---
Geoffrey Dawson on appeasing Jihadists! (See 2 below.)
---
Stratfor's thoughts about Chavez and the impact on Chinese Venezuelan investments should he die prematurely as seems the case.. (See 3 below.)
---
A prediction regarding Obama and Israel. For now Obama will be 'cool' in order to win Jewish votes and money, as I have been writing but he will pay Isra and Bibi Netanyahu back whether he wins or loses.(See 4 below.)
---
Teaching Americans ignorance. (See 5 below.)
---
Some postings to ponder. (See 6 below.)
---
Another PJTV.com: Trifecta: She Wore a Raspberry Burqa - Prince Praises Traditional Islamic Garb
Prince thinks the women who wear burqas are happy. Why? Because the burqa eliminates choice. He even thinks this is fun. Is he right? Also, Trifecta looks at the recent insulting comments of New York Times cocaine journalist David Carr. Click on http://www.pjtv.com/s/GM3TQOA
---
Walter Russell Mead has a positive view of America's future so let's end on that note. (See 8 Below.)
---
HAPPY FOURTH!
---
Dick
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)One of the Most Obvious Frauds Ever Foisted on the American People
By Porter Stansberry
Yesterday, I left you with a question…
Over the past few days, I've described what I call New American Socialism. As I've shown you, it's a kind of legal corruption whereby the risks of doing business are assumed by the taxpayers… but the profits still accrue to private enterprise.
The corruption has infected one industry after another. And it's weighing down our economy… But I've actually preferred having it in many of the stocks I've recommended over the years. It tends to be good for investors.
So the question now is, am I still interested in buying into New American Socialism? It's a difficult question… and the answer is complicated. So bear with me…
In yesterday's essay, I described a tragedy unfolding in the education sector. If you missed the essay, I suggest you go back and give it a read. You'll find the numbers disturbing.
Essentially, the for-profit education industry is selling a product its customers cannot afford.
This industry games the rules of the government and spends a fortune on lobbying – more than $12 million in the last year. This industry would literally not exist without government-guarantees standing behind 90% of its revenues.
And Wall Street experts estimate this industry will rack up around $250 billion in credit losses over the next decade – an amount of money that exceeds the losses from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac so far.
All these risks will eventually cost the U.S. Treasury billions of dollars. You see, this industry overwhelmingly targets women and minorities – people who are often up against a wall financially. These students will never be able to repay these debts.
While these students have no financial skin in the game (many borrow 100% of their tuition), they face enormous consequences down the road from this scheme… Student loans are notoriously difficult to discharge, and many borrowers will be crippled financially by the obligations they cannot afford.
The facts of this situation are incontrovertible and well known – even inside the current president's administration. And yet… even when all of these facts were studied and reviewed… what did the president do?
Critics had demanded so-called "gainful employment" regulations that would limit how much a student could borrow to an amount of money he would likely be able to repay based on the current employment and income track record of other alumni. Obviously, such sensible regulation was never likely to be implemented by Washington… especially not by a minority president when the funding in question goes overwhelmingly to poor, minority students.
Instead, in early June, Obama's administration promulgated a new set of rules that were supposed to address the abuses and the risks of the government's generous funding rules for for-profit education.
The new rules actually loosen the funding requirements – substantially.
Colleges will be eligible for federal support as long as at least 35% of their students are repaying their loans over the first three years. Now, up to 65% of the students can default. And what about limiting loan amounts to ability to repay? Loan amounts may not exceed 30% of anticipated discretionary income.
How will students pay for food, housing, transportation, insurance, etc. if they're spending 30% of their incomes on student loans?
Rather than tightening the standards, the new rules actually loosen the standards. They also go further in guaranteeing continued federal support. Under the new rules, no schools will lose funding until 2015 at the soonest, to give them time to adapt to the new "standards," which were trumpeted as a major reform.
Only in Washington D.C.
The for-profit education "business" is one of the most obvious frauds ever foisted on the American people. The industry has been structured to take advantage of the least sophisticated members of society. It promises benefits the average student is unlikely to achieve: a better job and a better life. Instead, these students are saddled with unpayable debts and enjoy no corresponding increase in wages.
Assuming the government should not do anything to protect the students from this fraud, shouldn't the risks of perpetrating this fraud be left with the companies themselves? Let for-profit education companies guarantee these loans. Let them take the risk that these debts will never be repaid.
But that's not how New American Socialism works. What happens is, all the profits of this scam go to the executives and the shareholders. The risk goes to the government.
Our leaders are now so corrupted by New American Socialism they can't even stop the for-profit education scheme I describe above.
The facts, by the way, aren't even in dispute. This is the obvious stuff – the stuff no one can really dispute. If our leaders let this industry rack up $250 billion in bad debts over the next decade, how can we expect them to do anything to stop our massive annual deficits and our runaway federal debt?
If the administration can't stop the for-profit education industry from getting its hands into the U.S. Treasury, whom will it stop? Nobody.
So the only real question is: Do I want to be buying stocks – any stocks – right now?
When I consider the unsustainable debts and unfunded liabilities the government has taken on… and the upcoming credit crisis New American Socialism has created… I arrive at the answer: "No."
Regards,
Porter Stansberry
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2)Appeasing Jihadists
A policy of guilt and flattery will not temper terrorists.
By Bruce S. Thornton
In 1937, the London Times editor Geoffrey Dawson wrote to his correspondent in Geneva, "I do my best, night after night, to keep out of the paper anything that might hurt [German] susceptibilities . . . . I have always been convinced that the peace of the world depends more than anything else upon our getting into reasonable relations with Germany."
This solicitude for the feelings of a Germany that had eagerly embraced Nazi racialist militarism reflected more than just a desperate desire to avoid war. It was also the consequence of a widespread belief among many in England that Germany had been unjustly treated after World War I. A few days after the disastrous Munich conference in 1938, a Labour Party MP observed, "It is perfectly true that we did not act, not merely wisely and generously, but even justly to Germany after the war. . . . I repeat that we bear a very heavy responsibility for the tensions and menaces of the present international situation."
In the war against Islamic jihad, appeasement — in the form of soliciting the goodwill of an enemy that is seen as the victim of our unjust foreign policy — has driven the West’s policy and tactics on numerous occasions. Starting even before the attacks of 9/11, the media and government alike went out of their way to assure Muslims that we saw no connection between Islamist violence and orthodox Islam, that we admired and respected their religion, and that the allegation of theologically sanctioned violence was a despicable slander.
Examples of this Dawson-like solicitude are legion. During the Clinton administration, even as al Qaeda was perpetuating the series of terrorist attacks that culminated on 9/11, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright described Islam as "a faith that . . . cherishes peace." Hillary Clinton praised Islam’s "deepest yearning of all––to live in peace."
But those familiar with the history of Muslim conquest, invasion, and occupation might disagree. Koranic verses also betray the principle of so-called peace: "O you who believe! Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."
Flattering Islam to curry favor will only convince Muslims of our weakness.
Even after the "martyrs" on 9/11 acted on this injunction, President George W. Bush said in his address to the nation, Islam’s "teachings are good and peaceful." Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called Islam the religion "of love and peace." Two other Bush administration officials praised in a New York Times op-ed the "courageous Muslims who are speaking the truth about their proud religion and history, and seizing it back from those who would hijack it for evil ends." This anxious puffery of Islam and whitewashing of its theology of violence has continued in the Obama administration. John Brennan, assistant for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, has instructed us that describing terrorists as "jihadists" is incorrect: "Describing terrorists this way– — using a legitimate term, ‘jihad,’ meaning to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal — risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve."
The falsity of all these claims can be established by considering the words of Muslim leaders and theologians, who justify violence against non-believers. Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini has said, "Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all!!! . . . Islam says, Kill in the service of Allah." Palestinian icon and alleged "secularist" Yasser Arafat has called for "jihad, jihad, jihad" to be waged against Israel until there is a Palestinian state "from the river [Jordan] to the sea [Mediterranean]." Muslim Brothers founder Hassan al-Banna has said, "Fighting the unbelievers involves all possible efforts that are necessary to dismantle the power of the enemies of Islam including beating them, plundering their wealth, destroying their places of worship, and smashing their idols." Given this tradition of theologized violence, our delusional flattery, never reciprocated by Muslims, has not proven any more successful than Geoffrey Dawson’s self-censorship about Nazi Germany.
A more recent example of this appeasing reflex was the "decent" Muslim burial given to Osama bin Laden after his execution by a US Navy Seal, and Obama’s subsequent refusal to release the photographs of the corpse for fear of "enflaming the Muslim world." Once more, a gesture meant to communicate respect cut no ice with the majority of the world’s Muslims. Instead, Muslim scholars deemed the quick burial at sea contrary to Sharia law. Mohammed al-Qubaisi, Dubai's grand mufti, said, "They can say they buried him at sea, but they cannot say they did it according to Islam." According to Abdul-Sattar al-Janabi, of Baghdad's Abu Hanifa mosque, "What was done by the Americans is forbidden by Islam and might provoke some Muslims. . . . It is not acceptable and it is almost a crime to throw the body of a Muslim man into the sea." And Lebanon-based cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed said, "The Americans want to humiliate Muslims through this burial."
In fact, this fear of "enflaming" Muslim sensibilities is incoherent. If bin Laden had been no more a true Muslim than Hitler was a true Christian, why would orthodox Muslims care if we killed him or publicized photos of his corpse? In any case, Muslims worldwide already have repeatedly demonstrated hair-trigger sensibilities when it comes to insults to Islam or Mohammed, from the fatwa Khomeini issued against novelist Salman Rushdie in 1989, to the Danish Mohammad cartoons controversy, to the recent deadly riots over an obscure Florida pastor burning a Koran. There will always be excuses for violence as long as the United States occupies the position of global power and dominance that millions of Muslims believe legitimately belongs to them. "The best of the nations raised up for (the benefit of) men," as the Koran has it. Flattering Islam and censoring ourselves to curry favor will only convince Muslims of our weakness.
Koranic verses betray the principle of so-called peace in Islam.
Just as English solicitude of German feeling was based on guilt over an allegedly harsh Versailles Treaty, so too many Americans cater to Muslims out of the belief that our neo-colonialist and neo-imperialist foreign policy has been the catalyst for Islamist terror. Whether the crime is our support of Israel and its "illegal occupation," or our alliances with dictators and tyrants in order to secure access to oil, the blame for Islamist violence lies with us. President Obama said as much in his June 2009 speech in Cairo. He not only flattered Islam with the historically dubious claim that Islam had "carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment," but he also donned the hair-shirt of Western guilt. He identified the source of the "tension" between the West and Islam as a "colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations." Conveniently forgotten were the fourteen centuries of Islamic imperialist conquest, plunder, enslavement, and occupation of Christian lands.
Neither flattery nor guilt, however, has improved our image among Muslims. Even in Egypt, where the US supported the removal of our ally Hosni Mubarak, a recent Pew poll shows that 79 percent of Egyptians view America unfavorably. Meanwhile, 78 percent of Egyptians view the Muslim Brothers, the godfather organization of modern jihadism, very or somewhat favorably. And 64 percent have little or no confidence in Barack Obama "to do the right thing in world affairs." It’s time we realize Muslims have their own worldview and belief system that drive their behavior, rather than reducing everything they do to passive reactions to our alleged offenses, or thinking we can abrogate those beliefs with our protestations of respect and admiration.
We all know the sequel to the appeasing alliance of guilt and flattery indulged by too many Englishmen in the Thirties. And though it is unlikely we will face such an existential threat as a result of our own appeasing policies, considerable risks still lie ahead. The collapse into chaos of Pakistan, a nation with nuclear weapons and a considerable cohort of its citizens sympathetic to jihadist aims; an Islamist Iran in pursuit of nuclear weapons it can hand off to the jihadist outfits it has long supported; an Egypt that empowers the Muslim Brotherhood and abandons its peace treaty with Israel even as it opens its border with Hamas-dominated Gaza and moves closer to Iran — such outcomes may yet give us painful lessons in the follies of appeasement.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3)Chavez's Health and Implications for Chinese Investment
Summary
The absence of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez due to health reasons has caused uncertainty about Venezuela’s future, and this is cause for concern in China. China has made significant financial investments in and commitments to Venezuela, from which Venezuela has benefited greatly. China risks losing billions of dollars if Venezuela destabilizes, and in the long term, it fears losing the standing preferential relationship with Caracas if the government changes and Venezuela begins to look elsewhere for technical expertise to accompany investment.
Analysis
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez appeared on Venezuelan television June 29 in a recording that was reportedly made the morning of June 28. It is unclear from the video exactly how healthy the South American leader is after he was hospitalized in Cuba on June 10, undergoing abdominal surgery apparently related to prostate cancer. Though he reportedly intends to return to Caracas by July 5 for the country’s independence day and bicentennial celebration, it is not yet clear that he will be well enough to do so. With Chavez having been in a Cuban hospital for nearly three weeks, Venezuela has been rife with rumors about his sickness, and a power struggle among his inner circle has been under way.
There are many players with a stake in the Venezuelan regime, but one of the most important in the past several years has been China, which could be affected greatly by a transition in Venezuela’s government. China does not stand to lose much in the short term and hopes to continue investing in Venezuela, but a transition away from Chavez and Caracas’ need for technical expertise to accompany investment could threaten China’s preferential standing with Venezuela.
Chinese Interests in Venezuela
China has not commented officially on Chavez’s illness, but China has become increasingly invested in Venezuela and has built a unique relationship with the Venezuelan government. Although the exact numbers have been difficult to confirm, since 2005, China has made hard asset investments and loans as well as commitments for further loan and investments to Venezuela worth about $49.5 billion. Some of the loans have reportedly been paid back in oil, and about $10 billion worth of loans will reportedly be delivered in yuan, which China can print at will and is only accepted as currency by the Chinese government and firms. The terms on the financing vary, but China has been careful to ensure that it has taken a strong role in how the money is spent, with joint decision-making on the projects and a commitment to hiring Chinese firms written into the agreements. Of the total amount that has been invested and discussed, we estimate conservatively that China could be exposed to losses of around $14 billion if Venezuela reneged on its commitments.
China’s interest in Venezuela is multifaceted. In the first place, Venezuela has one of the largest energy reserves in the world, with proven oil reserves of 211 billion barrels and 179 trillion cubic feet of proven natural gas reserves. Much of this oil is so thick it requires special processing before it can be shipped to a refinery. By establishing a relationship with Venezuela, China not only has a chance to learn some of the processing techniques for heavy, sour crude oil, which is an increasing portion of the global oil mix, but it also is able to actually invest in oil production that supplies its own consumption market. Both of these interests are being addressed in a pending deal to build a refinery with a capacity of 400,000 barrels per day in China’s Guangdong province.
Second, China has a global outward investment strategy that has targeted Venezuela, among others, for its natural resources and opportunities for Chinese business. This strategy allows China to invest its massive cash surpluses in hard assets worldwide and helps it handle domestic money growth. It also expands markets for Chinese exporters and state infrastructure and industry. China has long invested in several extremely risky countries and governments at variance with the United States or the West, or otherwise viewed as at high risk of instability, including North Korea, Myanmar, Iran, Sudan, Angola and Venezuela. Having arrived late in the global race for resources and markets, China has seized opportunities shunned by the West, and with its large cash reserves and willingness to offer financing without political requirements, it has attracted interest from these regimes.
Investment in Unstable Countries
China generally believes it can secure its investments by cultivating relations across these countries’ regimes and political elite, though it is well aware that losses could result when it chooses to invest in unstable countries. Outside of Venezuela, China has a number of investments worth hundreds of billions of dollars in unstable countries. STRATFOR sources suggest that China may have more than $30 billion at risk in Libya, where it has recently begun negotiating with the rebels to try to ensure that interests established under the regime of leader Moammar Gadhafi will be protected under any potential Libyan government ruled by the rebels. Chavez’s illness and the instability in Libya (as well as the broader Middle East and Africa) reveal a certain degree of strategic weakness inherent in investing in potentially volatile emerging markets, especially where China’s main advantage is the regime’s estrangement from China’s competitors in the West. The potential loss of tens of billions of dollars worth of investment into these economies has prompted a reconsideration of such risks, but STRATFOR sources suggest that Chinese bank regulators’ latest attempts to pull back on foreign investments and loans have been rebuffed by the Chinese national banks.
For Venezuela, the relationship with China has been important for both financial and political reasons. Since the 2002 coup attempt against Chavez — during which the United States was quick to acknowledge the military leaders that briefly took power — Venezuela has been working to isolate itself from the United States by seeking alternative allies and diversifying its oil export markets. As the most aggressive global lender, particularly in the wake of the financial crisis when lending was nearly nonexistent, and a huge consumer of oil, China has become a natural partner for Venezuela. Presiding over an increasingly unstable economy, Chavez has needed to increase borrowing to cover expenditures and debts on a number of fronts. From a severe national housing shortage to a deteriorating electricity system and an oil sector suffering from severe mismanagement and underinvestment, Chavez has needed the Chinese as a political backer, but most important, as a financial backer. This need has meant that China has enjoyed a great deal of leverage over Venezuela and made it easy for China to get the terms it wanted on the loans and investments it made.
Implications of Chavez’s Illness
The Venezuelan government is highly personalized, and a great deal in Venezuelan politics relies on the personal preferences of Chavez. There are no other leaders who are positioned to take control in a scenario where Chavez is incapacitated or a change in government becomes a necessity. China worries that if something were to happen to Chavez, their preferential treatment and access to investments and financing could dissipate. This concern to extend the relationship beyond the confines of a personal relationship with Chavez can be seen in the successful push that got the terms of Chinese loans written into Venezuelan law. The Chinese could still make deals with a new Venezuelan government, but it would require forming relationships with a whole new ruling elite.
In the short term, the risk posed by Chavez’s current illness is that there could be a destabilization of the government if he is not able to return to power in the near future. This could directly threaten China’s in-country assets. However, unless the country dissolves into civil war and outright destroys Chinese direct investments, it is unlikely that a successor government would walk away from its debts to the world’s biggest lender. And, for China, this is a relatively small amount of money, as its annual external investment totaled around $59 billion in 2010 alone.
The longer-term reality is that China will lose its preferential access to Venezuelan resources. Even if Chavez’s current illness does not bring about a change in government, a transition is in the cards at some point, and a change in the Venezuelan government may shift the incentives that make the current partnership with China so important. It is Chavez’s policy of isolation from the United States combined with China’s “no strings attached” lending policy that makes China a perfect partner for the moment.
However, there are opportunity costs accruing to Venezuela as a result of its commitments to China. Venezuela’s oil industry is suffering from a profound lack of technical expertise to accompany investments, and the Chinese simply do not have the technical ability to help revive dwindling production.
The pressing need for Venezuela to resuscitate its oil industry with foreign expertise will eventually necessitate a reconsideration of its isolationist policies — and a leadership change will make this more of a political possibility than it currently is under the Chavez administration, as it will require a more conciliatory posture toward the United States. For China, this will mean higher competition for access to Venezuelan energy resources, and although no one can compete with China’s quantity of cash, it does not have the expertise Venezuela
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) A Prediction about President Barack Obama and the Nation of Israel
I know it is risky to predict especially when you put your prediction on paper thereby providing a concrete document to which people can refer. When it's on paper, there is no way to deny what you wrote, unless you claim you had too much cheap wine. If your prediction is only verbal, you can always deny having said it or you can substitute other words which soften your prediction the way President Bill Clinton used to do. Remember when he said, "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."
Having lived with risk during the forty-one years I was with ADL, I am now going to put down in concrete form for all to see that which is so obvious to me. I do not believe I am taking any risk at all. (Digression - the comment about having lived with risk refers to the shock two FBI agents expressed when they learned I was always listed in the telephone book WITH my home address. These were two fantastic men with whom I worked very closely when I was ADL's Western States Fact-Finding Director.)
For the past few weeks, I have received many e-mails from people who are sharply critical of President Obama because they say that during his two-and-one-half years in office, he has travelled all over the world, even to Cairo, Egypt, but he has not visited Israel, not even once.
Here is my prediction: I predict that President Obama will visit Israel, probably in the Fall or later this year. Furthermore, I predict (1) he will be nice to Israel between now and election day 2012; (2) we will hear no more from the White House nor from the State Department about Israel and the Arabs starting negotiations at the 1967 borders; (3) if the General Assembly of the United Nations, does adopt a resolution calling for a Palestinian state, the United States will denounce that vote; (4) if there is a similar move by some on the U.N. Security Council, Obama will make it clear the U.S. will veto it. No matter what this President feels in his heart of hearts, he will wear his "political uniform" from now until the votes have been cast on November 6, 2012.
Has President Obama had a change of heart about Israel and the situation in the Middle East? Has he suddenly seen the "truth" as set forth by Israel's Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu when he "lectured" him in the White House recently? Of course not. Obama is the same man today that he was when he delivered that troublesome speech at the State Department about using the 1967 borders as a starting negotiating position. He has not changed his attitude about Israel and her Arab neighbors for whom he seems to show so much affection.
In my not-so-humble opinion, Obama spends a sizeable portion of each day counting votes and discussing with his political advisers what he has to do to win in 2012, whether it be in the White House, on the golf course, or flying off to some place here in the U.S. or around the world. Why is he going to be nice to Israel? I believe that the votes of Jews in Florida and in other states where there is a narrow margin between winning and losing are uppermost in his mind. Even though he won an estimated 78% of the votes of Jews in 2008, he wants to hold on to that large number or at least keep it from slipping significantly.
In addition to the votes of Jews, the President doesn't want to lose the millions of dollars Jews around the nation will be contributing to his 2012 campaign. Those who claim to know estimate his target in this campaign is about one billion dollars. In truth, no campaign ever has enough money. Political campaigns are like garbage disposals. They devour everything that is poured into them and they still ask for more. They are insatiable. It was the late Jesse Unruh, the powerful Speaker of the Californisa State Assembly from 1961 to 1968, who coined the phrase, "money is the mother's milk of politics."
So, dear readers, I am convinced that the period from the present moment until the polls close in 2012 will be a period of detente between Obama and Israel (detente -"relaxing or easing, as of tensions between nations").
If Obama should lose his bid for reelection, he will still have almost three months to do some harmful things to Israel. If he should win reelection, the people of Israel and all American Jews who care about Israel would be wise to "batten down the hatches." (a nautical term referring to the order given to sailors to prepare the ship because of an approaching big storm). With four more years in the Oval Office and being in a position where no one, but no one, can do anything to him, in my opinion, he is going to pay Netanyahu and Israel back for the humiliation he suffered. Israel will get it in "spades."
Those who learned their politics in Chicago are not choir boys. Barack Obama learned his political A,B,C's at the feet of Mayor Richard Daly's machine. Don't fool yourself. Our smiling, friendly, basketball playing President is a tough character, something this nation and the world will see during his second term. Maybe the Arab nations won't feel the sting of his core ideology, but that remains to be seen.
Jonathan Pollard
Jonathan Pollard was a civilian American Naval intelligence analyst. Between 1983 and 1984 he learned that information vital to Israel's security was deliberately withheld by certain elements within the U.S. national security establishment. Israel was legally entitled to this vital security information, according to a 1983 Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. and Israel. The information that was being withheld from Israel included Syrian, Iraqi, Libyan, and Iranian nuclear, chemical, and biological warfare capabilities being developed for use against Israel. So, on his own, Pollard contacted the Israelis and for a long period of time gave them U.S. classified information concerning the above.
When caught, he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to life in prison for sharing that information with an ally, Israel. For furhter information, read Wolf Blitzer's book, "Territory of Lies." Also go to Google and click on, "The Facts of the Pollard Case."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)Gasp: 1 in 4 Americans Don’t Know Which Country America Declared its Independence From
By Billy Hallowell
Americans, on the whole, should probably spend a little more time educating themselves about their homeland and a little less time barbecuing this weekend. According to a new poll released earlier today by Marist, a substantial portion of the nation appears confused about the most basic details of America’s founding. Marist reports:
Only 58% of residents know that the United States declared its independence in 1776. 26% are unsure, and 16% mentioned another date.
There are age differences on this question. Younger Americans are the least likely to know the correct answer. Only 31% of adults younger than 30 say that 1776 is the year in which the United States broke away from Great Britain.
As for another question about the nation’s founding — which country patriots freed themselves from — 76 percent of respondents correctly stated Great Britain. While this majority figure sounds excellent (Americans were actually up two percentage points from the previous year), this means that one in four people have no idea which country citizens fought against to obtain our freedom. That 76 should certainly be 100!
Surprisingly, nine percent of college graduates didn’t know that Great Britain was the correct answer. And, on both indicators there were significant disparities in correct answers between men and women:
When it comes to gender, men — 65% — are more likely to respond with 1776 than are women — 52%.
Men — 83% — are more likely than women — 68% — to know that the United States declared its independence from Great Britain.
Either way, Americans need to crack open those history books. Hopefully next year the proportions will reflect a nation fully in-tune with its history. We shall see.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6)Thoughts to ponder.......
Good health is merely the slowest possible rate at which one can die.
Give a person a fish and you feed them for a day. Teach a person to use the Internet and they won't bother you for weeks.
Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals, dying of nothing.
All of us could take a lesson from the weather. It pays no attention to criticism.
Why does a slight tax increase cost you $800.00, and a substantial tax cut saves you $30.00?
In the 60's, people took acid to make the world weird. Now the world is weird and people take Prozac to make it normal.
Some people are like a Slinky - not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you shove them down the stairs.
- - - and as someone recently said :"Don't worry about old age--it doesn't last long."
Make love, not war...
Hell, do both
GET MARRIED!
Women ' s restroom
The Filling Station, Bozeman , MT
If voting could really change things,
It would be illegal.
Revolution Books
New York , New York .
If pro is opposite of con, then what is the opposite of progress? Congress!
Men ' s restroom House of Representatives,
Washington , DC
HAPPINESS
To be happy with a man, you must understand him a lot and love him a little.
To be happy with a woman, you must love her a lot and not try to understand her at all.
A 6-YEAR-OLD WAS ASKED WHERE HIS GRANDMA LIVED. ''OH,'' HE SAID, ''SHE LIVES AT THE AIRPORT, AND WHEN WE WANT HER, WE JUST GO GET HER. THEN WHEN WE'RE DONE HAVING HER VISIT, WE TAKE HER BACK TO THE AIRPORT.''
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8)The Future Still Belongs to America
This century will throw challenges at everyone. The U.S. is better positioned to adapt than China, Europe or the Arab world.
By WALTER RUSSELL MEAD
It is, the pundits keep telling us, a time of American decline, of a post-American world. The 21st century will belong to someone else. Crippled by debt at home, hammered by the aftermath of a financial crisis, bloodied by long wars in the Middle East, the American Atlas can no longer hold up the sky. Like Britain before us, America is headed into an assisted-living facility for retired global powers.
This fashionable chatter could not be more wrong. Sure, America has big problems. Trillions of dollars in national debt and uncounted trillions more in off-the-books liabilities will give anyone pause. Rising powers are also challenging the international order even as our key Cold War allies sink deeper into decline.
But what is unique about the United States is not our problems. Every major country in the world today faces extraordinary challenges—and the 21st century will throw more at us. Yet looking toward the tumultuous century ahead, no country is better positioned to take advantage of the opportunities or manage the dangers than the United States.
Geopolitically, the doomsayers tell us, China will soon challenge American leadership throughout the world. Perhaps. But to focus exclusively on China is to miss how U.S. interests intersect with Asian realities in ways that cement rather than challenge the U.S. position in world affairs.
China is not Germany, the U.S. is not Great Britain, and 2011 is not 1910. In 1910 Germany was a rising power surrounded by decline: France, Russia, the Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungary were all growing weaker every year even as Germany went from strength to strength. The European power system grew less stable every year.
In Asia today China is rising—but so is India, another emerging nuclear superpower with a population on course to pass China's. Vietnam, South Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia and Australia are all vibrant, growing powers that have no intention of falling under China's sway. Japan remains a formidable presence. Unlike Europe in 1910, Asia today looks like an emerging multipolar region that no single country, however large and dynamic, can hope to control.
This fits American interests precisely. The U.S. has no interest in controlling Asia or in blocking economic prosperity that will benefit the entire Pacific basin, including our part of it. U.S. policy in Asia is not fighting the tide of China's inexorable rise. Rather, our interests harmonize with the natural course of events. Life rarely moves smoothly and it is likely that Asia will see great political disturbances. But through it all, it appears that the U.S. will be swimming with, rather than against, the tides of history.
Around the world we have no other real rivals. Even the Europeans have stopped talking about a rising EU superpower. The specter of a clash of civilizations between the West and an Islamic world united behind fanatics like the unlamented Osama bin Laden is less likely than ever. Russia's demographic decline and poor economic prospects (not to mention its concerns about Islamic radicalism and a rising China) make it a poor prospect as a rival superpower.
When it comes to the world of ideas, the American agenda will also be the global agenda in the 21st century. Ninety years after the formation of the Communist Party of China, 50 years after the death of the philosopher of modern militant Islam Sayyid Qutb, liberal capitalist democracy remains the wave of the future.
Fascism, like Franco, is still dead. Communism lingers on life support in Pyongyang and a handful of other redoubts but shows no signs of regaining the power it has lost since 1989 and the Soviet collapse. "Islamic" fanaticism failed in Iraq, can only cling to power by torture and repression in Iran, and has been marginalized (so far) in the Arab Spring. Nowhere have the fanatics been able to demonstrate that their approach can protect the dignity and enhance the prosperity of people better than liberal capitalism. The heirs of Qutb are further from power than they were during the first Egyptian Revolution in 1953.
Closer to home, Hugo Chavez and his Axis of Anklebiters are descending towards farce. The economic success of Chile and Brazil cuts the ground out from under the "Bolivarean" caudillos. They may strut and prance on the stage, appear with Fidel on TV and draw a crowd by attacking the Yanquis, but the dream of uniting South America into a great anticapitalist, anti-U.S. bloc is as dead as Che Guevara.
So the geopolitics are favorable and the ideological climate is warming. But on a still-deeper level this is shaping up to be an even more American century than the last. The global game is moving towards America's home court.
The great trend of this century is the accelerating and deepening wave of change sweeping through every element of human life. Each year sees more scientists with better funding, better instruments and faster, smarter computers probing deeper and seeing further into the mysteries of the physical world. Each year more entrepreneurs are seeking to convert those discoveries and insights into ways to produce new things, or to make old things better and more cheaply. Each year the world's financial markets are more eager and better prepared to fund new startups, underwrite new investments, and otherwise help entrepreneurs and firms deploy new knowledge and insight more rapidly.
Scientific and technological revolutions trigger economic, social and political upheavals. Industry migrates around the world at a breathtaking—and accelerating—rate. Hundreds of millions of people migrate to cities at an unprecedented pace. Each year the price of communication goes down and the means of communication increase.
New ideas disturb the peace of once-stable cultures. Young people grasp the possibilities of change and revolt at the conservatism of their elders. Sacred taboos and ancient hierarchies totter; women demand equality; citizens rise against monarchs. All over the world more tea is thrown into more harbors as more and more people decide that the times demand change.
This tsunami of change affects every society—and turbulent politics in so many countries make for a turbulent international environment. Managing, mastering and surviving change: These are the primary tasks of every ruler and polity. Increasingly these are also the primary tasks of every firm and household.
This challenge will not go away. On the contrary: It has increased, and it will go on increasing through the rest of our time. The 19th century was more tumultuous than its predecessor; the 20th was more tumultuous still, and the 21st will be the fastest, most exhilarating and most dangerous ride the world has ever seen.
Everybody is going to feel the stress, but the United States of America is better placed to surf this transformation than any other country. Change is our home field. It is who we are and what we do. Brazil may be the country of the future, but America is its hometown.
Happy Fourth of July.
Mr. Mead is a professor of foreign affairs and humanities at Bard College and editor-at-large of the American Interest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment