Posted on 09/04/2004 6:31:47 PM PDT by Maigret
Barnett is a Democrat who supports Bush.
Thanks for the post.
The guy is superficial and really not very bright. I listened to him on C-SPAN's Booknotes, and found Barnett totally underwhelming.
Thanks for the heads up, Inspector.
I read an article in Esquire on the "map". One thing that strikes me is that it doesn't take into account the effect of "reverse colonization" (Third Worlders immigrating to the "Functional Core").
I read an article in Esquire on the "map". One thing that strikes me is that it doesn't take into account the effect of "reverse colonization" (Third Worlders immigrating to the "Functional Core").
Anyway, this is the website he has showing on his last slide, during questions: http://www.nwc.navy.mil/newrulesets/.
Just got done viewing this. His point about reverse colonialization is that it is a good thing, it will provide labor to the core nations as we depopulate ourselves. He said the patriot act was bad because it encourages our potential immigrants to go elsewhere. Then later he said we need to firewall our homeland (I believe). Frankly, these two sound self contradictory.
He did cite good statistics and takes into account many resources (labor, information, oil, etc.) Need to read the book for better analysis.
yeah. I watched it and it was interesting.
Made me think...especially about globalization, which is rarely discussed on the media...
On his blog he says that he's going to vote for Kerry.
...I was watching that...another great book to buy. :))
Did you see that CSAPN is cancelling Booknotes? The head of CSPAN said it was like crammming for an exam to produce every show.
..if thats' the case, "the Public Library". :))
WHY?...Its' one of the few good events on C-SPAN between federal/state election cycles. :|
Well when I saw him on Booknotes he said he was supporting Bush, his ACLU card carrying wife must have changed his mind.
Thanks, for the head-up & link. It'll be missed. :\
I doubt that. Although he admits Kerry comes across as indecisive, he believes the Democrats would be better able to manage the world. In terms of convincing New Core countries, like India, China, and Brazil, to help the occupation of Iraq, and for the Systems Administration aspects of the post-war phase, he is probably correct and is being consistent with his theories, as the internationally distrusted Bush administration is going to be hard-pressed to do so.
I agree with a lot of what Barnett says and it is an elegant model. But it does end up in calling for more wars in third world countries, in a sort of soft imperialism designed to correct failed states. But I have a hard time with the ethics of killing innocent people just to turn a state around, especially, according to him, if globalization and peace is going to happen anyway.
He seems to relish the prospect of sudden shocks and jolts to a system as a means of bringing about healthy changes to a society. This is a very dangerous game as the French Revolution, communism, fascism, and the Iranian Revolution indicate (and very likely the Iraq war, we shall see). In this regard, Barnett is no conservative and fits right in with the neoconservatives and their Trotskyist idea of a permanent revolution spread through violence. He doesn't seem to appreciate that that cultural changes, in order to be successful and to avoid dangerous and totalitarian errors, must be gradual.
One thing that I really like that he says is that globalization has rules, not a ruler. That is true and following those rules and being members of the club, like the G-20, which includes New Core with Old Core, is likely to be more effective than the UN.
His model is pretty elegant but has some internal contradictions. I prefer that of the libertarian economist and investor Richard Maybury, who has a model based on something called "Chaostan", which comes down to much of the same thing as Barnett but greatly simplified. You can check his website at www.chaostan.com or www.richardmaybury.com.
Sad news. It is about the only program on TV that I try to regularly watch. And yes Brian Lamb was totally prepared for each author, and had read each book closely, so it must have been a lot of work.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.