Phendrana Drifts

I'm a huge fan of alternate histories and speculative fiction - they are often fun and campy sojourns from reality and on the more intellectual side they allow you to look at some issues from a what-if basis and try and learn something about the impact of the decisions of yesterday and today on the present.

So I was excited to pick up Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 last night for my PS3 and start my campaign to rule the world under a Soviet flag in a world without nuclear weapons as well I loved watching the alternate universe of The Watchmen play itself out on the big screen. Man, I love alternate histories, especially ones about the Cold War.

If you're going to write a Cold War speculative fiction novel, video game, graphic novel, film or whatever you often start off with playing with certain stereotypes - the United States is technologically superior, and invariably wealthier than the USSR but may lack a certain will or may lack the numbers to do the job. Also, since I only know the English language examples of the genre, they are usually the winners. The Russians on the other hand are poor, declining, authoritarian and possess tremendous military might. The kind of military might that could be used to address the other problems. And that's how the war starts.

I was no fan of the George W. Bush administration - and for good reason. They tortured people. They started wars by lying. They polarized the American democratic system. They alienated allies and spent enormous amounts of political capital that had been earned over generations and paid for with the blood of American soldiers. But the biggest complaint I had with the group of essentially criminals in the White House was that they spent too much money. Billions. Trillions. Money borrowed from future generations and the impact of the borrowing hidden from the American public through more borrowing and an antiquated financial system that props up the value of the American dollar. At the end of Bush's term of office that system came crashing down and the United Nations and most importantly China are considering taking steps that will allow the American dollar to fall to its real value. And the way out of it for the American people seems to be taking an incredible gamble - spending even more money.

I am no economist - it is not even my undergraduate degree - I have history and political science degrees. I cannot even pretend to claim I know how this will all turn out. Nations, even big and powerful ones like the United States, have borrowed vast sums of money in the past and ultimately been fine and even more powerful and obtained a better sustainable quality of life for their citizens. But I look at how much the Bush administration borrowed ($5 trillion, give or take) and how much the Obama administration has already or is planning to borrow ($1.7 trillion, again give or take) and I'm worried. The public debt of the United States is climbing towards 80% of their GDP and the deficit is close to 5% - these are all levels my economics professors would have sounded alarm bells over.

The point I am trying to make is this - the United States is gambling that after having borrowed more than half of their national debt to pay for a stupid military adventure in Iraq and stupid tax cuts without corresponding cuts to what the state does for its citizens, they are going to borrow another massive pot of money - a pot that looks to leave each working American with about $120,000 of public debt. Right now it is around $60,000, and the American economy is shrinking (meaning fewer people working and producing GDP). If this plan does not work, then the United States will fall in economic terms to a middle power. With such a large debt, the federal government will be poor - and realistically so will the large majority of the population.

However, militarily the United States for all the bluster of being beset on all sides by evil and hostile forces is by far the largest military force on Earth. They are spending vast quantities of money (where do you think that debt came from?) and time and effort on creating a military that can be anywhere at once and attack "America's enemies" at will. Now, I don't think the American population has the stomach to take over the world - and nor should it. It is not worth it frankly, and the quality of life of your citizens as well as the general happiness of humanity is best secured without military force. Indeed, the United States was unable to conquer relatively minor powers like Iraq and Afghanistan while maintaining acceptable casualty counts and preserving their need to be the good guy in the fight. But in the speculative future histories - which nation will now serve the role as the economically poor but militarily strong power looking to settle a perceived slight or grab for their former glory? I'm not sure it will be the Russians.

Labels: american politics, defence, iraq

So obviously I didn't keep up and blog when I said I would. I still lack a good excuse, but I'll provide some content.

First, the headline in today's U of A Gateway was " Powerplant plan promises fewer losses" which struck me the same way "New Iraq plan promises fewer American deaths".

Second, I'm watching with earnest as the Council of the Federation tries to tackle climate change. I'm shocked, as I often am when the developed world tries to deal with this problem, that consumer and individual choice remains off the radar when discussing climate change. I still firmly hold that this problem will not be solved by government and industry, but average citizens. You want to help stop climate change? Get rid of your car or at least take the bus to work. Want to reduce Canada's greenhouse gas emissions? Reduce yours. And encourage your neighbours to do it to. Want politicans who have the courage to do something about CO2? Well, they need to have the courage to tell every citizen that they have to reduce their carbon footprint - that kind of message isn't one easily made in a democracy.

Third... I'm going to Toronto - thoughts on what I should do while I'm there? I think we're going to a Blue Jays game - I've never been to MLB game. Should be good.

Labels: climate change, iraq, toronto

I can only hope that the American republic is shaking off their cobwebs and looking to actually become an active democracy again. The headline Anti-war protests grow in U.S. was good to see in my RSS reader. Not that I'm so inherently anti-war, or even pro-protest, but I do like to see active citizens.

Labels: iraq

Another 80 people are dead and 160 are wounded in Iraq this morning from bombers attacking Baghdad markets. But perhaps more disturbing is that many news outlets are not reporting it. No, that is going too far, but I mean they have decided that the audience (that would be us) are no longer shocked by it, in short it isn't news. An interesting solution to a policy problem - in the English speaking world who is largely responsible for creating the environment in Iraq we no longer want bombings in Baghdad markets so rather than shift policy, we are no longer hearing about it. I wonder if it is because we have grown too lazy to do something about it or to demand change.

Of course I say this from comfort in Canada, a country that (thankfully) passed on the American adventure in Iraq. I wish I knew what to do about Iraq. I guess more importantly, I wish either George W. Bush or someone else within the American leadership really knew what to do in Iraq.

Labels: iraq

Twitter Updates