St. Petersburg, Russia - China and Russia have decided to renounce the US dollar and resort to using their own currencies for bilateral trade, Premier Wen Jiabao and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin announced late on Tuesday.
Chinese experts said the move reflected closer relations between Beijing and Moscow and is not aimed at challenging the dollar, but to protect their domestic economies.
"About trade settlement, we have decided to use our own currencies," Putin said at a joint news conference with Wen in St. Petersburg.
The two countries were accustomed to using other currencies, especially the dollar, for bilateral trade. Since the financial crisis, however, high-ranking officials on both sides began to explore other possibilities.
The yuan has now started trading against the Russian rouble in the Chinese interbank market, while the renminbi will soon be allowed to trade against the rouble in Russia, Putin said.
"That has forged an important step in bilateral trade and it is a result of the consolidated financial systems of world countries," he said.
Putin made his remarks after a meeting with Wen. They also officiated at a signing ceremony for 12 documents, including energy cooperation.
The documents covered cooperation on aviation, railroad construction, customs, protecting intellectual property, culture and a joint communiqu. Details of the documents have yet to be released.
The monetary groundwork for the 21st century is being forged without us. We allowed corruption to rot our financial system, and when it collapsed like the house of cards it was, we responded by throwing bucketfuls of greenbacks and even more corruption at the problem. Wall Street is wallowing in the nation's treasure, corporate profits are hitting all-time (artificial) highs, our infrastructure is crumbling beneath our feet, and working (or WANT to be working) Americans are boiling over with anger.
I don't blame Russia and China one bit. We're incompetent money-managers, and our free enterprise system...isn't. Our government is oppressive and operating far beyond its constitutional mandate, our political discourse is infantile, and our elected representatives are pigs at the trough.
The sons-of-bitches in Washington must be deaf, because they obviously didn't hear us this past election. Reid will ram through the DREAM act, which means that while many American sons and daughters can't afford to attend college, their parents will be paying for illegals to do just that. Card-check? It's coming at us like a freight train, a political payback to greasy union bosses. An energy bill full of loony left-wing gobbledegook? Yep. Add the START treaty give-away, a ton of new spending bills, and a cute umbrella swizzle-stick, and we have the perfect recipe for a crap-on-the-rocks cocktail.
ReplyDeleteI'll bet you guys are wondering how I REALLY feel...
ReplyDelete:D
Ambiguity, thy name is Lady Red.
ReplyDeleteBut, LEt me try to be optimistic here.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I somehow think that Russia and China would have been happy to get away from the US dollar no matter what is was doing.
Second, even if Reid does get the DREAM act passed -- won't it have to be funded? And the budget comes from which house? And don't forget how much trouble the dems had getting Obama care through -- and they had almost unstoppable majorities in both houses. Sure many dems are lame ducks -- but do they really want to risk being tarred and feathered when they get home?
If DREAM, or anything else, pass, we can look forward to legislation to undo them and to court challenges. Also, the clock is running out. The Republicans really don't have to delay things by much in order to block them.
In other words, it may be rough for a little while, but I think there is reason for hope. The dark storm is starting to pass.
And no, I did not get any happy pills.
You been nippin' at the single malt? :))
ReplyDeleteI hope you're right, Matt.
I hope Matt is right too, I feel depressed after reading the article.
ReplyDeleteHow ironic that the Chicoms and Russians want to ensure protection of THEIR intellectual properties.
Lady Red, what-hic- makes you ask that? ;-)
ReplyDeleteI am hoping that there are many more people who are disgusted by what is going on than the left ever had an idea about. The first thing conservatives need to do is send Rinos to retirement homes. If Republicans in Washington just did what they should have done all along, this mess could have been avoided. But, since conservatives tend to know history, we will use this a a rallying cry for centuries to come.
Let's also keep this in mind: Putin (in a shirt) just praised Leo DiCaprio for his manliness.
ReplyDeleteI think the shirt they put him in cast some kind of funky brain disruption waves or something.
Anyway, that doesn't give me a whole lot of confidence in any decisions made by Russia, either.
AFW....hey, maybe Putin is lookin' for a date?
ReplyDeleteRadioMattM said: "The first thing conservatives need to do is send Rinos to retirement homes."
ReplyDeleteWrong. The first thing is to convert them to a more conservative position.
The "message" of the election was heard by the existing RINO's, and even Murkowski will caucus with Republicans after she demolished a rival Republican in significant fashion... as a write in candidate as testimony to how out of touch a certain ex-governor really is in Alaska politics.
This toss out the baby with the bathwater approach is why liberal Dems still have a majority in the Senate. Think Delaware as a good example....defeat a 6 term Republican in the Senate primary in favor of a perpetually failed candidate that no one seriously believed in anyway. Make a certain Republican win in to a certain Democratic win. That's what we used to call cutting of the nose to spite the face.
I am serious here, not just being a smart ass. This attitude of superiority in conservatism & enforced "purity" will not win long term because it is the same arrogance disease the liberals have in their ranks.
What is easier to do, modify a RINO's positions or just continue fighting liberals by losing certain elections?
Please do not take us back to the do nothing days of Goldwater vs Rockefeller and assured defeats all round.
Ari - AAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteI am going to admit that I have a problem with what now pass as "true" conservatives. I hatehatehatehate the morality police, and it seems like so many of those who identify themselves as so-called "staunch conservatives" hold views in that area I find absolutely repugnant.
I often agree on fiscal policies, but when the shouting starts about Gay Marriage (and it ALWAYS seems to on both sides), I want to whack someone with a lead pipe.
I like Bobbie Jindal's view that Congress should be a part time profession, personally.
I'm with you, afw. Fiscal conservative and fairly liberal on many social issues (certainly not all, however); I think those decisions should be left to individual states. The argument that all 50 states need to have uniformity holds no water, IMO.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with switching Rinos to a conservative position is that they will return to being Rinos as soon as they stop being invited to the right cocktail parties in Washington. The idea is to elect conservative to begin with. Rudy Giuliani is more liberal on some things than I am. However, I believe his overall conservative moves will help clean up many of the problems that challenge us. When Republicans loose control of Congress, it is the Rinos that loose it – not the conservatives.
ReplyDeleteI am not the most liberal person on social issues, but I am not the most conservative, either. I believe morals are lessons learned from human experience. Today's "loose standards" with regard to sex has resulted in 12 years olds being sexually active. Is this a good idea? No. There is a great deal of baggage that comes with such activity. The problem with many progressives is that they refuse to recognize the downside of such "freedom." This is similar to why the TSA sexually assaults passengers of all flavors rather than concentrate on those who match the profile of those wanting to blow up airplanes.
I have no logical argument against gay marriage. However, I do remember years ago when the gay rights movement said, “Hey, it’s not like we are trying to get married or anything like that.” Now gay marriage is something the movement is fighting for. So I should believe them why? When Matthew Shepherd died, the gay movement said it was a result of a homophobic American society. When, at about the same time, two gay men kidnapped, raped, and murdered a 12 boy, the gay rights movement said, “Oh, it has nothing to do with the men being gay – they are just evil people.” Perhaps a certain amount of consistency would help. As it is, I feel like they are trying to play me for a sucker and arre really thinking, “We’ll get you to go along with this – then just wait to see what we hit you with.”
I think most conservative people have a “live and let live” outlook on things. But when they are forced to have social behaviors that conservatives find abhorrent rubbed in their faces, and they not only have to pay for the costs of supporting the behavior, but for the consequences as well – all why being told they have no right to say anything – I can understand why they are upset.
Very eloquent, Matt, you make so many good points.
ReplyDeleteI agree - Matt makes a bunch of good points. I'm not in favor of ending the culture war - it will go on, it probably should. Prudish authoritarianism is a real phenomenon, and should be fought. So to degeneracy.
ReplyDeleteWhat I object to is the attempt to capture the Federal Government in the service of any particular morality. Decency is a function of society, not the State. If it relies (excessively) on the State, it isn't real.
IMHO "True Conservatives" who have as their agenda the enshrinement of morality as Federal Law - meh. We can do without you at this juncture.
As for the other side of that coin - I personally view gay - oh screw it. I don't even care what I think any more. It doesn't matter. Not even Obama is pushing it. If it happens, it's not a threat, and it will be about another generation before it does, anyway.
So if someone screams "RINO" because a candidate doesn't want to categorically outlaw abortion on all levels - pffft. Yes, Roe V. Wade was probably wrongly decided. I think in time some states will enforce more restrictions on abortion.
But the big battle is dismantling large overgrown parts of the government, not deciding what else it should regulate.
The Nation is now on a rant against Libertarians. Awesome. It's sometimes helpful to rely on your enemies to let you know what they find the most threatening. Ed Meese style crusaders aren't worrying the professional lefty crew right now.
By "The Nation" I meant the lefty magazine, not, you know, the nation...
ReplyDeleteAnd here's where I'll disagree with Ari - the problem with RINOs is not that they aren't "pure", it's that they are part of the established political class - the "ruling class". As such they're part of the problem along with "moderate Democrats" (like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank).
ReplyDeleteThis class is pretty on the same page as far as government - more is better; they just argue around the edges about what it should do, who it should hire and how it should be paid for (tax/borrow/print).
This class - and the media and academic elites which support them - are killing us. They've failed. They would resign en mass if they had any decency, which they obviously don't.
Typically, they blame others. Often, they blame us, the people. Unfuckingbelievable.
For that brand of RINO, screw them. No quarter. Scorched earth.
Dismantling and cost reducing the apparatus of government will require the sacrifice of many sacred cows. "Experienced leaders" (Washington insiders) who argue for "patience and reason" cannot be trusted to do what is necessary.
I've come around a bit on this issue from two years ago. I defended TARP in November of 2008. I understood the first trillion or so of QE. What is going on now with QE2 is mass financial rape and it is obscene. Not just here - what the elites in Europe are doing to Ireland - also rape, also obscene.
I will not be reasonable.
Okay RadioMattM & Lewy14, here's my first questions:
ReplyDelete1. Can you define "RINO" explicitly and in detail.
2. Exactly how many Republicans are "moderates", and who are they, as you suggest Dems Barney Frank and Chris Dodd are "moderates?" (Huh?)
3. Which parts of government are over-grown. Be specific, but be careful, this IS a trick question.
Hint: the largest percentage increase in federal employment over the past decade (nearly 10:1) are NOT in Civil Service (GS) ranks, but Senior Executive Service (SES) ranks. The SES are all appointed positions....at will positions tied to pleasing the appointer. The impact of this "growth" is re-organization of agencies with a focus on centralization and higher GS grades for the central office ... who, generally DO NOTHING but design more non-sense process. It also gives rise to new agency creation (think Consumer Financial Protection one now being established as a shadow element of Treasury meaning no Senate confirmation of leadership, nor oversight of budget that is tagged as an arbitrary part of Treasury's.
I will fill my kick back time today responding to the responding to the rest of your positions, in detail, as well as AFW's,...why? Because I think it is a conversation worth having about now .... getting some clarity and definition is never bad, and the non-specific "conveninet" terminology is hurtful more than you/we realize.
I recall vividly the absurd gulf between Goldwater Republicans and Rockefeller Republicans in 1964 ... and it is what made me a Democrat and vote for Johnson in my first election ever. The Republicans were determined to lose that election and they did so. I remained a Democrat 2000, when I began disenchantment due to Gore, the final horror due to Kerry ... where upon I requested I be dropped from rolls in writing. My request was blint and direct in my finest vulgar fashion I assure you. I get no more Dem literature what-so-ever.
If you lose elections (frequently is worse) then it really doesn't matter what "kind" of Republican is running ... do the math, percentages of 25 to 30% will never defeat a plurality of 40%. (Think Murkowski and victory despite all odds) Hello? Ding! Ding!
It's even worse if one of the divided party halves is bat-sh*t crazy and the more "moderate" side doesn't run independently...they you get land slides like Johnson's 61% majority versus Goldwater's 39%. A divided party is almost always destined to lose. Loser's don't change anything, they just lose.
The issue is to realign the party's focus, if you wish to win long term.
Ari, the discussion is welcome - here's some answers.
ReplyDelete1) RINO has at least two definitions that I can think of: a) as code for someone who is insufficiently zealous in their social conservatism, and b) as code for someone who is insufficiently zealous in their enthusiasm for limited, constitutional government.
I could care less about "a", I care greatly about "b". I'd note that in certain polls over at Hot Air, my view is apparently widely shared.
2) How many Republicans are "moderates"? I can' give you a count, but I'm not sure what the tall women from Maine have done of the cause of limited government. As for Frank and Dodd, yes, they're moderates. And they feed and protect vast chunks of the financial industrial complex, even as they throw them into the "briar patch" of regulation.
3) I lack the first hand knowledge which you possess Ari, and your info on the SES people is very informative - thanks. And it gets to the heart of the case against Big Government: it's not the money spent on these people (ok well, it is, because we can't afford it any more) but the regulatory nightmare they create.
The exponential expansion of federal felonies, regulations, guidelines, and crap make half of us criminals without realizing it. Big corporations with lobbying dollars "cooperate" with regulators by writing those damned regulations, and so give themselves a one up, creating a situation where smaller businesses are disadvantaged. Fifteen years ago startups would aim at IPOs. Now venture guys look at building up companies to sell to Google and Microsoft. I know this from personal experience. Why is it? In part because nobody wants to go through the process of SarbOx accounting.
Limited Government takes the stance that you can't pass legislation just because "there oughta be a law". The commerce clause has been so abused... the word "bukake" comes to mind. Yeah, it's that disgusting. Limited government isn't about "libertarian" candidates - smug douchebags campaigning with strippers - and it's not about letting corporations run amok in the name of the "free market" (which isn't).
Limited government is about realizing that culture wars need to be fought by the culture, and not the government, and that the best way to reign in the power of big corporations is through the simplification of the regulatory process so that BigCo can't use federal complexity as a moat to drown his competition in.
We both know someone even more familiar with a certain government department. Maybe he'll share.
Limited Government will mean less power for the government and its entourage. If you run on that platform and are perceived as sincere you will be labeled "bat-shit crazy" - early and often. I'm kinda numb to those charges.
The institutions which propagate the "moderates" (i.e. the people who, year after year in their political career, preside over the expanding cloud of federal miasma - in either direction) are the parties themselves. The Rs and the Ds. Augean stables, Herculean clean out. Might lose a few elections in the process - but so what?
If at the end of that process the Republican party is firmly in the hands of people who want and believe in limited government, we won. And hopefully the progressive net root types will do the same and get rid of people like Frank, and elect a bunch of fresh faced, innocent, eager young social justice types.
And we can have it out.
Ari and lewy - I suspect we all agree more than we disagree.
ReplyDeleteI don't see RINO as a dirty word, because I see it precisely as definition (a) as posted by lewy, lack of socially conservative bona fides. While I agree that there is a culture war going on, and I completely share your view of that, Matt; I also think that social pressure creates far more of an effective deterrence than laws ever can or will.
"There oughta be a law," has been so abused in the social areas that it's ridiculous. I think it is abused precisely because it's so easy to do so - "It's for the CHILDREN!" means that no one will vote against it - who wants to be against children? And really, no one is helped when these laws are instituted.
I can't find it in myself to cheer for either side, really, because I disagree vehemently with the Big Government planks in the Dem platform and I'm disgusted by the Republican's thinly veiled hypocritical embracing of the same Big Government. I'm glad the Republicans won in this election, because I hope it will stifle the Pelosi crew and slow the damage, but I can't find it in myself to be optimistic the GOP won't screw it up... because they always seem to.
But back to the limited government... I can think of two specific areas in which this is affecting my family right this second. One - we bought a house in a neighborhood that is rehabilitating and that was a foreclosure. We have been fixing it up ourselves, and with limited help from a contractor. We plan to rent it out while we live overseas, then sell when we get back (it should be paid off by then) and we can use that to upgrade to our "forever" home.
We have run into more ridiculous rules, regulations, and stupid requirements for construction than any reasonable person would have thought possible. It's ridiculous, stupid, and only serves to give the government more control, pass money to those with connections in the right places, and KEEP NEIGHBORHOOD REHABILITATION STALLED. Stupid, stupid, stupid. STUPID. Don't get me started.
Second: the educational system. We homeschool. Every year, consistently, my children test into the 90% or above on standardized testing. My eldest got a 3 on the AmHistory AP test - which would give her college credits - and she was only 14 when she did so. This pattern seems to be repeating in my younger children. And yet, even though my kids demonstrate a much stronger knowledge base than a conservative estimate of 75% of the kids in public school today - they will NOT be given credit for any of their homeschool classes or testing if they should have to transfer to regular school for some reason. WHY? Humiliation?
There's no reason for the public school system to refuse to allow kids to test out of grades and programs. Well, except for the monopoly they refuse to give up on education.
Once again, I could go on and on and on, but it would be ridiculous for me to do so.
And while I do see Republicans standing up for some of these issues that affect me right now this instant, they're pretty wishy washy about the fact that my rights have been and are being violated every single day that we have to worry about a housing inspector or a truancy officer showing up at my door.
I haven't even mentioned TSA's sexual assaults, but I'll get there. I promise.
Fascinating discussion guys - it really is.
*pops head out of foxhole*
ReplyDeleteThank you for the thoughtful back and forth, everybody. I find it really helps me galvanize what I think and why (though I may never chime in) and think about things from an aspect I might not have considered.
These are the kinds of discussions that OUGHT to be occurring in the public area.
Very interesting conversation, everyone. There are many good points here.
ReplyDeleteWhen I don't have a granddaughter tugging at my sleeve, I'll jump in (probably won't be until tomorrow night). Thank you all for your thoughtfulness and your civility. :X
I think Lewy answered Ari questions about the same as I would have. I know Lewy and I have disagreements, but I think we are both pretty much on the same page.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, I think we are all on the same page: We do not want to see one flavor of intrusive government replaced with another. While I find it disgusting that American would burn the flag, that -- to me -- is the epitome of free speech. I am totally against a Constitutional amendment to ban it. In fact, I do not think that the US Constitution is a place to prohibit the people from doing anything (except for the obvious statements of qualifications for holding office).
We want government out of the way.
We want government out of the way.
ReplyDeleteAmen and ^5!
Yes, interesting conversation for sure.
ReplyDeleteThe thing that strikes me most nowadays is a lack of faith in our fellow man. An honest man/woman anyway, no matter party. Not speaking of TCKT, but of the general populist cynicism that is almost a given today. Well, another cavet... at least of those whose lives don't depend on government largess.
I believe it was WF Buckley who said give me the first hundred names from the Boston phone book as leaders... and I paraphrase of course, they couldn't possibly be a damn bit worse than the present crowd. I agree with that sentiment.
I'm quite sure that I would trust anyone here at TCKT to perform at least as well, if not a damn sight better, than most members of any of the three branches today. I'm not kissing ass.
It is not fucking rocket science. It is not an Eastern college pedigree, it is not genes. It is carrying out the mission, and the mission of those sworn to office is quite simple, protect and defend the Constitution against foreign and domestic enemies. Again, I paraphrase and simplify.
Elsewhere someone said that the left wants to regulate everything, every single thing. I made the observation that there are at least three things the left has no interest in regulating.
Sex, Drugs, and Rock'n and Roll. Think about it.
Though it wasn't until later that I realized I left off another item the left cares not to regulate... Voting.
I don't know what the fuck is going to happen. I'm pretty sure no one does. But I'm also sure that such sparks of honesty as seen in the link I'll leave are a part of it. My motto has always been, be honest, be fair, and communicate, communicate, communicate. HFC. Not to sound like an egotist but I can't help but think that that motto would serve well many who stand for election and wish to serve this country.
Here's Nigel Farage speaking to the EU Parliament. A statement which encompasses my bit about honesty. Though in this case with futility.
Alison posted that Nigel Farage link on FB yesterday. As I commented there and do so again here, fucking brilliant.
ReplyDeleteMy son once told me that he could not see belonging to a political party that he did not agree with 100%. I tried to explain to him that he did not agree with views he previously held -- i.e.: he did not agree with himself. To require agreement with another person is an unrealistic view.
ReplyDeleteAs the old expression goes, there is more than one way to run a railroad. We need to find people with whom we fundamentally agree and that we can trust and work with such people.
That video of Nigel Farage will have you cheering. His words may have been futile in the forum in which he spoke, but they will be inspiring in the long run. Who cares if he got a luke-warm reception by the EU Parliament? His words will get a warm reception from those to whom he must really answer: his constituents.