April 7, 2013

Beyond the Post-Cold War World: Excerpts

George Friedman of Stratfor opines on the post cold war world we now inhabit.  A few select quotes from his essay that I found most interesting:


the United States has emerged from the post-Cold War period with one towering lesson: However attractive military intervention is, it always looks easier at the beginning than at the end. The greatest military power in the world has the ability to defeat armies. But it is far more difficult to reshape societies in America's image. A Great Power manages the routine matters of the world not through military intervention, but through manipulating the balance of power. The issue is not that America is in decline. Rather, it is that even with the power the United States had in 2001, it could not impose its political will -- even though it had the power to disrupt and destroy regimes -- unless it was prepared to commit all of its power and treasure to transforming a country like Afghanistan. And that is a high price to pay for Afghan democracy.
The United States has emerged into the new period with what is still the largest economy in the world with the fewest economic problems of the three pillars of the post-Cold War world. It has also emerged with the greatest military power. But it has emerged far more mature and cautious than it entered the period. There are new phases in history, but not new world orders. Economies rise and fall, there are limits to the greatest military power and a Great Power needs prudence in both lending and invading.
The defining characteristics of this new era? [emphasis mine]


.......several defining characteristics to this era we can identify.
First, the United States remains the world's dominant power in all dimensions. It will act with caution, however, recognizing the crucial difference between pre-eminence and omnipotence.
Second, Europe is returning to its normal condition of multiple competing nation-states. While Germany will dream of a Europe in which it can write the budgets of lesser states, the EU nation-states will look at Cyprus and choose default before losing sovereignty.
Third, Russia is re-emerging. As the European Peninsula fragments, the Russians will do what they always do: fish in muddy waters. Russia is giving preferential terms for natural gas imports to some countries, buying metallurgical facilities in Hungary and Poland, and buying rail terminals in Slovakia. Russia has always been economically dysfunctional yet wielded outsized influence -- recall the Cold War. The deals they are making, of which this is a small sample, are not in their economic interests, but they increase Moscow's political influence substantially. 
Fourth, China is becoming self-absorbed in trying to manage its new economic realities. Aligning the Communist Party with lower growth rates is not easy. The Party's reason for being is prosperity. Without prosperity, it has little to offer beyond a much more authoritarian state.
And fifth, a host of new countries will emerge to supplement China as the world's low-wage, high-growth epicenter. Latin America, Africa and less-developed parts of Southeast Asia are all emerging as contenders.
Read more: Beyond the Post-Cold War World | Stratfor


Steubenville's Inconvenient Truths


Pictured at left: Now convicted, Ma'lik Richmond and Trent Mays, both age 16.

The Steubenville rape case has been the subject of outrage and angst across the country as the facts of an ugly case have increasingly come into the public consciousness.  My better half, the Hot Little Number was moved to write on the case recently. In her post, Three Ohio Victims - The Stuebenville Lesson, she laments the lost potential and the changed trajectory of the young lives involved and points out what she would have highlighted if the MSM were hers to control:

1. Minors with access to drugs and alcohol make really stupid choices.
2. Unsupervised teens without a moral compass or value base, or good judgement, make poor choices.
3. Amidst a bad situation, technology used as a tool to create further harm for Ohio teen.
4. Violation of basic decency leads to life lessons for youth and parents.

I think all of the above are valid points and really highlight the tragedy of this situation and the manner in which the lives of the young people involved and their families have been sledgehammered.  I feel a sense of compassion about the way this has played out as well.  But......my sense of compassion for the victim and in particular for the guilty (they have now been convicted) is tempered by some inconvenient truths about this situation that we avoid talking about.  I didn't agree with my better half's title for her post.  I think Stuebenville only has one victim.

Inconvenient Truth #1 - If you drink and become intoxicated past the point of being able to comprehend whats happening to you, you put yourself at risk

Part of what makes this case so volatile is that many people, myself included, have a real problem with Jane Doe's behavior on that night in August of 2012, indeed, that she was even there.  She's a 16 year old girl.  By all accounts, like the other teens at the party she was attending, she was drinking and ultimately she got extremely drunk.  She's 16, so I'm not surprised that she can't remember what happened afterwards.  She's basically a kid and its no surprise that her body can't handle alcohol.  But 16 is old enough to know better, old enough to know you ought not be out drinking like that.  We live in a culture that is okay with drinking, we all know that underage drinking goes on.  Smaller towns and cities like Stuebenville, this sort of a party is not at all an uncommon thing.  So there are two failings here in my view,  Jane Doe's lack of judgement, no surprise in a young girl, and on the part of her parents.  The Momalog blog asks a relevant question "where the hell were the parents?" and I have to agree.  I have a daughter and she is not going to be out to the wee hours of the morning across the river somewhere and out of contact with me and I don't know what's going on with her. Bottom line: if you are a woman or a girl and get drunk beyond the point of comprehension surrounded by people you don't know, you are at risk. We live in a society in which women and girls are already very vulnerable and the risk of victimization is increased with this kind of behavior by Jane Doe and on the part of the adults responsible for her.

Inconvenient Truth #2 - If you take sexual advantage of a vulnerable girl or woman, you have crossed a line and deserve to face consequences.

I have a beautiful daughter and two handsome sons. For both their sake  we have to become a society that says very clearly that sexual violence against women is not only wrong, but it won't be tolerated.  Some have argued that Jane Doe's drunken behavior put her at risk.  That's true.  But some go further and say that what happened to her next was therefore her responsibility. That's not true.  We have a real problem in our society when two young men, ostensibly good upstanding kids, can take advantage of a utterly helpless girl in this way over the course of hours and never question what they are doing.  We have a real problem in our society when several other kids watch it happening and don't attempt to stop it, indeed, egg it on, joke about it, document it and holy mother of God, share it with each other.

The verdicts have now been rendered against the accused.  The judge found them guilty of having "digitally" penetrated the girl. Based on all I've read of the case, its my belief much more than that likely happened to her. But even if that was the extent of what occurred, we have to become a society that looks at that kind of behavior and says "thats across the line". Some have argued that what they were found guilty of doesn't justify the sentences of jail time they were given, nor branding them as "sex offenders" for the rest of their lives.  Perhaps.  But if you make that argument, then I want to know where the line gets drawn? I can't say I object to these sentences or find them to be out of proportion to the offence. The message has to be sent to parents and to young boys and men that there are severe consequences to crossing these lines. I want my beautiful young daughter to live in a society where there are very bright lines about this sort of behavior. I want parents telling their sons, there are lines you must never cross, lines you don't even want to approach.

Here then perhaps lies Steubenville's most inconvenient truth; that this debate, trial, verdict, punishment and fallout is a painful and necessary step in re-establishing the bright lines necessary for a decent society where our children don't practice or participate in shared depravity.


Enhanced by Zemanta

April 3, 2013

GOP: Time for a New Calculus


"The calculus of the GOP has been that they do not require the support of the black community to win governance. In an America of changing demographics, a political practice that seeks to overpower and ignore minority political constituencies is not a winning formula. The GOP will have to squarely confront the issues of concern to black voters in an effective way (Latinos as well) to harness the political power of these constituencies. Conservative ideology is more than equal to the task, but what passes for GOP/conservative political practice is not."

April 2, 2013

Tips to Win the Black Vote#1 Lose the Democratic Party as Plantation Metaphor

Among the political rhetoric which has become obscenely overused by white conservatives (and all too often parroted by black conservatives), the "plantation" metaphor ranks right at the top of rhetoric which should be urgently retired. I'm like as not to find myself guilty of using this egregious analogy if I peruse my prior posts enough.  But it should be banished from the rhetorical dictionary.
Let's get it straight here and now:  Living under the liberal policies of the Democratic Party willingly embraced by most blacks is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING like living under a racist terror state where your labor is stolen from you under the threat of violence and your family can literally be sold to punish you.  Choosing to vote for and support the liberal agenda of the democratic party DOES NOT REMOTELY resemble being owned by another person, treated like an animal, forbidden to marry, bred like an animal, beaten like an animal,  being sold away from your family or forbidden to learn to read & write on pain of death or torture. 
This metaphor is moronic and ignorant in the extreme and it is beyond unfortunate that it has become a standard rhetorical trope of the right.  If you are a white conservative and you use it, you immediately brand yourself as someone who is more interested in pummeling black folk with your political ideas than engaging them.  If you are a black conservative  and employ this metaphor, you show yourself to be not only ignorant of your history, but dismissive of it, for the sake of being provocative.

March 22, 2013

Quote of the Day

Chidike Okeem,

 "the GOP has not articulated why conservative policies are in the interest of blacks, whereas the left expertly promulgates their message in a carefully packaged way...conservatives imprudently dismiss race altogether, without understanding that they are missing a critical opportunity to promote conservative ideas to populations that have traditionally eluded them."

Kim Brown: From Russia to CPAC With Love

I don't really have a whole lot of comment about Kim Brown's experience at the CPAC panel hosted by black conservative activist K. Carl Smith, called “Trump the Race Card: Are You Sick And Tired Of Being Called A Racist When You Know You’re Not One?”.   Her experience at the event was no surprise and I think she's naive to think she could roll into CPAC and have an experience different than that.  Although Carl Smith claims she was disruptive, I think I will call a little bit of check on how she was dealt with when her political stripes became clear. It was kinda harsh.  Mr. Terry with his openly segregationist views does not appear to have been shouted down.  He seems to have been treated real nice for stating his silly ideas in that soft southern voice.  Smith seemed to try to work real hard to engage that young man.  He and the other cat at the podium didn't seem to work that hard for the sista, who wasn't acting in any way I would call disruptive, unless you define disruptive as not agreeing with the other people in the room. Frankly, if you want to have a forum on the most incendiary topic in America and you can't engage in a dialogue with one sista, maybe you should leave the forum gigs to people more skilled in having a dialogue:


Watching the video and looking at the title of the event, I would have advised Kim she could have saved herself the time and aggravation.  This was a forum put on by black conservatives with the apparent intent to help white conservatives get comfortable with expressing their views on race, which often include broad and offensive generalizations about the self reliance, work ethic and enslavement to the democratic party of black people.  This seems like an event put on by black conservatives to provide white conservatives with cover for their political disinterest in blacks and the whys and ways they express it. Like the anti gun control event put on by Project 21 and the Frederick Douglass Society in February, it seems to me another example of black republicans becoming complicit in providing the conservative movement cover for the politically disinterested messaging and often hostile rhetoric it uses towards African Americans as a political constituency. It's a form of shilling that in my opinion, serves the personal interests of some black conservatives in selling books and raising money, but doesn't do squat for the permanent interests of black folks. I note Carl sold that young segregationist Mr. Terry a book later.  I'm betting he didn't get a dime from the lovely Ms. Brown.

But mostly, I just think its really funny sounding that there is a sista with a radio show on the Voice of Russia.

UPDATE:  Below is a largely complete video of Carl Smith's presentation.  You can assess the content of his message.



Project 21 and the Frederick Douglas Society: GOP's Designated Race Card Players? Is This What Being a Black Conservative is All About Now?

Frederick Douglass
Project 21 and the Frederick Douglass Society teamed up for an event at the National Press Club back in February to decry gun control proposals and declare the racist origins of gun control. Freedom Outpost covered it.   Yeah, I know its March.  I just saw it, I got a life, what can I tell you. I'm here now and here's my reaction to this event.




Columnist Star Parker said,  

“We know that gun control laws have racist origins.”
 Parker then introduced Stacy Swimp, President and CFO of the Frederick Douglass Society, who elaborated on those origins.

“The first gun laws were put into place to register black folks to make sure they would know who we were, that we could not defend ourselves,” Swimp said. “If you look at the Emancipation Proclamation, what was going on down in the Southern States, it’s very clear that the ‘Dixiecrats’ wanted to disarm black people to keep us from defending ourselves against the Klansmen, who were murdering white and black Republicans to control the ballot box.”

“There’s a direct correlation between gun control and black people control,” he added.

 The Founder of God, Guns and the Constitution William Owens, Jr. said, “This current administration is far from the truth.” “When they take our guns, they will also seek to take our God, and that’s when Americans will fight back,” he added.
 ------------------------------------------------------
 I'm black and conservative and I find this a non credible bunch of drivel, even assuming that they have all their history correct.  For the record, I don't have a problem with reasonable gun control measures.  I also don't have a problem with gun ownership.  I'm a bit uncomfortable at the idea that its desirable to live in a society where everyone carries a gun or that that is somehow a really good thing.  If you are my neighbor out here in the burbs where I live and you have a mini arsenal in your house and seem enamored of high volume magazine automatic weapons, I'm sorry, I'm gonna be worried about you.  But I don't favor taking away people's right to own and possess guns, which is not being proposed anyway.

I do seriously question the efficacy of the proposals on the left, I've yet to be convinced they really get us anywhere.  When it comes to gun control, I would have been more impressed with these black conservatives if they had said, here's is what we favor to address gun violence and here's why we think the democrat's proposals are ineffective.  Instead, they engage in the same level of ridiculous fear mongering that Wayne Lapierre is doing.  Coming for our guns is akin to coming for our God? That's just hysterics. 

 What this group of black conservatives is doing is what conservatives have decried for years, playing the race card.  But conservatives apparently have no problem when they think it serves them. What's the purpose of alluding to the racial dimensions of the history of gun control in this context? They play the race card to suggest that the Obama administration and the left in general is out to suppress blacks and keep them from having weapons because they are racists?  Its a ridiculous premise, as ridiculous as such charges are when the race card gets played on other things.  But since its being played here to support a conservative opinion, it's okay to suggest people are racists or there is a racist agenda when you know full well there is not? Suddenly, that's okay? Now we're going to laud such behavior and applaud these guys as examples of good independent thinking black folk? You have got to be kidding me. 

Furthermore, they don't sound like independent thinkers at all.  They didn't articulate a single original thought.  They just regurgitated talking points and hysterical ones at that. Is this the kind of silliness that black republicans have become complicit in now, providing race based rhetorical political cover for conservative positions?  And don't be fooled.  This kind of shilling is not intended to be persuasive with black voters.  It's aimed at the GOP base and at the party as a way to garner support and raise money from the party. Another example of republicans only talking to each other, with people who agree with them.  Most black voters live in the cities where gun violence is experienced and they have a different take on the utility of easy availability of guns, one which is rational.  You could craft gun control proposals that they would agree with that also lined up with conservative positions on gun rights. 

But black voters in the cities who experience gun violence will not be receptive to a message that seems to hysterically argue that we MUST have guns everywhere to be safe.  So this is utterly stupid messaging if you were actually trying to get the attention of black voters.  And that's how you know that's not the goal of this silliness.  They are talking to the GOP base and far right. They are not trying to actually persuade black voters at all, not with this nonsense.

This behavior is a pitch perfect example of the type of black conservative I do NOT aspire to be, a black conservative that regurgitates talking points without reference to whether they are actually in the permanent interests of black people in the first place. 


Enhanced by Zemanta