Open Thread

13Comments

1. 1.

   matt

   August 16, 2008 at 7:28 am

   Everyone should watch Andrew Bacevich on Bill Moyer’s Journal. It’s one of the most powerful interviews I’ve seen.

2. 2.

   Xenos

   August 16, 2008 at 7:39 am

   Thanks Matt- we desperately need some perspective on why we are so ardently pursuing policies to support lifestyles that are unsustainable and are not making people very happy.

   This seems to be the critical point:

   There was a time, seventy, eighty, a hundred years ago, that we Americans sat here in the western hemisphere, and puzzled over why British imperialists went to places like Iraq and Afghanistan. We viewed that sort of imperial adventurism with disdain.

   The British, for their own internal reasons, needed to project imperial power. It made some of them very wealthy, but did not do much to improve the lives of the bulk of the people. The commn people, feeling pretty beat up in their daily lives, found esteem in the reflected glory of the empire. Deja vu all over again.

3. 3.

   Brother Orbiting Laser

   August 16, 2008 at 8:39 am

   For all the celebration of their culture, the Chinese apparently used a variety of foreign architects to spiff up for the Olympics, including Albert Speer, Jr. Haven’t noticed much press play for this.

4. 4.

   colleeniem

   August 16, 2008 at 9:15 am

   Let me also extend my gratitude making me aware of the interview. Mr. Bacevich is so succinct, he makes me hopeful that these critically important ideas might resonate with enough people to make a difference. You’re linking helps:).

5. 5.

   Incertus

   August 16, 2008 at 11:15 am

   I didn’t blog yesterday–long story I’ll get to on Monday–but Amy wrote what I think is a really good post about our collective responsibility for the current energy crisis.

6. 6.

   iluvsummr

   August 16, 2008 at 11:40 am

   Thanks Matt for highlighting that interview (wouldn’t have seen it otherwise):

   ANDREW BACEVICH: Our foreign policy is not something simply concocted by people in Washington D.C. and imposed on us. Our foreign policy is something that is concocted in Washington D.C., but it reflects the perceptions of our political elite about what we want, we the people want. And what we want, by and large – I mean, one could point to many individual exceptions – but, what we want, by and large is, we want this continuing flow of very cheap consumer goods.

   We want to be able to pump gas into our cars regardless of how big they may happen to be, in order to be able to drive wherever we want to be able to drive. And we want to be able to do these things without having to think about whether or not the book’s balanced at the end of the month, or the end of the fiscal year. And therefore, we want this unending line of credit.

   While I recognize that there’s some truth in that statement, I absolutely refuse to take responsibility for Bush II’s foreign policy and actions, and the media’s chronic inability to lay out the facts about our strengths and weaknesses objectively. The most interesting part of the interview for me is the assertion that nothing will change fundamentally about the problems facing America no matter who gets elected, essentially because we prefer a president who lies to us. I thought about the vilification of Jimmy Carter and the difference between Denmark or Brazil’s energy policy vs the US’s in the wake of the oil crisis and said to myself, “oh shit.” I’ve often wondered whether historically people in an empire (Rome, Britain, etc.) saw the signs of the impending fall and decided to ignore them or were simply blindsided.

7. 7.

   Daniel

   August 16, 2008 at 1:35 pm

   Matt, I want to add my thanks for mentioning the Bacevich interview, which I would not otherwise have seen. It’s simply gripping.

   There is so little wisdom and so little truth in the discourse on these matters that when one does run across something like this, it’s very moving. Bacevich is a true conservative and a true American. The contrast between his informed seriousness and the fat-faced cherubic thugs, slicksters, and retards who have seized those labels for themselves and gotten away with it could hardly be greater.

   Bacevich’s historical analyses (such as his re-evaluation of Carter and Reagan) are interesting. But his most important theme is certainly the need to “look in the mirror” at both a collective and individual level. I have mixed feelings about this. It is certainly the beginning of wisdom and something that is badly needed… but it’s not the sort of thing that humans are very likely to do en masse.

8. 8.

   zuzu's petals

   August 16, 2008 at 2:03 pm

   In campaign news, more cause for concern for Obama:

   Obama Raised $51 Million in July

9. 9.

   Lavocat

   August 16, 2008 at 6:06 pm

   American foreign policy is painin’ for the fjords, it is.

10. 10.

    Conservatively Liberal

    August 16, 2008 at 7:34 pm

    I am listening to Obama at that religious forum that they are broadcasting on MSNBC. I think he is doing a good job so far. The audience seems friendly and he is getting a lot of applause on his remarks. Nice touches of humor at points, and he sounds like he is speaking at ease.

    He was even applauded when he said that he is against a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. His stance on civil unions for gays was applauded too. I know that this will not be popular with gays, but I believe that some change happens in increments and not in leaps.

    Either way, so far so good. It will be interesting to hear Maverick McGoo and his responses/performance.

11. 11.

    Incertus

    August 16, 2008 at 9:09 pm

    He was even applauded when he said that he is against a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. His stance on civil unions for gays was applauded too. I know that this will not be popular with gays, but I believe that some change happens in increments and not in leaps.

    Personally, I’d like to see him come out and say he’s in favor of full marriage rights for same sex couples, but the reality is that if you’re not in favor of an amendment enforcing the one-man-one-woman rule, then you’re in favor of same-sex marriage, because it’s an inevitability, given the number of states that are approving it. DOMA will fall, eventually, because it’s clearly unconstitutional.

12. 12.

    cmorenc

    August 17, 2008 at 2:38 am

    DOMA will fall, eventually, because it’s clearly unconstitutional.

    I’d argue strongly against that happening. But it’ll cost you $50 for me to argue with you.