WTO, or any other int'l body. Why should the EU get umpteen votes where the US gets one? They want the advantages of unity without the disadvantages. Sorry, posted this in wrong thread first time.

2 "Price stability? A social market economy? Full employment? Social progress? They're communists. And communism don't work." hehehe Excellent commentary and analysis... And you're right, they could have been a heck of alot less verbose if they simply said "Congress shall make no law..." and emphasized what the govt. could NOT do, rather than blurring the boundaries and making the scope so broad as to unavoidably (at least I.M.H.O) invite interpretive trouble.

3 I don't understand why aiming for price stability is "communist"? They're saying they want economic growth without runaway inflation, which is the policy of pretty much every OECD country. I don't agree with this rhetoric that having a central government bank issuing currency is "communist"; it might not be a pure free market solution, but it's a far cry from actual communism.

4 There's a major difference between currency stability and price stability. Keeping inflation low is good economic policy. Keeping prices stable isn't. You can't keep prices stable with a free market, because a free market means that prices shift according to supply and demand. If you want to use government powers to maintain price stability, that's distorting the market, and that's what they just said they wouldn't do. It's not just that that made me slap the "communist" label on them, though. A pledge of full employment in an election speech is unremarkable. In a constitution it's a red flag... So to speak. So too the "social market economy". So too the dedication to undefined social progress. Call them socialist if you prefer, but really it's the same thing.

5 Um, and I don't think I said anything about central banks. I'm a centrist, not a big-L libertarian. I have no problem with central banks.

6 Europeans have long suffered from delusions of grandeur, so the wordy (yet empty) substanced constitution comes as no real surprise to me. Europe lost her real grandeur centuries ago and a stack of wordy documents cannot bring her back, until the people have a change of attitude.

7 Sorry, I (wrongly) assumed that you were against central banks because I assumed you were against the concept of monetary policy in general. In any case, I think you misinterpret what they mean by "price stability". Price stability is a commonly used term to refer to low inflation; Alan Greenspan routinely uses the term in his speeches. It refers to the general level of prices, not the prices of individual products. Check out Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_stability I think you confuse "price stability" with price controls, such as price floors, ceilings and outright price fixing, which I agree would be a very bad thing and definitely warrant a "communist" label.

8 I wouldn't say "centuries ago". Europe had a lot going for it right through the 19th century, even with the various empires diminishing. Two world wars pretty much put paid to that. You're basically right, though. Europe is living for the past, not for the future. That's evident in the consitution, with its emphasis on protecting Europe's grand heritage.

9 It had a brief flash in the 19th century, but as Marxism began to take hold, it killed the entrepeneurial spirit that the early mercantilists produced. Also, the continent was host to a lot of struggles, revolutions, and petty wars throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, as a prequel to the two world wars. That's not nearly the grandeur of the Bourbons and Hapsburgs.

10 Jojo - Thanks, it looks like you're right. I'll make a note of that in the post.

11 Good point LA, and that was a primary reason for US isolationism. No one wanted to get involved in another of those interminable European wars.

1 The thing that really annoys me about all this is that you can bet your bottom dollar they are NOT going to consolidate their seats in the UN, WTO, or any other int'l body. Why should the EU get umpteen votes where the US gets one? They want the advantages of unity without the disadvantages.

2 Ignore above, wrong thread. U.S. leaders have long believed military power and the American Dream went hand in hand. It's so easy to forget, as this person apparently has, that America really had no military to speak of when we were dragged into WW II. That's why Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany thought we would be easy to defeat: in their eyes we were a weak, decadent nation.

3 This has got to be one of the best fiskings (is that right word?) I have ever read. This site is definately now a daily read. Skip Christy Lake Oswego, OR (USA)

4 The failure of the American Dream lost in the reveries of greatness Here's a useful link in combatting this kind of insanity. http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html speechifying about liberty and freedom Now, what do all those countries in the top third or so have in common? They're rich and free because of America's commitment to liberty and freedom.

5 Also interesting: Iraq led the world in GDP growth in 2004. Now, they did start from a very low level, but 50% is still amazing growth, esp for a period that the media keep describing as getting worse.
But the real underreported economic story of the last 5 years is Eastern Europe. It seems like every country is growing at around 5%. China gets all the headlines, but China is still much poorer per capita and has serious weaknesses in financial infrastructure.

6 You know, it's funny about that "Namby-pamby hearts-and-minds stuff" As far back as i can remember, that comes from an old special forces slogan, "Grab 'em by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow." I wonder if that's the first etymology. Certainly the most straightforward (and via Occam, the correct) one.

7 Heh. Maybe he meant "namby-pamby hearts-and-flowers". :)

8 It's so easy to forget, as this person apparently has, that America really had no military to speak of when we were dragged into WW II. America was deeply isolationist in the 1930's. I've touched on this in my latest post. The Axis still planned more on avoiding conflict with America than defeating it, and they certainly weren't planning on what actually happened.

1 Great post. It's surprising how few people understand that a relative decline in comparative rate of growth is not a decline in absolute terms, and that because economics is a positive-sum game, better growth in other countries benefits us too (new markets).
What I am dedicated to is getting good, reliable information out there, and a balance of opinion. That's a large part of the reason I run mu.nu. Too many countries live inside bubbles, I'd like to pop a few of them. Too true. Something that is never mentioned in these articles that bemoan how "unpopular" America has become is that 90% of anti-Americanism is firmly rooted in ignorance, and the other 10% is counterfactual Chomskyite sophistry. I noted an especially virulent and telling example of this phenomenon here.

2 PM: Many thanks for your responses to my questions; I have honored them with a little more research. I'd appreciate your further views. I'm not quite sure how to format my follow-up to your comments, so forgive me if this is rather unwieldy. I have bracketed my counter-comments and started them with TT. May 31, 2005 Readers Write Tokyo Tom has asked some questions regarding my recent Newsweek post that I think deserve a serious answer. He writes: PM, do you see no serious issues in Andrew Moravcsik's "Dream on America" piece that merit discussion, or is everything a zero-sum game with you? PM: I think the article is a serious issue. My problem with it is that it's not an examination of anti-Americanism but an excercise in anti-Americanism. The former is worthwhile; the latter not. I'm not sure what you are referring to with is everything a zero-sum game with you? The answer is no, but I don't know if that addresses your intended question. [TT: PM, I was concerned that your primary focus might be on defending your mental “map” of reality; in other words, “winning”. I appreciate the time you spent responding to my earlier post, but it seems to me that you have spent more time avoiding or downplaying inconvenient facts than seriously addressing them. Yes, Andrew Moravcsik is in part expressing his opinion, but your labelling it as “anti-American” deliberately turns attention away from the underlying messages, even though you grudgingly acknowledge the gist of them in the rest of your responses. I think these messages should hardly be news: l that while America still harbors an image of itself as a beacon to the world, that image is viewed as quite a bit tarnished outside the US, in part because of perceived serious deficiencies with the “American Dream”, 2 that while America is “lost in the reveries of greatness, speechifying about liberty and freedom,” others see an “imperial America relentlessly pursuing its narrow national interests,” with “the anti-Bushism of the president's first term is giving way to a more general anti-Americanism,” 3 that the relative economic importance of the US in the world is declining, along with the willingness of others to follow the foreign policy “lead” of the US, 4 that while the US remains for now the sole military superpower, our willingness to use that “hard” military power unilaterally has contributed to a rapid decline in our soft influence over the rest of the world, so much so that a strikingly large percentage of our traditional allies, who are more inclined to multilateralism, see the US as a threat to world peace, and, finally 5 that Americans in general are unaware of the changes in how the rest of the world regards the US. When Moravcsik calls this situation dangerous, I believe he was writing for a US audience, as I understand he was also surprised that Newsweek did not run his piece in the US. While I have a slightly different view from Tokyo, I believe that it is important for the US to grapple with these messages, which relate to clear and significant changes in the international order, even if we may take issue with the “fairness” of the perceptions of our traditional allies, China, the Muslim world or Latin America. William Greider recently noted, “American leadership has … become increasingly delusional—I mean that literally—and blind to the adverse balance of power accumulating against it.] I had thought it was a fairly accurate report of the perception of the declining importance and influence of the US in the world – so that what I found disappointing was not so much the content of the essay, but rather Newsweek’s decision not to run it in the US. I have two main problems with this, which may not be easily distinguishable to those not familiar with my views. The first is on anti-Americanism. It's a real issue, and it's worth examining, but it's uniformly irrational and counterfactual. That is, when it's based on facts, it's not logical, and when it's logical, it's not based on facts. [TT: If anti-Americanism is a real issue worth examining, why don’t you do so?] The second was with the article itself, which rather than simply examining anti-Americanism, is anti-American itself. And since anti-Americanism is irrational and counterfactual, that was reflected in the article. [TT: Clearly Moravcsik’s article reports on views from abroad, which merit discussion. I would hope you would acknowledge that the fact of reporting on unfavorable views from abroad is not anti-American. The article also reflects an own opinion that perhaps some of the views of those outside the US may be correct, that American society and foreign policy are in fact not working so well, and that there are aspects of other societies that compare favorably to the US. Well, I would have to say that IMHO, there are many things wrong with the US, and I would suppose that you and any of your readers could critique various aspects of the US as well. I might be an idiot, and you might disagree with Moravcsik’s views, but that doesn’t make either you, me or Moravcsik anti-American. So let’s stick to the issues.] Do you disagree as a factual matter either with (i) the perception abroad of a slipping US lead, coupled with rising disenchantment with/active opposition to US policies, especially post-9/11 I don't know that there's a perception abroad of a slipping US lead (in what?) There's certainly disenchantment with and opposition to US policies. That has been true for 229 years. What we see today is not the worst of it. [TT: Okay, so we have some grudging acceptance of the message. I would think you would have to acknowledge that the “disenchantment with and opposition to US policies” have risen very dramatically since GWB first took office. It is precisely because we can’t unilaterally force our will on the rest of the world that we need to be concerned about our declining ability to persuade others to work with us. Why is this not worth talking about? As to what we’re losing the lead in, I think you could probably list quite a few items. A few that come to mind for me are economic predominance, science & technology, private R&D, patent applications, and sophisticated manufacturing. Moravcsik, however, makes the general point that much of the rest of the world no longer looks up to the US and has lost faith in “the American model—political, economic, diplomatic”. Among others, Moravcsik indicates that the US is not seen as a leader on issues such as privacy protection, social protections, social mobility, opportunity and inequality, incarceration rates, child-poverty rates, and that the US seems to have turned away from multilateral cooperation (where we once led the world on issues such as global warming, control of land mines and small arms, and international courts). He gets support on this perspective from many others; see this recent article by Joe Stiglitz: http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050406/democracy_starts_at_home.php. or (ii) the long decline in our relative economic dominance post-WWII as Asia, Europe and Latin America grow?] I would bloody well hope that US economic dominance had declined since World War II. World War II basically destroyed Europe and Japan, and caused massive destruction in Russia, China and elsewhere in Southeast Asia. America threw huge amounts of manpower and resources into winning the war, but its infrastructure was essentially undamaged. The war wiped away any lingering traces of the Great Depression in America, but it took a long time for Europe and Asia to rebuild. What's more, America has 5% of the world's population, but accounts for over 20% of production. That this proportion is decreasing doesn't mean that the US is declining in real terms, just that the rest of the world is starting to get its act together. [TT: Why do you dodge the issue and ramifications of the long decline in US economic dominance? Even while our economy has continued to grow, the fact that the rest of the world has been catching up means that the US has steadily less influence. The rest of the world no longer see itself beholden to us, in the way it once was. In particular, the collapse of the USSR as a superpower has made the US nuclear deterrent and NATO less relevant in Europe; Russian is perceived as much less of a threat, so we see a tendency for Europe to define itself in opposition to the US. We have little leverage over China, India and Brazil, which are all growing in economic strength and influence. In fact, the US is now competing with China for energy and mineral resources all over the world, including Canada and Latin America. What does the CIA Factbook or other statistics tell you about the changes in the share of the US in the global economy from 1935 to 2005? If these are indeed trends, is there a reason to be alarmed about either of them?] No. The trends are positive. The US economy continues to grow. The economies of some poorer countries are growing faster; that's good. Their growth will slow as they become richer and gains in productivity become harder to achieve. That happens to everyone. [TT: Do you really think everything is so peachy keen? The consequence of these changes is the US losing power and influence, and even though we remain for the time being the sole superpower we can no longer as easily bear all of the expense and responsibilities that role entails. Our focus on the military undermines our long-term economic strength, and our insistence on using military force to achieve foreign policy objectives is in defiance of our actual capabilities and has the perverse effect of making our goals more difficult to achieve. Should we not be concerned with the antipathy towards the US in the rest of the world?] Frankly, I'm more interested in whether Fox will revive Futurama than the antipathy of the rest of the world to the US. [TT: I’m with you on Futurama; but have learned to live without it after moving to Tokyo (no Fox). I understand where you’re coming from – I rather not care what anyone else thinks about us either. But the truth is that not only does it matter, but matters greatly, what the rest of the world thinks of the US. We cannot unilaterally impose democracy at the point of the gun throughout the rest of the world. We have to work with others to realize our agenda. I suppose that it is in recognition of this reality that the Bush administration calls the autocrats of Russia, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and the Sudan our “friends”.] What I am dedicated to is getting good, reliable information out there, and a balance of opinion. That's a large part of the reason I run mu.nu. Too many countries live inside bubbles, I'd like to pop a few of them. [TT: Your professed goals are right on - sounds like you’d like to write articles like Moravcsik’s! I agree with you about bubbles, but the sad fact is that everywhere it makes people feel good to live inside their own bubbles, and they would really much rather that others do not do them the favor of popping them. Do you see no trade-offs as the US spends huge sums (a significant amount borrowed against sharply cut federal revenues) on the military (including extravagant boondoggles such as missile defense, unsettling technologies such as tactical nukes, and nation-building in Iraq), while other countries are investing directly in productive industry?] No, of course there are no trade-offs. Everything's a win! Sorry, my sarcasm got the better of me there. In order: The US military allowed intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq, with a standing, peace-time, all-volunteer military, with great success and minimal losses. That's a good thing. Missile defense is hardly a boondoggle with nations like Iran and North Korea looking to lob nukes at anyone they dislike. You'd be foolish not to be investigating missile defense at this point. Unsettling technologies such as tactical nukes? You have something of a point there. Nuclear weapons are taboo; their use is all but unthinkable. Tactical nukes would weaken that taboo, and if your number one priority is preventing the use of nuclear weapons, that would be a bad thing. I think, though, that this has to be balanced against the intended purpose of tactical nukes - bunker busters to destroy ABC (atomic/biological/chemical) warfare facilities in rogue states. Other countries are investing in productive industry? Why, so is America. At the same time as acting as the world's policeman and planning a moonbase and a manned expedition to Mars and a billion and one other things. [TT: Before addressing your individual points, let me point out that unfortunately there is no free lunch, but instead that little matter of the tradeoffs ... . It was a great help to the Japanese and Europeans in catching up with us that they could spend much less of their GNP on defense, thanks to the US. However, our enormous defense expenditures continue to be a significant drag on investment in productive industry, and to undercut our competitive position. Aside from some Keynesian pump-priming, defense expenditures generally just don’t provide the same bang as a buck spend on manufacturing-related R&D. There is a real cost to military spending with respect to our future competitiveness. As for Iraq, we have created a hydra-headed monster. What was the wisdom in the Iraq adventure? While Saddam had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, we have certainly been heaping fuel onto bin Laden’s terror agenda. Further, as Paul Craig Roberts recently noted, “the US has proven to the world that it cannot occupy Baghdad, much less Iraq.” A few thousand insurgents have succeeded in tying down 8 US divisions, and the bulk of the US force in Iraq is engaged in protecting its own bases and supply lines. As Robert F. Ellsworth, vice chairman of the Nixon Center and Dimitri K. Simes, president of the center and co-publisher of the journal. In an editorial headlined 'Realism's Shining Morality,' they wrote: 'Overzealousness in the cause of democracy (along with a corresponding underestimation of the costs and dangers) has led to a dangerous overstretch in Iraq,' While missile defense may sound good in theory, in practice it IS a boondoggle that provides no practical value against North Korea, and a huge waste of funds that could be better deployed to protect America against terror (see Fred Kaplan’s ongoing series of articles in Slate). Missile defense consumed $10.7 billion of the 2004 military budget— triple the 2003 amount and far more than any other weapon system. About $80 billion has been spent on it so far and another $80 billion is scheduled to be spent before the decade is out. It is nowhere near to working; although a number of missile interceptors have been “deployed”, in the last test we didn’t even get a launch, and the system can easily be beaten if the offensive missiles are MIRVed, decoyed, or simply outnumber the much more expensive interceptors. Former Pentagon testing chief Phillip Coyle has ripped the program: http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001068.html. I see you’re with me on tactical nukes; this is a real concern. Although President Bush is trying to persuade "rogue regimes" and other nations to forgo their nuclear ambitions, the Administration is shoveling money to U.S. nuclear weapons laboratories at more than $6 billion per year – 50% more in real dollars than the average when the Soviet Union existed and the Cold War still raged. What justifies this expense, in the face of other priorities? The US has also refused to comply with our NPT treaty obligation to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and has announced a preemptive strike policy. These policies appear counterproductive; clearly the North Koreans and possibly the Iranians are much further down the road toward possession of nuclear weapons than four years ago (neither country, by the way, is in violation of the NPT), and Muslim Pakistan, which has nukes, has become increasingly fundamentalist. At the same time, the Administration has underfunded the program designed to lock-down the thousands of poorly controlled nuclear warheads scattered across Russia, which pose the greatest terrorist risk to the US. Do we have our priorities right? As for investment, the Defense Department's combined budgets for the four years since Bush took office amount to $1.5 trillion. This is more money per year than we spent and the height of the Cold War and Vietnam.] It is more than simply disappointing that our invasion of Iraq has drawn no where near the level of burden-sharing that the US was able to secure in the cases of the first Gulf War and the action against Serbia. Right. But we need to examine the reasons for this. The liberation of Iraq was the right thing to do. Opposing it was wrong. We want to know why people opposed it. Most of the reasons given, however, are irrational and counterfactual. [TT: You’ve just proved Moravcsik’s point – the US now has to care about what everyone else thinks. The war in Iraq is proving fabulously expensive, and we have no idea when it will be over. While we had the support of our allies in ousting the Taliban from Afghanistan (shared agreement about dealing with the threats posed by al-Qaeda), we are bearing the burden ($ and lives) in Iraq virtually alone. The US literally cannot afford to repeat this (besides already finding ourselves stretched thin militarily).] Reflexive self-justification and denial are understandable, but do not help us to deal with real problems. Which is why I don't engage in such things. Just so you know, Tom, I'm Australian. [TT: Touché. Sounds like you agree with Andrew – to deal with real problems we need our good friends to help us get past our self-justification and denial! To be fair, self-justification and denial are part of human nature and a necessary concomitant of normal brain function (which is fascinating reading). To deal with heavy incoming streams of information, an essential part of brain function is to filter out, downplay or dismiss dissonant information. As a result we have to consciously struggle to face up to the difficult task of updating and reworking our mental maps. (This seem to be a brain hard-wiring issue; you might perhaps have heard of conditions such as anosognosia, where a stroke that damages a particular region of the right cortex – apparently crucial to the mental map adjustment mechanism – leaves the victim unable to consciously acknowledge that the left side of his body is paralyzed? http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=817.) We can see the implications in political discourse, where it seems most time is spent in vociferous defense of one’s own reality model, and little in exploring whether someone else might have a point that might require reflection and consideration. Yes, I try to look in the mirror every now and then too.] The US is facing a critical task to stem and reverse the serious decline in relative power that the US is now experiencing as investment and power flow to the growing economies of Asia, Europe and Latin America Why? Why is this a critical task? [TT: Huh? If we don’t get focussed and start getting our house in order, the US will have even less influence in the world. If that’s what you’d prefer, then I suppose you might not view it as a critical task. Have you taken a look at “Mapping the Global Future,” the recent report by National Intelligence Council, the CIA's think tank? www.cia.gov/nic/NIC_globaltrend2020.html. as the Newsweek article points out so well.] I can't see that the Newsweek article pointed out any such thing. [TT: You’re right; I got carried away and attributed to the article some heft it didn’t deserve. The point is my own, along with a whole bunch of other people. See some of these: http://www.gao.gov/cghome/intergovchallenge.pdf http://tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=2259 http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2042/P320/ http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/charting/2005/0 0302.html Paul Craig Roberts recently summarized the situation: “The US Treasury is empty. The once ‘almighty’ dollar is tottering. The US military is stretched to the breaking point. Former allies look askance at America. Hatred of America has reached an all time high. The Bush administration must bring its policies in line with its means before it leads our country into greater disaster.” http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8051.htm.] Our place in the world will soon be much diminished, and we refuse to get our own house in order - enormous budget and trade deficits, declining technical and science skills, a frayed social support network, accelerating disparities in wealth (see David Brooke`s op-ed in today`s Times), you name it. The budget and trade deficits are a real, if long-term problem. [TT: Glad you see that the twin deficits as a real problem, but they have very important short-term implications for the US’s global power. US ambitions are heavily mortgaged and the US financial position is rapidly deteriorating, due mainly to America's persistent and growing trade deficit. Our current hegemony is unsustainable. The US trade deficit hit a record $666 billion in 2004. The US now requires capital imports of at least $2 billion per day to pay for governmental expenditures. This is about 80 percent of the net flow of international capital. Any decision by Asian central banks to move significant parts of their foreign exchange reserves out of the dollar and into other currencies in order to protect themselves from dollar depreciation could produce a meltdown of the American economy. (Japan possesses around $841 billion in foreign exchange reserves; China has $610 billion pile of U.S. cash). The Administration now sees a 2005 budget deficit of $427 billion. While only a few years ago we enjoyed substantial federal surpluses and were making inroads into public debt, over the first four years of the Bush administration, the administration’s own 10-year fiscal outlook deteriorated by $8.2 trillion. The CBO now projects a 10-year baseline deficit outside of Social Security of $3.4 trillion. http://www.brook.edu/views/articles/20050214galeorszag.htm See Paul Volker’s recent comments: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38725-2005Apr8.html.] I'm not at all convinced there are declining technical and science skills. I don't see American research and engineering suffering at all. [TT: Sorry, but there are real problems, and we need to stay focussed on this in order to maintain our long-term competitiveness. See the NYT piece: “US Is Losing Its Dominance in the Sciences” at http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0503-03.htm, and http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050322/falling_off_the_competitive_edge.php. Eamonn Fingleton’s “Unsustainable” webpage (http://www.unsustainable.org/) discusses how the US has been losing its technological lead. For a discussion of consequences, see Paul Craig Roberts at http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts05192005.html. We are now experiencing a brain-drain, as Indians and Chinese head home. I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts on this piece by Lakshmi Chaudhry, that says the US may be losing the global comptetition for creative talent. http://www.alternet.org/story/22104/.] I don't see a particularly frayed social support network either. And I don't see wealth disparities as a problem, as long as both rich and poor are improving their lot, and as long as there is opportunity for improvement, something America has always been very good at. [TT: Sorry, but I see serious signs. The US has the greatest degree of income inequality of any developed nation, and the disparity has been accelerating. Bankruptcy filings continue at a record pace, 45 million have no health insurance and pension systems are failing as American firms are losing their competitive strength (see Slate’s “Cramdown” article: http://www.slate.com/id/2119327/fr/nl).] We face a growing dependence on imported oil but have no cogent energy policy (which should include pricing to cover defense and environmental costs). America should be building more nuclear power plants, including breeder reactors. The present administration seems inclined to push in that direction, which is a good thing. [TT: Nuclear has always been a cleaner option than oil and coal, and should be expanded. However, capital costs are extremely high. We can increase our energy security most quickly and rationally by investing in greater energy efficiency in transportation, electrical generation and home heating. The least intrusive way for the government to do this would be to increase energy use taxes, and let the market work from their. We should also be focussing on coal gasification (coal to hydrogen); public utility approval requires discourage this existing technology, which gets greater BTUs out of coal, is much cleaner, and produces permanently sequestrable carbon.] What a mess we are handing off to our children, who will have to foot the bills and the poorer America that we seem to be willing to settle for! And again, the present administration seems willing to address issues such as the unsustainable nature of the Social Security system. [TT: I don’t see the administration making much of an effort to handle any issue openly or honestly. For four years, the administration pretended that budget deficits were of little concern; after the election Bush believed that tax cuts for the rich would one day be balanced by cuts in spending, but never explained this to the public. Only after re-election did he begin to explain that large budget deficits require cuts in Social Security, health care spending (other than the outrageously expensive new prescription drug benefit) and other areas, but Americans like the “free lunch” program, so the Republican party has been rejecting Bush’s proposed cuts. The administration has not seriously sought an end to corporate welfare, either in cutting subsidies to corporate formers or in seeking to rein in military expenditures. With the administration now seeking to make the tax cuts for the rich permanent (including the estate tax) and to lower the Alternate Minimum Tax, it is clear that our alarming budget deficits are entrenched, with no end in sight.] Many global issues cry out for US leadership, but we refuse to accept that mantle in favor of unilateralism. Many global issues do indeed cry out for US leadership, but what nations are willing to accept that leadership? Unilateralism (the old go-it-almost-alone route) is not something America chose; it was imposed by the intransigence of other nations. [TT: You are right in part, but the truth is that there are limits to what we can do alone, and that unilateralism is extremely expensive. We need to be smarter about recognizing those limits and in deciding when the benefits of unilateral action merit the costs. We are not constrained to act unilaterally; we can chose not to act.] The Administration, Congress and big business are fiddling while Rome burns (see Tom Friedman’s op-ed in Friday’s Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/25/opinion/25friedman.html?th&emc=th). It is a real disappointment that the Republican party is not making a serious attempt to revitalize and strengthen the US economy, but is instead sapping our competitiveness with outrageously irresponsible budget deficits (in which the roles of tax cuts and our grossly expanded and unfunded military budget must be acknowledged). I started reading the Thomas Friedman piece. He begins by criticizing companies for not demanding enough government money (in various forms). That's not the solution we're looking for. In fact, I'm not sure what Friedman is proposing. Subsidies for industry? Protectionism? No, he seems to be pushing for trade agreements. But some sort of government intervention. What? And why? And how is that supposed to help? He seems to think that the government should shoulder the burden of GM's health insurance. Why? Why not let GM cut its health care plan, or failing that, go broke? Budget deficits are a problem. They're hardly uncommon during wars, but long term, they need to be fixed. Expanding social programs and subsidizing business isn't the road to a balanced budget. I'll note that Australia has been running budget surpluses for years, to the point that government debt is expected to be fully paid by next year. On the other hand, we don't have anything like America's military expenses - even proportionally - because America is shouldering that burden. [TT: Liberals are sometimes muddle-headed, and like looking for the government to provide solutions. Republicans have become much worse; Clinton at least balanced the budget, which Republicans have gone hog-wild, increasing spending on virtually every government program. If the administration does not seriously tighten its belt and go on a diet, we face ruin. To balance the budget we need both more revenues and spending cuts. This means a much leaner military, for one. That said, cases can be made for some new initiatives, like energy taxes and healthcare. About one-third of the healthcare dollar in the US goes to administration; this is a tremendous waste - in most other wealthy countries this is less than 20%.] While responsible for what still is the largest economy and most important country in the world, the Administration seems to be doing all it can to make sure that voters don't hear any bad news. Um, in what way? The administration doesn't run the media, you know. [TT: Let’s be honest – the administration plays fast and loose with the truth whenever and wherever it suits its purpose (seems on just about everything). Its budget and spending announcements have not been an exception. See http://www.roubiniglobal.com/archives/2005/02/budget_lies_it.html. While there may well be room to criticize the Newsweek piece, it is unfortunate that the blog discussion has ignored the real substantive issues raised by the article, but focussed instead on perceived slights to the flag and the “motives” of Newsweek.] I don't see any substantive issues raised by the Newsweek article, I'm afraid. While I fault Newsweek for selling America short by deciding not to run the piece in the US, sadly this decision seems to reflect ironically one point of the article - that in fact most of Newsweek US readers would rather hear about the Oscars, than to be forced to face unpleasant facts about our declining global position. The problem is the Newsweek article doesn't address the declining global position of the US, if such a thing is happening in any meaningful way. Rather, it addresses and engages in antipathy towards the US. That's not productive, not in any way. [TT: My alarm clock does not hate me when it rings, even though I might hate it for doing so. The article is intended as a wake-up call, at least on the level of perception from abroad, even if it does not delve deeply into underlying causes.] But then I suppose it is too much to expect, if our Administration, Congress and business leaders are not willing to talk about serious issues, that our press would show it has real balls. Once again, the Newsweek piece does not raise serious issues. It's not a question of balls, it's a question of relevance. [TT: I disagree. But if you feel that there are no serious issues to discuss, what upsets you so much about the article?] Can we have a real discussion of our slipping economic position, or do we all find it easier to shoot the messenger? I look forward to some enlightenment. We can have a real discussion, sure. But first, you have to establish what you mean by "our slipping economic position" in the context of an economy that is growing faster than almost any other first-world nation. That the global economy grew by 4.9% in 2004 compared to America's 4.4% is cause for celebration, not despondency. [TT: Growth elsewhere is not a problem per se, but there a cumulative consequences for our long-term position. We are clearly moving toward a multi-polar world, in which the ascendance of China (India, etc.) is important, not only for the US but also for Japan and old Europe. The US previously celebrated growth of the global economy and the integration of various states into that economy through the use of multilateral institutions, but has been reluctant to share power and responsibility. Especially in connection with our invasion of Iraq, we now see increasing resentment and concern, at sufficient levels that we are seeing deliberate efforts to blunt America’s power. Simply speaking, we need to recognize our limits and act at our own peril if we do not. We may be better served if we make an honest effort to get our own house in order, and to use our still dominant position to lead others in ways that build a safer world that is attractive to them, rather in ways that undercut our power and effectiveness. For raising this issue, Newsweek deserves some credit, but also approbation for lacking the nerve to tell it directly to Americans, and limiting the Moravcsik piece to foreign audiences.] Posted by Pixy Misa at May 31, 2005 02:21 PM

3 For raising this issue, Newsweek deserves some credit, but also approbation for lacking the nerve to tell it directly to Americans, and limiting the Moravcsik piece to foreign audiences. Nope. You're reading something that's not there. The Newsweek article is 100% crap from top to bottom. Well, there is one sentence that isn't false-to-fact, as I noted. So 99.8% crap. The Newsweek article is completely worthless. It's a collection of lies and pandering. That's all it is. Anyway: Why do you dodge the issue and ramifications of the long decline in US economic dominance? Even while our economy has continued to grow, the fact that the rest of the world has been catching up means that the US has steadily less influence. I don't dodge the issue. I think that in as far as it signifies at all, it's GOOD. It's not that the US is losing economic dominance. It's that some parts of the world that used to be complete economic disaster areas are making structural improvements. As their productivity and efficiency grows, so too does their trade, and everyone wins. (One of the things that isn't a trade-off, at least, not overall. Encourage free trade and everyone wins.) This notably does not include Africa, which has been going backwards despite - or because of - tens of billions of dollars in aid. Much of the rest of the world used to be the same sort of pestilential shithole that sub-Saharan Africa is now. It's improving, and that's a good thing. Because the better off people are, the more they have to lose. And the more they have to lose, the less they act like idiots. When someone has a nice house and a garden and three kids - the oldest one in college - and a dog and a new SUV with three years of payments left to go, it's bloody hard to get them to go invade the country next door. Liberals are sometimes muddle-headed, and like looking for the government to provide solutions. Liberals are invariably muddle-headed. Looking for someone else to solve your problems is the hallmark of liberalism. (Present-day, not claissical or neo-liberalism.) I'll address the rest of your points, but it's basically the same thing as I said before: Budget and trade deficits are a problem in the long term. And that's it. That's the only actual problem in everything you've linked to. The rest of it is twaddle. You were worried about the opinion of Europe? Well, Europe can't even get its own act together, and looks set to drop the common currency and disintegrate. Who actually opposed America in recent actions? France, Germany, Russia and China. Since when have any of them been allies - of anything other than temporary convenience? Not just to America, but to anyone? Oh, yes, one last thing: tax cuts for the rich That is pure bullshit. The tax cuts weren't for the rich, not exclusively, not even mostly.

4 I agree that economic growth and development are generally GOOD (ignoring all of the unexpected and undesired consequences), but it is also very much the truth that along with wealth and economic strength comes power. And you are ignoring the fact that this is all a RELATIVE game. The top dog can continually keep growing, but if there are other dogs that grow faster, pretty soon someone else is top dog. Those who study history or archeaology can see many examples of previous top dogs that have either crumbled to dust or if they're still around, much reduced in relative status. What is making the shift to a multi-polar world possible is the fact that the Soviet Union fell apart because it couldn't keep up with the US. To stress the point, just look at the difficult position the US is in now in Iraq, with hundreds of billions down the tube, added to the deficit, with very little support from others and no end in sight. And China is already changing everyone's calculations - not the least in Australia, where the government chose this week not to give asylum to a Chinese diplomat who was spilling the beans about China's network of spies there. The US cannot ignore China - it can either make nice and try to integrate China, or it can make an enemy of China. It seems the Bush administration is starting to see China as a strategic rival.

5 And you are ignoring the fact that this is all a RELATIVE game. No I'm not. The top dog can continually keep growing, but if there are other dogs that grow faster, pretty soon someone else is top dog. As I've noted several times, the higher your per-capita GDP (i.e. the more efficient you are), the harder it is to continue to grow. Those who study history or archeaology can see many examples of previous top dogs that have either crumbled to dust or if they're still around, much reduced in relative status. Nothing lasts forever. Rome fell due to internal rot. But the British Empire faded away at least partly due to technological advancement. By the beginning of the 20th century, the advantage of having an empire had been drastically reduced. To stress the point, just look at the difficult position the US is in now in Iraq, with hundreds of billions down the tube, added to the deficit, with very little support from others and no end in sight. The situation in Iraq is a flyspeck compared to what America is capable of. It doesn't signify to America, not industrially or financially. It signifies militarily only in that we are still running on a peacetime basis. If it was a serious war, we could put more troops on the ground in Iraq than the entire population of Iraq. The US cannot ignore China - it can either make nice and try to integrate China, or it can make an enemy of China. It seems the Bush administration is starting to see China as a strategic rival. Good fucking grief. Starting to see China as a strategic rival?! Did you sleep through the second half of the 20th century or what? The way to deal with China is to keep buying their cheap goodies and keep selling them, well, whatever. Let them eat cake. Once they have a taste for cake, they're not going to go back. Look, the US represents one twentieth of the world's population. The only way it can remain the dominant economic power is for the rest of the world to remain a third-world shithole. And the whole point of progress is for the world not to remain a third-world shithole.

6 OK. Nothing lasts forever, the US should try to integrate, and the US cannot remain the dominant economic power. We agree. Why do we have a problem getting to the second step, that of recognizing that, since there are limits to US power, the US should acknowledge the trade-offs between unilateral and multilateral action and the relevance of how other countries perceive and respond to the US? And for such purpose, it is useful to try to inform American readers of these matters? Or are Americans and others around the world better served if all of these complicated foreign matters are simply left to our elected leaders? You don't have a vote, but your opinion still matters. Tell me that you have no qualms about how the US is dealing with China, much less our own budget and current account deficits (not unrelated, by the way). It's quite interesting to me, by the way, how much your readers love "fisking" something that is run by the MSN, but all drift away from any real discussion of issues. I think there are many things the Administration (and Americans) could be doing better, and have no problem with the press giving voice to someone's opinions on such matters. By the way, I agree that some of Moravcsik's points are clearly wrong, misstated or garbage. But on the bigger issue, that Americans do not understand the changes in the global power game and that the US is misplaying its cards as a result, I think he is spot on. Cheers.

7 Why do we have a problem getting to the second step, that of recognizing that, since there are limits to US power, the US should acknowledge the trade-offs between unilateral and multilateral action and the relevance of how other countries perceive and respond to the US? Because the other countries are full of shit. And for such purpose, it is useful to try to inform American readers of these matters? American readers are informed of these matters - if they want to be. The information is readily available. Or are Americans and others around the world better served if all of these complicated foreign matters are simply left to our elected leaders? You don't have a vote, but your opinion still matters. All of this has been hashed out endlessly. Point is: We are right. They are wrong. The media is for the most part hopelessly biased. (Even worse in Europe than America or Australia.) Blogs are getting all the opinions out there, and all the facts too. Blogs good. Tell me that you have no qualms about how the US is dealing with China, much less our own budget and current account deficits (not unrelated, by the way). I've addressed the deficits a number of times. Why should I have qualms about how the US is dealing with China? It's quite interesting to me, by the way, how much your readers love "fisking" something that is run by the MSN, but all drift away from any real discussion of issues. WHAT ISSUES? Deficits? Yah. We know. WE KNOW ALREADY! Most of us are libertarian-leaning centrists or small-government conservatives. We KNOW! Deficits bad. That is the only point you have raised that deserves discussion. I think there are many things the Administration (and Americans) could be doing better, and have no problem with the press giving voice to someone's opinions on such matters. Neither do I. But in the case of the Newsweek article, only one sentence in the entire piece had a basis in fact. The rest was crap. By the way, I agree that some of Moravcsik's points are clearly wrong, misstated or garbage. But on the bigger issue, that Americans do not understand the changes in the global power game and that the US is misplaying its cards as a result, I think he is spot on. No. Look. Read the article. What it says is "We don't like you Americans, so we will flush our economies and our civil rights alike down the toilet just to spite you." Well, if people are going to do that, honestly, who cares?

8 Those of us who are libertarian-leaning centrists or small-government conservatives also know that: - the biggest problem with the MSM is that they are big and are in the business of selling earning revenue. The result is not that are overwhelmingly biased towards anyone, but prefer NOT to rock the boat. If anything, they are rather easily co-opted and cowed by the Administration. Read some of the recent pieces by Syndney Schanberg ("Killing Fields" reporter). - far worse than the MSM are Riley, Rush and Fox (which has found that flag-waving is better for ratings than the truth, much less being fair and balanced). - this Adminstration has to be setting all kinds of records for secrecy, dishonesty and cynical manipulation of public opinion. This is very dangerous; political debate has been poisoned by the Adminstration and attack dogs from the right who see treason in everyone who questions the wisdom of anything that the Adminstration considers a priority. I agree with conservatives like Paul Craig Roberts on this. Yes, there's alot of information on blogs, and yes there are problems with the media, but I am much more concerned about all the crap coming from the White House (yes, DEFICITS are one item!). So I am very troubled by all the excitement that is generated when bloggers "frisk" the MSM, to the detriment of substantive discussion. While it's totally fair to point out what's wrong with the Newsweek article, why don't you consider using it as a springboard to harp on issues that your US readers should be concerned about? Like the deficit. I disagree with you about the gist of the article. I think it says, hey America (big, fat, lazy, ignorant), you've got your own problems and your head up your ass on some things. None of us take criticism well, but it wouldn't stick in our craw so much if you were not ignoring your own faults and were a bit more tactful. We're actually interested in leadership, but we know if your isolationistic bent. You're a big guy and more than a little unpredictable. We get frustrated when you back away from big issues that require your cooperation - Kyoto, small arms, land mines, international tribunals, etc. - and are troubled when you are ready to charge off in one direction for reasons we don't understand. You might think all those outside who think the above are full of shit, and those of us who are willing to listen fools. But then so is your dream of a global world order, cuz you ain't gonna get there without buy-in from Americans.

9 Those of us who are libertarian-leaning centrists or small-government conservatives also know that If you are either of those, then you are remarkably ill-informed. Stop reading the god-damned New York Times and pick up some P. J. O'Rourke. The result is not that are overwhelmingly biased towards anyone, but prefer NOT to rock the boat. If anything, they are rather easily co-opted and cowed by the Administration. Except that "the boat" has become an entirely "progressive" (that is, reactionary, socialist) worldview. Nothing to do with the U.S. government, everything to do with an entrenched mindset in academia and journalism. There has been a non-stop media assault on the Bush administration from day one. For the most part, it is not factually based, and is often provably factually false. Often it borders on the insane. Plastic turkey! Halliburton! Abu Ghraib! this Adminstration has to be setting all kinds of records for secrecy, dishonesty and cynical manipulation of public opinion. Bullshit. One hundred percent certified pure bullshit. So I am very troubled by all the excitement that is generated when bloggers "frisk" That's "fisk", after Robert Fisk, a infamously bad reporter - and winner of numerous journalism awards, which kind of proves my point. the MSM, to the detriment of substantive discussion. You just aren't paying attention. A fisking is a point-by-point refutation of an article. That's what I did. It is often aggressive, but the point is to challenge assertions that are unfounded. While it's totally fair to point out what's wrong with the Newsweek article, why don't you consider using it as a springboard to harp on issues that your US readers should be concerned about? Like the deficit. The deficit is being covered quite well - elsewhere. No, I am not going to harp on it. I think it says, hey America (big, fat, lazy, ignorant), you've got your own problems and your head up your ass on some things. And America says "You have 10% unemployment, endemic corruption, and your government has collapsed 12 times in the last two hundred years. Twice we had to come over and bail you out. You clearly have no idea how to run a country, and no-one cares what you think. About anything. So fuck you." We get frustrated when you back away from big issues that require your cooperation - Kyoto Kyoto is an entirely worthless piece of politicking that will damage economies while doing nothing for the environment. What's more, for the most part, those countries that have ratified the agreement have made no progress at all to fulfilling their obligations. We take our obligations seriously. small arms The right to keep and bear arms is enshrined in our constitution. (Speaking for America here, and unfortunately not for Australia.) If you don't like it, tough. It is not going to change. Meanwhile, Britain is looking to ban pointy knives. We'll take the occasional accidental shooting over your all-encompassing nanny state, thank you. land mines There is some validity here. But remember, you are relying on us for your defense. We will minimise and carefully control use of landmines, but we will not stop using them when we think it is necessary. And those fields full of landmines that cause problems for so many years after the war is over? Not us. Ask Russia. international tribunals Since you have demonstrated that you are not serious about anything, we see no reason to involve ourselves with any tribunal you wish to construct. Go ahead without us. What, you can't make it work without us? Well, WHAT A FRIGGING SHAME! and are troubled when you are ready to charge off in one direction for reasons we don't understand. We have explained our reasons. We meant what we said. Stop trying to parse our statements into your personal reality. We meant what we said. You might think all those outside who think the above are full of shit, and those of us who are willing to listen fools. Pretty much, yeah. But then so is your dream of a global world order, cuz you ain't gonna get there without buy-in from Americans. Well, that's tough luck for you. Look, my "dream" is for wealth, peace and honest government for all. In Australia, I already have that. America already has that. If you don't want it, ultimately, we don't care. Whatever. We'll kill a few of the viler dictators, give people a chance to rebuild. We don't care what France, Germany or Russia have to say, because they've already destroyed themselves, which demonstrates that they know nothing. We will listen to advice from countries like Britain and Japan - who have in the past been our bitter enemies - because they have demonstrated that they can learn. But we are not beholden to them. And we are never going to pay attention to abuse. In the end, we aren't going to force anyone to do something that is clearly for their own benefit. We're not your mother. If you want to wallow in the mud for the rest of your lives, so be it. But if you try to attack us, it's all over for you.

10 Sorry, but I’m getting discouraged. I had thought we could have genuine discussion, but your world is a rather solipsistic. If I don’t agree with you, then it seems you need to peg me in a category (so far: neither “remarkably ill-informed” or NOT a libertarian leaning centrist or small-government conservative). I think you need to do a little stretching of your world view to recognize the fact that there are lots of libertarians and small-government conservatives in the US who are totally appalled by the Bush administration, the war in Iraq and how spineless the MSM has been in confronting Adminstration spin, lies and distortion on many fronts. This is not a modest, conservative administration in the classic sense of the word, but a charged-up administration on a largely unilateral mission abroad and a decidedly big-government engaged in liberal, budge-besting behavior at home. For this administration, its ends justifies nearly any means, and it is not interested in honest discussion. If this administration truly cared about liberating Iraqis from Saddam, why has it been so slow to do anything in places where similar results could be achieved for much less expense and at much lower risk – like the Sudan and Zimbabwe? And if the action in Iraq was merely to remove a dictator, then surely we could have done than for less than $300 billion, and without construction of a number of expensive, permanent military bases? Ever taken a look at recent articles by Paul Craig Roberts? The libertarian anti-war site by Justin Raimondo? http://antiwar.com/who.php. Ever hear of the Cato Institute? http://www.cato.org. Besides railing against the war, they are extremely concerned about the undermining of civil liberties at home. Here are a few links: http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts95.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts81.html http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts05172005.html http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/cgi-bin/roberts.cgi/American%20Empire/2005/05/27/Is_Bush_a_Sith_Lord http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v24n1/thewar.pdf http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v24n2/war.pdf As for your substantive comments on my summary of how others perceive the US, you have some good counter-points (although you seem to conflate you view from Australia as identical with an American perspective), but you also essentially affirm the main view from abroad – America purports to dream for wealth, peace and honest government for all”, but it is a dream that America is not willing to make a concerted multilateral effort to achieve. Bush might feel good to speak of an “axis of evil”, but the anti-Americanism stirred up on the Muslim world by Iraq will certain bite America in the ass – in addition to the collateral damage suffered by our allies the Australians (Bali) and Spain - and North Korea and Iran have both responded to the implied threat in ways counterproductive to US security. Others are right to worry about American umpredictability; Americans are basically isolationists, and prefer to be left alone, but when finally roused, have a predilection to swing to radical intervention in an emotional manner that is not always very well thought out. And the fact that other countries have their own problems does not mean they have no standing to point out America’s. There are lots of things wrong with thte US, and we NEED to pay attention to them; if we have to be told by others before we will listen, then so be it. Tell me again that guys like Paul Volker (talking about lack of political will to confront the twin deficits) and Joe Stiglitz (http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050406/democracy_starts_at_home.php.) are ignorant and their comments traitorous? I leave you with a quote from a Cato Institute report (http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v26n4/cpr-26n4-1.pdf): “No matter how successful the United States is in homeland security and dismantling Al Qaeda, it will not stop terrorism unless U.S. foreign policy changes. More than anything else, U.S. foreign policy is the cause of the virulent anti-Americanism that is the basis for terrorism. If we don’t change U.S. foreign policy to stem the tide of growing anti-American sentiment overseas, particularly within the Muslim world, then the pool of terrorist recruits will grow and the United States will continue to be a target.” But I guess you consider them to be either "remarkably ill-informed" or not truly libertarian, small-government conservatives?

11 Sorry, but I’m getting discouraged. I had thought we could have genuine discussion, but your world is a rather solipsistic. No. See here for why this statement is complete nonsense. I think you need to do a little stretching of your world view to recognize the fact that there are lots of libertarians and small-government conservatives in the US who are totally appalled by the Bush administration, the war in Iraq and how spineless the MSM has been in confronting Adminstration spin, lies and distortion on many fronts. Not at all. There are indeed libertarians who oppose the war in Iraq. I don't care, really, because they are wrong. I have libertarian sympathies, but Libertarianism, as presented by the American Libertarian Party, is pure idiocy. I don't fall into the common socialist (and other-ists) trap of saying If you don't believe in X, you're not a true socialist. There are conservatives who oppose the liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq. They are still conservatives. They're just wrong. And again you bring up your bizarro-world view of the MSM. For the most part - ABC, CBC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, NYT, WaPo, LAT, and so on - the MSM has been all attack, all the time with the Bush adminstration. If you say that they miss the important points because they are too busy screeching like crazed about minor things, then I'd agree with you. But they're not spineless; they're just stupid. For this administration, its ends justifies nearly any means, and it is not interested in honest discussion. You keep saying things like that, but you have never produced anything to back it up. If this administration truly cared about liberating Iraqis from Saddam, why has it been so slow to do anything in places where similar results could be achieved for much less expense and at much lower risk – like the Sudan and Zimbabwe? Several reasons. First, we are already in Iraq. Second, we were already at war with Iraq - there was an ongoing ceasefire, which Iraq had broken the terms of numerous times. Third, one of the main aims in invading Iraq was to destabilise the Middle East, because its stability was that of a growing cancer. Fourth, Iraq has good prospects given a few years of assistance. Africa will take decades of concerted effort to straighten out. Bush might feel good to speak of an “axis of evil”, but the anti-Americanism stirred up on the Muslim world by Iraq will certain bite America in the ass – in addition to the collateral damage suffered by our allies the Australians (Bali) and Spain - and North Korea and Iran have both responded to the implied threat in ways counterproductive to US security. You have cause-and-effect reversed. Iran has been deeply - insanely - anti-American since the revolution. North Korea has been just plain insane since it was formed. North Korea's development of nuclear weapons started during the Clinton administration. And Bali happened before Iraq. Ever taken a look at recent articles by Paul Craig Roberts? No. The libertarian anti-war site by Justin Raimondo? http://antiwar.com/who.php Oh, Justin Raimondo. Noted anti-semite, hatemonger and all-round whackjob. Yeah, I know Raimondo. Besides railing against the war, they are extremely concerned about the undermining of civil liberties at home. Oh, they are concerned, are they? Can they actually point to any civili liberties actually being undermined, or are they just concerned on spec, as it were? America purports to dream for wealth, peace and honest government for all”, but it is a dream that America is not willing to make a concerted multilateral effort to achieve. That's really fucking stupid, you know that? It's breathtakingly stupid from a historical perspective - remember World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Cold War in general, and the recent liberation of Afghanistan and Iraq? You can't have forgotten all of those already, surely, since you were just ranting about some of them. And it's completely retarded from a perspective of practicality and public relations. America gets shat on by almost everyone any time it lifts a finger to help people out. We have ongoing protests in South Korea against the presence of American troops who are defending that country against a nuclear-armed lunatic to the immediate north. We have Europe doing its level best to foil any plans America might make for... anything. Gratitude? Respect? Hah. And why the hell should it be America's job to deliver wealth, health and happiness to the world? All you have to do is stop being socialist shitheads and everything will work out. We know that. But instead we get Mugabe depopulating the towns to put people back on farms that he has just stolen from the previous owners. Yeah, we can send the Marines in to shoot him, but what then? Others are right to worry about American umpredictability; Americans are basically isolationists, and prefer to be left alone, but when finally roused, have a predilection to swing to radical intervention in an emotional manner that is not always very well thought out. The first half of that statement is correct. The second half is completely wrong. You want to look for radical, emotional, poorly planned intervention? Look to Europe. Pretty much any time in the past thousand years, but the last two centuries are particularly instructive. When America does emerge from isolation to respond to an external threat, the response is generally well-planned and well-executed, and it is extrememly thorough and persistent. Remember what I just said about American troops defending South Korea? The war was over 50 years ago, and they are still there, still defending the country. And the fact that other countries have their own problems does not mean they have no standing to point out America’s. There are lots of things wrong with thte US, and we NEED to pay attention to them; if we have to be told by others before we will listen, then so be it Name one. Name such a problem. And it better not be those bloody deficits again. And it had better not be "America isn't doing enough to solve the world's problems". No matter how successful the United States is in homeland security and dismantling Al Qaeda, it will not stop terrorism unless U.S. foreign policy changes. More than anything else, U.S. foreign policy is the cause of the virulent anti-Americanism that is the basis for terrorism. If we don’t change U.S. foreign policy to stem the tide of growing anti-American sentiment overseas, particularly within the Muslim world, then the pool of terrorist recruits will grow and the United States will continue to be a target. Blahdee blahdee blah. What a load of steaming shit. America's current foreign policy is a direct attempt to dismantle the root causes of terrorism. Those root causes have nothing to do with America. They have everything to do with the disfunctional regimes of the Middle East, and Saudi Arabia in particular. Though Iraq, Iran, Syria, Palestine and Libya have all given their fair share. It's a complete reversal of Clinton's foreign policy, which was basically to suck up to everyone and ignore any problems. Wonderful ideas like building nuclear reactors for North Korea, that sort of thing. That policy was still in effect on September 11, 2001. It was changed on September 12. The insane anti-Americanism we see all over the world dates back to President Clinton's watch and earlier. It's not a response to President Bush's radical plan to reform the world - that is exactly backwards. Bush's policies are a response to rising anti-Americanism and terrorism. YOU DON'T GET TO REVERSE THE FLOW OF CAUSE AND EFFECT FOR MERE RHETORICAL CONVENIENCE. IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY. But I guess you consider them to be either "remarkably ill-informed" or not truly libertarian, small-government conservatives? Not necessarily. There are many libertarians and conservatives I consider hopelessly deluded. There are even some liberals I don't consider hopelessly deluded. Takes all kinds. Well, it doesn't really. But there are all kinds anyway.

12 http://amateur.anzwers.net/ppix/zoobeast/38135/index.html dimlyfingeringwelcomed