Hero Or Goat?

Comments

1. Michael Herdegen - May 13, 2006 @ 10:37 pm

   …the Universe gives you what you need.

   Six million Jews and other undesirables “needed” to be killed in Germany ?
   Ten million Ukrainians “needed” to be killed by Stalin, in the USSR ?
   Thirty million Chinese “needed” to be killed by Mao ?

   While the Universe often gives one what is needed, although usually in disguise, it ain’t a sure thing.

2. lonbud - May 14, 2006 @ 9:57 am

   Anything to avoid the central theme, eh Michael?

   But, to answer your questions, one might think the deaths of six million Jews would have been all that was needed to apprise the leaders of a country like Israel regarding the advisability of policies of ghettoization and ethnic cleansing.

   One could imagine the killing done by Stalin would have sufficed to give pause to an American leadership that installed and supported — to name just two — dictators such as Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in Iran and Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

   The Universe doesn’t often do anything at all. The Universe IS. You are correct that its teachings come cloaked in different disguises, but the Universe contains everything sufficient for the divination of truth. Seek and ye shall find.

3. Michael Herdegen - May 14, 2006 @ 12:25 pm

   Anything to avoid the central theme, eh Michael?

   The central theme is that you think that Jason Leopold is a sloppy journalist.
   I have no knowledge or opinion about that.

   A secondary theme is that Karl Rove must be manipulating all American media, which is absurd on its face.
   However, if it is true, then he’s doing a really poor job of it.

   Then you point out that truth is relative, which is a truism.
   Still, there are many things that most can agree are “true”, which makes those that disagree “wrong”, although of course mere consensus doesn’t prove anything.

   If America “installed” Saddam, then we’re well within our rights to take him out, no ?
   And if we’ve learned from the killing done by Stalin, then we’re obligated to put an end to similar butchery, right ?

   Your analysis of Israeli/Palestinian Arab relations is both insane and extremely offensive.
   Israel would have been very happy to live in peace with Jordan and Egypt – it was THEIR mililitary offensives which forced Israel to take over Gaza and the West Bank.
   Further, I’ve failed to learn about the history of Jewish homicide bombers killing random innocent Germans, forcing the Third Reich to respond with concentration camps and genocide. Please point me to some sources which compare and contrast Palestian Arab homicide bombers to the Jewish ones.

   Failing that, we’ll have to agree that there’s not much similarity between Hitler’s Germany and Israel.

4. lonbud - May 14, 2006 @ 4:29 pm

   Your capacity for misreading things is prodigious, Michael. In no way is the central theme of the post my belief that Mr. Leopold is a sloppy journalist.

   If anything might be inferred about my beliefs from the post (and others I’ve made in this forum) it’s that I’m of the opinion the mainstream media doesn’t do a very good job of fulfilling its role in our social contract.

   Nowhere do I impute to Mr. Rove an ability to control the media, though I do suggest the powers behind the mainstream media are comprised of and beholden to the same corporate/industrialist interests behind the “success” of George W. Bush.

   And no, in my ethical worldview, the fact that the United States installed Saddam Hussein does not bring with it a corresponding “right” to take him out, nor does the lesson gained from Stalin’s butchery ordain the United States with an “obligation” to put an end to similar programs of genocide. Refraining from butchery and indicriminate killing on one’s own account would seem to suffice, but the leaders of the United States have yet to grok that aspect of the Universe’s wisdom.

   Finally, I offered no analysis of Israeli/Palestinian Arab relations, and your piqued response to my comment about something the State of Israel might have gleaned from the experience of the Holocaust is a prime expression of the difficulty people have with the mere task of talking about the volatile nature of Middle East politics.

   There’s not much similarity between Hitler’s Germany and any other country at any other time in the history of mankind; however, your couching Israel’s treatment of the Palestinian people as a simple response to “homicide bombers” is both facile and inaccurate.

5. Michael Herdegen - May 14, 2006 @ 8:18 pm

   In no way is the central theme of the post my belief that Mr. Leopold is a sloppy journalist.

   This is true, but what, I ask, do you think that your theme was ?
   Based on your accusing me of “avoiding” it, I assume that you believe that your theme was Rove and mendacity. With no insult intended, if that’s true, then you may wish to consider reading a short primer on composition.

   …my comment about something the State of Israel might have gleaned from the experience of the Holocaust…

   Nice spin.
   You accused Israel of ethnic cleansing, while referencing the Holocaust, which was genocidal.

   That was either clumsy and boorish, or intended to imply that the descendants of Holocaust survivors aren’t any better than those who killed their parents and grandparents.
   Neither case reflects well on you.

   Refraining from butchery and indicriminate killing on one’s own account would seem to suffice, but the leaders of the United States have yet to grok that aspect of the Universe’s wisdom.

   And you can’t seem to grasp that by refusing to aid victims, you empower the oppressors.
   Your willingness to allow the world to be run by the most brutal among us continues to astound me.

6. lonbud - May 15, 2006 @ 8:50 pm

   The theme is a question about commitment to truth, Michael.

   Ethnic cleansing is genocidal.

   Aiding victims? Is that what we’re doing in Iraq? It’s too easy to compare it to “destroying the village in order to save it,” like we did so often in Vietnam. In Iraq, however, the fortunes and the wherewithal of the citizens of Iraq have never been part of either the rationale or the end game. You are sadly mistaken if you believe we are on a mission of mercy there.

7. Tam O’Tellico - May 16, 2006 @ 10:34 am

   So much to debate and so little time – as well as so little point, I suppose. What we have here is the classic confrontation between an enlightened idealist and a hardened realist – at least that’s the complimentary terms I’m sure you would both apply to yourselves – though I’m sure there are less kind terms you would apply to each other.

   Fact is, Lon, Michael is right – Israel’s actions against the Palestinians, how ever regrettable, should never be compared to Nazi Germany’s. You may have a point there somewhere, but it’s buried so deeply that the point is dulled. You fall into that same sort of indefensible pit that Michael and his dearly departed cohort argued so relentlessly and uselessly in advocating the $10,000 la dolce vita.

   On the other hand, Michael is blind to the fact that our own actions against Amerinds laid the groundwork for Hitler’s Final Solution. Worse yet is his failure to either see ior else admit the obvious parallels between our imperialism and that of Rome.

   Yes, some of America’s domination is simply cultural conquest. But much of it is also economic and military conquest. And no one should ever doubt that America’s armed forces stand firmly behind the foreign conquests of General Electric or Mobil/Exxon. Certainly, no one in the foreign countries involved fails to understand that sort of imperialism.

   Yes, the bulk of our military ventures in the 20th Century were defensive, but there is no possible way take seriously the notion that our actions in Viet Nam or Iraq was/are defensive. Fact is, they were/are an extension of macro-economic decisions papered over with the putrid pretense of defense of democracy.

   In the end, the defense of that foreign policy – and increasingly our national nature – is akin a blind lap dog lapping from a toilet. It is the defense so often voiced here by Michael – the surrender of honesty and liberty to ideology and security. In that, it is the embodiment of all that was wrong with Hobbe’s Commonweal. As the writer put it so eloquently in the piece Lon linked to:

   “It’s essentially mindless, driven by a set of basic imperatives, of which the most relentless is the urge to grow, to expand both in size and power. To paraphrase Edward Abbey: It has the ideology of a cancer cell.”

8. lonbud - May 16, 2006 @ 6:17 pm

   I don’t believe the point about Israel is dulled, Tam. The point is the experience of the Holocaust ought to inform the policies of the State of Israel; to me, that does not appear to be the case.

   I’m not comparing Israel to Nazi Germany, not comparing Sharon to Himmler or anything of the sort. I don’t deny that — as Michael dubbed them — homicide bombers are beyond the pale and require extraordinary measures to combat.

   I do believe that Israel employs a strategy of ghettoization and policies that border on ethnic cleansing to an extent that tends to exacerbate the problems in the region rather than solve them, and that, when all is said and done, lessens Israel’s security rather than ensures it.

9. Tam O’Tellico - May 16, 2006 @ 10:18 pm

   Michael, in case you think I’m being paranoid about NSA spying, read this:

   Secret Gov’t Source Tells ABC News: “Get New Cellphones”
   By Frank James
   The Chicago Tribune

   Monday 15 May 2006

   ABC News has a very disturbing report today, at least for reporters and anyone else who believe that whistleblowers serve an important role in safeguarding American democracy.

   On its blog, The Blotter, ABC News reports that a senior government source has told its reporters that the reporters’ phone calls with sources are being tracked by the U.S. government “to root out confidential sources.”
   ________

   While this can’t be confirmed – yet, it points out one more possible “justification” for this administration to abuse our most basic freedoms in the guise of “public safety”. Certainly, ordinary citizens have nothing to fear if our govt listens in on terrorists – but ordinary citizens have plenty to fear from this govt. I do not exaggerate when I say I am much more concerned about these Nazis then I am about terrorists.

10. Michael Herdegen - May 16, 2006 @ 10:49 pm

    Ethnic cleansing is genocidal.

    It can be genocidal, or it could simply involve forced relocation.

    Aiding victims? Is that what we’re doing in Iraq?

    It’s an integral part of what we’re doing in Iraq, although of course you are correct that it’s not the primary reason that we invaded Iraq (again).

    However, if Saddam had not created tens of millions of victims, America could never have invaded, so he made his own bed.

    In Iraq, however, the fortunes and the wherewithal of the citizens of Iraq have never been part of either the rationale or the end game.

    On the contrary, the fortunes and wherewithal of the citizens of Iraq is the end game.
    The terrorists know that, and so do all of the unelected dictators and monarchs of the region.
    (As do the region’s few elected dictators).

    If Iraq ends up being a prosperous and democratic society and nation, then almost every other Middle Eastern and North African nation will have to change, and the religious fanatics lose big-time.

    Michael is blind to the fact that our own actions against Amerinds laid the groundwork for Hitler’s Final Solution.

    The European defeat of the Amerindians was both inevitable, and a “clash of cultures”. Both sides were external to the other, and whenever an inferior culture meets a superior culture, the inferior peoples always end up with the short end of the stick.
    It was an ordinary war of conquest.

    Germany’s Jews were internal to Germanic society, they were citizens, and their systematic slaughter need not have been. They could have been expelled, for instance.
    It was fratricide.

    The only way in which the Amerind example foreran the Holocaust is that killing was involved.

    Worse yet is his failure to either see or else admit the obvious parallels between our imperialism and that of Rome.

    I’d love to see you try to make a detailed case for such, but put that aside for now.
    From a meta perspective, why do you believe that being compared to Rome is a bad thing ?

    After all, they set the standard for culture, engineering, religion, military power, and economic power for centuries.
    For instance, Christianity would probably not have become a world-beater, if not for the Roman Empire taking it up.

    Even long after the Roman Empire itself was gone, the Renaissance sprang from the same lands and peoples.

    Yes, some of America’s domination is simply cultural conquest. But much of it is also economic and military conquest. […]
    Yes, the bulk of our military ventures in the 20th Century were defensive…

    Thus do you refute your own “America is the New Rome” hypothesis.
    America is the world’s economic, cultural, and military hyperpower. Of course we use that power to our advantage, and of course our actions and activities, no matter how innocuous, affect the rest of the world. For instance, people in France wouldn’t have to pay 52 Euros a barrel for oil, if Americans were more frugal in our use of gasoline.

    However, during the 20th century, we’ve mostly fought wars of conscience, like WW I, or defensive wars like WW II and Korea.
    If we really were interested in geographic expansion, why did we give back Europe after WW II ?
    Nobody could have forced us to do so.

    We conquer economically and socially, not by adding lands. (At least, we stopped seriously grabbing territory early in the 20th century).
    If you want to call America the first virtual Empire, I could agree with that.
    We won’t be the last.

    Also, to claim that “there is no possible way take seriously the notion that our actions in Viet Nam were defensive”, you’d have to believe that the powers that be during the 60s knew that Communism would collapse, that it would fail, and that it wouldn’t take over the world.
    That’s clearly not the case.

    America’s leaders during the 60s and 70s were sure that Communism was a danger. Political and military leaders, but also the media and academic leaders, the latter most of all. You can still find delusional people in academia who will sing the praises of Communism, even as every nominally Communist nation on Earth embraces capitalism, including China, Cuba, and Viet Nam.

    As for the $ 10,000 – I told you that I’ve done it. I pointed to the millions who do it now. I laid out the math.

    I can only assume that your failure to grasp reality is due to some psychological problem, some scarring childhood experience.
    You have my pity and sympathy, but not my agreement.

11. lonbud - May 17, 2006 @ 6:23 am

    Michael:

    Ethnic cleansing can involve forced re-location (ie: Japanese-American citizens in WWWII), but when it’s accompanied by wholesale slaughter (ie: Tam O’s Amerinds, Jews in Nazi Germany) it’s a pretty academic exercise to separate victims as internal or external to the dominant culture.

    Are you saying somehow the Nazis’ treatment of Jews was more deplorable than the treatment of Native Americans by the U.S. government in the 19th century? How about the Poles and Slavs? They were certainly external to Germany’s culture. Weren’t they simply victims of an inevitable clash of cultures, casualties of an ordinary war of conquest?

    Your fine distictions on the topic get you in a wee bit of trouble where the Israelies and Palestinians are concerned. Palestinians are/were certainly internal to the culture over which the State of Israel was granted dominion. And while Israel cannot be accused of wholesale slaughter, exactly, it does practice a brutal form of repression that includes targeted killing with a not-insignificant amount of collateral death of innocents. It certainly goes well beyond mere forced re-location.

    I tend to agree with you about Rome. From a meta-perspective American culture is to its time as Roman culture was to its own. And wondrous benefits have inured to human existence courtesy of our development. Three cheers for the Red, White, and Blue.

    Your argument that our debacle in Vietnam was defensive because our leaders didn’t know Communism would collapse in the 60s, however, is crap.

    We didn’t need the fall of Communism to be foreordained to understand we had no business in Vietnam. Your after-the-fact justifications reveal you as a blind apologist for the dominance of the culture. Your arguments — every one — can be distilled to a couple of simple tropes: might makes right and some things never change.

12. Michael Herdegen - May 17, 2006 @ 11:56 pm

    Are you saying somehow the Nazis’ treatment of Jews was more deplorable than the treatment of Native Americans by the U.S. government in the 19th century?

    Yes, that’s what I’m saying.
    It’s worse to kill your relatives unprovoked, rather than strangers.

    The treatment of the Slavs and Poles (and Czechs and so on) are a better parallel to the Amerind experience. As you point out, all of those were also inferior to the Germanic culture.

    Now, how do we know that those societies were inferior ?
    It’s rather simple. All of them had the same access to the science and commerce of the day that Germany did – but they didn’t do anything with it. The Germans invented, (among many other things), new airplanes and radio communications technology, and came up with the concept of mechanized infantry.
    Meanwhile, the Poles met the invading Germans with horseback cavalry.

    It’s like two humans of similar genetic type, one of whom eats healthily and works out, and the other eats a typical American diet and sits all day at work and pleasure.

    Palestinians are/were certainly internal to the culture over which the State of Israel was granted dominion.

    But it wasn’t the Israelis who started the trouble. In ’48, there were supposed to be two states formed – Israel and Palestine.
    Instead, the Palestinian Arabs revolted against the Jewish state, and aided and abbetted an attack by neighboring Arab nations.

    It’s not a case of oppression by the majority, it was a case of rejection of the majority by a rebellious minority.
    Further, the Palestinian Arabs who stayed in Israel are citizens, and have the right to vote. They aren’t disenfranchised, they’re normal citizens.

    [Israel uses] targeted killing with a not-insignificant amount of collateral death of innocents.

    There you’ve put the conflict in a nutshell.

    Israel kills innocents as unavoidable collateral damage to the targeted killing of terrorists.
    Palestinian Arabs intentionally target innocents.

    We didn’t need the fall of Communism to be foreordained to understand we had no business in Vietnam.

    I suggest that you read some of the popular media of the 60s. The American people were convinced that Communism was about to take over the world. Thinking that the U.S. wouldn’t combat it wherever we could is ahistorical.

    It’s true that America played a role in Ho Chi Minh turning to Communism, and the conflict in Viet Nam was potentially avoidable, but that’s not the same as saying that America ought not to have opposed the spread of Communism.

    …might makes right and some things never change

    Might doesn’t always make right, but it usually does. Even in democracies, justice is enforced by the sword.
    As the saying goes, “the race doesn’t always go to the swift – but that’s the way to bet.”

    Are you arguing that all things change, or maybe that human behavior can’t be predicted ?

13. lonbud - May 18, 2006 @ 3:23 pm

    I’m sorry, Michael, but your moral relativism is quite too much to bear.

    I cannot parse a distinction between what the Nazis did to the Jews and what the U.S. government did to the Native Americans.

    I do not agree that it is somehow worse to kill your relatives unprovoked, rather than strangers.

    Your comparison of Poles, Slavs, & Czechs to Germans of the 30’s as being like two humans of similar genetic type, one of whom eats healthily and works out, and the other eats a typical American diet and sits all day at work and pleasure, and using that comparison to explain or excuse German imperial agression is, well, to use one of your favorite appellations, it’s insane.

    You are a social Darwinist of the most frightening stripe. Your obsession with wealth and power as the only meaningful indicia of success I find reprehensible.

    Palestinian Arabs who stayed in Israel may have the right to vote, but they are by no means treated by the government or by their fellow citizens as normal.

    And your arguments about the Vietnam era and the inevitability of the course of action taken by the u.S. government are quite simply wrong.

    The mass mind of the American public — as expressed by the popular media to which you commend me — may indeed have feared the worldwide spread of communism.

    However, there was also considerable public protest of our adventure in Viet Nam (as Rummy might have called it) as early as 1961, and both Presidents Kennedy and Johnson had very close, respected, trusted advisers who tried to steer those men toward a different course.

    There is nothing ahistorical in the least about my saying we could have known we had no business in Viet Nam.

    Finally, if there is one thing in this life that is generally predictable, it’s human behavior. However, everything IS changing, all the time.

14. Michael Herdegen - May 18, 2006 @ 8:23 pm

    Your obsession with wealth and power as the only meaningful indicia of success I find reprehensible.

    I don’t find wealth and power to be the only markers of success.
    I’ve said that many times, in various ways. No doubt the communication failure is mine.

    However, societies that don’t have wealth and power generally come to find themselves being the successful servants of those that do.

15. lonbud - May 19, 2006 @ 10:19 am

    What a load of hooey, Michael.

    Societies are made of people. When the people leading societies get a clue as to the true nature of life and the universe, wealth and power will cease being indistinguishable from exploitation and oppression of the poor and the powerless.

    In the meanwhile, any individual or any society with wealth and power who seeks to exploit and oppress the poor and the powerless as a means for securing that wealth and power reveals herself — or itself — as unclear on the concept.

16. Michael Herdegen - May 19, 2006 @ 6:38 pm

    When the people leading societies get a clue as to the true nature of life and the universe, wealth and power will cease being indistinguishable from exploitation and oppression of the poor and the powerless.

    That’s already happened, so I don’t quite get what you’re upset about.

17. lonbud - May 19, 2006 @ 9:43 pm

    When all else fails, play dumb.

18. Michael Herdegen - May 19, 2006 @ 10:36 pm

    When all else fails, play dumb.

    There are at least three snarky replies that might be given, but in the interests of productive dialogue, perhaps you could provide some examples of what you view as “exploitation and oppression” in the U.S. or Europe.

19. lonbud - May 19, 2006 @ 11:13 pm

    Is the whole of humanity defined by the US and Europe?

    How about an example ripped from the news of the day, wherein wealthy, powerful multinational interests are poised to destroy a trio of ancient glaciers on the Chilean frontier with Argentina.

    In the process shall be poisoned, for incalculable generations, fertile Valle De San Felix, the self sustaining home of poor, powerless (though productive) farmers, whose livelihoods (and the region’s 2nd largest source of income) depend on the fresh, pure water of the glaciers Barrick Gold wants to sweep aside to get at gold and silver deposits that lie beneath them.

    Watch what happens. Even if Barrick is kept at bay in Chile, just pick up one of the company’s quarterly or annual reports and you’ll find a litany of locales where exploitation and oppression may be viewed first hand.

20. Michael Herdegen - May 20, 2006 @ 9:56 pm

    Is the whole of humanity defined by the US and Europe?

    No, just the rich & powerful societies.

    But I see that the best that you can come up with is subsistence farmers being pushed aside in the second world, in favor of gold mining, during the biggest gold boom in twenty years.

    File that under “some things never change”.
    Mr. Sutter, of Sutter’s Mill, fared badly in ’49 too.

21. lonbud - May 21, 2006 @ 12:57 pm

    My point, exactly, Michael. People and societies who do not possess or wield wealth and power are of no consequence or import to you. You — and those who think as you — have learned nothing in the 160 years since the American gold rush. You are content to raise no objection in the face of a project like Pascua Lama under the rationale that some things never change.

    Hint: there is no first, second, or third world. We live in one world.

22. Michael Herdegen - May 21, 2006 @ 6:30 pm

    People and societies who do not possess or wield wealth and power are of no consequence or import to you.

    You could not be further from the truth, and if you had been paying attention to what I’ve posted in this forum over the past year, you’d know that already.

    However, I recognize that peoples and societies who do not possess or wield wealth and power are of no consequence to the world.
    They don’t spread ideas, or generate prosperity for themselves. They do not act on the world stage, they are acted upon.

    The tragedy of such is that it need not be this way. The path to comfort and security is clear, and examples abound.
    If a peoples or nation would rather not be like the U.S., they could be like the UK or Sweden, and that would be nearly as good.

    People and peoples choose to be poor and powerless. The analogy that I used above is that “It’s like two humans of similar genetic type, one of whom eats healthily and works out, and the other eats a typical American diet and sits all day at work and pleasure.”
    You dismissed that as “social Darwinism”, which leads to two thoughts:

    Social Darwinism, when used to advocate a pro-active policy, such as forced sterilization of the poor, feeble, or unsuccessful, is a philosophy, and may or may not be “insane”, “frightening”, or “reprehensible”.
    When used to describe the dynamics of a given natural situation, it’s rock-solid anthropological science, and can be used with confidence to predict the outcomes of mass behaviors. There’s a reason that advertising works.

    Are you claiming that when the individual who sits all day, eats all day, and never exercises has a heart attack, that’s “bad luck” ?
    Do you not have any sense that people and cultures contribute mightily to their own fates, through their actions and inactions ?
    Is no one responsible for their own actions, and the consequences thereof ?

    You are content to raise no objection in the face of a project like Pascua Lama under the rationale that some things never change.

    Rather, I am aware that any objections that I might have are irrelevant.
    Chile is a democratic nation, one of the best-governed in So. America. The Chilean people are who should decide what is in their nation’s best interests, not some well-meaning-but-clueless foreign do-gooders.

    “Some things never change” doesn’t mean that any given situation can’t change, it means that some themes are timeless and universal.
    We have seen in the past, we see in the present, and we shall see in the future that weak people or nations that find themselves in the possession of valuables, will soon be the focus of attempts to relieve them of such, whether through force, politics, or persuasion. It happens all of the time, everywhere, even in advanced nations such as Canada and the U.S.
    That’s why I counseled above that individuals and nations ought not choose weakness over strength, despite the fact that being strong takes effort and sacrifice. Weak is easy now, but rarely pays off in the end.

    Further, I don’t buy gold, gold stocks, or gold jewelry. I contribute zero demand for the filthy stuff.
    On the other hand, YOU are a gold trader who has long positions. YOU contribute to the global demand for gold that is depriving the poor-but-productive farmers of Valle De San Felix of their livelihoods.

    But you claim that I am the villain, because I support the kind of global paradigms that let you exploit the poor and powerless of Chile.
    Have you no shame ???

    Hint: there is no first, second, or third world. We live in one world.

    Only physically.
    Culture and habit are much more relevant than mere physical juxtaposition. Are the inhabitants of Canada and Chad more alike, or more different ?
    Why do Cubans and Haitians risk actual DEATH to emigrate to America, if there is no First or Third world ?

    Once again, you write as though the logical and predictable outcomes of acting on different paradigms make no difference.
    You are correct that there does not have to be First, Second, Third world, we could be “one world” – but that would require the failed, failing, and dysfunctional cultures, societies, and leaders of the world to act as though they were Europeans, or to emulate other cultures descended from European cultures.

    Why is South Korea among the richest nations on Earth, while North Korea is a literal Hell-hole, where starvation is common and the government has to force the population to stay ?
    It’s not a difference in climate, geology, or resources that causes the divide.

    As long as there are failed cultures, there will be Second and Third world countries.

    The good news is that such won’t be true much longer. By the end of the 24th century, the peoples and cultures of Earth will be largely homogeneous, as the No. American Paradigm takes over the world.
    It has already firmly taken hold in India and China, which between them hold 1/3d of the entire global population.

    Really, as of now the only hold-outs are Africa and the Middle East, and they can’t last much longer. Places like Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Qatar, South Africa, and the UAE already see the light.

23. lonbud - May 22, 2006 @ 4:38 pm

    I’m merely a speculator, Michael. It’s quite a stretch to pin the blame for Barrick’s coveting the minerals beneath the glaciers of the Valle De San Felix on traders like me. I’m just a high stakes gambler who goes where there’s action; it just so happens there’s been plenty of action in the precious metals pits the last couple of years.

    If the Chilean government were to bar Barrick from exploiting the mineral deposits of the Valle De San Felix forever, if the liquidity and volatility in the precious metals markets were to dry up tomorrow, I’d not shed the first tear.

    For as long as there are strong, wealthy descendants of European cultures there will be markets for me to speculate in. Unless more of them begin to recognize a few things about the responsibilities and the unintended consequences of the exercise of power, however, I daresay they won’t be existing as long as the 24th century.

24. Michael Herdegen - May 22, 2006 @ 9:43 pm

    I’m just a high stakes gambler who goes where there’s action…

    Just like Barrick.

    You are of course not solely to blame for gold mining in Chile or anywhere else, and the problems that such might cause, but it would be nice to see you own up to the dynamic that your demand drives.

    You want to make money, without accepting responsibility for the consequences of your actions. What does it matter that you don’t care if the market dries up ?
    Until you stop buying, you’re promoting further industrial development. Look in the mirror – you could have been writing this about yourself:

    “Unless more of them begin to recognize a few things about the responsibilities and the unintended consequences of [their actions], however, I daresay they won’t be existing as long as the 24th century.”

    Note that I don’t condemn your actions, I merely wish you to own ALL of the consequences, both good and bad, personal and societal.
    It’s OK to say that your actions help drive Chilean farmers out of business, but that the net effect on Chilean society will be positive. Large-scale changes produce both winners and losers, all we can do is try to ensure that the winners outweigh the losers by as much as possible.

25. Michael Herdegen - May 23, 2006 @ 12:19 am

    Here’s a site you’ll probably like: billmon.org.

26. lonbud - May 23, 2006 @ 8:43 pm

    Yeah, Billmon’s Whiskey Bar is pretty cool. I believe I linked to a post from there a thread or two ago…

    I’m not only not solely to blame for gold mining and the destruction it causes, I personally am not even the tiniest little bit to blame for it. Nor does my demand constitute a whit of consequence in the dynamic of gold production or industrial development.

    Now, if I were the Director of Trading for a hedge fund or an organization like the Carlyle Group, then we could talk about the mirror and accepting responsibilities and unintended consequences.

    As it stands, I am but a lowly mendicant stooping by the rushing stream of commerce, dipping my feeble hands into the roiling waters, hoping to draw out enough to slake my thirst in a dry and barren land.

    Or, to use an image from when I actually used to trade commodities for a living, I’m just trying to pick up dimes in front of bulldozers.

    So yes, if my participation in the markets were of any consequence, Michael, it would be OK to say that my actions help drive Chilean farmers out of business. As it stands, the net effect on Chilean society as a whole, should Barrick be permitted to destroy the Valle De San Felix, is not likely to be positive.

    And to bring your proviso back home, the large-scale changes that have been produced by BushCo do not by any stretch promise to feature more winners than losers, not by a wide margin.

27. Michael Herdegen - May 24, 2006 @ 12:59 am

    [T]he large-scale changes that have been produced by BushCo do not by any stretch promise to feature more winners than losers, not by a wide margin.

    Well, as a former commodities trader, you know that such differences of opinion are why we have markets.
    You’re bearish, I’m bullish. Time will tell who’s on the right side of that action.

    I personally am not even the tiniest little bit to blame for [gold mining and the destruction it causes]…
    Now, if I were the Director of Trading for a hedge fund or an organization like the Carlyle Group…
    As it stands, I am but a lowly mendicant stooping […] to pick up dimes in front of bulldozers.

    So, you’re saying that it’s OK to engage in acts that you oppose others doing, as long as you’re a small-time operator that does little direct harm ?

    You may wish to step back from “debate mode”, and view your comments with fresh and uncombative eyes.

    Nor does my demand constitute a whit of consequence in the dynamic of gold production or industrial development.

    By itself, no, but as a former commodities trader you know full well the power of cumulative demand, which you clearly contribute to.
    No individual shopper made Wal~Mart a behemoth, but trillions of purchases by tens of millions of individual shoppers did.
    Every single one of those shoppers can correctly say that their demand barely registered, just as every single motorist driving a late-model car in a big city can correctly say that they are barely polluting.

    Nonetheless, tiny increments add up. If you drive a conventional vehicle, you are partly responsible for pollution. If you shop at Wal~Mart, even if your purchases are small, you are partly responsible for the company’s success. If you buy gold…

28. lonbud - May 24, 2006 @ 7:09 am

    Well, then, just as I am comfortable with my contribution to the success of WalMart, and as a driver of a late-model 4 cylinder vehicle, with my contribution to auto generated pollution, I am comfortable with my contribution to the success of Barrick Gold.

    None of those contributions, however, disqualifies me from criticizing the business practices of the retail, auto, or precious metals industries. To say that I have no standing to protest Barrick’s intention to destroy the Valle De San Felix because I trade from time to time in the stock or options of companies in the precious metals sector is ridiculous.

    In fact, as a shareholder of Barrick Gold, i have every right — a duty, even — to protest against a planned project that I believe may be detrimental to the long-term prospects of the company.

29. Michael Herdegen - May 24, 2006 @ 10:37 pm

    In fact, as a shareholder of Barrick Gold, i have every right — a duty, even — to protest against a planned project that I believe may be detrimental to the long-term prospects of the company.

    Of course.

    However, that’s not what you originally said, which was something like – “People and societies who do not possess or wield wealth and power are of no consequence or import to you. You — and those who think as you — have learned nothing in the 160 years since the American gold rush. You are content to raise no objection in the face of a project like Pascua Lama…” – or in other words, Barrick Gold’s project in the Valle De San Felix is my fault, or at least the responsibility of those who think as I do.

    Welcome to the club.

30. bubbles - May 25, 2006 @ 12:44 am

    Ok so seldom will you find me reposting a David Brooks column. Typically I find him rather selectively moralistic and generally irritating. However, this column is interesting in that it identifies an area in which perhaps Michael and Lonbud/Tam’O might agree regarding what government should do to address the increasing structural divisions and inequity within American social strata. Here goes..

    May 25, 2006
    Op-Ed Columnist
    Of Love and Money
    By DAVID BROOKS

    Let me tell you why I, a scientific imbecile, have spent several weeks trying to understand the amygdala and the orbitofrontal cortex.

    It all started a few years ago as I was plowing through studies on income inequality. When you delve into this literature, you realize inequality is more complicated than some polemicists let on. For example, inequality is much lower when measured by consumption than by income because poorer people now spend much more than they officially report as income.

    Nonetheless, certain conclusions are unavoidable. First, the gap between rich and poor is widening. It’s like global warming; you can resist the evidence for a while, but eventually you have to succumb. Second, while standards of living are rising for almost everybody, people at the middle and the bottom of the income scale aren’t seeing the gains you’d expect. Third, while mobility rates probably haven’t changed much, new stratifications are replacing old ones. Race and sex discrimination matter less, but family background — a child’s home environment — matters more.

    Once you acknowledge that there is a basic tear in the way the market economy is evolving, you begin trying to figure out the causes. In declining order of importance, they seem to be:

    First, the generally rising education premium. The economy rewards people who can thrive in meetings and adapt to technical change. Second, the widening marriage gap. Middle-class people are increasingly likely to raise kids in stable two-parent homes, while kids in poorer families are increasingly less likely to have these advantages. Third, the emergence of millions of low-skill workers in China and India. That’s bound to push down low-skill wages. Fourth, changes in salary structures. Employees deemed irreplaceable get big salary raises, while employees deemed fungible do not.

    When you look at these causes, you keep coming back to one theme: human capital. The people who do well not only possess skills that can be measured on tests, they have self-discipline (which is twice as important as I.Q. in predicting academic achievement, according to a study by Angela Duckworth and Martin Seligman). They conceive of their lives as following a script, progressing upward through stages. They benefit from inherited cultural traits.

    Some economists believe we should reduce inequality by restructuring the economy — raising taxes on the rich and redistributing money to the poor. That’s fine, but it won’t get you very far. In Britain, Gordon Brown has redistributed large amounts of money from rich to poor regions, but regional inequality has increased faster under the current government than under Margaret Thatcher.

    Income inequality is driven by human capital inequality, and human capital can’t be taxed and redistributed. You have to build it at the bottom to ensure maximum fairness.

    When you turn your attention to human capital formation, you begin by thinking about job training and schools. But you discover that while learning is like nutrition (you have to do it every day), earlier is better. That’s because, as James Heckman puts it, learners learn and skill begets skill. Children who’ve developed good brain functions by age 3 have advantages that accumulate through life.

    That takes us to where the debate is today. How do we inculcate good brain functions across a wider swath of the 3-year-old population? Forty-one states are tinkering with or creating preschool programs. Oklahoma is leading the way with preschool and pro-family efforts. California is considering universal preschool.

    Getting this right is tricky. Head Start produces only modest benefits, as a study from the Department of Health and Human Services has reminded us again. Small, intensive preschool programs yield tremendous results, but realistically, they cannot be done on a giant scale.

    The problem is this: How does government provide millions of kids with the stable, loving structures they are not getting sufficiently at home?

    If there’s one thing that leaps out of all the brain literature, it is that, as Daniel J. Siegel puts it, “emotion serves as a central organizing process within the brain.” Kids learn from people they love. If we want young people to develop the social and self-regulating skills they need to thrive, we need to establish stable long-term relationships between love-hungry children and love-providing adults.

    That’s why I’m grappling with these books on psychology and brain function. I started out on this wonk odyssey in the company of economic data, but the closer you get to the core issue, the further you venture into the primitive realm of love.

31. lonbud - May 25, 2006 @ 12:49 pm

    How does government provide millions of kids with the stable, loving structures they are not getting sufficiently at home?

    This is pretty darn close to the nut, and to the extent that Michael and I might ever agree on something, I think it’s probably safe to say it’s beyond government’s ability (as well as its purview) to provide the love kids may not be getting at home.

    Where we’ll part company, however, lies in the realm of things government CAN and (in my view) OUGHT to do: create well-regulated and well-funded programs that bring talented, loving educators into children’s lives; implement taxation structures that relieve low and middle income people of the necessity to work two and three jobs in order to get by in the world; provide incentives for private organizations to create and offer quality early-education opportunities for at-risk children, and the like.

    It’s not hard to recognize the link between love and money in this context, and no surprise at all that no love begets no money in an ever-broadening, ever-accelerating downward spiral.

32. Michael Herdegen - May 25, 2006 @ 5:34 pm

    You are correct, bubbles, about the general agreement.
    Love is beyond the ability of government.

    [Income inequality] is much lower when measured by consumption than by income because poorer people now spend much more than they officially report as income.

    Nonetheless, certain conclusions are unavoidable. First, the gap between rich and poor is widening.

    These go directly to the heart of some heated discussions that we’ve had here.

    Poor people in America are mostly “poor” only in relation to other Americans, not when viewed solely using the criteria of survival: Food, clothing, shelter, basic medical care.
    Official measures of income are only a proxy for deprivation or luxury, and are far from precisely accurate.

    That “the gap between rich and poor is widening” is utter rubbish.
    It’s certainly true at the margins, but all that means is that the well-off are getting richer faster than “the poor” are getting un-poor. In fact, that might even be a sign of the health of the American economy and society, as I’ll explain in a moment.

    While I’ll be happy to repost in its entirety my study on American income inequality, if requested, for now I’ll only re-state the conclusions:

    Across the whole of American society, including all households, retirees, workers, millionaires, and welfare recipients alike, 75% of U.S. households have incomes wherein the very highest households earn only seven times more than do the absolute lowest. 7:1 is regarded as being a “highly progressive” income spread.

    Among the subset of households headed by at least one full-time worker, 80% of those households had an income disparity of a maximum of 4.5:1.
    Less than five to one !!

    So, America is very far from becoming a society wherein a few potentates of unimaginable wealth, power, and privilege lord it over the vast, teeming multitudes of near-starvation serfs.
    In fact, three out of four American families are well within shouting distance of each other, from an income standpoint, and families headed by active workers are grouped even closer.

    We have maybe a thousand potentates of unimaginable wealth, power, and privilege in America, and a few thousand more with vast power and/or privilege, but without vast wealth – for instance, Congresspeople, high-ranking military leaders, and high-court justices.
    We also have a couple million people that are in truly dire straits.

    Neither group is anywhere near the American norm.

    Now, how could it be that the rich getting richer is a good sign for America ?

    As lonbud notes, “no love begets no money in an ever-broadening, ever-accelerating downward spiral”, or in other words, the poor will ever be with us. As David Brooks writes, people benefit or are harmed by inherited cultural traits, and poor families that are poor due to bad personal dynamics or structural social reasons produce children that are poorly trained to succeed, or even well-trained in counterproductive behaviors.
    So, if there are always going to be some poor people, and if the rich are going to get richer, then of course the gap between the stone-broke and the uberrich is going to widen. That’s not surprising, nor in and of itself is it cause for alarm or worry.

    As long as the bulk of Americans are benefitting along with the rich, the growth in the income or wealth of the rich is merely a highly-visible sign of healthy growth in the fortunes of average Americans.
    And the data on that is quite clear. Over the past thirty years, ALL Americans, at every socioeconomic level, have become better-off.

    Of course, in keeping with Brooks’ “human capital” theme, the top 60% have done much better over the years than the bottom 40%, but even the bottom 20% has improved considerably between ’75 and now.

    Therefore, the rich getting richer, if accompanied by general prosperity, is indicative of a rising tide lifting all boats – which is a point that David Brooks makes: “[S]tandards of living are rising for almost everybody…”

    One thing that sticks out of Brooks’ piece is that Bush was right to push his “Marriage Initiative”.

    implement taxation structures that relieve low and middle income people of the necessity to work two and three jobs in order to get by in the world

    Low income people need to work two jobs per couple, but what’s wrong with that ?
    Middle income couples need only have one job between them.
    It’s all about spending choices, not income. Raising a family on $ 30K/yr is pretty simple in most of America.

33. lonbud - May 27, 2006 @ 9:41 am

    Bush was right to push his Marriage Initiative? I suppose that’s because kids who are raised in two-parent families get more love and are thus more likely to one day sail in one of the bigger boats that our society’s rising tide is forever lifting.

    Without regard to how simple it may or may not be to raise a family on $30K/yr, Bush’s Marriage Initiative is a prime example of exactly how wrong he is on “big picture” policy questions that will affect the society in years to come.

34. Michael Herdegen - May 27, 2006 @ 1:53 pm

    You’re saying that you’re against marriage ???

35. lonbud - May 27, 2006 @ 5:48 pm

    No, Michael.

    I’m against enshrining in the U. S. Constitution the notion that marriage is a union between one man and one woman.

36. Michael Herdegen - May 28, 2006 @ 1:50 am

    You’re confusing the Marriage Initiative with the Defense of Marriage Act, and also with a proposed-but-unpassable anti-gay Constitutional Amendment.

    The Marriage Initiative provides funds for encouraging people on welfare to get or stay married, and to provide marriage counseling.

37. lonbud - May 28, 2006 @ 6:58 pm

    Oh, you mean the Bush program that diverts $100 million a year in funds from the Temporary Assistance For Needy Families budget, monies that would otherwise be spent on job training, education, and child care, to promote marriage among the poor?

    The one that “promotes” marriage by funding programs run by private, for-profit organizations that advocate against no-fault divorce and teach strict biblical interpretations of marriage roles and solutions to marital conflict?

    I’m sorry, my mistake.

38. Michael Herdegen - May 28, 2006 @ 10:21 pm

    …monies that would otherwise be spent on job training, education, and child care, to promote marriage among the poor?

    Why do you believe that job training, education, and child care do more to promote economic well-being among the currently-poor than does being married ?

    Being a single parent is the biggest single factor promoting poverty among the non-addict population.

    Further, as David Brooks writes, children of married poor couples are less likely to be poor than are the children of poor single parents.

    It’s easy to belittle ideas, it’s much harder to debunk them.
    I’ll take your anti-marriage position seriously when you can point to some supporting evidence that being married is NOT helpful to poverty-stricken people.

39. lonbud - May 29, 2006 @ 8:17 am

    Any problem, its causes and solutions may be gotten at from differing perspectives, Michael.

    Studies show that a college education is the single biggest contributor to financial independence. “There is . . . no more well established link to economic well-being than educational attainment,” according to a report by Avis Jones-DeWeever of the Institute for Women’s Policy Research in Washington, D.C. Although a college education doesn’t guarantee a life free from poverty, mothers who possess a bachelor’s degree make up less than 2 percent of the welfare rolls.

    Jones-DeWeever also cites research that shows that just one year of post-secondary education reduces poverty rates by half in households headed by women of color.

    Acknowledging that not all women have the interest or ability to attend post-secondary schools, Jones-DeWeever recommends that such women be offered “other educational supports and training opportunities . . . that lead to the types of jobs that provide stable employment, livable wages and access to benefits.”

    Interestingly, education and job training do more than just help families out of poverty. The Minnesota Family Investment Program helped families work their way out of poverty through three routes: job training, earned-income disregards and child care subsidies. They then discovered that leading families out of poverty led to increased marriage rates.

    The Minnesota plan was successful in helping parents prepare for and find work. The earned-income disregards meant they could keep more of their federal welfare benefits in addition to their wages, eliminating an important work deterrent.

    The child care subsidies helped take the burden off of the families transitioning from welfare to work. Although the Minnesota plan wasn’t aiming to promote marriage, the marriage rates rose among welfare recipients, indicating that reducing economic stressors and meeting the basic needs of welfare recipients may lead to higher rates of marriage.

    So, don’t put words in my mouth. I am not anti-marriage. I am pro helping poor people obtain access to educational opportunities and child care assistance that can help lead their families out of poverty.

    I never said, nor intimated that being married is not helpful to poverty stricken people. Being forced into matrimony or kept there under fundamentalist Christian notions of duty and gender roles, however, is not helpful to anyone.

40. Passerby - June 1, 2006 @ 4:16 pm

    Michael said: Low income people need to work two jobs per couple, but what’s wrong with that ?

    Nothing’s wrong with that as long as you’ve got enough income to pay someone to take care of the kids.
    So, if you need 2 (or 3) jobs per couple to make it go round, and one half of the couple needs to stay home with the kids, then the other half will have to work both (or all three) of those jobs. Which doesn’t exactly make a good, ‘loving’ environment for the kids to grow up in.
    Also, being poor has severe influence on the psyche, since poor people tend to worry more (about money, housing, food, social status, etc.).
    —

    Found this blog when trying to get info on Barrick Gold and the Valle de San Felix. I am still not sure that me signing an e-mail will make the company stop their work there. Any advice?

41. lonbud - June 2, 2006 @ 12:20 am

    Passerby:

    Glad you found your way here; I hope you’ll stick around or come back soon and add your thoughts to the discussion here. More voices and perspectives are always welcome.

    Signing your name to an email may or may not have any real effect on the efforts of a company like Barrick Gold to maximize profits at the exense of the environment and the living conditions of marginalized people in far off corners of the globe. But, short of putting feet on the ground and money and muscle on the front lines of activist efforts to sway governments and corporate boards, signing on to a worldwide plea certainly can’t hurt the cause of environmental sanity, can it?

    Thanks for your contribution.