The latest issue of Foreign Affairs has a great piece by Ian Bremmer which describes “state capitalism” and explains why that is the best term for the particular government expansions currently taking place. Unfortunately, the article is only available to susscribers, but you can listen to an audio of the article here. Bremmer, who is President of Eurasia Group, does not make modest claims about the economic developments of the past few years. He notes that in developing countries, “the state’s heavy hand in the economy is signalling a strategic rejection of the free market doctrine”:
First, watch a little of this YouTube Video:
Now, watch this short one:
I’m against prosecuting the agents who interrogated Al Qaeda suspects because I think they were working in the best interest of protecting America from future Islamist attack. I also differ with my colleague Luke Brady’s Nuremberg analogy, as following orders to get rough in order to prevent Islamist terrorism seems to me far different than following orders to commit widespread ethnic cleansing on one’s own population, as Nazi soldiers did.
Given that, I’m afraid my comments on that thread will make people think that I’m an apologist for Bush era interrogation policy and don’t think changes are needed. Far from it, I find that findings such as these reveal that much must be changed:
My last article, “Secession… an American Tradition,” elicited some good questions from readers. The whole issue of secession seems to beg the larger question of what constitutes a nation anyway.
To answer this requires a brief overview of modern nationalism.
Here are a couple of definitions to start:
A large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own: The president spoke to the nation about the new tax. (www.Dictionary.com)
Even if it’s too late, it’s good to know that the US Treasury, other Government agencies, and the Federal Reserve are able to do what they were supposed to do all along, i.e. monitor the health of the US banking system. This Federal Reserve white paper amply demonstrates their know-how by detailing the accounting verification procedures they applied in their infamous “stress test” of 19 major US banks, the results of which they now hesitate to divulge to the public for fear of instigating another wave of panic.
By: Dr. David Beito
What is happening in the cradle of the modern civil rights movement? Jimmy McCall would like to know. ‘It was more my dream house,’ he laments, ‘and the city tore it down … It reminds me of how they used to mistreat black people in the Old South.’ In 1955, Rosa Parks took on the whole system of Jim Crow by refusing to give up her seat on a segregated Montgomery bus. Today, McCall is waging a lonely battle against the same city government for another civil right: the freedom to build a home on his own land.
Alright, readers, I need your help here. Try to be as objective as possible. I’m a little confused as to what happened with Abu Zubaydah, a detainee who was reportedly tortured. This article in Slate has two people saying two different things:
Yes. As Marc Thiessen, Bush’s former chief speechwriter, pointed out, the measures were effective. Enhanced interrogation techniques used against Abu Zubaydah resulted in the identification of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Meanwhile, former Vice President Dick Cheney has asked that memos showing that these techniques worked be declassified.
Texas Governor Rick Perry raised a few eyebrows recently when he used the “S” word in public. Secession, he said, was always an option on the political table as far as Texas was concerned.
In the New Republic, writer Alvaro Vargas Llosa tears into Open Veins of Latin America, the anti-market book that Hugo Chavez handed to President Obama when they met at a summit last week:
President Obama marked the 94th remembrance day for the deaths of an estimated 1.5 million Armenians at the hands of the Turks during World War I. As a candidate, Obama called the killings genocide. On a trip to Turkey as president last month, he shied away from that description.
This may not seem like much, but it is a ballsy move on the part of President Obama to call what happened an “atrocity.” However, it’s not ballsy enough. Why is Obama unwilling to use the g-word now that he is president, while, as a senator, he called for President Bush to recognize Turkey’s crimes by sponsoring the Armenian Genocide Resolution?