Archive for November, 2011

“Gingrich’s Words on Immigration Become a Target” (TIMES, 11/24/11)

November 29, 2011

     If illegal immigrant nuclear families have been “paying taxes  and obeying the law,” belong to “a local church,” are proficient in English and buy health insurance, thus putting themselves on a “path to legality which stops short of citizenship with the right to vote,” they can remain in the United States, says Newt Gingrich.

     They can work here (especially for low wages and often in poor working environments that U.S. citizens would spurn) but they cannot vote nor probably join a labor union.  In other words, they are acceptable as modern-day serfs who are indispensable to some American entrepreneurs concerned only with increasing their profits.

     Yeah, that sounds like a policy Newt Gingrich would advocate.

     Happy Thanksgiving!


“World Bank Issues Alert On Afghanistan Economy” (TIMES, 11/23/11)

November 29, 2011

     “1824 American service members…have died as a part of the Afghan war and related operations” and the World Bank just reported that Afghanistan “could face complete economic collapse” when foreign troops leave the country in 2014.

     The continued occupation of this beleaguered country is accomplishing very little and there is no sign of any improvement in the situation.  Why, then, should our troops be left to wallow in the quagmire inherited from the Bush-Cheney administration?

     A safe exit strategy could be put into operation now and all U.S. troops could be home next year.  Such a decision by the commander-in-chief would probably not hurt his re-election efforts.

“As Layoffs Rise, Stock Buybacks Consume Cash” (TIMES, 11/22/11)

November 29, 2011

     Though many U.S. corporations are swimming in cash, “they are neglecting to lay the foundation for future growth by expanding into new businesses or building new plants.”  Instead, they are laying off workers and using the money saved to buy back stock, thus guaranteeing the continued stagnation of the economy.

     Since business leaders are unwilling to invest in improving economic opportunities, the government has to come to the rescue as it did in the New Deal period.  The $447 billion jobs program put forth by President Obama is a solution to this problem.  It will put people back to work on necessary public works projects and circulate more money in a cash-starved environment.

     Then, these short-sighted business leaders might release the cash they are holding and use it in more imaginative ways; i.e., “investing in research, innovation and entrepreneurship.”

“How China Can Defeat America” by Yan Xuetong (TIMES, 11/21/11)

November 28, 2011

     In the competition between the United States and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) for the leadership  of the world, “the country that displays more humane authority will win.”  Such is the opinion of the dean of the Institute of Modern International Relations at Tsinghua University.

     Alas, neither of these superpowers is acting with humane authority!  In fact, as the recent stationing of American Marines in Darwin, Australia (allegedly to protect U.S. interests in the South China Sea) indicates, the two giants could be on a collision course.  Though the likelihood of a war is remote, this developing confrontation is worrisome.

     Yan Xuetong’s assertion that “morality, not money or arms” will determine who “rules the world” is extremely naive.

“Obama and Asian Leaders Confront China” by Jackie Calmes (TIMES, 11/20/11)

November 28, 2011

     Is President Obama fishing in the troubled waters of the energy-rich South China Sea?

     He denies being a “claimant” in the “dispute” (concerning the exploitation of oil and gas resources there?) but, nonetheless, justifies asserting American interest because the United States is a “resident Pacific power…a maritime nation…a trading nation and…a guarantor of security in the  Asia Pacific region.”  And this is being backed up by stationing 2500 Marines in Darwin, Australia, closeby the area in question.

     Does Jackie Calmes think Wen Jiabao could make the same claim in the Gulf of Mexico and station a unit of Chinese troops in some city in northern Venezuela?

     Even as the U.S. is struggling to extricate itself from the quagmire in  Afghanistan, plans are being made to get involved in another troubled spot on the planet.  The New World Order has to be maintained, whether we have a Republican or a Democrat in the White House!

“8-Day Trip Emphasizes Role of Pacific Rim in U.S. Policy” (TIMES, 11/19/11)

November 28, 2011

     How interesting to read that “the United States is turning its focus to the booming Asia-Pacific region” when an “ever more powerful China…has been increasingly assertive” there!

     The region in question, in particular the South China Sea, is a lot closer to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) than it is to the United States of America (USA), hence it would seem that the latter is the more assertive one.  Chinese ships have been plying the waters of east and southeast Asia at least from the Song Dynasty (960-1279), centuries before the USA was a sovereign nation.

     All the News That’s Fit to Print should have demonstrated more objectivity in reporting this information about oil and gas resources that are of interest to the USA as it withdraws slowly from another such energy source in southwestern Asia.  The PRC “asserts” itself; the USA turns “its focus to,” indeed!

     Meanwhile, U.S. Marines will be stationed in Darwin, Australia, which is closer to the PRC than it is to the USA.  Couldn’t that be considered “assertive”?

“Obama Says U.S. To Base Marines Inside Australia” (TIMES, 11/17/11)

November 28, 2011

     Where there is oil and gas there is interest from the proponents of the New World Order!

     Sending the Marines to Australia will  “strengthen the security of both” the United States and Australia “and the region,” claims President Obama.  What security is so urgent in this region so far from U.S. territory?

     If memory serves, I recall long ago debates about whether those islands in the South China Sea belonged to China, Vietnam or the Philippines.  That makes me think the U.S. is more concerned about the energy resources there than it is about China’s “assertiveness.”  Face it, it is oil again!

     Therefore, if China controls those islands, U.S. oil companies will lose out, but they may have a better chance if they are controlled by the Philippines, a loyal American ally in the region.

     What is the real reason Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta (another Rumsfeld?) is stationing 2500 Marines at Darwin?  Is he laying the ground work for a more substantial deployment of U.S. military personnel?”

“Karzai Call For Meeting Of Elders Questioned” (TIMES, 11/15/11)

November 28, 2011

     Hamid Karzai’s call for a “loya jirga” aimed at keeping U.S. troops in Afghanistan beyond the 2014 withdrawal date is outrageously audacious in view of a recent statement that his country would side with Pakistan in any confrontation with the United States.

     There can be no thought of a U.S. presence in that quagmire inherited from the Bush-Cheney administration beyond the year 2014.  In fact, Obama should give serious consideration to the withdrawal of our regular forces from Afghanistan even before that date.

     1817 American service members have already died in this war.  Enough is enough!

“How Romney Could Win” by Bill Keller (TIMES, 11/14/11)

November 14, 2011

     Mitt Romney is not winning the “decisive swing voters” from the middle now, so why should we assume that he will accomplish that in the future?

     It is time for Bill Keller and his ilk to face the facts; i.e., with less than a year remaining before Election Day 2012, the Republicans still don’t have a candidate for president.

     Moreover, there is a broad gap between the Hamiltonian leaders of the Grand Old Party, who favor the interests of a plutocracy, and its amorphous base, which includes a significant number of misguided conservatives motivated by “moral issues.”

     The GOP leaders (whatever they say to the contrary) favor big government in the service of big business, while the base opposes it for its “socialistic” program and support of the sexual revolution.  In order to join their leadership to their base, the Republicans need a knight in shining armor, a latter day Eisenhower, around whom they can rally.

     He is undoubtedly waiting in the wings for the right moment to make his appearance.

“To Save Our Economy, Ditch taiwan” by Paul V. Kane (TIMES, 11/11/11)

November 14, 2011

     Though Paul V. Kane’s idea sounds too good to be true, it would at the very least advance the possibility of changing our ambiguous Taiwan policy.

     At the present time, the official American position is that Taiwan is a part of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), despite its actual independence and the existence of the U.S-Taiwan security treaty. (Would the U.S. tolerate such an arrangement between the PRC and Hawaii?)

     It would be good to end this irrational policy (i.e., Taiwan is part of China but can pursue its own foreign policy) and cancel a $1  trillion debt at the same time.