Only Nevada GOP Congressional candidate Mark Amodei can stop the impending Chinese invasion. It's true!

By Richard K. Barry

Who is Mark Amodei and how did he develop such an interesting sense of humour? Well, Mr. Amodei is running for the Republican nomination to fill a vacant congressional seat that became available when Representative Dean Heller filled John Ensign's Senate seat when Ensign resigned due to a sex scandal. On the other point, I don't know where Amodei gets his sense of humour.

Running in a way intended to get the attention of those swayed by Tea Party ideas, Amodei has put together a most entertaining television ad, which links raising the federal debt ceiling to a future takeover of a debt-ridden America by the Chinese. The best part is when the Red Army marches past the U.S. Capitol. No kidding, the freakin' Red Army!

Even The Daily Caller, the hyper right-wing website, seems a little taken aback by this one. Though, in a bizarre headline for the story, they did call the ad: "light-hearted fear-mongering." Let that one rattle around in your head for a while.

Anyway, here's a snippet of an interview with the candidate:

Amodei: The message is, the fiscal situation now is dire, and if you don't change the course, it will go from dire to catastrophic.

The Daily Caller: Does the catastrophic include an Army marching over the Capitol?

Amodei: Let's put it this way: If we start selling it to the French, you could substitute the French, you could substitute anybody you want. The fact of the matter is right now, this is where the ton of debt is being placed. There is no racial tone to it, it's simply factual.

I don't know. I really can't see this ad working with the French army marching in front of the Capitol. It would be marginally funnier. Then again, I can't see this ad working at all. But thanks for the giggle.

Here it is:

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)

Photo of the Day: Exploding Chinese watermelons

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The Guardian:

The flying pips, shattered shells and wet shrapnel still haunt farmer Liu Mingsuo after an effort to chemically boost his fruit crop went spectacularly wrong.

Um, yeah.

Bob Dylan in China - same as he ever was

By Richard K. Barry 

Bob Dylan just released a reply of sorts to those who considered his concert in China last April as not in keeping with whatever mythologized idea they have of him.

This is actually pretty funny for those who have followed Dylan's career with even passing attention. On a date now etched in popular music history, July 25, 1965, Bob Dylan performed with a rock band at the Newport Folk Festival. The folk music establishment (interesting oxymoron that) criticized him for turning his back on political song writing. There are varying interpretations as to what really happened. Did he get booed by the audience, were there sharp words back stage? Whatever happened, it was clear that for some, Bob Dylan would forever have to meet their expectations or suffer the consequences, and their expectation were that he would forever be a protest song singer.

Rather famously, Dylan has always run screaming in the other direction from other peoples' expectations of what he is supposed to say and be and represent, which, to my mind, is a pretty radical message to send the world.

So, Maureen Dowd at The New York Times thought that Dylan should have gone to China, maybe sang "Blowin' in the Wind," and "The Times They Are a-Changin'."Then he should have made a political speech about China's woeful record on human rights. In other words, he should have been the Dylan we think we remember but who, if he ever existed, hasn't for a long time.

Apparently Dylan was asked to supply a set list to the Chinese authorities and did so, but he also claims that nothing in his performance changed as a result. I guess we'll have to take his word for it. But I have seen the man in concert over the past many years and I don't find that hard to believe. His concerts are not a '60s retrospective road show. Sorry Maureen.

If Dylan was still writing the old protest stuff and performing it every day and then went to China and censored himself then fine, get all high and mighty. But that is not what happened. That is not who he is anymore and if you want to talk about freedom, freedom is getting to decide for yourself who you are.

Isn't that what the '60s was supposed to be all about?

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)

American acceptionalism

By Carl 

(Pun intended.) 

So here's President Obama, talking about America's role in the world last night:

For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and advocate for human freedom. To allow a slaughter in Benghazi would have been to "brush aside America's responsibility as a leader and... would have been a betrayal of who we are.

For ten years, we've been endlessly reminded of America's "special" place in world affairs. America is the world's biggest economy, has the world's biggest armed forces, is the policeman to the world... yet can't hunt down one skinny sick Saudi in a small region that straddles the border of two of the most desolate regions in the world.

Even the strongest have limitations.

Now, none of this is to say that America shouldn't throw its weight around when necessary, and Obama alluded to this last night in the negative:

We must always measure our interests against the need for action.

Again, fair enough. When our interests are at stake, we ought to be prepared to take measures to protect ourselves.

But what threat does Qaddafi pose to us? After all, he voluntarily shut down his nuclear program (although given the level of interest the Bush administration had in him, and their effectiveness in addressing terrorism, one has to wonder if indeed this ever happened) and cozied up to the previous administration. No one has claimed that he has had aspirations against us, and if anything, he's presented a face of reconciliation for Africa, offering his aid to the situations in Somalia, Darfur, and Zimbabwe.

Again, there's no judging his sincerity on these, either.

The slaughter in Benghazi is certainly a legitimate concern of Obama's, and the world's, and it was nice that Obama put on the veneer of legitimacy by asking for the U.N.'s blessings on this mission, and did so without sending his secretary of state in to do a snake-oil presentation complete with vials of white powder. Too, Qaddafi suffers from his own world image, one that seemingly did not endear him to any of the Security Council who could have vetoed the action (China and Russia abstained).

Of particular interest to me, however, was the curious lack of invitation to powers-to-be to assist in patrolling the world now. Nations like China, Brazil, and India, with their steaming-hot economies and massive expansion of trade and influence, are living off our military dime. It's about time they started ponying up. China has a strongly vested interest in North and Central Africa. Brazil certainly by dint of its location will look to Africa as a trade partner, and India with its billions of people must have some eye on Africa and its enormous resources and access to Europe and the Americas.

So the question I want to ask Mr. Obama is, Why not China? Why not India? Why not Brazil? I accept that it had to be us in the past, but why now? Have we gotten so locked into the old Cold War thinking that, if America doesn't do it, this will not hold? That it will turn socialist/Islamist/terrorist without American intervention?

It's a new century. You're a new-age man. Surely it's time to think outside of the box.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Corruption kills -- especially in sub-Saharan Africa

Guest post by Aaron Scheinberg 

Mr. Scheinberg, a Truman National Security fellow, is a graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point and served in the Army for five years. He was an infantry and tank platoon leader in Iraq from 2005-07 and was awarded the Bronze Star for combat service in the “Triangle of Death” before becoming a Civil Affairs Officer in the Babel Province of Iraq. Upon leaving the military, he enrolled in a dual degree program at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government (MPA/ID) and Columbia Business School (MBA). He spent this past year working in international development and fighting corruption in Tanzania. This is his first guest post at The Reaction.

In a region where over 70 percent of citizens still depend on subsistence farming to survive, and where the number of people living on less than a dollar a day has increased fifty percent over the last 15 years, any barrier to growth in farming and agro-business can literally kill millions. And who is to blame for strengthening this hideous poverty trap? Certainly, some blame lies with the African governments and international donors, but one of the most corrosive agents operating in Africa today is China. President Obama must take advantage of Chinese President Hu Jintao's recent visit to the U.S. to press China on its enabling of corruption in Africa.

This past summer, as part of my internship for the Harvard Kennedy School International Development Program, I had the opportunity to work in East Africa. I joined a social for-profit company called Anza Technologies that sells low-cost, "poverty alleviating" products to rural subsistence farmers. Our business model relies on the fact that we can make our products out of recycled materials and sell them for a very low price. Every cent matters when it comes to these farmers, yet we’re constantly struggling with the high costs of distribution. The culprit – other than poor roads and railway systems – is corruption.

In fact, bribery along the supply chains in Tanzania accounts for 10-33 percent of the total cost of transportation and distribution. Along the major road from Dar-es-Salaam to Iringa, an average truck is stopped between 10 to 15 times by police and traffic cops. Foreign businesses must decide whether to "grease the wheels" and pay off these police or take a long-term outlook and refuse to engage in bribery. But of course, not only do these businesses pay the bribes, they account for bribery as a "cost of doing business" in Africa.

While American companies may not be immune to such bribery, it’s the BRIC countries, most notably China, that are most likely to engage. Transparency International's Bribe Paying Index reveals that China is one of the largest suppliers of bribery around the world (second only to Russia), particularly in Africa. With all of the rhetoric surrounding China’s desire to invest in Africa, leaders should beware of the cost that comes with such investment.

Consumers in sub-Saharan Africa also need to beware of China's so-called "investments." This summer I witnessed first-hand the huge influx of fake and sub-standard consumer products from China into the local village and city markets. Chinese businessmen trying to make a quick yuan dumped millions of dangerous consumer and electronic goods onto unknowing consumers and unregulated markets.

For some poor farmers, these products were just an inconvenience, breaking down long before they should have. For others, the goods were a real health hazard, made with harmful materials and wires that were prone to starting fires. By pushing prices so low and subsequently de-legitimizing entire industries, these businessmen squeezed honest dealers out of the market. The situation has gotten so bad that last week the Tanzanian government issued a 30-day ultimatum for Chinese businessmen to leave the Kariakoo market entirely, one of the largest markets around Dar-es-Salaam.

The culture of corruption and its acceptance by the Chinese starts at the top. It's no wonder that Chinese businesses in Africa are so comfortable with unethical actions when Hu Jintao's own son was involved in a corruption scandal in Namibia in 2009. Therefore, targeting China's leadership is essential to solving this crisis. President Obama needs to use the Chinese president’s recent visit as an opportunity to pressure China to act more responsibly around the world, particularly in Africa.

Instead of furthering the suffering of the African people, foreign businesses should team up together to form an ideological-economic union that will fight bribery. If the thousands of businesses in Africa jointly decide to refuse to pay bribes along the supply chains, pressure will mount against the police and companies engaging in bribery.

And African citizens must demand products that come from "corruption-free" companies. Any "prisoner's dilemma"-type risk in this union could be ameliorated through education in the long-term costs of corruption. The end of bribery and corruption is good for business and is good for the African people.

In his upcoming book The New Harvest: Agriculture Innovation in Africa, Harvard Kennedy School Professor Calestous Juma shows that Africa could make the transition from a hungry importer to self-sufficiency in a single generation. Africa could feed itself in our lifetime. The first step, the step we can take today, is to reduce the debilitating corruption propelled by the Chinese. It's clear that business as usual is not working. We must change our strategy now to prevent millions from starving in the future.

A breather

By Carl 

Look, with all the shitty news that's out there today... from the economy to Egypt to the woes of the New York Mets ownership... I thought I'd give you and more important, me, a break and post something truly amusing.

Apparently, a Chinese foreign ministry (former) official is claiming that extraterrestrials now live among us.

Um, yeah. You read that correctly.

And here is one of those ETs: 

Jerry Wills is an accomplished healer, explorer, and musician with the band UFAUX who recently participated in a world webcast in which Mr. Wills discussed his identity as an extraterrestrial from the Tau Ceti star system (12 light years from Earth) left here as an infant as part of a project of the Council of Worlds for the betterment of Earth.  Mr. Wills has consented to an in-depth exopolitical interview with ExopoliticsTV and Alfred Lambremont Webre.

In this 4-part video interview, Mr. Wills, who is 6 feet 8 inches tall, talks about how he was adopted by a human family, how he dealt with his unusual abilities growing up, how he was visited regularly by an extraterrestrial delegation that briefed him on his extraterrestrial identity and his mission, how during these visits he was told to watch for specific signs during the 18-year period preceding 2012 as to whether the earth and the human population would veer toward peace or war, and how these visits stopped on the day of September 11, 2001, Mr. Wills’ birthday and the date a regularly scheduled visit was of the extraterrestrial delegation to occur.

I'll let you click thru to watch the interview, but, um, it's a doozy...

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Chinese military modernization: Challenges and opportunities for the United States

Guest post by Michael S. Chase

Michael S. Chase is a Fellow with the Truman National Security Project and an Associate Research Professor at the United States Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island. The views expressed in this article are those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Naval War College, the U.S. Navy, or the U.S. Department of Defense.

(Ed. note: This is Michael's second guest post for us. His first, back in December 2009, was on President Obama's trip to China. -- MJWS)

**********

Once dismissed as a “junkyard army,” the Chinese military is now impressing outside observers—and alarming China’s neighbors—with its growing air, naval, missile, space, and information warfare capabilities. In recent years, China has deployed increasingly potent capabilities, including modern surface ships, advanced submarines, fourth-generation fighter aircraft, and conventional cruise and ballistic missiles, including an anti-ship ballistic missile designed to target U.S. aircraft carriers. China is also enhancing its command, control, communications, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance systems and its space and cyber warfare capabilities.

The internet leak of photos and videos unveiling China’s new J-20 stealth fighter and the test flight of the aircraft during Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ recent visit to China seemed intended to underscore the growing capability of China’s military. China’s eagerness to showcase the faster than expected development of the J-20—and its determination to send a message to the United States—also ensured that concerns about the implications of a more powerful Chinese military would loom large when President Hu Jintao arrived in Washington for a state visit this week.

China’s growing military capabilities, along with incidents such as Beijing’s anti-satellite test in January 2007 and its harassment of a U.S. surveillance ship in March 2009, are raising questions about whether an increasingly powerful China represents a threat to the U.S. and its allies. Fueling China’s accelerating military modernization—and the concerns of analysts who see China as an emerging competitor—is the rapid growth of their defense budget. Beijing’s increases in defense spending have enabled the People’s Liberation Army to develop more credible options for using force against Taiwan and countering U.S. military intervention. 

Beyond Taiwan, PLA modernization is increasingly tied to China’s growing role on the world stage. As China’s economic and security interests become more global, the PLA’s roles and missions are evolving to contend with an increasingly diverse set of challenges. To fulfill these expanded missions, China’s leadership has tasked their military with enhancing its capabilities to participate in military operations other than war, such as the counter-piracy patrols that China’s navy has been conducting in the Gulf of Aden. Such activities are seen as important to protecting China’s growing global interests, but senior officers stress that their military’s core mission remains deterring and winning wars.

China continues to lag behind the United States military in many respects, but its new capabilities already present serious challenges to the security balance in the Asia-Pacific region. Beijing’s advances in cyber-warfare, anti-satellite weapons, submarines, and ballistic missiles could threaten America’s regional bases, the aircraft carriers that have become symbols of U.S. presence and power projection, and the space assets and computer networks that support them.

The U.S. should counter these developments with a strategy to deter China from using force over Taiwan or in another regional dispute. Creating new operational concepts, developing cutting-edge information and electronic warfare capabilities, and strengthening the U.S. military’s existing edge in the undersea environment would ensure the credibility of such a deterrence strategy. The U.S. should also practice operating without the full range of cyber and space assets to show China that attacks against American computer networks and satellites would not cripple the U.S. military.

At the same time, attempts to strengthen deterrence must be calibrated to avoid inadvertently fueling China’s worst fears about U.S. strategic intentions. Because of China’s concern that the United States is determined to prevent its emergence as a great power through encirclement and containment, Washington should carefully weigh taking actions that could further exacerbate Chinese fears. To help prevent misunderstanding or miscalculation, the United States should continue to pursue dialogue with China on issues such as security on the Korean peninsula, space and cyber warfare, and strategic stability in the U.S.-China relationship. The United States should also seek to strengthen military cooperation with China in areas such as anti-piracy and humanitarian assistance operations. This week’s state visit presents an opportunity for Presidents Obama and Hu to lead the United States and China toward a more cooperative relationship, but mutual strategic suspicion and a complex mix of convergent and divergent interests suggest that neither side should expect the path forward to be an easy one.

They call me Mr. President

By Capt. Fogg

There's a difference between comedic impersonations and bigoted mockery; between comedy and things that make racists, bullies, mean spirited, angry people laugh. One could invoke the German Schadenfreude, yet the laughter when a clown slips on a banana peel isn't quite the same and isn't as universal as the sound that comes from the man in the white sheet laughing at the humiliation of another man.

I've seen enough bullies in my day. I've seen some of them confronted and heard the common refrains of "I'm the victim here" and the almost inevitable "didn't you know I was joking?" So I wasn't surprised to hear Glenn Beck whine to Meredith Vieira that his detractors didn't have a sense of humor adequate to know that when he advocates beating a public official with a shovel or tells us of the need to shoot Democratic leaders in the head, it's those dumb liberals who are humorless.

For the most part, the law has never found incitement amusing: shouting fire when there isn't one - for laughs. Even those orating innocently about a strike have been punished in America because someone used the occasion to toss a bomb. You don't make bomb jokes in the airport and you don't joke about killing democrats to an audience you know to include deranged and armed enemies of Democrats, even if for no other reason than avoiding making yourself look bad. But looking bad is just what many of these frustrated losers want to do.

But times seem to be changing and that old time evil is bubbling up again, or at least some groups now have enough power to make the clowns take off the blackface and to think twice about anti-Semitic rants and maybe be a bit more circumspect before going after homosexuals, women, and all the other pet victims of the Right.

Mexicans? Chinese? Well they are still targets of opportunity for those willing to descend that far. Some comedians don't realize they're being offensive to people who don't deserve it, some of them don't care as long as they get an audience and others couldn't get a job unless it was entertaining bigots. So if Margaret Cho makes jokes about her Korean family, we don't cringe, unless we are her relatives. When Michael Richards goes on an N-word binge, we question his sense of decency -- to say the least.

Watching Dennis Leary's charity benefit the other day, I was appalled at his crude attempt to make fun of the world's most widely spoken language. No, not the real difficulties of speaking, it but with facial contortions and weird sounds that didn't seem funny or sound anything like Chinese to one familiar with the language. Bad taste I think, and enough to alienate a lot of people to the objectives of his charity.

And then there's Limbaugh.

What is an American president called when he visits China? They call him Mr. President. He's only called a Marxist tyrant by detritus like Limbaugh and the lumps of fecal matter that follow in his wake. We employ a host of people to promote American interests, to show the world our best face and we have this inflated rubber gasbag mooning them.

What is Chinese President Hu Jintao called when he's a guest here? The "Chicom Dictator " says Rush. "Ching chong, ching chong, chong" mocks the flatulent Palm Beach Bastard Billionaire, who makes a living lowering the estimation of my country in the eyes of the world. Condescending, contemptuous and contemptible: "Ching chong, ching chong, chong" while millions of Americans, with or without Chinese origins cringe.

No, presidents from Nixon onward have been treated well in China, it's only in the sewers of the American Right that President Obama is called a Marxist tyrant by detritus like Limbaugh and the lumps of fecal matter that follow in his wake. We employ a host of people to promote American interests, to show the world our best face, to induce them to trust our intentions and yet we have this inflated rubber gasbag mooning them while his adolescent friends laugh and mock.

Of course he knows what he's doing, and of course he doesn't care if he puts a white sheet on Uncle Sam and confirms the belief of billions that we are a nation of snarling pirates who don't deserve respect or trust or cooperation. He'll keep doing it as long as we let him, support him, laugh at him, watch him and patronize his unworthy, unscrupulous and unAmerican sponsors.

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)