The American Nightmare: No Exit, No Entry

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

i think people are making too much about the creativity of the americans. in fact, i dont even think americans are top dogs when it comes to creativity. and please dont use hollywood as an example cause hollywood is to creativity what mcdonalds and taco bell are to food.

i can also name a group of people that can beat the americans hands down when it comes to flair and creativity. and all this while enjoying the afternoon siesta during workday. consider:

i. the choice between driving an american sports car vs. an italian sports car

ii. between eating an american meal vs. an italian meal

iii. wearing american clothes vs. italian clothes

iv. between american architecture vs. italian architecture

v. dating a hot american khatoon vs. a hot italian khatoon

i think even real americans i.e. goras would agree with me that americans are not in the top category when it comes to creating things with flair and panache. this is however not to suggest that americans cant be creative. the simpsons for example are pure work of genius. but then, the british created monty python and we in pak had 50-50 woh bhee under zia. so go figure.

#209 ***if I don`t insist on prenup with u, and assure a hefty monthly allowance for wifely duties and ur other `feminist` activities. ***

freesoul,
Please consider the evidence before making any shaikh chilli plans. A picture is worth a thousand words. :)

Re: # 203 and 209

You guys are hilarious! Keep it up :)

Re: # 209

Again...your mommy is wrong....

re:Hp 204 &208

:) Happy Thanksgiving btw. Hopefully tossing the ball back in the replies helped digest the feast.

1.I think the struggle should no longer be classified as between the liberals and the conservatives. New polarities should emerge --. In the last few years one notices an odd thought similarity between the Christian agenda and the left. Democrats get excited at this and jump up and down thinking that the world has seen the error of its ways and will accept what the Left has to say, since it is really speaking for the common man. In the last elections, this hope was dashed because the Republicans successfully divided any alliance between the Left and conservatives generating controversy over abortion and homosexuality.

For a take on how religion can align with the left, see ``Is the American Dream Killing You?` by Paul Stiles. Paul Stiles was a stock trader who sees religion as the antithesis of the market. From Washington Post, ``Lamenting that the market ``has deeply penetrated our national identity,`` Stiles recommends an economic exorcism, one that should trouble anyone concerned with the establishment clause of the Constitution and the separation of church and state. He proposes a market ``restrained by Judeo-Christian values, as codified in law and represented in democratic institutions.`` This is ``a recipe for social success,`` he claims, ``the very recipe that made America.``

2.Privatizing social security will not have the impact that the conservatives hope for because it is a problem of demographics. Whether people themselves buy bonds or the govt., does it for them, it is the number of people that is the problem. There is a population disparity between retirees and new workers. Quite obviously the Bush govt. is not pursuing immigration as a solution--it may be because it thinks America just cannot compete any longer by producing within its borders, no point increasing workers. Or there could be more sinister reasons. It could be a failure of imagination on the part of the government--or just racism from the conservatives.

To quote Bill Grossman, ``the ratio of retirees to workers - the dependency ratio - soars from 0.2 retirees for every worker to 0.35 over the next 20 years or so. Neither privatization nor any goodly number of government bonds deposited in the Social Security trust fund can solve it. While these paper assets may ``pay`` for goods and services, their value will be market adjusted in future years to exactly match the quantity of things we buy, and that quantity will be substantially a function of the available workforce and the price they command for their services. This is a concise way of saying that the value of Treasury bonds and even stocks will be valued down in price as they are sold to pay for future goods and services, and that the price of these goods and services will be marked up (inflation) to justify their reduced supply.

Where Social Security and privatization supporters err is with their assumption that retirees’ goods and services can somehow magically be generated or even multiplied by the existence of a certain amount of government or private IOUs. They cannot, at least within the U.S. borders. Production can only come from employed workers and so the basic solution is to produce more workers, either through immigration or postponed retirement for the existing workforce.``

The motives for the Iraq war are a whole chapter in themselves. The questions in #190 were meant to show the lack of accountability in the new America. Clinton was almost impeached for a possible lie to ostensibly protect Lewinsky. But Bush roams scot free after invading a country for dubious reasons and killing thousands of people. Instead protesters and parents of killed soldiers are arrested for demonstrating. The bureacracy is still debating whether he was to blame or not. The political process of America has failed.

Re: # 199 by saminashah

[ As for your dating site comments, you should be thanking goddess this isnt a dating site (for most of us)...were it that, your shortcomings would be deafening. ]

I am quite sure those deficiences of mine can be compensated for u, if I don`t insist on prenup with u, and assure a hefty monthly allowance for wifely duties and ur other `feminist` activities.

Addressing some issues in Saima’s # 190

The conservative game plan is clearly to establish a framework where the world is in awe of the US. (This goes to the assertion that everything will turn left if the framework is not defined…The awareness that the benevolent view in the US will triumph, if the world is not in awe of the US.)

Let’s look at the most recent wars…
Reagan was so hot on Nicaragua and the struggle between the Sandinista and the Contras. His administration made that appear like the last decisive war in the world… in reality Nicaragua was just a small conflict and it was used by the Conservatives to intimidate South America and the world. Similarly the Iraq-Kuwait conflict (‘91) was a small regional conflict that could have been resolved thru diplomatic pressure. The US and the West were more than capable of diplomatic pressure but the whole incident was used to again intimidate people in that region and hide the benevolent face of the US. The current conflict in Iraq is manufactured and could have been handled in a non military ways.
The democrats have been involved in Vietnam and Bosnia… For Vietnam, the democrat President who was more conservative than the average democrat gave up power but the Republican President who led the war had to be ousted thru unrelated charges. Bosnia was a hidden war. The liberal President never tried to make it a full-scale war like the conservative President did in Iraq.

All these war were/are a reflection of internal US politics. It is important for the conservatives to favor a full-scale media war over a peaceful resolution of the conflicts. It helps to slowdown the onslaught of the liberal ideas both internally and externally. Internally though, the conservatives end up just following the left reluctantly. They have been regularly forced to uphold the liberal agenda and the best examples are the affirmative action, civil rights, and Healthcare for the elderly. Surprisingly, the most progressive idea in recent years, the overhaul of the Social security, came from the conservatives (partial privatization) and liberals are opposing it to eventually own it in future. In the last 50 years the conservatives have not been able to overturn any liberal initiatives and gains though they try really hard.

The conflict between the liberals and conservatives in the US is not confined to the political parties alone; it has strong roots in the bureaucracy too. While Langley and the State dept generally favor the liberal or the non militaristic pov, the Pentagon and the army lean heavily with the conservatives.
This conflict is evident in every little policy debate the US had in the last 40 years. The fall of the Soviet Union or in other words the disappearance of a formidable external enemy has turned the internal struggle even more acute.

The conservatives attempt to bring out laws and create situations that often appear non-democratic or harsh such as the Patriot act etc. The issues or the accusations in post# 190 are conservative world view…they are not endorsed by the liberals in the sense that these policies cannot be reversed in future. So these harsh measures cannot be held against the US as they are all dispensable.

The current admin initiated the Iraq war to meet its two goals 1) To intimidate the world and 2) to establish itself as the prime political ideology internally. It succeeded in both goals when it won the control of the Senate and then won the Presidency again. Now it does not have much interest in Iraq so that country would languish and perhaps enter a civil war phase that may in turn shake up the area. The next conservative President may have Iran to worry about but the Liberals are attempting to find a way to break this cycle.
The game continues…

Pardesi-
Will come back to your post later…

Re: # 183

You might want to read this.

http://www.pimco.com/LeftNav/Late+Breaking+Commentary/IO/2004/IO_Oct_2004.htm

``a question that no rational money manager or economist wants to answer for fear of becoming a fool, or a conspiratorial kook. Why does the U.S. government and the Fed continue to foist this hedonic/substitution mantra on a gullible public when they should know better and when, by the way, no other government does it in the same magnitude and with the same conviction? Let me just answer it this way – and hopefully not seem foolish (or worse) in the process. Alan Greenspan has a dual prerogative at the Federal Reserve. He is charged with keeping inflation low and economic output high. The magic of hedonic/substitution adjustments keeps both of these birds flyin’ at the same time, one under the magical 2% radar, which marks the dividing line between benign and worrisome inflation, and the other (real GDP), over the hurdle of 3% which suggests the continuation of high productivity, along with its concomitant implications that the stock market should be healthy, the dollar strong, and all’s well with the Greenspan legacy. Granted Greenspan doesn’t run the BLS, but he pounds the table hard for hedonically adjusted statistics. They might serve him well, but they do a disservice to those grounded in the reality of stretching a paycheck for new cars, laptop computers, and cell phones that somehow haven’t gone down as much in price as the government says they have.``

Re: # 205

Some of your post makes points that have been fairly discredited by:

1. Barbara Ehrenreich`s Nickled and Dimed, Fear of Failure: The Middle Class
2. Jonathan Kozol`s extensive series on the South Bronx
3. David Shipler`s books on the working class
4. William Julius Wilson`s and
5. Michael Harrington`s pieces on economics, poverty and sociology
6. The New York Times articles on the working poor in the last two years

The list goes on-I just dont have the time to go into it. These broad generalizations of why capitalism works or fails, or distorted attempts at defining socialism or communism lack the imagination and accuracy to document these systems at work. At least academia has the wherewithall and focus to investigate these issues-some of y`all are still quoting William Buckley and Ayn Rand like they are the truth....and clearly, it just aint so....

HP is right-mediocrity finds a way to maintain the status quo....

#204 HP

{I am kind of surprised at both Pardesi and Freesouls not taking it up or perhaps they don’t wanna go that route}

You are right. I wanted to stay away from this line of thought. It’s an extensive discussion topic and academic types can refute you no matter what you say. Anyway here are my two cents:

Marx contributed immensely to human development at the time and humanity should be ever grateful to him. Workers became very conscious of their rights and exploitation. However, it lost its relevance within 100 years since –

- Russians and other communists started treating him as another prophet and any deviation was considered heresy. You know that as soon as you start doing that, you bury the poor prophet and his vision. In that sense, Chinese were very smart. They used communism to wake up the farmers and poor folks and then adopted capitalism to get to the higher development gear.
- Capitalists became smarter and co-opted the workers. People like you and me could get a piece (small though) of action.
- Financial markets got smarter so that one can start business with others’ capital. You do not need to be born rich to get rich.
- As the production modes moved from pure manufacturing to more intellectual contribution, communists just did not have an answer as to how to motivate the workers. It worked when “nation was in danger” but after that it was a problem.

The result, people are attracted to left when they have nothing (unless they genuinely feel a higher calling to get rid of “injustice” in the world). But once they have reasonable stake in the economy and see future for their children, they are hopeful and work their tail off to succeed. And this is where I can say - Welcome to America :)

There is a saying that if you are not a leftist by 25, something is wrong with you (i.e., you are not an idealist and care only about material stuff). But at 40, if you are still a leftist you have a huge problem since you might be a financial failure.

#168 by SaimaShah

``The divide between socialism/capitalism is artificial and perhaps quite quite unnecessary.``
#167 by Saminasha
“discuss the theory and practice of the dialectic”
#183 by SR
“Many of us desi-babus are literalists. Another word for this is fundamentalists.”

I was looking for some practical ways to shed 3800 calories that I absorbed last night over the thanksgiving dinner. One idea was to try and read comments on this article. Some are really intelligent (literally) and the ones quoted above really needed a discussion but it seems that people simply missed the point the “left” is trying to make here. I am kind of surprised at both Pardesi and Freesouls not taking it up or perhaps they don’t wanna go that route.

Both Saima and Samina are intentionally or not, pointing out to very important aspect of the progress this world is witnessing. There is a sort of conventional wisdom out there that if you don’t frame issues in the right context or leave them to take their own course, they would turn left.
The world is moving towards the left. Liberals and Progressives are the new words for the left and for me they mean the same in this current political context.
In the last three hundred years, human have progressed in a Malthusian way and I don’t mean the population or the catastrophe but as in the exponential rate of progress. This progress has proven Marx more right than any other political scientist or philosopher.

Marx was not responsible for the rise and fall of the Soviet Union. So if the communism or socialism or whatever the heck that was going on in the SU failed, it can’t be placed on Marx doorsteps. He did establish the framework for the forces that provide conflicting thoughts in human progress thus dialectic is perhaps the single most important part of analyzing the arguments that have befallen this earth in the last couple of centuries. Marx is a must read for every political scientist, liberal or conservative. Without reading and understanding Marx no one can successfully and correctly analyze the ideological, political, economic or the philosophical struggle that is taken place in the world and the political scientists of any hue who have not read Marx, have always made wrong conclusions in their analysis. In other words, Marx is much more relevant now than he ever was during the cold war.

The current struggle in the US is still between the liberals and conservatives. The liberals started with the New Deal to save the US from falling into the hands of marauding communists after the depression. Since then the conservatives in the US are chasing the left to slowdown the US progress to socialism and historically they are on the wrong side as the world can only progress and cannot go back. If one were to compare the US of the year 1900 to the US of 2000, one would right away see the emergence of a welfare economy, adaptation of socialistic ideals and acceptance of an international role that is essentially benevolent but sometimes appears harsh as the US conservatives often attempt to distort it to slowdown the progress.

Re: # 202

Sahibzada,

Although your mommy has told you about the place of women being the kitchen, youre going to have to file that opinion with her pronouncements on other wifely duties.

We all have jobs. What I can`t get over is how incompetants like you and your ilk do....thank god for those subsidized old boys clubs, hain?

Re: # 201

Sahibzadi, if you like listening to yourself, more power to you. If there is anything else I can offer, let me know, otherwise you know what to do – yes, find a job. Thanks.

My little pumpkin pie, I will try my best to agree with you and where you think my feedback belongs, in future. Honey buns, did I leave anything?

Re: # 200

``Do you consider licking each other’s ass as feedback?``

Again Sahibzada, unsolicited info. Please save your dating requirements for up where they would seem to fit right in.

Also, who else but a pseudo intellectual use the term I introduced here in the last two weeks? Sahibzada, you could not make yourself think long enough to come up with another term...thats Republican wit for you.

But the following post, I am forced to agree, should not be considered `feedback``...its so embarrassing, you should be legally required to keep its perfomance to sites of waste management:

``Saima Ji…there is plenty of ``descent`` (emphasis mine) and debate within the country. We don’t need ``Nazis`` telling us how to treat prisoners, nor do we need French to lecture us on race relations. If we need some help with pancakes or Maple syrup, we will ask for your help.

No one is personally attacking you. We are only attacking your point of view, which is neither pointy nor viewy. Trust me with such thin skin, you won’t last a day in New York City, and forget about working in a corporation. ``


Case closed.

Re: # 199

Saminasha

Do you consider licking each other’s ass as feedback? What feedback are you talking about? Haven’t you seen long feedback that was given? If it doesn’t meet someone’s hateful anti-American underachiever rambling, it still is a feedback. Underachiever middlers only like to get feedback that they agree with. It is fairly common among unemployed pseudo intellectuals.

Yes, it is very interesting for Chavez to subsidize heating oil in poor American neighborhoods as if that Oil belongs to Chavez personally (and not to the people of VZ). He is so dumb for his own good. If Americans could get his oil without paying a penny for it, they will.