Talk:Committee for the Republic
Comment: Examination of the "credentials" for Gray, Freeman, and Cohen show them to be anything but "anti-imperical" (if there is such a word). Their organizational and corporate affiliations make them "players" in the same old scenario. The lack of comment on the Committee other than by bloggers, and the lack of information on the Committee in general, makes the whole Wall Street Journal article suspect. According to what I have read on the blog sites, the Committee has been circulating email on its "issues", whatever those may be.
AI 7/29/03 07:55 (EDT)
Comment: Further examination of William A. Nitze's "bio" shows him to also be very much a part of the game: CFR, Mobil Oil, Reagan/Bush/Clinton admins, now HiEnergy Defense, Inc. ... an "environmentalist" (said very much with tongue held stiffly in cheek) with a thirst for $$$ and power it seems.
Also .. coming up empty-handed on Henry, thus far.
AI 8/14/03 07:12 (EDT)
Ok .. there's no question now .. these guys are putting us on .. RIGHT??? They're about as un-imperial as Alexander the Great, Charlemagne, Napoleon, .. well, you get the drift .. Just different tactics, that's all. Wasn't it Nixon who assured us that it wasn't a sheepskin he was wearing?
AI 8/16/03 07:33 (EDT)
Certainly the powers that be have been floating the idea of American Empire to the public for a while now, gauging opposition, giving it life and credibility by positioning it as a viable and sensible view in the national debate, crafting a pool of opinion that would support U.S. military action in any nation under any circumstances. Having a group of esteemed 'good fellas' come out against empire gets the debate ball rolling at lunch tables, polarizes opinion, undermines 'true' opposition, creates the impression of healthy dissent from within the 'democratic' process, and frees the administration to pursue Empire as it becomes no longer a dirty 'Star Wars' idea but an essential element of our political discourse.
Let us not forget that 'American* Brand' empire is an entirely different animal from the blunt, militarized empires of the past: In this new global era, it is (usually) unnecessary to engage the cost and bad PR of conquering and governing a nation in order to redirect substantial portions of that nation's GDP into our own coffers. All that's needed is a pliable, 'bribable' client government. Free trade opens access to the cheap labor and markets that constitute the bulk of that redirection, making military intervention necessary only where existing governments are 'unwilling' to cooperate. (CFTR mission statement: "America has begun to stray far from its founding tradition of leading the world by example rather than by force.")
When (and if) the idea of Empire is legitimized, administration hawks will be delivered from the burden of having to 'create' reasons for war (terrorists, uranium cake, et al) and will be able to get to the brass tacks of waging the war.
Whether the CFTR is on the level or not (it does seem unlikely) is, perhaps, irrelevant.
DD 8/19/03 (in the flurry of at-work cut and paste I didn't realize those were your initials...many apologies...words are back in my mouth where they belong)
AI 8/19/03 16:14 (EDT) : I have removed my 'byline' from the above edits, as this is NOT my IDP nor is it my entry: "AI 8/18/03 10:56 (EDT)" ...
Please, please, PLEASE do not put words into my mouth! ;>)))
- Identity theft is one of the inevitable, but milder, consequences of any future development of artificial intelligence - such can be used easily to defraud, impersonate, extort, torment, rationalize the horrific, and so on. In other words, the same as ordinary intelligence, only much smarter than say Bush, and more likely to succeed. No good will come of it.
