A excellent article on Russia, Europe, U.S. and the Middle East from Stratfor. It does run rather long, but I highly recommend reading it through. A excerpt follows below.
Mod's I wasn't sure how to categorize this story. I placed it under Non-WoT. Use your own judgement to move it, if neccessary.
By Peter Zeihan
For the past several days, high-level Russian and American policymakers, including U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Russian President Vladimir Putin's right-hand man, Sergei Ivanov, have been meeting in Moscow to discuss the grand scope of U.S.-Russian relations. These talks would be of critical importance to both countries under any circumstances, as they center on the network of treaties that have governed Europe since the closing days of the Cold War.
Against the backdrop of the Iraq war, however, they have taken on far greater significance. Both Russia and the United States are attempting to rewire the security paradigms of key regions, with Washington taking aim at the Middle East and Russia more concerned about its former imperial territory. The two countries' visions are mutually incompatible, and American preoccupation with Iraq is allowing Moscow to overturn the geopolitics of its backyard.
The Iraqi Preoccupation
After years of organizational chaos, the United States has simplified its plan for Iraq: Prevent Iran from becoming a regional hegemon. Once-lofty thoughts of forging a democracy in general or supporting a particular government were abandoned in Washington well before the congressional testimony of Gen. David Petraeus. Reconstruction is on the back burner and even oil is now an afterthought at best. The entirety of American policy has been stripped down to a single thought: Iran.
That thought is now broadly held throughout not only the Bush administration but also the American intelligence and defense communities. It is not an unreasonable position. An American exodus from Iraq would allow Iran to leverage its allies in Iraq's Shiite South to eventually gain control of most of Iraq. Iran's influence also extends to significant Shiite communities on the Persian Gulf's western oil-rich shore. Without U.S. forces blocking the Iranians, the military incompetence of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar could be perceived by the Iranians as an invitation to conquer that shore. That would land roughly 20 million barrels per day of global oil output -- about one-quarter of the global total -- under Tehran's control. Rhetoric aside, an outcome such as this would push any U.S. president into a broad regional war to prevent a hostile power from shutting off the global economic pulse.
So the United States, for better or worse, is in Iraq for the long haul. This requires some strategy for dealing with the other power with the most influence in the country, Iran. This, in turn, leaves the United States with two options: It can simply attempt to run Iraq as a protectorate forever, a singularly unappealing option, or it can attempt to strike a deal with Iran on the issue of Iraq -- and find some way to share influence.
Since the release of the Petraeus report in September, seeking terms with Iran has become the Bush administration's unofficial goal, but the White House does not want substantive negotiations until the stage is appropriately set. This requires that Washington build a diplomatic cordon around Iran -- intensifying Tehran's sense of isolation -- and steadily ratchet up the financial pressure. Increasing bellicose rhetoric from European capitals and the lengthening list of major banks that are refusing to deal with Iran are the nuts and bolts of this strategy.
Not surprisingly, Iran views all this from a starkly different angle. Persia has historically been faced with a threat of invasion from its western border -- with the most recent threat manifesting in a devastating 1980-1988 war that resulted in a million deaths. The primary goal of Persia's foreign policy stretching back a millennium has been far simpler than anything the United States has cooked up: Destroy Mesopotamia. In 2003, the United States was courteous enough to handle that for Iran.
Now, Iran's goals have expanded and it seeks to leverage the destruction of its only meaningful regional foe to become a regional hegemon. This requires leveraging its Iraqi assets to bleed the Americans to the point that they leave. But Iran is not immune to pressure. Tehran realizes that it might have overplayed its hand internationally, and it certainly recognizes that U.S. efforts to put it in a noose are bearing some fruit. What Iran needs is its own sponsor -- and that brings to the Middle East a power that has not been present there for quite some time: Russia.
I don't know what Franco would see of today's "issues", and I don't know what the spanish far-right's relationship with saddam was (here in France, it was pro-saddam/baathist, and still is notably anti-US, with I feel, a resurgence of antisemitism, infused from the far-left).
David Horowitz’s conservative Freedom Center has designated next week the time to “break through the barrier of politically correct doublespeak that prevails on American campuses, if you want to help our brave troops, who are fighting the Islamo-Fascists abroad.”
The Freedom Center’s terrorism awareness program is urging college students to stage sit-ins outside the offices of women’s studies departments to protest “the silence of feminists over the oppression of women in Islam” and to distribute pamphlets on Islamo-Fascism. Their titles include “The Islamic Mein Kampf,” “Why Israel is the Victim” and “Jimmy Carter’s War Against the Jews.”
Even before Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week, the Republican presidential candidates were pitching in yesterday at the Republican Jewish Coalition Victory 2008 Forum here.
“I don’t know if you’ve noticed this about the Democratic debates,” Rudy Giuliani said, “but they never use the word ‘Islamic terrorist.’ Ever.”
“They have a very hard time getting those words out of their mouth,” he continued, to the delight of his listeners. “I think it’s quite clear to me now, having listened to seven or eight of their debates, that they think it’s politically incorrect to say the words. I don’t know exactly who they think they’re offending. I don’t know what kind of view of the world they have. I understand when I say ‘Islamic terrorism,’ I’m not offending all of Islam. I’m not offending all of the Arab world. I’m offending exactly who I want to offend and making it clear to them that we stand against them.”
As the phlegmatic Fred Thompson plummeted in the polls and made a lackluster appearance at the forum, a juiced Mr. Giuliani preened in front of an audience that loved him.
He went through his greatest hits: The time he yanked Yasir Arafat out of Lincoln Center during a performance of Beethoven’s Ninth. “The thing that really bothered me was, he didn’t have a ticket,” Rudy recalled. “He was a freeloader!”
The time he tossed back a $10 million check for 9/11 families from the Saudi prince who urged America to “adopt a more balanced stance toward the Palestinian cause.”
“You know, Israel’s not perfect, and America’s not perfect, but we’re not terrorist states,” he said.
There has been much discussion about liberal Rudy stances on guns, gays, abortion, divorce and comic cross-dressing that are well-suited to Manhattan but not to G.O.P. primary voters. But thereÂ’s also his bearhug with Israel, so hearty that even W.Â’s embrace seems tepid in comparison.
But Rudy seems out of the Republican mainstream on even giving lip-service to Palestinian aspirations. He has no patience for buttering up the Arabs, or the Republican men’s club attitude represented by Saudi-loving Bush senior and James Baker that has always favored a more “even-handed” policy in the Middle East.
Mr. Baker once reportedly justified the tough policy of the Bush 41 administration toward Israel with the notorious comment to a colleague: “[Expletive] the Jews. They didn’t vote for us anyway.”
W. blew off the Baker-Hamilton panel suggestions on Iraq that urged the administration to aggressively referee the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, to begin negotiations with Iran and Syria and called for Israel to return the Golan Heights to Syria. Imagine what Rudy would do.
Even though he has been closer to Israel than his dad, at least W. held the Saudi crown princeÂ’s hand in Crawford. (Bush senior and Dick Cheney were very tight with Saudi Prince Bandar. At a party at the vice presidentÂ’s mansion once, I watched Bandar greet waiters like old friends.)
Rudy would probably only take the hand of an Arab leader to throw him down a ravine, or a wadi.
“We need to isolate the terror-funding theocrats in every way possible,” he told the Jewish hawks, during a rant on Iran. “And we must end direct and indirect investment until they change their course.”
Rudy lambasted Hillary and Obama for their “strong Democratic desire to negotiate, negotiate, negotiate and negotiate,” and suggested again that he would be tougher on Iran than Hillary, and would never let it get a nuclear weapon.
Last night, when he and Judi were interviewed by Fox’s Sean Hannity, Rudy ratcheted it up, saying that Hillary’s “ambiguity” and “shifting of position” on Iran was “a dangerous tendency, I think, in somebody that aspires to take on a position where you have got to be pretty darn decisive.”
He also bored in where Obama has been skittish about going: her experience. “Honestly, in most respects, I don’t know Hillary’s experience. She’s never run a city. She’s never run a state. She’s never run a business. She has never met a payroll. She has never been responsible for the safety and security of millions of people, much less even hundreds of people.”
He assured everyone heÂ’d learned how to put his cellphone on vibrate. But he left himself at full volume.
#2
I wish the headline read: Thompson roughs up Arabs. Not to be.
I was reading Jim Geraghty's "Campaign Spot" over at NR. Geraghty was reporting on Thompson's appearance before the same group (Repub. Jewish Coalition). I gleam Thompson was not overly inspiring.
Thompson did make mention of the "terror masters" in Damascus and Tehran (very good), but spoke of "friendly Arab states" (huh?). A lady in the audience called him on that point: name some, she asked.
Thompson responded by naming Jordan. And then mentioned Saudi Arabia. Thompson advised we have "significant difficulties" with SA (true), the USA and SA are "interdependent" (true), but that SA "is NOT an enemy" (false).
I'd like to have seen Thompson at least mention the SA financed spread of Whahabbi ideology and funding of terrorists like AQ.
I'm not an advisor to Thompson but I'd like to see the phrase "friendly Abrab states" dropped from his vocabulary. Use the term islamo-fascism more often, provide a program to undermine the spread of Whahabbism and state for the record that on his watch Iran will not be permitted to get a nuke.
Posted by: Mark Z ||
10/17/2007 12:04 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Back before TimesSelect put MoDo behind a firewall where she belongs, there was a kerfuffle about MoDo editing quotes to change their meaning, a maneuver that came to be known as "Dowdification." "Best of the Web" had a running item called "Eponymous Dowdification" in which readers Dowdified Dowd.
Now that TimesSelect has fallen--alas!--the field is open for Dowd to be dowdified again. Here's my attempt:
I donÂ’t know if youÂ’ve noticed this about the Democratic debates, . . . but . . . They . . . want to offend . . . America.
I watched . . . Obama . . . put his cellphone on vibrate.
Posted by: Mike ||
10/17/2007 12:15 Comments ||
Top||
#4
But Rudy seems out of the Republican mainstream on even giving lip-service to Palestinian aspirations. He has no patience for buttering up the Arabs, or the Republican men’s club attitude represented by Saudi-loving Bush senior and James Baker that has always favored a more “even-handed” policy in the Middle East.
Even though he has been closer to Israel than his dad, at least W. held the Saudi crown princeÂ’s hand in Crawford...Rudy would probably only take the hand of an Arab leader to throw him down a ravine, or a wadi.
Actually, if I was running the Rudy campaign, I'd print up flyers and post quotations from this screed on the official website. BoZoDoDo MoDo and the rest of her fifth-column media colleagues are too arrogant and stupid to realize that the things they loathe about Rudy (or anybody else to the right of Fidel Castro, for that matter) are what those of us who live and work out here in the real "reality-based community" admire the most.
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
10/17/2007 14:43 Comments ||
Top||
#5
“I don’t know if you’ve noticed this about the Democratic debates,” Rudy Giuliani said, “but they never use the word ‘Islamic terrorist.’ Ever.”
KAPOW! Right in the chops. Good shot, Rudy. Our political elite's abject refusal to name the enemy is nothing but betrayal and treason of the American people.
The Freedom Center’s terrorism awareness program is urging college students to stage sit-ins outside the offices of women’s studies departments to protest “the silence of feminists over the oppression of women in Islam” and to distribute pamphlets on Islamo-Fascism. Their titles include “The Islamic Mein Kampf,” “Why Israel is the Victim” and “Jimmy Carter’s War Against the Jews.”
One stirred hornet's nest, coming right up! Fit hits shan, tape at 11:00.
I understand when I say ‘Islamic terrorism,’ I’m not offending all of Islam. I’m not offending all of the Arab world.
Wrongo, Rudy old boy. You are "offending all of the Arab world" and they desperately need it. Those who are not offended are not "true" Muslims. No actual Muslim would countenance their jihadist struggle being called "terrorism". The simple fact remains that Islam is terrorism and terrorism is Islam. Period.
“We need to isolate the terror-funding theocrats in every way possible,” he told the Jewish hawks, during a rant on Iran. “And we must end direct and indirect investment until they change their course.”
WOW!An American politician actually said that? Actually identified Islamic theocracy as the vile bullshit it truly is? That one stance alone cancels out a huge number of other character flaws right then and there.
#6
I understand when I say ‘Islamic terrorism,’ I’m not offending all of Islam. I’m not offending all of the Arab world. I’m offending exactly who I want to offend and making it clear to them that we stand against them.”
Rudy, I think you are pissing them all off. You piss one off and you piss them all off. They are always pissed off. that's their nature. Don't worry about it. It's O.K. Screw P.C. It is one of the worst things to plague the West.
#7
Welcome to Rudy's world, guys. I've been pushing Rudy for years because he is first, right, and in your face. He treats American voters like people, and illegals and enemies and phalking liberals like phalking illegal enemies.
Rudy's world is black and white. A few months ago Rudy was quoted as saying that illegal aliens have not committed a crime. Apparently, it is not a crime to cross the border. It's that simple. Using someone else's SS # ? A crime. Driving without a license ? A crime. Using a false identity ? A crime. But walking around Arizona looking for a drink of water is acceptable.
Just go home before dark.
#2
Putin is doing the right thing by Russia - setting one adversary against another - Iran vs the US. The benefits to Russia if a confrontation ensues - (1) Russia will have gotten multi-billion dollar revenues from arms sales to Iran, (2) its latest weaponry will have gotten a good workout from American equipment, and feedback for future improvements, (3) Iran will be hobbled as a power for years, if not decades, (4) oil prices will skyrocket, for at least a few months, if not years, as Iranian output crashes to nothing and (5) the (hopefully negative - from Putin's perspective) results of a US attack on Iran will turn Americans against foreign interventions for a good long while. (Of course, if Uncle Sam doesn't attack the Iranians, then Putin has built up a strong and aggressive neighbor on its southern periphery). Still, setting one barbarian against another is an ancient strategic precept. Putin may seem to be favoring the Iranians irrationally, but he is in fact setting them up to fight Uncle Sam. If Ahmedinejad doesn't know this, he's dimmer than he looks.
#3
I said almost the exact same thing on another forum. As an American I don't particularly like Putin's plan but it's very logical. You forget one additional thing is that (6) Iran will not consider Moscow as a target.
#4
Wait! There is only 1 country with the Islamic Bomb, and that is Pakistan, Bush's #1 pseudo-ally in his phony GWOT.
By playing the Islamic Card, Bush handed Putin militarists a pretext to do the same. And now Condi is vomiting for a Hamas based Pale-terror state, while Russia's lean to Iran/Hizbollah suggests a return to Cold War madness. Please don't insult your own intelligence by opining that this couldn't have been prevented.
#5
Russia giving Iran the bomb would be like Stalin giving the bomb to Hitler. It's not going to slow them down, it just gives them one more BIG tool in their quest for a global caliphate. Russia, being right next door, with a large Muslim population is only going to find that they have fed the monster at their door a big helping of steroids.
#6
Woodrow: By playing the Islamic Card, Bush handed Putin militarists a pretext to do the same.
This is kinda silly. The Pakis got the bomb before Bush came to power. Whatever Uncle Sam does, the Pakis aren't going to roll back their bomb. And sanctions aren't going to make Pakistanis reform any more than it made the pre- or post-9/11 Taliban in Afghanistan reform. The only thing that will make Pakistan less radical is the mass killing of the entire population. And we're not about to do that. Not without the nuclear destruction of an American city.
#7
Agree wid #2 - PUTIN is not worried about Iran becuz the Iranians know Russia [nor China] will unilater tolerate Radical Iran = Radical Islamism having high-yield or suffic yield Nuke-WMD weapons capable of destroying Russ-Chin cities. COLD WAR > USSR under Brezhnev overtly threatened to take over minima 1/2 of Iran + later 1/2 of Lebanon, etc. iff a US-USSR conflict ocurred over these nations vv external intervention in local politix. TMK, POST-USSR/COLD WAR THIS OPTION HAS NEVER BEEN CHANGED OR DROPPED UNDER YELTSIN OR PUTIN. COMMIE-SOCS WORKING WID JIHADIST-ISLAMIST > BRINGING DOWN POST-COLD WAR HYPERPOWER AMERICA REMAINS THEIR COMMON FOCII + COLLUSORY OBJECTIVE.
Fury at DNA pioneer's theory: Celebrated scientist attacked for race comments: "All our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really"
One of the world's most eminent scientists was embroiled in an extraordinary row last night after he claimed that black people were less intelligent than white people and the idea that "equal powers of reason" were shared across racial groups was a delusion.
James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in the unravelling of DNA who now runs one of America's leading scientific research institutions, drew widespread condemnation for comments he made ahead of his arrival in Britain today for a speaking tour at venues including the Science Museum in London.
The 79-year-old geneticist reopened the explosive debate about race and science in a newspaper interview in which he said Western policies towards African countries were wrongly based on an assumption that black people were as clever as their white counterparts when "testing" suggested the contrary. He claimed genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence could be found within a decade.
The newly formed Equality and Human Rights Commission, successor to the Commission for Racial Equality, said it was studying Dr Watson's remarks " in full". Dr Watson told The Sunday Times that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really". He said there was a natural desire that all human beings should be equal but "people who have to deal with black employees find this not true".
His views are also reflected in a book published next week, in which he writes: "There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so."
The furore echoes the controversy created in the 1990s by The Bell Curve, a book co-authored by the American political scientist Charles Murray, which suggested differences in IQ were genetic and discussed the implications of a racial divide in intelligence. The work was heavily criticised across the world, in particular by leading scientists who described it as a work of " scientific racism".
Dr Watson arrives in Britain today for a speaking tour to publicise his latest book, Avoid Boring People: Lessons from a Life in Science. Among his first engagements is a speech to an audience at the Science Museum organised by the Dana Centre, which held a discussion last night on the history of scientific racism.
Critics of Dr Watson said there should be a robust response to his views across the spheres of politics and science. Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said: "It is sad to see a scientist of such achievement making such baseless, unscientific and extremely offensive comments. I am sure the scientific community will roundly reject what appear to be Dr Watson's personal prejudices.
"These comments serve as a reminder of the attitudes which can still exists at the highest professional levels."
The American scientist earned a place in the history of great scientific breakthroughs of the 20th century when he worked at the University of Cambridge in the 1950s and 1960s and formed part of the team which discovered the structure of DNA. He shared the 1962 Nobel Prize for medicine with his British colleague Francis Crick and New Zealand-born Maurice Wilkins.
But despite serving for 50 years as a director of the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory on Long Island, considered a world leader in research into cancer and genetics, Dr Watson has frequently courted controversy with some of his views on politics, sexuality and race. The respected journal Science wrote in 1990: "To many in the scientific community, Watson has long been something of a wild man, and his colleagues tend to hold their collective breath whenever he veers from the script."
In 1997, he told a British newspaper that a woman should have the right to abort her unborn child if tests could determine it would be homosexual. He later insisted he was talking about a "hypothetical" choice which could never be applied. He has also suggested a link between skin colour and sex drive, positing the theory that black people have higher libidos, and argued in favour of genetic screening and engineering on the basis that " stupidity" could one day be cured. He has claimed that beauty could be genetically manufactured, saying: "People say it would be terrible if we made all girls pretty. I think it would great."
The Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory said yesterday that Dr Watson could not be contacted to comment on his remarks.
Steven Rose, a professor of biological sciences at the Open University and a founder member of the Society for Social Responsibility in Science, said: " This is Watson at his most scandalous. He has said similar things about women before but I have never heard him get into this racist terrain. If he knew the literature in the subject he would know he was out of his depth scientifically, quite apart from socially and politically."
Anti-racism campaigners called for Dr Watson's remarks to be looked at in the context of racial hatred laws. A spokesman for the 1990 Trust, a black human rights group, said: "It is astonishing that a man of such distinction should make comments that seem to perpetuate racism in this way. It amounts to fuelling bigotry and we would like it to be looked at for grounds of legal complaint."
#2
James Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his part in the unravelling of DNA who now runs one of America's leading scientific research institutions, drew widespread condemnation for comments he made ahead of his arrival in Britain today for a speaking tour at venues including the Science Museum in London.
But, geez, media boys and girls, he's a Nobel Prize winner isn't he? Aren't they above reproach? You know, like Al Gore and Jimmy Carter and Nellie Mandela and...
#3
One of the world's most eminent scientists was embroiled in an extraordinary row last night after he claimed that black people were less intelligent than white people and the idea that "equal powers of reason" were shared across racial groups was a delusion.
Without entering into any debate concerning genetic intelligence, please allow me to note one simple thing.
As the indisputable birthplace and cradle of mankind, how is it that—even with a head start of several extra millennia—Africa has been entirely unable to rise above anything but genocidal tribal anarchy? Anyone idiotic enough to try and blame European colonization needs to consider how that happened only within the last several centuries. The simple fact remains that sub-Saharan Africa always has been and remains to this very day a complete and total societal shitpot.
#6
Z: As the indisputable birthplace and cradle of mankind, how is it that—even with a head start of several extra millennia—Africa has been entirely unable to rise above anything but genocidal tribal anarchy?
The ones who could adapt to other climates left. Perhaps to avoid the fighting over resources, perhaps to avoid the tropical diseases. Africa itself is lush and fertile, so I can't figure out why the inhabitants can't make a go of it.
Part of the problem is also European colonialism - not the mythical exploitation, but the cobbling of many nationalities into single states after they left. That was a recipe for civil war and the systematic exploitation of minority nationalities by the majority. At the same time, Africans are to blame for believing the promises of their ethnic kin that they were likely to be superior and less corrupt at governing than their European counterparts. More than the European imperialists, native Africans brought this upon themselves by agitating for independence.
#8
More than the European imperialists, native Africans brought this upon themselves by agitating for independence.
More exactly communists and Americans strived to dismantle the colonial empires well before Africa were readyy for self-rule. And be it communists or Americans it wasn't for the good of Africans.
#9
Looking around here (NYT, BBC, Columbia U, Duke U, Hollywood, etc.) and it is not obvious to me that Westerners are very intelligent these days. Perhaps the same logic as NS mentioned applies - soft times develop stupid people - and if they breed, the whole culture devolves. For the most part our elite stupid don't breed.
#11
Personally I think his claims are nonsense. There are many reasons why Africa is far behind the West. Many of the reasons are the same reasons the third world is far behind the West. A love of dictators and wishful economics.
These two factors lead directly to a pathetic education system taht even the brightest brain would have trouble not atrophying.
#13
I don't think it does. And I agree with rjschwarz, with the added observation that poor nutrition -- think of the image of the little kid in the last stages of malnutrition, with the vulture waiting not ten feet from him -- will lower a person' mental horsepower for life. Probably IQs objectively measured in Africa are lower than equivalent IQs in Europe or North America, because levels of nutrition aren't at the same levels. A more valid comparison would likely be between a stable African country, such as Botswana, and a moderately successful Western country, like maybe Panama.
The same applied, in a different manner, with the Japanese after WWII, by the way. There wasn't an observable IQ difference but it showed up in their height -- they had good nutrition, but it was light on protein. American Nisei averaged six inches taller than native Japanese in 1946, and they didn't have the tendency toward bow-leggedness.
Irish and southern and eastern European immigrants were regarded -- and measured -- at the time as inferior to the Knickerbocker Americans. The idea that the best lawyers are named Cohen came later.
The black-white difference in the USA is cultural, as far as I can tell. One part of it is their African heritage, but keep in mind that there aren't very many immigrant blacks in American jails. By the second generation the boys are being acculturated, girls a little less so. My guess would be that second generation African immigrants get in trouble at close to the rate of their native peers.
When American blacks moved north in waves after the Second World War they took some of the worst traits of the South's culture with them. In their native element there wasn't an awful lot of difference among good ol' boys, regardless of color. Blacks haven't changed at the same rate and in the same directions as the white guys have.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/17/2007 17:50 Comments ||
Top||
#14
When American blacks moved north in waves after the Second World War they took some of the worst traits of the South's culture with them.
When I was a student in Baltimore there was a real division between the blacks in East Baltimore, who had been there for a long time, and West Baltimore, who came up in WWII. It was pretty easy to tell which side of town a black came from. Is that still true?
#15
notice that the lands populated by tribal societies, that never got beyond that, are the least technologically improved, the most impoverished, and all-around suckiest societies? Inbreeding has it's consequences. See: Africa, Arabs, et al
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/17/2007 18:31 Comments ||
Top||
#16
No crap. Blacks have a lower IQ and Asians are better at math. Welcome to non-PC DNA reality. Anyone who has worked with different breeds of animals won't find this surprising.
Change the PC term "race" with the correct word "breed" and well you get the idea.
What I don't understand is why is this a big deal? There are larger differences. Take for instance body shape. Short stocky people handle the cold better. Where is the public rage and debate over that?
Old news to anyone who has taught in public schools.
#17
Minds expand as the use of tools support the expansion. Since necessity is the mother of invention, the need for aid in survival would naturally yield inventions and expanded IQs. I can see that sandstorms brought about the burka, but why did scorching desert heat not bring about running water and air conditioning ?
#18
Short people handle the cold better? I can only wish that were true, Icerigger. Mr. Wife is almost a foot taller, and going on 100 lb. heavier. The blankets tend to be piled up on my side of the bed.
If I recall correctly, almost all the really big mammals died out at the end of the last ice age... and polar bears are bigger than the other kinds.
I wonder just how much of Watson's (and frankly all the people who believe the same thing but don't say it) beliefs in this matter are because we've made it taboo to discuss cultural or social differences as if they matter themselves.
#23
American blacks tend to be great athletes in comparison to whites. Is that genetics or societal factors? Or both? Did Jimmy the Greek have a valid non PC point or is that myth? I know folks who have fallen on both sides of the debate. I played football at a small college and we even discussed it in the locker room about why so few whites play d-back, running back or receiver in the NFL.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
10/17/2007 21:27 Comments ||
Top||
#25
What about Condi and Colin and Justice Thomas and all of the many other blacks who are smarter and more successful than the rest of us?? I know plenty of stupid white people. What about your your perpetual grad students? Many score high on IQ tests but are dumber than a box of rocks. He's free to talk about whatever he wants, but we should all fear genetic research that will place us in neat little boxes about what we can and can't do based on our genetic makeup. Oh, don't hire her, she's blonde. Blondes aren't as smart. Pshaw.
#26
1/ Intelligence IS partly explained by genetic difference.
2/ The average (peak of the bell curve) for black people can be lower than the average for the whole population, but you'll still find above average people who are black.
HOWEVER
Why should social policy differ depending on intelligence? Do we have IQ tests for govt programs?
#27
I think this is dangerous territory. Pretty soon these types of bell curves will affect everyone. Oh, you have a such and such gene... no life insurance for you. Oh you have red hair - you are too tempermental for this job.
This stuff is Hitler's dream. Pretty soon people with a particular eyebrow pattern won't be allowed into MCDonalds because they are more prone to heart attacks. you can't have that surgery... you can't have that loan, you have a higher propensity to be an alcoholic, no job for you.
#1
While conservatives have been congratulating themselves about events overseas, the U.S. has been silently and steadily transformed by a race-and gender-based socialism.
Not exactly a front page, above the fold item. It's been going on for at least 35 years.
#2
Peace can't be breaking out all over the place. Harry Reid said we lost and he surrendered.
If peace is breaking out all over the place, it is due to our military. They, as an organization should have won the Nobel Peace Prize instead of that idiot Al Gore with his global hot air.
#1
Regardless of your political or religious beliefs, we are sunk unless the true principles of Christianity, with it's foundation in Jewish law, can be revived. The ten commandments, with the Christian concepts of forgiveness and grace are the basis on which our western civilized society rests.
We need to stop thinking of Christianity in terms of Pat Robertson and Tammy Faye and get back to what it was about in the first place. This discussion is a good start.
#2
There are several essential conditions for creativity in the West, as well as several known enemies of creativity. Religion can either support, be neutral to, or inhibit creativity; so it is less important in promulgating creativity itself, then in creating cultural conditions in which creativity can come to the fore.
Perhaps the most important condition is the willingness of society to permit, accept, and encourage creativity wherever it can be found. The most opaque, obscure and alien idea is greeted with curiosity and interest instead of indifference, rejection and revulsion. The new and different idea is not despised out of hand, no matter what the source.
But this also implies many other things. The encouragement of education for all. The freedom to discover, experiment, and innovate. The active pursuit of knowledge and ideas. Supporting mechanisms in the law, government and society that if they do not support, at least do not inhibit creativity.
And a society must also be willing to prevent those opposed to creativity from interfering with the creative. It must also discriminate between what is truly creative, and the pretentious repackaging of derivative and failed ideas.
Finally, capitalism matters. It is no coincidence that after the Black Death of the 14th and 17th Centuries, there was respectively the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution. To a great extent, this was because everything became more efficient and wealth was both concentrated, and redistributed from the dead to the creative and energetic.
No longer relying on such disaster to foster creativity, we now, as a society, spend fortunes to bring about creative development.
If creativity is waning, it is only in selected areas that have become vitiated due to the influence of those opposed to creativity, for any number of petty reasons.
Some of the visual arts, for example, are stagnating, because of prostituting their art to outdated political beliefs, equating creativity with offensive imagery, and an unwillingness to learn and evolve new ideas.
#4
without the underpinnings of a creed that supports and educates the majority of individuals to restrain their selfish nature, creativity and capitalism are not necessarily good for a civilized world. Bin Laden's creative use of airplanes as bombs was not good for civilization, but detrimental. Capitalism, like human nature, unrestrained by forces that work against greed, sefishness and theft, results in sweatshops, corrupt politicians and a general preying of the strong upon the weak. Think of any third world country.
I agree that creativity is not waning and it never will. What is waning is a safe civilization that supports individual sacrfice and a goal towards a common good.
#5
guess what men, our society is controlled by corrupt politicians and a general preying of the strong upon the weak.Creativity is waning to say the least, I feel the biggest culprit is the television. It allows for us NOT to think, but to remian in an Alpha state of mind. kind of like being drowsy but awake. Look at all the "original" music and art thats out there these days, NOT....
I especially see the lack of creativity in music.
#8
I also think creativity is not waining. It's just moved away from the traditional arts (which are obsessed with body fluids and government grants) and into other venues.
Old Testament prophet, he predicted the fall of the Kingdom of Judah and the destruction of the first Temple in Jerusalem in 586 BCE. The word jeremiad is based on his name.
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/17/2007 12:47 Comments ||
Top||
#12
you want creative, look to India.
We'll be doing their gardening soon
Posted by: Albert Croling4797 ||
10/17/2007 13:05 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Unutle McGurque8861: No creed, as such, prevents villainy. Before the United States, the philosophical argument was, "Are people naturally good or evil?" America was the first nation founded on the idea that "people are naturally weak".
As such, our nation's organization was based on the idea that power corrupts, so it is better if nobody has all the power. And what power they do have, should be weak and difficult to wield and hold on to. It should be hard to pass new laws, and there should be strict limits on certain kinds of laws, so that they can't get passed at all.
Assuming weakness also assumed government has no ability to save us from our personal weaknesses, just to protect us from each other's weaknesses.
Ironically, in the rest of the world, those who believe that people are naturally bad assume that they need an authoritarian government to control their badness.
But those who believe that people are naturally *good* are even worse. They think that since people are good, the government that rules them must be good too.
So the more government, the merrier. They tend towards socialism and totalitarianism.
#14
I have witnessed a lot of innovation within my lifetime (born late 70's) - space technologies, computers, composite materials, the chunnel and high speed trains, and so on. Innovation requires creativity. Creativity requires a safe environment; it is hard to be artistic or creative if one has to worry about one's survival - that is the freedom to be able to express oneself.
I agree that the current state of the classic humanities is in shambles when it comes to widely known works. There is good stuff out there but it is becoming more difficult to find. There is potential in the internet area of genuine creatvity coming forth but for the most part 99% of it seems to be crap. Then again how often is there a genuinely new idea?
Many of my contemporaries do not engage in active creative thought, but a few do. Work all day and hobby paint all night, good writers, myself I have created 2 unique board games and 1 vast improvement, IMHO, on a classic (Axis and Allies). I'm not sure what the ratios of previous generations of creative vs. drone is concerned but I know for sure that in my generation it is not absent merely cloaked. TV, movies, and video games have probably sucked away a good number of people who would have been creative if it were not so easy to let someone else do it for them. How that attitude came to be I don't know, but my generation seems to have inheireted a mess. All I know is that many of my liberal contemporaries misquote President Kennedy's 'ask not what your country can do' speech - then try to correct my correction. I think it has a lot to do with the teachers and general environment of where I went through grade school and college. The proclaimed artistic dorm only seemed to be a place where people got high and banged on drums and performed what can only be described as aweful parodies of beatnik poetry. Even the graffitti was abysmally unoriginal. Understanding that western creativity is based on judeo-christian history, even if not Jewish or Christian, is what is missing. Unfortunately our local color man Fred Phelps does his thing and further pushes the feeling people away. When grade school kids go to the college art museum and immediately see the Phelps cadre, allowed by the university, protesting said museum visit with signs depicting stick people having bu+*&ex what is a kid to think about Christians? My two buffalo pennies.
#15
Which science fiction writer was it who said, "Ninety-nine percent of anything is crap"?
Safety and security are nice, but it seems to me that creativity flowers most when the outside world is in a state of flux. For most, new experiences trigger new ideas. For many of the rest, new ideas trigger even more new ideas. Only a very few come up with disconnect ideas without outside stimulus.
#16
Anonymoose, I agree with what you wrote, but I think that you are assuming that it is just the balance of power that keeps us safe. While I agree with you that it certainly is the cornerstone of our system. But don't forget that the court system can not function when the majority of individuals find nothing wrong with bearing false witness against their neigbors, if it suits their needs. Police departments built from a populace that sees nothing wrong with lying, cheating or stealing can not effectively protect as we once knew it. I could go on, but you get the point.
I think that we have discovered that the concept of democracy, as we once knew it, will not function in a Muslim or third world society because lying, cheating, stealing, bribes, and terror are all part of the general way that people operate. We in America, are only one generation away from a time when the majority of the general population actually believed in trying to do what is right for reasons other than simple selfish interest.
I'm not trying to convert you, I'm simply pointing out that the concept of individual sacrifice to do what is right for reasons other than "what's in it for me" was handed down to us from generations that believed there was something greater than themselves. We were raised by individuals who truly believed in that - or at least their parents did. If you want to see what happens when you strip that out, look at African countries that practice Christianity v/s those that do not. Look at Israel v/s it's neighbors. As we have stripped these things out of our own society, we see the results - corruption in politics, crime from broken families and a generation that sees no reason not to take from others - as long as they don't get caught.
You weren't born with the concept to do right by others, you were taught it by your mother. Call it what you want - but without that creed, we will just be another 3rd world country no matter what system of government we have.
#21
Creativity has been strangled by the EPA.
What you invented an engine that runs on pollen ?
How does it impact the environment ? You can't run it unless you have an impact study done and inventers insurance, and liability insurance covering anyone who smells, sees, hears, or even detects vibrations when your engine or anything even remotely connected with this alleged engine causes any injury, fear, concern, disturbance, ripple, buzz, whistle or peep. Additionally, an escrow of 20 million must be filed with the office of corrupt democrat union bosses pension fund for immediate distribution and future rights to purchase options to screw you out of your shorts, home, farm, or mother's property.
#22
Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought this article is not talking about individual creativity - but more generally about which types of civilizations support an overall contribution in the arts and sciences that benefit civilization as a whole. For example, the Muslims societies have not generally supported increases in the arts and sciences. Chinese society has generally not created advances in modern technology - but certainly has a rich history in art. Christian societies (and Jewish societies as well) have seen greater advances due to the belief in a greater truth, outside of one's own existence, to be explored.
#23
wxjames - I posted my last before I read your comment. I think you expand upon the point they are making. There are elements in a society that either crush or support innovation. Our society has changed to where corruption and greed squelch innovation.
#24
This is a good discussion web, I am a creative. I'm a commercial photographer and am required to be creative all the time, which I am naturally, always have been since I was little. The current civilization that I work in in the USA has gotten more and more "lawyerized" as someone else mentioned,and hence alot of our "creativeness" is run through legal departments and dumbed down as a result, I see this more and more, I see terrified art directors that are scared to go with creative impulses ( some would argue that its a rarity for an art director to be creative).It doesnt matter because I can always come up with a new scenario or idea, not really a problem, the problem comes when these new ideas are killed for bad reasons( generally legal) anyway, creativity is under fire, I agree but, creatives still exist and always will.
#25
love your pics, Ansel. No thought of going digital and using color? Grow up, jeebus!
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/17/2007 21:17 Comments ||
Top||
#26
Lawyers have transformed themselves into the new gods of our society. They have ruined the concept of justice by turning justice into a game where they get to decide who is guilty or innocent rather than seeking true justice, as seen by the eyes of God. To them, if the court finds you innocent, then by God, you are innocent no matter how much blood you have on your hands. They have ruined the concepts of Christian forgiveness by turning us into a society that no longer believes that there is such thing as an accident that could have happened to anyone. Every car crash, every baby who drowns, someone, preferably someone with money, must be assigned blame and be made to pay. No matter if they were truly responsible or not - just can they be assigned the blame as decided by the lawyers and courts. They have ruined business with excess regulation. They are ruining innovation in the creation of new medicines by law suits, they have hampered our ability to fight a war for our civilization - and now as a last straw, I realize they are also crushing the arts and sciences. Damn the lawyers.
#27
I tend to view this as an ongoing problem, Example as a kid I wanted a Go Kart, my dad said NO (Citing traffic, law, no license plates, no driver license, etc,) all good and reasonable objections.
So I made one, yes it wasn't very good, made of wood, and powered by a two horsepower lawnmower engine, but it worked, and my dad was both proud and fearful that I'd kill myself.
Over the years I made several, the last had a Vespa engine and four speed transmission, would do 55 easily, and probably scared my father to death but I never got hurt, never got in trouble with the law, and learned a lot about how machines worked.
later I quit building faster and faster Go Karts, as I was now old enough to have and drive cars, but I never lost that "How does it work" curiosity, and have built and driven some hellacious contraptions, (63 Falcon Ranchero with around 500 horses under the hood) I've broken many a transmission, destroyed several rear axles (Overpowered) and had to heavily modify suspensions that couldn't handle the strain.
In short if dad had said "Sure Son I'll buy you a Kart" I would never have had the drive to build, test, modify, and LEARN that I do now, and have had the whole of my life.
It's the challenge that's missing today, not the opportunity, you MAKE your own, as you can.
When My house was destroyed by a falling tree, I bought some books and made my own home, as with the first Go Kart it wasn't perfect, but it was larger, more comfortable, and as I paid for the materials as I went, completely debt free.
And all from My father saying NO.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
10/17/2007 21:57 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
One of the world's most eminent scientists was embroiled in an extraordinary row last night after he claimed that black people were less intelligent than white people and the idea that "equal powers of reason" were shared across racial groups was a delusion. 
Critics of Dr Watson said there should be a robust response to his views across the spheres of politics and science. Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said: "It is sad to see a scientist of such achievement making such baseless, unscientific and extremely offensive comments. I am sure the scientific community will roundly reject what appear to be Dr Watson's personal prejudices. 
