<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Who Won the Cold War?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.theamericanconservative.com/postright/2009/11/09/who-won-the-cold-war/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.theamericanconservative.com/postright/2009/11/09/who-won-the-cold-war/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=who-won-the-cold-war</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 Mar 2011 20:49:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thomas O.  Meehan</title>
		<link>http://www.theamericanconservative.com/postright/2009/11/09/who-won-the-cold-war/comment-page-1/#comment-2711</link>
		<dc:creator>Thomas O.  Meehan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 01:32:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.amconmag.com/postright/?p=1245#comment-2711</guid>
		<description>At last we agree on something.  Good.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>At last we agree on something.  Good.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thomas</title>
		<link>http://www.theamericanconservative.com/postright/2009/11/09/who-won-the-cold-war/comment-page-1/#comment-2707</link>
		<dc:creator>Thomas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:55:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.amconmag.com/postright/?p=1245#comment-2707</guid>
		<description>Yes, of course we should deport people.  Illegal immigration is not the source of the US socioeconomic problems, but it compounds them by a serious factor.  

Being a former resident of Houston, where parts of the city (probably the most red-voting major city in the US) were literally crawling with illegals who undercut everyone else&#039;s wages (that&#039;s why they are here), I can attest a bit to the corrupting effect this has on everyone involved.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes, of course we should deport people.  Illegal immigration is not the source of the US socioeconomic problems, but it compounds them by a serious factor.  </p>
<p>Being a former resident of Houston, where parts of the city (probably the most red-voting major city in the US) were literally crawling with illegals who undercut everyone else&#8217;s wages (that&#8217;s why they are here), I can attest a bit to the corrupting effect this has on everyone involved.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thomas O.  Meehan</title>
		<link>http://www.theamericanconservative.com/postright/2009/11/09/who-won-the-cold-war/comment-page-1/#comment-2700</link>
		<dc:creator>Thomas O.  Meehan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 00:18:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.amconmag.com/postright/?p=1245#comment-2700</guid>
		<description>The problem with the 1950&#039;s is that they inevitably evolve into the 1960&#039;s.  And soon we&#039;re where we are now.  That&#039;s the way of welfare states, they introduce such dependency, indolence and corruption that they just grow.  But hey they always have their defenders.  As for the lack of a Patriot Act in Europe, you must be kidding.  The least you could do is read the British press.  British subjects can be criminally charged for suggesting that heterosexual couples make better adoptive parents than homosexuals.  The French police do as they please, and always have.  The British do have preventative detention. 

Nobody said that the Chinese and or Cubans shot people out of hand.   But they do shoot people rather than feed them for long periods, as we do.  You can believe their statistics if you want to.  

Our underclass remains a dangerous nuisance despite public education, taxpayer supported charity care, a multitude of Federal and State programs and affirmative action.  Of course we are importing more every day, adding to the income disparity you speak of.  Perhaps we should deport people to level out the disparity a bit.  What do you think?

I like your idea of our no longer being a beacon.  It&#039;s attracting the wrong sort.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The problem with the 1950&#8242;s is that they inevitably evolve into the 1960&#8242;s.  And soon we&#8217;re where we are now.  That&#8217;s the way of welfare states, they introduce such dependency, indolence and corruption that they just grow.  But hey they always have their defenders.  As for the lack of a Patriot Act in Europe, you must be kidding.  The least you could do is read the British press.  British subjects can be criminally charged for suggesting that heterosexual couples make better adoptive parents than homosexuals.  The French police do as they please, and always have.  The British do have preventative detention. </p>
<p>Nobody said that the Chinese and or Cubans shot people out of hand.   But they do shoot people rather than feed them for long periods, as we do.  You can believe their statistics if you want to.  </p>
<p>Our underclass remains a dangerous nuisance despite public education, taxpayer supported charity care, a multitude of Federal and State programs and affirmative action.  Of course we are importing more every day, adding to the income disparity you speak of.  Perhaps we should deport people to level out the disparity a bit.  What do you think?</p>
<p>I like your idea of our no longer being a beacon.  It&#8217;s attracting the wrong sort.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thomas</title>
		<link>http://www.theamericanconservative.com/postright/2009/11/09/who-won-the-cold-war/comment-page-1/#comment-2698</link>
		<dc:creator>Thomas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Nov 2009 11:42:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.amconmag.com/postright/?p=1245#comment-2698</guid>
		<description>Actually, China records their executions, they do not just shoot criminals on sight.  Neither does Cuba.  And neither of those countries would qualify as the top 10 or 20 draconian, authoritarian states (i.e., where citizens shake in fear of the police) at the moment.  

England is widely known to be the most surveillance over its population, but it also has the weakest welfare state in Western Europe!!!!  Scandinavia has much more freedom in general and much stronger welfare.  Your attempt to make some sort of correlation is ridiculous.  None of these countries has a PATRIOT ACT, where you can be deemed an enemy and held indefinitely.  Britain has tried several times to enact something similar, but the Lords always block it.  It would be absurd in Germany even.  

The United States is simply no longer a beacon of civil liberties even compared with true welfare states.  Sorry.

And if you are worried about the existence of a criminal underclass, you can probably blame the extreme inequalities of wealth, the co-existence of hyper-First World and quasi-Third World elements.  All of Latin America has the same, though their welfare states are rarely very advanced.  I think you would find the same trend in Africa.  

Mind you, I don&#039;t want to be like Sweden.  I would prefer America to return to the 50s (not entirely, but overall it would be an improvement).  In the 50s there was a more even redistribution of wealth and less nanny statism because there was more direct dirigisme.  The State was more involved in industrial planning and regulated trade and financial institutions.  Individuals paid less tax because corporations paid more.  If the economy is planned such that productive employment is a priority, then you can maintain a stable working class.  If you take that away, like the US and UK have done, then you get a permanent underclass with no prospects of a stable life.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Actually, China records their executions, they do not just shoot criminals on sight.  Neither does Cuba.  And neither of those countries would qualify as the top 10 or 20 draconian, authoritarian states (i.e., where citizens shake in fear of the police) at the moment.  </p>
<p>England is widely known to be the most surveillance over its population, but it also has the weakest welfare state in Western Europe!!!!  Scandinavia has much more freedom in general and much stronger welfare.  Your attempt to make some sort of correlation is ridiculous.  None of these countries has a PATRIOT ACT, where you can be deemed an enemy and held indefinitely.  Britain has tried several times to enact something similar, but the Lords always block it.  It would be absurd in Germany even.  </p>
<p>The United States is simply no longer a beacon of civil liberties even compared with true welfare states.  Sorry.</p>
<p>And if you are worried about the existence of a criminal underclass, you can probably blame the extreme inequalities of wealth, the co-existence of hyper-First World and quasi-Third World elements.  All of Latin America has the same, though their welfare states are rarely very advanced.  I think you would find the same trend in Africa.  </p>
<p>Mind you, I don&#8217;t want to be like Sweden.  I would prefer America to return to the 50s (not entirely, but overall it would be an improvement).  In the 50s there was a more even redistribution of wealth and less nanny statism because there was more direct dirigisme.  The State was more involved in industrial planning and regulated trade and financial institutions.  Individuals paid less tax because corporations paid more.  If the economy is planned such that productive employment is a priority, then you can maintain a stable working class.  If you take that away, like the US and UK have done, then you get a permanent underclass with no prospects of a stable life.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thomas O. Meehan</title>
		<link>http://www.theamericanconservative.com/postright/2009/11/09/who-won-the-cold-war/comment-page-1/#comment-2695</link>
		<dc:creator>Thomas O. Meehan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Nov 2009 23:32:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.amconmag.com/postright/?p=1245#comment-2695</guid>
		<description>Thomas, were you referring to England and the continental welfare states with their anti free speech laws, confiscatory taxation and intrusive regulation of every stage of life?   Welfare states must be coercive in order to function.  That&#039;s why conservatives off all types abhor them. 

The percentage of population in incarceration can be a deceptive statistic.  States lie about these things for a start.  Totalitarian states like Cuba and China have the option of simply killing offenders and of course many people just flee state control.  

The US has a large degree of incarceration due to the popularity of &quot;Get tough on drug offender&quot; legislation.  We have a large criminal underclass in this country and after decades of revolving door justice, the public just got fed up.  It may not be humane, but it works.  That&#039;s democracy for you. 

By the way, there is no system more involved in the criminal justice system than our welfare bureaucracy.  Most criminals are born into to welfare, graduate to truancy and addiction and then crime, all under the watchful eye of social workers, guidance counselors, school psychologists, court appointed counselors and probation officers, etc. etc.  But this shouldn&#039;t take any of the luster off welfare states, right?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thomas, were you referring to England and the continental welfare states with their anti free speech laws, confiscatory taxation and intrusive regulation of every stage of life?   Welfare states must be coercive in order to function.  That&#8217;s why conservatives off all types abhor them. </p>
<p>The percentage of population in incarceration can be a deceptive statistic.  States lie about these things for a start.  Totalitarian states like Cuba and China have the option of simply killing offenders and of course many people just flee state control.  </p>
<p>The US has a large degree of incarceration due to the popularity of &#8220;Get tough on drug offender&#8221; legislation.  We have a large criminal underclass in this country and after decades of revolving door justice, the public just got fed up.  It may not be humane, but it works.  That&#8217;s democracy for you. </p>
<p>By the way, there is no system more involved in the criminal justice system than our welfare bureaucracy.  Most criminals are born into to welfare, graduate to truancy and addiction and then crime, all under the watchful eye of social workers, guidance counselors, school psychologists, court appointed counselors and probation officers, etc. etc.  But this shouldn&#8217;t take any of the luster off welfare states, right?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thomas</title>
		<link>http://www.theamericanconservative.com/postright/2009/11/09/who-won-the-cold-war/comment-page-1/#comment-2694</link>
		<dc:creator>Thomas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Nov 2009 10:05:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.amconmag.com/postright/?p=1245#comment-2694</guid>
		<description>T.O.M.-
    
      There are some very secular, more generous welfare states with considerably more civil liberties.  Of course they have their own problems, but that is not the source of our War of Terror, War on Drugs, USA Patriot Act, etc.  Paleoconservatives are too often naifs in suggesting, essentially, that some lead us on the road to Hell with good intentions.  It is actually direct corruption in our govt that is the source of all our greatest national catastrophes.  
      
      I found a figure for Cuba.  The 2005 official statistics put it at about 490 per 100K, so about 70% the US rate - still high, but no cigar.  Oh I see a more recent (2008?) rate of 531, but still keeping pace with the US at about 70% its rate.  That is a British univeristy study - they estimate the Sudanese rate about 1/20 the US rate (so they had a civil war, but they aren&#039;t totalitarian, what did you think?).   Zimbabwe is given as about 1/5 the US rate. The link, if it works to post it here-

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/law/research/icps/downloads/wppl-8th_41.pdf</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>T.O.M.-</p>
<p>      There are some very secular, more generous welfare states with considerably more civil liberties.  Of course they have their own problems, but that is not the source of our War of Terror, War on Drugs, USA Patriot Act, etc.  Paleoconservatives are too often naifs in suggesting, essentially, that some lead us on the road to Hell with good intentions.  It is actually direct corruption in our govt that is the source of all our greatest national catastrophes.  </p>
<p>      I found a figure for Cuba.  The 2005 official statistics put it at about 490 per 100K, so about 70% the US rate &#8211; still high, but no cigar.  Oh I see a more recent (2008?) rate of 531, but still keeping pace with the US at about 70% its rate.  That is a British univeristy study &#8211; they estimate the Sudanese rate about 1/20 the US rate (so they had a civil war, but they aren&#8217;t totalitarian, what did you think?).   Zimbabwe is given as about 1/5 the US rate. The link, if it works to post it here-</p>
<p><a href="http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/law/research/icps/downloads/wppl-8th_41.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/law/research/icps/downloads/wppl-8th_41.pdf</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thomas O. Meehan</title>
		<link>http://www.theamericanconservative.com/postright/2009/11/09/who-won-the-cold-war/comment-page-1/#comment-2689</link>
		<dc:creator>Thomas O. Meehan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:19:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.amconmag.com/postright/?p=1245#comment-2689</guid>
		<description>Your good points are lost in your overwrought conclusion.  The War on Drugs, War on Terror etc. are indeed eroding our freedoms.  But the process of becoming a secular welfare state began well before WWII.  The War on drugs as ill-conceived as it is, does respond to drug laws enacted by Congress.  

As to our &quot;leading the world in imprisonment,&quot; the link you provide to buttress this statement is clearly a very flawed instrument.  According to it, Cuba, Sudan and Zimbabwe have no prisoners at all.  If you believe that, you&#039;ll believe anything.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Your good points are lost in your overwrought conclusion.  The War on Drugs, War on Terror etc. are indeed eroding our freedoms.  But the process of becoming a secular welfare state began well before WWII.  The War on drugs as ill-conceived as it is, does respond to drug laws enacted by Congress.  </p>
<p>As to our &#8220;leading the world in imprisonment,&#8221; the link you provide to buttress this statement is clearly a very flawed instrument.  According to it, Cuba, Sudan and Zimbabwe have no prisoners at all.  If you believe that, you&#8217;ll believe anything.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mad Doc MacRae</title>
		<link>http://www.theamericanconservative.com/postright/2009/11/09/who-won-the-cold-war/comment-page-1/#comment-2685</link>
		<dc:creator>Mad Doc MacRae</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:39:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.amconmag.com/postright/?p=1245#comment-2685</guid>
		<description>Mr. Harris, you should have a little more courage to be honest in your opposition to drug prohibition.  I happen to agree that the government should not regulate what you put into your body, but hiding behind the First Amendment to do so is both timid and self-defeating.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mr. Harris, you should have a little more courage to be honest in your opposition to drug prohibition.  I happen to agree that the government should not regulate what you put into your body, but hiding behind the First Amendment to do so is both timid and self-defeating.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill Harris</title>
		<link>http://www.theamericanconservative.com/postright/2009/11/09/who-won-the-cold-war/comment-page-1/#comment-2675</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill Harris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:28:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.amconmag.com/postright/?p=1245#comment-2675</guid>
		<description>Mr. Payne states that freedom of religion is still largely intact in the United States. That is only true for religions which use placebos for sacraments. Religion using bonafide sacraments remains outlawed by the CSA (COntrolled Substances Act of 1970) The RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993) allows Native American Church members to eat peyote, which functions like LSD. Americans shouldn’t need a specific church membership or an act of Congress to obtain their birthright freedom of religion. John Doe’s free exercise of religious liberty may include entheogen sacraments to mediate communion with his maker.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mr. Payne states that freedom of religion is still largely intact in the United States. That is only true for religions which use placebos for sacraments. Religion using bonafide sacraments remains outlawed by the CSA (COntrolled Substances Act of 1970) The RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993) allows Native American Church members to eat peyote, which functions like LSD. Americans shouldn’t need a specific church membership or an act of Congress to obtain their birthright freedom of religion. John Doe’s free exercise of religious liberty may include entheogen sacraments to mediate communion with his maker.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thomas</title>
		<link>http://www.theamericanconservative.com/postright/2009/11/09/who-won-the-cold-war/comment-page-1/#comment-2674</link>
		<dc:creator>Thomas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Nov 2009 08:53:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.amconmag.com/postright/?p=1245#comment-2674</guid>
		<description>...And yet we had plenty of (perhaps more) morality laws before the War on Drugs ...

Perhaps the problem is that the government does not defend its borders (well, that and the intelligence agencies have long funded some operations with drug money...look at Afghanistan!)?  

Not everything illegal has a special allure, it really depends on enforcement of the law.

And, John, a lot of Eastern Europe is NOT better off than it was 20 years ago, particularly now that their speculative bubbles have burst.  The signs are shinier, there are more decent restaurants, but many other economic, social, and moral declines.  And East Europeans have gained freedom in many ways, but lost it in others.  

People forget that many of the anti-Communist movements like the New Forum activists in the DDR or Solidarnosc in Poland claimed they were pro-socialist (just for a more democratic, participatory regime).  The original point was not joining NATO and mass privatisation, but rather civil liberties, and, sometimes, true conservative principles (pro-church, rediscovering a spiritual mission of their people).  But church attendance has increased slightly while (corporal, at least) immorality has increased significantly!  What gain is that?  Much of the national infrastructure was stolen by oligarchs who took the money to Switzerland, much others were sold to foreigners.  

Basically, (most of) East Europe has been absorbed into the control of the international financial elite (or NWO or whatever you prefer to term it).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8230;And yet we had plenty of (perhaps more) morality laws before the War on Drugs &#8230;</p>
<p>Perhaps the problem is that the government does not defend its borders (well, that and the intelligence agencies have long funded some operations with drug money&#8230;look at Afghanistan!)?  </p>
<p>Not everything illegal has a special allure, it really depends on enforcement of the law.</p>
<p>And, John, a lot of Eastern Europe is NOT better off than it was 20 years ago, particularly now that their speculative bubbles have burst.  The signs are shinier, there are more decent restaurants, but many other economic, social, and moral declines.  And East Europeans have gained freedom in many ways, but lost it in others.  </p>
<p>People forget that many of the anti-Communist movements like the New Forum activists in the DDR or Solidarnosc in Poland claimed they were pro-socialist (just for a more democratic, participatory regime).  The original point was not joining NATO and mass privatisation, but rather civil liberties, and, sometimes, true conservative principles (pro-church, rediscovering a spiritual mission of their people).  But church attendance has increased slightly while (corporal, at least) immorality has increased significantly!  What gain is that?  Much of the national infrastructure was stolen by oligarchs who took the money to Switzerland, much others were sold to foreigners.  </p>
<p>Basically, (most of) East Europe has been absorbed into the control of the international financial elite (or NWO or whatever you prefer to term it).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

