Data Dave Navarro

Worst Era 1960-2017 with 162 innings pitched.

2018.05.10 14:54 makingsomeeggs Worst Era 1960-2017 with 162 innings pitched.

I was bored one day and decided to find the worst ERA’s every year since 1960.This list will tell us who the bad pitchers were, no matter the chance they couldn’t get outs. In In order to be on this list you must have pitched one inning for every team game played. I figured that many pitchers would have like 6, or 7’s but as I compiled the data i realized that in order to pitch 162 innings you have to at least be okay at baseball, making the era’s much lower than I thought they would be.
Highest Era Player Name WAR
1960 4.82 Tom Brewer .5
1961 5.61 Frank Baumann -2.2
1962 5.22 Glen Hobbie -.7
1963 4.55 Don Rudolph .2
1964 5.89 Jack Lamabe -1.5
1965 5.21 Ray Sadecki -1.2
1966 5.29 Sammy Ellis .3
1967 4.70 Jack Fisher -.2
1968 4.54 Rick Wise -1
1969 5.03 Tony Cloninger -1.9
1970 4.86 Joe Horlen .8
1971 4.80 Carl Morton -1.9
1972 4.50 Dave Roberts -.1
1973 5.36 Woodie Fryman -.1
1974 4.80 Burt Hooton .8
1975 5.55 Joe Coleman -.3
1976 4.98 Jim Hughes -2
1977 5.07 Randy Lerch -1.2
1978 5.20 Wilbur Wood -.3
1979 5.77 Phil Huffman -1.8
1980 5.28 Dan Spillner .1
1981 5.15 Dick Ruthven -1.1
1982 5.72 Matt Keough -1.7
1983 5.61 Dennis Eckersley -.4
1984 5.36 Mark Davis -.9
1985 5.15 Dennis Martínez .1
1986 5.48 Richard Dotson -.5
1987 5.45 Eric Bell -.5
1988 5.43 Bert Blyleven -.7
1989 5.14 Bobby Witt -.7
1990 5.31 Frank Tanana .1
1991 5.18 Dave Stewart -.5
1992 4.93 Scott Sanderson -.1
1993 5.75 Rick Sutcliffe -.7
1994 7.39 Jim Deshaies -1.3
1995 5.80 Terry Mulholland -2.8
1996 6.21 Scott Aldred -1.3
1997 5.79 Jaime Navarro -1.3
1998 6.36 Jaime Navarro -1.7
1999 6.66 LaTroy Hawkins -.3
2000 6.65 José Lima -.3
2001 6.17 Dave Mlicki .3
2002 6.15 Mike Hampton -1.9
2003 5.75 Cory Lidle .5
2004 5.84 Shawn Estes .8
2005 6.99 José Lima -1.5
2006 6.36 Joel Piñeiro -1.9
2007 5.81 Scott Olsen -1.6
2008 6.35 Nate Robertson -.9
2009 5.44 Liván Hernández -.3
2010 5.53 Jeremy Bonderman -1.2
2011 5.30 Brad Penny -1.1
2012 5.77 Ricky Romero -1.5
2013 5.71 Edinson Vólquez -2.4
2014 5.34 Clay Buchholz -1.6
2015 5.05 Alfredo Simón -.5
2016 5.85 James Shields .7
2017 5.52 Matt Moore -.3
Again the player that lead the league in the worst era minimum 162 innings pitched, was not as bad as Albert Pujols last year. War is really weird and pitching is even weirder, and these guys weren’t the greatest at pitching.
submitted by makingsomeeggs to baseball [link] [comments]

2015.07.09 13:08 Spartacus_the_troll Media Review: The Alamo (1960 version)

No one ever forgets, and it gets grander and grander with each telling. - Quouar on the Alamo
This review brought to you by Phil Collins.
I had originally intended to use some of anthropology_nerd's sources and a few of my own to stretch the history back to the Alamo and San Antonio's founding but I couldn't really find an excuse to attach another 40,000 characters of non-movie reviewing goodness, to this post, so I demurred. So, this one will stick mostly to the film. Whenever I get to the 2004 version, I'll try to give a little more background.
If I have made meta-badhistory and there's something wrong with the post,
Come and Take It, as I'm by no means an expert.
Ok, so credits and trumpet solo.
In the year of our Lord 1836, Texas, which has known many flags, was then under the colours of Mexico. Though its inhabitants were made up of settlers from far countries and all parts of the United States, they were Mexican citizens all.
Generalissimo Santa Anna was sweeping north across Mexico toward the crushing all who opposed his tyrannical rule. They now faced the decision that men in all times must face...the eternal choice of endure oppression or to resist.
Here we see late 1950s Cold War era John Wayne making the first of his allusions to freedom, principled uncompromising resistance to tyranny, etc. This introduction presents the Texas Revolution the way it is often presented here: Santa Anna takes power in Mexico as an authoritarian dictator, which incites Texas to rebel, and eventually declare independence, because they love freedom, and so forth.
He said in an interview about the film,
It was not a story that belongs only to Texas. It belongs to people everywhere who have an interest in a thing called freedom. I think we are in danger, and have been for a long time, of going soft, of taking things for granted; neglecting to have an objective about things for which we stand and forgetting the things that made this a great nation.
Anglo settlement in Texas began in earnest in the mid 1820s with the arrival of Stephen F Austin's colonists along the lower Brazos and Colorado Rivers. Within ten years, about 20 empresarios had settled about 30,00 Anglos on the Gulf Coastal Plain between Corpus Christi Bay and Nacogdoches. Around the old Spanish settlements of Nacogdoches, Goliad and San Antonio, and around Martin De Leon's new settlement of Victoria, there were 5-7000 Tejanos.
There had been tensions between the settlers and the Mexican government from the start over land ownership, trade and tariffs, being attached to Coahuila, and as quite a few people wilfully ignore, slaves, of which there were about 5000, by 1835. Ango immigration and slavery had been outlawed in 1830. Both laws were routinely disregarded. Immigration had been restored in 1833, but nevertheless there had been plenty of illegal immigration from the United States into Mexico. The Conventions of 1832 and 1833, and the armed conflicts in Anahuac, Velasco and Nacogdoches in 1832 marked the way down the uneven and winding road toward open rebellion. Most of the soldiers killed at Goliad and the Alamo arrived in Texas after the open rebellion had started. Neither they nor Mexico would have likely considered them Mexican citizens.
It's really hard to tell when exactly the film starts, because of the copious anachronisms, but its reasonable to say sometime in early/mid February 1836.
So here we see Sam Houston arriving in San Antonio followed by a few dozen riders. This presents somewhat of a problem as there was no point in the War of Independence when the Raven was anywhere near San Antonio or, ergo, the Alamo. Much of this film is ahistorical, but the following scene is one of two or three which are the worst offenders. Nothing even resembling what is depicted in the next ten or so minutes ever happened.
Houston getting annoyed, "Mr Dickinson I asked you a question. WHERE'S JIM BOWIE?" "He's in dispose, sir." blah blah blah "James Butler Bonham, under Travis's command, sir." So Sam Houston knows who Almaron Dickinson is, but not James Bonham? Unlikely. Bonham and Houston had first become introduced in December 1835, when Bonham wrote, volunteering to fight for Texas. Houston had recommended he be promoted to major in January. He knew damn good and well who James Bonham was.
Neill, you go north with me.
In this scene we are given our first glimpse of James C Neill, who is given a pitifully small part is this movie. He had been in command of the Alamo garrison since December 21, a few days after the town and mission were captured by the Texian rebel army from Cos in the Siege of Bexar. Neill had kept his command together in the intervening two and a half months and managed to maintain some semblance of morale and discipline despite the bickering and incompetent clusterfuck of a government created by the Consultation in late 1835. There was no unified command to request funding or supplies from, even if those things had existed in any quantity in winter 1836 in Texas.
Neill left on Feb 11 to take care of his ill family and gather recruits and supplies for the Army. He returned for a few days on Fen 14, but left before Santa Anna arrived and the siege began.
I've been given command of the armies of Texas.
Whoa, slow down there Sam. You've been given command of the Regular Army, which exists mostly on paper. At this point, there was no such thing as the "Texas Army." The militias were frighteningly independent bodies who only tolerated their own elected officers. They generally ignored orders from any higher authority, whether it be Houston, Governors Smith or Robinson. Many of them had disbanded after the Siege of Bexar anyway.
And here's where we get to the whole premise of the film. Sam Houston needs time to organize and train an actual non-paper army large and disciplined enough to fight and defeat Santa Anna, so Travis will have to keep him occupied at the Alamo as long as possible. This is actually almost literally the opposite of Houston's intentions. Besides not taking the field as a commander until March 11 and spending most of the siege going to or participating in, the Convention of 1836 that declared independence, Houston wasn't really interested in having men at the Alamo in the first place. He had sent a personal friend to San Antonio with instructions to appraise the situation and advised simply removing the artillery and ordered the burning of the mission and town. He wrote to Governor Henry Smith saying "ordered the fortifications in the town of Bexar to be demolished, and if you should think well of it, I will remove all the cannon and other munitions of war to Gonzales and Copano, blow up the Alamo, and abandon the place, as it will be impossible to keep up the Station with volunteers.." Bonham and a few others had probably arrived with him around Jan 18 or 19. Neill convinced them of the value of holding the Alamo and continuing its fortification begun by General Cos's original Mexican garrison. They stated in a letter to Henry Smith that they would "rather die in these trenches than give them up to the enemy." Smith didn't really want to abandon San Antonio, but Houston had no desire to fight there. I'll get to more on Houston and abandoning the fort a little further down the line.
I have to interject something in here that might be sort of obvious, but I'll say it anyway. William Barrett Travis wasn't British. Granted, neither was Laurence Harvey, technically, but still. He makes kind of an effort here to sound Southern for a minute or two, and then forgets for the rest of the film and lapses back into the Queen's good English.
You people right here on the Rio Grande are going to have to buy me that time.
Uh. /badgeography San Antonio is nowhere near the Rio Grande, unless "on" means somewhere within 130 miles. San Antonio is on the Rio Grande in much the same way that Columbus, Ohio is in Michigan. The river that San Antonio was built on is...surprise...the San Antonio. "He took this town from General Cos. He fought a battle." The second part is certainly correct. Jim Bowie and James Fannin commanded the Texians at the Battle of Concepcion on Oct 28 and participated in the Siege of Bexar. He did not, however, capture San Antonio from Martin Perfecto de Cos. The final assault happened after Bowie had left and he was not present for the surrender.
He's married into the Mexican aristocracy.
Jim Bowie married Ursula Veramendi in 1831 in San Antonio. She was indeed from a wealthy family and her father was Vice-Governor of Coahuila, which at that point included Texas. There will be more on this later.
Jethro is that you.
Bowie's slave's name was Sam, not Jethro. (Reportedly, he was actually a "servant" of Bowie's wife's family.) Jethro is the only slave depicted in the film and his treatment is not exactly what you'd expect from a Southern plantation economy, which is certainly what East and East-Central Texas were turning into, and the environment from which the majority of its Anglo residents immigrated. Slavery was just as present and just as brutal as anywhere else in the American South.
Lieutenant Blake, you will see to the quartering of Bowie's volunteers.
I can't find a record of a 'Blake' at the Alamo, much less one with the rank of Lieutenant. Also, Bowie had been there for a few weeks, and most of the volunteers had participated in the siege and had thus been there even longer. Bowie didn't bring many of them in. He was in charge because they elected him to command.
So now we see Bowie himself, who has gone from drunk to just hungover. Where are the chops? This is a thing throughout the movie. If you could have facial hair like this, would you?
So would I.
Santa Anna's got an army of 7,000 men...You ain't gonna try and defend this broken church against 7000 battle hardened troops.
Santa Anna's Army of Operations reportedly contained 6,019 soldiers when it began marching north in December 1835. Around a thousand were diverted under the command of Jose de Urrea in the Goliad Campaign along the Texas coast and did not participate in the siege. There were nowhere near 7000 Mexican soldiers at the Alamo.
Here's where Juan Seguin shows up with intelligence about Santa Anna. He's too old. That looks more like Erasmo Seguin, his father. Juan was 30 years old in 1836. Also he didn't have a mustache.
Its also a bit weird that residents of Seguin's property would be talking about Mexican troops coming from Mexico. The Seguin ranch was located around present day Floresville, which is a half hour southeast on US 181, or kind of in the wrong direction.
Alcalde of San Antonio de Bexar...civillians.
Seguin hadn't been the alcalde since 1834 and wouldn't be again until 1841, well into the Republic. The alcalde in February 1836 was Francisco Antonio Ruiz, who while a also Federalist and no friend of Santa Anna, was most certainly not Juan Seguin.
Seguin had been scouting for Texian forces for several months and had commanded a Tejano militia several times immediately before and during the Revolution. He was commissioned as a captain the regular army of Texas in January and was sent out as a courier by Travis as early as two days after the siege began. Seguin was in no sense a civilian. There were indeed rumors and reports that Santa Anna was near the Rio Grande and was fairly close to San Antonio, and they were indeed ignored. However, for the most part, this scene is ahistorical. Travis said he thought the rumors were exaggerated because the thought so, not because he thought he might frighten his men.
Here we see Travis going up a flight of steps to his office in the second story of the part of the Convento nearest the church. For reference Upstairs is where the hospital was. The actual garrison headquarters was directly across the yard from there, on ground level. Wayne selected the upstairs room as the office so that the camera is predominantly looking up at Travis when he's talking to other cast members, reinforcing the fact that he's portrayed as an arrogant, snobby elitist.
I'd say we have two, or at best three days before we see his banners.
Eh, you think you have a few weeks or a month. You were expecting Santa Anna around mid March.
Here we get our first glimpse of John Wayne as David Crockett, who did not often refer to himself as 'Davy' or use the title Colonel.
He tells his men "it ain't no fort. Its an old mission." It's both. It is obviously now a fort, but it had been garrisoned by Texian, Mexican and Spanish soldiers on and off since secularization of the mission around the turn of the 19th century. Here is also the start of Crockett misrepresenting and misleading his men into fighting, which was not really the case.
Everyone keeps using the word "Texican." Unless you are Audie Murphy, you are not a Texican. Anglo residents of Mexican Texas were 'Texian'. Okay so Travis is talking to Crockett now, officially, as the commander of the garrison.
Quibble. Crockett arrived in San Antonio on February 6, when James Neill was still very much present and in command.
Old drunken General Flatford gave it (the title of colonel) to me in the Choctaw Indian War.
I have no idea who this General Flatford is. Crockett was involved in fighting the Creeks in late 1813, not the Choctaws. During this time he was a scout and hunter, providing meat to his militia regiment. His election to command of a militia unit and title of colonel came later, in 1819.
They heard many a speech while I was congressifyin'.
They probably did, but not as your entourage. You recruited most of these men in Tennessee shortly before you left. They aren't your lifelong friends.
Of the many and unendurable hardships the people have been subjected to, under the tyrannical government of this military dictator Santa Anna. We have no rights in the courts, no market for our produce. He has forbidden trade with the North.
Here Travis is waxing eloquent to Crockett about the justification for the Revolution. The speech really doesn't sound that far off from Travis's or a lot of other Texian's opinions about the Centralist Mexican government and how it was literally 1984.
Crockett pulls out a few cigars and says be brought 'em all the way from New Orleans. I'll defer to buy_a_pork_bun on this, but I will say that Crockett traveled to Texas from Tennessee via Memphis, Arkansas and East Texas, not Louisiana and had spent most of that time in the wilderness and away from your typical cigar vendor and those cigars have probably never seen a humidor. So, he hadn't been in New Orleans in a good while and he could probably get better cigars.
Declare this the Republic of Texas?
I hadn't thought this was generally known.
No, it hadn't been officially stated, but no one in Texas after the elections to the 1836 Convention really thought the war was about the Constitution of 1824 or federalism anymore. After early Feburary, it was quietly, but fairly confidently known that secession would come sooner or later. Travis certainly believed so. He wrote on March 3, "Let the Convention go on and make a declaration of independence, and we will then understand, and the world will understand, what we are fighting for. If independence is not declared, I shall lay down my arms, and so will the men under my command."
Ok, so now Crockett gives his "Republic. I like the sound of the word" speech.
Go or come, buy or sell..."
Lol, what? You mean people?
Travis tells Crockett he believes he came to Texas to fight. I should hope so. He stated several times that's why he led his band there. The portrayal of Crockett tricking his unknowing men into fighting in completely fictional.
Bowie, on Mexicans. "They got courage, and they got dignity. They ain’t afraid to die. But what seems most important to me is that they ain’t afraid to live. Today is important to them, not the dollar tomorrow might bring. I suppose the Yankees say that’s lazy. Me, I say it’s a way of livin’."
It sounds like Bowie read Max Weber and hated it.
The portrayal of Hispanics in this film, while far from ideal, (All of them but Seguin and Graciela are background characters, and there is no significant speaking part in the Mexican Army. Like much of the rest of the film, there's more wrong with that it didn't portray that what it did.) is not even in the same league as most earlier films. The fact that they are portrayed as people with motivations and independent agency is a massive step up from the past. The Alamo, as a film subject has a long, and sordid tradition of portraying any Spanish speaker as being on the screen for the sole purpose of robbing some innocent white woman of her honor. A popular Alamo film from 1915 was titled the Martyrs of the Alamo, brought to you by D W Griffith. Yes that D W Griffith.The Last Command and this version of the Alamo, were the first films about the battle to remove the theme of the noble white men heroically battling the brown mongrel, savages horde and to focus on something other than how awesome white people were compared to every other people and how every Mexican soldier was a crazed war criminal.
Ah, here's one of the kickers. "I, uh sent them up to Coahuila with all the trouble we've had."
What Houston said earlier about Bowie's marriage was technically true. Just as what Bowie himself just said was technically true. Bowie did marry into the Veramendis and did send his wife and two children to Coahuila with all the trouble they've had. Except he sent them there in 1833 and the "trouble" was a cholera epidemic. The disease appeared in Monclova, too and killed his wife, children and her parents. Bowie himself was bedridden with yellow fever in Natchez, Mississippi at that time. The loss of his family is what is reported to have started him on his drinking. It is also generally seen as starting down the road to rebelling.
Graciela tells the Duke that her would be suitor has stashed a bunch of rifles and powder in the basement of the church, which the rebels desperately need. Crockett and Bowie naturally investigate and find said weaponry. Firstly, no there wren't any armaments hidden under what is now San Fernando Cathedral. Secondly, the church has about as much of a basement as the Alamo. So, no Pee Wee, your bike's not there either. Last, the church is built of stone. I see bricks. Why are there bricks in my non existent church basement?
Ugh, Phillistines.
Since Quouar is moratorium'd, I'll have to fill in for her. Ah, so here we see the Mexican Army of Operations racing toward beautiful autumn weather, which it shouldn't be. The crew started filming in Sept 1959. The entire film takes place in Feburary and early march. As some may have noticed, fall weather is typically a bit different than weather in late winter and early spring. The gloomy, cloudy weather when Houston rides up is just about perfect. The bright, clear weather given to the Mexican Army is innacurate for most of their march. They ran into a blizzard in Coahuila, which killed pack animals and even a few soldiers and camp followers. Many of them, from lowland southern and central Mexico had never seen snow and were quite unused to the cold. Granted, the weather in Texas, itself, on the march wasn't cold, but it wasn't exactly bright and sunny. Hoping to dash the last twenty or so miles into San Antonio and take the hungover defenders by surprise after a rumored fiesta, Mexican cavalry instead encountered torrential rains and a swollen Medina River.
So it goes.
I'll take this opportunity to say I love this music. Like, this is Dimitri Tomkin's best score. Yes I mean better than High Noon or the Guns of Navarrone. Come at me bro.
Here, at 55:15 the camera pans from the town across to the mission and you can see one from the point of view of the other . Now I'm getting annoyed. This is atrocious. The Alamo church faces west, with the majority of the mission lying on the north side of it and the Galera, containing the gate, on the south side. The Alamo Village has it rotated 180 degrees. The church faces east with the Galera on the north side and Convento on the south side. Secondly, the town is much too close. San Fernando Cathedral, which faces east, not northeast, is about a half mile from the Alamo. The filming site has them spaced less than a quarter mile apart, and in the wrong direction. The Alamo is due east of the Cathedral, which is its pre cathedral, 18th and 19th century days, was the center of town. The Alamo is not south-southeast of the core of San Antonio as is depicted. The church is depicted incorrectly. Before the neogothic expansion in the 1870s, San Fernando church was a cruciform shaped building with a dome over the center of the cross, which is missing, and a bell tower on the left side of the door, if facing the building. Instead it is shown as a rectangular building with a bell tower halfway down the length of what I'm presuming is the nave. The town itself is aligned incorrectly, both absolutely and with respect to the Alamo. There should be two large plazas, one each on the east and west side of the church, with houses, businesses, gardens and farms surrounding them, not brush and unoccupied prairie. The town being for the most part was aligned east to west, roughly along present day Commerce and Dolorosa/Market streets, between the Governor's Palace on the west end of Plaza de Armas, and the eastern end of the Potrero roughly on Navarro Street. Instead we have the church of the southwestern edge of town aligned along two crooked streets, running roughly northeast to southwest. There are two open areas on the wrong side of the church that could be construed as plazas. They are much too small, however, as is the town in general.
And most importantly...WHERE THE HELL IS THE RIVER? There should be a tree-lined river within three or four hundred feet of the mission. A river, which I'm guessing is the upper Nueces, is seen here and there, but never from the town or mission, from both of which, it should be visible alot.
I know no set is perfect, but this is just lazy. Brackettville is too dry, to sparse, and with too much topography too close to the set to accurately portray San Antonio.
Okay rant over. Here we have Travis introducing Susanna Dickinson as his cousin, which is not true at all. I seem to have bought the version of without the theatrical cuts included, which state her daughter's name is Lisa. Anway, Its not. It's Angelina. Fannin "has mustered almost a thousand men at Goliad." They then talk about how its too good to be true and go on further about keeping bad news from the men. Fannin had around 400 men under his command at La Bahia. I can't find any claims from him that he had raised anywhere near a thousand soldiers.
Bowie: "I got a reputation for truth, Travis." Could have fooled me. Yes, how can anyone forget the truth of the Las Almagres Mine, your totally honest land dealings or how you made your original fortune by slave smuggling. Real straight shooter there.
"What we should do is burn all of Bexar, including this Mission." Remember that guy that Houston sent to burn down Bexar, including this mission, whom Neill persuaded not to? That was Bowie. He keeps threatening to leave throughout the whole movie and how its stupid and suicidal to stay. He may have thought negotiations were possible with the Mexicans or that an honorable peace could be achieved, but he was most certainly not inclined to leave the mission and "cut, slash, and run." I don't really have any problem with the portrayal of Bowie as drunk or abrasive, but constantly agitating to leave the mission and wanting to burn it is completely incorrect.
I'm in command and I've already decided against your plan.
Well, that's kinda true. Neill left Travis in command after he departed, but the militia were disinclined to take orders from anyone they didn't elect, and thus preferred Bowie. Travis and Bowie agreed to share command after a drinking binge which embarrassed Bowie and apparently somewhat humbled him.
Crockett talking to Seguin notices that people are "running like sheep that have smelled a wolfpack." He clearly means busy and industrious, unless I'm wrong. However, on a certain level, the movement he sees happened. There were quite a few Tejanos leaving San Antonio in the few weeks before Santa Anna arrived. They didn't like the rumors and decided to get out of Dodge before they became facts. They'd already been through one battle in fall and didn't care for another in spring.
Here arrives the Mexican Army in San Antonio, in bright, sunny, not very historical weather. A messenger rides up under a white flag and reads Travis an ultimatum.
From the headquarters of Generalìssimo Antonio López de Santa Anna, absolute ruler of Mexico, to the rebel commander who deems himself in command of the rebels occupying the mission. Be it known : the province of Mexico known as Texas has shown itself to be in active and treasonous revolt against the rule of Generalìssimo Santa Anna. The Generalìssimo in his kindness, issues the following order : All occupants of the mission will leave at once, leaving all arms and ammunition behind them. If this order is not followed with your dispatch, the Generalìssimo will be reducing the mission by assault. There will be no quarter given. Signed Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna."
The courier actually rode while a bugler sounded a request for parley. Travis ordered the eighteen pounder fired, as depicted. A messenger sent by Bowie received the following reply:
The Mexican Army cannot come to terms under any conditions with rebellious foreigners to whom there is no other recourse left, if they wish to save their lives, than to place themselves immediately at the disposal of the Supreme Government from whom alone they may expect clemency after some considerations are taken up.
Later Travis and Dickinson are watching the army pour into San Antonio. Dickinson comments the troops he's observing add up to 2000 strong. There were about 1500 by the end of February 23.
That main body must be strung out from miles : the assault infantry, heavy artillery, commissary and supply trains… They won’t be here for four or five days, and the actual battle can’t start until then. Oh, there’ll be an occasional sortie or artillery fire, feeling out our defenses. They won’t commit themselves to an actual attack until Santa Anna is here with his main force.
I'll go in order. The heavy artillery won't be here for two weeks, i.e. until after the battle is over. Here, in the early part of the siege, the Alamo defenders actually have an advantage in artillery over the Mexicans, who have about ten fieldpieces. There were nineteen or twenty mounted inside the mission. The one advantage Santa Anna did have was in ammunition, which he used to great effect. Travis himself said in his message to the People of Texas & all Americans in the world, written February 24, that they had kept up a constant 24 hour bombardment of the Alamo since they arrived, a little more than "occasional artillery fire." Travis originally ordered each shot answered, but within a few days began conserving his powder and shot. Lastly, Santa Annis is here.
A (fictional) scout named Finn returns from a patrol describing a twelve or fourteen foot cannon. A Tennessean yells: "Hey Travis ! With a cannon like that, them Santa Anna fellas can just sit up there and give us what for, can’t they ?"
Well, yes, that's the point. The particular cannon isn't something the Mexican force would have actually had, but he describes exactly what the Army intended to do. Keep up a constant firing against the walls until they were destroyed at which point the fort would be worthless. Earthworks grew closer to the mission every night to get the artillery progressively closer. Many Mexican officers complained later that Santa Anna's impatience and arrogance needlessly wasted the lives of several hundred soldiers with the assault.
Since the cannon was fictional, the raid out to spike it is also obviously quite fictional. One thing the film doesn't portray is a sortie out by a few dozen Texians to burn a few jacales (small thatch and mud houses) just south the mission, surrounding Alamo Plaza. For context, this is somewhere between the modern Alamo grounds and La Villita. A few Mexican soldiers had occupied the houses and looked to be in the process of preparing an artillery battery behind them.
When Bowie gets back from the raid, he and Travis are pissed off at each other as they perpetually are in this film. By this point Bowie, should have collapsed and be laying in a bed. He was not injured as is depicted. He suffered some sort of respiratory illness, probably exacerbated by drinking heavily. Travis condescendingly tells Crockett why they are fighting. He draws a line in the sand with his sword marking it as the Sabine River and puts Houston on the opposite side of it from the Alamo. More /badgeography. I mean, yes, the soldiers were mostly American, but they weren't literally in Louisiana. As a matter of fact, Houston, at this point was probably riding from his negotiations with the Cherokee in northeast Texas to the Convention in Washington-on-the-Brazos to debate and eventually sign the Declaration of Independence. He was not in any sense "organizing an army."
So the next night, a messenger throws a sombrero over the wall with a letter telling Bowie his wife is dead. He's a few years too late. Jim must have been hitting the bourbon extra hard that night, because he just can't seem to realize SHE'S DEAD JIM.
Here is where the garrison launches the huge cattle rustling operation and steals a bunch of longhorns from the Mexican herd. The first thing is wtf are you doing wading chest high in that river in february. Are you nuts? And no there was no huge cattle drive through the middle of San Antonio. The Texians had a few cattle they kept in the square behind the Convento back and to the north of the church, but not like, a hundred. Also for having been surprised by not expecting the Mexican Army and having no time to gather fodder for a week, those horses sure look healthy.
One of the views is from the front of the church to its right, between it and the Galera, which houses the gate. The short palisade should have an abatis of felled, spiked and chiseled trees in front of it to deter cavalry. There should also be a U shaped earthwork in front of the gate housing a few cannons.
Ah, here we have Bowie announcing the Big He-Bull himself arriving. We see a distinguished looking officer on horseback. Santa Anna arrived at the Alamo on the first day. (also he didn't have a mustache) About 1000 Mexican reinforcements did arrive about March 3, which many Texians thought to be led by Santa Anna and that General Sesma had been commanding the siege so far. They were mistaken. Santa Anna had been in San Antonio since the siege began, with Sesma commanding the cavalry.
In one of the views from the mission toward town we can see what is supposed to be San Fernando church. It should be flying a red flag and isn't.
Santa Anna had already arrived and had been bombarding the missing for ten days. The families leaving the Alamo scene is fictional along with the Generalissimo arriving. Just about every civilian in the mission on Feb 23, was there on March 6.
Ok so here's a dude named Jocko Robertson with a blind wife named Nell, both of whom are from Tennessee. There was a James Robertson, from Tennessee, at the Alamo. He was 24 in 1836, not in his forties or fifties like this version is.
Santa Anna seems to order an attack on the Alamo almost immediately after the civlians are evacuated, in daytime. There was no assault intended to storm the mission until the final attack three days later. The Mexican siege consisted of constant artillery fire and attacks on any Texians who ventured beyond the walls.
During the fictional assault, Bowie is injured when a cannon shot collapses the catwalk he's standing on, injuring his leg. Bowie was bedridden in a room in the convento, as he has been since the second day, and as he would be until he died.
What there should have been in the movie is the arrival of 32 men from Gonzales in the early morning of March 1. Before this point, the defenders numbered about 150 James Bonham arrives back at the Alamo saying that Fannin isn't coming. This is completely true. Apparently Fannin's force had been ambushed and murdered. This is completely untrue.
Fannin had left Presido La Bahia on February 28 to reinforce the Alamo, but had turned back after a traveling about a mile, citing lack of supplies and hearing that Urrea was approaching from the south. He sent Travis a message saying as much. He left again on March 19, this time to join Houston's army along the Colorado River. Urrea's troops caught him in the middle of a prairie, with cover several miles away in each direction. Fannin held off the Mexican attack until the next day, when he surrendered and was led back with his men to Goliad. On March 27 Santa Anna ordered them executed over Urrea's objections. So yes, Fannin's men were murdered. However, the Goliad Massacre was 21 days after the Alamo fell and James Bonham was dead.
In response to Bonham's message, Bowie and Crockett agree to evacuate their men. They assemble, mounted, in the yard where Travis speaks to them and orders the gate opened. This is in daylight. Bowie, especially, would not have done anything this idiotic. He had seen the helplessness of militia on the open prairie against Mexican cavalry, which was far superior to anything Texians could put on foot or on horseback. Texian victories relied on thick cover or surprise to neutralize cavalry and limit the fighting to infantry engagements, which the Texians were more adept at.
So Smith reaches Houston's camp, which didn't historically exist until a week later, and also apparently in a single day, which is pretty impressive for San Antonio to the Sabine River. He turns around immediately after delivering the message and rides back toward San Antonio. I feel sorry for that horse. On the morning of March 6, we see the sun rising, and the defenders waiting on the walls for the attack. Drummers are playing a cadence, buglers are playing an ominous tune. A shitton of cannons open up on the walls and the infantry advance. All of this is in well into the morning, with a nice bright sky.
The innacuracies here are the presence of several things that were nowhere to be found in the Mexican assault, namely: drums, bugles, artillery, awake and alert defenders, and lastly, the sun. The preparations began at midnight, March 6. Santa Anna had been growing impatient and wanted a quick end to the battle. The night before, a Hispanic woman reported to some Mexican officers that the garrison was willing to surrender. The woman was, according to Susanna Dickinson, Juana Navarro Alsbury, a cousin of Bowie's late wife. She was reportedly sent by Travis as a feeler to seek out an honorable surrender. She got essentially the same answer that Travis and Bowie had gotten at the beginning of the siege.
Santa Anna apparently wasn't interested in a surrender. He was interested in absolute victor to avenge the slight to his family and to the Mexican Army. Lt Col Jose Enrique de la Peña speculated that Santa Anna "would have regretted taking the Alamo without clamor and without bloodshed for some believe without these there is no glory." Granted, de la Peña intensely disliked Santa Anna, but also granted, at one time or another, most of Mexico did as well. At a council of war on the evening of March 5, Santa Anna, his aide de camp, Juan Almonte, and Joaquin Ramirez y Sesma were in favor of an assault early the following morning. Most of the rest of the officers preferred to wait until the heavy artillery arrived in two or three days to simply reduce the mission. Santa Anna ordered attack for the next morning, which began at 5a.m., well before the sun came up.
The Mexican infantry start advancing and a bunch of cavalry jump the low barricade in front of the church. Santa Anna had ordered the cavalry to patrol around the mission to stop any Texian escapees. The low wall had abatis in front of it to stop cavalry anyway. The first breakthrough came at the north wall, as depicted, although having been battered for 12 days, it was a bit more shoddy than shown in the film. Mexicans infantry storm the main plaza and the Texians form a barricade in front of the church. They actually would have retreated to the convento and to the church itself. Crockett most certainly did not bow up the powder in the church. A Texian was indeed trusted with doing so, but he was killed before his torch reached its target, which is a good thing for Susanna and Angelina Dickinson and Joe, who were hiding in the sacristy adjacent to the building.
Ok, so the battle is now over and Susanna and Angelina are discovered by a Mexican officer, who leads them out of the mission to a mule and they walk away past an incorrectly mustached Santa Anna toward Smitty, who has just arrived back from Houston's camp. There were atually about a dozen survivors. Alsbury and her sister, Sam, Joe, and the wife and children of Gregorio Esparza, a Tejano soldier. One Mexican Army deserter, who had served under Cos convinced the newly arrived Mexicans he was a Texian prisoner by locking himself in the jail. Santa Anna interviewed each of the civilian survivors. He offered to adopt Angelina and have here given an aristocratic education in Mexico City, which Susanna declined. He sent them on their way with a few pesos to the east to tell the Anglo settlements what she saw and scare the shit out the inhabitants. It worked reasonably well.
Haha! 39676 characters. Stick that in your juice box and suck it, reddit character limit.
Sources/Further reading, aside from the wikipedia and TSHA links I've been spamming.
Stephen L Hardin; Texian Illiad: A Military History of the Texas Revolution
Paul D Lack; The Texas Revolutionary Experience; A Political and Social History
submitted by Spartacus_the_troll to badhistory [link] [comments]

2013.12.10 22:29 teckademics A few people you may want to follow on Xbox Live.

Will try to update the list. Just wanted to get this out there. Most of these are from
Gaming Industry Icons/Developers etc
submitted by teckademics to xboxone [link] [comments]

2013.07.03 16:45 tabledresser [Table] IAmA: I’m Peter Navarro, author, professor, and expert on the increasingly contentious U.S.-China trade relationship. Ask me anything!

Verified? (This bot cannot verify AMAs just yet)
Date: 2013-07-02
Link to submission (Has self-text)
Questions Answers
Given the oversight necessary for chinese products to be "up to snuff," as it were, do you think the chinese government has any chance at making a dent in unsavory production practices (like the revival of melanin in milk despite efforts)? if they can't do it, can us import officials do it? What options, from any source, are best for protecting us consumers who aren't willing to educate themselves? There is little chance the Chinese government can regulate its own food and drug supply. The unscrupulous entrepreneurs that make big bucks on spiking pet food and baby formula with melanin or heparin with poisons seem willing to risk getting caught because the rewards are so high. The best option to protect yourself in the near term is simply not to buy any products Made in China.
Great. Now, I'm terrified of fish tacos. Not seeking to emote terror when picking up the Made in China label. Just a thoughtful calculus of what it means to buy from a country with a reputation for bad products and unfair trade practices. So enjoy the tacos so long as they aren't made from frozen tilapia imported from the PRC!
What were the noteworthy changes after China decided to float the RMB instead of keeping it pegged to the dollar? Now that it's semi-floating, what (dis)advantages would there be to a free float? Economic downturn in China and China reverts to weakening the RMB. For non-economists, this means that China can export more and import less and create jobs at the expense of the U.S., Europe, and other countries. Despite all the talk about RMB strengthening, it remains undervalued by anywhere from 25 to 40%. This is why the U.S. trade deficit is running at almost a billion dollars a day.
Also, are you related at all to Dave Navarro of Jane's Addiction and Red Hot Chili Peppers? Not related to Dave -- but a fan of his music. (My father was a professional musician though).
Awesome. So follow-up question: do you foresee China actually floating the RMB in the, uh, forseeable future? Funny guy. A speculator we have here. I've been thinking for several years now that the RMB would float upward significantly. It's in China's interests because it gives the people more purchasing power and helps control inflation.
What I'm trying to say here is: how much of a bad idea is it to buy a bunch of RMBs, go shake down Xi Jinping, and get an instant 25-40% return? That said, the Chinese government is so reactionary that it keeps holding down the RMB to stimulate its export-led growth and I don't see that changing as China's economy is now slowing down.
What is the biggest misconception you come across between us china relationship? Ie more healthy then shown, partner dynamics, what bargaining chips are used. As my good friend Gordon Chang likes to note, we have this "glowy view" of China based on its wondrous 5000-year old history prior to the 1949 Communist Revolution. Since that time, China has become a very different kind of dynasty that has little to do with terracotta soldiers and Confucius. While the Chinese and American citizens get along very well (for example, on Reddit), the Chinese government does not have our interests at heart -- or that of most of the Chinese people.
the Chinese government does not have our interests at heart -- or that of most of the Chinese people. First, my paramount concern is that the Chinese government uses unfair trade practices to take jobs from other countries around the world. This practice is a big reason why over 20 million Americans can't find a decent job.
Well, does America have the Chinese' interests at heart? Second, during the time 200 million or so Chinese citizens have been lifted out of poverty, the country's environment has been significantly harmed while, most alarming in a putatively communist country, the distribution of income has become incredibly skewed. Today, a very small handful of people control much of the wealth of a country of 1.3 billion people.
How reliable are data points coming out of China reliable ? ie parties at various levels fudge the data for their own interest. In the 80's the hype used to be that Japan would overtake the US. Then they latched on to the China bandwagon saying it would overtake US in next 30 years etc. China have great capability in government planning and ramping up to a certain levels but might be reaching their limit with the existing model. I feel the gap in innovation and high tech amongst other things is so wide that there is very little chance for China to overtake the US in the next 100 years. What are your thoughts about China as an economic power ? #1: The data from China is "smoothed" so you can never really tell what the real number is. Right now, the slowdown is likely understated. #3: The Japan-China comparison is spurious. During the 1980s, Japan was an imperial power with no natural resources and an expensive labor force that harnessed cheap labor in Asia. It was doomed to fail as soon as countries like Singapore, Thailand, and Hong Kong came into their own.
You thoughts about the Chinese shadow banking systems and implications ? #2: Shadow banking is huge source of credit at usurious rates. It acts effectively like sub-prime market did during our own housing crisis -- and it's collapse will have a similar effect.
China, on the other hand, has a huge force of cheap labor and is endowed with considerable natural resources. It is able to steal the technology of the West (and Japan) and thereby move up the value chain. China also is growing what will soon be the second (and perhaps eventually first) most powerful military in the world.
I know you specialize in American-Chinese trade, but what do you think the implications would be should Obama move forward with Keystone XL. Canada is willing to ship the oil to China if Obama refuses the project. Is it worth losing the business to China? Nicely done...
Canadians are outraged at the U.S. not approving the pipeline and feel they are being pushed with an alternate pipeline westward for exporting oil to China.
The Keystone pipeline is a classic tradeoff between energy security and environmental protection. In this case, the added twist is by approving the pipeline, we would help our Canadian ally and move closer to energy independence for North America. On national security and economic grounds, that's probably a good deal for America.
I hate the idea of selling our resources, but sadly we've put ourselves in a situation where our economy now depends on it. Yep. pieces of america sold off one at a time.
What do you think is China's biggest weakness? I used to think "lack of soft power", but after living there I think the lack of trust between people in all areas of society will be their main hurdle to really becoming successful. How do you see things? A government that relentlessly spies on the people and stifles dissent.
A corporate environment that exploits workers and has little regard for the environment.
If and when the revolution comes, it will be triggered by any number of things like rising (and gross) income disparities, land seizures, and massive unemployment that may arise, for example, if the Chinese speculative bubble in real estate bursts.
Note that the U.S. has similar problems but to a much less degree -- and we have a political system more capable of handling (and tolerating) dissent.
Where does ice cream fit into the American-Chinese relationship? We are certainly not importing any ice cream yet from China, but in the realm of dairy products, China has a well known history of contaminating products like baby formula and powdered milk. The situation is so bad Chinese mothers go to Hong Kong, Australia, and even Great Britain to buy it. (On a personal note, I'm a big ice cream fan -- a key "food group."
How much does the US treasury receive every year from tariffs on Chinese imports? Would bad things happen in the US and/or China if the US increased its trade tariffs every year by a slight amount until trade was balanced between the two countries? Very little as our tariffs are very, very low on Chinese imports. On the other, China's tariffs on most U.S. exports to China are quite high.
That's the conundrum of allowing China into the World Trade Organization and into our markets. We had to lower our tariffs but they did not!
The argument for "countervailing tariffs" on Chinese exports to the U.S. can be made primarily on the grounds that China is using a wide variety of illegal export subsidies to "dump" products into the U.S. often well below cost -- Chinese solar panels are a stunning example, selling anywhere from 30% to 150% BELOW the cost of their production in China.
The American antipathy towards tariffs as "protectionist" is misplaced with China -- such tariffs would merely be self-defense.
Would bad things happen? Probably, in the short run. Over time, America would have a stronger manufacturing base and economy and a lot more jobs.
*How much does U.S. occupation of Taiwan effect (affect?) Sino-American relations? The Taiwan question is a very important one in U.S.-China relations and already sparked several wars. There is an uneasy truce now but it remains a significant flash point in the region.
Do you think that trade restrictions would be useful in combating the atrocities? Interesting. Prior to 2001 when the President and Congress let China into the World Trade Organization, the U.S. was able to condition trade annually on improving things like human rights -- and it worked!!!
We abandoned that principle because of a combination of political hubris and corporate greed. Now, we have absolutely NO leverage on China with respect to human rights and the systematic abuse of Falun Gong, Tibetans, Uighurs, and dissidents because we have delinked trade and human rights.
So heck yes, tying trade back to human rights would be useful -- history proves it.
I definitely did not know that--would it be feasible to re-implement this? The problem is our entry into the World Trade Organization. Not to pimp my film, but the film does document the debate in 2000 over whether we should join the WTO.
Both President Clinton and the Republican Congress argued that letting China into the WTO would give us access to their markets and allow, as President Clinton said, for American workers to make products on American soil for sale into China. Of course, the big hand behind this were the big corporations like GE and Caterpillar ready to actually offshore production -- which is what happened.
As soon as we joined the WTO, we could no longer link trade to human rights, labor rights, or environmental protection. So now we have a more repressive Chinese government, rampant worker abuses, and the most polluted country in the world.
Are there more than a few democrats in the ruling class of the US who are concerned about the growing power of China over the US? Or is the concern only found in nativist quarters where there is little power to change US policy? A very textured question.
Basically, the traditional Left is concerned with China about its human rights abuses, attacks on labor organizing, and its utter lack of environmental protection. It tends to give China a free pass on its mercantilist behavior, preferring to care more about jobs for China's peasants than blue collar Americans.
The traditional Right in America is zealously pro free trade so it gives a pass on China's violations. However, it is a predictable Hawk on the Chinese military threat and its cyber attacks.
In the Death By China film, cast member Dan Fitzpatrick eloquently states that this issue is not about Left or Right but about Right and Wrong. That is where I try to be focused.
It's going to take a coalition across the partisan spectrum to get any traction on this issue. In the meantime, as individuals just remember that when you buy Made in China, you are supporting a regime out to take your job.
Could you see a world war involving China happen over the next few decades? What if trade were to cease between us and china? War talk is scary but let's look at the chess board.
China is aggressively building up its military with a primary goal to drive the U.S. fleet back to Guam or Hawaii. China wants that so it can pursue territorial claims against Japan, Vietnam, and India just to name a few. And finally take Taiwan.
The U.S. is pursuing a "containment" strategy trying to align with countries in Asia at risk. The stronger China gets, the more difficult it will be to hold the alliance.
I don't advocate "no trade" with China. I advocate fair trade so that China doesn't steal our jobs with illegal export subsidies and IP theft.
Until further notice, I recommend "Don't Buy Made in China" until China plays fair and guarantees safe products.
the Philippines. It's been a long and tiring string of news, the Ph disputes with China over the islands with supposed oil in them and overfishing in the waters around Ph territory. And a serious issue it is as the Chinese navy has been bigfooting the Philippines on this issue
A great deal, yeah. I can't say that the Philippines owns those islands for certain, because that's disputed over fellow ASEANs, certainly. But I also know that China does not have any business planting their people on it, either. Exactly. And if China were only doing that to the Philippines, that would be one set of facts. But it is a pattern across Asia by China, which wants to turn the oceans into one big China Lake.
How would you suggest dealing with them in this situation? I find it ironic that the White House will implement a policy of containment in Asia, which is expensive, but won't directly confront China on issues like currency manipulation and cyber attacks.
TL;DR: Being China's neighbor sucks. Being China's biggest market here in the U.S. also sucks.
Being that China is the primary world wide supplier of rare earth minerals, will our increased investment in green energy and other technologies that rely on this natural resource eventually give China a straglehold over the world economies similar to OPEC's control over the world's oil resources? This is an extremely important question and a good example of how China tries to have it both ways. On the one hand, it wants free trade so it can export to any nation in the world without restriction. On the other hand, it is actively seeking to restrict the export of key raw materials like the rare earths.
The Chinese gambit today is to force companies in Japan, Europe, the U.S. and elsewhere that need rare earths in production to move their facilities to China. In this way, China gets the jobs -- and often the technology of the companies as a condition of entry.
Fortunately, China's behavior has helped rekindle development of rare earths outside of China. It is an open question as to whether enough supplies will come forth to offset China's cartel power.
My fingers are crossed on that. From what I understand there is no shortage of rare earth minerals in the U.S., however the expense of the necessary safety and environmental protections (rules which China, correct me if I'm wrong, choose not to abide by) has resulted in domestic mineral extraction being not profitable. Sadly, I feel as if U.S. businesses don't particularly care about the safety and environment of Chinese workers as long as the purchase price remains low. Do you think perhaps the U.S. federal government could step in with a tariff, or subsidy, to offset the cost of domestic extraction and thereby reduce reliance on China? You are right to be concerned. Our government is trying to support the development of the industry but not enough!
Edit: sorry, I'm an electrical engineer, so rare earths is something I'm gravely concerned about! A key issue off the radar screen of too many Americans.
How strong is the Uighur separatist movement? I know the far west of the country is practically completely different from the dominant Han north china plain and coastal region. Sorry for the slow reply. ducked in the shower.
The Uighur movement is in about the same shape as the Tibetan separatist movement. Chinese military and police repression is so strong and pervasive that it is virtually crushed.
The worst abuse I think he Uighurs suffer from is the export of their women to regions in China for the express purpose of breeding out the Uighur line -- a process known as "Hanification"
Ethnically, Uighurs are as different from Han Chinese as Polynesians are from Mexicans. They should have there own independent country but got caught in the politics of Russia versus China.
I've heard that many companies are switching to Indian manufacturers after poor experiences with Chinese products. Do you think that the Chinese manufacturers will get their act together, or will India eventually surpass China in exporting products (at least to the West)? As wages have risen somewhat in China, some of the lower end manufacturing is moving to places like Cambodia, Vietnam, and India.
On net, however, India's trade deficit with China continues to rise significantly at the cost of Indian jobs. So what you are seeing is more of a structural shift in which China maintains the edge in higher valued added products.
So I don't see India surpassing China for a decade or more. The good news for India is that its population is a lot younger than China's and in 40 years, it will likely be India's century.
Thanks for the response. What do you foresee happening to China's population as it ages? Will it see a larger workforce in healthcare, or will workers continue to work for manufacturers? One scenario is that China's corporate class will expand its production to places like India and Iran which have relatively young populations and a young work force. At that point, if China grows fast enough, it will have the wealth to finance pensions and health care for its aging population. If not, life will be very difficult for the vast majority of Chinese citizens.
The problem, as I point out in my Death By China book, is that China is getting older faster than it is getting richer. So healthcare may not be as booming an industry as the age of their population would suggest.
Do you see China and Russia working much closer together in the future? Perhaps joint training excercises? Historically, this has been an up and down relationship since the 1949 Communist revolution in China.
Today, China buys much of its military aircraft from Russia and it is certainly a potential supplier of natural resources. (Russia is outraged at some of the reverse engineering China has down with the equipment it has sold it.)
Interestingly, in some border areas, Russia is become more and more dependent on Chinese labor on its agricultural lands.
The bad news is that neither country really trusts the other. Remember, Nixon went to China because of the huge schism between the Soviet Union and China over Vietnam. At the time, China declared the USSR to be a bigger enemy than the U.S.
As far as joint training exercises, the U.S. does that with China at the same time that Chinese subs stalk our ships in the Pacific. So joint training does not always mean anything.
And check the news: Russia and China just announced the largest ever joint naval drills.
Bottom line: mixed bag. More up than down at the moment but as mercurial as Colorado weather.
What stops China from using the trade surplus cash it receives from the US to buy property and natural resources in the US? Not to overstate the concern, but will not China become the owner of more and more of the US as the years go by? Nothing is stopping China from buying our assets at all. 2012 was a banner year and 2013 will be even bigger.
They just bought Smithfield Foods for $5 billion. That's the world's largest pork producer.
We have very little regulatory constraints against China buying up America even as we cannot do the same in China.
As one woman says in my film: "they are going to own us pretty soon."
Why does the United States need to claim global dominance? Why can't China have a modest sphere in their own coastal region? Why do propagandists like you constantly divert blame from America to China in world events? Why shouldn't the world turn to China, considering America's record of toppling governments over minor debt issues? A "modest sphere" does not appear to be what the Chinese government is seeking as it rapidly militarizes. The governments of India, Japan, Brunei, the Philippines, and Vietnam are all now be subjected to harassment by the Chinese military over territorial claims that can be described as nothing short of outlandish.
An important question is this: Will the country that is helping North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan develop nuclear arsenals be a benevolent superpower?
I think you've just confirmed that you're nothing more than an apologist for American empire. If you look at the history of the Phillippines, Vietnam, Japan, Taiwan, Korea, etc and see Chinese harassment (and ignore American war crimes and aggression), there's simply no need to pay attention to you. A big side effect of China's export-driven growth is a rapid militarization. Forget about the American perspective on this. Put yourself in the shoes of India, Vietnam or Japan. These countries now fear China. I believe it is with good reason.
Why exactly do the Chinese suppress Falun Gong? Even Wikipedia puts it under "speculation on rationale" for suppression. Well, the answer lies in an historical event that scared the Chinese leadership in the late 1990s. The Falun Gong grew as a spiritual organization to what may have been as high as tens of millions. At one point, the Falon Gong made the strategic mistake of engaging in several very large demonstrations. Afterwards, the crackdown was absolutely brutal. Jailings, beatings, torture.
Since that time, the government has sought to eradicate what is essentially a peaceful movement aimed at spiritual harmony. As I document in my film (very carefully), Falun Gong prisoners are subject to having their organs removed while still alive as part of China's organ transplant industry.
Bottom line: They fear a large organized movement of any kind.
You said your dad is a famous musician. Who is that? Didn't say "famous." He was pretty good though and cut at least one record. He had his own orchestra and played big band music a la Glenn Miller. He played sax and clarinet -- left me genetically with NO talent.
As a kid, I loved going to his gigs at famous places like Fountainbleu Hotel in Miami and Mt. Washington hotel in New Hampshire.
How do you feel about the future relationship between the two? china's market seems to exploding and become larger and larger, increasing its net income, assets and shareholders' equity. is the u.s. in danger of losing large market shares to china? China's growth is good for corporate America because American companies can sell into China -- but only if they offshore their production to China.
So U.S. workers have already lost this battle. 5 million manufacturing jobs lost and over 50,000 factories shut down since China joined the World Trade Organization and began having their way with us. (That's the story told in my film.)
The future relationship is fraying because of both economic and military tensions.
So, in fact, china's explosive growth has led to the complete destruction of the american worker and the low/middle class. Not the complete destruction. But we have been harmed considerably.
From an economist's view, the problem is that the trade deficit acts as a drag on GDP growth. Running a deficit of roughly $300 billion a year has been shaving close to a million jobs a year off our job growth.
China is the biggest reason why over 20 million Americans can't find a decent job and unemployment is very high among recent college graduates. It's unfair trade practices make it very difficult for U.S., European, African, Brazilian companies -- you name them -- to compete.
China is not the only problem but the biggest one.
So if china poses such a threat and seemingly destroys our economy, our livelihood, and future positioning, shouldn't we go to war with them instead of all of these countries in the middle east and south asia? or do none of the politicians actually give a shit about the country? Big multinational corporations like Caterpillar, GE, and GM provide the lions share of campaign contributions to the White House and Congress. These corporations benefit from offshoring their production to China -- cheap labor, no unions, no EPA, no OSHA, no taxes, etc. So they lobby our politicians on both sides of the aisle not to crack down on China's currency manipulation and unfair trade practices.
Meanwhile, our industrial base crumbles and China builds up its military. It's obvious when you look at it.
While the Pentagon and FBI understand the threat, the politicians have been slow to respond. if the corporate elite weren't sucking off congress, we'd already gone to war with china? No. If the corporate elite were less powerful, our government would never have allowed them to offshore so many of our jobs to China and the relationship would be much more balanced.
Isn't that kinda a trick question? I mean..practically everyday I am using something made in china even if I don't even realize it. I would probably have to quit my job to spend all the time to find made in USA products. Which is something sad in of itself. Not a trick question. Just trying to see how aware people are of the Made in China label.
My mission now is to raise consumer awareness about the implications of buying Made in China.
Next time you go to the store, try checking the label. A lot of times -- but not every time -- you can find alternatives. It's good for your health -- and good for the country.
Have you noticed any increased competition on the African continent? I know China is investing heavily on the continent, and the consensus is that the US is losing out on a huge opportunity. Care to comment? I covered the issue of Chinese colonialism in Africa AND Latin America heavily in my book but didn't have room for it in the film. It's a huge issue.
China is literally in every country in Africa. It typically offers to loan huge sums of money to the government and build things like roads and stadiums. The hook, however, is that the collateral for the loans is the natural resources of the country, which are extracted and exported back to China.
Two bad things then happen: China uses the resources to manufacture goods which it ships back to Africa and African workers lose their manufacturing jobs.
Its good your here...I just picked up from the Princeton bookstore "China goes Global: The Partial Power" by David Shambaugh. Worth the read? Well, it's a Beltway Insiders view of China, which I'm rather skeptical of. But it is hard to argue with the thesis that China is emerging as a global power.
I think the book understates the pace at which this transformation is taking place, as evidenced by the very "partial power" title.
I often hear people talking about how the U.S., should we ever need to wipe out our debt, can go to war with China. Can you explain why this would not be a viable solution to getting rid of our debt to China? Also, because of our strong financial ties, is there any scenario in which war would be likely for the two? Say for example, China was FORCED to chose between N. Korea and America, which would they more likely pursue? The best way for us to deal with our debt is to start reducing our trade deficit with China. That will require cracking down on their unfair trade practices.
When push comes to shove, the best way for the U.S. to reduce its existing debt is to "inflate the debt" by printing a bunch of money and causing inflation. This is not the best thing for our country.
The big problem with China holding our debt is that they are now using it to buy up large pieces of America, e.g., Smithfield foods.
On the North Korea issue, China fears a unified Korea because it would likely side with the West. So it props up a dictator building missiles to send nukes to California. Not good.
How bad was it for the US ( and free world ) that the US lost the Vietnam war? That is, if Vietnam was free today like South Korea is, would China still be able to dominate East Asia? To follow this closely is to know that China and Vietnam are not allies in the region. China is pressing unreasonable territorial claims and also wrecking Vietnam's environment with dam projects.
The Vietnamese people are very unhappy with China right now.
• What would have to happen for China to become democratic? China is already providing soldiers in UN peacekeeping missions. The big problem with China at the UN is that it uses its veto to get things like oil from the Sudan and natural gas from Iran in exchange for vetoing any actions on issues like the genocide in Darfur and nuclear proliferation in Iran. China won't become democratic until the Communist Party is toppled -- a difficult task given the level of repression in China.
I read an article about shadow banking in China earlier today. How do you think this, and it's mysterious (albeit Keynesian) monetary policy will impact the US-China trade relationship in the coming months? Shadow banking in China is equivalent to the sub-prime lending market in the U.S. during the housing crisis. If the Chinese real estate bubble collapses, the shadow banks will collapse and this will put great pressure on the whole financial system. Hope this helps.
How many middle class Chinese citizens do you think are in China? Interesting question. It's a tiny fraction mostly along the Coast and tinier if you count non-CCP members. That's the probably. Growing disparity in rich versus poor in a country that revolted because of growing disparities between rich and poor.
Are the intellectual property theft and hacking attacks (maybe they shouldn't be grouped together, I don't know) a response to covert American aggression, or are the Chinese government/military just a bunch of jerks? The hacking of U.S. businesses to steal intellectual property is a type of strategic economic warfare designed to give Chinese companies competitive advantage. We are the "jerks" for letting them get away with it.
The hacking of the Pentagon to steal our weapons system is designed to build China into a global superpower capable of driving the U.S. Pacific Fleet out of Asian waters. You can interpret that as ye wish.
Bottom line: Hacking is an act of war and should be recognized as such.
I can understand how short-sightedness and greed got us into this position. A lot of large companies saw a way to slash their costs dramatically as soon as we joined the WTO. Anything that boosts that bottom line is smiled upon, regardless of the short- or long-term consequences. The answer lies in the politics of offshoring. The big companies like GE and Caterpillar that benefit from offhshoring are the same ones that provide much of the campaign financing for presidents and Congressmen. So, as Alan Tonelson says in my film, "they like the status quo and they have paid a lot of money for it."
Seriously, we're coming of age just in time to get screwed as hard as possible. Well, I'm a 60s kid who was draft age in the midst of the Vietnam War and my generation did more than a bit of storming the ramparts.
Last updated: 2013-07-07 14:23 UTC
This post was generated by a robot! Send all complaints to epsy.
submitted by tabledresser to tabled [link] [comments]