18 Comments
Jan 13, 2022·edited Jan 13, 2022

I'm a subscriber and share your content regularly. I notice one thing though, while the articles should be generating more reach and engagement, they aren't. Part of the issue I am certain that would help is better imagery. Some of your post pictures leaves most people scratching their heads, myself included, and are not anyway related to the content. I get the gymnast balancing and the title but that image flies right over most folks heads my friend. If you want to reach a wider audience, maybe you should try using better imagery, something that pops out and makes readers interested. Most people today don't bother to read much less listen, but pictures can speak 1,000 words.

Expand full comment

...which is a sad commentary on the average American's inability to focus on what's important or to participate intelligently in democracy.

Expand full comment
Jan 13, 2022·edited Jan 13, 2022

Yes, it is, my Professor in Speech class commented that 75% of people have a listening problem, much less reading. Today I'd venture a guess that listening problems might be about 90% or higher now.

Expand full comment

Even grade school teachers have reported they must arrange curriculum to fit children's fast-paced but short attention spans, conditioned outside the classroom by all-consuming, nonstop media programming laced with an overabundance of splashy commercials constantly interrupting their little hyper-minds.

Expand full comment

We need to rethink the Disneyfication of childhood. While supporting imagination is important, learning what is real and what isn’t and how to tell the difference is most critical now.

Expand full comment

But also you had to choose to listen to Joe B's speech re voting rights, which I heard as pretty dam-uh-darn good. Most didn't take the time: they went to chosen sources to tell them what they didn't hear, because they changed the channel or etc. What's your prof. got to say about selective input?

Expand full comment

Brian, I think your suggestion is polite, informed, and appropriate.

Expand full comment

Seriously? You're quibbling about the picture? a)Just because you don't dig it may be a problem with you, and b) do you have any thoughts about China already owning America without a shot fired?

Expand full comment

The patient, inscrutable East, vs the impatient, ill-informed, ignorant, corporate

West...no contest. The American Dream, as practiced by our no hands- barred oilygarchs, and accepted by exceptionally naive citizens, is now the American nightmare

Expand full comment

Excellent article, and supports what I’ve been saying for over 20 years. We ignore the consequences at our own peril. This influence can bring the end of the U.S., much more effectively and efficiently than any ol’ shooting war.

And it would only take a few months.

Trump’s trade “policies” included tariffs, one of the worst mistakes in the U.S. history. Tariffs hurt everyone, and send other countries to other countries for trade, and not to the U.S. Policy-making should include only the threat of tariffs, not actual implementation. Once implemented, the horse is out of the barn, and there’s nothing left to bargain with.

And there is the theory, as yet unproven, that all or most of Chinese electronic equipment sold to the U.S. can be shut down with the click of a button. In reality, likely not, but a scary thought, and not beyond the Cheating Chinese.

And beware of the international or just national internet shutdown. That will do it, too. And it will happen, unless we do more to protect ourselves. But we aren’t. This shutdown will make Pearl Harbor, WW 2, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, & 9-11 combined look like a picnic. People will wind up killing each other for a glass of water. It can happen here.

Expand full comment
Jan 14, 2022·edited Jan 14, 2022

You and I agree on the dangers, but disagree on tactics. (See my post below yours. )

The only tactic that you mentioned was the threat of tarrifs. The US has been threatening some unspecified actions for at least a decade. The only result has been to give China more time to consolidate its strangle hold on the world's economy.

If you really want to make a threat of tarrifs credible, impose some tarrifs. At least Trump got China's attention when he did just that. Before Trump I am sure that the Chinese were just laughing at our lack of spine and how easily we turned our economy over to them.

Tarrifs hurt everybody? Yes, that's right. Do you think that we will get out of this with our standard of living intact? That is impossible!

We have been getting cheap stuff for decades while liquidating our middle class and trading debt for stuff. We have been living a false and unsustainable "prosperity."

To have our middle class make the stuff that we use will cost us more, i.e. a lower standard of living. Anyone that tells you differently is lying.

The question is are you willing to make this sacrifice now to save us from Chinese hegemony in the future?

Expand full comment

If you don’t have the alarm clock, who does?

Expand full comment

In the late 90's I had a carabiner that I kept my keys on. The carabiner was painted black and read "USMC" (United States Marine Corps), painted in white. This carabiner came straight from the recruiting center. Ironically, "MADE IN CHINA" was stamped into the steel on the reverse side. I believe Joseph Heller made these.

In any event, one can only assume forge beats paint in any rock-paper-scissors contest. We need to get our shit together...

Expand full comment

Great article Mr Hartmann. Everything you said is true, but I would like to add some thoughts.

The Democratic party still has a lot of neoliberal tendencies. I think that both Hillary Clinton and her husband were (are?) enthusiastic supporters of neoliberalism. The Democratic party should acknowledge this and disown this part of its past. I have never heard Bill Clinton express remorse that he let China into the WTO or give PNTR to China.

As for Trump, I voted against him both times he ran. But one important thing that he accomplished was to start the US rift with China. Perhaps it's like Nixon going to China, only a Republican could do it.

The only other major candidate as focused on China was Sanders. But even if he had been elected, his efforts regarding China would have been destroyed by the Republicans screaming Socialist!

Since Trump is a (nominal) Republican, his own party was obliged to support him. Thus the biggest obstacle to movement on China was nullified. I didn't even hear the hysterical cries of Smoot-Hawley that were so predictable when anyone mentioned tarrifs.

Perhaps Trump was right when he said "only I can fix it," at least when it comes to China.

We paid a huge price for this singular good act of Trump. I pray that we can recover from the hundreds of horrible things that he did.

Expand full comment

China is one of the subjects I have read about for years. I love some of their movies; "Seventeen Years" is an excellent one. I think I love the people as much as I hate their government.

Nixon went there in 1972, and they opened up in 1974. Now, less than 50 years later, they think they are equipped to run the world's economy. And, they love to bring infrastructure to some struggling countries to get a foothold there.

Who wouldn't agree that we should not have become dependent on their product? On the other hand that is what they do, produce---after they appropriate or outright steal the tech. Tienanmen Square, the internet, and unemployed young people still scares the government of China. They need to worry about their national security too. Inventive ideas are not the only ones we are good at exporting.

Expand full comment

.@SenatorSinema is a total fraud. Watch her take on the filibuster from 2010:

https://twitter.com/mackattack408/status/1481686973546827779?s=20

Expand full comment

Thanks....she was "sowing division" herself back then. What a damn hypocrite she is as well!

Expand full comment