Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

BUSH LUC

by kcurie Sun Oct 14th, 2007 at 02:14:48 PM EST

LUC : Law of Unintended Consequences.

This is the lemma I use to sum up the Bush-Cheney administration. They try to pursuit one goal and turn out to get something completely different (Monty Python style). This may seem a rather stupid assessment of how Bush has made an impact in the US society and in the Iraqi society but not the world. Well, actually, it may be not so stupid assesment for the US since P. Krugman says that if they would have been more competent the US would not be a republic by now. But just because we know that the US tortures, it is in huge debt, the middle class is been strongly hit by the credit bubbles, the elites do not care about children’s health care, and does no do anything  to address global warming, it does not mean that other administrations or more competent people would have carried it through in a different way, maybe they would have hidden those aspects better. Bush is the symptom , not the disease, some people here say.

In a word, I have always thought that the big difference between Reagan and Bush has always been the disdain of the administration (and the USSR of course). And now brace yourself, because , while this disdain has destroyed Iraq and it is in the process of create a complete and awful Gilded Age in the US, the net result for the world has been "LUCILY" HUGELY POSITIVE… provided they DO NOT BOMB IRAN

Follow me below the fold….


We have addressed here how Russia has made a comeback with the new nuclear race and high oil prices thanks to the new MAD situation, how Latin America has been extreme poverty reduced to below 20%  at an accelerated pace in 2006 and similar values are expected for 2007 while the US was looking somewhere else (to the Middle East oil) and left-of-center policies have been applied everywhere in the continent, even hardcore left policies in some countries. We have talked about how the US has lost any influence in Asia a couple of decades before than expected thanks to the US debt in Chinese hands (so many links I think they are not necessary).  This has produced the effect of .. controlling the crazy nut in North Korea. We have also talked about how all the soft power in economic issues has crossed the Atlantic and now Europe establishes world regulation on  economic product (Imagine if we would also be a political union and not only economic?). We have also discussed that it is very difficult to asses what the rest of the Middle East will look like in some years, but a more balanced power/sharing situation seems to come through with Iran as the local pseudo-winner.

In a word, the rest of the world is much more better now thanks to the dismantling of US soft power and the inability to project hard power anywhere with the army completely in the dumps.

All the world? really all the world… But what about Africa? and what about global warming?

The truth is that we have not addressed Africa. Is Africa really now better off than eight years ago. Has the irrelevance and lack of US involvement good for the region? And china influence… we always talk in generalities because it is very difficult to get real data about it.

But let me leave Africa for another diary where extensive research is needed to compare the situation now and one decade ago and let me focus on global warming.

Would we better off with an A. Gore administration? really? What do you think? Are you sure that a Gore administration would have accomplished anything? or was it better to let the world move on the topic leaving US behind? Will Hillary Clinton address the topic? And isn’t it easier for her to take strong measures after A. Gore Nobel Prize?

As you may know I think that the increase in oil prices is a good thing because it will, basically, only effect private consumption of oil in cars. There is no energy shortage.. only a shortage of oil for driving private cars/trucks. There is enough oil to cover the needs of agriculture, chemical companies and transport of goods for decades to come if we use trains and ships… but not private cars and not trucks. So  the global warming problem should be addressed on these two fronts, getting rid of private cars before the oil peaks and getting rid of coal firing plants without sequestration…

Do you really think that A. Gore could have done something different?  Imagine, in the best of the worlds, a US administration pursuing the Europe policies. Would that be enough? would it be a good thing?  Couldn’t  we be forgetting about the problem using an insufficient medicine? Frankly I do not know…. so please, I would like to read a bunch of comments about it.  Let ma be clear I completely grant that Bush has been awful for the US and Iraq but I also think that it has been great news for Russia, Europe, China, Africa, India and Latin America  (with pending research on Africa) So, please could someone convince me that  LUC can not be applied to global warming? Because, frankly I am not sure…

Display:
There must be a pony around here, somewhere!

Hey, Grandma Moses started late!
by LEP on Sun Oct 14th, 2007 at 03:44:10 PM EST
It's......

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Sun Oct 14th, 2007 at 03:57:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Monty Python's Maine Circus!!!

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Sun Oct 14th, 2007 at 04:03:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]
What?  Are you working for The Onion now?

Lucky world!

Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. -Charu Saxena.

by metavision on Sun Oct 14th, 2007 at 05:22:40 PM EST
Je je je...

I love controversy.. you know... :)

But my question about the law of uniented consequences applied to global warming....si still over my head... and I am not sure.... really ot sure... and not inthe onion sense...

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Sun Oct 14th, 2007 at 05:27:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Would we better off with an A. Gore administration? really? What do you think? Are you sure that a Gore administration would have accomplished anything? or was it better to let the world move on the topic leaving US behind? Will Hillary Clinton address the topic? And isn't it easier for her to take strong measures after A. Gore Nobel Prize?

Gore fell off the horse on the way to Damascus some time in 2002 so, no, I don't think Gore would have been a revolutionary President had he been awarded a win in 2000. Less criminal or incompetent than Bush, surely. But his 2000 campaign was atrocious and uninspiring.

We have met the enemy, and it is us — Pogo

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Oct 14th, 2007 at 06:22:28 PM EST
... would have had the funds saved in a Lock Box, so it would not be in danger to the negative financial fallout from global warming over the next five decades.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.
by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sun Oct 14th, 2007 at 08:26:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It is true that for the Us econmy Gore would ahve been a better president.. i can clearly see social security safe. medicare adn medicaid in good shpae and the SCHIP program.

I can also see Saddam Hussein out of Iraq and without war...

But I am not sure if he would ahve een s revolutionary on global warming... I even doubt he wold ahv ebeen able to pursue even Kyoto...

that's the reasonf or this diary...

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Mon Oct 15th, 2007 at 04:19:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes. I basically agree with this statement... so if he would ahve not been revolutionary...  the question becomes..

Is it abetter a Bush do-nothing or a US trying but not doing even Kyoto.. or a US just working on Kyoto.

I clearly prefer Bush to a gore administration trying but not accomplishing even Kyoto (like Clinton)... but I am nto sure what is better .. a ush do-nothing or a world ding just Kyoto...with no more ambition...

That was my question.. yep..

I am not sure...so I wait for more comments :)

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Mon Oct 15th, 2007 at 04:22:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Probably the Iraquis could give you a less complicated opinion.

Hey, Grandma Moses started late!
by LEP on Mon Oct 15th, 2007 at 05:33:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
As I say in the diary.. Us citizens and iraqies  would give me a very clear opinion....I know.. But besides low income US citizens and iraqies the world is much better off if I do not think about global warming...The loss of US hegemony has been a great thing...

The question is.. is it worthy given global warming? One coudl say. . given the number of iraqies death adn the destruction on US citizens.. it is not... and I agree... but the US government has been involved in other masacres in central america, Latin America, Asia and Africa without having any positive outcome.

On the other ahnd.. it is tru that durign Bush father and clinton the number of americna involvements reached a minimum compared with other decades adn we expected to follow the trend.. but still

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Mon Oct 15th, 2007 at 05:52:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'll go back to my first post: "there has to be a pony here somewhere." It's true; just as New Orleans showed Bush naked, Bush's actions showed the U.S. naked. Bush can never go in reverse after New Orleans. Can the U.S.? See Jerome's diary: "Gore and America's place in the world?
But there's a lot of people paying a big price for undressing the U.S.

Hey, Grandma Moses started late!
by LEP on Mon Oct 15th, 2007 at 06:23:59 AM EST
Yes...a huge price.. specially in Iraq...

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Mon Oct 15th, 2007 at 06:41:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
For US actions in Africa, I can recomend the MoA special:

M of A - Understanding AFRICOM - Part I

Understanding AFRICOM - Part I

Understanding AFRICOM:
A Contextual Reading of Empire's New Combatant Command

(This is part one of Understanding AFRICOM. Published now are also part II and part III. A PDF version of the complete series is available. Your comments on this are welcome here.)

by b real

AFRICOM

In early February 2007 the White House finally announced a presidential directive to establish by September 2008 a new unified combatant command with an area of responsibility (AOR) solely dedicated to the African continent. While there had been chatter and debate over a period of years about the form that such a military command should take, the announcement to proceed with centralizing military resources in Africa should not have surprised anyone paying attention for the past seven years.



Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
by A swedish kind of death on Mon Oct 15th, 2007 at 07:43:05 PM EST
Amazing!!!

thanks!!

A pleasure

I therefore claim to show, not how men think in myths, but how myths operate in men's minds without their being aware of the fact. Levi-Strauss, Claude

by kcurie on Tue Oct 16th, 2007 at 05:22:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

Top Diaries