- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
One of the best reads of the year
"Imagine a vast field on which a terrible battle has recently been fought, the bare ground cratered by fusillade after fusillade of heavy artillery, trees reduced to blackened stumps, wisps of toxic gas hanging in the gray, and corpses everywhere.
A terrible scene, made worse by the sound of distant laughter, because somehow, on the heights commanding the dead zone, the officers’ club has made it through intact. From its balconies flutter bunting, and across the blasted landscape there comes a chorus of hearty male voices in counterpoint to the wheedling of cadres of wheel-greasers, the click of betting chips, the orotund declamations of a visiting congressional delegation: in sum, the celebratory hullabaloo of a class of people that has sent entire nations off to perish but whose only concern right now is whether the ’11 is ready to drink and who’ll see to tipping the servants. The notion that there might be someone or some force out there getting ready to slouch toward the buttonwood tree to exact retribution scarcely ruffles the celebrants’ joy.
Ah, Wall Street. As it was in the beginning, is now, and hopes to God it ever will be, world without end. Amen."

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Re: One of the best reads of the year
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Re: One of the best reads of the year
Any war that has it's "first battle" determined (abitrarily, as it would be by your declaration) surely doesn't mean that the battle itself had a thing to do with the precipitation of the conflict. Just an inevitable function of it.
Glass-Leach-Biley no different in impact than Dred-Scott.
And what it seems to me that Mr. Thomas is saying is that "the loser" hasn't necessarily been determined. Wars are always at their inception and during the early campaigns presumed to be victories on the part of the most powerful players at the time they commenced. They don't always have to turn out that way. In fact the really good ones, the ones that leave the world a better place, have ever only been those where those who were attacked reached back and found that they had what it took to prevail. If you got run over and conquered and displaced, you were doomed.
Not sure if the American people can come up with some of that or not. But, I'm not sure why we would as a mass of people want to quietly become part of the trail of liter that the British Empire has left scattered around this planet.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
Re: One of the best reads of the year
@bruce MN wrote:Any war that has it's "first battle" determined (abitrarily, as it would be by your declaration) surely doesn't mean that the battle itself had a thing to do with the precipitation of the conflict. Just an inevitable function of it.
Glass-Leach-Biley no different in impact than Dred-Scott.
And what it seems to me that Mr. Thomas is saying is that "the loser" hasn't necessarily been determined. Wars are always at their inception and during the early campaigns presumed to be victories on the part of the most powerful players at the time they commenced. They don't always have to turn out that way. In fact the really good ones, the ones that leave the world a better place, have ever only been those where those who were attacked reached back and found that they had what it took to prevail. If you got run over and conquered and displaced, you were doomed.
Not sure if the American people can come up with some of that or not. But, I'm not sure why we would as a mass of people want to quietly become part of the trail of liter that the British Empire has left scattered around this planet.
Curious about that choice of words bruce.
I always thought if any empire since the Romans has left more than litter it has been the British.
Look how many succesful countries exist in the world that were once part of that empire.
Yes some did not fare as well but many have been stable democracies for many years.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report Inappropriate Content
I almost pinched myself
Found myself becoming almost optomistic that there might be some "reality based" smart people who are getting some hearing out there after reading this:
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/8f43b1da-273c-11e1-b7ec-00144feabdc0.html
and then ran across this interview with the author last night:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31510813/#45808438
I'm presuming that this guy and this Eurasia Group he works at are considered to be conservative, technically.