This is a W2P Special Report:  Free Speech is to be viable at all times, even when the twisted words of hatred (and politics) that are being stated are not pleasant to behold.  But that is not to say that we have to continue to tune in and listen to the Talking Rhetoric-Spewing Heads that infuse their viewers/listeners with spouts of extremist right wing anti-government madness.

But wait, that sounds awfully one-sided.  The reason for this folks is because we're talking about a one-sided argument.  The most extremist left wing liberal does not go on to belch displays of fear/hate/war mongering shock jocking as does the Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and Bill O'Reilly types.  These loud-mouths spout insane ramblings, which are at times intertwined with confusing twists on half-truths, in order to shock and stir up more and more anger in their listeners to the point of overriding the rational portions of their (potentially already irrational) viewers/listeners' brains.  Look up shock jocking and the psychology behind it.  These madmen and madwomen are focusing hatred to make money off of their public and to warp these people to their narrow minded political views/agendas; the kicker here is that they constantly complain/attack the US system that allows for politics to play out politically and not violently, because they say it does not work (it worked for 8 years when Bush and the boys ran things). 

The shock jocks do not incite violence, in most cases, directly.  However, they work hard to undermine everything that is not 100% in agreement with their extremist views, and they leave the infuriated listeners to put together their own plans of violence to help a "broken" political system that cannot be fought against peacefully. 

After the shooting of Giffords in Arizona, I have felt the need to speak out.  It was not the words of the extremists, such as Beck, that caused a madman to shoot and kill innocent people at a political meeting; it was the work of a nut, plain and simple.  But that nut clearly lived in an insane world where many other nuts are spouting such rhetoric of hate/violence that it is no wonder that the man used violence.  There could have been a disgruntled nut job who sat in on the meeting naked, or went there with thousands of "No Health Care Plan" balloons to peacefully make a stink at a friendly meeting held by Giffords. 

But we live in a world, according to the extremist Beck-types, where "nothing is fixable" when the right wing people are out of office; when there is no solution and you've convinced members of the public of this, what more can they do?  Will they act out violently in frustration?  Has their been any disgruntled nut jobs that have turned to violence lately?

Peaceful protests did not happen.  We live in a televised world where the extremist nuts are the ones with millions of fans and followers, like Beck and Palin.  They have the right to free speech, just as I do.  So I suggest that we collectively shun the Evil Rhetoric and the Ones who speak/write such extremist hate-stirring words.

By R.J. Huneke

China was one of the few countries to recognize that Keynesianism had a clear, and frankly correct, answer on how to counter a recession driven by a lack of demand.

There is, though, a ticking time bomb deep within the current Chinese system. While they have liberalized economically, they have yet to give any real power to the people politically.

Living with Rivals

            The United States has never really known a capable rival. It is true that when the US was first created she had to carefully and diplomatically deal with the European powers who were easily more powerful. However, with the Europeans concerned with their own struggle within Europe, and the self-evident fact of the rising power of the US in the 19th century, it would not have been wise for any power to take on the US after a certain point. Granted a European power did try and go to war with the United States, namely the British in the war of 1812, they were not successful in their endeavor and the US only grew stronger relative to the Europeans. Not to forget the fact that relations with Britain quickly warmed with the Monroe Doctrine and the British support for it, now the US had a powerful ally it could rely on.

           Fast forwarding to the Cold War, it may not have been obvious at the time but Communism as an economic ideology was bound to fail.  The Soviet Union produced a quick economic miracle through forced industrialization, but a system with no incentive for hard work can hardly expect to last long in historical terms. On the other hand, the Chinese system, in the short term, presents no such inherent flaws. Politically it is as Communist as before, what with the strict hierarchy. However the Chinese have managed to make the system surprisingly meritocratic, and have thus produced competent leaders. China was one of the few countries to recognize that Keynesianism had a clear, and frankly correct, answer on how to counter a recession driven by a lack of demand. It is no surprise, then, that they have come out of the recession with economic engines roaring while countries like the United States, who only committed to timid stimulus plans, face years of a slow and painful recovery. Increasingly the Chinese have used this power to pursue their own national interests. Sometimes this is legitimate, like wanting a greater say in the World Bank. Other times they have unsettlingly display of immaturity, like the fight with Japan, and frankly the rest of Asia, over resources in the Chinese Sea that clearly belong to another country. Not to mention friction with the United States over human rights abuses that are inherent in an authoritarian state.

There is, though, a ticking time bomb deep within the current Chinese system. While they have liberalized economically, they have yet to give any real power to the people politically. People are still brutally suppressed, and Liu Xiaobo, creator of the ’08 charter calling for politically liberalization in China and recent winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, is still in jail for demanding what we in the West view as basic human rights. Despite ongoing unrest, the Chinese population at large seems to be ok with the current system. We know from the history of popular revolts against a dynasty when it loses the “mandate of heaven,” that the Chinese people are perfectly capable of overthrowing unjust rulers.

So why did the Chinese people stop after the Tiananmen massacre, rather than continue? The answer lies in China’s astounding and sustained economic growth. Since the Tiananmen massacre, the Chinese government essentially made a deal with its people. Its people would stay out of politics as long as the Chinese economy grew at a rapid rate. To verify this we should see a large and sustained growth rate since 1989. The data is close enough; the growth rate in China has been at least 7% since 1991, and was usually over 9%. This type of growth rate for such a long period of time is the envy of the world, and rightly so. However, even if China sustains this growth for another 30 years, it will reach a limit quickly thereafter. That type of growth reflects how China is still an undeveloped country, and draws its economic strength from sheer numbers. Once China becomes a developed country, its growth rates will drop down from astronomical numbers.

Another question is how low can the growth rate goes until unrest builds up to an unacceptable level? So far it seems like China is already near that level. The potential currency wars have dominated the financial news recently. The cause of the conflict is that China keeps its currency artificially low, causing its products to be cheaper and thus increasing its exports. As of now that means that, for the United States, that its import-export imbalance is artificially high, creating a drag on growth. However, the Chinese refuse to let their currency naturally appreciate while accusing the US of damaging their economy because of the Federal Reserves low interest rates. This implies that China fears that if it does allow its currency to appreciate, its exports will shrink to such a degree as to promote unrest. The current system is unsustainable, as the imbalance is a widely cited cause of the Great Recession –David Frum has a great article on CNN explaining why (CNN.com) - and so it is either another crisis for the whole world, or just China. As you might imagine that doesn’t bode well for anyone.

            The final question is, assuming there is a successful popular revolt for Democracy in China, would democracy change anything? I mean, in terms of the Chinese people’s civil rights of course it would, but in terms of possible hostility towards the US, would it defuse the inevitable rising power against current power hostility? The only example of a rising Democracy replacing a current Democracy on the world stage as the most powerful country is the US’s rise in the 19th century replacing Great Britain. However, the two countries were and are very close culturally, and the US in the 19th century didn’t particularly care about world affairs outside the Western Hemisphere. So the answer is that we don’t know and we can’t know. Democracies, so far, are far less prone to declaring war on each other. So perhaps it will lessen tensions, considering issues like human rights won’t be an issue. However, a rising power replacing a current power is still a rising power replacing a current power. In the end that power dynamic may be too fundamental to change. Lets hope the US and China can live with each other as rivals, or else the future will be very unpleasant.

Written by Aaron Meltzer


(http://www.chinability.com/GDP.htm cite).

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/28/economy-protests-worry-beijing/(cite).