The World Isn’t So Dark

I apoligize for a few grammatical errors and spelling. The closing from Sinclair Lewis is Faschism will come to America wrapped in a flag, carrying a bible.

The real enemy: economic meltdown. Wall Street melts down: the latest installment in the
"you're on your own" economy of well, the last twenty five years. I remember when they started opening up the markets to futures, swaps, options, all the instruments that have just wreaked havoc (100 000 people fired in one day!).

The architects of the meltdown? Phil Gramm and John McCain, to name but two.

The real danger: economic meltdown. The latest installment in the
"you're on your own" economy of well, the last twenty five years. I remember when they started opening up the markets to futures, swaps, options, all the instruments that have just wreaked havoc (100 000 people fired in one day!).

The architects of the meltdown? Phil Gramm and John McCain, to name but two.

Although America uses its troops to invade nations that meet its disapproval and has frequently engaged in covert operations to destabilise governments it seems unable to engage in a process of introspection.

It uses the moral high ground and demonising to justify these actions which have been morally reprehensible. It fails to declare that its real reasons for its actions are based on self-interest which it regards as unquestionable.

Arguably, America has acted badly and many of its actions are equivalent to what it condemns as terrorist actions when carried out by others.

Now, how many of you can recall the nations that America has invaded since WWII and the damage that has flowed to those nations following the invasion.

In addition, look at those small nations and territories that the US controls and the damage that has been caused to them.

The US has sometimes been a destabilising and damaging force in world politics.

Exaggerating dangers out of proportion has been the game played not only by the US but also by practically every politician and regime globally ever since the dawn of civilization.

By instilling unnecessary fear and insecurity in the people, sick leaders try to perpetuate their power over their subjects and strong nations attempt to spread their hegemony everywhere.

Phobia stricken weaklings are easier to manipulate, panic stricken regimes are simpler to maneuver. Does any would-be president not know this? (btt1943@yahoo.com)

With Republican's in charge, the world is very very dangerous place. Morons!

Maybe Zakaria's point is true, but then why is it that Obama sees the US in such a negative light and McCain sees it in such a positive light? Liberals always want to change America - change our traditional culture on the issues of abortion, homosexuality, guns, religion and far more - and think that the US is a horrible, unfair, racist, sexist country where only the rich have opportunities and the only chance for the poor is to give them things because they have no opportunities. Everyone is getting so poor, healthcare is so bad, people can't afford their homes, etc. etc. etc. Never do they look at the relative goodness of our country compared to even its recent past - higher standards of living, cures and treatments for once unliveable diseases (I have Type 1 Diabetes, and I'd much rather struggle to pay for all of my supplies than die, thank you very much), more equality for everyone due to a change in attitudes among the younger generations, a peaceful existence, and higher rates of homeownership in recent years than ever before (even after the foreclosures that have been happening to unfortunate people who never should have been approved for a loan by the greedy, unscrupulous bankers anyway) and more. The US is better now than ever before, and while there are still problems to be solved, why can't they appreciate the wonderful country we have instead of trying to fundamentally alter it all of the time? We don't need Obama's socialist and morally depreciating kind of "change" where abortion is fine and should be paid for by taxpayers who are religiously and personally opposed (like me), where wealth is patronizingly redistributed from the middle, upper-middle and rich classes to those who are poor, whether by misfortune, which legitimately happens, or due to their drug-using, laziness or stupidity, which also happens, making them even more dependent on the government, where everything can be solved by starting a government program, increasing expenses and the federal deficit (also to be paid by yours truly and those in my generation when the Chinese finally cut us off our money binge like a bartender cuts off a local drunk in a seedy bar at 3am), and worse. That's not change we can believe in. That's not even better than the same. I'd rather have the same than have politicians running my healthcare program and taking more of my money to do a sh*tty job at it. As I tell the pizza delievery man "Thanks, and please, keep the change."

This is why I'm voting for Barack. He has lived. He has lived abroad. He has lived with extremists, and normalcy. He understands what goes into the negative, and he has risen above it. Our country just provokes wars with their arrogance. There is no sense of understanding concerning the people that live in countries who don't have the democracy that we do. Putin has already accused us of being the instigator of Georgia into Ossetia. He even said that he has a little evidence. Why? Top pump up Mc Cain's campaign. His lobbyist Charlie Black has alread said that MMcCain would benefit from a terrorist attack. That's being a peace maker. What jerks.

Fareed you miss the point, you are asking the wrong question. It isn't "what kind of a world do we live in", it is "why do we live in the for the most part peaceful world?" I am sure that McCain would say we live in a more peaceful world today than 20 years ago because we happened to eliminate the USSR from mucking the world up as they did for the previous 50 years. However he would say that the peace was a dividend that our military paid to the world since then, what the chattering class would label the Pax Americana. Obama I would imagine would say that the peace is due to the UN and other international brotherhood.

I would say that both had a play, but the UN has no authority that the US doesn't back up, and that McCains answer would be the more realistic one.

I would say that Fareed is correct that we live in a more peaceful world over the last twenty years. However he misses the question, it isn't "do we live in a more peaceful world", the question is "why do we live in a more peaceful world"? To that McCain would say that it is because the US defeated the USSR and the peace is the USA's dividend to the world (a pax americana as the chattering class is won't to say), a product of our military might. Obama would probably (i don't presume to know his views as well as McCains) say that it is due to the UN and other international cooperation.

We live in "remarkably peaceful times" because the United States has been on the offense - today, and back in the days of the cold war. Don't think that "peaceful times" just sort of happen.........

Re: Count one YES vote on remaining ???calm???

Although an independent, not supporting McCain, Obama or Biden because of their anti-security open-borders congressional records, I definitely agree on a future foreign policy characterized by ???calm.??? For one thing, since the United Sates is by far the most powerful nation in the world, it is not only unseemly to swagger about making angry and bellicose displays, putting nations on proclaimed lists of evildoers and the like, it seriously diminishes American power. Think of the strong and silent leading men of the old movies (and their female counterparts, Stanwyck, Crawford and Davis), who possessed a power that was inherent and automatically recognized, which would only have been diminished by their walking into a room and absurdly thumping their chests.
- - -
Reading maketh a full man. -- Francis Bacon [and woman]
www.amazon.com/gp/shops/index.html/102-8857288-9940148?ie=UTF8&sellerID=A14A094R6ZEM10

Mr. Zakaria claims that those are the worldviews of the presidential candidates, but I never saw the same distinctions in what I got from the two candidates. I never witnessed the type of knowledge and thoughtfulness in foreigner affairs, especially in middle east issues, from Obama, apart from how he's anti-war, and that Clinton and McCain are pro-war. If anyone cares for my gut feeling, it sounds more like those are the policy views from some staff member of the Obama campaign, masquerading as Obama's views. Mr Zakaria, can you elaborate on how you come to those conclusions? It's probably true that the conservatives had long made gross exaggeration in past military situations, but this is now, and it's obvious that both campaigns had made many missteps and misrepresentations. Isn't it possible that you, as a staff member of Newsweek, have also joined the pro-Obama team?

HolyRoller...

Great comment comparing the Obama interview and the Palin interview Much thanks to Nancy Kallitechnis for providing the base info.

This just restates the basic facts, that the MSM is solidly "in the Tank" for Obama.

Evidently, Obama must be such an extremely weak candidate that the MSM must feel it's necessary to throw aside all considerations for fairness to get him elected - he can't do it by himself. And, this same MSM (Newsweek, NYT, CNN, Time, etc.) must despise their readers/viewers so much as to disregard their concerns about fair & objective reporting.

I haven't bought a Newsweek, Time, or NY Times publication in years. I post here ONLY because this is included in the www.realclearpolitics.com links... The sooner these DNC propaganda rags go under, the sooner their rack space can be filled by new, professionally produced publications that take their public responsibilities seriously.

Joe Klein can only lie so much before people catch on...

As just about everyone knows by now, Charlie Gibson of ABC News had the first interview with Gov. Sarah Palin since her acceptance of the VP nomination.

If you think that there is no double standard in the media, just compare the questions Obama was asked by Gibson to the ones Gibson asked Palin, courtesy of Nancy Kallitechnis:

Obama interview:

How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
How does it feel to win?
How does your family feel about your winning, breaking a glass ceiling?
Who will be your VP?
Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?
Will you accept public finance?
What issues is your campaign about?
Will you visit Iraq?
Will you debate McCain at a town hall?
What did you think of your competitor's [Clinton] speech?


Palin interview:

Do you have enough qualifications for the job you???re seeking? Specifically have you visited foreign countries and met foreign leaders?
Aren't you conceited to be seeking this high level job?
Questions about foreign policy
-territorial integrity of Georgia
-allowing Georgia and Ukraine to be members of NATO
-NATO treaty
-Iranian nuclear threat
-what to do if Israel attacks Iran
-Al Qaeda motivations
-the Bush Doctrine
-attacking terrorists harbored by Pakistan
Is America fighting a holy war? (misquoted Palin)

2008....the year that will be remembered as the year jounalism died........and it has cost Hussein the election...

NOBAMA!!!

Unfortunately , I feel that this article is a gross misunderstanding of the world as it is in reality, and how it has come to be reality that it is.

Zakaria says that "we live in remarkably peaceful times." I don't see how he draws this conclusion based on the fact that less soldiers are dying in warfare. Just because wars may be shorter and technology and tactics allow for fewer casualties does not mean that the world is more peaceful. Just look at the middle east for the last 3 decades. The world is not in a peaceful place. But he does make an interesting point, and then draws a strikingly twisted conclusion. he sites that since 9/11, casualties from terrorism have been on the decline...he doesn't however make the connection between that decline and the policies of the Bush administration. because we have taken the fight to the terrorists, and have decided to not sit back at take what the terrorists throw at us, not only are we safer, but the world is safer and more people across the muslim world feel safer in expressing their desires for freedom and democracy.

Bush's plan has worked!

Yes, there is many more muslim nations pushing towards capitalism, democracy, and away from radicalism, but that is only because America has made it known that the "infidel" will not sit idly by and wait for their country to be taken over and their freedoms to be stolen from them.

it is true that only 10 percent of muslims are of the extremist brand, but they have all the power...correction, had all the power. that is why Iraq can have the problem now of being weak, but it surely was not weak before. It is weak now because it has relied on a dictator to control it and keep it powerful. now, with that leadership gone, Iraq needs to learn how to be strong as individuals, which is hard because the Iraqis have been kept as weak individuals for decades.

Unfortunately , I feel that this article is a gross misunderstanding of the world as it is in reality, and how it has come to be reality that it is.

Zakaria says that "we live in remarkably peaceful times." I don't see how he draws this conclusion based on the fact that less soldiers are dying in warfare. Just because wars may be shorter and technology and tactics allow for fewer casualties does not mean that the world is more peaceful. Just look at the middle east for the last 3 decades. The world is not in a peaceful place. But he does make an interesting point, and then draws a strikingly twisted conclusion. he sites that since 9/11, casualties from terrorism have been on the decline...he doesn't however make the connection between that decline and the policies of the Bush administration. because we have taken the fight to the terrorists, and have decided to not sit back at take what the terrorists throw at us, not only are we safer, but the world is safer and more people across the muslim world feel safer in expressing their desires for freedom and democracy.

Bush's plan has worked!

Yes, there is many more muslim nations pushing towards capitalism, democracy, and away from radicalism, but that is only because America has made it known that the "infidel" will not sit idly by and wait for their country to be taken over and their freedoms to be stolen from them.

it is true that only 10 percent of muslims are of the extremist brand, but they have all the power...correction, had all the power. that is why Iraq can have the problem now of being weak, but it surely was not weak before. It is weak now because it has relied on a dictator to control it and keep it powerful. now, with that leadership gone, Iraq needs to learn how to be strong as individuals, which is hard because the Iraqis have been kept as weak individuals for decades.

Wow, I guess the mere mention of Ronald Reagan would not have supported any of the thoughts in your article...so, let's just omit him from this converation.