OK, there's one guy who likes us - and one who doesn't
I tend to get disgusted at huge amounts of criticism, finally adopting an "OK, I don't care" attitude about it all. As an American, that has led me to thoughts such as "Perhaps the UN should move to Geneva" or "Perhaps the OAS should move to Caracas." Yet, despite all of the criticism of the Yankee's reckless ways, at least Prince Charles believes (or, for political purposes, pretends to believe) that we are still relevant:
Prince Charles...told U.S. President George W. Bush that much of the world looks to America for a lead on "the most crucial issues that face our planet."
Raising a toast to Bush at a White House dinner, the heir to the throne noted the "enormous challenges and responsibilities that faced the 43rd president of the United States."
"So many people throughout the world look to the United States for a lead on the most crucial issues that face our planet and indeed the lives of our grandchildren.
"Truly the burden of the world rests on your shoulders," Prince Charles said at the dinner on Wednesday evening, according to the UK's Press Association.
The Exile, a Moscow-based alternative newspaper, has a different view:
Every empire passes through several stages, slouching inexorably towards its expiration date. There are many variations, but generally it moves according to the following stages: rape and pillage, freshness and dynamism, power and might, arrogance, stupidity, decline and collapse. Today's Bushlandia is not near collapse yet. It is past arrogance, and well into the stupidity domain.
Actually, the reference to Bushlandia is telling, and demonstrates that the author is not talking about a country, but about a particular government. This begs the question - between 1993 and 2001, was the United States "past arrogance"? Or was it in the "power and might" stage until January 20, 2001? Actually, the article DOES mention a change in the mid 1990s (probably blamed on Newt Gingrich):
It was not so just ten years ago. America was in the middle of dazzling, creative renovation, brought by the Internet revolution. It seemed boundless and endless, brimming with fantastic possibilities. A lot of wonderful things came to fruition, but the game was done already by 1996 or 97. Afterwards innovation was displaced by hype, by the dot-com bubble, hustle and swindle, which produced some billionaires, much ruination, and very little in enduring value. It got worse after the bubble popped. Compared to the five years from 1990-95, the last five years have seen very little innovation or genuinely interesting technological development.
And the Ontario Mountain Village Association would agree with this Russian analysis:
But the "dark satanic mills" of the information revolution was not Microsoft or other software or internet companies. It was the Wal-Mart, and the likes of it, chewing the American backbone, making the new, retail proletariat, pauperizing its small-town communities. It is still aggressive and hungry, getting fatter and plodding ahead. But it is already stagnating in its core, unable to learn any new tricks. It can continue to destroy, but is hardly able to create anything new anymore-just shove larger portions of cheap junk at the consumer in its ever bigger caverns.
Somehow this analysis forgot to mention the Chinese connection. :)
Comments
I keep telling people Wal-Mart is the anti-christ and no one will believe me.
I don't think we're at the end of the line just yet. Remember that Rome had a republic for a few centuries before the Empire even began.