Re: US strike options on TSP

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 23 Oct 2012 20:03

^^^
Acharya ji,

yes, I have similar thoughts. the whole thing was too opaque if the intention was to "cover up" or plant "evidence" of WMD's. they went to such great lengths to record their lies for history and posterity that it is laughable to simplistically explain it away as the work of "liars".

the real story is one of deception by supposedly "great friends" and "greatest allies". it remains to be seen if it was a singular power center or a plurality of them which collaborated to suck the US into this muddle. in many ways, the US proves time and again that is a very immature "great power". I hate to subscribe to George Friedman's patronizing BS, but his analysis that US is prone to "emotional fits" is perhaps on the spot.

too much relying on "greatest ally" might be the root cause. the entire establishment thinking is rooted in Brit-modeled institutions, and invented by Brits masquerading as "friends". CFR, Tripartite Commission, etc all were essentially Brit-sourced creations. CFR, especially glaringly so. a major blunder. if the US every goes through a rethink of their foundations, getting rid of that institution should be a major priority for them. but then again, I'm assuming that gyan will shine on them at some point.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Oct 2012 02:02

One thing is the Democrats are Don Quixotes tilting at windmills for populist reasons. If they want to raise revenues they can scrap some the loopholes that allows the extreme rich to be in the 11% bracket like Mitt Romney. Instead they always want to raise the taxes by 1~ 2% for top income earners.
You can get the same by getting rid of frivoulous deductions.

California has Prop 30 on the same premise of raising taxes on top income earners to raise revenues and a sop for funding education. Its doing marginally well.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 27 Oct 2012 02:04

John Sunnunu calls Powell's endorsement racially driven

Interesting opinion coming from an Arab origin politician. Does he see the "habshis" in Amercian blacks?

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 30 Oct 2012 06:34

Message sent out after a thank-you lunch of a hunting club closely connected with NRA and other groups. Gun sales have been going through the roof in some states in recent months, and even applications for licences to bear a concealed weapon.

Interesting slant on things
AMERICA'S HUNTERS --- Pretty Amazing!

The world's largest army... America 's hunters! I had never thought about this...

A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion:

There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin ..
Allow me to restate that number: 600,000

Over the last several months, Wisconsin's hunters became the eighth largest army in the world.

More men under arms than in Iran.

More than France and Germany combined.

These men deployed to the woods of a single American state, Wisconsin, to hunt with firearms, and no one was killed.

That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan's 700,000 hunters, all of whom have now returned home safely.
Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it literally establishes the fact that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world.
And then add in the total number of hunters in the other 46 states. It's millions more.

The point?

America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of home-grown firepower.

Hunting... it's not just a way to fill the freezer. It's a matter of national security.

***************************************
That's why all enemies, foreign and domestic, want to see us disarmed.

Food for thought, when next we consider gun control.

Overall it's true, so if we disregard some assumptions that hunters don't possess the same skills as soldiers, the question would still remain...
What army of 2 million would want to face 30, 40, 50 million armed citizens???

For the sake of our freedom, don't ever allow gun control or confiscation of guns.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 30 Oct 2012 22:38

Carl ji,
hush hush. how dare you post such a thing? clearly, the 'nutjobs' have gotten to you already!!! you should inoculate yourself quickly, or else!
of all the things that can be considered "nutty" about the 'right-wingers' in America, I consider their stance on guns to be the least of them. I wish Indians wouldn't reflexively and in robotic fashion be opposed to guns just b/c they happen to be supported by 'right wingers', especially considering India's own history...

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 30 Oct 2012 22:51

Discovery Channel has two shows about small engineering outfits that remake guns and seem to have steady stream of customers.

Agnimitra · Post by **Agnimitra** » 30 Oct 2012 23:34

devesh ji, I also don't understand this paranoid stereotype about "right-wingers" and racist rednecks that Indians seem to have. Its silly and counterproductive.

If redneck types tend to be racist, its just because they feel threatened somehow, and also because of ignorance. Once you crash through the social barriers and they warm up to you, they will treat you like family, their kids will look up to you. That's been my personal experience here. Now some of them are part of militias, but they're even more keen to learn and build relationships. One of the first things that a friend of mine had done was to send the word out to all : "Indians ain't Ayrabs". Believe it or not the folks in these parts couldn't tell the difference - and they were generally feeling alarmed - "these people blow up our twin towers, kill our soldiers, hate our way of life, and then come here and steal all our jobs and have them outsourced to their damn country." So it was a huge relief for some of his buddies to know that we weren't Ayrabs.

This person and his family are like second family to me now. Note that this guy often wore a collar pin with a half American-German flag on it! He has Nazi memorabilia at home because his dad was at Normandy and went into Germany. All of this subculture looks scary on the outside, but once you develop friendships, they come around, because they believe in the US constitution. In fact, the same guy then introduced me to his group and guns and taught me how to use them, with a sense of patriotism and knowing one's rights and responsibilities, and always being detached and ready. He is a successful businessman too. So this is an interesting piece of the pie - a responsible but militant section.

Of course there are many who aren't responsible, who are alcoholics or potheads (this group I know isn't like that). But even the potheads look up to the more responsible rednecks, and accept as friends those whom the former accept. In their "420 sessions" (named after 4:20 pm when they gather around in the garage and smoke weed and drink beer - strange coincidence with our desi "chaar-sau-bees" idiom!) when they're high, any nutjob conspiracy theory and criminal enterprise, but also any sensible theory can find its way into their collective mind. So this is another slice of the pie - the less responsible not-very-successful types. We can even directly mix with them - not necessarily at 420 sessions, but at other events, or in helping out. Say a hurricane goes through. They're usually helping one another out, installing generators at grandma's place, etc. We can hang out, get involved. They feel respected and they respect those who can show they work with their hands, "like a man."

Then there are other right-wingers who are the elites, they aren't the gun-toting types, but they certainly are the "clash of civilizations" "West is best" type. They like to maintain close atavistic ties with the British Isles. They can spend hours just showing you the genealogy they painstakingly put together, going back 1000 years. The few I've met are even atheists or agnostics with a strong distaste for the organized church - yet they believe organized missionary Christianity is an important weapon of Western civilization and its a good idea to fight the BS in other civilizations with Christianity. I've found that as long as one connects on an "enlightenment values" level with them, they can easily become very strong pro-India people. Of course they take all the credit and would consider India as an example of the white man's burden carried to a successful conclusion.

It doesn't really matter to me what exactly each level believes, as long as we build communication bridges, and divert aggressive intent. It works the same way with different levels in the Ummah too. All that matters is to lay good communication lines and create some Narad-giri to make sure that Japeth and Shem are going at it.

Thus, US society is networked at many levels. Indians must engage with all sections of American society, break the ice, get to know them. It is a huge opportunity now because of a perceived common threat in Islamism. Now certain things about "right-wingers" can't be changed easily, and we have to work with those things patiently. If they think "the bible says so" on such-n-such issue, then we nod approvingly - but observe that that does not stop them from developing a keen interest in Indic ideas also.

OARN, within India also the responsible khalsa culture has to spread in society at large, not just in the services which are totally controlled by divisive politicians who lack a civilizational vision.

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 31 Oct 2012 00:02

^^^^^

great post

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 31 Oct 2012 00:24

Carl, I had a similar experience in Deep South thirty years ago with a Klan leader.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 06 Nov 2012 07:03

Murder of an Idealist

Gus · Post by **Gus** » 06 Nov 2012 07:37

"That's why all enemies, foreign and domestic, want to see us disarmed.

Food for thought, when next we consider gun control."

patent nonsense. Gun control is not disarming.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 06 Nov 2012 07:49

actually, gun control is disarming. that in itself is not an argument against gun control, of course. but gun control is disarming. the question is to what extent should the disarming be taken up?

ManjaM · Post by **ManjaM** » 07 Nov 2012 17:59

http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-engl ... 6e-02.html

Iroquois Constitution Influenced That of U.S., Historians Say

Benjamin Franklin, one of the original architects of the United States government, introduced as a model for the country's framework document the constitution of the Iroquois Nation, according to a Smithsonian Institution specialist of American Indian history.

The Iroquois, a North American Indian confederacy of several tribes, allied with some of the first European settlers of what later became the United States.

The Iroquois' detailed constitution -- called the Great Law of Peace -- guaranteed freedom of religion and expression and other rights later embraced in the U.S. Constitution, said Jaime Hill, co-editor of "American Indian," a new Smithsonian magazine about the past, present and future of indigenous peoples from throughout the Western Hemisphere.

Read more: http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-engl ... z2BXYkZBLn

Rony · Post by **Rony** » 08 Nov 2012 00:42

Toxic Evangelism: Damaging Public Schools One Student at a Time

Author and journalist Katherine Stewart chronicles the toxic spread of Christianity by fundamentalist evangelical organizations in her 2012 book, The Good News Club, The Christian Right’s Stealth Assault on America’s Children. In it she describes the duplicitous tactics and divisive nature of these religious legal and educational groups. Intent on controlling – and even destroying – the public school system, these organizations peddle a destructive agenda with a goal of controlling American education, politics and culture. Before you sound the cry of “Alarmist!” listen to this podcast or read her book: Like a good student, Stewart has done her homework, and like a good journalist, she has done her footwork.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 10 Nov 2012 02:31

Poor Gen.Petraeus! The much touted "intellectual
general and head of the CIA resigns after admitting to an extra-marital afffair. In an age of "masture relationships " worldwide and promiscuous reputations of US presidents like JFK and Bill-the-kid-Clinton,it seems incongrous that Gen. Pet should resign over such a seemingly trivial matter,especially to any Frenchman....ask DSK! Has the Gen. been the victim of a palace coup? The Benghazi bungling,and criticism of the CIA,where he is being made the "fall guy" appears to be a more pertinent reason for the palace coup. The last word is not yet out on this one.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ffair.html

David Petraeus resigns from CIA after admitting affair
General David Petraeus, the Director of the CIA, has dramatically resigned his post after admitting to having an extramarital affair.

By Raf Sanchez, Jon Swaine, James Orr in Washington

8:50PM GMT 09 Nov 2012

The former Army commander, who led US forces in Afghanistan and Iraq before taking charge of America's top intelligence agency, said he shown "extremely poor judgement" in being unfaithful to his wife of 37 years.

Gen Petraeus submitted his resignation to President Barack Obama on Thursday afternoon, just one day after the commander-in-chief returned to Washington following his election victory, and it was accepted on Friday.

"After being married for over 37 years, I showed extremely poor judgment by engaging in an extramarital affair. Such behavior is unacceptable, both as a husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours," he said in a statement.

Gen Petraeus is married to Holly Petraeus, a senior official in Mr Obama’s Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, where she leads an agency that works to protect members of the military and their families from abusive money-lenders.

Mr Obama praised the outgoing CIA director "as one of the outstanding General officers of his generation" and said "my thoughts and prayers are with Dave and Holly Petraeus".

The President announced that Michael Morrell, Gen Petraeus's deputy, would step in as acting director of the agency and that he was "completely confident" that the CIA's work would continue uninterrupted.

The abrupt resignation, thought to have been prompted by an imminent newspaper story, brings a shocking end to the career of a man often touted as a future presidential contender.

The 60-year-old, who is known for his iron discipline and can still run two miles in under ten minutes, was credited with leading a turnaround in the US war effort in Iraq under President George W Bush, when he spearheaded the 2007 “surge” against the insurgency.

Mr Obama then tapped him to replace General Stanley McChrystal as the leader of international forces in Afghanistan after Gen McChrystal was forced to resign following the publication of a Rolling Stone article in which his aides openly mocked Vice President Joe Biden and other senior administration officials.

Gen Petraeus was made CIA director by Mr Obama in September 2011, in what was viewed as a savvy move by the President to sideline a potential candidate for the Republican presidential nomination.

Washington had long buzzed with rumours of departure, with many speculating that he wanted to leave to become president of Princeton University, but his sudden departure jolted the capital just as it was returning to a post-election footing.

Although seen as a figure above partisan politics, Gen Petraeus's agency came under criticism from Republicans over its role in the September 11 attack on the US consulate in Benghazi.

Two former US Navy SEALs who were killed in the attack were initially reported to have been subcontractors of the State Department but it later emerged that they were armed employees of the CIA.

In 1991, Gen Petraeus was in the shot in the chest with an assault rifle during a live-fire training exercise. Nine years later, he shattered his pelvis when he made a hard landing after his parachute collapsed at low altitude.

Kati · Post by **Kati** » 10 Nov 2012 09:08

The lady (Paula Broadwell) is a Mil Intel officer......

http://www2.chs.bismarck.k12.nd.us/Hall ... adwell.htm

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 13 Nov 2012 19:54

The Awakening: Why white nationalists are thrilled with Obama's victory

Rony · Post by **Rony** » 19 Nov 2012 08:08

X-posted from West Asia thread

Walter russell mead explains why Americans support Israel and its disproportionate response to Hamas/Palestinian attacks even though this American blind support is unpopular in the rest of the world.

America, Israel, Gaza, the World

As Israeli airstrikes and naval shells bombarded Gaza this weekend, the world asked the question that perennially frustrates, confuses and enrages so many people across the planet: Why aren’t the Americans hating on Israel more?
As in Operation Cast Lead, the last big conflict between Israel and Hamas, and as during the operation against Hezbollah in Lebanon, much of the world screams in outrage while America yawns. If anything, many of Israel’s military operations are more popular and less controversial in the United States than they are in Israel itself. This time around, President Barack Obama and his administration have issued one statement after another in support of Israel’s right to self defense, and both houses of Congress have passed resolutions in support of Jerusalem’s response.
Commentators around the world grasp at straws in seeking to explain what’s going on. Islamophobia and racism, say some. Americans just don’t care about Arab deaths and they are so blinded by their fear of Islam that they can’t see the simple realities of the conflict on the ground. Others allege that a sinister Jewish lobby controls the media and the political system through vast power of Jewish money; the poor ignorant Americans are the helpless pawns of clever Jews. Still others suggest that it is fanatical fundamentalists with their carry on flight bags packed for the Rapture who are behind American blindness to Israel’s crimes.
America is a big country with a lot of things going on, but the real force driving American support for Israeli actions in Gaza isn’t Islamophobia, Jewish conspiracies or foam-flecked religious nuts. It’s something much simpler: many though not all Americans look at war through a distinctive cultural lens. Readers of Special Providence know that I’ve written about four schools of American thinking about world affairs; from the perspective of the most widespread of them, the Jacksonians, what Israel is doing in Gaza makes perfect sense. Not only are many Jacksonians completely untroubled by Israel’s response to the rocket attacks in Gaza, many genuinely don’t understand why the rest of the world is so steamed about Israel—and so angry with the United States.
Americans as a people have never much believed in fighting by “the rules.” The Minutemen who fought the British regulars at Lexington and Concord in 1776 thought that there was nothing stupider in the world than to stand in even ranks and brightly colored uniforms waiting to shoot and be shot like gentlemen. They hid behind stone walls and trees, wearing clothes that blended in with their surroundings, and took potshots at the British wherever they could. George Washington saved the Revolution by a surprise attack on British forces the night before Christmas; far from being ashamed of an attack no European general of the day would have countenanced, Americans turned a painting of the attack (“Washington Crossing the Delaware”) into a patriotic icon. In America, war is not a sport.
Theoreticians of “just war” say that in order for war to be justifiable, two tests must be met. You have to have a legitimate cause for war (self defense, for example, rather than grabbing land from a weaker neighbor) and you must fight the war in the right way. You must fight fair (that is, fight a just war), and you must fight nice.
One of the criteria for jus in bello (fighting nice as opposed to jus ad bellum which is about whether it is just ) is proportionality. If the other guy comes at you with a stick, you can’t pull a knife. If he’s got a knife, you can’t pull a gun. If he burned your barn, you can’t nuke his capital. Your use of force must be proportionate to the cause and to the danger.
Israel’s fiercer critics attack it for fighting unjust wars against the Palestinians. For some, Zionism itself is an illegitimate idea and a state that has no right to exist has no right to defend itself. Anything it does to defend itself is a crime. This is how Hamas and many others think and it is why people in this camp are able to work themselves up into such a froth of indignation and rage when Israel responds to their fire.
For others, Israel may have a right to exist, but its occupation of the West Bank and other crimes against the Palestinians have deprived it of a just grounds for war when Palestinians attack it. People in this camp attack any use of force by Israel as lacking jus ad bellum, basically because they think Israel has forfeited its jus by its occupation and settlement policy. This is where a lot of the non-Muslim European left comes out and it is why they are so quick to attack Israel for a war which, after all, was triggered by rockets from Gaza landing in Israel.
But more moderate critics of Israel (including many Israelis) focus on jus in bello, and in particular they look at the question of proportionality. When the Palestinians flick a handful of fairly crude rockets at random across Israel, these critics say, Israel has a right to a kind of pinprick response: tit for tat. But it isn’t entitled to bring the full power of its industrial grade air force and its mighty ground forces into an operation designed to crush Hamas at the cost of hundreds of civilian casualties. You can’t fight slingshots with tanks.
For many people around the world, this seems patently obvious: Israel has a right to respond to attacks from Hamas but it doesn’t have an unlimited right to respond to limited attacks with unlimited force. Israeli blindness to this obvious moral principle strikes many observers as evidence of hardheartedness and national moral decline, and colors their perceptions of many other Israeli policies.
The whole jus in bello argument sails right over the heads of most Americans. The proportionality concept never went over that big here. Many Americans are instinctive Clausewitzians; Clausewitz argued that efforts to make war less cruel end up making it worse, and a lot of Americans agree.
From this perspective, the kind of tit-for-tat limited warfare that the doctrine of proportionality would require is a recipe for unending war: for decades of random air strikes, bombs and other raids. An endless war of limited intensity is worse, many Americans instinctively feel, than a time-limited war of unlimited ferocity. A crushing blow that brings an end to the war—like General Sherman’s march of destruction through the Confederacy in 1864-65—is ultimately kinder even to the vanquished than an endless state of desultory war.
The European just war tradition springs in part from the reality that historically in Europe war was an affair of kings and rulers that hurt the little people without doing anything for them. Peasants really didn’t care whether the Duke of Burgundy or the Count of Anjou was recognized as the rightful overlord of their village, and moralists and theologians worked to limit the violence that the dukes and the counts and their henchmen wreaked on the poor peasants caught up in a quarrel that wasn’t theirs.
With no feudal past in this country, Americans have tended to see wars as wars of peoples rather than wars of elites and in a war of peoples the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate targets tends to collapse. The German civilian (male or female) making weapons for Hitler’s Wehrmacht was as much a part of the enemy’s warmaking potential as the soldier at the front. Furthermore, in a war of peoples in which civilians are implicated in the conflict, the health and morale of the civilian population is a legitimate target of war. This justified the blockades against the Confederacy and against Germany and German occupied Europe during the world wars, and it also justified the mass terror bombing raids of World War Two in which the destruction of enemy morale was one of the stated aims.
This is the same logic by which someone like Osama bin Laden could justify his attacks on civilians at the World Trade Center, and it is the fundamental logic behind Hamas’ indiscriminate attacks on Israeli civilian targets. Americans don’t like it when their enemies use this kind of logic, but it is a type of warfare they understand and they have fought and won enough of these wars in the past to be ready if necessary to do it again.
From this perspective, in which war is an elemental struggle between peoples rather than a kind of knightly duel between courtly elites, the concept of proportionality seems much less compelling. Certainly if some kind of terrorist organization were to set up missile factories across the frontier in Canada and Mexico and start attacking targets in the United States, the American people would demand that their President use all necessary force without stint or limit until the resistance had been completely, utterly and pitilessly crushed. Those Americans who share this view of war might feel sorrow at the loss of innocent life, of the children and non-combatants killed when overwhelming American power was used to take the terrorists out, but they would feel no moral guilt. The guilt would be on the shoulders of those who started the whole thing by launching the missiles.
Thus when television cameras show the bodies of children killed in an Israeli air raid, Jacksonian Americans are sorry about the loss of life, but it inspires them to hate and loathe Hamas more, rather than to be mad at Israel. They blame the irresponsible dolts who started the war for all the consequences of the war and they admire Israel’s strength and its resolve for dealing with the appalling blood lust of the unhinged loons who start a war they can’t win, and then cower behind the corpses of the children their foolishness has killed. The whole situation strengthens the widespread American belief that Palestinian hate rather than Israeli intransigence is the fundamental reason for the Middle East impasse, and the television pictures that drive much of the world away from Israel often have the effect of strengthening the bonds between Americans and the Jewish state.
This automatic Jacksonian response to the Middle East situation overlooks some important complexities in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and in the past America’s Jacksonian instincts have gotten us into trouble. But anyone trying to analyze the politics of the Middle East struggle as they unfold in American debates needs to be aware of the power of these ideas about war in American life.
In any case, when Israel brings the big guns and fast planes against Gaza’s popguns and low tech missiles, a great many Americans see nothing but common sense at work. These Americans aren’t mad about ‘disproportionate’ Israeli violence in Gaza because they don’t really accept the concept of proportionality in war. They think that if you have jus ad bellum, and rocket strikes from Gaza are definitely that, you get something close to a blank check when it comes to jus in bello.
If anything, rather than weakening American sympathy for Israel, Israel’s response in Gaza (and the global criticism that surrounds it) is likely to strengthen the bonds of respect and esteem that many Americans feel for Israelis. Far from seeing Israel’s use of overwhelming force against limited provocation as harsh or immoral, many Americans see it as courageous and wise. It strengthens the sense that in a wacky world where a lot of foreigners are hard to understand, the Israelis are honest, competent and reliable friends — good people to have on your side in a tight spot.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 21 Nov 2012 04:10

http://www.joelkotkin.com/content/00649 ... econd-term

A Racially Polarized Election Augurs Ill for Barack Obama’s Second Term

President Obama, the man many saw as curing the country’s “scar of race,” won a second term in the most racially polarized election in decades. Overall, the Romney campaign relied almost entirely on white voters, particularly in the South and among the working class. Exit polls showed that almost 60 percent of whites voted for Romney. The former Massachusetts governor even won the majority of whites in California and New York.

In previous elections, including 2008, such a performance would have been enough to assure a GOP victory. But America’s demographics are shifting, with racial minorities constituting upwards of one quarter or more of the vote, and growing.

Essentially, Obama’s margin of victory was made up not only by a strong base of African-Americans but also Latinos, who appear to have voted for him more than two to one, a slight improvement from his 2008 performance. And for the first time, Latinos accounted for one in ten voters, up from 8 percent four years ago.

But—despite his poetic, inclusive victory speech—this alliance of people of color could create a potential tragedy for our democracy. This is not because of the final result, but because it suggests that, unless there is some massive change in GOP politics, we may see a re-hardening of politics along racial lines.

The election showed the efficacy of the new racial politics. Appeals to Latinos paid off massively, even though it may have cost the president some white votes. If Latinos remain solidly Democratic, the new racial outcasts will increasingly be middle- and working-class whites.

The Democrats will continue to press race, as some Republicans did in the past (remember Willie Horton?), because it works. The president’s race-conscious campaigning this year was assisted in part because the media did not stress his ties to abrasive reverends like Al Sharpton and Joseph Lowery. He also did well with his Latino gambit since, once again, the media, including many conservatives, were sympathetic to amnesty.

So where does this go from here? Political revolutions—particularly successful ones—tend to shift rapidly into excess. With the recalcitrant white vote seemingly neutralized, the Obama team can now ever more openly embrace a multicultural politics of the kind Bill Clinton was careful to avoid. One sure voice pushing for race-centered politics will come from Attorney General Eric Holder, who largely embraces the idea that affirmative-action policies should be continued until Latinos and African-Americans achieve social and economic parity with whites.

Affirmative action and other race-sensitive policies—promoted even by ersatz minorities like new senator Elizabeth Warren—could characterize our politics for the next decade or more. These divisions are already evident among millennials, where whites, particularly evangelicals, have become increasingly alienated from the president. White millennials, who backed Obama in 2008, went with Romney this year 52-44, according to an exit poll—a particularly troubling shift. The gap between white and minority millennials this year appears to be as high as 30 points—a bad augur.

And racial divisions may become worse if the economy continues to sputter. President Obama may be beloved among Latinos and African-Americans, but his economic policies have not been friendly to them. This is particularly true, ironically, for blacks, who, as Walter Russell Mead among others have pointed out, have fared worst of all in the recession. This situation could be exacerbated by growing financial stress in cities and states, whose governments have traditionally been major employers of black white-collar workers.

Unless growth comes back, this means minorities, particularly African-Americans, could become ever more strident in their demands. Their appeal to an administration—particularly now that it faces no new elections—that at times seems sympathetic to a racialized agenda could be stronger than could be imagined just a few years ago. This could end badly. In the long run, history has shown, groups that look too much to government (the Irish, for example) do not fare as well as those, such as yesterday’s Jews and today’s Asians, who look more to education and entrepreneurship.

Alienation among whites is also likely to increase. Like its minority counterpart, the white working class—including millennials—has also suffered in the recession, and suffers double-digit unemployment. Although this entire generation can be considered screwed, young whites—and young white males—are particularly so. Not only have many been left behind by the economy, but they have been deemed less worthy of assistance by the emerging new ruling class.

In many ways, this has ominous implications. To date America’s white working and middle classes have not drifted toward the kind of nativist movements that have risen in France, Germany, and, most recently, Greece. Yet a group that feels ignored by the establishment, and feels increasingly like second-class citizens in their own country, can drift in that direction.

The great tragedy here: the major challenges facing America are not primarily racial. They include stimulating economic growth for the broadest portion of our population. We need better jobs, roads, and bridges and less symbolism or redress for past sins. If politicians think the way to success is to open the scar of race, we will create the kind of politics that will undermine hope for our future success.

I hope people are listening. Joel Kotkin is not some race-baiting redneck. if he is saying things like the above, it deserves some attention.

it also means GOP better get their act together. if they don't, they will basically pave the way for an increasingly undefeatable coalition of minorities which is sure to elect green-environmental fascists and assorted multi-cultural/LGBT fanatics, which is the surest path to post-WWI Germany.

Fidel Guevara · Post by **Fidel Guevara** » 21 Nov 2012 06:37

Carl wrote:devesh ji, I also don't understand this paranoid stereotype about "right-wingers" and racist rednecks that Indians seem to have. Its silly and counterproductive.

If redneck types tend to be racist, its just because they feel threatened somehow, and also because of ignorance. Once you crash through the social barriers and they warm up to you, they will treat you like family, their kids will look up to you. That's been my personal experience here. Now some of them are part of militias, but they're even more keen to learn and build relationships.

Awesome post; I fully agree that rednecks are just jingos like us, who are reacting to similar demographic issues as many BRFites.

I was in one of the Red states last week, consulting with an industrial client. We took the client senior team out for dinner, and I started chatting with one of their Engineering Directors. This guy was soft-spoken, very polite, and has even been to India twice (doesn't like Indian food though...too spicy!). He said that he relocated from New York state, and he enjoys the fact that most people around him are conservative (not once did he use the term "Republican"). His biggest problem with the "Liberal" (i.e. Democratic Party) POV is the pro-abortion movement.

According to him, free access to abortion and social acceptance of casual abortion has fundamentally changed the face of American society. 30 million white babies were legally killed while they were fetuses, in the last 2-3 decades, equal to any death toll from Mao or Stalin or Hitler. Right now, whites make up 72% of the 311 million US population...without free and socially-acceptable abortion, whites would potentially be 74-75% of the population...likely even more, because there would be less immigration required if the population growth was higher.

Though he did not say it, he is a conservative because liberalism is reducing the dominance of his race in his own homeland...I actually feel that he has a point here. Anyway, he invited me to visit him the next time I'm in town, and promised an immersion in the "real" American culture. Most of my American contacts have been educated liberals, and nobody has really opened their hearts to me, nor invited me into their home.

At a fundamental/conceptual level, rednecks are ideologically very similar, while being culturally very different, from BRF jingos.

VikramS · Post by **VikramS** » 21 Nov 2012 11:43

For Americans of Indian and in general Asian origin, the racial divide does not auger well.

When it comes to jobs and associated positions of power, especially in the professional world, the Black or Hispanic presence is minuscule. Apart from Whites, it is the Asians who have a big presence in this group. If racial divisions become more ingrained, it is the Asians who will be hurt the most. They are already discriminated against when it comes to admission to top level universities. That will likely spread to the professional world too. The glass ceiling will not only fill up the cracks, it will also come down, and also create barriers to entry.

In some ways the US is becoming like India. Luckily for the US, the majority is very cognizant of their loss of influence and is a lot more unified in putting an end to it. This election came as a rude shock to them; it is rare to see an establishment candidate get so soundly defeated especially given the economic context. I have heard folks running to gun shops and in general being very upset and scared about the results.

I do hope that the GOP makes an effort to reach out to the minorities and builds a more inclusive message. The Asian vote went for Obama even more than it did among Hispanics, and that should be something of concern to the GOP. I feel that a Libertarian view which is fiscally conservatives, while socially liberal is what is needed.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 25 Nov 2012 05:19

America, Israel, Gaza, the World

Recommended.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 25 Nov 2012 14:10

nativist movements that have risen in France, Germany, and, most recently, Greece.

Interesting delicacy on the part of Kotkin. One hopes the language will remain equally sensitive once the faith-systems/skin colour start varying ...

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 25 Nov 2012 14:25

Carl,

Just read your post of Oct. 30 above. Fantastic. Thanks.

devesh · Post by **devesh** » 25 Nov 2012 21:07

JE Menon wrote:nativist movements that have risen in France, Germany, and, most recently, Greece.

Interesting delicacy on the part of Kotkin. One hopes the language will remain equally sensitive once the faith-systems/skin colour start varying ...

sir, he is a Jew himself, so I don't think it's race-baiting. he is warning against "multi cultural" overreach. warning Obama to stay away from too much pandering and stick to the usual basics. with the Southwest turning Hispanic at an accelerated pace, America's future is anyone's guess. I wouldn't discount a White nativist resurgence sometime in the 21st century, and it might end up getting serious mainstream traction if the Southwestern Hispanics don't assimilate.

any white nativist backlash will be a function of the Hispanics' assimilation in the Southwest. the greater their assimilation into mainstream English-speaking "Americanism", the lesser the chances of White nativism. the lesser their assimilation, the greater the chances of White nativism. in fact, the North East might lead any such movement from the forefront, if the Southwest shows signs of centrifugal tendencies.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 25 Nov 2012 22:26

Boss, I am aware that Kotkin is a Jew and I don't think that has anything to do with it. I was not saying he was race-baiting at all...

The reason I pointed out to the word "nativist" is that it is the first time I'm seeing it used in this way... Consider for example that he is talking essentially about neo-Nazi or extreme right wing movements. Do you think if he was referring to the nationalist group in India he would refer to them as "nativist"? I doubt it. But it is an interesting usage, which we must keep in our pockets.

Lilo · Post by **Lilo** » 02 Dec 2012 03:01

Harvard To Approve BDSM Sex Club Called Harvard College Munch

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 02 Dec 2012 20:35

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/2012-e ... d=17848248

It was 10 years ago that veteran NASA scientist David Morrison began to answer a question a day from the public about the origin of life on Earth, evolution and the mysteries of the cosmos.

Lately, though, Morrison, senior scientist at the NASA Astrobiology Institute, has been inundated with questions about both Doomsday 2012 and the Nibiru cataclysm, a supposed apocalyptic event in which Earth will collide with a massive rogue planet.

Some of these questions, he says, are increasingly alarming, and include threats of murder and suicide.

"I think it was about 4 years ago, early in 2008, I started getting 5 questions a day about 2012, and now it has increased," Morrison told ABCNews.com. "The most common question is, 'Will the world end on December 21, 2012?' I find that strange because the idea of the world ending is absurd. Do they really think, 'The world is ending, but if I build a bomb shelter in my back yard, I'll survive'?"

The frequency of the queries has even led Morrison to add a disclaimer to the NASA "Ask an Astrobiologist" page, noting that he has now answered 400 questions about Nibiru and 2012, and to please read these before submitting a new query.

"The most specific questions are about this rogue planet Nibiru," he said. "I think, if it were four years ago, you could say, 'maybe.' If it were real at this point, it would be the brightest thing in the sky."

Stocktrek Images/Getty Images
Believers in the Nibiru Cataclysm think the... View Full Size
Stocktrek Images/Getty ImagesBelievers in the Nibiru Cataclysm think the Earth will be destroyed by a rogue planet. 'Doomsday Preppers' Turn Profits Watch Video
Countdown to 2012: Apocalypse Soon? Watch Video
Doomsday Prophet or Profiteer? Watch Video
But over the past few years, some of the questions he's receiving are increasingly alarming, and include a number of children who, faced with a perceived threat of impending doom, say they are planning their own deaths.

"I get 1-2 a month from a person who self-identifies as 11-12 years old, who is contemplating suicide," he said. "It happens often enough to disturb me … to hear that children are considering ending their lives."

Morrison said that one letter was from a middle school teacher in Stockton, Calif., who said that the parents of a student said they were planning to kill their kids and themselves. Another was from an elderly person, who said that her best friend was a little dog. The writer asked when the dog should be put to sleep, so it doesn't suffer when the world ends.

Though he finds these messages alarming, Morrison said that he only has limited information on the people writing in. He said he does whatever he can to soothe their fears, but at the end of the day, people's beliefs and fears are out of his hands.

"I can tell them there is absolutely nothing to be worried about. But I am in no position to provide psychiatric advice," he said.

From theories about pole shifts to the black hole at middle of the Milky Way to galactic planet alignment, Morrison says he has heard a number of doomsday theories -- the most popular of which relate to the Mayan calendar – a modern hoax. The Mayan calendar, which is made of cycles of day counts, does not end this year, he says. Rather, one cycle ends and the next cycle begins.

"It's purely a fantasy," he said. "It amazes me you can get so much … I sense that some of these people are into the conspiracy issues."

Morrison says that he will give up from answering the public's questions next year. But in the meantime he is carrying on, weathering the public's theories and phobias. Although some of the queries border on the nasty -- suggesting government conspiracy and NASA cover-ups, he said he doesn't let it get to him.

"I'll ask for apology on Dec 22," he said, "when none of this happens."

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 02 Dec 2012 22:13

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-575 ... e-economy/

Looking at U.S. census data along with CDC statistics that were collected from 1990 through 2010, the researchers found the U.S. birth rate declined 8 percent from 2007 to 2010, and now stands at 63.2 births per 1,000 women who are of childbearing age. That's the lowest number recorded since 1920 when reliable statistics were first kept.

The U.S. birth rate's peak was in 1957 during the "Baby Boom," reaching 122.7 births per 1,000 women -- almost double today's rate.

The birth rate had held steady at around 65 to 70 births per 1,000 women since the mid-1970s, but has been falling since 2007, likely due to the recession, according to the report.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 04 Dec 2012 08:33

The Execution of Carlos DeLuna

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 09 Dec 2012 08:28

The Rise and Fall of Jeremy Hammond: Enemy of the State: As a devastating series of cyberattacks struck the heart of the national-security establishment, the Feds set out to destroy the legendary hacker and radical anarchist by any means necessary

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 10 Dec 2012 20:56

Inside the US Military's Chemical Weapons Tests

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 12 Dec 2012 01:51

X-post...

RajeshA wrote:
Carl wrote:I also find it strange, though, that the same news agencies such as BBC, go out of their way to portray China in a very positive light w.r.t. Iran. Its easy to understand why they want to keep Iran and India apart, but I'm having trouble explaining their promotion of China in Iranian minds.
Carl ji,

Actually the last year has been an year of insight into the perfidious British mind for me. When looking at the history of anthropomorphization of animals in our literature, the Hyena or Jackal best comes to mind when understanding the British, if it is looked in reverse.

The Brits have deep Empire-Withdrawal issues to deal with, and they are doing that as best as they know. How? By offering what they have for a price, by doing what they love to do and letting others pay for it.

What the British have had is a worldwide propaganda aka selective news network in the form of BBC. What the new world rich like the Chinese need is basically an image maker. Brits are good at that, so the Chinese pay, Brits pocket the money, and do propaganda for them. Falling on sadder days, the British whore has only so many venues of earning money.

Strategically the British love to get into the thick of things, by singing from the high horse but getting cozy to all the vile characters on the world scene. Pakistan comes to mind. Islamists come to mind. Saudis come to mind. Chinese come to mind. The vile characters need someone who can polish their sordid history and thus their image, allowing them to keep respectable company. It is their nearness to vile characters and "influence" over them that gives Britain some room to negotiate with USA for some room at the high table.

Another thing the Brits can sell to the Chinese is a long long history of experience in keeping Indians down posing as people who allegedly knows Indians.

The sooner UK and its BBC dies, the better!

pentaiah · Post by **pentaiah** » 12 Dec 2012 08:28

http://www.npr.org/programs/fresh-air/

http://www.npr.org/2012/12/11/166891159 ... d-cold-war

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 14 Dec 2012 07:25

Clarence B Jones on The Best Speeches of All Time

How good was David Petraeus?

Victor · Post by **Victor** » 15 Dec 2012 07:05

What Obama Must Do About Guns

..comprehensive gun control that places the values of public safety and security before the values of deer hunting and a perverse ahistorical reading of the Second Amendment.

Today's horrific events could mark a turning point in America's gun laws. Everybody without exception has been shaken to the core and I have never seen such a wide-ranging anti-gun backlash. Reacting to the shootings, Obama had said: "We're going to have to come together to meaningful action on this, regardless of the politics,”. This strikes at the very heart of the American Right and it will be interesting to see where this leads.

Lilo · Post by **Lilo** » 15 Dec 2012 07:39

^^As it is there are more than enough conspiracy theories circulating since the Gurudwara shooting in the American right .. that Obama engineered these outrages to deprive them of their guns, as a precursor to some planned black/latino racial onslaught on the far right in the deep south ..

So keep watching this space..

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 15 Dec 2012 08:26

If ordinary citizens are deprived of their fundamental rights to carry weapons on airplanes, trains and other public transport systems to defend themselves, I do not see what is so fundamental anymore about gun rights, a relic of the past. Americans have surrendered greater freedoms in the last ten years since 9/11, so this oddity will and should also be left by the wayside. That is the sanest thing to do.

darshhan · Post by **darshhan** » 15 Dec 2012 09:56

America is headed towards low grade civil war. Not of 1861 variety. This time it would be fourth generation warfare type. The divide and mistrust is too much now. Barack Obama is just an enabler.

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 15 Dec 2012 09:58

One Nation Under the Gun