One of my favourite social commentators on parallels between the late Soviet Union (SU) and its mirror image, the United States (US), going back all the way to the 2008 financial crisis, when we were hours away from total financial collapse, is Dmitry Orlov. He wrote an excellent book, Reinventing Collapse: The Soviet Experience and American Prospects, which I would urge everyone to read.
The main takeaway being, that if collapse were to take place in the US, it would be far worse than in the SU, due to its non-existent collapse preparedness.
Another author I would heartily recommend on the subject of collapse is James Howard Kunstler, in particular, his 2005 book, The Long Emergency
I read this in 2008, as the Lehman Brothers collapse was unfolding (Singapore was heavily affected and I ended up losing my job in the wake of that crisis) and it still remains one of the best books on the subject.
Incidentally, readers of Rod's substack would very much appreciate his bi-weekly blog, I think Jim remains an astute observer, if a bit cranky in his old age. He is one of those disaffected Democrats (used to be an editor of Rolling Stone magazine and a NYT columnist), who have really turned 180 degrees in the opposite direction and is now completely disgusted by everything the left represents:
He's not been active for a while. Last time I heard of him, he moved himself and his family to Russia from the US, in a Benedictine move. I believe he was disgusted by what he saw as the US's sliding into moral decay and already apparent and far gone social and cultural collapse. He is devout Russian Orthodox, grew out his beard in the traditional way and a steadfast supporter of the current Russian government, I believe, which must have put most of his readers off. I think he was probably deplatformed by big tech.
I haven’t cared much for Kunstler in a long time. Feels like he went MAGA/QAnon a while back and turned into a crank and gave up his very ascerbic social commentary a while back. That said, his World Made by Hand series was some top-shelf post collapse fiction.
Yeah, same here. I think his old books, like the Geography of Nowhere and The Long Emergency are really excellent though. Seems he has become a bit of a crazy crank in his old age, but he still makes some astute observations from time to time.
Kunstler's disaster predictions have also failed to come to pass. At some point we should regard him as we do those preachers who swear on a stack of Bibles they know the date and time of Jesus' return- and then hem, haw and wave their hands when Jesus stands them up.
I think people have difficulty remembering that troubles don’t occur on their timetable. There is a tragedy, in some senses, though, where the problems that people identity get ignored in favor of looking at their off-target predictions. Kunstler was right in identifying some of the more serious trends, but not the shorter-term outcomes. Global warming is a real problem and our current way of life is not sustainable, but it will not change until it is forced to change by circumstance. Warning about that was a good thing and I had my eyes opened a bit after reading The Long Emergency. Lately, though, all he’s been writing about is how the Democrats suck (true), how Biden is a moron (ditto), and how some Q-style justice is going to go down (hahaha).
In fairness to him, I’ve heard he is suffering financial and health troubles in recent years, so maybe his political turn came from trying to find a wider audience. Or maybe he just did go full Q.
Perhaps you are right about many of Kunstler's predictions. For instance, we haven't hit "peak oil." But he is an interesting critic, especially of suburban wastelands. I drove through suburban wastelands in the Essex-Middle River area yesterday after a funeral. Much of it was a motley collection of boarded up buildings on Eastern Blvd.
We did hit peak conventional oil in 2006, right on schedule, an year after his book came out. And we did get into a huge deal of economic trouble in 2007-2008, much more so than people realise (Just ask Hank Paulson). Most people forget, that the subprime collapse was preceded by record high oil prices, that's what broke the camel's back. What basically saved industrial civilisation, was the fracking and shale revolution. That is also the flaw in his argument, he doesn't account for technological innovation coming to save the day.
I had a ringside seat for the real estate collapse. It began in early 2007 though most people didn't notice until well into the following year. Right up until Lehman failed the mainstream consensus was for a short recession and a quick recovery
That's older suburban territory, and wrecked by the closure of the old steel plant on the east side.
Some years back Matt Yglesias stopped in that area for gas and seeing a deserted strip mall he opined that Peak Oil must already be forcing suburbanites to move back to core cities. Obviously not in regards to Baltimore!
He's still a heck of a writer, and while he focuses almost entirely on the perfidy of the left it's a target-rich environment, and his take on "Joe Biden" is pretty much spot on - who among us actually thinks the doddering old man wandering off during public events is actually setting the policy agenda? It's only now that the electorate is beginning to catch on.
Kunstler is a fun crank. I think I've read most of all of his non-fiction books, most of which were written when he was more obviously a man of the left. Kunstler was surprised that many on the right found resonance in what he wrote.
I still think his point about how suburban sprawl and car-dependency are serious malinvestments, is a very astute one. North America would benefit a great deal from building dense, mixed-use and walkable neighbourhoods with good public transit links. Making everyone drive everywhere for absolutely everything is simply not the right approach to urban planning.
The automobile radicalized America. It sped up the country. And the autos are so much better made today. I'll give you an example of the modern automobile world. I attended a funeral in Baltimore yesterday. Two young men who live in Orlando, Florida drove up three days ago to attend the funeral. Both are on the road right now getting back to Orlando. That couldn't be done a century ago.
And the funny thing is, contrary to what many in the GOP believe, is that dense, mixed-use, walkable neighborhoods WERE THE MARKET SOLUTION until the automobile lobby—the auto clubs and the industrial groups—impelled state governments in the 1920s to provide smoothly paved highways in which their cars could race along at 70 mph. Car performance preceded highway engineering, not the other way round; we have the roads we have because we had the cars we had.
Anyway, the Interstates were the SECOND iteration of this process, not the first. The first were the US federal highways like U.S. 1 or the 101 in California or 66 to California.
They also conspired to buy up and close down the US streetcar network, at the time the most extensive in the world. I believe they were indicted for it in the seventies, but there were no real consequences, what was done, was done and public transit in the US never recovered from that.
Another move, that doomed US public transit was prioritising cargo over passenger traffic on rail lines, which is still the case today. No wonder the few rail lines that remain are underused and multi-hour delays in rail journeys are commonplace.
I’ll have to disagree on that one. The streetcars were largely replaced by buses by the late 1930s due to bus flexibility in routing. Some streetcar systems lasted into the 1950s, though. Yes, there was court action along these lines, but nothing was proven.
The streetcar and mainline railroad networks were largely independent of each other. The only thing they had in common was track gauge.
People today confuse commuter rail with streetcars and trams. Understandably, as both modes are often now operated by the same public agencies. Formerly, commuter rail was a service provided by private-sector mainline railroad companies in conjunction with their longer-distance passenger service and usually sharing rights of way with freight traffic.
GM and others were convicted on antitrust grounds. But they weren’t trying to get rid of streetcars to make way for automobiles; rather, they were trying to monopolize bus sales. As I said earlier, buses are more route-flexible than fixed-track streetcars. And with the growth in population after WW2, it was easier to extend a bus route than to build a longer rail route. Automobiles were not the factor either in the court cases or the economic and engineering issues involved.
As for passenger rail, that had ceased to be a paying proposition for the private-sector railroad industry by about 1950. Several larger systems tried to upgrade their long distance trains for the tourist market, but they eventually knuckled under. Mail contracts kept some trains going into the late 60s, but the post office shifted en route sorting off the rails at that time (one route lasted to 1977). Meanwhile, the private sector rail industry wanted to focus on bulk freight and long distance wholesale service for container shippers.
What Americans who never lived abroad do not realize is how much more lonely life is when you drive everywhere. The delights of knowing people on my town square (one block away) with all the markets and cafes are just endless for me.
In Phoenix, I lived downtown, in a home I restored. It was an older neighborhood, most homes were from the 1920s. I knew how it was once - with streetcars in walkable distance, then people could go to various shops and jobs in downtown Phoenix and live with a mile or two of those places. - But those days, and the streetcars, are no more. It was still much more suburban than Europe because people had their own houses and yards, though near downtown. They did not live in apartment-type blocks that is, 3 to 4 story buildings as one does in Europe if not, for the most part, in the countryside. - - American individuality led to our own building and yard for our home. That is why I am not sure we can fix the public transport problem in the USA. Comparatively far to walk for most people in order to have a sustainable system. - Also, our crime is much higher. Not really safe to walk to a transit stop and wait there in a lot of places especially after dark.
Apart from a few older cities, I don't think the US living arrangement can be changed significantly. It will probably stay the way it is until it can be maintained on cheap energy - which for the time being is still possible, due to the fracking and shale revolution in North America. How long that will last and is sustainable, no one can tell. There is just no physical way by which houses, that are too far apart, can be brought closer to each other.
To be fair, it's not like other parts of the world don't have a suburban sprawl and car dependency problem. Here in Sopron, as soon as summer break starts, the roads empty out and the constant traffic jams become a thing of the past. For some unknown reason, parents insist on driving their kids to school, when in most cases that would not be necessary. However, with suburban sprawl and no school bus system, like in the US, it will be unavoidable. There are more and more suburban areas around here that have zero facilities and spotty or non-existent public transit.
I think it is impossible to overestimate the amount of damage done to American life by the disappearance of downtowns. Here's one:
Had you known that before World War II., Los Angeles had the best public transportation system in the United States? It was a streetcar system, which went as far as Bakersfield in one direction and Pacific Palisades in the other. It died because the Chandler family wanted it to die. Why? Because, having discovered oil on their vast property holdings, they wanted to encourage private auto use. Using their media properties, primarily The Los Angeles Times, during and after the war, they campaigned without ceasing for the chucking of the streetcar system, and the building of the freeways. And they got their way, as we know.
Among the great communal possibilities of the streetcar system was that kids from all over the area who, in the 1930s had lacked the money to buy cars, had been able to use it to get to whichever venue a big band might be playing.
The Chandlers' success in making their greedy dream come true may have been the thing which more than any other put the knife in the big bands era. The bands played all over the country, of course, but most of their income came from three hub metropolises: New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles.
The loss of accessibility for young people without cars to performances a big band might play in the Los Angeles area was so gouging to the bands' income prospects that it was the final lethal blow to the big band era, thought Gene Lees, the jazz essayist.
Foe a while even suburbs were designed to be walkable snd bikeable, though you did need a car for longer trips and inclement weather. Sometime around 1980 suburban design began featuring endless cul de sacs, no way to connect between subdivisions and ridiculously large lots that pretty required hiring lawn care people.
The later 1970s produced this kind of design, which was begun to be built after 1980. Such “neighborhoods” are an obscenity. I grew up in neighborhoods built in the 1960s that were much more pedestrian-friendly and kid-friendly. You could reach adjacent streets without venturing out onto a main road.
But as with most things in modern American life, we decided to build precisely the kind of environment that leads to anomie, mental illness, environmental degradation, social isolation and so on. Also, there is probably racism involved. There is nothing good about such things, except for the developers and the bureaucrats who dream up the rules for these things.
Even my wife's hometown of Wadsworth, Ohio has a declining downtown. If you want to shop, you drive to the shopping centers outside of town that used to be farmland pre-1965 or so.
One of the reasons I stuck with Baltimore as long as I did is because, given good or at least tolerable weather I could bike many places, even to work 2008-2018. I'm hoping to replicate that down here in Florida, if I can just get moved down to St Pete proper.
I shudder to think what would happen to this country if there were even a weekend-long breakdown of the logistic chain of the food supply. It would be the end.
We already had a preview of coming attractions during major hurricanes, like Katrina. What happened then, would occur on a national scale and nobody would be able to do anything about it.
Katrina caused the physical destruction of infrastructure-- both the power grid and roads, railroads, airports and port facilities in the affected areas. If you want to posit something like that-- say, nuclear detonations over major cities with or without EMPs-- yes things will get awfully grim.
OK, maybe you should explain it better. Weekend long (and longer) disruptions happen with every major hurricane, blizzard and ice storm. Sometimes things get a bit rough, the result is not the collapse of civilization. In 2016 we suffered what was called "Snowzilla" (an affectionate nickname derived from a freeway signboard which read "Lizzard Warning!") The snowstorm lasted all weekend, dropping thirty inches of snow, and it took some time to dig out from. If anything it was one of our more pacific weekends in Baltimore as even the thugs couldn't go anywhere to work their thuggery.
And then there was Snowmageddon in 2010 when three separate nor'easters dropped over four feet of snow in less than a week. Again, the Götterdämmerung failed to materialize.
The Tsarist regime fell in February with trains laden with wheat stranded in blizzards not far from St. Petersburg. As a temporary fix
the working population and peasant military garrison of St. Petersburg was asked to eat the fine white bread of the upper classes instead of the more robust brown bread they were used to. It did not turn out well.
When Covid lockdowns came we fell all over ourselves to make sure things didn't go completely over the cliff. And we learned some lessons about what works and what goes too far and what did not go far enough. Will we take that to heart? Maybe, may not. But as long as the power stays on, the sun still shines, there aren't so many bodies piled up that we can't bury them, and the roads and railroads still conduct traffic I think we'll hang tight. The US can be both energy and food independent at need.
Something I think we should all take seriously: There is a real chance China makes it's move on Taiwan this year, if the aftermath of the US election gives them the opportunity.
I'm convinced the recent naval maneuvers were a dry run. If China blockades Taiwan and asserts their claims to sovereignty, they take the island unless the US government is willing to openly attack Chinese warships. I.E. start WW3.
Will the US do that if we have significant unrest at home? Such as the type that seems very likely to happen in the aftermath of the election?
Imagine: Biden wins. Trump contests. We get another January 6th but worse. Dems use it as an excuse to crackdown on all dissidents (a la Trudeau and the truckers), sparking more unrest, sparking a bigger crackdown...
Would the government start WW3 under these conditions?
If not, the West loses almost all access to high end computer chips. And of course it's possible Xi miscalculates, the US does decide that war is worth it... And then we have bigger problems.
Xi is serious about taking Taiwan, and there's good reason to move sooner rather than later. If he sees an opportunity, I think he'll take it. We should all be prepared for that scenario.
Re: Would the government start WW3 under these conditions?
Yes. See: "Wag the dog". And as you point out Taiwanese chips are vital to the world economy. We're not going let the Qanon Shaman and his ilk derail the world economy.
However China is not reckless, unlike their Russian "friend". They are playing a very long game, and need a lot more to fall into place before they can make a warfare move.
Jon sorry man, but a lot of the time you sound like the guy who didn't do the assigned reading but still attempts to dominate the class discussion based on what he heard the reading was about.
Please do not be mean to the poor, innocent Q'Anon Shaman, Jacob Chansley. You don't have to believe in Q or anything to know the guy was railroaded - it is proven on film.
Yes, he told the guards who were escorting him sedately out of the House chamber that he would pray for them. A terrifying threat. Still, did he have to show up with his Viking regalia. Dumb?
I watched the Flintstones after school and though Chansley's Grand Poobah outfit was pretty cool. Q Shaman was definitely punished harshly but does have significant mental health issues.
Indeed - not terrifying. Jacob Chansley was released from prison early, after films not accessible to the defense surfaced. They showed (a) He walked in while police were holding open the doors. I'd have done the same. There but for the grace of God is how I feel about most - not all - of these folks (b) The police offered to take him around - apparently, he was talking to people, calming them. (c) police took him to the senate chamber, and opened the door for him. They later left with him. (d) no violence, no going anywhere without police taking him there and/or opening doors for him
- - His regalia? I dunno, I guess he wanted to be an influencer and for a while it was a success. He was fooled by conspiracy theories - many have been Laptop, anyone?
I'm more concerned about what happens if Trump wins. "The Resistance" takes to the streets en masse, and suddenly it's OK - moral even - to set fires and destroy property.
And Trump responds by sending in the troops. And away we go...
Didn't happen before. Well not on any major scale. There were some protests. The Baltimore anti-Trump march even kicked over some trash cans, the fiends. And the Women's March in DC left appalling amounts of litter. Still well short of storming the Winter Palace or tearing down the Bastille.
Over 50 people died as a direct result of the violent ("fiery but mostly peaceful") protests across the country in 2020, and billions of dollars of property was destroyed. The protests were the work of Leftist street thugs like Antifa and similar groups. Very few faced any legal
penalties; in fact, at the time Vice President Kamala Harris publicly announced her support for bailing out rioters in Minneapolis. My point is, don't underestimate the Left; rioting is in their DNA.
Nope. There were provocateurs from both the Left and the Right, but the energy of the riots was totally apolitical, consisting of a lot of underclass lowlifes looking to grab free stuff and maybe settle scores.
Re: Very few faced any legal penalties
Not true. Where rioters could be identified from surveillance footage and a case built against them, they have been arrested and prosecuted.
Re: Vice President Kamala Harris publicly announced her support for bailing out rioters in Minneapolis.
The above is so far from reality it makes the Andromeda galaxy look close.
Xi is playing the long game on Taiwan. The saber-rattling that they do periodically is largely for domestic consumption, because this permits Xi and the CCP in general to align people around something, especially in times like this when the Chinese economy isn't doing as well as it has been for most of the last few decades (although it appears to be improving lately). Xi doesn't want a direct confrontation on Taiwan -- I really do believe that the plan is to wait out the decline of the US, while continuing to expand Chinese power and influence in East Asia.
Xi in particular is pretty risk averse. And he, as a theorist, has a very long view of history as well. Yes, Xi is actually a Marxist, still, and not merely a cynic ... he really does think that China is the only place that has done Marxism correctly, and that in shepherding the country through the various phases of economic development as outlined by Marx in Das Kapital, China will eventually reach socialism in a managed way, without further internal conflict, over time. He's written quite a bit about it, which most people in the West seem to see as completely cynical nonsense, but I doubt that's actually the case. Xi is certainly very Machiavellian, but he's also a Marxist, and one with a particularly long view.
There was a greater risk of an actual confrontation over Taiwan in the years following the Huawei banning, and then the later chip bans, but even then the approach of the CCP has been to double down on domestic industry, development of Chinese chips, and other sources of equipment, rather than endless escalation with the US. In other words, they preferred to find a workaround to the option of bringing the Taiwan issue to a head, and that was when the cutoff almost killed China's then national champion, Huawei. Huawei has since bounced back, and is an example of how this approach has, in many ways, worked, and made Huawei (and the related Chinese tech industry) stronger by making it less dependent on the US. That's the approach Xi prefers. He will rattle the saber on Taiwan, but a direct confrontation is quite unlikely.
Good points. But why I think this time is different:
1. China has been rapidly ramping up military production, while the US alliance is at a historical low. We've expended a lot on Ukraine, and we have plans to ramp up production - but we haven't yet. Now that the US is finally getting serious about China, China loses its advantage in preparation if it doesn't move soon.
2. The world is just now realizing the importance of AI, and the AI industry is entirely dependent on the advanced chips coming out of Taiwan. China has an urgent incentive to kill the growing American lead in AI. Even if it can't seize the chip factories for itself, it's important to deny them to the US.
3. Xi is getting old, and thinking about his legacy. Waiting for the US to collapse is safer than confrontation... but the future is uncertain. Contrary to predictions of Chinese and Western dissidents, the US may in fact not collapse; or it may not collapse soon. Xi knows this. He also knows that for the near future, every year he waits shifts the balance in military and AI power away from China.
I'm not saying it's certain, even if the election becomes a disaster. But Xi has good reason to take the opportunity if it comes.
There's certainly some risk, I agree. China also knows that due to the looming AI gap, if it doesn't have the confrontation soon, it will have to wait that much longer until it closes the gap again, and by then its demographic issues will be really starting to bite on its position in other ways. So there's an argument that they should strike now, when the gap is closer than it will be for some time, rather than wait.
Weighed against that is the reality that the Chinese take a longer view of history than pretty much any other power, which makes their perspective harder to understand and relate to, and tends to weigh in favor of foregoing the contemporary situation and waiting for a better opportunity downrange, temporally. It's true that this may be a long wait -- I agree that while I think Xi really does believe that the US is in irreversible decline, he also would agree that this may take quite some time to play itself out.
AI is far from vital to the world economy. In fact it's still something of a pain in the rear to deal with, artificfial but not intelligent. Imagine-- having a human being have to answer a call instead of some smarmy bot who insists it can understand whole sentences but never can grasp what I am trying to ask.
Very very hard to believe the U.S. will do anything substantive if China moves on Taiwan. If they do it before the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November then there will be some chest-beating on Biden's part for votes and the whole thing will be over by Christmas.
Houthi rebels have effectively neutered the effectiveness of the USS Eisenhower strike group with low-tech drones. How would similar carriers fare against a peer rival?
I thought the column was pretty incredible today. Overall, it is amazing that so much good material can be read, digested, presented and commented upon. This happens petty much every day. I remain amazed at any brain that can do this.
I was not familiar with Eric Weinstein and thought he was especially excellent. A bit depressing, in a way, to see all of the things Regime Media gaslights us about in a long list. But helpful - my cognitive map of "what is going on" was given additional structure through this reading. I also just loved his "rule of 2 out of 3".
Weinstein described Democrats the "party transformed over 30 years" as "my own historic political party". I looked him up just now. He was a managing director for Thiel Capital -Thiel being a famous and much-maligned man of the right, i.e. "Reach, Independence, not Reputation". Did Weinstein stay on the left? I found his website, with only two podcasts, but the first is nearly 3 hours on "Geometric Unity". So it is possible I should bow my head in shame (because math education was my field) for not knowing about this guy. Or it is possible it was hard to become familiar with Weinstein because he is thought, correctly or incorrectly, to be of the right. This is especially with the Thiel association - perhaps hence not widely publicized, i.e. "Reputation, Independence, not Reach". But probably he is something like a Taibbi or a Dershowitz - pretty much keeps the label Democrat and of recent years puts forth about 95 percent thought from the right.
It's important to note as you do that it's not just "the left" that gaslights, but so does the "Regime Media," who are almost universally on the left culturally speaking but tend to be fiscally very much neo-liberal. As I've said about a zillion times on here, the new default is what in the old days we used to describe as "socially liberal but fiscally conservative." Those terms don't really apply anymore, but the comparison itself holds.
Interesting. That has not been my impression. The left-wing media was happy for a very long time to play the lying Democrat line "inflation is only temporary". They absolutely will not tell people the truth - that creating money for pet causes (or even for partly-valid things, and partly not, related to Covid) causes inflation. We have inflation as we create new money out of thin air as we do now, by the trillions. Regime media are also big on, in PJ O'Rourke's words "Eat the Rich". Yes, make business pay its "fair share", never mind that increases prices and decreases available jobs.
While I certainly do not oppose all government help, I think the media pushes too much government economic government intervention. Forgiving student loans, for example. Or the misuse of climate data to support ridiculous spending on climate by the media.
So I am not sure - are you saying Regime Media is fiscally conservative, and if so, why do you say that?
I think that most of the "Eat the Rich" stuff is insincere, and is mostly a bone thrown to the electorate to keep them on the plantation. Many of the people saying these things are themselves rich, or at least affluent, and they have no problems whatsoever with Big Business provided it toes the line culturally. They are very selective about the "elites" they want to bring down.
Gaslighting is a feminine tactic. Women have been blocking, shunning, demoralizing other women through gaslighting tactics…..forever. The Democrat party is a thoroughly feminine institution today (Republicans aren’t much better). Look at the gaslighting type rhetoric dems are always using: “we’re better than that….that’s not who we are…shame, shame, shame, SHAME! …..we don’t negotiate with thugs…..ruled, rules, RULES.” Our adversaries think that we are a joke, and we are, but a very dangerous joke; our estrogened leaders are seriously contemplating nuclear war.
That's an interesting connection I wasn't aware of. Bret Weinstein and his wife were savaged by their fellow Leftists for taking a principled stand against reverse discrimination practices at Evergreen College in Washington state and as a result wound up resigning from their faculty jobs there.
One thing that separates us from the Soviets is that we still have a high standard of living, the reserve currency, and dominate the western world. All of those things could change very quickly, of course. One thing we do not have is any kind of unified national values (the Soviets were not homogeneous in this, but I’m not aware of anything similar to our red-blue cold culture war). That would make any kind of post-government collapse much worse. I could realistically see people using the chaos as a chance for a little Bloody Kansas style shenanigans.
I am not aware of anyone right now who could be a Gorbachev. Our political process is geared towards people who are good solely at getting elected. Our “two-party system” largely discourages any sort of reform or replacement of the incompetent, so we get more and more distilled idiocy at the top.
I think it is a sign of the apathy and complacency of the American citizenry that the failures in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the ludicrous pretext for the latter war, did not result in mass public outrage. Again, keep people far and happy and they will let a lot of things slide, I guess. In a sense, that feels like a far more dangerous thing, because it means any sort of public crisis is likely to come when people are already hungry and desperate, not just frustrated with a failing system.
Last, you have to look at a political system that can produce this joke of an election year and reasonably ask if there is any hope of reform for it at all. I have long thought we should replace the current system with one similar to a parliamentary system, and abolish the presidency. I don’t think it would produce much in the way of any return to a more free and moral nation, but the presidency has become a de facto form of imperial government. It was never intended to be such, and the two parties have done a horrible job in recent decades of stewarding the nation. We can do better, but I do not think reform will ever happen until it will come after severe hardships.
I think the Presidency has become like an elected Roman Emperor. This has happened due to how wealthy America is and how powerful its military is. And you are right. The current system is unreformable.
And the "affordable" housing that's getting built consists of $400,000 "luxury" condos or apartments starting a $3k per month. No new supply + overpriced existing inventory = no homeownership for you
I live in a standard "non-luxury" condo community, and it's starting to serve as a sort of starter-home enclave for young couples with and without children. Unfortunately, it's also starting to attract immigrants of the unsavory sort and the Section 8 set asides are drawing more and more of the usual suspects.
I bought the unit in 2014 -- I can see selling it in a couple years and potentially doubling my investment, because even at that price it will be far cheaper than all the hideous new townhouses that are going up around here. (The last small farm sold around the time I moved in, and was turned into a big cookie-cutter housing plan about five years later.)
I’ve often wondered why the Founding Fathers didn’t go with a parliamentary system like most former British colonies, including our neighbor to the north, but they have Trudeau so I’m not sure it would be an improvement. It’s apparent from the Constitution that the Founders did not envision the imperial presidency we have, Alexander Hamilton’s wishes notwithstanding.
The Constitution has a fine system with checks and balances although the Executive Branch is way too strong and has been since FDR's time. Extreme wealth created a system that almost demands an Imperial Presidency. We aren't a 90% agrarian nation like in 1787.
Began with Wilson, and expanded exponentially first under FDR, then Johnson, then every one since. Even worse, the Administrative State has tracked the same timeline.
They sort of did. The House of Representatives is like the House of Commons. The Senate is an elected House of Lords. The President is an elected King.
And yet, the US has one of the strongest economies in the world. We recovered faster and more thoroughly from there Covid years than Europe has. We remain a leader in technology and science. As people on the Right used to point out to whiny leftists, If the US is such a bad place why do so many foreigners want to move here?
Re: It could not even win a war in Afghanistan
Good grief, neither could we! Nor the British in the 1800s. Afghanistan has foiled lots of would-be conquerors. Alexander pulled it off by marrying a powerrful chieftain's daughter. Genghis Khan killed everyone right down to the dogs and goats.
Re: STRING THEORY
Er, what is String Theory (a very complex and recondite set of speculative theories in physics) doing in the list? Is it a intelligence test-- what item does not belong here?
Re: In all cases above, there is some absolutely *MASSIVE* long-term lying and obfuscation.
Yes, the Right invents ten new conspiracy theories before breakfast, and pulls "alternative facts" out of places the sun does not shine. God forfend they rely on hard numbers-- that math stuff is for sissies.
I thought String Theory was on the list because it’s never produced anything concrete experimentally but continues to be supported by a group of physicists in the absence of any evidence. It’s a mirage that sucks scientific resources like some kind of make work program for smart guys.
Conspiracy theories and "alternative facts" are not the same as what Weinstein is describing. And of course there are just as many of those on the left.
Funny how even when a lefty calls out the left you refuse to take your spectacles off. Although the "independent" or "dissident" right is a small minority, at least there is one.
I don't disagree that there are tinfoil hatters and "fact" smiths on the left. I call that out in other online venues but you don't see that since we almost never get those types here.
Didn't say you were a lefty. What I said was that you can't recognize the validity of a lefty calling out the left, because your "whatabout" glasses can't come off.
"the US has one of the strongest economies in the world"
A complete and utter paper tiger rooted in indebtedness. The US national debt is now rising to the tune of $1 trillion every 100 days. Private equity has basically hollowed out huge swaths of corporate America. The young increasingly understand they'll never be able to afford a home, never be able to afford a "comfortable" life.
American credit card debt now sits at $1.12 TRILLION.
And God forbid the Boomer generation be hit with any sort of economic downturn - do we understand how crucial an ever-rising stock market is to the "wealth" of the retired, and those hoping to retire on their retirement savings? But the Fed tells us only about half of Americans have retirement savings, anyway.
And a story from last week tells me that 46% of the middle class ar now eliminating their contributions to their retirement funds - to pay current bills.
You see a "strong" economy - I see the Great and Powerful Oz.
<<<And God forbid the Boomer generation....>>> I am pleading with God - please, please make it stop.
People born 1946 to 1964 do not have a lot in common. (For that matter, people born 1956 to 1974 have more in common.) kgsmart I am not picking on you because so many people keep insulting "Boomers" and you are using everyday language. But it is not true that "Boomers" are a group. It is not true that people can make any general statements about those born 1946 to 1964. Also - It excludes those over 78. It includes someone not yet 60. It is not a "thing". It "otherizes" and separates an insults unnecessarily. If people mean "older people" I wish they would say "older people".
I am so, so tired of people pretending I am horrible and people very little different in age from me are not like me at all.
Sorry for the rant. Or maybe not sorry now but will be sorry later. Or maybe everything I said is true and so it should have been said.
PS - Donald Trump has been referred to as a "Boomer". Technically true, though if born six months earlier he'd be "Silent" And wouldn't some people like that, heh.
I admit I am getting up there. But I am not in the same age group as that old man!
Edit: And I've just proved I fit the sterotype by objecting to the term :) Oh, the humility.
Brava, Linda! Lots of us born in Boomer years who never had anything in common with the supposed characteristics of that so-called "generation", an arbitrary concept of some pop-culture guru, which our sheep-like media and intellectual class have run with ever since. Wonder when they'll run out of silly names ...
The point being, if you were born during that time frame, you're either retired or on the cusp of retirement, and likely eyeing your retirement accounts warily - assuming you have any. And if the market were to tank basically at any point in the coming years - people born in that time frame in particular would be screwed
As would retirees 79 and over. Whereas a 58 year old would be just about as screwed as a 59 year old.
In my opinion, a collective reference to those 59 to 78 does not work, nor will it work in the future - this is not an "age group" with a lot in common. But I now have some degree of regret that you were the one to hear of my frustrations at being labeled with this term. That said I think my reasons for not using the term "Boomer", and instead saying "older people" or "retirees and those near retirement" were sound. One reason I did it now was that you did not particularly insult Boomers, as many here have without my being confrontational about it. So I wanted it to be seen as not especially confrontational, but yes, making a strong objection to the term. Thanks for understanding.
So, very curious, what you think the basis for America's "strong economy" is.
Our manufacturing base - which we've eviscerated? Private equity ownership of homes, driving up the prices? Crypto? "The consumer," who on average has some $6,500 in credit card debt? Defense spending (better keep the war in Ukraine going...)? TikTok?
Seriously - at one time of course America has a manufacturing base that out-produced the world. What, pray tell, is our similar economic strength today?
Among other things we are now the world's leading energy producer and are one of the world's leading food producers. We also are a major services provider. Does any other country have so many foreigners flocking to its universities?
I'd love an autographed copy but the preorder would probably mean it'd be super impersonal. Better to hunt you down in Alabama or even Budapest. I'm not very interesting. I'm smarter than most in society (a very low bar), but compared to you I'm quite ordinary and not special or smart enough to write about. I've had more impact on world affairs than I ever deserved to have, but that impact is in retrospect an indictment of the entire modern system and not something to be proud of (and I don't want it written about). But still if I had the chance I'd prefer to shake your hand and enjoy a cup of coffee rather than get some signature that means very little.
I would inform Mr. Ferguson that Senator Roger Wicker is part of the problem and hasn't any solutions. Wicker is a Lindsey Graham who likes girls. Wicker wants more money for the military-industrial complex and more missions in obscure countries that most Americans couldn't find on a map. Wicker refuses to see that the officer corps in the military is woke and morally corrupt. The American military's scope needs to be scaled down and the woke elements to be separated from the military. Firing the worst 200 generals would be a good start.
Speaking of the Navy, Mark Helprin's latest novel, 'The Ocean and the Stars,' is fantastic. Some lovey-dovey stuff at the beginning slows it down just a mite, but after that...whoo boy!
It's about a middle aged Captain who pisses off his Naval superiors and gets a crap mission as a reward. He, being the smart and noble guy that he is, decides to do the right thing and make it a success, rather than just ride out what amounts to his last assignment. Great stuff, and as always with MH the writing is stellar.
Wow, hadn't thought about him in ages. A great, unique writer. I read "Soldier of the Great War" and "Winter's Tale" and other stuff by him. I don't read fiction anymore but he'd be worth revisiting.
"Soldier..." is my favorite novel by a living writer. Everything he's done since then has been either very good or great, excepting maybe "Freddy and Fredericka," which I thought was a bit overstuffed (although I must say I liked it much better the second time I read it, once I realized that it was intended as a modern day picaresque novel, not simply a comic work).
"Soldier" was fantastic. "Winter's Tale" great but I had some trouble understanding the magical realism if that's what you call it. Now I suspect more of that was intended as humor than I understood at the time. "Antproof" didn't knock me out and I didn't read F&F though.
He is indeed an all-time great writer. Coming from another plane.
I love 'Antproof." That's the first novel of his I read, followed by the magnificent story collection 'The Pacific.' I need to read 'Winter's Tale' again, as that's one of the ones I've read only once.
What is a citizen to do when the current regime pays window dressing respect to constitutional law. Most Americans support the constitution. Time and time again, the regime favors the tyranny of the miniscule minority and they dole out special rights to these groups like tic tacs and the majority must suck it up or be cancelled. When we form groups to oppose the regime we are either demonized or worse thrown in jail. Oath keepers and proud boys. Or the government will bankrupt you through litigation, Alex Jones and Giuliani as well as many j6ers. Are we at the point where resistance is necessary but futile? Are we more like the 1930s Soviet Union or the flaccid Cherenko 's Soviet union. If we are, then perhaps Vaclav Havels Power of the Powerless provides some answers.
They did. The Biden administration put the leaders in jail. The media characterizes them as a hate group becuase they stand for for a constitutional republic instead of an authoritarian government.
As a teacher of high school boys, I need to at least attempt to keep up on current slang, though I am usually about a year behind the cutting edge. Current favorite is "it/that slaps."
AFghanistan is called "where empires go to die," for a good reason. Many potent mlitary powers have been defeated there. It is not an indictment against those powers' military capabilities. It is a point of evidence that some conquests cannot be made by the imposition of will via the barrel of a gun.
Unless you are willing to kill every single last person living there, leaving an empty plot of land for you to impose your will upon.
And to be clear, at least for the United States, it was not a military defeat we suffered. Just like Vietnam and Iraq, the objectives could not be obtained by killing the enemy. We are the best at it. No one is better than our troops, no one's guns and gear are even as good as ours. When it comes it comes to schoolin', teaching classes in dropping asses, we are the best that's ever been.
But when it comes winning a war, not all wars are one by being efficient killers. You have to have that, no question. And in Afghanistan, like everywhere else we've plied the killers' trade, we stacked bodies like it was going out of style. Not even close. But the Afghans were not beat.
The problem was our American hubris/corruption, getting into the nation building business, rather than sticking with the killing terrorists business. Tora Bora should have been our model. Our on ground footprint should have never been beyond control of the airport, a major airbase, and a few forward outpost for monitoring. The rest should have been cultivating the locals, especially the warlords who hated the Taliban (which we were doing) for intel and be ready to go kill a target at a moment's notice, be it via airstrike, drone strike, cruise missles, artillery bombardment, sniper's bullet, wetwork or black ops team.
Let the Afghans run themselves as they have for a very long time.
And for those of you who say "What about Desert Storm?" When bringing up Iraq? Again, what was the mission? For Desert Storm, it was defeating the Iraqi military in detail in driving Iraq out of Kuwait. That was tailor made for a force like ours. But when it comes to turning Iraq into another Western country? Our military, our state apparatus cannot do that.
I’m very much looking forward to the new book. I’m also ordering the Taylor book on pay day. I come across so much good reading from these articles/essays/whatever any of us wants to call them.
Hey Rod, J.M. Wilson reviewed the Taylor book last month in NR. Thought you would have seen it so I didn't mention it here. My blow!, as we used to say in college.
One of my favourite social commentators on parallels between the late Soviet Union (SU) and its mirror image, the United States (US), going back all the way to the 2008 financial crisis, when we were hours away from total financial collapse, is Dmitry Orlov. He wrote an excellent book, Reinventing Collapse: The Soviet Experience and American Prospects, which I would urge everyone to read.
https://www.amazon.com/Reinventing-Collapse-Experience-American-Prospects/dp/0865716854
The premise of his book is summarised in this nearly two-decade old essay, which I think remains relevant:
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2006-12-04/closing-collapse-gap-ussr-was-better-prepared-collapse-us/
The main takeaway being, that if collapse were to take place in the US, it would be far worse than in the SU, due to its non-existent collapse preparedness.
Another author I would heartily recommend on the subject of collapse is James Howard Kunstler, in particular, his 2005 book, The Long Emergency
https://www.amazon.com/Long-Emergency-Converging-Catastrophes-Twenty-First/dp/0802142494
I read this in 2008, as the Lehman Brothers collapse was unfolding (Singapore was heavily affected and I ended up losing my job in the wake of that crisis) and it still remains one of the best books on the subject.
Incidentally, readers of Rod's substack would very much appreciate his bi-weekly blog, I think Jim remains an astute observer, if a bit cranky in his old age. He is one of those disaffected Democrats (used to be an editor of Rolling Stone magazine and a NYT columnist), who have really turned 180 degrees in the opposite direction and is now completely disgusted by everything the left represents:
https://kunstler.com/
Dmitry Orlov! I haven't thought about him in about two decades. Thank you for re-introducing me.
YW
He's not been active for a while. Last time I heard of him, he moved himself and his family to Russia from the US, in a Benedictine move. I believe he was disgusted by what he saw as the US's sliding into moral decay and already apparent and far gone social and cultural collapse. He is devout Russian Orthodox, grew out his beard in the traditional way and a steadfast supporter of the current Russian government, I believe, which must have put most of his readers off. I think he was probably deplatformed by big tech.
I haven’t cared much for Kunstler in a long time. Feels like he went MAGA/QAnon a while back and turned into a crank and gave up his very ascerbic social commentary a while back. That said, his World Made by Hand series was some top-shelf post collapse fiction.
Yeah, same here. I think his old books, like the Geography of Nowhere and The Long Emergency are really excellent though. Seems he has become a bit of a crazy crank in his old age, but he still makes some astute observations from time to time.
Kunstler's disaster predictions have also failed to come to pass. At some point we should regard him as we do those preachers who swear on a stack of Bibles they know the date and time of Jesus' return- and then hem, haw and wave their hands when Jesus stands them up.
I think people have difficulty remembering that troubles don’t occur on their timetable. There is a tragedy, in some senses, though, where the problems that people identity get ignored in favor of looking at their off-target predictions. Kunstler was right in identifying some of the more serious trends, but not the shorter-term outcomes. Global warming is a real problem and our current way of life is not sustainable, but it will not change until it is forced to change by circumstance. Warning about that was a good thing and I had my eyes opened a bit after reading The Long Emergency. Lately, though, all he’s been writing about is how the Democrats suck (true), how Biden is a moron (ditto), and how some Q-style justice is going to go down (hahaha).
In fairness to him, I’ve heard he is suffering financial and health troubles in recent years, so maybe his political turn came from trying to find a wider audience. Or maybe he just did go full Q.
Kunstler was surprised twenty years ago that many conservatives agreed with much of his criticisms.
Is there any doubt we're in the midst of a "long emergency," though the contours may not be exactly as Kunstler envisioned them?
His "long emergency" was specific: running out of fossil fuels.
Perhaps you are right about many of Kunstler's predictions. For instance, we haven't hit "peak oil." But he is an interesting critic, especially of suburban wastelands. I drove through suburban wastelands in the Essex-Middle River area yesterday after a funeral. Much of it was a motley collection of boarded up buildings on Eastern Blvd.
We did hit peak conventional oil in 2006, right on schedule, an year after his book came out. And we did get into a huge deal of economic trouble in 2007-2008, much more so than people realise (Just ask Hank Paulson). Most people forget, that the subprime collapse was preceded by record high oil prices, that's what broke the camel's back. What basically saved industrial civilisation, was the fracking and shale revolution. That is also the flaw in his argument, he doesn't account for technological innovation coming to save the day.
I had a ringside seat for the real estate collapse. It began in early 2007 though most people didn't notice until well into the following year. Right up until Lehman failed the mainstream consensus was for a short recession and a quick recovery
That tech innovation could save the day was vigorously denied by peak-oil true believers.
That's older suburban territory, and wrecked by the closure of the old steel plant on the east side.
Some years back Matt Yglesias stopped in that area for gas and seeing a deserted strip mall he opined that Peak Oil must already be forcing suburbanites to move back to core cities. Obviously not in regards to Baltimore!
Most of that Essex family have moved on to exurban Bel Air. Golden Ring Mall in Essex was closed and knocked down. Plenty of box stores on Route 40.
He's still a heck of a writer, and while he focuses almost entirely on the perfidy of the left it's a target-rich environment, and his take on "Joe Biden" is pretty much spot on - who among us actually thinks the doddering old man wandering off during public events is actually setting the policy agenda? It's only now that the electorate is beginning to catch on.
Kunstler is a fun crank. I think I've read most of all of his non-fiction books, most of which were written when he was more obviously a man of the left. Kunstler was surprised that many on the right found resonance in what he wrote.
I still think his point about how suburban sprawl and car-dependency are serious malinvestments, is a very astute one. North America would benefit a great deal from building dense, mixed-use and walkable neighbourhoods with good public transit links. Making everyone drive everywhere for absolutely everything is simply not the right approach to urban planning.
The automobile radicalized America. It sped up the country. And the autos are so much better made today. I'll give you an example of the modern automobile world. I attended a funeral in Baltimore yesterday. Two young men who live in Orlando, Florida drove up three days ago to attend the funeral. Both are on the road right now getting back to Orlando. That couldn't be done a century ago.
And the funny thing is, contrary to what many in the GOP believe, is that dense, mixed-use, walkable neighborhoods WERE THE MARKET SOLUTION until the automobile lobby—the auto clubs and the industrial groups—impelled state governments in the 1920s to provide smoothly paved highways in which their cars could race along at 70 mph. Car performance preceded highway engineering, not the other way round; we have the roads we have because we had the cars we had.
Anyway, the Interstates were the SECOND iteration of this process, not the first. The first were the US federal highways like U.S. 1 or the 101 in California or 66 to California.
The idea that the automobile is any kind of free market phenomenon is risible.
They also conspired to buy up and close down the US streetcar network, at the time the most extensive in the world. I believe they were indicted for it in the seventies, but there were no real consequences, what was done, was done and public transit in the US never recovered from that.
Another move, that doomed US public transit was prioritising cargo over passenger traffic on rail lines, which is still the case today. No wonder the few rail lines that remain are underused and multi-hour delays in rail journeys are commonplace.
I’ll have to disagree on that one. The streetcars were largely replaced by buses by the late 1930s due to bus flexibility in routing. Some streetcar systems lasted into the 1950s, though. Yes, there was court action along these lines, but nothing was proven.
The streetcar and mainline railroad networks were largely independent of each other. The only thing they had in common was track gauge.
People today confuse commuter rail with streetcars and trams. Understandably, as both modes are often now operated by the same public agencies. Formerly, commuter rail was a service provided by private-sector mainline railroad companies in conjunction with their longer-distance passenger service and usually sharing rights of way with freight traffic.
GM and others were convicted on antitrust grounds. But they weren’t trying to get rid of streetcars to make way for automobiles; rather, they were trying to monopolize bus sales. As I said earlier, buses are more route-flexible than fixed-track streetcars. And with the growth in population after WW2, it was easier to extend a bus route than to build a longer rail route. Automobiles were not the factor either in the court cases or the economic and engineering issues involved.
This!
As for passenger rail, that had ceased to be a paying proposition for the private-sector railroad industry by about 1950. Several larger systems tried to upgrade their long distance trains for the tourist market, but they eventually knuckled under. Mail contracts kept some trains going into the late 60s, but the post office shifted en route sorting off the rails at that time (one route lasted to 1977). Meanwhile, the private sector rail industry wanted to focus on bulk freight and long distance wholesale service for container shippers.
Amtrak was the Nixon-era public-private stopgap that has had a spotty record since then.
What Americans who never lived abroad do not realize is how much more lonely life is when you drive everywhere. The delights of knowing people on my town square (one block away) with all the markets and cafes are just endless for me.
In Phoenix, I lived downtown, in a home I restored. It was an older neighborhood, most homes were from the 1920s. I knew how it was once - with streetcars in walkable distance, then people could go to various shops and jobs in downtown Phoenix and live with a mile or two of those places. - But those days, and the streetcars, are no more. It was still much more suburban than Europe because people had their own houses and yards, though near downtown. They did not live in apartment-type blocks that is, 3 to 4 story buildings as one does in Europe if not, for the most part, in the countryside. - - American individuality led to our own building and yard for our home. That is why I am not sure we can fix the public transport problem in the USA. Comparatively far to walk for most people in order to have a sustainable system. - Also, our crime is much higher. Not really safe to walk to a transit stop and wait there in a lot of places especially after dark.
Apart from a few older cities, I don't think the US living arrangement can be changed significantly. It will probably stay the way it is until it can be maintained on cheap energy - which for the time being is still possible, due to the fracking and shale revolution in North America. How long that will last and is sustainable, no one can tell. There is just no physical way by which houses, that are too far apart, can be brought closer to each other.
To be fair, it's not like other parts of the world don't have a suburban sprawl and car dependency problem. Here in Sopron, as soon as summer break starts, the roads empty out and the constant traffic jams become a thing of the past. For some unknown reason, parents insist on driving their kids to school, when in most cases that would not be necessary. However, with suburban sprawl and no school bus system, like in the US, it will be unavoidable. There are more and more suburban areas around here that have zero facilities and spotty or non-existent public transit.
I think it is impossible to overestimate the amount of damage done to American life by the disappearance of downtowns. Here's one:
Had you known that before World War II., Los Angeles had the best public transportation system in the United States? It was a streetcar system, which went as far as Bakersfield in one direction and Pacific Palisades in the other. It died because the Chandler family wanted it to die. Why? Because, having discovered oil on their vast property holdings, they wanted to encourage private auto use. Using their media properties, primarily The Los Angeles Times, during and after the war, they campaigned without ceasing for the chucking of the streetcar system, and the building of the freeways. And they got their way, as we know.
Among the great communal possibilities of the streetcar system was that kids from all over the area who, in the 1930s had lacked the money to buy cars, had been able to use it to get to whichever venue a big band might be playing.
The Chandlers' success in making their greedy dream come true may have been the thing which more than any other put the knife in the big bands era. The bands played all over the country, of course, but most of their income came from three hub metropolises: New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles.
The loss of accessibility for young people without cars to performances a big band might play in the Los Angeles area was so gouging to the bands' income prospects that it was the final lethal blow to the big band era, thought Gene Lees, the jazz essayist.
Foe a while even suburbs were designed to be walkable snd bikeable, though you did need a car for longer trips and inclement weather. Sometime around 1980 suburban design began featuring endless cul de sacs, no way to connect between subdivisions and ridiculously large lots that pretty required hiring lawn care people.
The later 1970s produced this kind of design, which was begun to be built after 1980. Such “neighborhoods” are an obscenity. I grew up in neighborhoods built in the 1960s that were much more pedestrian-friendly and kid-friendly. You could reach adjacent streets without venturing out onto a main road.
But as with most things in modern American life, we decided to build precisely the kind of environment that leads to anomie, mental illness, environmental degradation, social isolation and so on. Also, there is probably racism involved. There is nothing good about such things, except for the developers and the bureaucrats who dream up the rules for these things.
I saw a comment somewhere that "A healthy society is not one in which the poor own cars, but in which the rich use public transport".
Love it. As I said up above to Linda just now, I think it's impossible to overestimate the damage which the loss of downtowns did to American life.
Even my wife's hometown of Wadsworth, Ohio has a declining downtown. If you want to shop, you drive to the shopping centers outside of town that used to be farmland pre-1965 or so.
One of the reasons I stuck with Baltimore as long as I did is because, given good or at least tolerable weather I could bike many places, even to work 2008-2018. I'm hoping to replicate that down here in Florida, if I can just get moved down to St Pete proper.
I shudder to think what would happen to this country if there were even a weekend-long breakdown of the logistic chain of the food supply. It would be the end.
We already had a preview of coming attractions during major hurricanes, like Katrina. What happened then, would occur on a national scale and nobody would be able to do anything about it.
Katrina caused the physical destruction of infrastructure-- both the power grid and roads, railroads, airports and port facilities in the affected areas. If you want to posit something like that-- say, nuclear detonations over major cities with or without EMPs-- yes things will get awfully grim.
Keep your powder dry and your weapons clean.
In 2003 we had a major power outage across the northeast (also affecting Ontario). Things did not fall apart.
You did not read my post carefully.
OK, maybe you should explain it better. Weekend long (and longer) disruptions happen with every major hurricane, blizzard and ice storm. Sometimes things get a bit rough, the result is not the collapse of civilization. In 2016 we suffered what was called "Snowzilla" (an affectionate nickname derived from a freeway signboard which read "Lizzard Warning!") The snowstorm lasted all weekend, dropping thirty inches of snow, and it took some time to dig out from. If anything it was one of our more pacific weekends in Baltimore as even the thugs couldn't go anywhere to work their thuggery.
And then there was Snowmageddon in 2010 when three separate nor'easters dropped over four feet of snow in less than a week. Again, the Götterdämmerung failed to materialize.
The Tsarist regime fell in February with trains laden with wheat stranded in blizzards not far from St. Petersburg. As a temporary fix
the working population and peasant military garrison of St. Petersburg was asked to eat the fine white bread of the upper classes instead of the more robust brown bread they were used to. It did not turn out well.
When Covid lockdowns came we fell all over ourselves to make sure things didn't go completely over the cliff. And we learned some lessons about what works and what goes too far and what did not go far enough. Will we take that to heart? Maybe, may not. But as long as the power stays on, the sun still shines, there aren't so many bodies piled up that we can't bury them, and the roads and railroads still conduct traffic I think we'll hang tight. The US can be both energy and food independent at need.
I don't think our elites learned anything of significance during Covid, except, perhaps, how to corral and control a sheepish population.
I ordered an autographed copy of your new book a couple weeks ago. Looking forward to it!!!!
I noticed them asking me to use the app if I wanted to subscribe to someone on my phone... On principle, that means I will not use their app.
Something I think we should all take seriously: There is a real chance China makes it's move on Taiwan this year, if the aftermath of the US election gives them the opportunity.
I'm convinced the recent naval maneuvers were a dry run. If China blockades Taiwan and asserts their claims to sovereignty, they take the island unless the US government is willing to openly attack Chinese warships. I.E. start WW3.
Will the US do that if we have significant unrest at home? Such as the type that seems very likely to happen in the aftermath of the election?
Imagine: Biden wins. Trump contests. We get another January 6th but worse. Dems use it as an excuse to crackdown on all dissidents (a la Trudeau and the truckers), sparking more unrest, sparking a bigger crackdown...
Would the government start WW3 under these conditions?
If not, the West loses almost all access to high end computer chips. And of course it's possible Xi miscalculates, the US does decide that war is worth it... And then we have bigger problems.
Xi is serious about taking Taiwan, and there's good reason to move sooner rather than later. If he sees an opportunity, I think he'll take it. We should all be prepared for that scenario.
Re: Would the government start WW3 under these conditions?
Yes. See: "Wag the dog". And as you point out Taiwanese chips are vital to the world economy. We're not going let the Qanon Shaman and his ilk derail the world economy.
However China is not reckless, unlike their Russian "friend". They are playing a very long game, and need a lot more to fall into place before they can make a warfare move.
Jon sorry man, but a lot of the time you sound like the guy who didn't do the assigned reading but still attempts to dominate the class discussion based on what he heard the reading was about.
Please do not be mean to the poor, innocent Q'Anon Shaman, Jacob Chansley. You don't have to believe in Q or anything to know the guy was railroaded - it is proven on film.
Yes, he told the guards who were escorting him sedately out of the House chamber that he would pray for them. A terrifying threat. Still, did he have to show up with his Viking regalia. Dumb?
I watched the Flintstones after school and though Chansley's Grand Poobah outfit was pretty cool. Q Shaman was definitely punished harshly but does have significant mental health issues.
Indeed - not terrifying. Jacob Chansley was released from prison early, after films not accessible to the defense surfaced. They showed (a) He walked in while police were holding open the doors. I'd have done the same. There but for the grace of God is how I feel about most - not all - of these folks (b) The police offered to take him around - apparently, he was talking to people, calming them. (c) police took him to the senate chamber, and opened the door for him. They later left with him. (d) no violence, no going anywhere without police taking him there and/or opening doors for him
- - His regalia? I dunno, I guess he wanted to be an influencer and for a while it was a success. He was fooled by conspiracy theories - many have been Laptop, anyone?
I'm more concerned about what happens if Trump wins. "The Resistance" takes to the streets en masse, and suddenly it's OK - moral even - to set fires and destroy property.
And Trump responds by sending in the troops. And away we go...
Ditto. If DT does win, I hope it's pretty damn clear that he did. Otherwise, get the dogs, firehoses, and tear gas ready.
Didn't happen before. Well not on any major scale. There were some protests. The Baltimore anti-Trump march even kicked over some trash cans, the fiends. And the Women's March in DC left appalling amounts of litter. Still well short of storming the Winter Palace or tearing down the Bastille.
We will see. And I certainly hope there's nothing to see
A lot depends on the weather too. As a general rule people do not riot in cold or wet weather.
Over 50 people died as a direct result of the violent ("fiery but mostly peaceful") protests across the country in 2020, and billions of dollars of property was destroyed. The protests were the work of Leftist street thugs like Antifa and similar groups. Very few faced any legal
penalties; in fact, at the time Vice President Kamala Harris publicly announced her support for bailing out rioters in Minneapolis. My point is, don't underestimate the Left; rioting is in their DNA.
Nope. There were provocateurs from both the Left and the Right, but the energy of the riots was totally apolitical, consisting of a lot of underclass lowlifes looking to grab free stuff and maybe settle scores.
Re: Very few faced any legal penalties
Not true. Where rioters could be identified from surveillance footage and a case built against them, they have been arrested and prosecuted.
Re: Vice President Kamala Harris publicly announced her support for bailing out rioters in Minneapolis.
The above is so far from reality it makes the Andromeda galaxy look close.
Live not by lies.
I have seen where Taiwan has plans to scuttle those fab plants if China invades. So the world might lose almost all access to high end computer chips.
I'm not sure about that.
Xi is playing the long game on Taiwan. The saber-rattling that they do periodically is largely for domestic consumption, because this permits Xi and the CCP in general to align people around something, especially in times like this when the Chinese economy isn't doing as well as it has been for most of the last few decades (although it appears to be improving lately). Xi doesn't want a direct confrontation on Taiwan -- I really do believe that the plan is to wait out the decline of the US, while continuing to expand Chinese power and influence in East Asia.
Xi in particular is pretty risk averse. And he, as a theorist, has a very long view of history as well. Yes, Xi is actually a Marxist, still, and not merely a cynic ... he really does think that China is the only place that has done Marxism correctly, and that in shepherding the country through the various phases of economic development as outlined by Marx in Das Kapital, China will eventually reach socialism in a managed way, without further internal conflict, over time. He's written quite a bit about it, which most people in the West seem to see as completely cynical nonsense, but I doubt that's actually the case. Xi is certainly very Machiavellian, but he's also a Marxist, and one with a particularly long view.
There was a greater risk of an actual confrontation over Taiwan in the years following the Huawei banning, and then the later chip bans, but even then the approach of the CCP has been to double down on domestic industry, development of Chinese chips, and other sources of equipment, rather than endless escalation with the US. In other words, they preferred to find a workaround to the option of bringing the Taiwan issue to a head, and that was when the cutoff almost killed China's then national champion, Huawei. Huawei has since bounced back, and is an example of how this approach has, in many ways, worked, and made Huawei (and the related Chinese tech industry) stronger by making it less dependent on the US. That's the approach Xi prefers. He will rattle the saber on Taiwan, but a direct confrontation is quite unlikely.
Good points. But why I think this time is different:
1. China has been rapidly ramping up military production, while the US alliance is at a historical low. We've expended a lot on Ukraine, and we have plans to ramp up production - but we haven't yet. Now that the US is finally getting serious about China, China loses its advantage in preparation if it doesn't move soon.
2. The world is just now realizing the importance of AI, and the AI industry is entirely dependent on the advanced chips coming out of Taiwan. China has an urgent incentive to kill the growing American lead in AI. Even if it can't seize the chip factories for itself, it's important to deny them to the US.
3. Xi is getting old, and thinking about his legacy. Waiting for the US to collapse is safer than confrontation... but the future is uncertain. Contrary to predictions of Chinese and Western dissidents, the US may in fact not collapse; or it may not collapse soon. Xi knows this. He also knows that for the near future, every year he waits shifts the balance in military and AI power away from China.
I'm not saying it's certain, even if the election becomes a disaster. But Xi has good reason to take the opportunity if it comes.
There's certainly some risk, I agree. China also knows that due to the looming AI gap, if it doesn't have the confrontation soon, it will have to wait that much longer until it closes the gap again, and by then its demographic issues will be really starting to bite on its position in other ways. So there's an argument that they should strike now, when the gap is closer than it will be for some time, rather than wait.
Weighed against that is the reality that the Chinese take a longer view of history than pretty much any other power, which makes their perspective harder to understand and relate to, and tends to weigh in favor of foregoing the contemporary situation and waiting for a better opportunity downrange, temporally. It's true that this may be a long wait -- I agree that while I think Xi really does believe that the US is in irreversible decline, he also would agree that this may take quite some time to play itself out.
We will see what they do.
AI is far from vital to the world economy. In fact it's still something of a pain in the rear to deal with, artificfial but not intelligent. Imagine-- having a human being have to answer a call instead of some smarmy bot who insists it can understand whole sentences but never can grasp what I am trying to ask.
Very very hard to believe the U.S. will do anything substantive if China moves on Taiwan. If they do it before the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November then there will be some chest-beating on Biden's part for votes and the whole thing will be over by Christmas.
Houthi rebels have effectively neutered the effectiveness of the USS Eisenhower strike group with low-tech drones. How would similar carriers fare against a peer rival?
It's up to the Celestials -- both on Taiwan and the mainland -- to figure out the best solution.
I thought the column was pretty incredible today. Overall, it is amazing that so much good material can be read, digested, presented and commented upon. This happens petty much every day. I remain amazed at any brain that can do this.
I was not familiar with Eric Weinstein and thought he was especially excellent. A bit depressing, in a way, to see all of the things Regime Media gaslights us about in a long list. But helpful - my cognitive map of "what is going on" was given additional structure through this reading. I also just loved his "rule of 2 out of 3".
Weinstein described Democrats the "party transformed over 30 years" as "my own historic political party". I looked him up just now. He was a managing director for Thiel Capital -Thiel being a famous and much-maligned man of the right, i.e. "Reach, Independence, not Reputation". Did Weinstein stay on the left? I found his website, with only two podcasts, but the first is nearly 3 hours on "Geometric Unity". So it is possible I should bow my head in shame (because math education was my field) for not knowing about this guy. Or it is possible it was hard to become familiar with Weinstein because he is thought, correctly or incorrectly, to be of the right. This is especially with the Thiel association - perhaps hence not widely publicized, i.e. "Reputation, Independence, not Reach". But probably he is something like a Taibbi or a Dershowitz - pretty much keeps the label Democrat and of recent years puts forth about 95 percent thought from the right.
PS: Rod you have Independence and Reach. Weinstein's rule must be of comfort when they go for your Reputation.
It's important to note as you do that it's not just "the left" that gaslights, but so does the "Regime Media," who are almost universally on the left culturally speaking but tend to be fiscally very much neo-liberal. As I've said about a zillion times on here, the new default is what in the old days we used to describe as "socially liberal but fiscally conservative." Those terms don't really apply anymore, but the comparison itself holds.
Interesting. That has not been my impression. The left-wing media was happy for a very long time to play the lying Democrat line "inflation is only temporary". They absolutely will not tell people the truth - that creating money for pet causes (or even for partly-valid things, and partly not, related to Covid) causes inflation. We have inflation as we create new money out of thin air as we do now, by the trillions. Regime media are also big on, in PJ O'Rourke's words "Eat the Rich". Yes, make business pay its "fair share", never mind that increases prices and decreases available jobs.
While I certainly do not oppose all government help, I think the media pushes too much government economic government intervention. Forgiving student loans, for example. Or the misuse of climate data to support ridiculous spending on climate by the media.
So I am not sure - are you saying Regime Media is fiscally conservative, and if so, why do you say that?
I think that most of the "Eat the Rich" stuff is insincere, and is mostly a bone thrown to the electorate to keep them on the plantation. Many of the people saying these things are themselves rich, or at least affluent, and they have no problems whatsoever with Big Business provided it toes the line culturally. They are very selective about the "elites" they want to bring down.
Gaslighting is a feminine tactic. Women have been blocking, shunning, demoralizing other women through gaslighting tactics…..forever. The Democrat party is a thoroughly feminine institution today (Republicans aren’t much better). Look at the gaslighting type rhetoric dems are always using: “we’re better than that….that’s not who we are…shame, shame, shame, SHAME! …..we don’t negotiate with thugs…..ruled, rules, RULES.” Our adversaries think that we are a joke, and we are, but a very dangerous joke; our estrogened leaders are seriously contemplating nuclear war.
Matters are only going to get worse.
He’s the brother of Bret Weinstein who does a popular podcast with his wife.
That's an interesting connection I wasn't aware of. Bret Weinstein and his wife were savaged by their fellow Leftists for taking a principled stand against reverse discrimination practices at Evergreen College in Washington state and as a result wound up resigning from their faculty jobs there.
So the app is who done it. I'm shocked, shocked.
One thing that separates us from the Soviets is that we still have a high standard of living, the reserve currency, and dominate the western world. All of those things could change very quickly, of course. One thing we do not have is any kind of unified national values (the Soviets were not homogeneous in this, but I’m not aware of anything similar to our red-blue cold culture war). That would make any kind of post-government collapse much worse. I could realistically see people using the chaos as a chance for a little Bloody Kansas style shenanigans.
I am not aware of anyone right now who could be a Gorbachev. Our political process is geared towards people who are good solely at getting elected. Our “two-party system” largely discourages any sort of reform or replacement of the incompetent, so we get more and more distilled idiocy at the top.
I think it is a sign of the apathy and complacency of the American citizenry that the failures in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the ludicrous pretext for the latter war, did not result in mass public outrage. Again, keep people far and happy and they will let a lot of things slide, I guess. In a sense, that feels like a far more dangerous thing, because it means any sort of public crisis is likely to come when people are already hungry and desperate, not just frustrated with a failing system.
Last, you have to look at a political system that can produce this joke of an election year and reasonably ask if there is any hope of reform for it at all. I have long thought we should replace the current system with one similar to a parliamentary system, and abolish the presidency. I don’t think it would produce much in the way of any return to a more free and moral nation, but the presidency has become a de facto form of imperial government. It was never intended to be such, and the two parties have done a horrible job in recent decades of stewarding the nation. We can do better, but I do not think reform will ever happen until it will come after severe hardships.
I think the Presidency has become like an elected Roman Emperor. This has happened due to how wealthy America is and how powerful its military is. And you are right. The current system is unreformable.
This is why I'm always happy when an executive order is ruled unconstitutional whether I agree with it on substance or not.
Sorry to disappoint you but I agree. Did Washington ever make an executive order? The Executive Branch is way too powerful and has been for decades.
Maybe Washington issued orders to the kitchen staff on the dinner menu?
"is that we still have a high standard of living"
Comparably, but talk to young people who understand they'll never afford a house, etc. The anger is rising.
At some point a man on a white horse rides in. That will be "The Answer" - but a very, very dangerous thing indeed.
A big change since I was a young man is that many American metro areas have unaffordable housing for young people just starting out.
And the "affordable" housing that's getting built consists of $400,000 "luxury" condos or apartments starting a $3k per month. No new supply + overpriced existing inventory = no homeownership for you
I live in a standard "non-luxury" condo community, and it's starting to serve as a sort of starter-home enclave for young couples with and without children. Unfortunately, it's also starting to attract immigrants of the unsavory sort and the Section 8 set asides are drawing more and more of the usual suspects.
I bought the unit in 2014 -- I can see selling it in a couple years and potentially doubling my investment, because even at that price it will be far cheaper than all the hideous new townhouses that are going up around here. (The last small farm sold around the time I moved in, and was turned into a big cookie-cutter housing plan about five years later.)
"Luxury" housing-- the only "luxury" is the price.
Here in Canada many young people can’t even afford rent. Trudeau’s massive immigration push has caused a huge housing crisis.
I’ve often wondered why the Founding Fathers didn’t go with a parliamentary system like most former British colonies, including our neighbor to the north, but they have Trudeau so I’m not sure it would be an improvement. It’s apparent from the Constitution that the Founders did not envision the imperial presidency we have, Alexander Hamilton’s wishes notwithstanding.
The Constitution has a fine system with checks and balances although the Executive Branch is way too strong and has been since FDR's time. Extreme wealth created a system that almost demands an Imperial Presidency. We aren't a 90% agrarian nation like in 1787.
Began with Wilson, and expanded exponentially first under FDR, then Johnson, then every one since. Even worse, the Administrative State has tracked the same timeline.
They sort of did. The House of Representatives is like the House of Commons. The Senate is an elected House of Lords. The President is an elected King.
Mentioning the military power of the U.S. and the Soviet Union reminds me of the saying, "You can't kill a fly with an elephant gun."
And yet, the US has one of the strongest economies in the world. We recovered faster and more thoroughly from there Covid years than Europe has. We remain a leader in technology and science. As people on the Right used to point out to whiny leftists, If the US is such a bad place why do so many foreigners want to move here?
Re: It could not even win a war in Afghanistan
Good grief, neither could we! Nor the British in the 1800s. Afghanistan has foiled lots of would-be conquerors. Alexander pulled it off by marrying a powerrful chieftain's daughter. Genghis Khan killed everyone right down to the dogs and goats.
Re: STRING THEORY
Er, what is String Theory (a very complex and recondite set of speculative theories in physics) doing in the list? Is it a intelligence test-- what item does not belong here?
Re: In all cases above, there is some absolutely *MASSIVE* long-term lying and obfuscation.
Yes, the Right invents ten new conspiracy theories before breakfast, and pulls "alternative facts" out of places the sun does not shine. God forfend they rely on hard numbers-- that math stuff is for sissies.
On a nicer note, I look forward to Rod's book.
Yeah the mention of string theory had me rather puzzled.
I thought String Theory was on the list because it’s never produced anything concrete experimentally but continues to be supported by a group of physicists in the absence of any evidence. It’s a mirage that sucks scientific resources like some kind of make work program for smart guys.
You;re not wrong-- but it's not a political or cultural issue. A good analogy would be the old Ptolemaic system of epicycles.
Yes, but it is an example of something the experts perpetuate in the absence of any hard evidence.
Conspiracy theories and "alternative facts" are not the same as what Weinstein is describing. And of course there are just as many of those on the left.
Funny how even when a lefty calls out the left you refuse to take your spectacles off. Although the "independent" or "dissident" right is a small minority, at least there is one.
I am not a "lefty". My politics are quite quirky.
I don't disagree that there are tinfoil hatters and "fact" smiths on the left. I call that out in other online venues but you don't see that since we almost never get those types here.
Didn't say you were a lefty. What I said was that you can't recognize the validity of a lefty calling out the left, because your "whatabout" glasses can't come off.
"the US has one of the strongest economies in the world"
A complete and utter paper tiger rooted in indebtedness. The US national debt is now rising to the tune of $1 trillion every 100 days. Private equity has basically hollowed out huge swaths of corporate America. The young increasingly understand they'll never be able to afford a home, never be able to afford a "comfortable" life.
American credit card debt now sits at $1.12 TRILLION.
And God forbid the Boomer generation be hit with any sort of economic downturn - do we understand how crucial an ever-rising stock market is to the "wealth" of the retired, and those hoping to retire on their retirement savings? But the Fed tells us only about half of Americans have retirement savings, anyway.
And a story from last week tells me that 46% of the middle class ar now eliminating their contributions to their retirement funds - to pay current bills.
You see a "strong" economy - I see the Great and Powerful Oz.
1.12 Trillion in CC debt doesn’t sound so bad. And 30% of government debt is money we owe ourselves.
<<<And God forbid the Boomer generation....>>> I am pleading with God - please, please make it stop.
People born 1946 to 1964 do not have a lot in common. (For that matter, people born 1956 to 1974 have more in common.) kgsmart I am not picking on you because so many people keep insulting "Boomers" and you are using everyday language. But it is not true that "Boomers" are a group. It is not true that people can make any general statements about those born 1946 to 1964. Also - It excludes those over 78. It includes someone not yet 60. It is not a "thing". It "otherizes" and separates an insults unnecessarily. If people mean "older people" I wish they would say "older people".
I am so, so tired of people pretending I am horrible and people very little different in age from me are not like me at all.
Sorry for the rant. Or maybe not sorry now but will be sorry later. Or maybe everything I said is true and so it should have been said.
PS - Donald Trump has been referred to as a "Boomer". Technically true, though if born six months earlier he'd be "Silent" And wouldn't some people like that, heh.
I admit I am getting up there. But I am not in the same age group as that old man!
Edit: And I've just proved I fit the sterotype by objecting to the term :) Oh, the humility.
Brava, Linda! Lots of us born in Boomer years who never had anything in common with the supposed characteristics of that so-called "generation", an arbitrary concept of some pop-culture guru, which our sheep-like media and intellectual class have run with ever since. Wonder when they'll run out of silly names ...
The point being, if you were born during that time frame, you're either retired or on the cusp of retirement, and likely eyeing your retirement accounts warily - assuming you have any. And if the market were to tank basically at any point in the coming years - people born in that time frame in particular would be screwed
As would retirees 79 and over. Whereas a 58 year old would be just about as screwed as a 59 year old.
In my opinion, a collective reference to those 59 to 78 does not work, nor will it work in the future - this is not an "age group" with a lot in common. But I now have some degree of regret that you were the one to hear of my frustrations at being labeled with this term. That said I think my reasons for not using the term "Boomer", and instead saying "older people" or "retirees and those near retirement" were sound. One reason I did it now was that you did not particularly insult Boomers, as many here have without my being confrontational about it. So I wanted it to be seen as not especially confrontational, but yes, making a strong objection to the term. Thanks for understanding.
Re: A complete and utter paper tiger rooted in indebtedness.
You have just described every economy on the planet since at least the late Middle Ages. Get back to me when an economy can operate with no debt.
So, very curious, what you think the basis for America's "strong economy" is.
Our manufacturing base - which we've eviscerated? Private equity ownership of homes, driving up the prices? Crypto? "The consumer," who on average has some $6,500 in credit card debt? Defense spending (better keep the war in Ukraine going...)? TikTok?
Seriously - at one time of course America has a manufacturing base that out-produced the world. What, pray tell, is our similar economic strength today?
Among other things we are now the world's leading energy producer and are one of the world's leading food producers. We also are a major services provider. Does any other country have so many foreigners flocking to its universities?
I don't think that the claim was 'no debt'. That is your invention. The claim is 'excessive debt.'
I'd love an autographed copy but the preorder would probably mean it'd be super impersonal. Better to hunt you down in Alabama or even Budapest. I'm not very interesting. I'm smarter than most in society (a very low bar), but compared to you I'm quite ordinary and not special or smart enough to write about. I've had more impact on world affairs than I ever deserved to have, but that impact is in retrospect an indictment of the entire modern system and not something to be proud of (and I don't want it written about). But still if I had the chance I'd prefer to shake your hand and enjoy a cup of coffee rather than get some signature that means very little.
I would inform Mr. Ferguson that Senator Roger Wicker is part of the problem and hasn't any solutions. Wicker is a Lindsey Graham who likes girls. Wicker wants more money for the military-industrial complex and more missions in obscure countries that most Americans couldn't find on a map. Wicker refuses to see that the officer corps in the military is woke and morally corrupt. The American military's scope needs to be scaled down and the woke elements to be separated from the military. Firing the worst 200 generals would be a good start.
None of that means his report is inaccurate, though. Look at how McHale's Navy is doing with the Houthis.
Cmon now, McHale and his crew of 8 balls were quite competent!
They always put it over on Binghamton and they always sunk the “Nip” subs!
Ensign Parker was an unacknowledged genius. And Carpenter was no help to Binghampton.
Speaking of the Navy, Mark Helprin's latest novel, 'The Ocean and the Stars,' is fantastic. Some lovey-dovey stuff at the beginning slows it down just a mite, but after that...whoo boy!
It's about a middle aged Captain who pisses off his Naval superiors and gets a crap mission as a reward. He, being the smart and noble guy that he is, decides to do the right thing and make it a success, rather than just ride out what amounts to his last assignment. Great stuff, and as always with MH the writing is stellar.
This is a great novel. Helprin goes all Tom Clancy!
Much better writer though. Helprin's a true wordsmith.
Wow, hadn't thought about him in ages. A great, unique writer. I read "Soldier of the Great War" and "Winter's Tale" and other stuff by him. I don't read fiction anymore but he'd be worth revisiting.
"Soldier..." is my favorite novel by a living writer. Everything he's done since then has been either very good or great, excepting maybe "Freddy and Fredericka," which I thought was a bit overstuffed (although I must say I liked it much better the second time I read it, once I realized that it was intended as a modern day picaresque novel, not simply a comic work).
"Soldier" was fantastic. "Winter's Tale" great but I had some trouble understanding the magical realism if that's what you call it. Now I suspect more of that was intended as humor than I understood at the time. "Antproof" didn't knock me out and I didn't read F&F though.
He is indeed an all-time great writer. Coming from another plane.
I love 'Antproof." That's the first novel of his I read, followed by the magnificent story collection 'The Pacific.' I need to read 'Winter's Tale' again, as that's one of the ones I've read only once.
No, Ted. Wicker's report may be accurate. He just doesn't have the solutions.
“A Lindsey Graham who likes girls”! Epic! 👍
Ouch!
What is a citizen to do when the current regime pays window dressing respect to constitutional law. Most Americans support the constitution. Time and time again, the regime favors the tyranny of the miniscule minority and they dole out special rights to these groups like tic tacs and the majority must suck it up or be cancelled. When we form groups to oppose the regime we are either demonized or worse thrown in jail. Oath keepers and proud boys. Or the government will bankrupt you through litigation, Alex Jones and Giuliani as well as many j6ers. Are we at the point where resistance is necessary but futile? Are we more like the 1930s Soviet Union or the flaccid Cherenko 's Soviet union. If we are, then perhaps Vaclav Havels Power of the Powerless provides some answers.
I like the Proud Boys. Did excellent work in Portland.
They did. The Biden administration put the leaders in jail. The media characterizes them as a hate group becuase they stand for for a constitutional republic instead of an authoritarian government.
I am younger than you, Rod, but I'm also older, because I refuse to accept "banger" as a descriptor. Also, get off my lawn.
As a teacher of high school boys, I need to at least attempt to keep up on current slang, though I am usually about a year behind the cutting edge. Current favorite is "it/that slaps."
AFghanistan is called "where empires go to die," for a good reason. Many potent mlitary powers have been defeated there. It is not an indictment against those powers' military capabilities. It is a point of evidence that some conquests cannot be made by the imposition of will via the barrel of a gun.
Unless you are willing to kill every single last person living there, leaving an empty plot of land for you to impose your will upon.
Afghanistan is such a place.
And to be clear, at least for the United States, it was not a military defeat we suffered. Just like Vietnam and Iraq, the objectives could not be obtained by killing the enemy. We are the best at it. No one is better than our troops, no one's guns and gear are even as good as ours. When it comes it comes to schoolin', teaching classes in dropping asses, we are the best that's ever been.
But when it comes winning a war, not all wars are one by being efficient killers. You have to have that, no question. And in Afghanistan, like everywhere else we've plied the killers' trade, we stacked bodies like it was going out of style. Not even close. But the Afghans were not beat.
The problem was our American hubris/corruption, getting into the nation building business, rather than sticking with the killing terrorists business. Tora Bora should have been our model. Our on ground footprint should have never been beyond control of the airport, a major airbase, and a few forward outpost for monitoring. The rest should have been cultivating the locals, especially the warlords who hated the Taliban (which we were doing) for intel and be ready to go kill a target at a moment's notice, be it via airstrike, drone strike, cruise missles, artillery bombardment, sniper's bullet, wetwork or black ops team.
Let the Afghans run themselves as they have for a very long time.
And for those of you who say "What about Desert Storm?" When bringing up Iraq? Again, what was the mission? For Desert Storm, it was defeating the Iraqi military in detail in driving Iraq out of Kuwait. That was tailor made for a force like ours. But when it comes to turning Iraq into another Western country? Our military, our state apparatus cannot do that.
I’m very much looking forward to the new book. I’m also ordering the Taylor book on pay day. I come across so much good reading from these articles/essays/whatever any of us wants to call them.
Hey Rod, J.M. Wilson reviewed the Taylor book last month in NR. Thought you would have seen it so I didn't mention it here. My blow!, as we used to say in college.
https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2024/07/how-poetry-responds-to-a-disenchanted-world/