America The Lost!
At the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, Obama said some interesting things:
The Guardian News 23 April 2012
President Barack Obama has signed an executive order targeting people and entities who use technology to help authoritarian regimes in Iran and Syria suppress their people.
"Technologies should be in place to empower citizens, not to oppress them," Obama said on Monday at a speech at the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington.
Obama was introduced at the museum by Holocaust survivor Eli Wiesel. Obama told Wiesel: "You show us the way. If you cannot give up, if you can believe, then we can believe."
The president said the White House's new "atrocities prevention board" will meet for the first time Monday. He said the board's aim was to better prevent and respond to mass atrocities and war crimes.
Obama said the "seeds of hate" had too often been allowed to flourish. "Too often the world has failed to stop the massacre of innocents on a massive scale," said the president.
Obama's speech came as the US faces calls to orchestrate an international solution to the deadly crackdown on dissidents in Syria. "National sovereignty is never a license to slaughter your people," Obama said.
So I guess the Obama regime will crack down on folks who "support" governments that he claims to be cracking down on their terrorists (whom we support, of course).
Now here's a piece of an interesting article by Paul Craig Roberts, who served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration:
GlobalResearch.ca April 19, 2012
China is often a country about which Washington's moralists get on their high horse. However, China's "authoritarian" government is actually more responsive to its people than America's "elected democratic" government. Moreover, however incomplete on paper the civil liberties of China's people, the Chinese government has not declared that it can violate with impunity whatever rights Chinese citizens have. And it is not China that is running torture prisons all over the globe.
For some time I have had in mind a realistic comparison of the two countries instead of the standard propagandistic comparison, but Ron Unz has beat me to the task (see, China's Rise, America's Fall and Chinese Melamine and American Vioxx: A Comparison ). Unz provides a chance for an education. Don't miss it.
Unz has done an excellent job. Moreover, he cleverly understates the case for China and overstates the case for America so as not to unduly arouse the flag-wavers. Nevertheless, the conclusion is clear: The Chinese are less threatened by their "extractive elites" than Americans are by their counterparts. Moreover, it is America's, not China's, extractive elites who are bombing, occupying, and droning other countries. As the bumper sticker says, "Be nice to America or we will bring democracy to your country."
As for economic management, there is no comparison. Unz reports that during the past three decades, China has achieved the most rapid rate of economic development in human history. Moreover, most of the new income has flowed into the pockets of Chinese workers, not to the one percent. While American real median incomes have been stagnant for decades, incomes for Chinese workers have doubled every decade for three decades. A recent World Bank report attributes more than 100 percent of the drop in global poverty rates to China's rise.
In the last decade China's industrial output quadrupled. China now produces more automobiles than America and Japan combined and accounted for 85 percent of the increase in the world's production of cars in the past decade.
In 1978 the American economy was 15 times larger than China's. In the next few years China's GDP is expected to exceed that of the US.
This is heady stuff providing astonishing details of how poorly Americans are served by their elites. America has failed, because political elites represent only the powerful special interests that write the country's laws in exchange for funding the political campaigns of "lawmakers." To divert attention from their failures, American elites point fingers at external scapegoats. China, for example, is accused of manipulating its currency. As Unz says, the scapegoating is political theater designed for the ignorant and gullible.
At the end of the Roberts article is a quote from The Matrix:
"The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system, and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it."
I am going to risk the righteous wrath of the rest of you by suggesting that Obama (who I see as sort of passively sociopathic) is simply not as awful as Mitt Romney. He takes his perverse orders from the ruling leets, but Romney ties his dog to the roof of his car, and actively makes the lives of his subjects miserable. When he was governor of my commonwealth of Massachusetts, he closed most of the motor vehicle offices, making me drive 50 miles to renew my license. He made everyone suffer! Thank God we got rid of him!
Obama is only symbolic of The Problem. Oppressive voting technology is part of the true social disease we should be demanding hand counted paper ballots, counted locally on the spot with the results announced before being sent to larger tabulations. We also need the Padded Score Voting method (not what BradBlog's Brad Friedman calls the "IRV virus" method that has been shown to have the same degree of spoiler effect as our current plurality method). With Padded Score Voting, we could give as many candidates as we wish either no vote at all, 10 votes, 11 votes, or 12 votes. Then the votes are simply added up, and the spoiler effect is really tiny. Only then will we get out of the two party trap we are in.
contribute to this article
contribute to this article
add comment to discussion