Wash’t a certain Vannever Bush a director of that fruit company and also an advisor to Eisenhower? Member of his cabinet, in fact. Or was that Prescott Bush. I keep getting evil minions in the Bush family confused.
Twas not a lame OP
American leaders support torture
Not the America I believe in.
The shark is jumped
The jumber coasts for a time
On inertia, then sinks.
Our wacky cousin
Is already on the set
He’s in the White House
Where am I getting what? That the war will be endless, or that the enemy we’re facing is worse than the Cong, or both? Well, in both cases, from the news.
Like Molly Ivins said, opponents of this war know Iraq isn’t Vietnam–Vietnam’s on the other side of the world. Otherwise, a quagmire is a quagmire is a quagmire…only this one’s going to make Vietnam look like a day at the beach. Vicious as Charlie could be, he at least had the limited goal of getting us the hell out of his country, while the jihadists won’t be satisfied until they destroy our civilization, and they don’t care how many innocent heads they have to saw off to do it – a refinement I don’t think even the VC practiced. Bush’s war has given the terrorists an incredible boost, persuading who knows how many once-moderate Islamics that we’re just the sort of imperialist crusaders Al Qaeda painted us to be.
As for its endlessness – well, miracles can happen, but that’s about what it’ll take to get us out of there in anything less than twenty years or so. Can’t remember his name now (dammit) but not too long ago I read an interview with a highly respected reporter on the scene who says the situation in Iraq is unbelievably bad, far worse than even our so-called liberal media lets on, security crumbling so quickly with each new day that, well, now even the Green Zone isn’t safe. With an implacable enemy and no exit strategy, you tell me how the hell we’re supposed to get out without just abandoning the hornets’ nest Bush has idiotically and needlessly stirred up?
And where does the US rank in the "quality of life standard"*? I’d argue that is a more inviting gauge to look at when deciding where to live. And so does the article linked.
You may want to consider that it’s the US that’s “jumping off a bridge” if the inequality pattern continues. But I doubt you will, being as you are the hardest core defender of the American Dream I know…outside its borders. Why you remain in lowly Canada is nothing but a conundrum wrapped inside a riddle.
*Table a third of the way down the page. Answer: 27th.
Because I happen to live in Alberta, a bastion of conservativism in a liberal country. We’re more conservative than most Americans. We have lower taxes than half of American states, low regulations, no debt, no sales tax, and the lowest income taxes in Canada. And what do you know? We also have the highest per-capita income in Canada and the best standard of living, and people from the rest of Canada are moving here in droves.
Back in the forties,
Much of Europe in ruins.
World War II caused it.
Not even close. According to Inevitable Revolutions: the United States and Central America, by Walter LaFeber, Alan Dulles, head of the CIA had served on the UFCO’s board of directors. His brother, Sec of State John Foster Dulles had previously, at his former law firm (Sullivan and Cromwell in New York), represented United Fruit. There is no mention of either Vannever Bush or Prescott Bush. In fact, there’s only one Bush mentioned at all, in the index, and that would be George H. W. Bush, and only briefly-and NOT in connection with United Fruit. I don’t know if you’re using this to slam Dubya or not, but you’re not even in the same ballpark.
You live in a supply region, Sam, at a time when commodities are once again in favor. It’s a first-world living standard grafted onto a third-world export regime. As I’m quite sure you’re aware, keeping it up will mean diversifying away from that regime. Given the history of Texas, this is possible to some limited extent, but not terribly likely. Structure of the economy here:
Alberta - Fastest Growing Economy in Canada
I’d boast about it if I were in Silicon Valley. But of course industrial economies, like skilled labor vs a rentier, need a lot more to maintain themselves than the rents obtained from a steady stream of resource exports.
Um, cite?
Pantom: You might notice that in the past 20 years, Alberta’s economy HAS diversified dramatically. In 1985 36% of our revenue was from energy exports. Now it’s only 23.4%. And I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but under Canada’s equalization system we send just about half of that down east in a sort of large-scale welfare system. In fact, we get less revenue per capita from our oil and gas than people in Quebec or Nova Scotia get from equalization payments from Alberta and Ontario. And yet, we still have the strongest economy. We have the highest per-capita income in the country, despite the fact that we ship $3,500 per person to the rest of Canada.
You guys are doing a good job at diversifying, but the jury is still out. Given that the multiplier in Econ 101 is either 4 or 5, depending on how much is saved/spent outside, you’re still entirely dependent on a non-value added resource export. I wish you well, I really do, but extrapolating from your experience in a supply region to what industrial economies need to do to survive is to engage in the commonest fallacy that red-staters engage in. No city in your province has had to figure out the cost/benefits involved in building a subway, for instance. And cities, not rural, resource-based economies such as the one you live in, are the source of most of the wealth. See Canada’s ailing cities wake up to decline, from today’s Financial Times.
Cities are the main source of wealth around the world, but most people still think that wealth comes from resources and agriculture, even if they spend most of their time typing on computers and commuting to work on freeways and subways instead of county roads. These vast infrastructures need a continuous stream of taxes to maintain, something that red-staters simply don’t get, and never will. You have to have experienced it every day of your life to understand it.
Alberta isn’t a particularly rural province. Our population is a little over 3 million people, of which about 2 million are located in our two biggest cities alone. In fact, only 19% of our population is considered rural. The stereotype of Albertans as a bunch of old redneck farmers is about 30 years out of date.
Alberta is growing like mad, and all the growth is happening in the cities. Our population is projected to grow to over 4 million in the next 20 years.
Alberta’s strengths include a very business-friendly climate. For example, Edmonton is one of the cheapest places to do business in any of the G8 nations. Low business taxes, low real-estate costs, low cost of living for employees. This is the real reason why immigrants are flocking here like mad, and why Edmonton and Calgary are seeing head offices of major corporations move in.
If the Edmonton-Calgary corridor was a nation, it would be the richest country on the planet on a per-capita basis, and that corridor is where 80% of our population is. We also have the lowest unemployment in Canada.
Does noone here know what jumped the shark actually means? Obviously, the rest of the world, craven, spineless (I’m talking to you France!) has jumped the shark. Only the USA, apparently, has the cojones to DO THE RIGHT THING. Feh, whaddayagonnado. ;j
Cheers!
BA
All true, I’m sure. You’re still a supply region, regardless. Saudi Arabia, in 1979, could probably issue a similar boast about some urban area within it, and on the surface it would be true.
Every area starts out with a large natural resource to its advantage. In the case of NYC, it was the huge, deep harbor, something its own residents frequently forget. I remember years ago a case of police divers having to go into the East River to retrieve a body, and remarking incredulously when they emerged at how deep it was down there. I felt like screaming at the newspaper “Why do you think this city is here, anyway?”
Industrial powerhouses grow out of their initial advantage, as New York did. Alberta still hasn’t. Doesn’t mean it won’t. My home state of NJ, the most industrial state in the US, has twice the population of Alberta, and we’re considered small by US standards. Which is as it should be, because in reality all NJ is is an industrial suburb of New York and Philadelphia, as a drive down the NJ Turnpike will quickly inform you. The real drivers for growth are NY and Philly. The Princeton hub has become to some extent self-sustaining, but certainly not enough to account for the density of the population here. So if you consider, from an abstract POV, proximity to NY and Philly as a natural advantage, NJ still hasn’t grown out of that, regardless of what the state’s boosters may say.
Point being, low taxes, which NJ is also constantly touting as a business advantage relative to NY, can only get you so far. Also, relative to the nation, most industrial states in the US, including NJ, remit more to the Feds than they get back, and as the article I cited to you shows, the same is true for industrial areas within Canada. The simple fact is, if it weren’t for the entirely accidental fact that you sit on top of a vast reservoir of useful energy, you would be a recipient of aid from these industrial areas rather than a contributor. Supply regions are always making the mistake that industrial areas depend on them, and the industrial areas fall for it too, which is what Iraq is really all about. If Bush and Co really understood the markets, they would have understood that control of oil means nothing. If your economy is thriving, you’ll have enough to pay the price for the oil, or the timber or the coal or whatever else the resource-rich areas of the world offer. If not, not.
Take care of your economy, and the market will take care of getting the resources. One day, America will get a government that understands that. But it will never come from the present-day Republicans, who are nothing but a bunch of red-staters who have no idea what it takes to build an industrial economy, never mind what it takes to keep it going.
Cite what, exactly? That the jihadists want to destroy Western civilization? That the VC didn’t cut off heads? That some of the heads the jihadists cut off belonged to innocent people?
Not being snide, I’m just not sure what you’re after.
Too bad the rest of the climate ain’t so accomodating. Brrr…
Though it should be pointed out that as a Montrealer, my “brrr” is about fifteen degrees lower than a typical American “OH MY FUCKING GOD IT’S COLD!!”
Canada rocks. Americans are screwed.
The world’s favourite
Emigrants’ destination
Can’t be all that bad
Jihadists or insurgents?
The VC committed some attrocities, they just couldn’t videtape and post them on the internet. I get your point about this being a quagmire, one that may continue for a long time, and I agree with it. What I’m questioning is your (perceived) stance that the Iraqi insurgents are somehow more vicious or fierce than the VC were.
Yes. Because I don’t think that’s true.