Saguni....

[anandb]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Sri Venkataramani Ji and Sri anandb Ji,

USA I know is not like India. Only people with no knowledge about the culture, history and the political set ups of both countries would make such uninformed statements.

I have been in the USA for the past 40 years and I have spent considerable time in China within the last few years. Believe me, China is no competition to USA. In fact if USA wants it tomorrow, they can very easily pull the rugs out from under the Chinese feet.

A countrie's strength is after all the sum total of it's business culture, systems, creativity, it's peoples drive, and it's institutions.

There is no other country in the world that comes close to the U.S. in this respect. It will take a very long time for any other country to take USA's pre eminence place.

Don't believe in the hype in some quarters to promote China versus the U.S. China is a poor country still and has put up a Potemkin's village facade.

Regards,
KRS

I am not bashing USA. In fact I don't want USA to lose its preeminent place. But that can happen soon if USA is only interested in war-mongering and building up a case history to foment trouble all over the world. We still remember Vietnam and before memories have faded it was Iraq and now Afghanistan and possibly Iran tomorrow. It is quite laughable that a small country like Israel can wield enormous influence over USA with the help of a Jewish controlled media. Also explains why none of the ills plaguing USA is reported in the mainstream media while everything about it is talked in private forums and blogs. It is a situation very similar to what is plaguing India. Honestly the news that comes out of popular channels or the print media is worthless and biased.

No country can rest on its laurels. India did this mistake and as a result got plundered by foreigners and we still have not learnt our lessons but continue pampering their interests. I once used to think that the American political establishment was above corruption but not anymore. There are too many special interest groups trying to get laws passed to their advantage and the end result is the plight of the common man in America. I actually lost my respect for USA when a buffoon like Bush gets to rule for a 2nd term with a bunch of radical neo-cons like Cheney , Wolfowitch and Rumsfeld. They seem to be no different than our corrupt Indian politicians. Read this piece Vijayvaani.com.

There are many such articles written on his website - Home

 

[Nara]

Dear Shri KRS:

Greetings!

I did not want to get into I said/You said situation. But you keep insisting on it.

Ok, here we go,

But, please do not then make blanket statements without any logic behind them, thinking that they will go unchallenged, just because you make them.

If you think I made illogical statements and you want to call them out in a civil way, you ask me to substantiate my view. But if you use words like "spewing", "total nonsense", and crass put downs like, "Wait, I forgot - it is probably be a communist/socialist set up.", these are not civil "calling me out". In my books it is uncivil when you denigrate or mock the person you disagree with instead of denigrating or mocking the idea being expressed. See the top of my post #79 where I have listed your uncalled for remarks which you conveniently ignored.

Because, of your first sentence that says that Bush would have been thrown out. And you follow it with McCain's non support of Bush for his presidential drive. Does this not become clear as to how I perceived your words?

Because of my first sentence? Let us see what my first sentence was,

"In any other democracy Bush would have been thrown out of office long before he had a chance to wreck so many things for so many people."
​

And then you put words into my mouth,

And you follow it with McCain's non support of Bush for his presidential drive.

I did not say, "McCain's non support of Bush", this does not even make any sense to me. McCain was the one running, why would he support or not support Bush. The point I was making is McCain not wanting to be seen with Bush, nothing about who supports whom. What I said was,

"Even the Republican presidential candidate McCain did not want to be seen anywhere near Bush during last year's campaign."
​

This means what it says, McCain did not want to be seen with Bush. Why? Because he was so unpopular which is what my first sentence means, i.e. in any other democracy he would have been thrown out due to his unpopularity. To get what you got, one has to take a big leap.

Does this not become clear as to how I perceived your words?

No, it does not. Please see my step-by-step illustration above.

You are using this as a ruse to not substantiate your own words.
[..]
If you do not want to discuss the merits of the logic that is underpinning your assertions, that is okay. Please say so.

Sigh! Ok, let me answer your charge, against my better judgment.

As I said before, people like you say that Bush did illegal things, despite the Congress, Courts and 'public opinion'. Can you cite some specific instances where he acted outside of the law?

There are two main areas where many constitutional scholars think Bush administration violated the law. They are (i) NSA warrantless wiretapping, and (ii) international treaty obligations against torture.

ACLU filed a court cases against the NSA's use of warrantless wiretapping and won. Here is what Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan wrote:

The President of the United States, a creature of the same Constitution which gave us these Amendments, has indisputably violated the Fourth Amendment in failing to procure judicial orders as required by FISA, and accordingly has violated the First Amendment Rights of these Plaintiffs as well.​

In the case of torture, it was Ronald Reagan who signed and the senate ratified (for ratifying treaties a super-super majority of 3/4 of the senators is required), the UN Convention Against Torture. This treaty declares that no state of emergency, other external threats, nor orders from a superior officer or authority may be invoked to justify torture. Even many Bush administration officials including military officials agree that what took place in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and other CIA black sites was torture. Here is a small quote from an article that appeared in Washington Post by Bob Woodward:

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February 2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.
​

Shri KRS, I submit to you, this is why I think President Bush and his administration did not care for the courts. I answered your challenge. I will continue this discussion only if the discourse is civil.

Cheers!

 

[Siddhanta]

It is your business to bellieve in any conspiracy theory as crazy as they may be.

It is your right to believe in a faith/religion.

But sir, do not debunk science/logic and reasoning. And don't mix religion with Science. One is based necessarily on faith and belief and the other is based on cold logic and proof. Some principles enumerated in religion may in time proved true by science. But I think most of them will not be, because a lot of religious theories/stories are based on allegories and imagination.

Let both be seperate. Let us not try to prove that everything in Hinduism is based on science and logic.

KRS Ji,

You seem to take issues too seriously...

First of all, if Hinduism is pure science, then it has to be, just because someone says no, it is not going to be.

BTW, i do not take issues seriously and i am more involved in gaining knowledge.

"Katradhu Kai Alavu, Kalladhadhu Ulagalavu"

 

[pannvalan]

I fully concur with Venkataramani.

1. It is not in the interests of India and USA to see China growing any further. At the
same time, we shall not get caught in the trap laid out by USA.

2. China is already helping Pakistan militarily and in all possible ways and wants to help
Sri Lanka too, bye-passing our interests or supremacy in the Indian Ocean. It is
not good for India in the short/long run.

3. China is opposing the moves for giving permanent seat to India in UN Security
Council.

4. In the light of latest incursions made by China, which Indian political bosses are
stoutly denying, in spite of concrete evidence to the contrary, China is not a
dependable neighbour.

5. China already has set her eyes on Arunachal Pradesh, Sikkim and many other parts
of northern to north-eastern border areas of our country. We must keep eternal
vigil and have military preparedness. (But, we are not at all match militarily or
economically for China). The tacit but clear support to the Maoists movements in India and
Nepal must not be dismissed so casually.

6. If such a situation arises, India shall not hesitate to seek the help of USA openly.

Following are the points that mitigate my fears and concerns.

1. In case of any major aggression by China anywhere, it will not receive any moral
or other kinds of support from any country - including Russia, I hope.

2. China being communist-ruled, cannot control the aspirations and freedom of
thinking of its own people for many more decades. It will burst out once (many
times larger than the Tianmen Square incident)

3. Since the wages paid to the labour and the price of finished products are totally
state-determined in China, it cannot go on forever. It has to either relax the
conditions on its own or may be compelled by other powerful nations to do so.

4. The artificial prop up to Chinese Yuan has to go one day and it will see the crash
of Chinese economy.

5. Many problems faced by China in Taiwan, Tibet, Hong Kong and other places
cannot be hidden anymore. They will prove to be chinks in the armour of China.
The slow rise of Islamic fundamentalism in some parts of China also cannot be
suppressed for long.

6. Depletion of forex reserves also will happen slowly and USA's dependency on
China will come down gradually.

7. China is never committed to quality of all the goods produced in their country.
While they indulge in dumping of Chinese goods in other nations including India,
they have clamped several economic barriers against other nations to export their
products to China freely. In the long run, it will prove to be counter-productive
for China.

8. Lack of proficiency in English and other foreign languages like French, Japanese
etc. will hamper the pace of growth China wants to achieve.

9. Lack of transparency in its systems - political, social, legal and economical -
will weaken its case globally.

10. Last but not the least, the pseudo-liberalization measures initiated by China within
their country will result in collapse of the stock markets and big financial
institutions, networks and structures. It will lead to large scale unemployment,
multiplicity of social crimes, and social unrest. Who knows, even the political
boundaries of China may be required to be redrawn!

 

[Nara]

Dear Sir:

Greetings!

The American people are now more or less like their Indian counterparts, dumb and mute to lot of things which are going on in their politics.

As someone said, if you ask an average American what is the difference between ignorance and apathy, the answer would be, "I don't know and I don't care."

I sometimes wonder whether this is what the political and media elite actually want and achieved it through deliberate action. The so called mainstream media has to shoulder a large part of the responsibility. Over the years, driven by profit motive, the news TV outlets have been going increasingly for sensationalism trying to cater to the prurient side of Americans. The most recent example of this is the wall-to-wall coverage of Jackson's death.

Some years ago, Stephen Cobert joked about the MSM for acting like stenographers to those in power -- faithfully take down what they say and print it after spell check. Never challenge those in power for you may loose access. This scenario is played out repeatedly over the last few years. Some months ago, Washington Post fired Dan Froomkin and many in the media think it is because he was asking tough questions of the powerful and it was jeopardizing the paper's access to the corridors of power.

The most recent example is Obama's dramatic announcement on Iran. The MSM has just taken down the official version and went with it. There is no in-depth analysis. The public is told what Iran has done is illegal. But is this really true? May be it is, may be it is not, but the MSM is on holiday on this one, like every other important issue that affect not just Americans, but the whole world. If it is Michael Jackson's death, is it murder, or is it suicide, or is it accidental, we will get every detail ad nauseam.

It is one thing to vote on Gallup polls about supporting one issue or another but we don't see any real change being supported by the American public especially when it comes to influencing American foreign policy.

Back in 2004 most Americans thought Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks, even Bush conceded there was no evidence of a link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. When you keep the masses dumb and interested in American Idol and not much more, the politicians can do anything they want. When Dick Chaney was asked about lack of public support for his Iraq policies his response was, "So?".

No one can rest on its laurels. A nation's supremacy in history is always cyclical. Perhaps it is time for the U.S to pass the mantle to someone else unless ....

A better alternative to passing the mantle on to another nation, such as China, is to develop a multi-polar and truly democratic international system where the rule of law is respected by all, where in the rich and powerful nations are not allowed to flout the law as they please.

Cheers!

 

[RVR]

I sometimes wonder whether this is what the political and media elite actually want and achieved it through deliberate action. The so called mainstream media has to shoulder a large part of the responsibility. Over the years, driven by profit motive, the news TV outlets have been going increasingly for sensationalism trying to cater to the prurient side of Americans. The most recent example of this is the wall-to-wall coverage of Jackson's death.

Media, particularly electronic media, is working only on profit motive. When terrorist attack took place in Mumbai last year, almost the entire electronic media was doing live coverage which was used by terrorists headquarters in Pakistan for giving field instructions. Instead of saving few lives, the electronic media played into the hands of terrorists.

I earnestly feel that some regulation is required for the electronic media during such critical situations.

 

[pannvalan]

The multi-polar order is unfolding now and I am happy that the G 7 is now expanded into G 20. But, that is not sufficient. Further broadbasing is needed.

I expect all countries which satisfy the following criteria - in full or in part - must be included in the new order or set-up.

1. Population exceeding say, 150 millions.

2. Per capita productivity exceeding USD .... (I do not have comparative figures now)

3. Geographical area of not less than 1 million sq. k.ms.

4. Having clear constitution, stable government, fair and just legal system,
transparent administrative machinery and equal opportunities for all to grow and
prosper.

5. More than 1 language, more than 1 religion and more than 1 sector are prominent,
without clashing with each other.

6. The military might - air, water and land - by some common yardstick say, size of
the army, fleet of warships and submarines, number of fighter jets and
sophistication and the level of advancement in technology used shall all decide
this stength/prowess.

7. Economic might as evidenced by the foreign exchange reserves, share in the
international trade, assets held overseas by the citizens of the nation concerned
etc.

Then, a group of at least 40 nations will be formed to represent all nations - big or small, developed or developing, rich or poor. This group will necessarily consult all the tiny nations before any important steps like sanctions against a particular country, sending UN peace-keeping forces to some country, declaring war against a nation etc. are taken, so that no element of arbitrariness creeps in.

It would then be a real world order. But, is that asking for too much, given the present scheme of things?

 

[RVR]

G 20 constitutes two third of the world population and controls 80% of world trade. It is now functioning as a voluntary body without any powers unlike United Nations. It is high time, it is integrated as part of UN so that they can take policy decisions based on collective wisdom and are also accountable for both on economic and political matters.

Already enhanced voting powers are being provided to emerging nations like India, China, Brazil and Russia in IMF now. It is high time, these nations are accorded with enhanced political powers also.

 

[kunjuppu]

pann: re your post #54

pann,

here is my take on china.

i think, starting in the 1980s, deng zao ping and his cohorts, came up with a long range vision for china, and his successors are sticking to the same vision.

deng's vision, i think, is primarily to bring up the standards of living of his impovershed 1 billion people.

to that extent, the chinese have followed the maxim, that the end justifies the means, meaning they have gone roughshed over values, checks and balances and above all intrinsic morals prevalent in a democratic country like india.

i have visited beijing, a couple of years ago, and believe me, i was impressed. the ordinary chinese are proud of their achievements, but at the same time, feel free enough to caution visitors, that the situation in the countryside is about 400 years behind.

the chinese leadership is a patient group. they are not interested, i think, in winning a skirmish or a battle today, when their intent is to win the war of primacy ie be the reality of a primary economic and military global power.

i think economic primacy overrules the military prowess. any talk of china having plans on india, is indian imaginations run wild. this has been written in newspaper articles. china has bigger fish to fry, than india. we are not in their mainstream radar.

china, also produces high quality goods. maybe india does not get those goods. believe me, the chinese are as smart, or smarter than indians.

their lack of fluency in english should not be seen as a weakpoint in their armour. the other side of the equation, is that they read everything in mandarin, the native tongue of the majority han tribe. mandarin is slowly moving up the scale as a modern scientific language on par with the european tongues and japanese. so let us not gloat over supposed weak links in the chain.

re the trillions of u.s. treasury bills that china possesses - it is a double edged sword. china cannot afford to dump these, as these are the wealth earned through hard sweat and labour. on the other hand, china cannot afford to hoard more, as it only encourages reckless u.s. spending (on chinese goods mostly). china is between a rock and a hard place in this matter, i think.

overall, india and china, are two different universes. they are not comparable, i think. india's path to development is suited to indian conditions. so too is china's. indian press is free, and they can mouth any nonsense re supposed chinese incursions or threats. these are balloons of hot air.

re u.s. interests re balancing china and india. another bunch of hot air, i think. all theses countries have their own interests. the u.s. i think, is going to be in trouble if it does not get out of afghanistan soon. but if the u.s. departs, then there is this maelstrom of evil, which is al queda, which has no more checks, and very soon its tentacles will extend to inciting disharmony and violence within india.

all in all, i think, the world is too complex these days. hopefully, india does not send its troops outside of our borders and gets thrashed. we have had one experience in sri lanka. once is enough, i think.

let us focus on economic development. equitable development. steady and well balanced development. q.e.d.

 

[pannvalan]

USA is yet to loosen its grip over the world bodies like IMF and World Bank. It is very reluctant to cede more powers to emerging economies of the world. But, I am happy with the bold stand taken by BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) under the leadership of India in the recent G 20 conclave.

I expect more results on the ground.

 

[Nara]

Then, a group of at least 40 nations will be formed to represent all nations - big or small, developed or developing, rich or poor. This group will necessarily consult all the tiny nations before any important steps like sanctions against a particular country, sending UN peace-keeping forces to some country, declaring war against a nation etc. are taken, so that no element of arbitrariness creeps in.

It would then be a real world order. But, is that asking for too much, given the present scheme of things?

Dear Sir, Greetings!

Your vision of a new world order is a wonderful vision and I join you in hoping it would come true someday.

Cheers!

 

[Singleliner]

Dear Nara,

For sure, there is something great in you, which really makes me to lookforward upon your next post.. Its like, 'What NARA gonna say next???'.. to much of curiousity, which has made me to break my own oath/vouch to share this thought here, after a bit of long break.

If I were to say in one line.. You said 'em all in a smarter way, for which, this pea nut brain was struggling for so long, craving for the right articulation,while caught up in between emitional garnering and branding.

Jist: As someone said, ' Be on the lookout for contradicting views, but not personality. A healthy debate doest call for garnering emotional support from forum members, where as, its only the points which speak, and they gonna remain for millenia. Aristotiles speech is well recorded in the history, but not those who supported/opposed them.

;Pigeonhole; An interesting term I learned from you..

All said an done, this is what I was was waiting for...A new perspective to this forum. If some one catches the tail and make a strawman argument, there could be yet another smart guy,to plug the the horse-hair and make a violin to play all the 7 notes.

I admire you and I read your posts with so much curiosity, that, I know, I feel, oh! Boy!! I have to pick up some skills from this gentle man.. Cheers..

PS: By any chance, u an alumni of IIM a or b or c?.. Curiosity kills the cat, they say!! Somewhere our thoughts are matching perfect.. They call it as 'Deuce' in tennis court'

 

[Nara]

I admire you and ....

Hello, you make me blush, at my age that is not a pretty sight BTW, do you mind talking to my wife and tell her how wonderful I am ?

PS: By any chance, u an alumni of IIM a or b or c?..

No sir, my antecedents are pretty pedantic. If you go to UTC College of Business and look for me you will find more than you would care about me, but first you have tyo guess what my real name is.

 

[Singleliner]

Then, a group of at least 40 nations will be formed to represent all nations - big or small, developed or developing, rich or poor. This group will necessarily consult all the tiny nations before any important steps like sanctions against a particular country, sending UN peace-keeping forces to some country, declaring war against a nation etc. are taken, so that no element of arbitrariness creeps in.

It would then be a real world order. But, is that asking for too much, given the present scheme of things?

I liked this thought Pannvalan.

Why just 40 nations.. Why not 240 nations!! A contingency planning on the working!!

It reminds me of John Lennon's IMAGINE... When I said this, some one jerked earlier "Do you wish every human being of this world to drink Coke and munch KFC for a brunch?"

I said, A Brazilian grew a tree.. The once cursed, dead sea is alive with a rap.. with all the pressures of survival, the human race has civilized itself..and will continue to do so.

btw, check out this lyrics

Imagine there's no heaven,
It's easy if you try,
No hell below us,
Above us only sky,
Imagine all the people
Living for today...

Imagine there's no countries,
It isn't hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,
No religion too,
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace...

Imagine no possessions,
I wonder if you can,
No need for greed or hunger,
A brotherhood of man,
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world...

You may say I'm a dreamer,
But I'm not the only one,
I hope some day you'll join us,
And the world will live as one.

 

[Singleliner]

Hello, you make me blush, at my age that is not a pretty sight BTW, do you mind talking to my wife and tell her how wonderful I am ?.

You are awesome.. Amazing.. An interesting personality to explore.. This gonna be the last post of this week.. However, will continue to watch your posts..

I know, there is lot I got to learn from you..


>>If you go to UTC College of Business and look for me you will find more than you would care about me, but first you have tyo guess what my real name is. >>

If I were to guage UTC, then I would only bench mark that with you. A finer reflection!! Some one who wants to lighten up the place not bring heat out of it. I think, you stand tall, and I could sense utc must be a better place, cos it has produced smartone's like you. I thing UTC must be proud of having a smart alumni like you. 21 cheers.

Btw, how much it matters by knowing one's Name? I dont believe in that. In internet era, words and thoughts speak, but not emotions..

 

[Nara]

I thing UTC must be proud of having a smart alumni like you...

Just to clarify, UTC is where I teach, it is not my alma.

Cheers!

 

[Singleliner]

Just to clarify, UTC is where I teach, it is not my alma.

Cheers!

Prof, a dinner conversation with you on this week end..

So, you also studied stress&strain and diesel & petrol partha..Interesting.. Subjects like O.R,M.S & Stats were interesting subjects for me too, 1.5 decades ago. Coefficient of correlation is an interesting subject to chose the best performing player of the cricket team, but I pity myself for scoring very low in that.

Anyways, at the moment im not an expert in that subject.. I have moved on to Brand buidling in FMCG, esp in to womens cosmets and skin care..

Apologize, I have deviated too much from the core topic..

Narayanee, Is there any reason why U.K & US brands are the most preferred choice for the indian women, when it comes to Personal care products?

Why our childhood days favourite Gokul Sandal powder,Gopal Pal Pdi,Emami, Cuticora talcum are missing the eye-leveldisplay-racks of the indian shopping malls? What happended to our great aerated orange drink "Gold Spot and the stomach pain sublimer Kali Mark goli soda"? Im bit confused here.. Should I blame the Indians or the Americans?

 

[RVR]

Narayanee, Is there any reason why U.K & US brands are the most preferred choice for the indian women, when it comes to Personal care products?

Both Hindustan Unilever and Proctor & Gamble are having a very tough time in the Indian Market. Local brands are giving very tough competition. Both USA & UK companies are continuously losing market share to local competition. Please visit the ten year trend of HLL in the following website.

http://www.hul.co.in/investor/Financial_Trends/Financial_performance_10_years2008_09.pdf


Turnover is not at all impressive. Stock market performance is also horrible.

Indian ladies are not at all attracted by UK/USA brands

 

[Nara]

Turnover is not at all impressive. Stock market performance is also horrible.

Indian ladies are not at all attracted by UK/USA brands

Hello,

Greetings!

Even otherwise, what if Indian ladies do prefer UK/USA brands. I don't know what Singleliner was leading up to, but, it is very much a non sequitur.

Cheers!

 

[S. Krishnamoorthy]

Dear Sri Krishnamoorthy Ji,

There is a policy in this Forum that if you post in Tamil, you need to provide English Translation for the sake of our members who do not know Tamil. I guess you did not know it. Please do so in the future - otherwise Tamil only postings will be removed. Thanks.

Regards,
KRS
இந்தியர்களின் வல்லமை நாம் கடைப்பிடிக்கும் சிக்கனம் தான்.
குருமூர்த்தி மீண்டடும் மீண்டும் வலியுறுத்தி எழுதுவதுபோல, இந்தியர்களின் முதல் செலவு சேமிப்புதான். அந்த வீட்டுச் சேமிப்புதான் உலகப் பொருளாதார வீழ்சியின் அடி நம்மீது விழாமல் காப்பாற்றியது.
ஆனால், பல விஷயங்களில், அமெரிக்க மக்கள் நம்மிலும் மிக உயர்ந்து நின்றாலும், நாளை என்ன நடக்கும் என்பது பற்றிக் கவலைப்படுவதில்லை. இன்றைய்ப் பொருளாதார வீழ்ச்சியில் இங்கு வாழும் எண்ணற்ற இந்திய்ர்கள், இந்திய வம்சாவளி வந்த அமெரிக்கர்கள் சிக்கவில்லை. காரணம் அவர்களின் இன்றைய சேமிப்பு நாளைய வளம் என்ற நம்பிக்கைதான்.
அமெரிக்கா மீண்டும் எழும் என்றுதான் இங்கு வசிக்கும் அனைவரும் நம்புகிறார்கள்.
கிருஷ்ணமூர்த்தி

 

[RVR]

Hello,

Greetings!

Even otherwise, what if Indian ladies do prefer UK/USA brands. I don't know what Singleliner was leading up to, but, it is very much a non sequitur.

Cheers!

Let Indian ladies prefer whatever brand they like. I have no problem. But they don't have any particular preference for UK/USA brands.

 

[kunjuppu]

இந்தியர்களின் வல்லமை நாம் கடைப்பிடிக்கும் சிக்கனம் தான்.
குருமூர்த்தி மீண்டடும் மீண்டும் வலியுறுத்தி எழுதுவதுபோல, இந்தியர்களின் முதல் செலவு சேமிப்புதான். அந்த வீட்டுச் சேமிப்புதான் உலகப் பொருளாதார வீழ்சியின் அடி நம்மீது விழாமல் காப்பாற்றியது.
ஆனால், பல விஷயங்களில், அமெரிக்க மக்கள் நம்மிலும் மிக உயர்ந்து நின்றாலும், நாளை என்ன நடக்கும் என்பது பற்றிக் கவலைப்படுவதில்லை. ..

good note moorthy.

i think likewise too. the standard of living in the u.s is high.

but, i think, it is all built on credit. same goes for canada, where i live.

due to taxation and high cost of things, one does not have enough cash. in order, however to get instant gratification, folks here in canada & u.s opt for credit to finance their life & lifestyle.

there is always a monthly balance due, either to the house mortgage, the car, the furniture, the sound system or the vacation that has already been taken.

so, the folks in the u.s. do not have disposable money for any emergency expenses such as medical or otherwise. when such expenses occur, it again to the credit card that they turn to.

when people lose their jobs, there is even more disaster. it is not just the credit bills are defaulted, but folks here go to the bank or credit card for basic needs like food and petrol.

public transportation in many cities are non existent. hence car is a must, along with its inevitable maintenance expenses..

so all in all, while the u.s may appear to be a wealthy country, much of the wealth is owned by banks and credit institutions.

it was not always like this. i think the transformation from a thrifty savings country to one of free spenders came since the 70s or maybe a few years earlier than that.

nowadays, i hear that credit cards and its inevitable temptation for instant indulgences and gratifications are on the rise in india too. i hope it does become as pervasive as it is in the u.s.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Kunjuppu Ji and Sri Krishnamoorthy Ji,

I am attaching two studies, 1) People debt as a percentage of disposable income and 2) National debt as a percentage of GDP.

In both these, USA is in the middle of the pack (as is Canada). I am sure with the recent balooning of defict in USA, it has moved up a bit on the second list.

1) Americans aren’t the only people who’ve been running up debt - The Curious Capitalist - TIME.com

2)List of countries by public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Debt by itself is not bad. It makes for living flexibility and relocation. Credit markets are an impostant part of any nation's economic system. Too much household savings is also bad, limiting the consumer spending, which nowadys contrbute anywhere up to 65% of a nation's economy.

The personal bankruptcy rates have been holding steady over the long range in almost all the western countries.

Regards,
KRS

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri Nara Ji,

My intention was not to be uncivil. Despite your continued protestations to the contrary, since when calling someone's writing as 'nonsense' (not making sense) and 'illogical' (not based on logic) has become being 'uncivil' and 'personalized'?

If these words invoke such a negative feelings in you, then as I said, I am sorry and I will not use them in the future. I do not apologize for using them, because they are part of the language that most people do not view as belonging to some vituperative language as you seem to think.

I do not want to again get in to the nitty gritty details of this saga - it is a waste of time and tiring.

Now if you want to go ahead with our discourse (again you said that you did not say that Bush Administration did anything legal for my response to you, but here you are outlining the extra legal / illegal arguments about 'wireless tapping' and 'torture') let me briefly touch upon the two subjects:

1) Because they did not have proper tools to fight an outfit like al-queda post 9/11 and because they did not know whether a 'dirty bomb' or some such attack was in the plan, FISA was amended and what was primarily a tool to gather foreign intelligence was tranformed to collect specific foreign information that are criminal. This was part of the Patriot Act, and was overwhelmingly passed by both Congress and Senate. The constitutionality of the 'warrantless tapping' is still to be determined - but this may never be settled as this provision was sunset in 2005.

2) We need to seperate Aby Gharib and Gitmo with respect to torure. Abu Gharib's 'torture' clearly involved some rowdy elements from the US Army and the officers involved have been disciplined. Efforts to connect it as a systematic policy directive by Rumsfeld and the administration has so far been proved without merit.

Regarding Gitmo some think that 'water boarding' is torture (including Senator McCain). But to prove it so on the grounds of the Vienna Convention has sevaeral issues:

a) There is clearly a question whether the treaty covers the POWs of the opposite nation's army - al-qaeda and the taliban are not recognized as armies belonging to a legal entity of a country - they are to be thought of as private militia, which the treaty does not cover.

b) Whether 'water boarding' constitutes 'torture'. UN standards do not recognize this as torture. Given the lives it probably saved and given that this was administered to three top level folks of al-qaeda under medical supervision, this will prove to be not illegal. If Obama does not want to use it, then okay. I think any effort to term it as an 'illegal' act, I think will fail.

Regards,
KRS

Dear Shri KRS:

Greetings!

I did not want to get into I said/You said situation. But you keep insisting on it.

Ok, here we go,




If you think I made illogical statements and you want to call them out in a civil way, you ask me to substantiate my view. But if you use words like "spewing", "total nonsense", and crass put downs like, "Wait, I forgot - it is probably be a communist/socialist set up.", these are not civil "calling me out". In my books it is uncivil when you denigrate or mock the person you disagree with instead of denigrating or mocking the idea being expressed. See the top of my post #79 where I have listed your uncalled for remarks which you conveniently ignored.



Because of my first sentence? Let us see what my first sentence was,

"In any other democracy Bush would have been thrown out of office long before he had a chance to wreck so many things for so many people."
​

And then you put words into my mouth,



I did not say, "McCain's non support of Bush", this does not even make any sense to me. McCain was the one running, why would he support or not support Bush. The point I was making is McCain not wanting to be seen with Bush, nothing about who supports whom. What I said was,

"Even the Republican presidential candidate McCain did not want to be seen anywhere near Bush during last year's campaign."
​

This means what it says, McCain did not want to be seen with Bush. Why? Because he was so unpopular which is what my first sentence means, i.e. in any other democracy he would have been thrown out due to his unpopularity. To get what you got, one has to take a big leap.



No, it does not. Please see my step-by-step illustration above.




Sigh! Ok, let me answer your charge, against my better judgment.



There are two main areas where many constitutional scholars think Bush administration violated the law. They are (i) NSA warrantless wiretapping, and (ii) international treaty obligations against torture.

ACLU filed a court cases against the NSA's use of warrantless wiretapping and won. Here is what Judge Anna Diggs Taylor of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan wrote:

The President of the United States, a creature of the same Constitution which gave us these Amendments, has indisputably violated the Fourth Amendment in failing to procure judicial orders as required by FISA, and accordingly has violated the First Amendment Rights of these Plaintiffs as well.
​

In the case of torture, it was Ronald Reagan who signed and the senate ratified (for ratifying treaties a super-super majority of 3/4 of the senators is required), the UN Convention Against Torture. This treaty declares that no state of emergency, other external threats, nor orders from a superior officer or authority may be invoked to justify torture. Even many Bush administration officials including military officials agree that what took place in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and other CIA black sites was torture. Here is a small quote from an article that appeared in Washington Post by Bob Woodward:

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February 2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.
​

Shri KRS, I submit to you, this is why I think President Bush and his administration did not care for the courts. I answered your challenge. I will continue this discussion only if the discourse is civil.

Cheers!

 

[KRS]

Dear Silverfox Ji,

As the saying goes, if you own a bank thousand $s, the bank owns you, but if you owe them million $s, you own the banks.

I think the Americans own the Chinese. Chinese have no options - if they pull out of the treasuries, then their currency will further lose real value (even though it is kept artificially low) and they will lose quite a bit. Because Rimambi is a controlled currency, if they try to float it, they will again lose. This is why they can not just withdraw all of a sudden and put it in, let us say, Euros.

I have been to China several times. Beijing, Shanghai and some other big cities glitter. But they hide all the poverty in the country side. And as a country they seem to have some inferiority complex - especially towards USA and Japan.

I also think that they are not properly channeling their investments. The political structure there seems to allocate funds for development on the basis of the 'old boy/old girl' netwrrok and patronage.

Regards,
KRS

Dear KRS:
Do you really think we could do that? Pulling the rug out from Chinese feet? The Chinese are holding 1.2 trillion of our IOUs (Govt. Treasuries). What if they wanted to cash in?
Personally, I am sick of this Chinese pervasive influence; you go to a store and pick up anything - everything is made in China.
I even wrote to The Washington Post supporting a tariff on Chinese tires.

[Quote: KRS: Believe me, China is no competition to USA. In fact if USA wants it tomorrow, they can very easily pull the rugs out from under the Chinese feet]