Champ’s doing just fine. The mailman proved this. However he is acting very stiff. He can hardly shake his head like a real dog does. It looks like he has no rhythm. The big brown pills take his rhythm. They’re pain pills, and he eats them like he likes them. I usually have to shove a pill down his throat—just like I’m shoving this talk about Champ down your throats. I even thought I might try one of these pills myself. I don’t have much rhythm to worry about. And last night I saw an episode of “how it’s made” on the making of dog food. Overall, it’s made with the same hygienic quality that mills use to make bread, or cereals. I’m sure somebody could easily retool a dog food plant into a cereal plant. So, if your in a predicament, like the economy is collapsing, dog food is really just fine to eat. You might get a bite close to your mouth and smell it and think otherwise, but remember this, the smell is the extract from organic animal parts added by spraying the cereal pieces with a mist, and it is specifically added to please the finicky tastes of cats and dogs. Anyone who has eaten dog and cat food can tell that they’re different. Cats like more fat from animal products and they like it salty. Dogs have a sweet tooth and there tends to be molasses mixed in, just like McDonald’s maple syrup infused egg McMuffins. (I can’t believe I capitalized “McMuffin”)
I would like to add here, that I think a dvd of the complete seasons of "How It's Made" would be a good resource to put on one's book shelf; and I think it would be watched more than the seasons of AFV.
And in what kind of predicament would one find themselves eating dog food? In many ways, Sudanese Refugees eat dog food, made to smell the way humans prefer it, everyday, poured from big brown bags that say USA. And they appreciate this. They’re economy is all but nonexistent... or all but extinct.
Aside: This phrase that is so commonly used, “It is All But…” Has anybody wondered about this like I have. I have no doubt a couple of you, if not all of you have thought this phrase was all but opposite of what it’s trying to say. I have a feeling, for some reason, that this is a phrase Hogbacker has thought about at length, at least at short length. When I want to say something is “tasty”, I might say, “It’s all but Tasty.” But doesn’t that mean the exact opposite of what I want to say? The phrase, “It’s anything but tasty,” has the same ring to it, but it is the opposite… I think, now, I’m all but confused. I hear people using these phrases as though they’re meant to mean the opposite of what someone wants it to say. Are these people using the phrase incorrectly or am I not seeing the real meaning? I’m all but confused. Then there’s a clearer phrase like, “It’s tasty if anything.” That’s clear. But, “It’s all but tasty,” just perplexes me. Do they want to say, “It’s all but not tasty?” And think of it in these terms, “something is everything but one item of everything.”
As for the superpower thing, I added some comments a while back to Michelle’s reference to the Dianne Riem show. But, I think the price of oil is a very good example of how a resource can show the balance of power. China is using more, as Hogbacker mentioned, and the U.S. feels the pangs. The world’s resource markets are suggesting that we Americans, and the rest of the world for that matter, start reducing current levels of consumption in one manner or another. Oil, Copper, Iron, Aluminum (in so far as it takes a massive amount of energy to mine and refine aluminum) are all bouncing far higher due to China and India. Whether reducing the amount of consumption suggests that our quality of life be diminished or that we proceed to more and more efficient levels of living, is a choice. Right now, the higher costs do create a downturn in our quality of life. We are being forced to consume less, as the market would have us do. We are starting to see signs of more efficient consumption. The increase in costs hinder everything from revenue and then tax revenue, and then increases deficits, etc.; and a good example would be that our infrastructure will be brought down, closer and closer to the rising quality of the Chinese infrastructure. Afterall, the money that goes towards consuming the same amount of oil needed to keep the U.S. rolling is being drawn from other areas of life. Just think of the poor nations who are caught in the middle of the oil tug of war... or rather, think of the people of the world caught in this tug of war, because Americans and Kenyans alike are caught. Somewhere, someone has to stop buying oil so that all who can afford the increased prices can have their oil. Of course, there’s only so much production in the world, and there’s only so much capacity for production in the world, and finally, there is only so much of the resource on earth.
I would like to note that we get our oil, predominantly, from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela and Nigeria. Saudi Arabia is a large source for the U.S., but third to Canada and Mexico and about equal to Venezuela. Saudi Arabia and the rest of the middle-east currently provides China with the majority of its imports…China’s consumption will increase it’s imports in the future. This, I believe, is good for the U.S. Let China take care of the Middle-East. For instance, at this point, you could say that we are taking care of China’s Middle-Eastern problem. Or, some might say that we are causing problems for China in the Middle-East... that is probably closer to the truth.
We need, more than anything as an economy, more than anything to make us competitive—which is another way to say, “keep our quality of life”—is alternative fuels, and cheaper alternative fuels… The key word is "cheaper." As we stop burning oil, there will be more for China and India to burn. So, we don’t want burning oil to be an economic benefit for China and India, or else they will burn more and the environment will suffer and our economy will continue to suffer (in some ways China makes us suffer and in some ways we would'nt have the quality of life we have without China, refering to Wal-Mart and everything China makes for us).
As for the subject of superpowers, I don’t think I’m explaining it very well, but I think the shift of power is subtle and the shift is well underway and has been for at least a decade; and very perceptive people may have seen it changing since the eighties. Dad took off to China with some foresight, or our of necessity... But most everybody realizes this is the way it will go: how could a force like China be held down? No way. I think a tremendous advantage is given to China with it’s currency held in check, and I think this advantage manifests itself when the bill for Iraq is tallied each year, and the bill for Katrina is tallied. I think, if anything, we can’t afford to be a superpower, the way we’ve been being a superpower. And I mean the word “afford” to refer to finances specifically. If we can’t afford to be a superpower, and this is debatable until it’s obvious that we can’t afford to be a superpower—but hasn’t our deficit made it obvious? Therefore, I say, we are not a superpower as it once was defined.
If China decided to attack Taiwan, and more seriously, Japan, I think we would have to consider, seriously, our ability as a nation, and as a generation, to combat this. Even if North Korea crossed the border into South Korea, we would basically have to fold our bluff at a tremendous loss. Therefore, we are not any more a military power than North Korea... I know it's a stretch, but I think North Korea would be able to mobilize more people to fight than the U.S. (it's really just theory though, because it won't happen). This is arguably true unless we tally Nuclear Weapons. But that would bring the world down.
I guess I just think the word “superpower” presupposes the willingness of a country to decimate its economy for power and the unwillingness of a foe to fight back. A resource like oil, with ever increasing prices, could drive countries to war (hmmm). But Iraq is a look at the economic benefit of war over annexing new oil production. We are in the red on the Iraqi oil venture.
With the term "Superpower" began being deminished when the term "Globalisation" arose. As Globalisation continues to grow, China and India being key players in this effort, the notion of a superpower will refer more to Soccer than to overall all countries... or Snowboarding as it were, in which case the Swiss would have given pulled one over on the U.S. More and more, the world, all nations therein, are seen to be "in it together." As this occurs, and the U.S. and Japan and Western Europe go on alternative energy, like Nuclear power, (and Iran, as the case may be), the technology will begin to quickly be transfered to China and India so that they too will not burn oil reserves out. Of course, in some respects they are leading in the technologies of alternative energy.
Bill Mahr is back tonight. We have new garage door openers (Chinese I'm sure).
