The Next Four Years

Everyone loves a healthy debate. Post an idea or comment about a current event or issue. Let others post their ideas also. This area is for those who love to explore other points of view.

Moderator: Nicole Marie

Re: The Next Four Years

Postby analog » Fri Nov 21, 2008 1:30 pm

change might be back to the future.

Obama's foreign policy guru Zbigniew Brzezinski, about 80 years old now, seems to me an enigma.

I read his "out of control" several years back which correctly forecast a lot of the last decade's events. His sentences are choppy and structured strange, but he's sure a thinker.

He is a believer in geopolitics.

He was at Columbia same time as Obama.

Here's quotes from his "Grand Chessboard" (which i must disclose i haven't read, got these from internet)


Moreover, they [the Central Asian Republics] are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold." (p.124)

"The world's energy consumption is bound to vastly increase over the next two or three decades. Estimates by the U.S. Department of energy anticipate that world demand will rise by more than 50 percent between 1993 and 2015, with the most significant increase in consumption occurring in the Far East. The momentum of Asia's economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea." (p.125)

"Uzbekistan is, in fact, the prime candidate for regional leadership in Central Asia." (p.130)

"Once pipelines to the area have been developed, Turkmenistan's truly vast natural gas reserves augur a prosperous future for the country's people.” (p.132)

"In fact, an Islamic revival - already abetted from the outside not only by Iran but also by Saudi Arabia - is likely to become the mobilizing impulse for the increasingly pervasive new nationalisms, determined to oppose any reintegration under Russian - and hence infidel - control." (p. 133).

"For Pakistan, the primary interest is to gain Geostrategic depth through political influence in Afghanistan - and to deny to Iran the exercise of such influence in Afghanistan and Tajikistan - and to benefit eventually from any pipeline construction linking Central Asia with the Arabian Sea." (p.139)

"Turkmenistan... has been actively exploring the construction of a new pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea..." (p.145)

"It follows that America's primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it." (p148)

"China's growing economic presence in the region and its political stake in the area's independence are also congruent with America's interests." (p.149)

"America is now the only global superpower, and Eurasia is the globe's central arena. Hence, what happens to the distribution of power on the Eurasian continent will be of decisive importance to America's global primacy and to America's historical legacy." (p.194)

"Without sustained and directed American involvement, before long the forces of global disorder could come to dominate the world scene. And the possibility of such a fragmentation is inherent in the geopolitical tensions not only of today's Eurasia but of the world more generally." (p.194)

"With warning signs on the horizon across Europe and Asia, any successful American policy must focus on Eurasia as a whole and be guided by a Geostrategic design." (p.197)

"That puts a premium on maneuver and manipulation in order to prevent the emergence of a hostile coalition that could eventually seek to challenge America's primacy..." (p. 198)

"The most immediate task is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role." (p. 198)

"In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly uncongenial to the concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of a single state. Hence, America is not only the first, as well as the only, truly global superpower, but it is also likely to be the very last." (p.209)

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211)


I'm just not smart enough to figure out whether he's a benevolent genius or a madman.
But I do believe he's the fellow Saul Bellow alluded to in Ravelstein as ".. enjoys tossing about continents..."


I think i need to read Zbig's chessboard book, much as i dread the awkward prose.

my point being: world affairs, particularly in mideast, probably will not take that warm and fuzzy left turn.
Cogito ergo doleo.
analog
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1573
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 12:01 am
Location: arkansas ozarks

Re: The Next Four Years

Postby Haggis@wk » Fri Nov 21, 2008 2:31 pm

White House Job Application


The final question is the most insidious: "Provide any other information, including information about other members of your family, that could … be a possible source of embarrassment to you, your family or the President-elect." ·

Who doesn't have someone in their family who embarrass the rest of the family by simply being a member of their family?

In my family we have such a person.

It's usually me.

Tucked in at the end of the questionnaire and listed under “Miscellaneous,” a question reads: “Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage.”

No gun owners!!!

Things are looking rosy for DC muggers!!!!!

Seriously, though gun ownership is a constitutional right. Would employment discrimination on that basis be illegal?

It certainly exposes a sense of how the man who will swear to protect and defend the Constitution plans on doing for the entire Constitution.

BTW, what is "registration information"??? I have more than one gun (rifles/shotguns/pistols) and as far as I know NONE of them are "registered" anywhere in the U.S.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6039
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Re: The Next Four Years

Postby Serenity » Fri Nov 21, 2008 7:26 pm

:guns:
Last edited by Serenity on Sun Feb 15, 2009 6:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Serenity
1st Chair
 
Posts: 4666
Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 12:01 am

Re: The Next Four Years

Postby Haggis@wk » Sat Nov 22, 2008 5:42 pm

Serenity wrote:Just answer the questions! You should fear nothing if you have nothing to hide.

1. Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun?
Yes (and proud of it)!
2. If so, provide complete ownership and registration information.
Joe Assassin, 1313 Mockingbird Lane, Springfield, IL
3. Has the registration ever lapsed?
Nope
4. Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage.
Never been used in any cause of personal injury or property damage.

They didn't say you couldn't own or use a gun.


Then why even ask the question? I'm assuming you don't own a firearm since most gun owners are aware that with few exceptions most guns in the U.S. have never been "registered" much less "lapsed." Only a handful of cities, all in blue states, strangly enough, require that weapons be registered.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6039
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Re: The Next Four Years

Postby Serenity » Sat Nov 22, 2008 8:34 pm

:lol:
Last edited by Serenity on Sun Feb 15, 2009 6:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Serenity
1st Chair
 
Posts: 4666
Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 12:01 am

Re: The Next Four Years

Postby Shapley » Mon Nov 24, 2008 2:56 pm

President-elect Barack Obama on Monday unveiled his economic team and warned that "the economy is likely to get worse before it gets better."

Wasn't President Jimmy Carter famous for telling us "It's going to get worse before it gets better"?
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15154
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: The Next Four Years

Postby Haggis@wk » Mon Nov 24, 2008 5:21 pm

Shapley wrote:President-elect Barack Obama on Monday unveiled his economic team and warned that "the economy is likely to get worse before it gets better."

Wasn't President Jimmy Carter famous for telling us "It's going to get worse before it gets better"?


Actually, I think he just said it was going to get worse, period. I do recall one speech (and I've been looking for it online for years) where he predicted the USSR would last for centuries and we should essentially get used to it.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6039
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Re: The Next Four Years

Postby Shapley » Mon Nov 24, 2008 5:34 pm

Haggis@wk wrote:Actually, I think he just said it was going to get worse, period. I do recall one speech (and I've been looking for it online for years) where he predicted the USSR would last for centuries and we should essentially get used to it.


It's interesting that, if you Google quotes from President Carter, it's rare to find much that he said before he became an ex-President.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15154
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: The Next Four Years

Postby Haggis@wk » Tue Nov 25, 2008 10:50 am

Slate looks at the consequences of FOCA, however sneeringly:

What in the world were these bishops talking about, claiming that religious freedom in America was under attack? Keep up the hysterics, boys, I thought as I scanned the latest story, and this will be birth control all over again: Your lips are moving but no one can hear you. And the most ludicrous line out of them, surely, was about how, under Obama, Catholic hospitals that provide obstetric and gynecological services might soon be forced to perform abortions or close their doors. Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Chicago warned of "devastating consequences" to the health care system, insisting Obama could force the closure of all Catholic hospitals in the country. That's a third of all hospitals, providing care in many neighborhoods that are not exactly otherwise overprovided for. It couldn't happen, could it?

You wouldn't think so. Only, I am increasingly convinced that it could. If the Freedom of Choice Act passes Congress, and that's a big if, Obama has promised to sign it the second it hits his desk. (Here he is at a Planned Parenthood Action Fund event in 2007, vowing, "The first thing I'd do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing I'd do.") Though it's often referred to as a mere codification of Roe, FOCA, as currently drafted, actually goes well beyond that: According to the Senate sponsor of the bill, Barbara Boxer, in a statement on her Web site, FOCA would nullify all existing laws and regulations that limit abortion in any way, up to the time of fetal viability. Laws requiring parental notification and informed consent would be tossed out. While there is strenuous debate among legal experts on the matter, many believe the act would invalidate the freedom-of-conscience laws on the books in 46 states. These are the laws that allow Catholic hospitals and health providers that receive public funds through Medicaid and Medicare to opt out of performing abortions. Without public funds, these health centers couldn't stay open; if forced to do abortions, they would sooner close their doors. Even the prospect of selling the institutions to other providers wouldn't be an option, the bishops have said, because that would constitute "material cooperation with an intrinsic evil."

The bishops are not bluffing when they say they'd turn out the lights rather than comply. Nor is Auxiliary Bishop Robert Hermann of St. Louis exaggerating, I don't think, in vowing that "any one of us would consider it a privilege to die tomorrow—to die tomorrow—to bring about the end of abortion.''

Whatever your view on the legality and morality of abortion, there is another important question to be considered here: Could we even begin to reform our already overburdened health care system without these Catholic institutions? I don't see how.



Two things come to mind;

One, Obama thinks the Bishops are bluffing, signs the Bill and the hospitals close

Two, (and more worrying) He doesn't care what the Bishops will do, signs the Bill and the hospitals close.

In thought two I’m concerned that Obama’s ideology trumps reality.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6039
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Re: The Next Four Years

Postby Shapley » Tue Nov 25, 2008 12:00 pm

Image

You realize, of course, that no such "Office of the President-Elect" exists. It is a facade. I'm curious whether Mr. Obama will continue to be so wrapped up in appearances after he assumes Office. I realize that, as a young man, he wants to 'appear' presidential. As an old man myself, I'm more concerned that he actually be presidential. I think most of the people that matter (foreign leaders, terrorists, etc.,) can see through the facades.....
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15154
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: The Next Four Years

Postby Shapley » Wed Dec 03, 2008 3:06 pm

Clinton Confirmation Could Spark Constitutional Battle

The Constitution clearly prohibits any lawmaker moving into a position that was created, or had its' salary increased, during the lawmakers' term in office. This prohibition has been avoided in the past by 'rolling back' the salary increase to the level it was set at before the lawmakers' term in office.

What I find interesting is the apparent suggestion that the prohibition could be simply ignored.

Daniel Dreisdach, a professor of law at American University, said it would be difficult for anyone to use the provision to challenge Clinton's confirmation.

"In this respect, it's a bit analogous to this question of whether Barack Obama is a natural born citizen," he said, referring to a lawsuit, dismissed last month, seeking to obtain a copy of Obama's Hawaii birth certificate.

"Then it becomes who has legal standing to challenge his credentials as president or Hillary Clinton's assumption of the office," he said.

Dreisdach said as long as Democrats control the Senate, the Obama transition team won't worry about this provision in the Constitution.

"The Obama team is well aware of it and they have dismissed it," Dreisdach said. "I find it hard to believe that a Democratic majority will take a different view."


Mr. Dreisdach apparently believes that the Democrats may simply ignore the provision. I don't doubt that they might, but it does no bode well for the Constitution if these staunch defenders of it can't even be bothered to create an appearance of compliance.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Shapley
Patron
 
Posts: 15154
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 1:01 am
Location: Cape Girardeau, MO

Re: The Next Four Years

Postby Haggis@wk » Thu Dec 04, 2008 10:28 am

Shapley wrote: Mr. Dreisdach apparently believes that the Democrats may simply ignore the provision. I don't doubt that they might, but it does no bode well for the Constitution if these staunch defenders of it can't even be bothered to create an appearance of compliance.


It began at far back as the 50's but was most noticeable when the Clinton administration ordered the Justice Department to ignore the Supreme Court's ruling that union members who did not support the Union's political position should receive a refund of a portion of their dues.

I don't recall what the Bush administration did but I doubt nothing much.

Personally I feel there are going to be some serious attempts to make the constitution more "relevant" to today's world in the next decade or so. I don't see any evidence that those attempts will even attract much opposition as evidenced by the GOPs "hohum" attitude to amnesty and fiat bailouts.

With advances in modern medicine and life extending drugs, I can optimistically plan on living 'nother 40-60 years. Well, at least until Daschle gets into office, he's famously been quoted that doctors "waste" drugs and efforts treating people who shouldn't be treated.

Any way, It appears I will live long enough to enjoy the circuses and bread; Serenity and 'toid will have to pay the check, unfortunately.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6039
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Re: The Next Four Years

Postby Haggis@wk » Sat Dec 06, 2008 11:17 am

As if an entire blogs dedicated to "an exploration of the graphics and graffiti in support of Barack Obama" wasn't unnecessary enough, the latest entry is a painting of a nude Obama riding a unicorn done by an artist who "who normally paints photos of people with pancakes on their heads."

I'm sure the Committee for the Preservation of the White House will have a tough time deciding whether that will match the decor go better in the Lincoln Sitting Room or the Treaty Room...

Can I get that on velvet? And would it be safe to use as a background screen for work?
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6039
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Re: The Next Four Years

Postby barfle » Sat Dec 06, 2008 11:20 am

There jest ain't no countin' fer some folks' taste.
--I know what I like--
barfle
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6123
Joined: Wed Jan 03, 2001 1:01 am
Location: Springfield, Vahjinyah, USA

Re: The Next Four Years

Postby jamiebk » Sat Dec 06, 2008 2:12 pm

Haggis@wk wrote:As if an entire blogs dedicated to "an exploration of the graphics and graffiti in support of Barack Obama" wasn't unnecessary enough, the latest entry is a painting of a nude Obama riding a unicorn done by an artist who "who normally paints photos of people with pancakes on their heads."


What the damn hell is that all about?? sheesh :crazy: :crazy: How can anyone see any meaning in that? :dunce:
Jamie

"Leave it better than you found it"
jamiebk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 4283
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: SF Bay Area - Wine Country

Re: The Next Four Years

Postby analog » Sun Dec 07, 2008 10:51 am

Artist may be just trying to make cover of New Yorker.
Cogito ergo doleo.
analog
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1573
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 12:01 am
Location: arkansas ozarks

Re: The Next Four Years

Postby piqaboo » Wed Dec 10, 2008 3:42 pm

Wow.
That's way worse than this: Jerry Brown Official Portrait
Altoid - curiously strong.
piqaboo
1st Chair
 
Posts: 7135
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:01 am
Location: Paradise (So. Cal.)

Re: The Next Four Years

Postby jamiebk » Wed Dec 10, 2008 10:44 pm

piqaboo wrote:Wow.
That's way worse than this: Jerry Brown Official Portrait


A stunning likeness.... :rofl: :rofl:
Jamie

"Leave it better than you found it"
jamiebk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 4283
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 1:01 am
Location: SF Bay Area - Wine Country

Re: The Next Four Years

Postby Haggis@wk » Thu Dec 11, 2008 12:05 am

POLITICO: Blagojevich questions censored on Transition site.

President-elect Barack Obama’s Transition today launched “Open for Questions,” a Digg-style feature allowing citizens to submit questions, and to vote on one another’s questions, bringing favored inquiries to the top of the list.

It was suggested when it launched that the tool would bring uncomfortable questions to the fore, but the results so far are the opposite: Obama’s supporters appear to be using — and abusing — a tool allowing them to “flag” questions as “inappropriate” to remove all questions mentioning Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich from the main pages of Obama’s website. . . . So far, Obama’s team does not seem to have stepped in to allow uncomfortable questions to rise to the top, and instead is allowing his supporters to sanitize the site.


Hope and change!

UPDATE: Stories on Obama/Blagojevich go down the memory hole.

Well, he promised the most transparent administration in history — and this stuff is, well, pretty transparent!

Gawker:

“The same Obamatards who voted up total blowjob questions on the Digg-like question section of Change.gov have, all too predictably, almost completely obliterated any question mentioning ROD BLAGOJEVICH. In fact, if you mention ROD BLAGOJEVICH in your question, at all, even totally politely in a relevant way, your question will not only be voted down but ‘removed’ (says the site) as ‘inappropriate,’ visible only through a specific search for ROD BLAGOJEVICH.”


Hmm, group censorship of uncomfortable subjects. Nothing creepy about that on a political site.

Hope and change!

Let's project backwards.


If GWB had been as popular as BHO, would we even know that we were in a war with Iraq?

Sorry, all of you (including HRH) whined about the govt. and the PATRIOT Act putting you and your friends in Gitmo……..what happens when a popular vote by “citizens for Obama” VOTE you into Gitmo??? You down for that??

To say that this more than scares me a little is an understatement
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” Alexis De Tocqueville 1835
Haggis@wk
1st Chair
 
Posts: 6039
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 12:01 am
Location: Home office

Re: The Next Four Years

Postby analog » Thu Dec 11, 2008 12:35 am

well, just remember what happened to the Kennedys when they got crosswise with the Chicago bunch...

I visited that 'change.gov' site, here's a sample of the level of discourse: (really, a question quoted from the site)
"What are you going to do about Orkin killing all of the termites?"


a.
Cogito ergo doleo.
analog
2nd Chair
 
Posts: 1573
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2003 12:01 am
Location: arkansas ozarks

PreviousNext

Return to The Debate Team

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron