China and ASEAN Much Further Apart than the Smiles Suggest
For more than two decades Beijing has pursued a consistent policy in the South China Sea composed of two main elements: gradually strengthening the country's territorial and jurisdictional claims while at the same time endeavoring to assure Southeast Asian countries of its peaceful intentions.
Recent moves by China to bolster its maritime claims have brought the first element into sharp relief, while reassurances of benign intent have, however, been in short supply. Indeed, far from assuaging Southeast Asian concerns regarding its assertive behavior, China has fuelled them by brazenly exploiting divisions within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to further its own national interests.
Commentaries in China's state-run media analyzing the South China Sea issue have become markedly less conciliatory. Opinion pieces highlight several new themes in China's official line. One theme is that China's territory, sovereignty as well as its maritime rights and interests increasingly are being challenged by Southeast Asian nations and Japan in the South and East China Seas. China's response, it is argued, should be to uphold its claims more vigorously, increase its military presence in contested waters, and, if necessary, be prepared to implement coercive measures against other countries. As one commentary notes "Cooperation must be in good faith, competition must be strong, and confrontation must be resolute" (Caixin, July 13).
Another theme is that, while China has shown restraint, countries such as the Philippines and Vietnam have been pursuing provocative and illegal actions in a bid to "plunder" maritime resources such as hydrocarbons and fisheries which China regards as its own (China Daily, July 30).
A third theme is that Manila and Hanoi continue to encourage U.S. "meddling" in the South China Sea and that the United States uses the dispute as a pretext to "pivot" its military forces toward Asia (Global Times, July 11). To reverse these negative trends, Chinese commentators have urged the government to adopt more resolute measures toward disputed territories and maritime boundaries. Nationalist sentiment, they argue, demands no less.
Recent measures undertaken by the Chinese authorities do indeed suggest a more hard-line position. Ominously, some of the initiatives have included a strong military element, presumably as a warning to the other claimants that China is ready to play hardball. Much more at link
China has suffered in the past; China requires these resources; China is everyone's big brother in the region; therefore everyone needs to go back to the old way of doing things where everyone kowtows to China. Just because they were down and out for a century doesn't mean anything has changed. That's China's viewpoint, for what it's worth.
I think direct American intervention should be highly conditional and require regional players to pony up significant forces and/or money. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Germany and Japan covered the entire cost of Desert Storm. Much like Desert Storm, any American intervention in SCS should be predicated on the strong-arming of all interested parties for either money or significant military participation. Otherwise...
I understand that a lot of people think our participation in WWI and WWII, where we lost 500,000 men, only to be jeered by the Brits for being "late" to the festivities, set the pattern for posterity regarding an aggressive American posture towards big wars far from our shores. It has to be said however, that our 19th century forebears seem not to have been particularly concerned that they missed out on the Napoleonic Wars, the Franco-Prussian War, the Crimean War or any of the other big wars fought in Europe during that era.
Why doesn't China build nuke reactors and get themselves off of oil and the logistical nightmare that dependency requires. They could proclaim how advanced/clean they are to the world. It's not like environmentalists are gonna say squat to the PRC.
"Need" doesn't have anything to do with it. "Deserve" is more like it.
China operates on a scarcity mindset. There's not enough to go around, is the cultural thinking. Everything is a zero-sum game. In order for us to win, others must lose. This is why China makes so many seemingly self-destructive moves. From their point of view, it's the right thing to do.
I don't think anything as rational as scarcity is driving Chinese moves. It's the cult of "we are the greatest and we will bend the world to our will". It's the one religious aspect of a basically irreligious society (even before communism).
Economic growth requires good spending, not more spending. After all, Washington could pay every American $10,000 to dig a hole in his or her neighbor's yard and then another $10,000 to fill it in. It would be a ludicrous policy, yet Keynes argued that the unemployed would be better off if paid by the government to "dig holes in the ground."
Most jobs bills are little different than paying people to dig holes. Politics, not economics, dominates. University of Chicago economist Raghuram Rajan admitted "When people say austerity is not the answer, fine, if you have great things to spend on, let us know what they are." The ARRA ignited a lobbying frenzy, turning the measure into a Christmas tree for legislators to hang long desired projects and favored social spending. By one estimate the bill "created" jobs at an average cost of $278,000. The cost of some individual jobs exceeded a million dollars each.
Tom Evslin, who coordinated Vermont's federal "stimulus" money, concluded that "much of the money ended up continuing bloated programs rather than providing a transition to a sustainable future." He pointed to broadband and energy programs, where private investment "dried up as companies waited to see if they could build with taxpayer money. Entrepreneurial effort turned from innovation to grant-grabbing." Last September the New York Times reported that critics "say the money has gone to areas where it is not needed, to promote broadband where it already exists and for industrial parks designed to attract business and jobs that may never materialize." RTWT
Economic growth requires growth. There will be damn little of that in the next 4 years, regardless of who is elected president in 3 months. The main questions are, who will be blamed for the lack of growth between the election of 2012 and the next one of 2014, and how will the dwindling wealth of the US be re-distributed? Eventually the electorate will figure it out. I'm not holding my breath as to just when they will figure it out.
Growth also requires providing goods or services which someone values (needs or wants) and can afford; to create an added value. Growth requires creating wealth. Digging holes doesn't do it; ultimately government jobs don't do it either. They suck up wealth that is created by the private economy. Over-regulating the private economy with inane regulations also dries up wealth. Money needs to keep circulating, creating wealth for individuals along the way--there has to be some velocity to money.
Face it, you are all working for the bankers now, and they are not ever going to take the blame, if it's a blame-game you want.
They will wreck your country and the world and then make you pay for the repairs with slave labour.
The more people who opt out of their game/system, the less their chances of success.
Unfortunately, most are wage slaves not based on a cash economy, so not many options there, apart from demanding to be paid in cash.
Fortunately, I am not in that position, so I can hate whatever I like, (bankers, politicians, etc), with not much comeback, but I fear the majority are, how do the English put it, stuffed for at least the next three generations
This is a speech given by Andrew C. McCarthy, the guy that prosecuted the Blind Sheikh -- long, but contains some real and scary info.
I was invited by the Center for Security Policy to give a speech at the National Press Club in Washington yesterday. The topic was our government's relations with the Muslim Brotherhood and why concerns about Brotherhood infiltration, raised by five conservative House members, are very real. The speech ran nearly an hour, and there was a little over a half-hour of Q&A afterwards. The event was carried by CSPAN, and for those interested, the link is here. Below is the prepared text of my speech:
Well, if al-Qida are operating as NATO troops in Syria and are tremendously OK, what does that make the MusBros? I suspect someone is giving them a long leash looking to what happens when the Ramadongadingdong thingy finishes and the Arab Spring continues in the last remaining raghead kleptocracies, of which there may be about 7. (The Magic Kingdom, Qutar, Emirates, Jordan, etc).
It's a Sunni/Shiite dust-up, let them get on with it even if it means the MB think they're pulling strings. Just jerk their chain when required.
The Chinese are far more deserving of US attention.
And whilst the Russians protect the Alawites (and Christians) and don't get paid for their trouble, I see no problem with letting the MB think they're the biggest poodle in town.
I reiterate, get China sorted by strengthening your Pacific allies you know who they are by now. Out.
I disagree that the MB should not be a concern. The MB are but one group of a much larger set of islamists worldwide. McCarthy's book The Grand Jihad links many on the left as being allied with the islamists either willfully or as useful idiots. I do agree that China should be a concern as well.
August 7th, the WSJ posted a story which mentioned that all new permits have been stopped for the construction of new nuclear plants in the U.S. by a regulator. . Link Strange how the coal industry has been slow-walked by this administration to the extent the coal unions are not supporting Obama. The oil industry has been slowed in support of Obama's leftist environmentalist base. Then there is Obummer's bowing to the Saudis. Then there has been his lackluster attitude and disrespect of one of our allies in the Mideast, Israel. McCarthy mentioned Obama's policy shift towards the Arab world. Gasoline prices have been busting our hump at the pump. Ten percent of personal income is going to gasoline. It is probably more when you factor the increased prices of foodstuffs and other consumables due to increased transportation costs. You have to question his leanings. Few if any in the MSM have raised such questions.
The Chinese are killing us also because of a lot of dumb trade and borrowing policies from China coming out of Washington.
We cannot afford four more years of Obama. He is killing us.
[Dawn] NOW it is the realm of television programming and advertising that has attracted the Supreme Court's attention. Summoning the chief of the Pakistain Electronic Media Regulatory Authority in response to petitions moved by two conservative figures, the former amir of the Jamaat-e-Islami ...The Islamic Society, founded in 1941 in Lahore by Maulana Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, aka The Great Apostosizer. The Jamaat opposed the independence of Bangladesh but has operated an independent branch there since 1975. It maintains close ties with international Mohammedan groups such as the Moslem Brotherhood. the Taliban, and al-Qaeda. The Jamaat's objectives are the establishment of a pure Islamic state, governed by Sharia law. It is distinguished by its xenophobia, and its opposition to Westernization, capitalism, socialism, secularism, and liberalist social mores... Qazi Hussain Ahmed ...the absolutely humorless, xenophobic former head of the Pak Jamaat-e-Islami. He was also head of the MMA, a coalition of religious parties formed after 2001 that eventually collapsed under the weight of the holy egos involved. Qazi was the patron of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar during the Afghan mujaheddin's war against the Soviets. His sermons are described as fiery, which means they rely heavily on gospel and not at all on logic. Qazi once recommended drinking camel pee for good health, but that was before his kidneys went... and a retired Supreme Court justice, Wajihuddin Ahmed, the court on Monday demanded action within a week against 'obscene' and 'vulgar' programming and advertisements on private TV channels aired in Pakistain. Pause for a moment and consider the various problems that afflict this country and that the court is embroiled in. That obscenity and vulgarity on television -- and this before the debate about whether the impugned content is at all obscene or vulgar -- figures in the scheme of things to fix at the highest levels at the moment is somewhat worrying.
Two points need to be made here. First, the excesses that do frequently occur on television -- from content that foments religious intolerance to coverage of terrorist attacks that are insensitive to victims' families and badly handled, and from opinion-laden shows that are divorced from fact to invasion of privacy and worse in intrusive programming -- do need serious redressal. However, it's easy to be generous with someone else's money... government regulation is not the way to go. The Musharraf era epitomised the problem: even the most ardent supporters of a free and independent media in power cannot be trusted to not use government regulation to stifle media freedom. Where self-regulation thus far has failed, perhaps what the government can do is act as a controller for the creation of a regulatory body that is truly independent, professionally run along non-ideological lines and responsive to both the media's and consumers' concerns. But to trust the government with a direct and hands-on role in regulating media content is
an unwelcome idea: today it is obscenity and vulgarity, tomorrow it will be the 'national interest' and 'national security' that will demand certain lines be drawn.
Second, the outmoded idea of what content is vulgar or obscene needs to be discarded. Strangely, violence on television -- domestic, criminal, extrajudicial -- rarely attracts the same kind of censure as does content in which women are attired in a certain way or filmed interacting with men in a certain way. The same goes for intolerance, xenophobia, bigotry and hate spewed on TV: it doesn't attract the same kind of censure as does a woman dancing or singing lustily. The collective ownership that society wants to impose on its women is a problem itself. In the name of moral policing, Pakistain has ended up with deeply skewed priorities: keep the women covered up; let the monsters run loose.
WaPo gives Iran space on its opinion page:
"...Although Annan's efforts to end the crisis have been terminated, his six-point plan for political change is alive and well. Why should seeds of discord continue to be planted when the situation can be resolved rationally, through wisdom and providence? Those backing violence in Syria fail to see that whatever they seek through their actions won't materialize.
That is an idiotic statement. The people backing violence are rational -- cynical bastards yes, but also rational. If they honestly thought that wisdom and providence would give them what they want, that's what they would do. Pencilneck is killing his people because otherwise they'd depose and kill him. His actions make him a murderous thug, but it's entirely rational for him to behave that way. WaPo honestly thinks that we can 'imagine peace' in Syria? Good Lord, what rubes.
Abrupt political change without a roadmap for managed political transition will lead only to a precarious situation that would destabilize one of the world's most sensitive regions. Iran is part of the solution, not the problem. As the world has witnessed during the past decade, we have acted as a stabilizing force in Iraq and Afghanistan, two other Muslim countries thrown into turmoil. The stability of our region is paramount for world peace and tranquillity...."
By Ed Rogers
It is only mid-August and President B.O. has officially run out of things to say. I've said before that I think the Obama campaign is not properly pacing itself. I've thought his campaign was running too hot and it would exhaust itself before November.
Obama does not appear to be building his campaign to a crescendo that will drive up turnout but is instead building a campaign of distractions and pot shots that will turn voters off and suppress turnout. Low turnout should be among Obama's greatest fears in 2012. Perhaps he is hoping the campaign will be so bad that it will suppress Willard Mitt Romney's ...former governor of Massachussetts, currently the presumptive Publican nominee for president. He is the son of the former governor of Michigan, George Romney, who himself ran for president after saving American Motors from failure, though not permanently. Romney's charisma is best defined as soporific, which is probably why he is leading the Publican field. On the plus side, he isn't President B.O... turnout, too.
Yesterday revealed two examples of how low the Obama campaign has reached. I think we are beyond the kitchen sink and Obama is now throwing pieces of pipe out of the wall.
Obama has a new ad out in which he and his superPAC accuse Romney of killing a woman. That's right, Romney killed her by investing in a company that failed. Her husband worked at that company and, somehow, the Bain Capital investment led to her illness and death. Yes, it is a little hard to follow. The woman's death is a tragedy, but Obama doesn't mind using it in a twisted way to try and tar Romney and distract voters from his own economic record.
Next, Obama rolled out a rehearsed, childish put-down of some aspect of Romney's tax plan. The news of the day from the president of the United States was him calling Mitt Romney "Romneyhood" at a fundraiser in Connecticut. It is so dumb I don't mind repeating it. But with so much of the media willing to play along, Romney couldn't let the sound bite stand and have it be declared clever by the Obama apologencia -- the Romney campaign had to have its own childish retort. So yesterday was about Romneyhood and "Obamaloney."
I guess that is a score for Obama, since he needs the campaign to be a discouraging farce so that no one will notice how his stewardship of the economy is ruining their lives and destroying kids' futures.
This is Obama and the the Democrats. More attacks to come. This is his history. He takes the easy route always. He has totally lost the conservative Democrat. I believe they will stay home. The media is the biggest enemy in our election process. After the election they will hammer every negative they can find or make up. They really need to go out of business.
Obamaloney is a bit strained but DOES do a better job of conveying the truth than "Romneyhood", which could be turned around to point out that classic remakes of "robin hood" has good Robin and his merrie band attacking on overoppressive, overtaxing government to return money to the people. Tax cuts tend to do that...
Ptah, totally agree. Perhaps due is a history show exploring the real Robin Hood, you know the one who held the shire's physician hostage, destroyed roads and bridges, and raped ducks. Also hung out with that radical bible clinger Tuck and did you know Little John is a slang for somebody who pistol whips people with a Glock. True stuff, saw it in a commercial.
No. They need to be put down, like a rabid animal. I read somewhere (wish I could find the link) that 95% of the media in this country is owned by just 5 or 6 groups, and that they all share seats on each others Boards.
There must be someway to break these groups up with RICO or Anti-Trust laws. The Left, and their control of the Media has to stopped. We cannot afford to wait for them to go bankrupt. I fear it is too late to save the Republic, we'll have to wait for it to collapse, and be ready to move fast against the Left when it does.
Posted by: Secret Asian Man ||
On the plus side, he [Obummer] isn't President B.O...
That's good enough reason to vote for Mitt. However, there are other good reasons too. He has executive experience and has done something positive in this life besides be a community organizer and who is driven by a hatred and envy of success, a hatred for anyone who disagrees with him, and one who is full of racism and anti-semitism.
It's not so much that he's run out of things to say, but who in hell is listening to him besides the true believers? I see him on TV, I turn the channel. Hear him on the radio, click. He's got nothing to say to me that I'm interesting in hearing or that I haven't heard from his lying ass before. I've tuned him out, as have a lotta people I know.