American Politics, pt. 9
6108. Macnas - 2/14/2003 3:21:07 AM Whats with the italics?
6109. Macnas - 2/14/2003 3:22:15 AM
Help! I'm being italicated and I don'nt know why!
6110. magoseph - 2/14/2003 8:38:37 AM
Here, Mac!
6111. magoseph - 2/14/2003 8:39:14 AM
Let's see.
6112. magoseph - 2/14/2003 8:39:48 AM
6113. magoseph - 2/14/2003 8:40:55 AM
So I did this
6114. alistairConnor - 2/14/2003 8:53:11 AM
OK so you can save the Irish from being Italicised...
But can you save the Iraqis from being Americanised?
6115. magoseph - 2/14/2003 9:06:34 AM
It's probably better than being franchised.
6116. jexster - 2/14/2003 10:55:10 AM
HANS BLIX stands tall before the lofty mast - Inspections Have Revealed Nothing That Substantially Contradicts Iraqi Declarations - Recent Actions Comply With UNMOVIC Request for Active Cooperation - US/BRITAIN ("OTHER GOVERNMENTS") NOT FULLY COMPLYING WITH RES 1441 REQUIREMENTS TO SUPPLY INTEL
6117. jexster - 2/14/2003 11:10:13 AM
"If Bloody Bush wants to go to war in a few weeks, this report isn't a good way to start it" Gen Barry McCaffery
6118. jexster - 2/14/2003 11:12:35 AM
Du Gamla, Du Fria
Du gamla, du fria, du fjällhöga Nord,
Du tysta, du glädjerika sköna!
Jag hälsar dig, vänaste land uppå jord,
Din sol, din himmel, dina ängder gröna.
Din sol, din himmel, dina ängder gröna.
Du tronar på minnen från fornstora da'r,
då ärat ditt namn flög över jorden.
Jag vet att du är och du blir, vad du var.
Ja, jag vill leva, jag vill dö i Norden.
Ja, jag vill leva, jag vill dö i Norden.
Translation
Thou Ancient, Thou Free
You ancient, free and mountainous North,
Of quiet, joyful beauty,
I greet you, loveliest land on earth,
Your sun, your sky, your green meadows.
Your sun, your sky, your green meadows.
You are throned on memories of olden days
When the honour of your name spread over the earth.
I know that you are and will remain what you were.
Oh, may I live, may die in the Nordic North
6119. jexster - 2/14/2003 12:21:15 PM
I don't think the networks are going to even bother covering Powell after Blix's devastating report...
Poor PantyWaist, he just a Buffalo Soldier
In the heart of America
Stolen from Africa, brought to America
Said he was fighting on arrival
Fighting for survival
Said he was a Buffalo Soldier
Win the war for America
6120. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/14/2003 12:30:08 PM
6121. jexster - 2/14/2003 1:14:24 PM
VATICAN CITY - Strong war opponent Pope John Paul (news - web sites) II held a private meeting with a top Iraqi leader Friday, urging the government of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) to commit fully to U.N. weapons inspections in hopes of averting a U.S.-led attack.
The pontiff's hopeful words came hours before chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix reported to the Security Council that his team had so far not found weapons of mass destruction. He spoke at a meeting that could determine whether the United States gets U.N. backing for a possible military action.
The pope met with Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz for about 30 minutes Friday, gripping the Iraqi's hand firmly at the end. "God bless you. God bless Iraq," John Paul said.
6122. jexster - 2/14/2003 1:34:40 PM
"Let me first tell ya. We're winning the "war" on terror" Moron King chuckles as if to say "You may not believe it but..."
I am gonna go get some duct tape.
6123. jexster - 2/14/2003 2:29:40 PM
"White House; Use of Force can be avoided"
Just as I have said - the only way to deal with Bush is to say FUCK YOU
6124. jexster - 2/14/2003 2:37:06 PM
Mysterium fidei "God bless Iraq" J2P2
6125. judithathome - 2/14/2003 2:44:32 PM
The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. . . . All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
(Hermann Goering, interviewed by a writer just before his suicide while awaiting trial at Nuremberg)
6126. jexster - 2/14/2003 3:35:37 PM
God bless Iraq!
The Vatican repeated "the necessity of faithfully respecting, with concrete commitments, the resolutions of the United Nations (news - web sites) Security Council, guarantor of international legality."
The statement, by papal spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls, concluded by saying the Catholic Church would continue working for peace and coexistence of peoples.
The pontiff has been one of the most vocal opponents of the possible military action, saying in the past that war against Iraq would be a "defeat for humanity." The Vatican has insisted that a preventive war has no legal or moral justification.
While in Italy, Aziz, a Chaldean Christian, also planned to participate in a prayer ceremony with Franciscan friars in Assisi.
6127. jexster - 2/14/2003 3:37:42 PM
That's EXCELLENT JAH.......Has such a familiar ring to it.....why I can hear the echo now
Zan
Edmundo
Al D
Time of the Troubles
The Faux concern
6128. AceofSpades - 2/14/2003 3:40:53 PM
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. . . . All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
-- William Shakespeare, Sonnet 103 ("The people can always be brought to do the bidding of their leaders.../")
6129. concerned - 2/14/2003 3:49:32 PM
Re. 6125 -
Who says France and Germany are peacemakers, with just about the worst war records on the planet? What they really are are losers.
6130. concerned - 2/14/2003 3:51:26 PM
France and Germany can hardly tell the difference between freedom and oppression, and they are as likely to choose oppression when they can. And we're supposed to accept their counsel?
Muwahahaha!
6131. AceofSpades - 2/14/2003 3:55:49 PM
Sorry... we just had soooooo much fun with The Mote's resident William Shakespeare experts.
Check this out!
Some samples:
Me:
"I love the smell of napalm in the morning."
-- William Shakespeare
"Who let the dogs out?"
-- William Shakespeare
Edmund Dantes:
"We say and say we all of noble peace /To give sweet peace a chance would chance us well."
Hamlet, "William Shakespeare"
Edmund Dantes:
"War, hunh, good God y'all, what is it good for?"
Macbeth--William Shakespeare
Me:
"I like big butts and I cannot lie/
You otha brothas can't deny/
/that when those Daisy Dukes ride up high/
You get sprung-- /
m-m-m-me so horney...
Baby got back, forsooth."
--William Shakespeare, A Midnsummer Night's Booty Call
Dick Stensland:
One day Governor Burns said to me, "Bob, why are you here first, and why do you leave last?" I said, "Governor, I'm going to do good things."
Polonius, Hamlet (II, ii, 115-117)
Me:
"2 legit
2 legit 2 quit
hey-heyyyyyy...
2 legit
2 legit 2 quit
hey-heyyyyyy...
"
-- Chorale for Mozart's Symphony Nr. 41 ("The Jupiter Symphony")
Me:
Here I am
Rock you like a Hurricane
-- Dante, The Inferno, Quatro 16, Third Canto
TabouliJones --
Blinded by the light
Wrapped up like a douche, a little odor in the night
-- Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales
6132. AceofSpades - 2/14/2003 3:56:40 PM
Me:
She had a fast machine
She kept her motor clean
She was the best damn woman that I ever seen
-- Percy Bysshe Shelley, Ode to Beauty
TabouliJones:
I smoted him, I smoted him good
-- Al Gore quoting Genesis 8:19-36 when asked about his performance in the first Bush/Gore presidential debate
Me (x2):
It's OPP, time other people's what you get it
There's no room for relationship there's just room to hit it
How many brothers out there know just what I'm gettin' at
Who thinks it's wrong 'cos I'm splittin' and co-hittin' at
Well if you do, that's OPP and you're not down with it
But if you don't, here's your membership
You down with OPP
(Yeah you know me)
You down with OPP
(Yeah you know me)
You down with OPP
(Yeah you know me)
Who down with OPP?
(Every last homie)
--The Horse-Whisperer
Well let's bungle
in the jungle
Well that's all right with me
I'm a tiger when I want love
I'm a snake if we disagree
--Rudyard Kipling, Kim
6133. Cellar Door - 2/14/2003 3:58:43 PM
Good grief! What brought Ace back? "Perfect World" not so perfect?
6134. judithathome - 2/14/2003 4:03:59 PM
Check it out, acehole:
Urban Legends
The notable difference here is that although the Caesar quote is a latter-day fabrication, the words attributed to Hermann Goering are real. Goering was one of the highest-ranking Nazis who survived to be captured and put on trial for war crimes in the city of Nuremberg by the Allies after the end of World War II. He was found guilty on charges of "war crimes," "crimes against peace," and "crimes against humanity" by the Nuremberg tribunal and sentenced to death by hanging. The sentence could not be carried out, however, because Goering committed suicide with smuggled cyanide capsules hours before his execution, scheduled for 15 October 1946.
6135. judithathome - 2/14/2003 4:05:20 PM
No Cellar, the joke is on him...this quote is real and he will likely not be back to check that fact; he certainly won't bother to mention it to his cronies, either.
6136. AceofSpades - 2/14/2003 4:09:35 PM
No, William Shakespeare said it. Barbra Streisand said so.
"sticks
and stones
may break
my bones
but names
will never
hurt me."
-- Alexander Pope, Treatise on the Power of Name-Calling
6137. judithathome - 2/14/2003 4:28:19 PM
Ah, Ace...you have the wrong quote. I messed up on the Barbra Sreisand quote and admitted it at the time but this is not the same one. Did you even read the link I provided?
Not that you give a rat's ass.
6138. jexster - 2/14/2003 5:04:03 PM
Dow Surges on News of Blix Body Blow to Bloody Bush War
6139. wonkers2 - 2/14/2003 5:04:11 PM
The Cap'n sez "Shiver me timbers look who's back, if'n ain't Ace. That'll rile up the waters a bit."
6140. jexster - 2/14/2003 5:05:57 PM
God Bless Iraq
Now perhaps its too much to hope but maybe, with the Pope's intercession, we can put this mess aside for a while and focus on the many and varied failures of a failed presidency and coming national malaise
6141. jexster - 2/14/2003 5:07:57 PM
Ace - got Osama?
got duct tape?
6142. jexster - 2/14/2003 5:10:57 PM
300 cities - 10,000,000 demonstrators against Bush War this weekend....
Storm moving in here Sat morning...hopefully we'll be on the backside by 11 on Sunday..God willing that is and God bless Iraq
6143. wabbit - 2/14/2003 5:29:07 PM
It's nice to be back to the FBI again.
President speaks at FBI on new Terrorist Threat Integration Center
6144. Cellar Door - 2/14/2003 6:57:28 PM
connie's gonna just LOVE this!
6145. concerned - 2/14/2003 7:19:55 PM
Re. 6142 -
Sometimes it seems the ideological Left has always succeeded in presenting themselves as being a waste and hindrance.
6146. concerned - 2/14/2003 7:22:13 PM
Re. 6144 -
You know, I have some ungodly password (I'm the 478,326'th person with my last name & first initials that has registered there, it seems) that I have a hard time remembering at that site. Can you excerpt?
6147. magoseph - 2/14/2003 7:29:17 PM
Is that it?
Whitewater Revisited
To the Editor:
I appreciated the correction that appeared in The Times on Feb. 2 regarding Beverly Lowry's review of my book, ''The Woman Who Wouldn't Talk'' (Jan. 26), in which she had said that Kenneth Starr convicted me ''on charges of obstruction of justice and criminal contempt.'' In fact, the jury refused to convict me on any of these charges, and this outcome was a clear rebuke to Starr. But I would like to respond to several other statements in the review.
Lowry wrote of Bill Clinton that ''the future president was governor and the McDougals owned a bank and a savings and loan'' at the time of the investment in Whitewater. Actually, Bill Clinton was not then governor, and Jim McDougal and I were not then in the banking business. The latter point might have passed without comment had she not gone on to state that ''the Clintons took part in Whitewater and irrefutably they and the McDougals trampled on some rights.'' I am baffled by the reference to ''trampled on some rights,'' and wonder if Lowry has discovered something that Ken Starr, backed by tens of millions of dollars of prosecutorial power, could not.
Finally, Lowry described the embezzlement charges brought against me in California by Nancy and Zubin Mehta. However, she neglected to mention that I was found not guilty on all counts. Indeed, after the trial, jurors expressed outrage that the case had even come to court.
I wrote my book in hopes of showing the public what really went on during the Whitewater investigation, and to give voice to the often voiceless women I met in prison. It is in the same vein that I appreciate the opportunity to set the record straight.
Susan McDougal
Camden, Ark.
6148. jexster - 2/14/2003 8:20:21 PM
Here's a scary thought...from a friend:
One of my correspondents is taking bets around his office as to when the first American strikes on Iraq will take place. Sentiment heavily favors initial attacks this Sunday during the wee hours. The thinking is that Monday's holiday will provide an ideal cushion against a negative
response by the markets, and many of my friend's colleagues have bought into the Administration's rumored objective of capturing Saddam within 48 hours. Any bets, guys?
TORA TORA BORA???
6149. jexster - 2/14/2003 9:03:26 PM
Only 38% of the public thinks Bush knows what he is doing on the economy...
When you cannot find Osama
Bomb Iraq
When the polls head for the crapper
Bomb Iraq
6150. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/14/2003 9:05:49 PM
[Tyrants] "Decrease not, but grow faster than the years"
Happy VD Ace!
6151. jexster - 2/14/2003 9:07:57 PM
Here's one just for you Ace:
the U.S. commentariat, with few exceptions, describes Mr. Bush as a decisive leader who really gets to grips with problems. Tough-guy rhetoric aside, this image seems to be based on the following policy — as opposed to political — achievements: (1) The overthrow of the Taliban; (2) . . . any suggestions for 2?
In the days ahead, as the diplomatic confrontation between the Bush administration and the Europeans escalates, remember this: Viewed from the outside, Mr. Bush's America does not look like a regime whose promises you can trust.
Any suggestions for #2 little man?
6152. jexster - 2/14/2003 11:02:15 PM
How about a quote from "Green Eggs and Ham" in a post from the Bush Buttboy?
6153. jexster - 2/14/2003 11:08:57 PM
Guess Ace didn't like that....too bad...I do so love to fuck him up
Maybe he'll like this better...so come out, come out wherever you are.....I wanna play
[Reuters] FRANCE, RUSSIA GET LOUD APPLAUSE
Breaking protocol, delegates sitting in the gallery of the Security Council chamber applauded first French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin and then Russia's Igor Ivanov, prompting German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, chairman of the meeting, to call for order.
There was no applause for Powell's comments.
I'm just a Buffalo Soldier
In the heart of America
Stolen from Africa, brought to America
Said he was fighting on arrival
Fighting for survival
Said he was a Buffalo Soldier
Win the war for America
6154. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/15/2003 1:17:12 AM
6155. concerned - 2/15/2003 2:51:56 AM
Applause is 'news'? Jexster must be getting desperate to find something to back up his viewpoint.
6156. concerned - 2/15/2003 2:56:39 AM
Why is this thread continuing to be cluttered with Iraq spam by jex?
6157. Trouble - 2/15/2003 3:48:54 AM
MSNBC viewers got a lively hour Wednesday night/late afternoon as Donahue came live from Los Angeles at 5pm PST/8pm EST with Dennis Miller as the guest for the hour. So much good stuff, but only so much time to transcribe it. But we got down some of the best parts.
Miller so flustered Donahue that he went on a rant about how people like Miller are trying to “marginalize” liberals. Becoming a parody of himself, Donahue whined about how “you’re making us to be some sort of wimpy kind of people who, woo, woo, we don’t get it. We don’t see evil. We think everything is a nice fairy tale. That is an attempt to marginalize us.”
Donahue also claimed to be a conservative Republican: “We do not think one man should have the Army, Navy, and Marines to send the war all by himself and without the advice and consent of Congress as the Constitution calls us, upon us to do. That makes me conservative. I’m for the Constitution. I would make a good Republican.”
When Donahue charged that dropping “incendiary devices on a crowded city at night where old people and children are sleeping” will give “Osama a poster for recruiting more angry young Islamic militants,” an incredulous Miller fired back: “Oh, you believe he needs that, Phil? Do you really believe that he needs that?”
Miller's best two humorous zingers of the night:
-- On the New York Times: “If only Saddam Hussein would open an all-male country club somewhere in Iraq, so the Times could get behind this invasion.”
-- On Osama bin Laden: “I think that he made a fatal error when he said that he didn’t approve of drinking wine or adultery. Because now the French and Clinton are on board.”
6158. jexster - 2/15/2003 6:20:16 AM
108th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. RES. 32
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
January 29, 2003
Mr. KENNEDY (for himself and Mr. BYRD ) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of the Senate with respect to the actions the President should take before any use of military force against Iraq without the broad support of the international community.
Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that, before the President uses military force against Iraq without the broad support of the international community, the President should--
(1) provide full support to the United Nations weapons inspectors to facilitate their ongoing disarmament work; and
(2) obtain approval by Congress of new legislation authorizing the President to use all necessary means, including the use of military force, to disarm Iraq .
Write your congressthing....ask her to cosponsor this or the companion HRes
6159. jexster - 2/15/2003 11:14:14 AM
Not Your Parents' Protesters in Iraq Fight
Many of the latest brand of antiwar activists are first-timers from a wide spectrum of society. It's far different from the Vietnam-era mix
"We're not going to be the silent majority any longer," she recalled thinking.
The Latts plan to march again today, this time with Jenna's mother in tow. "She's real angry," Latt said of her mother.
6160. jexster - 2/15/2003 11:15:14 AM
Link
6161. jexster - 2/15/2003 11:18:17 AM
"You haven't lived until you have heard 'We Shall Overcome' sung in Arabic," National Council of Churches General Secretary Rev. Robert Edgar.
|
God bless Iraq
6162. jexster - 2/15/2003 11:18:39 AM
Toys
6163. judithathome - 2/15/2003 11:38:22 AM
If anyone has a subscription to Salon, and is so inclined, read Senator Robert Bryd's speech that is featured in Salon's Premium section. It's called "A Haunting Silence" and is very very good...yes, I know, Robert Bryd, yada yada yada with usual conservative snarking about him...I don't care. In this speech, he is dead on in his critcism of his fellow Democrats.
6164. jexster - 2/15/2003 12:20:13 PM
If you don't have a Salon subs. try The Senator's website!
The Administration's Dangerous Wartime Rhetoric
Reckless Administration May Reap Dangerous Consequences
6165. jexster - 2/15/2003 12:21:29 PM
CNN has correspondent's all over the world covering the 600+ demonstrations...the world has NEVER seen anything like this.
6166. judithathome - 2/15/2003 12:21:37 PM
Thanks, Jex..that's it.
6167. judithathome - 2/15/2003 12:21:45 PM
Thanks, Jex..that's it.
6168. jexster - 2/15/2003 12:22:05 PM
Bush is running out of time, not Saddam
6169. Trouble - 2/15/2003 1:02:20 PM
300 people show in NYC for anti-war demonstration and CNN does 15 minutes hyping it.
Click! Time to find that switcher.
6170. judithathome - 2/15/2003 1:04:43 PM
Got your hip waders on? It's that deep in here now.
300 people....riiiight.
6171. judithathome - 2/15/2003 1:08:09 PM
Where's our intrepid reporter from the babershop in downtown Podunk, MidAmerica? Joezan must need a haircut by now; he usually times them so he can amble by the local protesters and send us the latest on his snappy repartee with them.
6172. judithathome - 2/15/2003 1:11:52 PM
People in NYC can't even GET to the main protest site because the crowds are so huge...the overflow sites are filling the streets so much, people can't even get near the main site. Take your "300" and stuff it.
6173. robertjayb - 2/15/2003 2:47:49 PM
Every bad thing; I mean every bad thing---is Clinton's fault...(Krauthammer)
You don't get to a place like this overnight. It takes at least, oh, a decade. We now pay the wages of the 1990s, our holiday from history. Every major challenge to America was deferred. Chief aim of the Clinton administration was to make sure nothing terrible happened on its watch. Accordingly, every can was kicked down the road...
6174. jexster - 2/15/2003 3:14:50 PM
Anti-war protesters gather near the United Nations Headquarters Saturday, Feb 15, 2003 in New York to protest Bush's War Against Iraq. Demonstrations and protest marches against the war drew millions of people in cities around the world Saturday.
God bless Iraq
6175. jexster - 2/15/2003 3:35:52 PM
59th & Third
Just down the street from where I had an apt 59/Park
6176. jexster - 2/15/2003 3:36:40 PM
Looks as if they had "feeder" marches all over the place...that's a hike from the UN
6177. Cellar Door - 2/15/2003 3:42:07 PM
Amazing! Only 300 people in that picture.
6178. jexster - 2/15/2003 4:03:04 PM
Before a shot is fired King Moron has millions of people all over the world hating him enough to march in the dead of winter.
He has managed to squander all of the good will felt for this country post 9-11 and beyond that turn the good will into hatred.
That takes SOME doing.
That takes a MORON
6179. Trouble - 2/15/2003 4:33:05 PM
A war of words on the French
By Jennifer HarperTHE WASHINGTON TIMES
Not much ooh-la-la out there, and very few bon mots. There are a lot of weasels, though, some monkeys, a rat and one poodle.
The French are not doing well in the American press. The New York Post cover featured a doctored color photo yesterday, depicting French and German delegates to the United Nations as a pair of weasels in fancy suits.
"Weasels to hear new Iraq evidence," the Post proclaimed. The paper also suggested that an ostrich was "the national bird of France" and earlier coined the term "axis of weasels." That phrase suffered in translation in the French press, translated as "axe des faux jetons," which means "axis of devious characters."
Weasel, in the meantime, is the current word of choice to describe European allies who undermine U.S. determination to disarm Iraq — "weasel unilateralism," as the Wall Street Journal put it yesterday.
Weasel has gotten as much play in the past 48 hours as "duct tape," and journalists haven't had this much fun since "Osama Yo' Mama"-style headlines surfaced after the September 11 terrorist attacks.
There have been some serious side effects, however. Rep. H. James Saxton, New Jersey Republican, has drafted a resolution that calls for a U.S. boycott of the Paris Air Show this spring. House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Illinois Republican, has called for a boycott of French wine and bottled water.
6180. Trouble - 2/15/2003 4:35:14 PM
A growing Yankee boycott of French cheeses is evidence of the "fast-ripening stink over Iraq currently souring Franco-U.S. relations," according to one British account. Things are getting downright inventive in the press, meanwhile.
"Cheese-eating surrender monkeys," a phrase borrowed from "The Simpsons" cartoon show, recently surfaced in the National Review magazine and has been echoed in the global media for days. The French and Germans have been called "an alliance of wimps," while Belgium rated the title "mini-me minion."
6181. Trouble - 2/15/2003 4:37:28 PM
John Gibson of Fox News Channel theorized that the Belgians had joined in with France and Germany because their army "was too old and too fat to fight anybody."
In the Wall Street Journal, French President Jacques Chirac was called "the rat that tried to roar," while The Washington Post used the term "oily" to describe French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin.
"Next time the French need their chestnuts pulled from the fire, it either will or will not be in our interest to do it. If not: Hard cheese, Jacques," Human Events, a conservative newsweekly, stated yesterday, suggesting France change its tri-colored flag — removing the red and blue, but leaving the white.
The foreign press, of course, has increased its anti-American invective, bandying about terms such as "bullies" and "cowboys." One British tabloid published its own trick photo yesterday, depicting President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair on the verge of a kiss.
6182. Cellar Door - 2/15/2003 4:37:44 PM
MASSIVE TURNOUT IN SUPPORT OF BUSH!!!
Just look at those pictures. The camera doesn't lie!
6183. Trouble - 2/15/2003 4:38:18 PM
The American media has also come under fire, accused of being a White House lapdog that likes "its tummy tickled." The National Journal rebuffed the charge yesterday with a column titled "The Poodle Speaks." The Paris media have reported on the anti-French vitriol emanating through the American and British press with an air of bemused incomprehension. "The French don't have a very good press in the United States these days," the left-wing daily Liberation wrote Monday. The conservative daily Le Figaro echoed pride in France's long tradition of Cartesian logic when it praised Mr. Villepin's plan for reinforced arms inspections in Iraq.
"Even if it worsens French-American relations, the attempt is in any event quite logical," the paper said. Pascal Boniface, a leading French world-affairs analyst, said Americans suffered from a Francophobia as bad as the anti-Americanism that's politically correct in France. "I was in the United States last week and couldn't turn on the television without hearing nonsense about France," he said.
But there is some method to the madness in the American and French media, said Robert Steele of the Florida-based Poynter Institute, a press-watchdog group. "C'est la vie," Mr. Steele said yesterday. "Journalists use sharp satire as entrees into very serious subjects. Humor can engage readers. But caricature should have some purpose."
The press should retain some thoughtfulness and civility after chuckles cease, he said. "I don't say there's no place for humor," Mr. Steele said. "But eventually, laughs don't make us any smarter on topics as serious as terrorism and war."
6184. Cellar Door - 2/15/2003 4:39:05 PM
VIVE LA FRANCE!!!!
6185. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/15/2003 4:44:08 PM
. . . and DUCT TAPE!!!
6186. arkymalarky - 2/15/2003 5:39:47 PM
Chief aim of the Clinton administration was to make sure nothing terrible happened on its watch.
Too bad that hasn't been the chief aim of Bush. I guess you could change "nothing" to "everything."
6187. jexster - 2/15/2003 6:12:14 PM
Amazing how one person could be so inept.
Millions everywhere all over the planet before the first refugee, the first death, the first bullet...
Only a fucking Moron could manage that...and they were all protesting HIM!
6188. jexster - 2/15/2003 6:13:37 PM
Good one Arky...It takes a Moron to argue against peace, prosperity at home and affection for this country abroad
6189. jexster - 2/15/2003 8:32:25 PM
Since it didn't seem he liked JAH's quote from Herm Goering, maybe Ace will enjoy:
Now, we talked to Joan Hanover. She and her husband, George, were visiting with us. They are near retirement—retiring—in the process of retiring, meaning they're very smart, active, capable people who are retirement age and are retiring. —Alexandria, Va., Feb. 12, 2003.
6190. jexster - 2/15/2003 8:32:56 PM
No wonder millions are in the streets in the dead of winter
6191. jexster - 2/15/2003 8:50:03 PM
An Open Letter to the People of Europe
Please sign this letter thanking our friends in Europe and asking them to stand in solidarity with us this weekend against the Bush administration's push to make war on Iraq
6192. jexster - 2/15/2003 8:55:17 PM
6193. concerned - 2/15/2003 11:47:45 PM
Kerry Undergoes Prostate Surgery
Not an encouraging sign for his chances at a presidential candidacy.
6194. concerned - 2/16/2003 12:00:49 AM
'What, me worry?'
Dennis, the Red Menace, plans to run for president.
6195. robertjayb - 2/16/2003 12:13:01 AM
The painful parts of Washington history have often been about men trying harder to save face than lives...(Maureen Dowd)...
6196. concerned - 2/16/2003 12:21:46 AM
Oh, boy. Moron Pan Dowdy.
6197. concerned - 2/16/2003 12:30:57 AM
Re. 6147 -
As you probably know, Starr obtained 14 convictions in the Whitewater investigation which also uncovered evidence whcih led to x42 being impeached.
When anybody asks, 'Is that all?', I figure they're either being disingenuous or are just ignorant.
6198. jexster - 2/16/2003 10:24:48 AM
US Military Feeling Strain of Bush's Perpetual War for Empire
6199. jexster - 2/16/2003 10:31:38 AM
The Pentagon is now so superior militarily that it really does not like to fight alongside its allies -- it feels they slow U.S. forces down. Yet the United States still needs allies, said retired Army Lt. Col. Andrew F. Krepinevich Jr., director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, "for forward basing, niche capabilities we find valuable, and to take care of the peacekeeping" that follows each war.
If the United States keeps pursuing military hegemony, Krepinevich and others fear, it will alienate its allies and become weaker in the long run.
The same point of course made by Wallerstein in the Eagle Has Crash Landed and others listed in my "over" post a few weeks back..
He the retire Lt.Col. a double dipping Marxist???
6200. arkymalarky - 2/16/2003 1:00:26 PM
Well, I will agree with you on one thing, Concerned, and that is that the Justice Department won't find anything nearing that on Bush and Cheney. In fact, I'll venture to say they won't find anything at all.
6201. judithathome - 2/16/2003 1:09:09 PM
I think you are 100% on the money on that one, Arky.
6202. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/16/2003 2:21:36 PM
6203. jexster - 2/16/2003 7:34:16 PM
Over 200,000 in SF
"Mourning Mothers" held dolls intended to look like dead children as they protested any Bush invasion of Iraq
6204. jexster - 2/16/2003 7:34:59 PM
6205. jexster - 2/16/2003 7:35:43 PM
6206. jexster - 2/16/2003 7:36:49 PM
A Fine Use for Duct Tape!
6207. Cellar Door - 2/16/2003 7:38:18 PM
Mystery Lesbian Speaks at Last!
6208. jexster - 2/16/2003 7:54:50 PM
I must say Cllr that for a town that can't support a football team and that goes to its Dodgers games in the third, leaves in the 7th inning, 100,000+ is quite an achievement!
GOD BLESS IRAQ!
Hundreds of thousands cram SF's Civic Center and UN Plaza's to protest Bloody Bush's War Against Iraq
6209. jexster - 2/16/2003 8:01:16 PM
Hundreds of thousands of demonstrators marching against George Bush make their way along Market Street toward Civic Center/UN Plazas
6210. jexster - 2/16/2003 8:06:04 PM
Well-wishers greeted Joan Baez as she marched along Market Street.
6211. jexster - 2/16/2003 8:07:42 PM
Bonny Rait & Danny Glover Lead March Against Bush's War
6212. jexster - 2/16/2003 8:26:38 PM
CBS MarketWatch: Bush's Fiscal policy is a disaster waiting to happen. It will raise interest rates, stifle, then cripple the economy. Alan Greenspan put it plainly and you have to wonder why the major US media hasn't stated the obvious just as plainly"
When you don't know what the fuck you're doing
Bomb Iraq!
6213. jexster - 2/16/2003 8:48:12 PM
Da noive!
Osama Bin Laden called our King "stoopid"
Got Osama?
Got Anthrax?
Got Duct Tape?
Bomb Iraq!
6214. vonKreedon - 2/16/2003 11:37:30 PM
Heard Wesley Clark on Russert and was very impressed by his straightforward, well thought out and clearly stated positions. If he runs for President he may force the other Dems to grow at least the semblance of balls and take actual positions on the issues.
6215. arkymalarky - 2/16/2003 11:40:39 PM
Think you can stand another Arky Democrat Rhodes Scholar? ;-)
6216. wonkers2 - 2/16/2003 11:53:29 PM
Wesley Clark would make a good Vice Presidential candidate for the Democrat nominee. How about Kerry and Clark?
6217. vonKreedon - 2/16/2003 11:58:01 PM
Kerry hasn't been demonstrating the courage of his convictions and he comes across as even more boring than Gore. At this point I don't see a Dem who has the presence that is going to be needed to defeat Bush; Clark seemed in at least this one interview to have that presence.
6218. wonkers2 - 2/17/2003 12:00:27 AM
Well, what about the governor of Vermont, good old what's his name. That would be a ticket with a lot of brain power.
6219. vonKreedon - 2/17/2003 12:00:44 AM
After watching Russert, my wife and I had this image of Rove gnashing his teeth over Russert's positioning Clark immediately after Rice. It was one of those moments where Rice looked and sounded good for the administration, but then Clark just looked all the better for looking and sounding better than Rice.
6220. vonKreedon - 2/17/2003 12:01:38 AM
Yeah, Dean, I've read and heard good things about him, but haven't yet seen him in a media test like Russert.
6221. wonkers2 - 2/17/2003 12:03:24 AM
I was at the Michigan Democratic convention yesterday and Kerry was the only candidate with a booth there. It was manned by two very personable and enthusiastic young college student or recent grad types. They were signing up quite a few supporters judging from their sign-up sheets.
6222. wonkers2 - 2/17/2003 12:05:04 AM
I saw Rice on Fox but missed Clark. He does come across well on television. I remember that from the Bosnian campaign.
6223. wonkers2 - 2/17/2003 12:05:59 AM
He's so much smarter than most of the generals and admirals in the Pentagon that it's pitiful.
6224. ronski - 2/17/2003 8:47:21 AM
Dean has been tested and found wanting. Even though I disagree with him on many things he is sort of a hometown favorite for me (not that I would be likely to vote Democrat), given my time spent in Vermont. Everybody up there knows him, including my brother.
I doubt Clark will go anywhere, but he is the most interesting possibility in the race.
But I don't think Lieberman should be underestimated.
6225. vonKreedon - 2/17/2003 9:55:15 AM
Ron - Tell me more about Dean's testing and failure.
6226. judithathome - 2/17/2003 10:30:40 AM
Dean is almost too sure of his ideas and came across in one interview I saw as scarily so...you have to remember you are talking about Democrats, who, for the past two years have shown absolutely no spine at all. They will be terrified of a snapping puppy and much more so of a full grown, determined St. Bernard set on saving the country.
He was impressive, to me, but I'm ready for someone to step up to the plate and call this administration on some of the things they are getting away with.
6227. jexster - 2/17/2003 11:02:58 AM
Butcher of Baghdad's Military Buildup Strains US Public Safety
God bless Iraq
6228. jexster - 2/17/2003 11:04:25 AM
I like Kerry and Clark. I like anyone and Clark better than what we have now, even Lieberman and Clark.
What we have now is mental and incompetent
6229. jexster - 2/17/2003 11:06:28 AM
Dean to Slam Bush War
6230. judithathome - 2/17/2003 11:21:43 AM
Dean charges that congressional Democrats, including three who are running for president, helped give Bush "a green light to drive our nation into conflict" last fall by supporting a resolution authorizing war against Iraq even without the support of the United Nations. Dean says he would have opposed that resolution.
"That the president was given open-ended authority to go to war in Iraq resulted from a failure of too many in my party in Washington who postured for position instead of standing on principle," Dean says.
This is not the sort of thing the Democrats want to hear even though it's waht they NEED to hear.
6231. ronski - 2/17/2003 1:26:09 PM
vonKreedon,
Dean's appearances on the talk shows did not elicit rave reviews from the punditocracy even though the media has been delighted by his candidacy.
And though he has been campaigning vigorously in the important caucus and primary states for quite a while now, he is still nowhere in the polls. I think it would take a miracle for him to go anywhere, but of course many people, myself included, have always suspected that he was angling for a VP spot.
You'll recall that it was being lieutenant governor that gave him the top spot in Vermont when the incumbent governor dropped dead.
But there is something intriguing about a pro-gun, anti-war candidate in the Democratic party primaries.
6232. jexster - 2/17/2003 2:29:59 PM
Californians march against war - Guardian UK
A day after demonstrators around the world had turned out to protest US and British plans to attack Iraq, Californians arrived fashionably late yesterday and swamped the streets of San Francisco in one of the largest rallies yet seen in the US against the war.
Between 150,000 and 250,000 people attended the march, carrying placards, chalking the city squares with peace signs and lying in the road to symbolise dead Iraqi civilians. One picket pictured Tony Blair being pulled along by a pit bull terrier in a George Bush mask, denouncing "mad dogs and Englishmen".
The US city best known for its counter-culture movement in the 1960s had postponed its demonstration by one day to allow the popular Chinese new year celebrations to take place on Saturday. But being a day late did not deter the chanting protestors, who filled 12 large city blocks stretching from the waterfront to City Hall.
Bay Area anti-war coalition building the beginnings of a rainbow /Anti-war movement galvanizing minorities
Ilana Friedman takes a whack at a George W. Bush pinata, created by Latinos Contra la Guerra
6233. jexster - 2/17/2003 3:19:44 PM
WASHINGTON, Feb. 16 — The fracturing of the Western alliance over Iraq and the huge antiwar demonstrations around the world this weekend are reminders that there may still be two superpowers on the planet: the United States and world public opinion.
In his campaign to disarm Iraq, by war if necessary, President Bush appears to be eyeball to eyeball with a tenacious new adversary: millions of people who flooded the streets of New York and dozens of other world cities to say they are against war based on the evidence at hand.
The People v. the Moron
A New Power in the Streets
6234. Cellar Door - 2/17/2003 4:29:52 PM
Media Whores Online Pop Quiz:
>Q: What do all of these men have in common?
>David Brock
>Miguel Estrada
>Frank Bruni
>Matt Drudge
6235. robertjayb - 2/17/2003 4:35:22 PM
Coming soon to the whole freakin' country: The Bush Legacy!
AUSTIN - AP - An estimated 5,000 students would be denied free college tuition promised to them by the state because of cuts designed to ease a projected $10 billion budget shortfall, lawmakers were told today.
Texas Higher Education Commissioner Don Brown told members of the House Appropriations Committee that budget cuts would mean the Texas Grant scholarship program would not be able to provide aid to all of the estimated 80,000 students who will be eligible in 2004-05.
6236. arkymalarky - 2/17/2003 9:18:42 PM
We did that to ours, too, though the governor's saying it will be brought back. We'll see.
6237. wonkers2 - 2/18/2003 12:10:32 AM
It's pretty clear that our "compassionate" conservative president is out to cut taxes for the rich and gut federal government programs that benefit the elderly, minorities and the poor in this country, and those that protect the environment as well.
6238. thoughtful - 2/18/2003 12:40:56 PM
Kristof has a point
"Finally, Iraq. Mr. Bush and his aides, like Bobby Kennedy, dream things that never were and say why not. Mr. Bush imagines the transformative effect that a democratic, stable and prospering Iraq would have on the entire Arab world.
Maybe. But it would be helpful if he also had nightmares of things that never were, to understand how policies can go wrong. It seems equally possible that invading Iraq will trigger precisely the scenario we fear — Saddam handing out anthrax or even smallpox to terrorists — and that our invasion will lead thousands of young Arabs to join Al Qaeda. Instead of becoming safer, we could be in a more perilous state than ever."
6239. jexster - 2/18/2003 1:20:36 PM
Calling all Wilsonian naifs!
Mr. Bush's Liberal Problem
The president is sinking into an ineffectual foreign policy idealism just as the left seems to be growing out of it
The man has become a menance to us and to the world
6240. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/18/2003 1:38:03 PM
6241. wonkers2 - 2/18/2003 5:46:29 PM
Rove and Divine. Where do you get the cool ideas? But, of course, it's grossly unfair to Divine!
6242. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/18/2003 6:03:46 PM
Well wonk, in wartime, we must all make sacrifices.
I happened to spot a video of "Pink Flamingos" and the big forehead made me think of Boy Genius and how effeminately wimpy Rove's face is.
6243. jexster - 2/18/2003 11:52:17 PM
The Bush War Machine - The Pentagon is Leaking Again...
US plan for new nuclear arsenal
Secret talks may lead to breaking treaties
6244. jexster - 2/19/2003 12:07:14 AM
In the interest of intelligent debate and lively discussion, comments are welcome (especially from Eddie the Macho Moron) on any or all of the following points:
- If Bush were to honestly admit that the purpose of his war were Saddam from power, he would be admitting to a breach of international law and the UN charter's principles concerning non-interference in the internal affairs of another nation;
- In as much as it has always been clear and now inspections have confirmed that Saddam is neither a clear, present, imminent or grave threat to any state, especially the US, what justifies the escalation of Iraq to the top of the list of threats to world order?
- Why is the Iraqi threat greater than Al-Qaeda, North Korea, the Israel/Palestine conflict, the Indo/Pakistan arms race, southern Africa, international crime, including drug traffiking, the threat of Marxist insurrection in Columbia?
- Isn't it a fac that Iraq is by no means the only potential supplier of weapons of mass destruction to terrorists, and has no proven link with the most dangerous of them.
- Isn't it a fact that Iraq has been subjected to such a degree of international scrutiny since 1991 that it would be impossible for Iraq to mount any threat of any consequence to any nation in the region?
- Isn't it hypocritical for the US to condemn Iraq for immaterial violations of a UN resolution, yet abstain when Israel is condemned for disregarding dozens?
- Can the US be relied upon to rebuild the Iraqi state that it destroyed given its failure to provide aid in Afghantistan and likewise given its refusal to commit troops to peace enforcement because they might be unpopular following the US bombing;
There's a starter.
I'll return to disembowel any foolish enough to tackle these.
Eddie have at it! 6245. jexster - 2/19/2003 2:10:16 AM
An Incompetent, Unstable, Unreliable, & Bloodthirsty Regime Faces the World's Wrath
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Nation after nation from all parts of the globe demanded weapons inspectors have a chance to disarm Iraq peacefully, defying intentions by the United States and Britain to seek a resolution authorizing war.
Reuters Photo
AP Photo
Slideshow: Iraq and Saddam Hussein
British Leader Presses Case for Iraq War
(AP Video)
UN Chief Says War Is Not Inevitable
(AP Video)
Latest news:
• Bush: Protests Won't Change Iraq Policy
AP - 16 minutes ago
• U.S. Struggles for U.N. Support on Iraq
AP -22 minutes ago
• U.N. Inspectors Visit Iraqi Rocket Sites
AP - Tue Feb 18, 3:25 PM ET
Special Coverage
Only Australia, Japan, Argentina and Peru, in varying degrees, supported the tough U.S.-British position during 27 presentations on Tuesday by U.N. members who do not have seats on the 15-nation Security Council. Another 29 ambassadors address the council on Wednesday.
6246. jexster - 2/19/2003 11:04:26 AM
__On Feb. 26, Join the Virtual March on Washington
"MoveOn.org is hosting the online action center for the Virtual March on Washington on February 26th, sponsored by The Win Without War Coalition. Please sign up here to join us. On February 26th, every Senate office will receive a call every minute from a constituent, as they receive
a simultaneous crush of faxes and email. In Washington D.C. and Los Angeles, 'anti-war rooms' will highlight the progress of the day for national media. Local media will visit the 'anti-war room' online, to monitor this constituent march throughout the day. With your help, every
Senate office switchboard will be lit up all day with our anti-war messages. This will be a powerful reminder of the breadth and depth of opposition to a war in Iraq."
6247. jexster - 2/19/2003 11:39:36 AM
This is for Rose, Andrew Sullivans' #1 cheerleader, courtesy Howie Kurtz's column this am:
Andrew Sullivan, a big booster of Bush on the war, sees the U.S. getting stuck with a very big bill:
"The real effect of the current diplomatic train-wreck that is preceding the war against Saddam is not to derail the United States from living up to its responsibilities in enforcing vital U.N. resolutions. It is to isolate the U.S. in the post-Saddam settlement. It means that not only will this war be paid for almost entirely by Americans, with some allied support. It means that reconstruction will also have to come out of the paychecks of average Americans.
"The cost right now is incalculable. But no one believes it will be much short of crippling. And any attempt to use Iraqi oil revenues to defray the cost will not only be politically difficult, but is also dependent on Saddam's not doing all he can to sabotage the oil fields while he still can. Besides, the kind of commitment we're talking about may only last a few years in Iraq (if we're lucky) but will engage the U.S. deeply in that part of the world for at least a generation.
"Now take a look at the budget just presented to the Congress by the Bush administration. The first thing you'll notice is that there is no accounting for the cost of the coming war.
"Yes, in 2000 and after, a deflationary period probably merited some spending increases. Inflation had disappeared; the economy was in a post-bubble slump; deflation stalked the earth. But 18 percent? If a Democrat had done that, the Republicans would have been all over him. And rightly so."
Pay up suckers
6248. jexster - 2/19/2003 11:44:19 AM
6249. jexster - 2/19/2003 3:58:41 PM
America Cannot Afford George Bush
Brookings/Financial Times
This year's US budget proves that George W. Bush is no Ronald Reagan. In 1981, President Reagan signed massive tax cuts into law. The next year, realising that the budget outlook had deteriorated more than expected, he reversed about a third of the tax cut - limiting its adverse effects on the budget. Even with that adjustment, the nation suffered substantial budget deficits throughout the 1980s.
It is now clear that Mr Bush's tax cut of 2001 is also too large. In the face of pressing security needs and the coming retirement of the baby-boomers, the nation cannot afford it. Rather than reversing part of the tax cut, however, Mr Bush wants to expand it and make it permanent. The administration's budget proposes Dollars 1,460bn (Pounds 910bn) in new tax cuts over the next 10 years - and the result is unending deficits.
6250. magoseph - 2/19/2003 5:16:30 PM
Settle down and listen up
Time for a quick primer on French history. This means you, George Will
George Will saw fit to include in his latest Newsweek column this joke: "How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris? No one knows, it's never been tried." That was certainly amusing. One million, four hundred thousand French soldiers were killed during World War I. As a result, there weren't many Frenchmen left to fight in World War II. Nevertheless, 100,000 French soldiers lost their lives trying to stop Hitler.
For you, concerned. One family I know very, very well indeed, lost seven men to duty from 1914 to 1945. The last one, sent to Germany to work, came home but died shortly after from tuberculosis.
6251. jexster - 2/19/2003 5:19:56 PM
Bon. C'est vrai aussi.
6252. jexster - 2/19/2003 5:29:22 PM
I wonder how do those 1.5 million dead stack up, in both relative and absolute terms, with US dead in both wars?
Pretty damned well I bet.
But these Bush yokels are well...yokels
And George Will?
Future generations of shallow and ill-educated people might conclude that since both Josef Göbbels and George Will never served in the military, and both wrote tirelessly in favor of war, and both practiced the lower forms of journalism, there must be a functional equivalence between the two. But who would now suggest such a far-fetched analogy?
The Third Reich Syndrome:
George Will and the Collapse of Historical Knowledge
DNI
of my personal favorites.
And what do you think Edmund?
6253. jexster - 2/19/2003 5:29:56 PM
What, cat got your tongue?
6254. jexster - 2/19/2003 5:38:42 PM
Here's another primer - On NATO, will appear in tommorrow's Christian Science Monitor
Taking NATO for granted - US needs a history lesson
A few days ago the French, Germans, and Belgians balked at the proposal that they should supply military hardware to the Turks in anticipation of an Iraqi attack on Turkey. Their refusal was effectively a veto of the mutual defense commitment that lies at the heart of the NATO charter. Or so it seems.
On hearing the news, Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, went ballistic. She accused France and Germany of being ungrateful wimps who had forgotten that American soldiers saved them first from fascism and then from communism. She reminded her NATO allies that the cold war cost the US $ 15 trillion. This idea that NATO was something kind and generous that the US did for Europe is a common assumption among Americans. But Ms. Rice should know better. She should realize that NATO was nothing more than cold-war realpolitik that suited the Americans as much as it did the Europeans.
So here's a little history lesson.....
* Gerard DeGroot is a professor of modern history at St. Andrews University in Scotland
6255. magoseph - 2/19/2003 5:41:34 PM
Jex,
My older son is getting married this spring and he's to receive some heirlooms. So this morning while I was cleaning a Directoire dress épée for him, I decided to look at a photo album because I had just read an Iwin link in another forum. Made me think, all that, I tell you. You'd think that a George Will would know better, wouldn't you?
6256. jexster - 2/19/2003 8:01:17 PM
Its Not Americans the French Hate - Its Bush
6257. magoseph - 2/19/2003 8:17:21 PM
It is important to note that Bill Clinton enjoys an enduring and formidable popularity not only within the French political establishment but also among average French citizens. So does Hillary Clinton, who is highly regarded in France as a champion of women's rights.
I just knew it. It's all Hillary's fault.
6258. jexster - 2/19/2003 9:12:02 PM
It's time for Democrats who oppose George W. Bush's push for war with Iraq to shut up.
Congressional Democrats, in particular, should muzzle their criticism of the president. Instead of publicly questioning his reasons for wanting to invade Iraq, they should voice strong support for the men and women Bush will send into battle -- and give the president no reason to blame them for the bad things that almost certainly will result from his handling of this situation
If Democrats lay low on war, Bush will defeat himself
USA Today
Bullshit!
Bush is going down and this country with him. This is no time for patriots to keep silent.
6259. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/19/2003 11:49:36 PM
FYI Depatment:
The War Behind Closed Doors, PBS, FrontLine, Feb 20, 9:00pm.
Check Here for local listings . . .
FRONTLINE examines the hidden story of what is really driving the Bush administration to war with Iraq. The investigation asks whether the publicly reported reasons--fear of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction or a desire to insure and protect America's access to oil--are only masking the real reason for the war. Through interviews with well-placed sources in and outside of the administration, FRONTLINE unravels a story known only to the Washington insiders.
6260. concerned - 2/19/2003 11:55:28 PM
re. 6250 -
I don't doubt at all that the average Frenchman has become used to the effective incompetence and treasonous behavior of his military and civilian leadership. But when they try to elevate these shortcomings to being some sort of mark of superiority and associate them with somehow being French, they make themselves ridiculous.
6261. concerned - 2/20/2003 1:03:10 AM
Lefties want yet another conspiracy theory? How about the Jews downing the Columbia? That's right - some on the Left are claiming this with complete seriousness, in order to distract from Iraq doncha know? I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the WoW, cllrdr or jexster take this up any day now.
6262. concerned - 2/20/2003 1:05:16 AM
Who wants to play the 'distract from Iraq' conspiracy game?
6263. jexster - 2/20/2003 1:49:24 AM
Hey who wants to play "wag the dog'?
6264. jexster - 2/20/2003 1:50:29 AM
We are witnessing the end of George W. Bush.
The only question is -how many others' ends?
6265. jexster - 2/20/2003 1:51:42 AM
Don't you argee Edmund?
6266. Macnas - 2/20/2003 3:45:29 AM
re 6261
concerned,
Are you sure about that? is there a link or something you might give?
I would have thought that this kind of nonsense traditionally comes from the ultra-right turner diary reading bigots. You'll have to let me know who exactly is on your "Left" list. And yes, I know, I am on the list already.
6267. concerned - 2/20/2003 12:33:15 PM
Re. 6266 -
Why would you imagine most conspiracy theories emanate from the right?
Just about every conspiracy theory blaming Jews or the US for something, and they're manifold, derive from the Left. Example: virtually all the 9/11 conspiracy theories are Left Wing.
6268. concerned - 2/20/2003 12:35:45 PM
You're right about one thing, Macnas. Most conspiracy theories are garbage. But saying the Pentagon or Israel hatched 9/11 or that the US is involved with Iraq only for oil is just a sample of typical LW conspiracy mongering.
6269. concerned - 2/20/2003 12:39:50 PM
In fact,I submit that most of the 'suspicion' of US conservatives is based primarily on LW conspiracy theories.
6270. jexster - 2/20/2003 12:40:29 PM
Not ONLY for oil. Its also for Empire. And its also because Bush has lost his marbles and is an imbecile. And its also because the neocons want to create a martial state.
Sheesh
6271. Macnas - 2/20/2003 12:41:33 PM
Putting a pentagon/israeli plot to commit 9/11 and US interest Iraq's oil in the same catagory is nearly too rich even for you.
And I would disagree with you on where most conspiracy theories come from. I would still like to know what defines a "Leftist" in your view. I'm begining to think its anyone who holds a different opinion to yours.
6272. concerned - 2/20/2003 12:42:18 PM
Macnas -
I'd like to see your comments on the fresh conspiracy theories jexster just plopped down in the last post.
6273. jexster - 2/20/2003 12:43:51 PM
And its also because Republican religious nut jobs think that they're going to the Rapture.
Times of London cartoon accompanying story - England's most senior Archbishops (Rowan, Cantaur & Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor slam Blair's "moral" argument for war
6274. concerned - 2/20/2003 12:44:27 PM
Re. 6271 -
Macnas -
But it's the stuff that many Euro Lefties dote on since its the subject of a best selling book in France.
Leftists define themselves, typically by who they claim to oppose. Or are you asking me to believe that you who claim to be Left are simply lying for the fun of it?
Gimme a break.
6275. jexster - 2/20/2003 12:44:38 PM
Bush's problem is no one believes him, save the most unsavory of the lunatic fringe
6276. concerned - 2/20/2003 12:46:10 PM
Macnas -
Here's a little secret you're apparently not aware of. People who call themselves or belong a political party who call themselves 'Socialists' are....get ready...make sure you're sitting down for this....
Left wing.
6277. concerned - 2/20/2003 12:47:50 PM
I really hope Macnas will not now claim that nobody has ever associated socialism with the left.
6278. Macnas - 2/20/2003 1:31:31 PM
concerned
I don't agree with everything jexters says or links.
But I don't believe in swallowing every official line either, and I find questioning that, in whatever form takes your fancy, to be healthy.
In answer, as best I can, Yes I do believe that oil is a big factor in the current crisis, yes I do believe that a certain amount of empire building is one of the aims of current U.S. foreign policy.
No I do not believe that your president has gone mad, and I do not understand what "neocons want to create a martial state" means.
6279. Macnas - 2/20/2003 1:34:57 PM
concerned
If you can control your condescension for a moment, The British Labour Party are on which side of the political divide?
6280. vonKreedon - 2/20/2003 1:36:28 PM
Isn't that The British New Labour Party?
6281. Macnas - 2/20/2003 1:39:12 PM
As in "new and improved"?
I don't think concerned will be fooled by such a cosmetic device as inserting the word "New" into their name. He's got those lefties pegged.
6282. Macnas - 2/20/2003 1:40:22 PM
And before I'm told off I apologise for diverting the main thrust of this thread.
6283. vonKreedon - 2/20/2003 2:50:13 PM
Mac - Actually I think that the New meant, more like the Tories, much like the US Democratic Leadership Council's New Democrat meant, more like the Republicans.
6284. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/20/2003 4:25:52 PM
6285. vonKreedon - 2/20/2003 4:31:50 PM
I'd swear I saw that graphic somewhere else recently.
6286. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/20/2003 4:34:11 PM
You couldn't have—I just finished it this afternoon.
6287. vonKreedon - 2/20/2003 4:34:57 PM
Perhaps in the Iraq thread.
6288. vonKreedon - 2/20/2003 4:36:16 PM
Can I look forward to also seeing in the International and the News & Current Events threads?
6289. Al D - 2/20/2003 4:47:22 PM
magoseph
We have a moment of agreement. Trashing the French is idiotic. Not only do we owe them a debt of gratitude for their help during the i8th Century, they have never been our enemies. Evie and I spent a month in France last year, and I have never met nicer people anywhere.
6290. concerned - 2/20/2003 5:09:30 PM
Re. 6281 -
Macnas -
No need to be ashamed of Lefties on my account.
6291. concerned - 2/20/2003 5:16:08 PM
IMO, nothing says exemplifies Frenchness more than the Second Empire. Eugenie had some portraits done of her as classical heroines that are absolutely hilarious.
6292. concerned - 2/20/2003 5:19:14 PM
oops - delete 'says' in my last.
6293. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/20/2003 6:33:46 PM
Beat the Press-
Does the White House have a blacklist?
6294. magoseph - 2/20/2003 7:01:05 PM
Hey, Wiz, that's a good one.
6295. concerned - 2/20/2003 7:13:15 PM
magoseph -
That's weak stuff indeed, compared to this.
Don't tell me you've forgotten, already.
6296. jexster - 2/20/2003 7:15:14 PM
San Jose Mercury News :
The greatest cheers at a raucous town meeting Tuesday night in Santa Cruz came from these suggestions:
• Local elected officials should declare Santa Cruz County a sanctuary for draft resisters.
• President Bush (news - web sites) is a ``madman'' who should be impeached for treason and tried at The Hague (news - web sites) for war crimes.
• Activists should stage a national strike to stop the imminent war in Iraq.
Five hundred people filled the Del Mar Theatre for the meeting. About 50 people -- all but a handful against war with Iraq -- spoke, urging Rep. Sam Farr, D-Salinas, to help change U.S. foreign policy, which they said was being viewed with increasing disgust around the world.
6297. concerned - 2/20/2003 7:22:55 PM
Heady stuff, that.
6298. jexster - 2/20/2003 7:23:30 PM
The Road to This Hell is Paved With Bush Fuck Ups - J. Judis - LA Times
With the Cold War's end, many Americans thought we could close our air raid shelters and take the trillions of dollars that had gone into the military and put them into making our lives better by turning toward the pursuit of happiness rather than the defense of our liberty. And some of that did happen in the last half of the 1990s, during the Clinton-era boom. But only three years into a new century, the United States finds itself plagued by rising unemployment, soaring budget deficits, constricted civil liberties, the threat of terrorist attack and the prospect of a war with, and occupation of, Iraq. We've gone from the best of times to the worst of times. The Bush administration tells us that it is entirely because of Al Qaeda and now Saddam Hussein that we face these difficulties, but the dark clouds that hang over our country are largely the result of Bush administration policies.
6299. jexster - 2/20/2003 7:25:27 PM
If you thought that was heady, what did you think about the 2.5 million in Rome, the 2 million in London, and the 1/4 Million in SF?
What's the RNC going to do to top THAT?
That would be a "booboisie" riot that even King Moron couldn't afford.
6300. jexster - 2/20/2003 7:29:31 PM
Osama Praises Bush for Making his Dreams Come True
"My plan is working well. When I, Osama bin Laden, ordered the blessed events of Sept. 11, I hoped to provoke an apocalyptic conflict between the faithful and the infidels. And not only is that happening, but also the Americans and Europeans are breaking up their alliance. Indeed, the Americans are so desperate to destroy Iraq - a country that had nothing to do with the righteous destruction of the World Trade Center - that they don't care if they antagonize the major countries of all Eurasia. Happy is the man who watches his enemies fight each other. My audiotape, released Tuesday, has sealed the fate of that socialist apostate, Saddam Hussein. I see Colin Powell on CNN saying it proves a 'nexus' between my al-Qaida and his Iraq. Hah. As I said on that tape, the only connection between me and my enemies is my swordpoint hitting their neck." So writes Jim Pinkerton, former Poppy policy wonk, in his Newsday column.
James P. Pinkerton has been a columnist for Newsday since 1993. Prior to that, he worked in the White House under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, and also in the 1980, 1984, 1988, and 1992 Republican presidential campaigns.
Pinkerton is the author of What Comes Next: The End of Big Government--And the New Paradigm Ahead (Hyperion: 1995). He is also a contributor to the Fox News Channel
6301. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/20/2003 8:39:34 PM
Thanks mags!
6303. jexster - 2/20/2003 9:06:55 PM
The George W. Diet
Lose unsightly pounds by eating like a pig - Kinsley
6304. jexster - 2/20/2003 9:49:28 PM
To: "IAC-SF"
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 15:21:37 -0500
From: International Action Center
Subject: [IAC-SF] MARCH 15: Emergency Anti-War Convergence on the White House - Parallel convergence in SF at Civic Center
SATURDAY, MARCH 15:
Emergency Anti-War Convergence on the White House.
Parallel convergence & march in San Francisco.
Gather at Civic Center Plaza,11 a.m.
6305. jexster - 2/20/2003 9:50:37 PM
That's great Wiz....the next thing in toons i spose...like Mark Fiore @ SFGate
6306. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/20/2003 10:29:57 PM
Test
6307. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/20/2003 10:31:08 PM
Test
6308. vonKreedon - 2/20/2003 10:53:22 PM
That StopEsso widget is an amazing piece of animation.
6309. arkymalarky - 2/20/2003 11:40:32 PM
?
6310. arkymalarky - 2/20/2003 11:48:36 PM
Wiz,
I removed that post because I couldn't see the ones below it, but I left it in the HTML thread because I could. I don't know what the difference was, but if you can figure it out, just repost it.
6311. jexster - 2/21/2003 12:23:21 AM
6312. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/21/2003 10:32:37 AM
Apoligies to all for the problematic post.
The Sorceror's Apprentice strikes again!
6313. jexster - 2/21/2003 12:47:18 PM
Here Comes the Republican Guard!
6314. OhioSTOPAS - 2/22/2003 9:53:13 AM
Here's another kick in the teeth to our men and women in the military from President "Help is on the way!"
6315. judithathome - 2/22/2003 10:18:02 AM
and when both houses of Congress are controlled by the president's party
And just how do you suppose they're going to vote?
The thing that is so stupid about this is that the families living off base have no choice; base housing only serves a few of the many who need it and there is a long, long wait to even be considered for acquiring base housing. Otherwise, the majority of the space allotted to military bases would be nothing but housing for personnel.
6316. jexster - 2/22/2003 10:28:29 AM
If Your Stratery Fella Meets With Al Qaeda BOMB IRAQ
Rove Met With Terrorist - WPost
6317. jexster - 2/22/2003 10:31:22 AM
Actually it was a PAL terrorist - alleged - the guy that Jeb has been yelping about but who cares?
They all look alike.
6318. jexster - 2/22/2003 10:58:00 AM
GOP Extortion Ended GAO Cheney Suit - The Hill
6319. jexster - 2/22/2003 11:10:17 AM
The New Superpower - The World v. the Moron
LA City Council Votes to Oppose Bush War
Los Angeles Joins More Than 100 US Cities Including Chicago & Philly
6320. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/22/2003 11:16:05 AM
"Read My Lips!"
6321. jexster - 2/22/2003 12:13:30 PM
Isn't it heartening to read about the BILLIONS Bush is spending to buy off Turkey, "his good friend"?
Deficits hitting record levels, tax cuts for the super rich, states going begging, Medicare/Medicaid getting savaged, Aids Drug Assistance being cut in several states to the point where in Texas and others there are waiting lists....but the Turk is doing very well thank you.
That dimwitted immoral bucket of piss
6322. jexster - 2/22/2003 12:14:07 PM
and what about the Martial Plan for Afghanistan there Edmundo?
Idiot.
6323. jexster - 2/22/2003 2:48:26 PM
I must received an email
Ami Al-Arian, his wife, Nahla, right, and children pose with presidential candidate George W. Bush and wife Laura in a March 2000 family photo.
Photo Credit: Courtesy Sami Al-arian Via AP
Without a web site I cannot post the happy picture that I received, but I am on the case!
6324. jexster - 2/22/2003 2:52:21 PM
I am SO fuckin GOOD!
Sami Al-Arian, holding daughter Lama, 6, center, with son Abdullah, 19, left, daughter Laila, 18, foreground left, daughter Leena, 14, center, wife Nahla, center right, and son Ali, 9, foreground left, pose for a photo with presidential candidate George W. Bush and wife Laura in this March 12, 2000 family photo in Plant City, Fla. Others, extreme right, are unidentified.
6325. jexster - 2/22/2003 4:10:47 PM
"We are all supporters of Hamas"
6326. Edmund Dantes - 2/22/2003 7:03:50 PM
Reverend Al wants you, Jester
Sure he aint a man in uniform, but he's got good hair.
Ditch that demagogic Stalinist from Baghdad and start kneeling for Sharpton, Professor Bedpan.
6327. Cellar Door - 2/22/2003 7:49:07 PM
Sharpton is your Dog & Pony Show, dear.
My candidate is Howard Dean.
6328. Cellar Door - 2/24/2003 11:43:40 AM
MY what a "coincidence"!
6329. magoseph - 2/24/2003 12:51:48 PM
How do you like your radio, folks?
Yes, they like it raunchy. Most people listen to radio alone in their cars, where no one needs to be PC, where it's still OK to insult women and minorities and foreigners, and no one has to fear being slapped with a harassment charge.
6330. magoseph - 2/24/2003 1:04:30 PM
About Message # 6329
And it's OK to chuckle at that coarse humor and still vote Democratic. The PC brigades may find this hard to believe, but shock jocks do quite well with black listeners and with traditional Democratic demographics, such as college graduates and city dwellers. No, Stern and Don Geronimo and Tom Leykis have no interest whatsoever in having Dick Gephardt on the show, at least not unless he's going to remove his pants. And no, they would say, there's no politics on their shows. (Sabo tells DJs who want to be talk-show hosts: "If the topic is national politics, abortion, gun control, death penalty, religion, race, we have no interest. If the topics are movies, TV, personal relationships, your strong personal feelings, stuff about the workplace—things people under 90 talk about, we'd love to hear your tape.") But even if Stern wannabes don't address abortion directly, their daily diet of searingly intimate conversation with callers hits many of those hot-button issues, and they do it almost unfailingly from a left-libertarian perspective—they are classic social liberals.
6331. magoseph - 2/24/2003 1:05:13 PM
Well, say something, concerned, please!
6332. concerned - 2/24/2003 1:38:47 PM
Re. 6331 -
First off, I hardly ever listen to 'talk radio' because I'm usually more interested in catching the weather & traffic reports, for one. Secondly, while talk radio is a good deal more informative than television fare or word of mouth regarding these matters, I prefer online media & reading newspaper articles & editorials (many of which are available online) because they are more informative & accurate than either.
As far as insulting minorities, women, etc., 'in private', I'm not comfortable around people who do so, nor do I even meet any that do, for the most part. What I post in the Mote is consistent with the types of things I say in private.
6333. concerned - 2/24/2003 1:42:10 PM
Re. 6330 -
I think a big reason that today's LW viewpoints are largely limited to sound byte media has a great deal to do with how much examination they can bear.
6334. concerned - 2/24/2003 1:43:28 PM
Even Noam Chomsky can't get much traction out of claiming that the US is a 'terrorist state' among people with means including free discourse.
6335. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/24/2003 2:50:31 PM
6336. magoseph - 2/24/2003 4:05:45 PM
concerned, who is LW?
6337. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/24/2003 4:07:05 PM
Left Wing
6338. magoseph - 2/24/2003 5:07:28 PM
Thanks, Wiz. I should have known that.
6339. OhioSTOPAS - 2/24/2003 5:30:25 PM
Jesus really is Bush's favorite political philosopher!
From today's USA Today:
"[President Bush] is a leader who takes terrible risks, yet not only seems but actually is serene and confident, almost immune to temptations to fidget or second-guess.
"The explanation is Bush's spirituality. He really does believe that after he has done his best to make the right decision, the rest is up to God. . . ."
Although it's nice he can be so "serene," I'd like the President to try a little harder to make the right decision instead of leaving it "up to God". Frankly, for the last two years He's been doing a lousy job.
6340. OhioSTOPAS - 2/24/2003 5:39:26 PM
And then there's this startling assessment of Bush by Washington insider David Gergen:
Instrument of Providence
Prof. GERGEN: Well, to--to--to come back to your original question about the role of religion in his life, because I do think that's been an extraordinarily important part of this--what we've--this tableau that's unfolded here recently--this is a man who, after all, found God in his life and--and religion became his anchor when he was in his early 40s. And I think it has been a guiding part of his life ever since. He reads the Bible regularly. And there's no question that his religion fortifies him now during this time, his religious beliefs, so that I think he feels more able to do things. Even if they--if it courts public opinion disasters, I think he's willing to do things that he thinks are necessary.
One of the interesting questions that I don't think anybody knows the answer to is whether, to--to--to some extent, he believes that--that providence intervened in his life at an earlier stage and whether, somehow, providence is now on the side of America and that he somehow may be an instrument of providence that--par--part of what he's on, as Robert Dallek suggested, is a mission that has so--some sort of theological roots. I don't think we know that. I think it's--I do think we know that religion is an incredibly important part of who he is, and it's helped him enormously.
MATHISEN: Right.
Prof. GERGEN: I don't think we know to what extent he is reli--that--that this is almost a religious-type mission that he's on.
6341. OhioSTOPAS - 2/24/2003 5:42:54 PM
Fixing the link:
Instrument of Providence
6342. magoseph - 2/24/2003 5:44:35 PM
The Blinding Glare of His Certainty
The world might have more confidence in the judgment of this President if he weren't always bathed in the blinding glare of his own certainty.
6343. arkymalarky - 2/24/2003 6:06:03 PM
Then why can't we just dump Bush and have God be president?
6344. jexster - 2/25/2003 10:01:46 AM
Saturday, Mar. 1, 10 am - all day
MASS MAILING PARTY FOR MAR.15 NATIONAL PROTESTS
Join us at the ANSWER office -- 2489 Mission St., Rm. 30 (near 21st) in San Francisco - for a mass mailing to get the word out to thousands about the next step for the anti-war movement: Mar. 15 mass actions in Washington, DC
and San Francisco.The mailing will start at 10 am and volunteers are needed all day. No experience necessary!
For more info call 415-821-6545.
6345. jexster - 2/25/2003 10:55:02 AM
Sooner or later, little Eddie will show her fat ass around here.
The sooner the better.
WORD UP. This bud's for you!
Perle Says Bush Regime was Criminally Negligent in Permitting 9-11 Attack to Occur
This was an astonishing exchange on Meet the Press:
"RICHARD PERLE: The lesson of September 11 was that you shouldn't have been voting on September 12 because we should have acted against al-Qaeda before that. We saw the camps. We heard the communications. We knew that they were planning additional acts of terror as they had undertaken previous acts of terror. And we waited. We failed to take action in a timely manner...
REP. KUCINICH: Are you saying that to be critical of President Bush? Is that what you're saying?
MR. PERLE: I'm critical of the failure to recognize the threat that Osama bin Laden posed before- everything we did after September 11 could have been done before September 11."
6346. jexster - 2/25/2003 11:10:20 AM
How much will Bush's war cost YOUR city or state?
LA - $834,800,000
San Jose - $378,700,000
SF- $279,200,000
NYC- $2,379,300,000
The Cost of Bush's Invasion
CITIES
STATES
6347. jexster - 2/25/2003 12:11:23 PM
Don't Mess With Texus!
Governors' Conference Slams Bush - Texas Gov. Perry Goes Home in a Snit
"Democrats sharply criticized Bush's budget proposals, while even fellow Republicans questioned the details. There also was some dismay that the governors' association, seeking a unified position on behalf of the states, was too harsh in assessing Bush's spending plan. Bush's successor as Texas governor, Republican Rick Perry, quit the organization, partly to save $160,000 in annual fees and partly because he was unhappy with what he believed was its criticism of the Bush administration, 'Open criticism of the resident is not an approach Governor Perry favors' spokeswoman Kathy Walt said."
6348. jexster - 2/25/2003 12:45:23 PM
I guess they do thangs diffurnt in Tejas cause we sure are fucking up in the Kingdom of Moronia.
For the first time ever, King Moron will deploy a major weapons system without operational testing.
There go your tax dollars!
>Bush Insists on Deploying Missile Defense Shield Even if It Doesn't Work
As CBSMarketWatch and David Gergen confirm - Bush has lost his marbles.
Will the US survive until we can rid ourselves of this nutter?
6349. wonkers2 - 2/25/2003 1:56:13 PM
Religion has helped Bush enormously, especially politically.
6350. jexster - 2/25/2003 2:01:13 PM
Watch your mouth Wonk!
Depends if you think Zan's freaky fundies = genuine religion.
6351. jexster - 2/25/2003 2:02:26 PM
Economists Warn: W-ar Isn't The Only Way Bush is Fucking Up the US Economy
6352. wonkers2 - 2/25/2003 2:06:00 PM
Just now on Jerry Gross's Fresh Air Krugman called Bush's lying to the public about his programs unprecedented in American history.
6353. wonkers2 - 2/25/2003 2:10:06 PM
To illustrate Bush's Pinocchio tendencies, Krugman repeated a story from one of his columns about a liberal and a Bushie in a bar when Bill Gates walked in. And the Bush conservative remarked "This is our lucky day, the average net worth of everybody in this bar just went up by $20 billion."
6354. jexster - 2/25/2003 2:10:56 PM
what is Fresh Air???
6355. jexster - 2/25/2003 2:17:41 PM
Certainly isn't in Bush-ville these days...
Critics Decry Bush Plan to Develop New Weapons of Mass Destruction
Is this dipshit nuts or what?
6356. wonkers2 - 2/25/2003 2:23:31 PM
"Fresh Air" is an NPR show hosted by Jerry Gross. She interviews a variety of guests ranging from politicos to musicians to actors. Similar to Diane Rehm's show but more oriented toward arts and entertainment. She followed up Krugman with an interview with Bartlett Editor? of the Wall Street Journal who thinks Bush's tax program was great, not because the economy needs stimulus but rather as needed basic structural tax reform. He conceded that Bush is using the current unfavorable economic situation as an excuse to push his tax reform agenda.
6357. robertjayb - 2/25/2003 2:46:06 PM
Terry Gross
6358. jexster - 2/25/2003 3:43:21 PM
Sheesh all you brainiacs and your NPR....me I listen to San Francisco Live 105! where nobody thinks about Bush's Empire but rather we ponder questions such as "Does Live 105 Suck? - a LIVE poll" 6359. jexster - 2/25/2003 3:44:07 PM
God bless Iraq
6360. magoseph - 2/25/2003 3:55:41 PM
So how did you vote, Jex?
6361. Cellar Door - 2/25/2003 4:15:26 PM
Boycott Everyone!
6362. magoseph - 2/25/2003 5:05:21 PM
If we boycott everything, where will I get my Paté de Foie Gras, my Grand-Marnier, my Occitane, mes savons, mes Marrons Glacéés? My family won't send them, they would want me to get them myself.
Maybe if I make a contribution to Alistair's Green Party...
6363. magoseph - 2/25/2003 5:06:46 PM
Tonight Crossfire will talk about boycotting French products.
6364. wonkers2 - 2/25/2003 5:23:39 PM
Thanks, rjb.
6365. jexster - 2/25/2003 5:28:17 PM
Today's SF Chronicle carries an article from the Washington Post confirming something that I have been saying for nearly a year now - Bush's Iraq policy is now and always has been a lie or as Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment's non-proliferation staff put it in an article in yesterday's Post "a con job" designed "to deceive" other nations and the American people.
The SF Chron also has an article on the lastest CA public opinion survey:
62% of Californians OPPOSE Bush's War for Empire
Don't worry ma cherie, there will be NO boycott in the Golden State.
Just lower prices. Send all the Chateau Margaux and foie gras ya want to.
Who gives a fuck about Texas anyway?
Sorry JAH/Robert.
6366. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/25/2003 5:29:05 PM
6367. magoseph - 2/25/2003 5:42:58 PM
Good, Jex! Time to pack up and move there. I have been thinking about it for a long time now.
6368. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/25/2003 5:56:12 PM
6369. jexster - 2/25/2003 7:41:29 PM
Oh the French LOVE San Francisco! Not sure about how they feel re: SoCali...probably don't like it much...youse people have taste.
6370. magoseph - 2/25/2003 7:42:06 PM
Well, I consider muself entitled to post a silly link
6371. jexster - 2/25/2003 7:42:48 PM
Welcome to Bush's Brave New World Order
6372. magoseph - 2/25/2003 7:47:12 PM
My link is much better than your last one, Jex.
6373. jexster - 2/25/2003 7:50:40 PM
Off topic some but since I am responding to french bashing mago, I live a few blocks from and my parish church is next door to..
Bienvenue sur le site LIFA!
Le Lycée International Franco-Américain et sa section lycée, guidés par des principes de rigueur académique, dispensent une éducation bilingue de très haut niveau dans un riche environnement multiculturel. Informations additionnelles
And your link was great except I posted the pic weeks ago.
Have to get up early in le matin there mags.
6374. wonkers2 - 2/25/2003 10:02:19 PM
Nearly all of Bush's policies are lies. He's the biggest liar in my memory.
6375. arkymalarky - 2/25/2003 10:31:59 PM
Don't know if this has been linked before, but Dad's got a new favorite website: News from the Whitehouse
6376. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/25/2003 11:51:14 PM
They do wonderful parodies, arky!
6377. OhioSTOPAS - 2/26/2003 7:17:52 PM
Today President Bush said,
"By blocking a vote on Miguel Estrada, some Democrats in the Senate are flaunting the intention of the United States Constitution and the tradition of the United States Senate, itself."
You meant FLOUTING (not "flaunting"), Mr. President. Fire that speechwriter!
6378. OhioSTOPAS - 2/26/2003 7:19:11 PM
(And of course, Democrats aren't flouting - or even flaunting - anything.)
6379. judithathome - 2/26/2003 7:35:51 PM
It probably wasn't the speechwriter; it was probably the reader.
6380. jexster - 2/26/2003 8:19:40 PM
The Sunshine Patriot[s]
Tom Delay, [concerned] and the Party of Appeasement
6381. jexster - 2/26/2003 8:22:37 PM
It's easy to see why DeLay is angry. In his speech, Dean called the war a "quagmire" and compared it to Vietnam. He said it would "drag on," costing billions of dollars. He accused the president of failing to specify how long our troops would have to stay, and he urged the administration to withdraw them "before the body bags start coming home."
Maybe if Dean had stopped there, his remarks could have been shrugged off. But he went further. He accused the president of double standards and twisted priorities, implying ulterior motives. "North Korea continues to flaunt international law by speeding ahead with their nuclear program with no consequences whatsoever," Dean charged. And despite the bombing of Afghanistan, he observed, "Osama Bin Laden still represents a threat to thousands of American lives."
That was bad enough, but Dean wasn't finished. He suggested that the United States should curb its warlike impulses to avoid offending other countries. "The White House has bombed its way around the globe," he sneered. "International respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly." As for the current war plan, Dean complained that "no one wants us to be there" and that the president's crusade "has made the Russians jittery and has harmed [our] standing in the world."
Then there was the creepy way Dean kept referring to the president. He called the showdown "Bush's undeclared war" and "Bush's bombing campaign." He described it as something "the president has put us into" and warned his audience, "We should think very, very seriously whether we are going to take ownership of the bombing"—as though the president weren't the nation's commander in chief. He urged Congress to de-fund the war and "pull out the forces we now have in the region."
Dean essentially called the United States the war's villain.
6382. jexster - 2/26/2003 8:22:53 PM
Twice now in the past decade, the overwhelming military and economic dominance of the US has given it the chance to lead the rest of the world by example and consensus. It could have adopted (and to a very limited degree under Clinton did adopt) a strategy in which this dominance would be softened and legitimised by economic and ecological generosity and responsibility, by geopolitical restraint, and by 'a decent respect to the opinion of mankind', as the US Declaration of Independence has it. The first occasion was the collapse of the Soviet superpower enemy and of Communism as an ideology. The second was the threat displayed by al-Qaida. Both chances have been lost - the first in part, the second it seems conclusively. What we see now is the tragedy of a great country, with noble impulses, successful institutions, magnificent historical achievements and immense energies, which has become a menace to itself and to mankind. Anatol Lieven
6383. jexster - 2/26/2003 8:26:52 PM
They were said on the House floor four years ago—on March 11, April 28, and May 6, 1999—about President Clinton's war in Kosovo. And they were said not by Howard Dean, but by Tom DeLay.
6384. Al D - 2/26/2003 9:36:48 PM
North Korea continues to flaunt international law by speeding ahead with their nuclear program with no consequences whatsoever," Dean charged
This is not from a Bush speach, but as long as it was from a Dem. runing for President it interested no one. Does it make Dean a moron? Of course not. If One were to make fun a Dean for a mistake that almost anyone could make would be silly. Of course neither arky nor OhioStopas are capable of mistakes.
6385. arkymalarky - 2/26/2003 11:47:08 PM
What in the Sam Hill are you on about, Al?
6386. concerned - 2/27/2003 3:02:51 AM
Al Franken a sinister Rush Limbaugh wannabe? Now, that's funny.
6387. concerned - 2/27/2003 3:08:47 AM
Re. 6382 -
Haven't you spammed this same old crap enough times? Or do you think everybody is as hard of remembering as you are?
6388. alistairConnor - 2/27/2003 4:54:03 AM
Al is talking about the word "flaunt".
"North Korea continues to flaunt international law
some Democrats in the Senate are flaunting the intention of the United States Constitution
Sigh. The language is moving on. Looks like "flaunt" is now a synonym of "flout", instead of its opposite.
Personally, I think that journalists ought to be literate enough to correct mistakes like that in the transcripts.
6389. OhioSTOPAS - 2/27/2003 6:32:53 AM
Al (Message # 6384): The misuse of "flaunt" that you cite comes not from Howard Dean, but rather from Tom DeLay. (See the last paragraph of the article Jexster cites.)
6390. OhioSTOPAS - 2/27/2003 6:34:44 AM
By the way, the President correctly used "flout" in his televised speech last night. It looks like yesterday afternoon somebody got his speechwriter a dictionary!
6391. jexster - 2/27/2003 10:23:37 AM
White Palace WMT Counter-terror Budget Is Meager
If War on Terror's got ya licked
Bomb Iraq!
If ya wanna pull our dicks
Bomb Iraq!
6392. jexster - 2/27/2003 10:28:50 AM
Al since you seem to be starved for a Moronism, here's one that hits close to home!
"Now, we talked to {evie}. She and her husband, {al), were visiting with us. They are near retirement—retiring—in the process of retiring, meaning they're very smart, active, capable people who are retirement age and are retiring."—Alexandria, Va., Feb. 12, 2003.
6393. jexster - 2/27/2003 10:30:38 AM
Looks like Miss Laura's K-1 reading lessons have FINALLY paid off!
I retire
you retire
he she it retires
I am retiring
you are retiring....
6394. wonkers2 - 2/27/2003 10:57:44 AM
Great website, Arky. Thank your pop.
6395. jexster - 2/27/2003 10:58:59 AM
For over two years now I have been participating in John Zogby's Online polling experiments. Here are the results of the latest alongside the corresponding telephone poll.
I think link should work for everyone even though its a special ID link.
6396. jexster - 2/27/2003 11:04:13 AM
Bookmarked Arky!
Its the Landover Baptist on the Potomac site!
6397. jexster - 2/27/2003 11:10:20 AM
Damned if it isn't....I just noticed the ad in the lower right corner.
From Landover Babdist - America's Favorite Church!
A Handful of Bush Supporters Take To the Streets In Support of the President The national counter-protest was organized by FreeRepublic.Com
If you do a search of "baptist" Landover is #8.
6398. concerned - 2/27/2003 12:30:09 PM
Perhaps it's America's funniest 'church'.
6399. jexster - 2/27/2003 12:31:11 PM
Howard Dean Scores at DNC National Gathering
David Corn writes, "Dean, as the buzz-watchers agree, generated the most positive vibes at the gathering. He hit the podium with a sharp declaration: 'What I want to know is why in the world the Democratic Party leadership is supporting the resident's unilateral attack on Iraq?" He then blasted the party's leaders for not challenging Resident Bush on whether there should be any new tax cuts; for obsessing over a patients' bill of rights rather than 'standing up' for providing health care insurance for all; and for going along with Bush's 'Leave No Child Behind' education legislation, which he claimed would leave behind 'every student, every teacher and every school board.' After this machine-gun opening, he paused and said, 'I'm Howard Dean and I'm here to represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.' Cue the applause? Actually, applause lights were not needed. Many in the crowd jumped up and cheered."
6400. concerned - 2/27/2003 2:08:24 PM
Fallout from 'virtual protest' shenanigans -
I read a post in another forum describing how one company just completed firing nine employees from their sales group for spending their work day making 1200 phone calls to Washington DC, sending thousands of frivolous political faxes and emails from their company computers, and that at least two were running 'virtual protest' related web sites on their work pc's.
A recreation of the probable scene when one of the former employees shows up at home:
Her: How was your day at work, Dear?"
Him: Well, uhmmmm, I don't know what to say.
Her: What happened?
Him: Well, I don't work there any more.
Her: What happened?
Him: Well, I made some phone calls to Washington, and I sent some faxes ...
Her: About what?
Him: Protesting the war.
Her: What's wrong with that?
Him: Those bastards I work for are pro-war.
Her: Let's sue them.
Him: Yeah, a class action suit.
6401. judithathome - 2/27/2003 2:26:18 PM
Actually, applause lights were not needed. Many in the crowd jumped up and cheered."
Let's hope they jump up and vote for the guy. He is just what that party needs...someone who has opposition ideas and isn't afraid to state them.
6402. jexster - 2/27/2003 2:27:11 PM
Boy you know time is running out for the Butcher of Baghdad when TD posts woeful shit like the above.
As Joe Cirincione put it, Bush's goal is to distract public attention from the costs, consequences, and overwhelming worldwide opposition to this unprecendented, immoral, and illegal war of aggression that he has been lusting for now for over a year.
The guy is nuts.
6403. jexster - 2/27/2003 3:21:17 PM
Caught on Film: A Compendium of Bush Lies
6404. jexster - 2/27/2003 3:37:15 PM
JAh - I REALLY love that guy - all the more because the sleazebucket, pissant, concerned-type patriot Tom DeLay loathes him...
Last week while at the SF LGBT Center for stop smoking class, Dean was upstairs attending a Human Rights Campaign fundraiser in his behalf. It was his third or fourth such in the past 6 months...James Hormel $$$
6405. concerned - 2/27/2003 6:11:50 PM
Re. 6402 -
Yeah, yeah. Yer nothing but talk, jexster. I don't see you laying down your job to protest.
6406. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/27/2003 6:40:43 PM
A little U.S.-Iraqi history By Robert Novak
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Sen. Robert Byrd, a master at hectoring executive branch witnesses, asked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld a provocative question last week: Did the United States help Saddam Hussein produce weapons of biological warfare? Rumsfeld brushed off the Senate's 84-year-old president pro tem like a Pentagon reporter. But a paper trail indicates Rumsfeld should have answered yes.
An eight-year-old Senate report confirms that disease-producing and poisonous materials were exported, under U.S. government license, to Iraq from 1985 to 1988 during the Iran-Iraq war. Furthermore, the report adds, the American-exported materials were identical to microorganisms destroyed by United Nations inspectors after the Gulf War. The shipments were approved despite allegations that Saddam used biological weapons against Kurdish rebels and (according to the current official U.S. position) initiated war with Iran.
6407. jexster - 2/27/2003 7:21:21 PM
117 U.S. cities and counties have now passed resolutions opposing the war, along with both houses of the Maine state legislature and the Hawaii House of Representatives. See the list
6408. Al D - 2/27/2003 7:49:34 PM
117 U.S. cities and counties have now passed resolutions opposing the war
What would that be % wise? about 1/10 of 1%? I would imagine they could get that much out of one or two counties in Calif.
jexster
If after the war with Iraq, we see people as happy to be liberated as the Afgans were, will your tune change at all?
6409. vonKreedon - 2/27/2003 7:55:39 PM
Al - How long after the war? The Afghanis appear to be doing much less dancing in the streets recently, in fact Karzai is concerned that he may be facing a resurgence of Taliban support given the conditions.
6410. Al D - 2/27/2003 8:01:28 PM
alistairConnor
So called T.V. reporters make frequent errors, the most glaring is for he and I, an error made most often by the highly educated. They must think for is not a preposition but an intransitive verb.
I don't follow Ohio's comments at all. The use of flaunt for flaut may not have been made by Dean as it may be made by the person quoting Dean but it was not DeLay.
6411. arkymalarky - 2/27/2003 8:02:30 PM
There are a lot of nations whose people I would love to see dancing in the streets at the toppling of their selfish governments. If we enter conflict with Iraq on that premise it makes our neglect of other much worse situations inexcusable.
6412. Al D - 2/27/2003 8:06:59 PM
In other words, arky, unless we are willing to crush every dictator in the world, there is no reason to crush any. Do you think it made any sense to attack Serbia to accomplish the removal of a leader? All of this stuff is political, and that is the sad part.
6413. magoseph - 2/27/2003 8:49:15 PM
Do you think it made any sense to attack Serbia to accomplish the removal of a leader?
Al,
I guess if we follow your reasoning, the Second World War should have been avoided. After all, we had to attack Germany to get rid of Hitler.
And, they did not have weapons with the power to destroy the planet.
6414. Al D - 2/27/2003 9:12:05 PM
magoseph
Perhaps as usual, my method of writing is obscure. Perhaps I should have used ? marks to make my meaning clear. I think it can make sense to attack a country to remove a dictator.
I have argued in the past that we should have stayed out of WWII after Hitler attacked USSR in June of 1941. We could have asked England to make peace with Germany and sold arms to both Germany and USSR depending on which country was beating the other.
What we really should have done is started preparing for war at least by 1936 if not in 1932. Aren't leaders supposed to lead a Nation, not follow the mob? I am well aware of the anti-war feeling after WWI.
6415. Edmund Dantes - 2/27/2003 9:46:25 PM
How long after the war?
Kuwait is still pretty grateful a dozen years out. But even throwing out history's worst evil and restoring a prosperous democracy won't win you permanent gratitude.
Ask the French.
6416. Wombat - 2/27/2003 9:47:50 PM
The last post is possibly the stupidest thing I have read on the Mote since it began. That's saying something considering the amount of crap that Rosie (in his various incarnations), Concerned, and lately Jexter have been posting.
6417. Wombat - 2/27/2003 9:48:35 PM
I was referring to Al D's post.
6418. jexster - 2/27/2003 10:27:19 PM
A Triumphant Virtual March
Over one million people from around the nation jammed the White House and Senate switchboards today to register their loud and unequivocal opposition to the war. Former Congressman Tom Andrews, National Director of Win Without War, said "Well over one million phone calls were made in just eight hours by people from every state in the country. Every Senator’s office and the White House switchboard received at least two and often more calls per minute. Many callers had to settle for busy signals."
The Virtual March on Washington was organized by Win Without War, a coalition of 32 organizations including the National Council of Churches, MoveOn.org, the NAACP, NOW, and the Sierra Club.
According to Andrews, the protest was designed to give the many who don't usually take place in marches a chance to let "their fingers do their marching." As part of the protest, folks emailed, faxed and phoned their Senators and the White House to express their support for U.N. inspections. Estimates for fax and email messages are not available as yet. But it is clear, in Andrews' words, the antiwar message "got through loud and clear today."
6419. Al D - 2/27/2003 10:32:48 PM
wombat
I would imagine you never read your own posts. Wouldn't it be more polite to point out exactly what you mean? Maybe a person who can only see one side of any issue is the stupid one.
6420. jexster - 2/27/2003 10:35:32 PM
jexster
If after the war with Iraq, we see people as happy to be liberated as the Afgans were, will your tune change at all?
Of course not. First let's see the "liberation" of Afghanistan today! Not so great.
And I suppose that our 250,000 troops will be able scrounge up a few to greet them don't you?
I mean the ones that aren't busy shooting each other.
But in any event, an immoral war is not made moral by CNN
6421. jexster - 2/27/2003 10:39:13 PM
Damn Al, I didn't notice who posted the question I just answered.
Top drawer. I thought it sounded Wombatian.
Anyway, don't fret yourself about the flowering democracy crap - its all war propaganda - this weeks "story" from the Bushies. Its "morality" week because Blair is in the shit
Didn't happen in any country the US has invaded in oh about 55 years or so and its NOT gonna happen in Iraq. See post in Iraq thread - Professor Mubarak, Kuwait University - the poor guy could barely restrain his laughter at the thought.
6422. jexster - 2/27/2003 10:48:53 PM
I hear tell that some around here doubted me????
Virtual March on Washington Floods Senate With Telephone Calls
Hundreds of Thousands Participate - WPost
and hundreds of thousands more tried repeatedly all day long and connected once if that. Least I got to the Wicked Witch of the West.
6423. Al D - 2/27/2003 10:56:20 PM
jexster
You are delusional if you think Afgans aren't happy to be rid of the Taliban. Did you happen to watch Karzi's testimony before the Senate Committee yesterday? I don't read all your posts since they seem to be all of the same note, but I can't imagine you are a Saddam supporter. I might agree that it would be a huge task to make any Arab country a democracy.
Maybe we should have made a deal with Saddam; let him have his way in the Middle East as long as we got a good price on his oil. Then he could have kicked the shit out of Saudia Arabia, maybe even taken over Iran, Syria, Jordan, a modern day Saladan. If he got out of line we could always nuke him. Of course he wqould kill all them Jews, but that wouldn't bother Liberals much, I don't suppose.
6424. jexster - 2/27/2003 10:59:49 PM
I dunno how happy they are Al.. I just know that they don't have shit for a democracy, that Bush forgot to put aid in for em in his budget, and that the figure he put in is less than he gave em during the Taliban rule.
I also know that Bush is doing is damndest to make sure we don't focus on his Afghan policy, his defense policy, his Asian policy, his fiscal policy, his domestic policy....
I also know
THAT IT'S COCKTAIL HOUR!
6425. jexster - 2/27/2003 11:01:44 PM
PS Karzai - going to stand before a Republican congress in a nearly psychotic and fully deluded Emperor's capital and say "hey assholes remember us?"
Cheers
6426. jexster - 2/27/2003 11:13:01 PM
Rumsfeld was on ABB Board during Nuke Reactor Deal with North Korea
"The Swiss-based ABB on Friday told swissinfo that Rumsfeld was involved with the company in early 2000, when it netted a $200 million contract with Pyongyang. The ABB contract was to deliver equipment and services for two nuclear power stations at Kumho, on North Korea's east coast. Rumsfeld...was a member of ABB's board between 1990 and February 2001, when he left to take up his current post. Wolfram Eberhardt, a spokesman for ABB, told swissinfo that Rumsfeld 'was at nearly all the board meetings' during his decade-long involvement with the company... Rumsfeld's position at ABB could prove embarrassing for the Bush administration since while he was a director he was also active on issues of weapons proliferation, chairing the 1998 congressional Ballistic Missile Threat commission. The commission suggested the Clinton-era deal with Pyongyang gave too much away because 'North Korea maintains an active weapons of mass destruction programme, including a nuclear weapons programme'."
6427. Al D - 2/27/2003 11:16:54 PM
jexster
Yes, it is COCKTAIL HOUR, or glass of wine time, but don't ever let the Wiz know you imbibe. I think he's a Moron, oops, I mean a Morman.
6428. jexster - 2/27/2003 11:37:07 PM
Message # 6387
I think that Lieven's article "The Push for War" is the single most profound analysis of the issue that has been written.
I believe that his concluding paragraph cannot be repeated enough.
6429. jexster - 2/27/2003 11:37:40 PM
Wiz..mormon?
Yeah right
6430. jexster - 2/27/2003 11:38:44 PM
Wiz..mormon?
Yeah right
Aaah Marlene's Old Fashioned. Have to take ya there sometime. Its the Hayes Valley drag queen, leatherboy, neighborhood bar.
6431. jexster - 2/28/2003 12:59:30 AM
TD - This one is for you.
Dear MoveOn member,
Our Virtual March has been an enormous success -- by some
estimates, the Senate and White House received over a million phone calls, faxes, and emails today. Offices on Capitol Hill were busy with the sounds of ringing phones and conversations about the war. And media outlets from the Washington Post to the BBC covered this broad and unprecedented action.
A comment we received from a MoveOn member in Connecticut is representative:
"I called Lieberman's office, and made my statement, and then I said to the man who answered the phone, 'this must be nuts for you today' and he said, 'My day will be hell, but it is so much better than apathy. This is what democracy is all about. I think it is terrific.'
I asked him if he thought it might change the Senator's position, and he said he wasn't authorized to speak on that, but that they were overwhelmed with the number of people speaking out from Connecticut."
Members of the House of Representatives (who were not targeted) took notice: Representative Anna Eshoo from California even took the time sent us all a letter thanking us for marching. You can read it at:
http://www.moveon.org/eshooletter.jpg
6432. concerned - 2/28/2003 2:59:05 AM
Re. 6416 -
'lately Jexter(sic)'.......?
More of Wombats' ingenuous synaptical meanderings.
6433. concerned - 2/28/2003 3:12:23 AM
re. 6419 -
Al D -
Wombat probably imagined he was being quite witty with that post.
6434. concerned - 2/28/2003 3:25:59 AM
Ted Kennedy leads Senate in cycle of vengeance on judicial nominees
If the alcohol befogged Fat Chappaquiddick Bastard and Senate 'Rat Scum want to play that game, Republicans should scream 'obstruction' from the rooftops and maybe GWB should resort to recess appointments to seat qualified judges on Federal benches.
6435. Wombat - 2/28/2003 9:11:50 AM
Al D. et al.
"I have argued in the past that we should have stayed out of WWII after Hitler attacked USSR in June of 1941. We could have asked England to make peace with Germany and sold arms to both Germany and USSR depending on which country was beating the other."
If you sincerely believe that this was what the U.S. should have done, then I rest my case as to the stupidity of your post.
6436. judithathome - 2/28/2003 9:51:35 AM
GWB should resort to recess appointments to seat qualified judges on Federal benches
I think recess appointments are only good as long as the Pres is in office. They expire once he leaves.
6437. Wombat - 2/28/2003 10:10:39 AM
They are good for one year, I believe.
6438. judithathome - 2/28/2003 10:12:28 AM
Thanks...maybe the speaker I heard was counting on Bush being out soon. ;-)
6439. Wombat - 2/28/2003 10:18:47 AM
Anything's possible.
6440. jexster - 2/28/2003 11:10:39 AM
Face with a firestorm of criticism from state governors over his Perpetual War, Feed the Rich, Deficits Forever Budget
Bush Blames Hill Republicans
President's Homeland Security Explanation Creates Problems for Congressional Allies
Who can trust this sleazeball?
Certainly not France, not Russia, not Germany, not Great Britain, not the people of Iraq, not you, not me
Only those who give LOTS of money.
6441. jexster - 2/28/2003 11:11:38 AM
but there's a concerned born every minute
6442. jexster - 2/28/2003 11:18:45 AM
Rumsfeld: Estimating War Cost Impossible
Loads of steershit and poopstains everwhur
6443. jexster - 2/28/2003 12:27:02 PM
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A barrage of worries depressed U.S. consumer sentiment to its lowest level in nine years in February, including the imminent threat of war, fear of terror attacks and high unemployment
If your politics are sleazy,
And hiding that ain’t easy,
And your manhood’s getting queasy,
Bomb Iraq
6444. jexster - 2/28/2003 12:32:31 PM
Yeah, yeah. Yer nothing but talk, jexster. I don't see you laying down your job to protest
I am going to walk out of class on Day X. Have marched in three protests and will do so again on 3/15. Am sponsoring a motion against the war in my local political club. Was a participant in the virtual march. Have written (and received reply!) from Josh Marshall at Talking Points. Have written scads of e-mail missives to elected officials.
And you think I spam here, you ought to see the poor sods on my emai address list.
6445. jexster - 2/28/2003 12:33:51 PM
One thing I haven't done, that I plan to begin next week - Lent - a perpetual novena for peace in Iraq.
6446. jexster - 2/28/2003 12:49:30 PM
Rift between ChickenHawks and Professionals Goes Public
I cannot recall any instance in modern history of a run up to war that has been so inept, so bungled.
Analogies welcome, even from Eddie the Echo
WASHINGTON, Feb. 27 In a contentious exchange over the costs of war with Iraq, the Pentagon (news - web sites)'s second-ranking official today disparaged a top Army general's assessment of the number of troops needed to secure postwar Iraq. House Democrats then accused the Pentagon official, Paul D. Wolfowitz, of concealing internal administration estimates on the cost of fighting and rebuilding the country6447. Al D -2/28/2003 3:55:06 PM
Thanks...maybe the speaker I heard was counting on Bush being out soon. ;-)
judith
Don't hold your breath.
On the other hand, let me think that one over. g
I don't want to upset you.
6448. Al D - 2/28/2003 4:38:18 PM
wombat
May I give you some advice? Thank you in advance. Instead of simply declaring my post was possibly the stupidest thing I have read on the Mote you might have asked if I was serious, giving me the opportunity of saying, "Of course not!"
At one time civilized, well educated people were expected to be able to argue, hopefully with intelligence, either side of a question. For example, John Milton in taking his oral Masters was told several minutes before what his subject would be and as he walked to the podium, which side he was to argue for. It was a very serious subject, Which is more favorable, light or darkness?"
Do you think a case can me made that no war ever was really justified or worth the effort, not even the Revolutionary or Civil War?
6449. Al D - 2/28/2003 4:40:56 PM
I write the above not because I was offended by your remark, though it was offensive. I am concerned that you may use the same tack with others, not as used to being called stupid on the Mote.
6450. judithathome - 2/28/2003 5:19:23 PM
not as used to being called stupid on the Mote
Ha! There is no such beast!
6451. jexster - 2/28/2003 7:06:07 PM
PAL "Terrorist" Al-Arian Says Bush Did 'Everything We Asked'
6452. Al D - 2/28/2003 7:18:13 PM
What impresses me most in the article was what Nadler (does his obesity bother any one? I seem to remember nasty comments about one congressman during impeachment and Nadler makes him look svelte. But enough of this yiddish) had to say...............................not.
6453. judithathome - 2/28/2003 7:44:22 PM
What happened to this thread all of a sudden? (Speaking of svelte and not...)
6454. concerned - 2/28/2003 9:02:43 PM
Re. 6453 -
Your html challenged buddy did it again.
6455. Wombat - 2/28/2003 9:22:54 PM
Al D.
I am glad you were not serious. There have been people on the Mote and/or Fray who have essentially stated something along those lines. I apologize for going off on you.
6456. concerned - 2/28/2003 9:25:25 PM
Now I'm curious. Who were those people?
6457. jexster - 2/28/2003 9:36:30 PM
I am curious too!
Who is the guy on the right, the one Shaking Hands with Saddam
George Washington University: U.S. DOCUMENTS SHOW EMBRACE OF SADDAM HUSSEIN IN EARLY 1980s DESPITE CHEMICAL WEAPONS, EXTERNAL AGGRESSION, HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES
6458. Edmund Dantes - 2/28/2003 9:57:52 PM
Oops, there he goes again.
6451. jexster - 3/1/03 12:06:07 AM
Professor Bedpan, why don't you slow down and actually pay attention to what you post and link? All you do is repost everything you see or someone feeds you that *looks* like it might be anti-Bush, without bothering to read it yourself.
First you did it with the general the other day who was actually calling for Bush to be more ruthless and destructive in his campaign in Iraq. Now you've posted a pro-Israel, pro-Sharon source just because you think it criticizes Bush. This from you, the most anti-Semitic poster at the Mote.
The reason your source is criticizing Bush's contact with Al-Arian is that Forward is anti-Muslim, dipshit. They don't want Bush talking to Arafat, either. From another editorial at the same site:
Bush's hard-line approach to dealing with Arafat not only shows his complete commitment to Israel as a Jewish state, but also shows a common sense understanding about the region. The Bush doctrine will create change and bring peace, if we in America have the courage and foresight to stand with him and our allies in the Middle East.
Why do you think anyone wants to read reams and reams of crap you obviously haven't even read yourself? 6459. Edmund Dantes - 2/28/2003 10:11:42 PM
Another article on Professor Bedpan's new favorite site
When confronted by terrorism, action trumps inaction. So runs the conceptual underpinning of President Bush's case for military pre-emption. Despite such tough rhetoric, America's dawdling diplomacy regarding the liberation of Iraq makes it seem as though the president has failed to heed his own rule of statecraft.
Nearly half a year has passed since Bush made the case at the United Nations General Assembly for "disarming" Iraq. More than 100 days ago, Congress voted overwhelmingly in favor of going after Saddam Hussein.
In politics, as in life, everything is in the timing. Yet the administration's haggling with the U.N. Security Council over resolutions and its hectoring of the hapless inspectors serve both to embolden Saddam and those opinion elites who sanctimoniously reach for the moral high ground in covering up for the Iraqi dictator.
Why didn't you post this one, too? It's critical of Bush--how did you miss it?
Du-oh! It's critical because he's bothered to go to the UN!
But why should that matter to a spasmotic hack like you?
6461. jexster - 2/28/2003 10:17:56 PM
I didn't have my picture taken with a terrorist silly girl.
6462. jexster - 2/28/2003 10:18:14 PM
"The war on terror involves Saddam Hussein because of the nature of Saddam Hussein, the history of Saddam Hussein, and his willingness to terrorize himself."—Grand Rapids, Mich., Jan. 29, 2003
6463. jexster - 2/28/2003 10:19:16 PM
Yo Eddie, how's your Abraham Lincoln Brigade coming?
6464. jexster - 2/28/2003 10:22:04 PM
I've really messed what passes for your mind.
Good.
Pope John Paul II is causing heartburn among one of the resident's key constituencies: conservative Catholics. The pope is unequivocally and fervently against the war in Iraq, and George W. Bush, who fancies himself something of a spiritual leader, has to grin and bear it. His holiness cannot be attacked like other war critics, such as France and Germany." Pope John Paul II refuses to condone the war with Iraq as a "just war." Further, the idea of a pre-emptive war has brought new vitality to the ailing pontiff. Will the feisty 82-year-old take on Dubya or Saddam? Apparently he feels this is a principle worth fighting for. "No matter what they say, his holiness says war is 'always a defeat for humanity.'
God Bless Iraq Eddie
6466. Al D - 2/28/2003 10:30:33 PM
http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson022803.asp
I would suggest all read this article by Victor Davis Hanson. Maybe you, jexster, would care to link it? Thank you in advance.
6467. Al D - 2/28/2003 10:31:38 PM
wombat
As usual, you are a gentleman. It might have been me on the Mote writing such silly stuff, perhaps as stamper.
6468. jexster - 2/28/2003 10:55:09 PM
Eddie D really is ________________.
Who cares?
6469. jexster - 2/28/2003 11:45:18 PM
No matter what they say, his holiness says war is "always a defeat for humanity."
Don't let them defeat us. Look what they've done to Eddie.
6470. jexster - 2/28/2003 11:45:23 PM
No matter what they say, his holiness says war is "always a defeat for humanity."
Don't let them defeat us. Look what they've done to Eddie.
6471. arkymalarky - 2/28/2003 11:52:03 PM
I would delete the culprit of the thread widening, fix, and repost, but my stupid Model-T computer won't load enough for me to tell which one it is.
6472. robertjayb - 2/28/2003 11:54:26 PM
More pre-fascism...
WASHINGTON (AP) - The government is getting ready to test a new risk-detection system that would check background information and assign a threat level to everyone who buys a ticket for a commercial flight.
The system, ordered by Congress after the Sept. 11 attacks, will gather much more information on passengers. Delta Air Lines will try it out at three unidentified airports beginning next month, and a comprehensive system could be in place by the end of the year.
Transportation officials say a contractor will be picked soon to build the nationwide computer system, which will check such things as credit reports and bank account activity and compare passenger names with those on government watch lists.
6473. judithathome - 3/1/2003 11:23:42 AM
Jesus H. Christ...any terrorist reading about the plans can keep their money under a matress and hold a fake bank account and look like Oliver Milquetoast.
Meanwhile, a hacker can get into the system and retrieve all the info on passengers who are just trying to get to Aunt Mary's funeral.
But I feel safer, yes I do!
6474. Al D - 3/1/2003 8:46:42 PM
I wonder, are there any on the Mote who believe that minorities deserve special treatment in college admissions? Just trying to get a discussion started.
6475. jexster - 3/1/2003 9:44:03 PM
Yes. Just like George Bush got preferential treatment getting into Yale or in state residents get preference over out of state residents or kids from rural schools get preference over kids from Andover/Exeter.
6476. jexster - 3/1/2003 9:44:48 PM
Before the First Shot
The most common cause of recessions, a surge in oil prices, is again afflicting the global economy
6477. Al D - 3/1/2003 10:04:34 PM
jexster
In other words, you feel that just because a person is a minority, he/she should get preferential treatment? Why is that? I don't see the justification, but maybe you could explain it to me.
As to oil prices, isn't that a positive, to keep people from using so much? Isn't that a claim of the greens?
6478. jexster - 3/1/2003 10:10:43 PM
Yes it is a positive but oil shocks aren't. Short term deman for oil is rather inelastic ie you just bought that SUV so you gotta fill it up.
How are the prices in Hawaii. A local Shell station is selling its reg for 2.19 and premium "an arm and a leg"
Thanks to Bush you'll be paying an arm and a leg for a while. Thanks to GWB, your grandchildren's children will be paying for his adventures in Empire.
6479. Al D - 3/1/2003 10:17:55 PM
After oil is flowing freely in Iraq, oil prices will drop, as you know. If we cared to, we could use Iraqui oil to pay for the war, but Bush is a better man than that. Since my SUV Cad is sitting in a garage in Oakland, not to worry. Gas is $2.06 on Kauai, but we are used to around $1.70 at the best of times.
6480. jexster - 3/1/2003 10:30:02 PM
That's not necessarily true for a number of reasons not the least of which is that the Iraqi fields are pumping at or near capacity right now. There is no world surplus. If Saddam torches the fields, it'll be worse. Further, it is not in the interest of Bush and his Texas oil buddies that oil prices fall too low.
6481. jexster - 3/1/2003 10:31:34 PM
But that is the least of Bush's worries.
The Guardian's Sunday paper is breaking a story that Bush had a plan to bug UN Security council members and blackmail members into a vote. See Iraq thread
6482. jexster - 3/1/2003 10:36:20 PM
Party Hearty Al But Save Some For GWB's Wake
Sources in Washington familiar with the operation said last week that there had been a division among Bush administration officials over whether to pursue such a high-intensity surveillance campaign with some warning of the serious consequences of discovery.
The existence of the surveillance operation, understood to have been requested by President Bush's National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, is deeply embarrassing to the Americans in the middle of their efforts to win over the undecided delegations.
The language and content of the memo were judged to be authentic by three former intelligence operatives shown it by The Observer. We were also able to establish that Frank Koza does work for the NSA and could confirm his senior post in the Regional Targets section of the organisation.
The NSA main switchboard put The Observer through to extension 6727 at the agency which was answered by an assistant, who confirmed it was Koza's office. However, when The Observer asked to talk to Koza about the surveillance of diplomatic missions at the United Nations, it was then told 'You have reached the wrong number'.
On protesting that the assistant had just said this was Koza's extension, the assistant repeated that it was an erroneous extension, and hung up.
6483. jexster - 3/1/2003 10:43:59 PM
Al its because they get shafted on the other end. There are any number of studies that document something we both know and I must confess to having done myself ie using race as skills surrogate.
Oh she's black, he's hispanic, I dunno what kind of worker she'll be but he's white I can trust him.
Happens all the time.
We do not live in a meritocracy believe it or not.
George W. is a perfect example of preferential treatment from his youth, to his "military career", his education, his business "career", and so for you guys to get all self righteous about affirmative action is just a little silly and alot hypocritical
6484. Al D - 3/1/2003 10:53:16 PM
I agree that we do not live in a meritocracy, but I don't see the validity of preferance based on race. Wouldn't need be a better criteria? And could you possibly discuss the subject without dwelling on Bush? I'll respond Sun. or late tonight.
6485. jexster - 3/1/2003 11:51:02 PM
No I cannot. Bush is the one pressing the issue and is a perfect example of why some consideration is due race in this society unti race is no longer a factor.
Affirmative action is good for the United States, economicall and socially.
6486. concerned - 3/2/2003 2:06:53 AM
Lefties feel that 'minorities' should get preferential treatment, but only as long as they stay out in the fields of the Leftist plantation. It's a colossal bribe.
6487. Al D - 3/2/2003 2:42:12 AM
Why bring Bush into the discussion? Then it is your opinion that race, not need, should be the criteria for special consideration. If, for example, Vernon Jordan had a college age child, he should get privledge simple for being a minority. No doubt he has been to the best schools, had every imaginable opportunity. Still gets put ahead of others?
A concept, it seems to me, should stand on its own merit, not who supports it or opposes it.
6488. Dubai Vol - 3/2/2003 7:23:28 AM
I'm of two minds on the Affirmative Action issue.
One, a generation has passed, surely that's enough time. Also, big companies bend over backwards to try to hire minorities. A qualified black woman is the most desirable hire in America.
IMO the real problem with the black community these days lies squarely in the black community. Do well in school, you're "acting white." Try to have white friends, you're ostracised by the blacks. Skin too light, you're "not black enough."
In my experience the most bitter racism in the US is practiced by blacks. The second worst are white middle class Yankees. Racism among middle class Southerners has long been superceded by the phenomenon known as "liberal guilt." They overcompensate for the sins of their ancestors.
The real turning point in my experience came in the early '80s. I was born and raised in the south, poor working class, and many of my co-workers, and thus my friends, were black. My first roommate, (not college, just two guys sharing an apartment,) was black. That was 1978. Sadly, the Jessie Jackons, Louis Farrakhans, and Al Sharptons became the voice of the black community, and suddenly blacks weren't allowed to have white friends. Self-destructive. and blaming white guys like me for their problems was easier than finding the real problem.
Dismiss me as a racist if you want, but I know better. I still have enough "liberal guilt" to make an extra effort, but not enough to blame myself for something that is most definitely not my fault.
At the end of the day, I don't care what color your skin is, except that I'm jealous of your tan! :p
6489. Dubai Vol - 3/2/2003 7:29:56 AM
Viva Italia!
6490. Dubai Vol - 3/2/2003 7:30:03 AM
Viva Italia!
6491. Dubai Vol - 3/2/2003 7:30:09 AM
Viva Italia!
6492. Dubai Vol - 3/2/2003 7:30:14 AM
Viva Italia!
6493. Dubai Vol - 3/2/2003 7:30:21 AM
Viva Italia!
6494. Dubai Vol - 3/2/2003 7:30:31 AM
Viva Italia!
6495. RickNelson - 3/2/2003 7:33:31 AM
Ok,
viva Italia
6496. Dubai Vol - 3/2/2003 7:35:58 AM
And of course none of you will ever believe that I hit the "post" button exactly once. But it's true. Monopoly ISPs and proxy servers are great!
On a completely unrelated topic, who else thinks the ban on human cloning is stupid. Reminds me of nothing so much as the Catholic Chuch's insistence that the Earth is the center of the universe.
Blocking scientific research is absurd.
OTOH I think anyone who clones themselves is an idiot, but I see no reason to stop them.
6497. RickNelson - 3/2/2003 7:41:25 AM
I still have interest in the affirmative action discussion.
But, I think cloning organs is a good idea.
6498. RickNelson - 3/2/2003 7:47:40 AM
My family just visited a small private college in central (western) Iowa yesterday. It was schlorship day. They were specifically courting students and the offer of 2 full tuition paid scholarships brought about 60 prospects that day.
They told my daughter that this year they were really looking for African Americans to give the multi-cultural scholarship to. Seems they thought having 10 Japanese transfer students skewed their asian population already. My daughter is mixed)
6499. RickNelson - 3/2/2003 7:50:08 AM
Iowa, is 98% white according to a news report I heard last week. I didn't know that. I knew it's a predominantly conservative state, but I didn't know it had so few minorities.
6500. RickNelson - 3/2/2003 8:01:47 AM
On the drive back we visited good ol' Norwegian country, the city of Northfield Minnie-sooooootah! U-betcha!
Anyway, the campus of St. Olaf is so beautiful. The buildings inspire awe and admiration. Of course the poet in me caught up in all that.
Then we drove to the Carlton campus and it was Ok, not quite as dramatic for architecture, but nice. We saw the big green Sen. Wellstone bus parked in the street right in front of the main chapel (built to resemble a smallish cathedral). The bus had many American flags waving in the breeze. sigh...
6501. RickNelson - 3/2/2003 8:07:44 AM
Dubai,
Perhaps you hit the refresh button on your browser? If no-one has posted since your last post, that last post will reappear. I haven't tried it in a long time, maybe there is a warning now that your data will refresh, but anyway, that's the idea.
6502. Dubai Vol - 3/2/2003 8:33:51 AM
Nope, I have seen the double(and more)post monster plenty of times on this ISP and it is strictly an artifact of the proxy server. Usually I am off getting a beer and come back to find a dozen post clones. Know nothing about Ioway; I suggest the University of Tennessee (the VOLunteers, my alma mater.)What is she studying?
6503. RickNelson - 3/2/2003 10:08:11 AM
Dubai,
I'm just getting off to a job now, but saw your post. She's looking into biology with studies towards pharmacy.
6504. jexster - 3/2/2003 11:23:46 AM
Dear VoteNoWar Member:
Tens of thousands of people will be converging for a National Anti-War March to Take it to the White House on Saturday March 15.
There will be parallel activities in Los Angeles and San Francisco.
It has been the street protests in the United States and around the world in the last few months that have become the biggest single political factor confronting and restraining the war-makers. We have always believed that the only thing that could prevent this aggression against Iraq was for all of us -- the people of the world -- to organize and become a major political force through mass action.
The New York Times acknowledged this new political reality when it wrote about the creation of a global mass movement:
"The fracturing of the Western alliance over Iraq and the huge anti-war demonstrations around the world this weekend are reminders that there may still be two superpowers in the planet: the United States and world opinion.
"In his campaign to disarm Iraq, by war if necessary, President Bush appears to be eyeball to eyeball with a tenacious new adversary: millions of people who flooded the streets of New York and dozens of other world cities to say they are against war based on the evidence at hand." (New York Times, Monday, February 17, A1, "A New Power in the Streets")
6505. arkymalarky - 3/2/2003 12:20:37 PM
Dubai, I live and work in a pretty integrated community and what you describe has never been the case for me. I think resegregation is driving a lot of the attitude that you are talking about, and ending AA is a very wrong direction to go. And if you came from the South, surely you've experienced the "White Club" approach, as I still do occasionally, of assuming since you're white it's ok to make racial remarks or observations. There's still not equality and a generation is not enough. I've seen a lot of improvement in 22 years of teaching, and my husband and I both have seen black students perform at the top of their classes in very recent years. Give it another five or ten, to the point where integrated kids who were so from kindergarten have students in school and all the old guard who remembers segregation and has biases they learned at their grandparents' knees, even if they don't realize it (I didn't attend an integrated school until 7th grade and I graduated hs in 1977), are out of the picture. Things haven't changed as much as that particular generation of white folks tries to pretend they have.
And I absolutely agree that if someone as intellectually disadvantaged as Bush can go to Yale, surely someone who's socio-economically or ethnically disadvantaged should get the same opportunity.
6506. arkymalarky - 3/2/2003 12:30:19 PM
BTW, not that it's relevant, but I don't live in the community where I work.
6507. arkymalarky - 3/2/2003 12:32:03 PM
Another observation: My husband's boss is a black woman and she's much more efficient than her white male predecessor.
6508. jexster - 3/2/2003 2:04:11 PM
Worth 1000 Words
6509. jexster - 3/2/2003 2:08:03 PM
U.S. Diplomat John Brady Kiesling
Letter of Resignation, to:
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell
ATHENS | Thursday 27 February 2003
Dear Mr. Secretary:
I am writing you to submit my resignation from the Foreign Service of the United States and from my position as Political Counselor in U.S. Embassy Athens, effective March 7. I do so with a heavy heart. The baggage of my upbringing included a felt obligation to give something
> back to my country. Service as a U.S. diplomat was a dream job. I was paid to understand foreign languages and cultures, to seek out diplomats, politicians, scholars and journalists, and to persuade them that U.S. interests and theirs fundamentally coincided. My faith in my country and its values was the most powerful weapon in my diplomatic
arsenal.
It is inevitable that during twenty years with the State Department I would become more sophisticated and cynical about the narrow and selfish bureaucratic motives that sometimes shaped our policies.
Human nature is what it is, and I was rewarded and promoted for understanding human nature. But until this Administration it had been possible to believe that by upholding the policies of my president I was also upholding the interests of the American people and the world.
I believe it no longer.....
6510. Al D - 3/2/2003 2:16:38 PM
Why bring Bush into the discussion? Then it is your opinion that race, not need, should be the criteria for special consideration. If, for example, Vernon Jordan had a college age child, he should get privledge simple for being a minority. No doubt he has been to the best schools, had every imaginable opportunity. Still gets put ahead of others?
A concept, it seems to me, should stand on its own merit, not who supports it or opposes it.
6511. jexster - 3/2/2003 2:21:46 PM
The End of the Moron
Whatever the outcome of the next round of debate in the United Nations Security Council, the worldwide skepticism about the wisdom of Mr. Bush's course means that any war with Iraq will be seen, above all, as his war.
John Brady Kiesling, a career foreign service officer who last week resigned his post as political counselor at the American embassy in Athens to protest Mr. Bush's policy, made that point.
"We have begun to dismantle the largest and most effective web of international relationships the world has ever known," Mr. Kiesling wrote Secretary of State Colin L. Powell. "Our current course will bring instability and danger, not security."
Mr. Bush's position has been to seek support from the United Nations to enforce its own past resolutions against Iraq, but he has repeatedly said that he would act with whatever partners he can persuade to remove what he considers a grave threat to American security and world peace. Having staked out that ground so unequivocally, Mr. Bush will have to hold it.
"In terms of politics, it's probably highly profitable, with a rally round the flag," said Nelson W. Polsby, a professor of political science at the University of California at Berkeley. "If you can keep pumping that up, you get a free pass with respect to almost everything else, and he's milking that for all it's worth..... 6512. jexster - 3/2/2003 2:22:12 PM
In the modern presidency, "foreign policy is more likely to defeat than re-elect a president," said Allan J. Lichtman, a historian at American University, who cited the examples of Harry S. Truman enmeshed in Korea, Lyndon B. Johnson undone by Vietnam and Jimmy Carter stymied by the Iranian hostage crisis.
"Even some of the greatest foreign policy triumphs are no guarantee, so in strictly political terms, he's taking a great risk going to war in Iraq," Mr. Lichtman said. "His biggest danger is the economy. No incumbent president has ever been re-elected during an election-year recession, and that's one of the most potentially perilous effects of this war."
Since the Bloody Bastard is hell bent on murder anyway, is it wrong to wish his end sooner rather than later?
6513. jayackroyd - 3/2/2003 2:29:34 PM
Ending my long silence, provoked by Al's attempt to start an actual discussion, everybody misses the point on affirmative action.
College admissions offices construct classes. The primary motivation for doing so is to maximize the size of the endowment, in the long run. That's why they discriminate in favor of athletes, because athletics create an object for alumni loyalty. That's why they let in people with talents outside of purely academic talent, because it makes the university experience more memorable. In the sixties and seventies, colleges recognized that society was becoming more meritocratic; you just had to look at the names of the high powered players on Wall Street, fewer and fewer wasps. They also recognized that diversity was a value in and of itself--that it made for a more enriching experience for potential contributers among alumni.
Harvard says they reject an entire classful of valedictorians, and an entire classful of perfect SAT scores. There are dozens of students at places like Bronx High School of Science or Exeter who could perfectly well go to Harvard who don't get in because the admissions office believes that a classful of greasy grinds makes for a poor college experience. They prefer people who have high SAT scores and good grades who have other interests, and succeed in those interests.
So, to start with, there is no bar, there are no rules, there is no measure that admissions officers use. The top colleges have a surfeit of qualified applicants. Someone claiming that a candidate with worse test scores or grades got in ahead of them is almost certainly wrong. If they are that low on the totem pole, depriving a particular applicant is not gonna get him or her in. The guy who was on the Math team at Bronx Science and was on the fifth best debate team who didn't get in is ahead of him.
6514. Al D - 3/2/2003 2:33:50 PM
The reason for the above post is I hit the refresh button. I was interested in rick Nelson post about the college seeking African American students. Am I correct in assuming that his daughter is part asian? So it is not minorities (asians make up around 4% of U.S. population) but specific minorities to be favored.
I would suggest you read John McWhorter's book Losing the Race.
Dubai Vol writes as if he has read the book, and I think he is on point when he mentions what the real problems are. McWhorter makes the same points. The book is longer than it needs to be, but worth reading.
6515. jayackroyd - 3/2/2003 2:45:00 PM
However, there is one best route, and that route is to be the child of an alumnus who contributes heavily. I went to Harvard, and the least qualified, least successful students came from this group. Of course, some of the most successful students also came from this group.
The overall goal of the university is 1) to give those students a rich, memorable college experience and 2) to identify potential future contributors to the endowment. The increasingly meritocratic, globally focused society we live in behooves universities to constuct classes that mirror that society.
The universities do this with their eyes open. There was an open records policy at Harvard, and I looked at mine. I was projected at time of admission, accurately, as graduating in the middle of the class. But rather than admit another really smart kid from Bronx Science, they preferred someone from a rural area with both athletic and academic extracurricular success in constructing that class.
Likewise, when a university decides to admit a successful minority candidate, they are trying to create a better class. It's not the case that there is a top 1500 student list, based on some metric.
Now this can get silly. My nephew's mom is Puerto Rican. But he is all of a quarter Puerto Rican--his maternal grandmother is a red head from Massachusetts, and my parents are also New Englanders. His mom is a lawyer, his father a doctor. But to universities, he is Puerto Rican, and he is being sent a myriad of recruitment letters from mostly middle tier schools. He doesn't need special preferences, and he won't enrich the class in the way I've outlined above. But it may help him get in nonetheless.
6516. jayackroyd - 3/2/2003 2:45:12 PM
This process is what will ultimately subvert affirmative action. In a generation or two, race won't work as a predictor of background. It works less well in this generation than in the last, as with my nephew. Colleges will recognize this, and stop using race as a selection criterion. But, for now, it helps create a more diverse, more interesting, and more educational experience for potential contributors to the endowment.
6517. jayackroyd - 3/2/2003 2:47:01 PM
Al,
Can you please summarize McWhorter's point? One other reason for my ending my silence is that I'd like to encourage discussion, rather than references to outside sources.
6518. jayackroyd - 3/2/2003 2:57:02 PM
When you talk about affirmative action in the workplace, ime with a number of large corporations, the most successful, like American Express and Microsoft, see themselves as global organizations and strive to construct a diverse workforce.
I don't think the justification can any longer be made that universities or business be forced to practice affirmative action. But I cannot see any reason why they should not be permitted to.
Hootie Johnson makes a compelling argument (although it's a loser politically, especially with KKK cheering him on) when he says that private organizations often segregate by gender. But anyone who supports Hootie's argument will have a hard time supporting the argument that affirmative action should not be permitted.
6519. jayackroyd - 3/2/2003 3:02:23 PM
"So it is not minorities (asians make up around 4% of U.S. population) but specific minorities to be favored."
Again, Al, the idea is to construct a diverse and interesting class from a pool of students who can do the work, recognizing that the pool is at least three or four times the size of the class. Races that are underrepresented in that pool have an advantage, for now. But so do good tuba players, successful high school debaters, and, more to the point, children of rich alumni.
The bar is lowest for the last group, because, as I said earlier, the oveall goal is the growth of the endowment.
6520. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/2/2003 6:17:03 PM
Revealed: US dirty tricks to win vote on Iraq war
- Secret document details American plan to bug phones and emails of key Security Council members
6521. robertjayb - 3/2/2003 6:21:35 PM
The long, incompetent arm of the law in the times of pre-fascism...(Cragg Hines)
When Derek Bond, a 72-year-old British retiree, landed in Cape Town, South Africa, in late January to begin a vacation, he handed his passport to an immigration officer...
...The horror story that unfolded for Bond over the next month is a cautionary tale as the Bush administration presses Congress to expand authorization for secretive arrests, unlimited detention and a curtailment of judicial review.
6522. wonkers2 - 3/2/2003 7:21:31 PM
I know little or nothing about Dennis Kucinich other than what I saw on McNeil News hour last night. I was very favorably impressed.
6523. wonkers2 - 3/2/2003 7:27:23 PM
Bush appointed a real, honest to goodness, orthodox economist to head his CEA, Gregory Mankiw. Does that mean he's backing away from supply side, voodoo economics? Maybe daddy took him to the woodshed on his fantasy tax and budget scenarios.
6524. jexster - 3/2/2003 9:27:22 PM
Meet Mr. Credibility
Candidate or no, Wesley Clark upstages Bush on Iraq and national security
Kerry-Clark (too many medals, good aliteration)
_____- Clark (excellent!)
6525. jexster - 3/2/2003 9:28:34 PM
Mankiw wrote my Micro principles text...it was a very good book and he wasn't at kind to supply siders
I think he is window dressing.
6526. RickNelson - 3/2/2003 9:58:47 PM
"The increasingly meritocratic, globally focused society we live in behooves universities to constuct classes that mirror that society.
The universities do this with their eyes open"
I agree jay. And Al, yes my daughter is asian mix.
I think the college I'm talking about most certainly obtained a linesman during the time my daughter sought the scholarship. I saw the young man, he will do a good job for them. The coach was bantering with him and the mood between them and a couple of current students was jovial. It was apparent that this young man had some good going for him. This all occured while every family waited in the main hall of the student center waiting for the parent presentations, and the student essay, interview and group activity to begin.
I was interested in the library journals they subscribed so my wife and I browsed the library. I first noticed a single shelf display containing every sort of Affirmative Action angle upon a title. The top of the shelf showed on prominantly asking if AA were viable considering the present? I moved on to view the journal titles and found so many conservative journals I've never heard of, I was not to pleased. However, I knew where I was and would just click my heals back to Oz when I was ready.
I can't tell you the journal names, I didn't note them.
I read the cover page journal contents and saw a lot of promotion of the war. That's not bad if there is a balance of thought, which I decided to look for. It wasn't apparently a concern or they were all checked out, I found nothing.
6527. Al D - 3/2/2003 10:24:29 PM
jayackroyd
The main point of McWhorter's book is that the problem in the African American community is not properly understood. It is not that blacks are disadvantaged so much as they have an anti-intellectual attitude, more or less the points Dubai Vol made. Since McWhorter is an African American, he does not buy into the idea than blacks are inherently intellectually inferior. He also feels that AA stigmatises blacks.
Several months ago I watched a discussion on C-Span with the head of the Law Dept. of Michigan U. He made the point that having African Americans in a class aided discussion, for example, of laws on crack. That struck me as demeaning; black face-knows all about crack, probably all about rape and lots of other crime things old honky wouldn't know about.
I can understand wanting a diverse student body. But I don't think adding 30 points because one is African American is the way to achieve it. I might like to see diversity in hireing Proffs. You know, an equal # of conservatives as liberals, etc.
I'm sure arky is not a racist, but the need to point out that her husbands boss, a black woman, is better than the white guy seems, oh I don't know exactly, but at least gratuitous.
6528. Al D - 3/2/2003 10:27:41 PM
Another point. Playing the violin is a skill, making touchdowns is a skill, getting large donations is a must, but is being Puerto Rican a skill?
6529. jayackroyd - 3/2/2003 11:18:32 PM
On the first point, I don't really follow the argument. Yes, it's true that some people who got into an elite school partly because of their socio-economic or racial background (as I did), may have doubts about their capability. But I am telling you, Al, that we (or at least I) were reassured by the dumb-ass rich kids that we were not there because we couldn't cut it.
On the second argument, a) I said that it is silly that my nephew gets credit for being puerto rican b) that this use of race of a criterion will gradually go away as it becomes increasingly silly and c) that being rich is not a skill.
So, in the real world of functioning universities operating in a free marketplace, if they decide to use racial and rich kid criteria in their admissions policies, what role should the federal government have in intervening in those decisions?
I say none. And I say there should also be no intervention in the elite state schools, like Michigan or Berkeley. Let those decisions be made locally, by the people closest to the situation. How could anyone, especially a conservative, have a problem with that?
(And please note that I left out the West Point amicus curiae. I'm trying to elicit your good arguments.)
6530. jayackroyd - 3/2/2003 11:32:22 PM
"It is not that blacks are disadvantaged so much as they have an anti-intellectual attitude"
I can't let this stand. You can't talk about people like this. Are you saying that Condleeza Rice has an anti-intellectual attitude? Wynton Marsalis? Charles Rangel? Clarence Thomas? Thomas Sowell?
Are you saying that Tonya Harding, because she's white, has a pro-intellectual attitude?
IOW, I think you did not mean to say what you just said. Please reassure me that this is so.
6531. arkymalarky - 3/2/2003 11:51:08 PM
Nothing gratuitous, Al. You should add some dimension to your comprehension of people's posts. My point was that she is what she is without racial or gender preferential treatment in hiring or university AA.
Interestingly enough I heard McWhorter this evening on C-Span in between grading a pile of papers--now a foot or two shorter. I think you oversimplify his position, as well, but that's just from my listening to him for an hour, not reading his book.
6532. jayackroyd - 3/3/2003 12:19:14 AM
Al,
I think is an interesting discussion, and I am glad you raised it. However, I think it belongs in the slow thread, because it's a policy issue rather than a political issue.
If you would move the discussion there, I'd appreciate it.
I'd want to add that I do understand your (IMO) not clearly stated point, that there exists, in the black community an anti-intellectual segment. I'd note two things, one, that tat segment does not include the students applying to Michigan, and two, that there are interesting gender issues on this score.
That is, some girls dumb themselves down in a way unpleasantly similar to the way that some young black people do. Why both of these things happen is an interesting source of discussion. But I think it belongs in the slow thread.
6533. concerned - 3/3/2003 1:00:16 AM
From Time Magazine: In Chicago, Jesse Jackson on the Spot
When does a nightclub disaster turn into a political controversy? When the city is Chicago and one of the players is Jesse Jackson. The E2 nightclub had long been a scene. Police had been summoned there 80 times in the past two years, and residents of the neighborhood, a few blocks south of downtown, had nothing good to say about the rowdy closing-time crowds. So when 21 young African Americans were killed on Monday in a stampede down the club's narrow front stairwell and the city revealed it had ordered the club closed last summer for safety violations, many Chicagoans expected Jackson to unleash his formidable rhetoric against the club's owners.
But something quite different happened. Standing in front of the club the following day, Jackson cautioned against a "rush to find a culprit" and deflected the focus of attention from the club owner onto the city. "The fact is, safety codes were not enforced, and it's the job of inspectors and officials to do just that," he said. Coming from a civil rights advocate with a long record of giving voice to the voiceless, Jackson's temperate response to the E2 disaster seemed curious, to say the least. The E2 investigation is beginning to show that the fault for the disaster is widespread: overcrowding, obstructed auxiliary exits, a security guard's careless use of choking pepper spray on a packed dance floor to stop a fight. As for the city, it admitted that its enforcement policy had to be fixed. Its inspector visited the nightclub only in the daytime when it was closed, never at night.
6534. concerned - 3/3/2003 1:00:57 AM
The investigation has also revealed that Jackson is more closely involved with the club than he had disclosed when he spoke in front of E2 last week. In 2002, it turns out, Jackson wrote a letter to the police chief and one to a local alderman on behalf of the club owner, urging that E2 be allowed to remain open despite its transgressions. E2's owner, Dwain Kyles, has been friends with Jackson since Kyles was a child. And Kyles is, like Jackson, a bona fide member of the black political establishment. His father Samuel (Billy) Kyles was a close friend of Martin Luther King Jr. and was with King and Jackson the day King was assassinated. Samuel Kyles later opened a Memphis office of Jackson's Operation PUSH. The younger Kyles served on the successful U.S. House campaign of Jesse Jackson Jr. Kyles' ex-wife worked on Jackson's staff and was once an attorney for musician Stevie Wonder.
Kyles says the city's closing order covered only part of his club; the city says otherwise. Jackson says he was unaware of the order and was simply protecting an important African-American business. Later in the week he arranged for families of the victims to have free funeral services, and he called for an independent investigation into E2.
By week's end, Jackson's role had left bad feelings among some segments of African-American Chicago, precipitating rare open criticism of the civil rights leader. Alderman Madeline Haithcock said Jackson was "with the victims one minute, holding prayer vigils" and "with his friends the next," and Pastor Lance Davis of the J. Claude Allen CME church called Jackson's actions "disingenuous." He wants an investigation too — into Jackson.
Well, at least JJ got relatives of the victims free funeral services.
6535. concerned - 3/3/2003 1:08:22 AM
Can you imagine the outcry if anybody but a LW demagogue like Jackson had written letters to public officials asking for safety codes to be ignored?
6536. Al D - 3/3/2003 1:33:20 AM
jay
I will contiue the discussion on the other Thread since you are correct, it is not really a political issue as I have raised it. It has been some time since I read McWhorter's book so I may not have done him justice. But any generalization about a group fails when applied to the specific. But it is enjoyable to have a discussion without acrimony. And arky, I did not mean to be critical. I will try to explain what I mean Mon. goodnight all.
6537. magoseph - 3/3/2003 9:10:38 AM
Firstly, there is no such 'wing' of the Republican Party. Secondly, you haven't been paying attention, IAC. There were numerous warnings about the likelihood of Islamist terrorism ever since Jimmuh Cahtuh acquiesced to the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979, a tradition that Clowntoon followed closely wrt to bin Laden and al Qaeda who installed themselves into Afghani power during the mid '90's.
Answer to Message # 4108 in thread 150
Oh, there is no such wing, concerned? Then, how would you describe the KU Klux Klan, Sons of the Confederacy, and various religious fanatics such as Jerry Falwell to mention a few of those stalwarts of the Republican base?
I agree with you--the warnings were profuse and obvious. The question becomes, why did it take a sledge hammer like 9/11 to wake up Bush? I believe his focus was limited to delivering his tax cut to potential supporters of a second term.
6538. jexster - 3/3/2003 9:24:37 AM
New Evidence Emerges that Bush Cronies Conspired to Rip Off Cali
6539. jexster - 3/3/2003 12:14:35 PM
As Opposition Builds, Bush appears to be dropping out of the public debate on Iraq
Great news! I'll have less nausea.
6540. concerned - 3/3/2003 12:48:36 PM
Then, how would you describe the KU Klux Klan, Sons of the Confederacy
They're Democrat scum, Magoseph. The Confederacy and Ku Klux Klan always have been Democrats through and through and were always opposed to the Republican Party. For that matter, Republicans were barely tolerated in the South, and never had an affiliation with either group.
6541. concerned - 3/3/2003 12:59:27 PM
As far as 'religious fanatics' (whatever precisely you're implying by that other than a sui generis insult), I don't think either political party has a monopoly on them, and IAC, I don't think you can honestly say that Christians as a group are more prejudiced than other people. Besides, it's too simplistic to group the wide range of Protestant affiliations willy nilly with the Republican Party, or to classify Protestant sects as being fanatic without some attempt at providing specifics. For instance, x42 is a Baptist and GWB, I believe, is a Presbyterian. Are you trying to imply that Presbyterians are more 'fundamentalist' than Baptists? That's what it sounds like here, but it really sounds like you're just just fatuously attempting insults without really knowing what you're talking about.
6542. thoughtful - 3/3/2003 1:10:30 PM
From Brad deLong's web site (http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/Index.html) he quotes from Woodward's book Bush at War:
Another risk they faced was getting bogged down in Afghanistan.... Rice['s] fears were shared by others.... Should they think about launching military action elsewhere as an insurance policy in case things in Afghanistan went bad. They would need successes early in any war to maintain domestic and international support.... Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz perked up.... Wolfowitz... believed that the abrupt end to... Desert Storm... which left Saddam in power had been a mistake.... Wolfowitz seized the opportunity. Attacking Afghanistan would be uncertain. He worried about 100,000 American troops bogged down in mountain fighting.... In contrast, Iraq was a brittle, oppressive regime.... It was doable. He estimated that there was a 10 to 50 percent chance Saddam was involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks. The U.S. would have to go after Saddam at some time if the war on terrorism was to be taken seriously....
During a break, Bush joined a side discussion that included... Wolfowitz. He told them that he had found some of [Joint Chief Chair] Shelto's military options unimaginative. Wolfowitz expanded on his arguments about how war against Iraq might be easier than against Afghanistan. The president asked why he didn't present more of this at the meeting. "It is not my place to contradict the chairman of the Joint Chiefs [Shelton] unless the secretary of defense says to," said Wolfowitz, knowing Shelton was opposed to an attack on Iraq. When the group reconvened, Rumsfeld asked, Is this the time to attack Iraq? He noted that there would be a big buildup of forces in the region and he was still deeply worried about the availability of good targets in Afghanistan.
6543. thoughtful - 3/3/2003 1:10:43 PM
Reading this I was reminded of the joke about the drunk who dropped his keys in the dark but was looking for them under the lamppost as that's where the light was. Remember, Woodward was writing a paean to bush...putting his admin in the most favorable light possible!
I'd be laughing if we were talking about something else. But this is how this administration is making major decisions about human lives and war and policies that will affect major portions of the world for many many years to come! Rather than laughing, it scares the ever-lovin' out of me!
6544. wonkers2 - 3/3/2003 1:13:11 PM
Maybe they should attack some small warm place like Aruba or Bermuda or Haiti.
6545. thoughtful - 3/3/2003 1:16:02 PM
The truth about the goal behind attacking Iraq has finally come out. It's a belief in the domino theory in reverse. If we set up a successful democracy in Iraq, then all the other arab nations will be so envious, they'll fall all over themselves rushing to democracy too.
Well, lets look first at how we're doing in making life better for the Afghan people as an example. As Krugman pointed out, the Bushies even forgot to put money to rebuild Afghanistan in their budget and added it, embarrassed, at the last minute.
Go here and click on "The Big Picture". Caption reads: Ahqel Khan, 2, smiles at his grandmother, but he cannot even crawl or walk because of severe malnutrition. In Kabul, the number of children suffering from malnutrition has increased to 11 percent in 2002 from 6 percent in 2001.
Think we'll do better in Iraq?
6546. jexster - 3/3/2003 1:25:00 PM
He'll have a Martial Plan for Iraq.
Don't tell AlD about Bush's Afghan mess.
Any way to hide that from him? Al is old. May not be able to take it.
6547. jexster - 3/3/2003 1:25:52 PM
Vincente Fox: Bush Obssessed With Saddam
The Moron is over the deep end I tell ya.
6548. thoughtful - 3/3/2003 4:16:25 PM
wonkers...W. needs to outdo his predecessors...Reagan was Grenada, Bush I was Panama, so W. has to do something easy but bigger, preferably with oil.
6549. magoseph - 3/3/2003 4:38:27 PM
They're Democrat scum, Magoseph. The Confederacy and Ku Klux Klan always have been Democrats through and through and were always opposed to the Republican Party. For that matter, Republicans were barely tolerated in the South, and never had an affiliation with either group.
I question that anyone above the moronic level would buy into the absurdities that you just issued. The strength of the Republican party is known by everyone to be in the South and in the bible belt. Why don't you move into present time and quit living in the Civil War?
As far as the American fascist movement is concerned, the de facto leader of that movement (Speaker of the house DeLay who masquerades as a Republican), is welcomed by the Republican base as their leader.
6550. concerned - 3/3/2003 5:20:16 PM
Actually, the South is only slightly more Republican, than say, a liberal bastion such as Minnesota is. And, it's a very basic mistake to think that any significant number of people who vote Republican in the South were voting Democrat 35 years ago, as can be seen when demographics are considered for even a moment.
6551. concerned - 3/3/2003 5:20:56 PM
Again, if there are any American fascists, they certainly don't vote Republican.
6552. magoseph - 3/3/2003 5:36:29 PM
concerned,
Have you really resided in the United States over the last 35 years? How could you have not heard of the 'Solid South'? Of course, the people in the South who are voting republican today were voting democratic yesterday. It all began to change with the Civil Rights movement. Do some reading before you comment on these issues. I believe it would be appreciated.
Again, if there are any American fascists, they certainly don't vote Republican.
Do you mean to say they are supporters of Ralph Nader and the Green Party?
6553. concerned - 3/3/2003 5:53:44 PM
I'm pointing out that these much detested persons are in their upper 50's and above now - hardly any Republican bulwark in the South, plus at least half of them are ardently sought out for their votes by the Democrat Party, IAC.
Capische?
6554. magoseph - 3/3/2003 6:29:37 PM
You don't make any sense, concerned. Bush carried the whole bible belt. If he had not, he would have lost the election. Now if you do not know what this means in those terms, let me make it simpler. Simply put, the Republicans are in a majority in the bible belt which means that they get more than half of the vote cast. Now if you still don't get it, let's drop it. Read a few books on the subject.
6555. concerned - 3/3/2003 6:36:55 PM
IAC, Magoseph, I'm glad you agree with me that the great majority of people in the South today that vote Republican not only have nothing to do with the bad old Jim Crow Democrats but specifically vote Republican because they reject the South's racist heritage.
6556. Al D - 3/3/2003 7:32:07 PM
magoseph
Would you please define fascist for me? And then, would you explain how DeLay fits the definition? Is it enough to say you don't care much for a person to label him fascist. You have much in common with concerned, it seems to me.
6557. jexster - 3/3/2003 7:54:04 PM
Signs of the Times
- For the first time in over 30 years, North Korea dared intercept a US spy plane
- India says US "too weak" to deal with threats to peace from Bush ally Pakistan
- Turkish MP "We chose democracy over Bush"
Turkey doesn't need Patriot Missles. They can't stop the only threat to their peace and freedom. 6558. jexster - 3/3/2003 8:13:18 PM
Let's roll!
6559. magoseph - 3/3/2003 9:59:17 PM
I'm glad you agree with me that the great majority of people in the South today that vote Republican not only have nothing to do with the bad old Jim Crow Democrats but specifically vote Republican because they reject the South's racist heritage.
concerned, in the forties just after the WWll, the eleven states of the Confederacy entitled to twenty-two senators had twenty two democratic senators--not one Republican. That was the solid South. Now, the Civil Rights movement begins. The Dixiecrat movement follows. When this movement fails on a national level, the Dixiecrats take control of the Republican party of the South. Their stated objectives--maintain segregation, limit the ability of Blacks to vote, and enforce Jim Crow if not through legal means, through intimidation. That portion of the population that did not agree with the dixiecrat racist movement stayed with the Democratic party.
Looking at your post again, I have no idea what you have to do to get into the real world, but I think you should do some historical research before you put on something as childish as your last post. Your post reminds me of Hitler's statement to the German people that if the Jews started WWII, they would suffer for it.
6560. magoseph - 3/3/2003 10:01:46 PM
Would you please define fascist for me? And then, wWhateveruld you explain how DeLay fits the definition? Is it enough to say you don't care much for a person to label him fascist. You have much in common with concerned, it seems to me.
Al, I think that Delay defines fascist for you: In a general sense, whatever Delay is for, is a fascist cause and whatever he is against, is a democratic cause.
6561. judithathome - 3/3/2003 10:34:34 PM
Fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. (Merriam-Webster)
Sounds like DeLay to me...he seems to fall within this definition quite easily...as a follower of it.
6562. concerned - 3/4/2003 1:34:12 AM
re. 6559 -
magoseph -
The Dixiecrats never 'took control' of the Republican Party in the South, which is laughably wrong. What they did do was take control of the Democrat Party in the South, winning Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and South Carolina in the 1948 election.
However, as proof of how utterly baseless your attempts at smearing Republicans are, all four of these states out of nine total cast their electoral votes for Adlai Stevenson in 1952, and, except for Louisiana, the other three did again in 1956 when Stevenson won only seven states total. Again, all four states voted solidly for Kennedy in 1960.
6563. concerned - 3/4/2003 1:34:56 AM
Re. 6560 -
What an incredibly ignorant post.
6564. concerned - 3/4/2003 1:36:05 AM
I would call magoseph more of a fascist than DeLay, to tell the truth.
6565. concerned - 3/4/2003 2:00:51 AM
The Rot in America's Universities: Islands of Repression in a Sea of Freedom
excerpt:
The attempt to close down my talk also confirmed the specific sources of hostility to free speech. In theory, these could come from the extreme right, radical Christians, and pro-Israel activists; in fact, they invariably and uniquely come from the extreme left, Islamists, and anti-Israeli activists.
Related articles about the Nazis who run American universities from this site:
Duke Freshman Lives Threatened for Defending Western Civilization
Virginia State University Tyranny
Academic Freedom on Campus: A Contradiction in Terms?
Loose Lips in American Academia and the Press
University Professors vs. America
Another Lesson in Rioting 101: They Do It Because They Can
Harvard Loves Jihad--But Hates America
American Academics Who Hate America
Campus Diversity Fraud
The Balkanization of College Campuses
6566. OhioSTOPAS - 3/4/2003 6:26:07 AM
Folks, have patience with "concerned" and other Republicans who defend their party's courting of racists by pointing out that racists were Democrats 40 or 50 years ago. Yeah, it's a pathetically weak defense, but what else have they got?
6567. magoseph - 3/4/2003 8:59:22 AM
Concerned--post 6562. The Dixiecrats never 'took control' of the Republican Party in the South, ...
Dixiecrats
The Dixicrats were a group of Southern Democrats who broke away from the Democratic National party in 1948 after its national convention adopted a plank favoring civil rights legislation. They chose Gov. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina as their presidential candidate, hoping to prevent either the DEMOCRATIC candidate, President Harry S. TRUMAN, or his REPUBLICAN opponent, Thomas E. DEWEY, from receiving a majority of the ELECTORAL votes. They failed in their strategy, winning only 39 electoral votes and 22.5 percent of the popular vote in the South.
After the failure of the Dixiecrat party to establish itself as a national party, Strom Thurmond joined the Republican party and the Dixiecrats throughout the South followed him. Thurmond became the Republican senator from South-Carolina until his retirement a few months back.
As a vigorous opponent of Civil Rights, Trent Lott followed Thurmond into the Republican party of Mississippi, eventually became senator and republican leader of the Senate, until his faux-pas at Thurmont's birthday party. The Bush administration, not wanting to be tarred by the anti-civil rights brush got rid of him.
The Republican party of the South, although paying lip service to Civil Rights, is riddled with fascist elements and racists. Who ever is not aware of this is simply not living in present time.
6568. judithathome - 3/4/2003 9:04:14 AM
...or is a self-"concerned" Centrist, as he claims to be.
6569. magoseph - 3/4/2003 9:11:16 AM
Yes, Ohio, but I think that Concerned is just putting on a show. I just don't believe he is serious, although a lot of right-wingers have an innate bias in respect to foreign-born Americans and especially in regard to American history.
6570. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/4/2003 9:59:28 AM
6571. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/4/2003 10:00:55 AM
6572. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/4/2003 10:19:21 AM
6573. jayackroyd - 3/4/2003 11:46:26 AM
Thoughtful writes:
"The truth about the goal behind attacking Iraq has finally come out. It's a belief in the domino theory in reverse. If we set up a successful democracy in Iraq, then all the other arab nations will be so envious, they'll fall all over themselves rushing to democracy too."
Yes, this is the first coherent reason the administration has offered. That's a very big bet. But it does permit the resolution of a primary Al Qaeda grievance--troops in Saudi Arabia. If Iraq does fall quickly, and a government is formed that isn't transparently a US puppet (two more big bets), that would create a foundation for change in a region that badly needs change. But the next step has to be resolving the problem on the Sinai pennisula, while not letting Seoul get buried in missiles.
I just don't think that Bush is up to carrying through on those next steps. The hamhanded way they have handled the diplomacy leading up to the war does not fill me with confidence.
Nicholas Kristof thinks that there is a strong religious component to Bush's position.
Messianic?
6574. robertjayb - 3/4/2003 12:39:23 PM
Amen.
See Howard Fineman's tongue-bath of a cover-story on dubya's religiosity: Goodbye Jack Daniels...Hello Jesus
6575. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/4/2003 3:30:01 PM
6576. magoseph - 3/4/2003 4:43:03 PM
Robert,
Thanks for the link. Scary article!
6577. Al D - 3/4/2003 9:51:57 PM
Are you people of the opinion that Bush is the first President to have a religious bent, or to mention God? I guess when Clinton talked of being a Baptist and making sure his picture was taking with him carrying a Bible, you all realized he just did it for effect. When Carter talked about lusting in his heart, I don't imagine you were upset by that.
I would agree that Bush's vision of a Democratic Arab country is, well, visionary. His father was criticised for lack of vision.
It seems to me that it is the U.N. that should be criticised. They passed a resolution 15 to 0 for Saddam to disarm or face serious consequences. They know, and I think most of you know, he ain't gonna do it voluntarily. It's not Bush who is the problem.
6578. jexster - 3/5/2003 4:32:45 AM
The Federal Deficit Spirals
CBO Forecast of 5 Weeks Ago is 15% light (even before Congress takes up President Bush's tax-cutting proposals and without factoring in the costs of a war in Iraq)
CBO's arcane rules (spending increases @ inflation, programs continue, revenue measures don't) grossly understate the magnitude of this fiscal disaster in the first place.
The fact that CBO had this big a bust in this short a time, this early in the legislative session, is a shocking measure of the enormity of the Bush fiscal disaster and misfeasance.
6579. jexster - 3/5/2003 4:34:40 AM
Magoseph, I'm glad you agree with me that the great majority of people in the South today that vote Republican not only have nothing to do with the bad old Jim Crow Democrats but specifically vote Republican because they reject the South's racist heritage.
Mago - drinking while posting?
6580. jexster - 3/5/2003 4:39:46 AM
You do not have to have any special experience in Southern retail politics to know that is a total crock.
Just look at the Southern state Electoral Vote tallies from 1964 on to see and understand the Southern White voter.
6581. magoseph - 3/5/2003 4:42:35 AM
Mago - drinking while posting?
Never thought concerned would do that, Jex. He believes that stuff.
6582. jexster - 3/5/2003 4:58:41 AM
Are you people of the opinion that Bush is the first President to have a religious bent, or to mention God?
If you don't like the answer, ask a different question.
I don't know what Bush believes but I do know which beliefs he panders to ad nauseum - fundamentalist, simplistic, intolerant, arrogant, and overdone.
No president in my lifetime has preached his speeches with such regularity nor so riddled them with the most excreable offerings of fundamentalism's vast store theological sewage.
6583. magoseph - 3/5/2003 5:15:30 AM
Howard Fineman wrote in Newsweek: "Bush believes in God’s will—and in winning elections with the backing of those who agree with him."
6584. jexster - 3/5/2003 6:42:56 AM
"concerned...believes that stuff"
Not in the normal sense of the word.....Concerned doesn't care about plausible, reasoned, authentic belief. He believes as a propagandist, a mediocre propagandist does - believes it serves an end, strikes a generally negative emotional tone for his "adversary", and has a nice "ring".
Soviets covering the Afghan war spun tales that the soldiers built hospitals, schools, helped farmers, and were adored by the villages they obliterated. They like concerned really believed their shit.
6585. jexster - 3/5/2003 8:28:46 AM
Bush Regime's Foreign Policy Incompetence Leaves US Isolated 6586. jexster - 3/5/2003 8:29:17 AM
toys
6587. magoseph - 3/5/2003 9:16:44 AM
Are you people of the opinion that Bush is the first President to have a religious bent, or to mention God?
I believe that Bush's foreign policy is based on or strongly influenced by the Book of Revelations. Whether this is based on an inner conviction or a ploy to insure re-election by the true believers, is a matter for reflection.
6588. jexster - 3/5/2003 9:55:57 AM
Al, is the RNC sponsoring a Moron's Moron competition or something?
I hadn't even read the damned article when I wrote Message # 6582.
Evidently neither did you. The difference between us is that I didn't have to. I knew most of it already
AL: Are you people of the opinion that Bush is the first President to have a religious bent, or to mention God?
Fineman: Delivering the 'Good News'
While past presidents have invoked the name of God in public remarks, President Bush has done so, arguably, more than others-and has increasingly moved beyond broad statements on faith to include overt Christian references.
An overview:
Inaugural Address, Jan. 21, 2001Speech to Congress, Sept. 20, 2001West Point Commencement, June 1, 20029-11 Remembrance,Sept. 11, 2002State of The Union, Jan. 29, 2003Hours After Shuttle Tragedy, Feb. 1, 2003State of The Union, Jan. 29, 2003
6589. judithathome - 3/5/2003 10:08:50 AM
Not to mention the number of times he has used the phrase "Liberty is a God-given right".
6590. jexster - 3/5/2003 10:11:20 AM
I guess when Clinton talked of being a Baptist and making sure his picture was taking with him carrying a Bible, you all realized he just did it for effect. When Carter talked about lusting in his heart, I don't imagine you were upset by that
No actually Clinton IS a Baptist but, in DC at least, he attended a Methodist Church (Hillary is Methodist). And in Baptist churches at least, it is very common for congregants to bring their Bibles. Pastors, in sermons, often ask them to read passages.
As far as Carter's "lust in his heart" sure it was a bit too personal for public consumption in Playboy. But it was personal and it was honest and in fact, is one of Jesus's more profound teachings - the call to conversion of heart, intention as well as act eg "lust in heart"
[21] "You have heard that it was said to the men of old, `You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.'
[22] But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, `You fool!' shall be liable to the hell of fire.
6591. jexster - 3/5/2003 10:14:57 AM
War is peace and Bush is all doubletalk. I guess he is a bit embarrassed that the Papal legate is going to tell him that he is about to committ a grave, mortal sin.
- Its not MY choice to go to war. The choice is Saddam's
- It is Saddam who ignores the demands of the free world.
6592. judithathome - 3/5/2003 10:24:51 AM
Bush can never admit to being wrong when he is wrong and he can never admit to anything being his fault. "Shame on you...won't get fooled again."
6593. jexster - 3/5/2003 10:35:15 AM
That's because he has been anointed by God to root out Evil from the Earth.
Pandering pays - Ralph Read claims many Fundies actually believe this.
6594. Macnas - 3/5/2003 11:29:03 AM
Thats all very well, but it still does not address the fact that the KKK took my baby away, they took her away, away from me...
6595. judithathome - 3/5/2003 11:40:27 AM
Hahaha!
6596. judithathome - 3/5/2003 12:26:15 PM
So is no one going to comment on Judge Rhenquist's daughter resigning her plum assigment with the Bush administration?
6597. jayackroyd - 3/5/2003 12:30:12 PM
We're a happy family
We're a happy family
We're a happy family
Me, Mum and Dad.
I had Ramone's Tourettes for a couple of weeks after Joey died.
6598. magoseph - 3/5/2003 12:30:34 PM
Do you have a link, lady?
6599. Macnas - 3/5/2003 12:31:44 PM
Are you saying you wanna be sedated??
6600. jayackroyd - 3/5/2003 12:51:04 PM
Only if can't beat on the brat with a baseball bat. Otherwise i wanna be gulpin' down thorazines.
6601. jexster - 3/5/2003 12:59:47 PM
So much for Bush and his "religious" ground - puerile pietist pretense.
Pope Urges Catholics to a Penitential Mobilization Against Bush War
So distressed is the pope over the prospects of war, the Italian media have reported, he told Annan that he would go to New York to speak at the United Nations (news - web sites) if diplomatic measures fail to head off war
ROME - The prospect of war in Iraq (news - web sites) loomed over Pope John Paul (news - web sites) II's observance of Ash Wednesday as he dedicated the start of the Church's season of penitence to prayer and fasting for peace and called for efforts by all to spare humanity from a "dramatic conflict."
While the pope was encouraging the world's 1 billion Catholics to pray and fast as a penitential "mobilization" against the threat of war, an Italian cardinal he dispatched to Washington was preparing to meet with U.S. President George W. Bush (news - web sites) to lay out the Vatican (news - web sites)'s arguments that a conflict would be immoral.
On a day in which the pope and priests worldwide imposed ashes on the heads of faithful as a humble reminder of human mortality, John Paul, during his general audience, called on all to "assume their responsibilities and make common efforts to spare humanity another dramatic conflict."
Later, in an early evening ceremony in the 5th-century St. Sabina Basilica on Rome's Aventine Hill to mark the start of Lent in preparation for Easter, John Paul urged people to "strengthen their communion with God and their brothers" in the face of "the threats of war that hang over the world."
Bush Rejects Vatican Charge That His War is Immoral
Tells Pope to Piss Off
"Render unto Caesar and mind your own bidniss"
6602. robertjayb - 3/5/2003 1:53:23 PM
Well, it's now official:
On CNN this morning a correspondent declared flatly and apropos of nothing that dubya is a devout Christian.
6603. jexster - 3/5/2003 1:57:21 PM
The US media is in full jingoist war mode. Reliable comprehensive coverage of international affairs is not possible unless several second tier print sources are used.
I read the Guardian, Times and Telegraph then look to see if the others are worth the bother
6604. jexster - 3/5/2003 2:08:26 PM
Sen Clinton Becoming A Major Force in Senate - Policy Influence, Ability to Forge Consensus With GOP Troglodytes Cited
President Clinton?
Nice ring don't you think? Peace, prosperity, competence, budget surpluses, worldwide respect, cum stains and blow jobs...
Aah the good old days!
6605. jexster - 3/5/2003 2:10:12 PM
Skill, Intelligence, Honesty, Democracy
6606. robertjayb - 3/5/2003 2:18:13 PM
Pre-fascism at the shopping mall...
NEW YORK -- (Reuters) -- A lawyer was arrested this week and charged with trespassing at a public mall in the state of New York after refusing to take off a T-shirt advocating peace that he had just purchased at the mall.
According to the criminal complaint filed Monday, Stephen Downs was wearing a T-shirt bearing the words "Give Peace A Chance" that he had just purchased from a vendor inside the Crossgates Mall in Guilderland, N.Y., near Albany.
... police from the town of Guilderland were called and he was arrested and taken away in handcuffs, charged with trespassing "in that he knowingly enter(ed) or remain(ed) unlawfully upon premises."
6607. jexster - 3/5/2003 2:45:13 PM
The Federal Reserve issued another gloomy report on the Bush economy and the damage done by his war mongering.
I cannot believe they actually said this:
One bright spot for consumer demand was in the sale of items that the new Department of Homeland Security has suggested Americans should have on hand in the event of a terrorist attack.
"Terrorism fears boosted the sales of duct tape, plastic and other hardware goods in some regions," the Fed reported.
Are they being facetious?
Duct tape recovery?
6608. magoseph - 3/5/2003 2:47:53 PM
A Give War A Chance T-shirt would have been alright, you think? Hard to believe!
6609. magoseph - 3/5/2003 2:48:31 PM
Toys
6610. jexster - 3/5/2003 2:59:44 PM
If he'd ordered up some of them freedom frites....
6611. jexster - 3/5/2003 3:02:09 PM
toys
6612. thoughtful - 3/5/2003 4:08:40 PM
Duct tape recovery: desperate attempt to patch the economy together.
Who said there weren't 10,001 uses for duct tape!
6613. PelleNilsson - 3/5/2003 4:11:08 PM
It's really 'duck tape', you know. Read Safire's latest.
6614. Max Macks - 3/5/2003 4:23:05 PM
Duck Tape Recovery ... from the Non-Depresson-Depression.
LOL jexter.
6615. robertjayb - 3/5/2003 4:35:03 PM
Where's the traitor?
(Bush and al-Arian families campaigning...)
6616. jexster - 3/5/2003 4:57:13 PM
Time Has Indeed Run Out for Bush's Frenzied Push for Wary
U.S. Students Protest Possible Iraq War
AP High school and college students across the country walked out of class Wednesday to protest a war with Iraq (news - web sites), holding a series of rallies organizers predicted would be the biggest campus demonstrations since the Vietnam War.
Tens of thousands of students at more than 300 colleges and universities pledged to join in the protests, according to the National Youth and Student Peace Coalition. Thousands of students also rallied for peace in Britain, Sweden, Spain, Australia and other countries.
The Books Not Bombs protests were also geared to call attention to the effects of a war's costs on education, health care and the economy. But the focus was the looming threat of war with Iraq.
6617. jexster - 3/5/2003 5:04:40 PM
Saddam Hussein is not driving Bush's war timetable, political support is fading fast throughout the world. Bush's allies find themselves in increasingly untenable positions at home. British support, indeed Blair's political career is hanging by the slender thread of UN backing. US domestic support cannot be sustained very much longer as the coalition of the coerced finds strength in common fronts against the war.
Although I do not believe that this war is a prudent or morally supportable course, those who do can only be dismayed at the Bush regime's policy failure. For nearly a year, Bush pounded his war drums yet could not even bring the matter to resolution within his own shop. Leaks, planted news stories, anxiety over the Regime's threats all increased without point or purpose. Even as Bush insisted that he had no plan for war, the frenzied bluster, scare tactics, fear mongering that went on for months on end unnerved publics and governments everywhere and laid the ground work for a collapse of credibility and trust. The UN speech and Resolution 1441 were temporizing maneuvers that papered over real differences with a wholly illusory consensus. The Regime facing increasing domestic disquiet on the eve of the mid-term elections cynically used the UN and UNMOVIC to get over the election hump.
Sadly, the only grave and imminent risk about is not to world peace but to Bush's political standing. Those troops must move soon on Baghdad for in a matter of a few months or even weeks the only direction they'll be moving is back home.
6618. jexster - 3/5/2003 5:05:36 PM
A yes Robert the Terrorist Family Photo!
6619. thoughtful - 3/5/2003 10:34:28 PM
It was originally duck tape, but became duct tape when the color was changed to silver and used for taping air ducts.
6620. thoughtful - 3/5/2003 10:37:26 PM
Help us all we are in a bus driven by an idiot with no steering wheel, taking us all down the road of death and destruction. We are powerless to stop it.
It's all because of those hoity toities in the black robes who got to vote twice. No fair! Do over!
6621. jexster - 3/6/2003 12:34:22 AM
So Evil He Can Piss Off the Fuckin Pope -
WASHINGTON - Pleading for peace, an emissary from Pope John Paul (news - web sites) II questioned President Bush (news - web sites) Wednesday on whether he was doing all he could to avert what the envoy called an "unjust" war with Iraq (news - web sites).
Laghi came bearing the pope's message: A war would be a "defeat for humanity" and would be neither morally nor legally justified.
In a letter to Bush, the pope stood by his view that a pre-emptive strike on Iraq is immoral "unless it gets backed" by the United Nations (news - web sites).
"I assure you, Mr. President, that I am praying for you and for America," the pope wrote, according to Laghi. "I ask the Lord to inspire you to search for the ways of a stable peace, the noblest of human endeavors."
In Rome, the pope called for "common efforts to spare humanity another dramatic conflict."
"There are still peaceful avenues within the context of the vast patrimony of international law and institutions which exist for that purpose," Laghi said. "There is great unity on this grave matter on the part of the Holy See, the bishops in the United States, and the church throughout the world," he said.
War, Laghi told CNN, is "always a disaster."
it would be a war that would destroy human life — those people who are suffering already in Iraq, they would be really in a very bad situation."
Laghi posed a series of questions to Bush that reflected the differences between the White House and the Vatican on Iraq, said a senior administration official. The questions included the importance of an international effort to confront Saddam and what the envoy said was a gulf between the Western and Muslim worlds.
6622. concerned - 3/6/2003 2:57:38 AM
jexster sure comes up with lots of bull for somebody with no cattle.
6623. concerned - 3/6/2003 3:25:55 AM
re. 6573 -
You're wrong. Freeing the Iraqi people, and increasing regional stability has been mentioned by the administration, also.
Now, the people who want to keep Saddam in are the ones without any positive justifications (i.e. fearmongerers).
6624. jayackroyd - 3/6/2003 8:57:12 AM
Does it not bother you at all, concerned, that this language--"liberation" for instance--is the same language the Soviets used? I mean, the official plan is that we install an American general to run the country until a suitable "democratic" government is formed.
But the result of the democratic processes of our NATO ally, Turkey, are unacceptable, and we are working with an influential general to get them overturned.
This doesn't bother you? Omelettes? Eggs? That sort of thing?
6625. judithathome - 3/6/2003 10:14:19 AM
Rehnquist's Daughter To Resign Government Position; Being Investigated For Misconduct
She was appointed to the post by Bush and took office in August 2001. As inspector general, Rehnquist supervises about 1,600 employees and acts as the department's internal watchdog.
Rehnquist has been under investigation by the Senate Finance Committee and the General Accounting Office on allegations of official misconduct, including that she improperly delayed an audit of the Florida state pension system. Rehnquist has consistently denied any wrongdoing.
In addition, Rehnquist was being investigated by the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency -- a group that oversees inspectors general -- because of allegations that she had a handgun in her office.
Emphasis mine.
6626. concerned - 3/6/2003 11:14:40 AM
So much for the theory that the USSC & Bush Administration were 'helping each other out' improperly.
6627. judithathome - 3/6/2003 11:30:41 AM
Why do you say that? She was obviously not qualified for that position but got the job anyhow so what makes you think it wasn't a sop to Rehnquist to give his kid a job?
This wasn't some damned clerkship somewhere.
6634. jayackroyd - 3/6/2003 1:31:28 PM
concerned--
As in the Iraq thread, you are presenting no defense. Is that a concession?
6635. PelleNilsson - 3/6/2003 2:02:28 PM
concerned only presents pre-recorded opinions. Check his recent link in International to get an insight into the intellectual milieus from where he gets them. Right now he is googling frantically to find a suitable retort.
6636. jexster - 3/6/2003 3:41:27 PM
I think concerned is an unemployed propagandist laid off from TASS circa 1989
6637. jexster - 3/6/2003 3:44:19 PM
Retail Gasoline Prices Hitting Record Highs
Record high energy prices, record budget deficits, federal budget unmanageable - the price of empire and glory for GWB
6638. robertjayb - 3/6/2003 5:07:01 PM
Generic Democrats poll well...as usual
March 6, 2003 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- The "as-yet-unnamed" Democratic presidential nominee has a slight edge over President Bush, according to the latest national Quinnipiac poll.
Almost half of those surveyed -- 48 percent -- said they would support the Democratic candidate, while 44 percent said they would vote for Bush. The poll of 1,232 registered voters, conducted Feb. 26-March 3, had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
6639. concerned - 3/7/2003 12:00:56 AM
re. 6634 -
Sorry. I thought you were posting rhetorically. In the dozen or so articles I've read that have dealt with Turkey's position regarding allowing US military personnel to stage from its territory for any Iraqi incursion, none mention that the US is making any effort to get the Turkish military to override its parliamentary vote in any way. As a matter of fact, the US has stopped the process of upgrading certain Turkish installations that might have been used in any action in Iraq. So, I gathered that you were either not very well informed or simply speculating.
If Saddam is deposed, have you a clearly better plan than what has been publicly revealed by the US government? If not, do you not at least understand that, apart from the political aspect, that removing the UN sanctions by themselves will benefit the Iraqi people? Do you now repudiate the whole concept of nation building? Or do you believe it cannot be effective in Iraq's case?
6640. concerned - 3/7/2003 12:02:58 AM
re. 6635 -
Wrong.
Yet again.
6641. robertjayb - 3/7/2003 12:35:54 AM
Suffer the little critters...
WASHINGTON -- With war looming in Iraq, the Bush administration this week asked Congress to exempt the Defense Department from a broad array of environmental laws governing air pollution, toxic waste, endangered species and marine mammals.
The Pentagon says its needs relief from environmental regulations that protect endangered species and critical habitats on millions of acres of military training ranges across the country.
6642. concerned - 3/7/2003 12:41:18 AM
Is is true that there is a species of frog that has adapted to existence only in muddy tire ruts on military bases?
Jes' funnin'.
6643. magoseph - 3/7/2003 10:24:59 AM
Threat Level
6644. robertjayb - 3/7/2003 5:23:24 PM
Bushies want mini-nukes to thwart WMD. Really!
The Guardian -- The Pentagon has asked the US Congress to lift a 10-year ban on developing small nuclear warheads, or "mini-nukes", in one of the most overt steps President George Bush's administration has taken towards building a new atomic arsenal.
............................
A Pentagon official said yesterday the research ban on smaller warheads "has negatively affected US government efforts to support the national strategy to counter WMD, and undercuts efforts that could strengthen our ability to deter or respond to new or emerging threats".
Boy Howdy! I'll be the U.S. press will be all over this.
Sure...
6645. robertjayb - 3/7/2003 5:24:42 PM
...bet
6646. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/10/2003 12:17:24 AM
6647. alistairConnor - 3/10/2003 3:09:43 AM
There are very few money transfers which are not taxed. Not only income, but spending, is taxed.
There is one striking exception : the buying and selling of stocks. Why is this exempt from tax?
6648. alistairConnor - 3/10/2003 3:10:13 AM
This is probably a Slow Thread issue... if anyone cares to take up the gauntlet?
6649. jayackroyd - 3/10/2003 10:24:05 AM
There is, actually, a proposal out there to replace all taxes with a very small tax on money transfers, including the hundreds of billion that move around nightly.
But it's true that financial transactions--the paying of loans, the cashing or deposit of a check, adding or withdrawing from a savings account, purchasing or selling a government bond, purchasing or selling commercial paper--are not taxed.
6650. PelleNilsson - 3/10/2003 11:22:46 AM
Do you refer to the Tobin tax, Jay? Warning: don't get alistair started.
6651. jayackroyd - 3/10/2003 11:29:30 AM
Yes, thanks, Pelle. What could be wrong with the Tobin tax? There are second best problems, of course, but other than that?
6652. PelleNilsson - 3/10/2003 11:58:55 AM
I think Tobin proposed the tax in the aftermath of the South-east Asia financial crisis. The idea was to put a brake on the fast-moving speculative funds. The problem is one of collection. There has to be world-wide compliance. No more off-shore banking, and how realistic is that?
6653. jayackroyd - 3/10/2003 12:12:55 PM
I don't see why you couldn't implement such a tax domestically, on all transfers, as a revenue source. It would be minimally distorting, other than to add some friction during disruptive times. It would just drive up the price of everything somewhat, something like a superVAT.
Cheap to administer, too and hard to use as a pork distribution tool.
I like the global version too. And I think offshore banking is in trouble anyway. If there is to be any serious attempt to do something about terrorism, there will have to be greater transparency in the banking environment, world-wide.
6654. jayackroyd - 3/10/2003 12:38:09 PM
SF Fed agrees with Pelle:
Pragmatic problems
6656. jayackroyd - 3/10/2003 1:29:00 PM
test
6657. Cellar Door - 3/10/2003 6:58:24 PM
And here's yet another reason to insist on a separation between Church and State.
6658. Al D - 3/10/2003 7:30:28 PM
unilateral=adj. done by or affecting one person or party
Liberals are bothered when Bush mentions 9/11 when asked why he is going after Saddam. It implies that Saddam had something to do with 9/11, an idea that has not been established. If his intent is to suggest it has, that bothers me too, because it is not honest. I think there is another explanation, but that is really not my point.
Every Democrat or Liberal talking about war with Iraq uses the term unilateral. That is not misleading; it is a bare faced lie, or as my friend jimbo says, a broad assed statement. I'm sure you are all bothered by that, also.
6659. jayackroyd - 3/10/2003 10:26:00 PM
When the Btit's line up beside the american troops, when the action actually happens, then we can say bilateral. Will that suit you?
In point of fact, of course, people opposed to the United States deciding when and how to enforce UN resolutions, regardless of the position of the UN use the word "unilateral" as shorthand for "not engaging the international community in arriving at a position."
6660. jayackroyd - 3/10/2003 10:27:03 PM
Btits=Brits. nothing freudian there.
6661. concerned - 3/10/2003 10:29:25 PM
jay -
You'll be glad to know that the Brits are already conducting operations along with the Americans in Iraq.
6662. Al D - 3/10/2003 10:59:37 PM
jay
Please don't be so patronizing. We are supported by a host of countries, and opposed by four. We have tried to get the international community in arriving at a position and it is obvious that France and Geermany had no intention of following through on 1441. The harpiong on unilateral is a propaganga divise pure and simple.
6663. Al D - 3/10/2003 11:00:52 PM
As a matter of fact, if France vetos the new resolution, they are the ones acting unilaterally, wouldn't you agree?
6664. Al D - 3/10/2003 11:03:32 PM
Also, evwen if we had the backing of the hostel four, we would still be acting, except for the British, unilaterally. Of course, it would be nice to have the French along in case things went badly so we could have some one to concede defeat.
6665. alistairConnor - 3/11/2003 5:06:49 AM
Wrong thread, Al. Wrong tone for this thread too. Sorry if that sounds patronising.
6666. alistairConnor - 3/11/2003 5:11:10 AM
I apologise for that last remark... for some reason I thought this was the Slow thread!
Wrong tone, indeed. (giggle)
6667. judithathome - 3/11/2003 10:27:06 AM
As you well know, "tone" can't be patrolled or set or whatever the hell else the tone police always say. (I haven't missed that at all...strange.)
6668. robertjayb - 3/11/2003 11:15:11 AM
Charlie Cook's right-track/wrong-track numbers:
...the latest snapshot shows President
Bush's overall job approval numbers are down to just 51 percent in the
latest Ipsos-Reid/Cook Political Report poll; more people disapprove of
his handling of the economy and domestic issues than approve; and there
is only a 1 percent difference between people who say they will
definitely vote for him next year and those who would definitely vote
against him.
First, the public is increasingly turning more pessimistic about where
the country is headed and that tends to color everything else. Only 34
percent of the 1,000 adults (error margin 3.1 points) interviewed last
Tuesday through Thursday believe the country is headed in the right
direction, and 54 percent said it was off on the wrong track. Combining
the most recent poll with the previous one, conducted Feb. 18-20 with
2,000 adults interviewed (error margin 2.2 points), 37 percent said
right direction, 54 percent said wrong track. Two polls each in January
and February showed the right direction percentage to be 39 percent,
with wrong track 52 percent for January and 51 percent for February.
6669. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/11/2003 11:42:04 AM
"First, the public is increasingly turning more pessimistic about where the country is headed. . .
6670. bubbaette - 3/11/2003 12:59:10 PM
Bush, not content to have stolen an election in the U.S., now insists that he be given the authority to set policy for other soverign nations. How DARE France or Turkey or Germany decide how they should vote instead of taking marching orders from Dubya.
6671. bubbaette - 3/11/2003 1:03:32 PM
The U.S. Congress: from absurd to idiotic.
6672. judithathome - 3/11/2003 1:13:52 PM
You beat me to it, Bubs! I was just going to post that.
Your tax dollars at work, folks!
6673. thoughtful - 3/11/2003 1:18:04 PM
Oh brother...how OTT. I thought they usually start with burning books, not menus!
6674. thoughtful - 3/11/2003 1:26:28 PM
That would mean we'd have to change the name of Russian Dressing, Mexican Tortillas, Canadian Bacon, Irish Stew, and German Sauerkraut just to name a few...
6675. judithathome - 3/11/2003 1:31:17 PM
..and boycott Thanksgiving!
6676. bubbaette - 3/11/2003 1:35:32 PM
untwisting my French braid while humming the Battle Hymn of the Republic
Nothing but closed-lip kisses from now on, folks.
By the way, are we planning to give back the Statue of Liberty?
6677. downtown LB - 3/11/2003 1:51:56 PM
nah. That'll be partial payment for the elevendythousand dead we left on their soil.
I think you guys are a lot more the wack-jobs I mentioned than you like to admit.
bubbette? (this site needs eye-rolling emoticons, too) Bush didn't "steal" the election. News flash.
And you can thank your lucky stars that he did. (in your......um.....mind)
Algore on 9-11 would sure to have said...
"UAAAAAAAH. Waaaaaael. I'd lIIIIIIke to address the terrorist issuuuuuuue. Buuuuuuuuat. The GrAAAAAAAAAytest threat to civilization today.....is the internul kumbuuuustion Injun.
holyfreakinmoly.
you guys think I'M the dope.
6678. judithathome - 3/11/2003 1:58:36 PM
You are the only one commenting on what a dope you are...you are the one saying we must think that. I haven't seen one person here call you a dope or a moron or a wack job.
That could change, of course.
6679. OhioSTOPAS - 3/11/2003 2:04:13 PM
Bubbaette (Message # 6671): Hahaha! I now expect the editors of "The Onion" to announce they're closing up shop. There is no parody they can write that can top what comes out of our Republican Congress.
(That'll teach France! We'll remove their name from their most cherished culinary creation, French fries!)
6680. bubbaette - 3/11/2003 2:04:31 PM
Bush didn't "steal" the election. News flash.
And you can thank your lucky stars that he did.
Well make up your mind. But I stand corrected. The Supreme Court stole the election at Bush's behest.
6681. bubbaette - 3/11/2003 2:08:49 PM
Personally, I think it's even worse that the Supreme Court stole the election, because most of us would like to maintain the fiction that the Supreme Court is above politics. Of course that goes along with the rest of the fiction -- that we're a peace-loving nation, that we value freedom of speech, that we don't START trouble, etc.
6682. downtown LB - 3/11/2003 2:21:32 PM
I just like to beat everybody to the point in calling me a dope.
I also have a real hard time joining in on "serious threads", which consists mostly of hate filled rhetoric, but I do my best. I promise I'll lurk quietly like a good dope when the issues and topics are serious and thoughtful, but when the ridiculous stuff starts, I'm IN!
(btw, anything I read that I deem as spawned by hate and blind devotion on either side is the starting gun for me).
6683. PelleNilsson - 3/11/2003 2:26:36 PM
Start by reading your own posts then.
6684. judithathome - 3/11/2003 2:27:20 PM
Hey, post what you want to and don't worry about it.
Jeez, what isn't said anyhwhere that isn't driven by some sort of preconceived idea or belief system? Are we just supposed to parrot things at certain comfort levels or what?
Believe it or not, the things I say aren't driven by hatred but knock yourself out deciding what you wish to belive.
6685. judithathome - 3/11/2003 2:28:25 PM
beLIEVE...
6686. bubbaette - 3/11/2003 2:50:04 PM
Hmmmm -- how does one square these statements:
I think you guys are a lot more the wack-jobs I mentioned than you like to admit.
or
Algore on 9-11 would sure to have said...
"UAAAAAAAH. Waaaaaael. I'd lIIIIIIke to address the terrorist issuuuuuuue. Buuuuuuuuat. The GrAAAAAAAAAytest threat to civilization today.....is the internul kumbuuuustion Injun.
and
anything I read that I deem as spawned by hate and blind devotion on either side is the starting gun for me
Uh yeah, right, so evidently purely dispassionate and truth- seeking.
6687. thoughtful - 3/11/2003 2:53:40 PM
Watchit! Downtown LB, there's only one thoughtful™ in these thar threads
6688. concerned - 3/11/2003 3:07:15 PM
downtown LB -
Don't let the resident Lefties get you down with their school yard condescension and deranged, yet curiously formulaic ranting. I personally find much of it amusing, particularly from the ones who, with the utmost certitude, spout the most preposterous and hackneyed LW propaganda.
6689. downtown LB - 3/11/2003 3:14:07 PM
Get me DOWN?!?!?!
Whaddya nuts!?!?!?
I have to subscribe to some of their publications to get ammo THIS good, and its FREE!!!
I assume y'all know that Al gore DID say that in his book, right? (the part about the internal combustion engine being the most serious threat to the world today)
It'd be better if you did your "hatin'" with a sense of humor, say, like Dennis Miller.
6690. bubbaette - 3/11/2003 3:39:10 PM
It'd be better if you did your "hatin'" with a sense of humor, say, like Dennis Miller.
Evidently the only sense of humor you "get" is your own jokes. I would say that I'm sorry that my sense of humor doesn't meet your standards, but I really don't care.
6691. downtown LB - 3/11/2003 5:32:22 PM
not your fault your humor sucks. Don't take it so hard.
Most people don't laugh at hate.
6692. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/11/2003 6:19:57 PM
What was the name of that guy who dropped in here and claimed he retired from the CIA or some such gov. agency?
6693. judithathome - 3/11/2003 6:50:34 PM
Chuck Barris? ;-)
6694. downtown LB - 3/11/2003 8:04:11 PM
gong.
6695. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/11/2003 8:35:32 PM
Was it Rama?
6696. judithathome - 3/11/2003 9:12:26 PM
Might have been...maybe Cazart, too.
6697. Al D - 3/11/2003 10:14:54 PM
Do your best to drive this person off the Mote! Theree are already enough anti-Liberals here. Now email all your friends for the pile on.
6698. magoseph - 3/11/2003 11:01:57 PM
What are you talking about, Al? No one has tried to run anyone off the Mote.
6699. Al D - 3/11/2003 11:17:09 PM
magoseph
Oh, sorry, it was just a feeling I got from some of the posts above. But I guess you're right, he's welcome on the Mote.
6700. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/12/2003 9:18:32 AM
Paranoids"r"Us!
6701. downtown LB - 3/12/2003 9:31:59 AM
oh come on now. Nothing would make me dig in more than an attempted roust.
I'm not anti-liberal, I'm anti-hate. :-)
6702. concerned - 3/12/2003 2:52:31 PM
Time to get some ANWR oil
Prime Oil Rig Real Estate
6703. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/12/2003 3:13:53 PM
Uh-oh! It looks like the fascists may have slapped a restraining order on Bartcop!
6704. concerned - 3/12/2003 3:19:14 PM
Uh-oh! It looks like WoW has been made a fool of by his fellow travelers!
6705. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/12/2003 3:45:07 PM
Connie, try not to let your mind wander. It is too small and fragile to be out by itself.
6706. judithathome - 3/12/2003 3:56:58 PM
LB, if you truly are anti-hate, good for you. I think most people can get behind that sort of thing.
Al, rein it in...Wiz asked about a former poster and I answered him; what is the big deal about that? Not every question is some nefarious conspiracy and as for e-mailing, I've e-mailed you before...does that make us conspirators in an evil plot to overthrow the Mote?
6707. concerned - 3/12/2003 4:32:19 PM
Re. 6705 -
Hold your water. I didn't want to let Bartcop's deceptive home page stand.
6708. vanTHEman - 3/12/2003 8:09:53 PM
A toast to stupidity...(Joe Conason)
6709. banjomon - 3/13/2003 12:30:55 AM
NOTICE!!!!
The Senate is ONE VOTE AWAY from approving a bill that would allow drilling to begin in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. The swing voters are Blanch Lincoln and Mark Pryor of Arkansas. If this vote passes, drilling will begin in one of our last wild places, home to several endangered species. Understand that this is just the beginning for the Bush Administration. Next will be drilling in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and mining five-thousand acres of the Florida Everglades. This action cannot be stopped unless you send a letter to your State Senators NOW and ask them to defend the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. This bill will become final next Wednesday! Please go to www.savebiogems.org and take action before it's too late.
6710. robertjayb - 3/13/2003 11:43:40 AM
Got Them Mean Ole Disappearing First Amendment Blues...
WASHINGTON (AP) - Government agencies opened a package mailed between two Associated Press reporters last September and seized a copy of an eight-year-old unclassified FBI lab report without obtaining a warrant or notifying the news agency.
The Customs Service intercepted a package sent via Federal Express from the Associated Press bureau in Manila to the AP office in Washington, and turned the contents over to the FBI.
FBI spokesman Doug Garrison said the document contained sensitive information that should not be made public. However, an AP executive said the package contained an unclassified 1995 FBI report that had been discussed in open court in two legal cases.
"The government had no legal right to seize the package," said David Tomlin, assistant to the AP president.
6711. Edmund Dantes - 3/14/2003 11:39:47 PM
Battling Jim Moran suffers a knockdown
Rumor has it this guy likes to punch people--even some non-Jews once in a while.
Perhaps even his ex-wife. But of course he's a Democrat, so that's a private matter.
6712. arkymalarky - 3/15/2003 10:20:36 AM
Looks like he faced his remarks and the consequences, as did the Democratic Party--much more quickly than Lott and the Republican Party. Not that I think either man should be removed from a position due to such remarks. They were elected and appointed by their parties to their positions, and either the remarks were aberrations and genuine misstatements or the people who elected them and put them in their positions did so while fully aware of these men's views.
Evidence to back up the rumors of physical violence? Merely speculating on his wife or is there some basis for considering the possibility?
Nothing a Democrat does with a woman is a private matter. Clinton's impeachment proved that.
6713. Edmund Dantes - 3/15/2003 11:38:42 AM
Evidence to back up the rumors of physical violence? Merely speculating on his wife or is there some basis for considering the possibility?
What difference would it make to you?
Once again, liberals think it's a conservative's job to educate them, rather than doing their own homework.
The man is an ex-boxer who frequently thinks people "deserve a punch in the nose." I think his inability to control his temper speaks for itself.
In any case, only his wife and he know for certain what went on between them during his failed marriage. Nevertheless, it's unlikely someone unable to control a tendency toward public physical violence is going to be completely "hands off" in private.
6714. Edmund Dantes - 3/15/2003 11:39:28 AM
wife = ex-wife
6715. judithathome - 3/15/2003 12:04:41 PM
The parents of an 8-year-old boy accused of trying to carjack Virginia Rep. James P. Moran
This is funny on so many levels.
6716. vanTHEman - 3/15/2003 12:27:26 PM
Ex-Clinton aide reveals Bill lost the nuclear codes
Former President Clinton lost the codes to nuclear war the day the Monica Lewinsky affair broke, was MIA in the fall of 1998 when a decision was needed on the killing of Osama bin Laden, and was "too busy watching a golf match" to OK a 1996 bombing mission in Iraq, says a blockbuster new book by Clinton's former military aide. Lt. Col. Robert Patterson, who carried the nuclear "football" from May 1996 to May 1998, crosses a line no other "mil aide" has before in condemning his commander in chief in Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Compromised America's National Security. "This story had to be told." But a Clinton national security aide, William Danvers, tells us Clinton was never "unavailable for key" decisions and didn't jeopardize U.S. security. One story: The day the Lewinsky scandal broke, Clinton was to trade in his "biscuit" with the nuclear launch codes. But they were missing. "We never did get them back," says Patterson. Then there's bin Laden: Clinton ducked calls from the Situation Room to ok a Tomahawk attack in 1998, then waffled until it was too late.
6717. OhioSTOPAS - 3/15/2003 12:52:15 PM
Hee hee hee . .
The latest from Regnery Publishing. Get out your wallets, suckers!
6718. arkymalarky - 3/15/2003 1:12:12 PM
I do my homework in legitimate locations. Ohio has it. The top of the GOP realized PT Barnum was right and they've been captalizing on it (so to speak) ever since. If you can make a buck and feed the gullible what you want them to believe, then so much the better
6719. judithathome - 3/15/2003 1:14:41 PM
Yes, with all the cuts in retired military benefits, and losses in 401k plans, that guy must need a boost in his savings.
6720. Cellar Door - 3/15/2003 2:14:43 PM
When Church and State work as one.
6721. Al D - 3/15/2003 8:23:32 PM
Last fall, before the elections, the Senate voted to give Bush the authority to go after Saddam. I would imagine that many felt it was the right thing to do. Some voted against it because they felt it was not the right thing to do. Same, no doubt, knew the vote would not cause them political capital; others might have felt it might, but had the courage of their convictions. They are to be admired.
It seems, though, that some simple voted yes because they felt it would hurt them politically to vote no. Now they are saying just the opposite. Is it because their views have changed, or because it think it will help them politically.
It used to be said that politics stops at the water's edge. Not any longer, unfortunately.
6722. jayackroyd - 3/15/2003 9:02:01 PM
Certainly not in 1998.
6723. jayackroyd - 3/15/2003 9:03:41 PM
That doesn't change my view that the democrats were gutless, genuflecting to the current numbers. I have no problem with people who believed the intervention was justified, but I agree there were people who thought it was not who voted for political cover.
OTOH, I'm pretty sure there were some republicans in that group as well.
6724. Al D - 3/15/2003 9:28:00 PM
Did I say there wasn't?
6725. jayackroyd - 3/15/2003 9:35:36 PM
No, and my apologies for the unwarranted assumption.
6726. Al D - 3/15/2003 9:57:13 PM
Quite honestly, I am disgusted by the duplicity of many politicians on all three sides of the fence. But your response is a bit like a kids, "But Mom, all the guys do it." That never got me very far. My son made a joke out of that.
"But Dad, all the kids do it."
"If all the kids wanted to jump off the Golden Gate Bridge, would you?"
"Sure!"
"My Dad tried to form a block outing."
6727. vanTHEman - 3/16/2003 4:06:42 PM
(Boston Globe)-- He was introduced as a military hero, but Senator John F. Kerry largely avoided the subject of Iraq during a speech this weekend to the California Democratic Party. The tactic highlighted a war's potential ramifications in this politically important state where the Vietnam peace movement flowered.
The Massachusetts Democrat, a presidential contender and supporter of a congressional resolution authorizing military force in Iraq, spent less than two minutes on the issue during a 27-minute speech Friday night to delegates attending the party's annual convention. His remarks were so spare Kerry never even uttered the word ''Iraq.''
Instead, he broached the subject by saying, ''Let me say a word about our military power and how it might or might not be used.''
A member of the audience immediately responded by shouting: ''No war, John. No war.'' A second and third yelled the same thing.
Kerry's balancing act between supporting Iraq's disarmament and urging more diplomacy brought him numerous questions from businessmen, political activists, and reporters during a two-day visit to California last week.
The perils of the issue were evident yesterday during a speech by Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, a presidential rival who also addressed the 1,750 delegates. Edwards, who like Kerry voted for the resolution last fall, was roundly booed for arguing that Iraq needs to be disarmed of weapons of mass destruction.
''It is . . . a test of presidential leadership to have the backbone to say to those who strongly disagree with you, even your friends, what you believe,'' Edwards said as some delegates shouted: ''No war. No war.''
Amid more boos, the senator added: ''I believe Saddam Hussein is a serious threat, and I believe he must be disarmed, including with military force if necessary. We cannot allow him to have nuclear weapons.''
6728. robertjayb - 3/17/2003 5:53:26 PM
Stand by for the Tyranny Alert to be raised. What's next? Orange?
6729. judithathome - 3/17/2003 5:54:23 PM
I think it's now HARD Tangerine.
6730. robertjayb - 3/17/2003 6:07:04 PM
Richard Pearle, prince of darkness, chickenhawk, and war profiteer will appear tonight on Lou Dobbs Moneyline (CNN).
6731. magoseph - 3/17/2003 6:13:18 PM
Did you read Seymour Hersh's article in the New Yorker, Robert? Perle is suing him now.
6732. robertjayb - 3/18/2003 4:00:05 PM
The kook who is paralyzing D.C. by claiming to have explosives aboard his tractor on the Mall must have been getting dubya's messages by mistake:
Asked why he decided to protest this week, Watson said: "I just played it by ear. The Lord told me to do it. He said, 'Time is running out, Jack.'"
Don't mess with a man on a devine mission.
Paralyzing the capital...
6733. concerned - 3/18/2003 7:54:11 PM
Looks like Teeny Little Tommy Daschole, the divisive partisan hack hypocrite who is even smaller than he looks, has stuffed his ankle down his throat again by sliming GWB wrt Iraq, saying that he's “.. saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we’re now forced to go to war.”
Contrast this with the diametrically opposed tone Daschole took in '98 when x42 signed the Iraqi Liberation Act that endorsed regime change: Daschle said in '98: "Look, we have exhausted virtually all our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so? The answer is, we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily."
Why would anybody who cares vote for a POS like Daschole?
6734. downtown LB - 3/18/2003 9:24:22 PM
because the most important issue to his constituents is often the pork-belly-futures market in Chicago, thats why.
He is a blithering idiot, isn't he?
I wish Kerry would have said something one way or the other when the protesters started shouting at him. He was too a-feared to speak up at that Star-wars-cabana-ish-convention he was speaking at.
God, I'd be SOOOO embarrased to be a democrat with these fools as my leaders.
6735. judithathome - 3/19/2003 8:41:00 AM
Every politician goes for pork and gets it. It isn't only Democrats.
It's no more embarrassing to be a Democrat than to be a Republican. That bill reducing benefits for deceased soldiers got into the list somehow and it had to take one party or the other to get it there so don't go pulling the moral high ground on anyone...we should ALL be embarrassed by our political party affiliation at one time or another.
6736. Al D - 3/19/2003 11:41:47 AM
This may not belong in this thread, but I'm hardpressd to know where to post it. If host object, move it to the Inferno.
Would any of you disagree that hate speech directed at African Americans, Jews, women, gays can and does cause violence toward individuals? The Nazi depiction in Jews as less than human led a Nation of good people to bestial behavior to their neighbors. Were the killers of Matthew Shepard, perhaps, made to feel justified in brutalizing him because of outrageous diatribes against gays? After the Okalahoma bombing President linked it to the hate speech of talk show hosts, and there was much agreement with his claim. When individuals and groups hurl hateful epithets against others can they be excused with the bromide, “Everybody is entitled to their on opinion.”? I don’t think so. They need to be shamed for their hateful speech.
Yet there is a poster on the Mote that spews hate, depicting people with animalistic, cartoons with heads being blown off shoulders, a cartoon juxtaposing two individuals, one a viscous monster responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent people, with the caption, Same shit, different asshole. There is no doubt in my mind that this individual would take the same pleasure in violence done to the other as haters of gays felt with the mutilation of Matthew Shepard. This poster is not only tolerated, but seems to be enjoyed by many on the Mote. I am not suggesting he personally would do violence; Hitler to my knowledge never did violence to a Jew, but do any doubt he enjoyed seeing it done.
6737. Al D - 3/19/2003 11:42:29 AM
inJews=of Jews
6738. Wombat - 3/19/2003 11:55:32 AM
You need to get a sense of proportion, Al D, as well as a look at some of Concerned and Joe Z.'s occasional grotesqueries.
Which are you trivializing more, WoW's expressed beliefs or far-reaching and pervasive hate-speech? For the record, I am against censoring either. They have no effect on my feelings on Bush and Republicans, although I get the occasional urge to strangle WoW.
6739. Macnas - 3/19/2003 11:56:41 AM
AI D
How do you feel about political cartoons, some of which savagely lampoon your own president?
How did you feel about VanTheMan gloating over the death of one of your countrywomen in Israel by an IDF bulldozer? That was one of the worst I've seen in here. I don't agree with your view, but find it surprising that you have not judged others using the same criteria.
6740. Al D - 3/19/2003 12:03:55 PM
Wombat
You know, I have spoken directly to concerned about his trash talk toward Clinton. I think my post is reasonable and reasonably stated. If you not believe hate speach should be condemed, so be it. I have said nothing about censorship. People are free to post whatever and speak whatever, but they also should be spoken against for hateful speach, which can and does cause others to occational violence.
Which are you trivializing more, WoW's expressed beliefs or far-reaching and pervasive hate-speech? I think the answer to that is obvious, just by reading my post, keeping in mind most of the Wiz's posts.
6741. judithathome - 3/19/2003 12:13:17 PM
There is no doubt in my mind that this individual would take the same pleasure in violence done to the other as haters of gays felt with the mutilation of Matthew Shepard.
May I say if this is true of your mind, you are out of it.
6742. Al D - 3/19/2003 12:14:23 PM
Macnas
In other words, since I did not condemn vantheman, I lose my right to comment on the Wiz? Stong argument. You say you don't agree with my point. That's fine. When one is called the same as Hitler, to those, like me who actually remember WWII, with a brother still under ground in Europe, the though of assinating Hitler was a pleasant one.
Is the thought of killing Bush a pleasant one to you? I think it is to the poster of that cartoon. Because some cartoons which are savage are acceptable, does that mean that all are? You miss my point if you think I am talking censorship. The answer to bad speach is more speach. I am providing that.
6743. concerned - 3/19/2003 12:14:59 PM
Regardless of anything I've ever posted here about x42, I'm sure all would agree that it's been exceeded by an order of magnitude by the output from jexster, WoW and others regarding GWB, who haven't had a scandal a week presidency to justify any of it.
IAC, I'm very much in favor of live and let live wrt expressing ones attitudes, although my posts wrt x42 almost always have been based on some widely agreed upon and specific shortcoming or incompetency related to his official duties, and thus have more merit than simple caricatures and namecalling, although I'll be one of the last ones to object to the latter two, regardless of which side of the political aisle they come from. Therefore, people who object to my posts really just can't stand the factual heat.
6744. Al D - 3/19/2003 12:19:01 PM
Judith
Pray tell, what do all those hateful posts show? Are you condoning this hate speach?
6745. judithathome - 3/19/2003 12:25:24 PM
I'm neither condoning hate speech nor asking for it's muzzling. I'm saying I disagree with your idea that Wiz would take pleasure in the death of anyone and I'm just as sure you wouldn't take pleasure in anyone's death, either.
6746. Macnas - 3/19/2003 12:25:39 PM
AI D
I am the last person who will advocate that you or anyone else loses their right to comment. I do feel however that if you have a standard, then it should be evenly applied. Of course that’s just my take, how you apply your standards is your own affair and I respect that.
If I was to comment on WoW I would say that he has the ability to express his opinions in a visual manner that most do not, and that is the only fundamental difference between him and anyone else here. Some of his images I find good, some I do not.
How exactly you construe that anyone wants to commit murder via WoW's posts, I do not see that.
And I did not mention censorship, I did mention that VanTheMan's posts in the Israel/Palestine thread were extraordinarily callous, and wondered why you have not spoken out about those, as they are in the vein of that which you accuse WoW's posts of being.
6747. judithathome - 3/19/2003 12:26:49 PM
although my posts wrt x42 almost always have been based on some widely agreed upon and specific shortcoming or incompetency related to his official duties, and thus have more merit than simple caricatures and namecalling
But of course. I think we all know that. (s)™
6748. concerned - 3/19/2003 12:29:30 PM
Heh heh. As JAH probably would agree, I feel perfectly free to embellish my posting with caricatures and namecalling, at least for public figures.
6749. magoseph - 3/19/2003 12:31:28 PM
Al,
Many of the French bashing cartoons lately have been wickedly funny but mostly patently incorrect in the ways the French are depicted. It doesn't bother any of my French friends. We love them and email them to our French relatives. I too would never advocate a curbing of Whiz's work in this forum.
6750. concerned - 3/19/2003 12:34:11 PM
Well, I've read that most French are very different than Parisians, and I'm perfectly willing to believe it. Unfortunately for them, perhaps, it's the Parisians that have the megaphone.
6751. Macnas - 3/19/2003 12:37:07 PM
I like Parisiens, I've only ever met one who was in the stereotypical snotty mode, and he was a clerk at a checkout counter in Marks & Spencers, so maybe he had reason to be....
6752. magoseph - 3/19/2003 12:49:29 PM
Unfortunately for them, perhaps, it's the Parisians that have the megaphone.
Oh, well, then we'll let them sell to the Russians, Germans, and the Chinese. That'll fix their exports in time, a long time. The French could do with more dark beer, vodka, and tea, you know. Such snobs, really!
6753. Al D - 3/19/2003 1:00:02 PM
I'm just as sure you wouldn't take pleasure in anyone's death, either.
You are so wrong! Two years ago a two creeps murdered my nephew and for other people. Three of the people there dismembered, placed in ruck sacks, and threw in the river in the S.F. Bay Area. I would take pleasure in seeing them die. Of course, I will be long gone before that happens. Do you not think people took pleasure in the death of Hitler? A swastika sets me off to this day.
magoseph
Please don't misunderstand my post. I would not silence anybody, but I believe the message the creator of a cartoon on one who passes it on shows in the work. For example, when I see a sigh that says We support our troops----when they fire at their officers iget the messager, but they should be free to carry it. What is the message of the cartoon with Hitler/Bush and the caption Same shit, different asshole. Do you suppose that in WWII the assisation of Hitler had no appeal? The cartoon is obvious in its intent. If it is true that Bush is the tyrant Hitler was, someone ought to blow his head off. This is more than anti-war protest. What is the message of Bush's head being blown off his shoulders? That we should have voted for Gore?
6754. Al D - 3/19/2003 1:04:11 PM
If someone comes on this forum bashin gays (maybe with clever cartoons of a fag hanging from a lamp post), women, Blacks, Jews I feel sure you will all rush to his defense with, Well, we don't agree, but we respect your right to your own opinion.
6755. Al D - 3/19/2003 1:05:23 PM
If someone comes on this forum bashing gays (maybe with clever cartoons of a fag hanging from a lamp post), women, Blacks, Jews I feel sure you will all rush to his defense with, Well, we don't agree, but we respect your right to your own opinion.
6756. judithathome - 3/19/2003 1:09:42 PM
Al, you can't force people to think as you do unless you are the Supreme Court. Even then, people disagree with what that court might think is right for us to do.
I'm sorry for what happened to your nephew. Also sorry to have assumed you felt a certain way about people dying though I can certainly see how you'd wish that on those who harmed your family.
6757. magoseph - 3/19/2003 1:15:31 PM
Al,
Yes, we would, Republicans and Democrats alike. Don't confuse public figures with minorities who suffered from prejudice. Why do you use the word fag instead of gay?
6758. Al D - 3/19/2003 1:16:12 PM
I relly should proof read. I guess posts with as many mistakes as I have made are hard to read.
6759. Wombat - 3/19/2003 4:12:19 PM
Move to open ANWAR to oil exploration and drilling fails in Senate.
6760. alistairconnor - 3/19/2003 4:30:05 PM
!!!
Well, I suppose that could be accounted for by the euphoria of falling crude prices.
6761. magoseph - 3/19/2003 4:45:17 PM
The bill has been dead on arrival for the last year. It never had a chance of passing, anymore than the new tax bill being presented by the Bush administration. The reason the oil is going down is because the world is awash in oil and OPEC is seen to be getting weaker, not stronger.
6762. downtown LB - 3/19/2003 5:27:11 PM
The reason is isn't passing is because there are more fools like barbera boxer and tom Daschle in the senate, than not.
If Saddam is as evil as most are saying, then I for one will rejoice in his death. Evil should die, not be put in prison.
If you are responsible for putting live human beings into a tree-shredder, you'd deserve to die, too.
Reports are, Saddam has, among other atrocities.
That ain't a human, and that sure as hell ain't worthy of pity or mourning.
The whole reason we're doing this is because saddam has to die. Not be moved by Omar's van lines to Algeria. He needs to be blown to hell.
Count my vote as one HELL-YES!
6763. arkymalarky - 3/19/2003 5:30:48 PM
I wish you'd told my Banjobro that months ago, Mag. ;-)
6764. downtown LB - 3/19/2003 5:32:52 PM
and immediately with the offensive (as opposed to defensive) comment...
"why'd you use the word FAG??huh huh huh??"
fer cryin out loud. You can say its funny for the president to be depicted in cartoons getting fagitized by osama bin laden, but WE can't use the word fag???????
Yeah, thats it.
6765. magoseph - 3/19/2003 6:15:32 PM
I wish you'd told my Banjobro that months ago, Mag. ;-)
I should let him read the two BullBoards on which I scatter my pearls of wisdom, Arky.
6766. concerned - 3/19/2003 6:20:41 PM
'Gay' used to be a perfectly good English word, before it was hijacked for use as a stereotype.
6767. RickNelson - 3/19/2003 6:33:39 PM
I'm happy to hear about the vote concerning ANWAR Wombat.
6768. magoseph - 3/19/2003 6:48:55 PM
downtown LB, public figures are fair game.
6769. Al D - 3/19/2003 7:54:41 PM
magoseph
Why do you use the word fag instead of gay?
I did so for effect. Did you find it offensive? If so, good, I intended it to be. It is borderline hate speach. When done to excess, it croses the line and one doing it should be reprimanded. But I've had my say and did not expect hardly anyone on the Mote to agree.
6770. magoseph - 3/20/2003 6:19:52 AM
No, Al, you didn't do for effect. It just escaped the tips of your fingers.
6771. judithathome - 3/20/2003 9:38:59 AM
Eight of the "idiots" who voted against the Alaska drilling were Republicans. Good for them.
6772. Al D - 3/20/2003 11:11:03 AM
magoseph
Of course, you are dead wrong, it was very calculated. Believe me, if I had the skill of the Wiz you would see posts that would turn your stomach,(but you would defend them because I have a right to my opinion). I suppose when you read A Modest Proposal you conclude Swift really enjoyed ragout of newly born baby.
6773. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/20/2003 1:13:57 PM
Al, knowing that you are so stirred to anger—or that Wombat would like to "strangle" me sometimes—only confirms that my efforts to viscerally provoke the loyal opposition are successful. However, in your rage, you attribute others' posted images as coming from me. The Bush-being-sodomized-by-bin-Laden image and the different-asshole/same-shit image were NOT mine.
The exploding head image of Bush & Saddam was meant to illustrate that they are both terrorists and headaches for the entire world—though I can't see you ever being aware enough to see it.
If I was as eloquent as Senator Byrd's "Today I Weep for My Country" speech, then I would use words because it's exactly how I feel.
You fail to appreciate, or even understand, that The Bush Bunch has, from the start, behaved like an arrogant gang of thugs. They have stolen the rights and liberties for which I, and countless others, have risked our lives to protect.
But that DOES NOT mean I want any harm to come to Bush—other than losing the next election of course. If you think I want an imbecile to become a saint and a martyr, you're even dumber than I suspect.
As far as your right to feel the way you do, because your nephew was dismembered and murdered, is not for me to judge— but with your logic, mayhem and murder is always justified and, for me, it never is.
6774. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/20/2003 1:26:37 PM
Al D
By the way, Al, aoften overlooked fact regarding the trumped-up war I served in: By the early '80s, more than twice as many Vietnam veterans had committed suicide than died in combat.
6775. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/20/2003 1:27:33 PM
an often overlooked fact
6776. Wombat - 3/20/2003 1:44:42 PM
WoW:
Actually, I said "occasional urge" to strangle. As to what you want to happen to Bush, I am in full agreement with you. I just find many of your animations to be one-trick ponies thematically. My criticism--and occasional urges to strangle--are based on aesthetic disagreement, not political disagreement; with an obvious and well-documented exception.
6777. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/20/2003 2:05:00 PM
Wombat, please feel free to critique the specific elements of my images—though we may have different esthetics with regard to how someone/something should look—I'm always eager to improve.
Start with the above image . . . or any image you find wanting.
6778. Cellar Door - 3/20/2003 2:34:06 PM
Some welcome analysis.
6779. Cellar Door - 3/20/2003 2:39:32 PM
This just in!
6780. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/20/2003 2:56:16 PM
6781. downtown LB - 3/20/2003 3:28:16 PM
You call Bush a terrorist and you in the same breath DARE to impune MY intelligence!?!?!?
Thats just too rich. Not even a little less idiotic than any statements coming out of Bagdad these days.
Consider yourself a non issue, and a not very intelligent one at that.
6782. judithathome - 3/20/2003 3:39:45 PM
Who is the addressee of that post, LB?
6783. magoseph - 3/20/2003 4:08:12 PM
magoseph
Of course, you are dead wrong, it was very calculated. Believe me, if I had the skill of the Wiz you would see posts that would turn your stomach,(but you would defend them because I have a right to my opinion). I suppose when you read A Modest Proposal you conclude Swift really enjoyed ragout of newly born baby
Al, what really it comes down to, the true homophobic is really a repulsive human being, no matter how proficient he is or claims to be in literary pursuits.
6784. Cellar Door - 3/20/2003 4:10:40 PM
What are we talking about magoseph ?
6785. magoseph - 3/20/2003 4:32:14 PM
Cellar,
To understand, you have the read the following posts Message # 6755; Message # 6757; Message # 6758; Message # 6770; Message # 6772.
6786. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/20/2003 4:43:51 PM
This just in from Oregon . . .
6787. magoseph - 3/20/2003 4:55:08 PM
Whiz, thanks for posting the Frenchness Police cartoon.
6788. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/20/2003 4:56:54 PM
Sure mags, don't pass this read up: Familiar, Haunting Words . . .
6789. Al D - 3/20/2003 7:16:47 PM
Wiz
I fully realized that the post I mentioned was not your work. So what. You posted it. I certainly admit the possibility that you don't wish for harm to Bush, but I don't discount the possibility either. Your hatred is deep, as evidenced by what you post. I truly believe that hate speach can drive people to commit vile acts. You are doing the same dehumanization of Bush the Nazis did of the Jews. Why not kill Bush? He isn't really human; he is the same as Hitler.
6790. Al D - 3/20/2003 7:20:27 PM
Cellar
magoseph is calling me a homophobe without coming right out and saying it. Now you and I go way back on this subject (do you remember when I asked for your help to try to get some sense into some on Free Republic?). I am not now and never have been a card carrying hater of Gays.
magoseph has the intellectual ability to understand my point, but she chooses not to.
6791. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/20/2003 8:51:40 PM
6789. Al D
You've been malicious in your deluded accusations of me, Al, so I won't treat any of your addled postings with respect or concern.
If Bush is going to behave like a tyrant, then he is more than worthy of my indignant ridicule.
So go crap in your cap!
6792. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/20/2003 8:56:23 PM
I truly believe that hate speach[sic] can drive people to commit vile acts.
Tell that to Lush Bimbo and Bill O'Really—-besides, If that were true, then why is Bill Clinton still walking around after the eight year hate-fest, they led?
6793. Cellar Door - 3/20/2003 9:12:14 PM
Cause Big Dog is a whole lot tougher than they are.
"magoseph is calling me a homophobe without coming right out and saying it"
This was regarding what?
6794. thoughtful - 3/21/2003 10:18:58 AM
Krugman in praise of the Onion....
The Onion describes itself as "America's finest news source," and it's not an idle boast. On Jan. 18, 2001, the satirical weekly bore the headline "Bush: Our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over," followed by this mock quotation: "We must squander our nation's hard-won budget surplus on tax breaks for the wealthiest 15 percent. And, on the foreign front, we must find an enemy and defeat it."
6795. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/21/2003 11:33:04 AM
Back in 1998, Clinton spoke about Iraq:
If Saddam Hussein fails to comply and we fail to act or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of sanctions and ignore the commitments he's made? Well, he will conclude that the international community's lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on doing more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. The stakes could not be higher. Some way, someday, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal.
Here is the response from the Conservative Caucus:
1) President William J. Clinton lacks the moral authority to function properly as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces of the United States.
2) Let's not change the subject. The Number One business of the nation at this time should be the removal from office of William J. Clinton.
3) It is unconstitutional for America to go to war without a Congressional declaration of war.
4) Given the present set of facts, there is no Constitutional predicate on the basis of which Congress has the authority to initiate war, even with a declaration of war.
6796. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/21/2003 11:34:42 AM
5) Wars of defense are morally appropriate. Foreign wars for purposes other than national defense are not.
6) In war, there is no substitute for victory. Victory, as commonly understood, with respect to an assault on Iraq, has not been defined, let alone declared to be the objective of any such attack.
7) The Federal government's ability to provide for the common defense (of the United States) is substantially diminished in consequence of resources expended during President Bush's "Operation Desert Storm". Not only have America's arsenal and battle-ready personnel resources not been fully restored, they have, in fact, been radically depleted since Desert Storm, in consequence of massive reductions in Congressionally authorized spending for the defense of the United States (even as expenditures for U.N. intervention operations and other "social policy objective" activities have risen). Defense analyst Peter Schweizer, now at the Hoover Institution, who favors air strikes, nonetheless observes that "[t]hanks to military cutbacks, we don't have anything close to the force that won Desert Storm. In 1991, the U.S. Air Force had 24 fighter wings to draw from. Today it only has 13. That means fewer planes and (even more importantly) pilots. Desert Storm was fought with two Marine divisions, seven active Army divisions, and combat brigades of two additional divisions. Now, that commitment alone would exhaust all of the Army's 10 active divisions." (Source: USA Today, 2/18/98, p. 15A)
6797. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/21/2003 11:35:28 AM
8) The strategic position of the United States in the world may be diminished, rather than enhanced, by an attack on Iraq. Many regimes friendly to the United States will be placed at severe risk if they are seen to assist, or even favor, the U.S. attack.
9) If we "succeed", what have we gained? If we don't begin a war, what have we lost?
10) War has consequences which are often unintended and almost always beyond comprehensive anticipation. If we and our "allies" join to attack Iraq, Iraq and its allies may combine to attack us in ways which cannot be fully foreseen. How many planes will crash? How many water supplies will be polluted? How many nuclear weapons will be detonated? How many civilian targets will be made subject to terrorist assault? Will chemical weapons be deployed?
The fundamental issue is whether Bill Clinton's military action against Iraq is important enough to die for. I am prepared to die in defense of God, family, and country---but I don't believe that this preemptive strike against Iraq is worth dying for.
6798. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/21/2003 11:36:47 AM
Toys
6799. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/21/2003 11:37:44 AM
Toys 6800. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/21/2003 11:39:18 AM
toys
6801. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/21/2003 11:40:15 AM
6802. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/21/2003 11:47:18 AM
Cigars? Cigarettes? Hypocrisy?
6803. magoseph - 3/21/2003 12:44:09 PM
Huh?
6804. Edmund Dantes - 3/21/2003 1:10:55 PM
Cigars? Cigarettes? Hypocrisy?
The Conservative Caucus you link to opposes this war on Iraq as well. Thus, unlike Democrats such as Tom Daschle, they have not demonstrated shameless hypocrisy.
6805. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/21/2003 2:54:22 PM
Gee, Count Mount-Me-With-Crisco, I wasn't questioning the the character of the Caucus, but rather the Bushies—who were supported by them.
6806. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/21/2003 2:55:02 PM
6807. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/21/2003 3:04:10 PM
Cigars? Cigarettes? Bankruptcy? or Torpedoes?
6808. Edmund Dantes - 3/21/2003 3:16:07 PM
I wasn't questioning the the character of the Caucus, but rather the Bushies....
I don't think you knew what you were doing at all. You just posted--likely something you saw posted somewhere else. Your own critical-thinking skills are just about nil.
And now you are either being stupid or just outright lying.
You said: "Here is the response from the Conservative Caucus." You didn't mention anything at all about "The Bushies." And then you posted "Cigars? Cigarettes? Hypocrisy?"
The Conservative Caucus was against an attack in February 1998. They are now against the current campaign to liberate Iraq. Unlike Daschle and other Democrat hypocrites, they don't seem to have flipflopped.
6809. Cellar Door - 3/21/2003 4:00:16 PM
So are we to take it that you're with the Conservative caucus on this Count?
6810. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/21/2003 4:03:51 PM
As always, you confuse "critical" with anal. I'll copt to being sloppy or hasty with words, but YOU made the assumption about the Caucus, Rectumhead, so don't blame me.
Go back to your Anal-Perfectionists' World where Cal's vibrator better fits your compulsions!
6811. Al D - 3/21/2003 7:20:28 PM
Edmond
Your post about Wiz's post was polite, not a rude word in it, but notice how vile is his response. We must understand, though, that this is not a happy day for both Cellar and the Wiz. The country they love (maybe not Cellar-but the Wiz says he loves America) is doing well. Now if tens of thousands of G.I.s were getting slaughered, it would be another matter.
6812. Cellar Door - 3/21/2003 7:56:39 PM
I love Americans.
I do NOT love "America."
6813. Al D - 3/21/2003 7:59:57 PM
Cellar
Yeah, I have gathered that idea from all your posts. And I respect your honesty. I don't respect the other fellow's lies. He claims to be a great patriot. What a laugh.
6814. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/21/2003 8:03:31 PM
6815. Al D - 3/21/2003 10:13:59 PM
You don't have the guts to say what that post means. To try and shit people that your point is they are both terrorists and a pain to the world only fools those who want to be fooled. You are about as anti-American as one can be. Your hatred pre-dates Bush.
6816. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/22/2003 12:22:28 AM
It's "WE THE PEOPLE," Al—not "WE THE CORPORATIONS" or "WE THE OLIGARCHS."
6817. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/22/2003 12:30:13 AM
Bombing countries who haven't attacked us is anti-American, Al. Stealing elections and rigging the judiciary with cronies is anti-American, Al. Dominating the world with bribery and extortion is anti-American, Al. Trumping democracy with greed-based capitalism is anti-American, Al. Throwing future generations into an abyss of long term debt, is Anti-American, Al.
6818. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/22/2003 12:33:29 AM
6819. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/22/2003 12:55:20 AM
Sunshine Patriot
Tom DeLay and the party of appeasement. By William Saletan
Cigars? Cigarettes? Yet MORE Hypocrisy?
6820. Al D - 3/22/2003 2:03:15 AM
Hey Wiz, it's a big world. You don't like this country? Go find one you like. Maybe Libya will do you. You are a real anti-American, anti-capitalist ass hole. You love predicting doom and gloom for America, but it ain't gonna happen you poor sap.
6821. Al D - 3/22/2003 2:04:00 AM
What's a matter Wiz, didn't yo manna give you enough love?
6822. concerned - 3/22/2003 3:30:09 AM
Re. 6805 -
C'mon. You're imposing a truly ridiculous set of requirements on the Conservative Caucus here, including requiring them to be able to predict the future, by saying they're hypocrites for supporting GWB in '00 when, if 9/11 hadn't occurred, there would have been little likelihood of the current administration considering military action against Iraq at all.
6823. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/22/2003 10:50:58 AM
"manna?"
Reread Connie, I was talking about the 180 that Bush&Co. did with regard to "nation building"—moreover, their intentions for "regime change" in Iraq, predate 9/11.
6824. Al D - 3/22/2003 1:18:11 PM
For a guy who had a fit when concerned pointed out his spelling error, it is ironic he points out an obvious typo. But I forgive him as he is feeling sad thinking of the demise of Saddam.
There was a female Afgani author on C-Span talking about how much better things are with the Taliban gone. Wiz wanted the Taliban left in power. What a strange man.
yo mamma, Wiz
6825. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/22/2003 1:28:30 PM
Your post about Wiz's post was polite, not a rude word in it, but notice how vile is his response.
6826. Al D - 3/22/2003 1:47:39 PM
Wiz
Yeah, so what's your point. Unless someone buys your shit, your response is always nasty and vile. Mine, are for the most part reasoned and polite.
6827. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/22/2003 8:26:49 PM
6828. anomieme - 3/22/2003 8:36:22 PM
WOW,
I think you're a hoot.
Love your Photoshop skills, or whatever you use.
These days when I see a real pic of GWB, my brain converts him into your ape attitude.
Keep up the good work!
6829. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/22/2003 9:32:13 PM
merci mon ami ! ! !
6830. Edmund Dantes - 3/22/2003 10:25:36 PM
WizardOfIgnoramous: Keep digging yourself deeper, boy.
I wasn't questioning the the character of the Caucus, but rather the Bushies—who were supported by them.
Did you even bother to notice the author of the screed you posted? Howard Phillips, dipshit. Do you know who Howard Phillips is?
I'll give you a hint: he did not support Bush in 2000.
As always, you confuse "critical" [thinking] with anal.
Nope, that's your problem because you have your head so far up your ass.
You are limited to posting inarticulate (and repetitive) images because of your almost nonexistent verbal ability. That's all well and good for creating ugly little cartoons, but on a message board one should have a modicum of ability to put together an actual sentence now and then. Since you cannot, you lift (mostly erroneous) spewings from other people and repost them here, without any evidence of judgment as to their validity, or whether they even support what you're trying to argue.
Given all that, I'm not 100 percent sure even now whether you are dishonest or just too stupid to figure out how much you missed the mark.
All it takes is that single neuron you possess--"Bush = chimp"--fire!, and lo, the Mote will be the passive beneficiary of your spastic fingers.
6831. Edmund Dantes - 3/22/2003 10:31:35 PM
Al (6811): You are likely right.
6832. Al D - 3/22/2003 11:11:56 PM
Edmons
Hear, Hear! And he is one of the favorites on the Mote. I once was convinced he was about 16, but he claims to be hero of the Viet Nam War. I was a five star General of WWII; I insist on being given the proper respect.
6833. Al D - 3/22/2003 11:18:25 PM
From the WizAs always, you confuse "critical" with anal. I'll copt to being sloppy or hasty with words, but YOU made the assumption about the Caucus, Rectumhead, so don't blame me.
Go back to your Anal-Perfectionists' World where Cal's vibrator better fits your compulsions!
The level of argumantation of a so called adult and self proclaimed war hero, and posted to an opponent who had not an insulting word in any of his posts.
6834. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/22/2003 11:54:26 PM
Well geez, Count Asshole, maybe Dubya isn't a true conservative, after all—but you're still anal!
6835. concerned - 3/23/2003 2:47:21 AM
Re. 6823 -
I did, and my point wrt the CC and war in Iraq still stands.
6836. concerned - 3/23/2003 2:55:32 AM
There've been huge quantities of derisive comments coming from the Left regarding GWB's education, etc. What of that of the critics? Let's see:
Barbra Streisand Completed High School
Career: Singing and acting
Cher Dropped out of school in 9th grade
Career: Singing and acting
Martin Sheen Flunked exam to enter University of Dayton
Career: Acting
Jessica Lange Dropped out college mid-freshman year
Career: Acting
Alec Baldwin Dropped out of George Washington U. after scandal
Career: Acting
Julia Roberts Completed High School
Career: Acting
Sean Penn Completed High School
Career: Acting
Susan Sarandon Degree in Drama from Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C.
Career: Acting
Ed Asner Completed High School
Career: Acting
George Clooney Dropped out of University of Kentucky
Career: Acting
Michael Moore Dropped out first year University of Michigan
Career: Movie Director
Sarah Jessica Parker Completed High School
Career: Acting
Jennifer Anniston Completed High School
Career: Acting
Mike Farrell Completed High School
Career: Acting
Janeane Garofelo Dropped out of College
Career: Stand up comedienne
Larry Hagman Attended Bard College for one year
Career: Acting
I'd say merely completing high school, which seems to be the educational summit achieved by most LW celebrities, is not a sufficient qualification for determining what constitutes effective US foreign or domestic policy.
6837. Al D - 3/23/2003 3:09:51 AM
Well geez, Count Asshole, maybe Dubya isn't a true conservative, after all—but you're still anal!
This is adult argumentation? And this guy puts Bush down for being stupid? We report, you decide.
6838. Cellar Door - 3/23/2003 10:05:20 AM
You decide what to report.
6839. judithathome - 3/23/2003 10:28:42 AM
I'd say merely completing high school, which seems to be the educational summit achieved by most LW celebrities, is not a sufficient qualification for determining what constitutes effective US foreign or domestic policy.
They are not trying to determine foreign policy; they are expressing their differences with the President's foreign policy. That is something you were lauding about this country as opposed to France over in the Iraq thread and I quote:
One reason that the US is a better nation than France is that people such as myself and jexster are free to insult the president all day long, yet insulting Chirac in France is a criminal offense.
I suppose in your version of Animal Farm, some pigs are more equal than others? You and Jex are free to insult the president all day long but others are not because they aren't up to your intellectual standards? Funny, isn't it, how when April 15 rolls around, this government isn't refusing their tax dollars. I dare say they pay a bit more than you or I do even though they are so ignorant as to only squeak through high school.
6840. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/23/2003 12:29:48 PM
Perle's Plunder Blunder
It's Richard Perle's world. We're just fighting in it
.. . The critical battle for Baghdad was yet to come and "Shock and Awe" was still a few hours away. (The hawks, who are trying to send a message to the world not to mess with America, might have preferred an even more intimidating bombing campaign title, like "Operation Who's Your Daddy?")
. . . The chesty "you repent, we decide" Bush doctrine was cooked up pre-Bush, fashioned over the last 12 years by conservatives like Mr. Perle, Mr. Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Scooter Libby, Douglas Feith and Bill Kristol.
. . . The confidant of Rummy and Wolfy serves as the chairman of the Defense Policy Board, an influential Pentagon advisory panel. That's why Global Crossing agreed to pay Mr. Perle a fat fee: $725,000. The fee structure is especially smelly because $600,000 of the windfall is contingent on government approval of the sale. (In his original agreement, Mr. Perle also asked the company to shell out for "working meals," which could add up, given his status as a gourmand from the Potomac to Provence, where he keeps a vacation home among the feckless French.)
6841. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/23/2003 12:32:55 PM
They Both Reached for the Gun — By FRANK RICH
6842. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/23/2003 12:51:31 PM
Cigars? Cigarettes? Gourmet meals? War?
6843. judithathome - 3/23/2003 12:54:39 PM
Well, Wiz, there is killing on both sides today...I don't think anyone is happy about what's going on.
6844. concerned - 3/23/2003 3:17:04 PM
re. 6839 -
It's dishonest of you to try to conflate two distinctly different subjects that I was discussing, or else you're simply confused.
6845. concerned - 3/23/2003 3:21:04 PM
Btw, Animal Farm dealt with people on your side of the political fence, JAH.
6846. concerned - 3/23/2003 3:21:54 PM
Or, rather, political animals on JAH's side of the political fence.
6847. concerned - 3/23/2003 3:23:09 PM
Note that it's the Socialist French, not conservatives, who are responsible for any restriction of freedom of speech, although JAH is desperately trying to turn the truth on its head.
6848. judithathome - 3/23/2003 3:29:57 PM
Concerned, you were caught making contradictory statements and I called you on it. No big deal; it happens to all of us at times. Just accept it and let it go at that.
I'm not conflating anything nor am I being dishonest. You either support free speech or you don't. If it's good for you and Jex, it's good for Martin Sheen and Natalie Maines.
6849. concerned - 3/23/2003 3:35:16 PM
JAH -
Actually I caught you trying to compare apples and oranges in order to discredit me. I didn't say word one about anybody's First Amendment rights. I said that these people were probably unqualified to dictate US foreign policy. Not the same thing at all.
6850. concerned - 3/23/2003 3:40:39 PM
The last thing I want is anybody to put a construction on my posting that these people should not be allowed to make whatever foolish statements they desire. What I am trying to do is to warn people to take their unqualified opinions with several large salt mines of skepticism.
See. Two entirely different things, and it's worth fighting to make sure the two aren't conflated by some third party.
6851. Cellar Door - 3/23/2003 3:55:22 PM
connie is a congential liar, Judith.
6852. judithathome - 3/23/2003 4:30:08 PM
Concerned, if you are of the opinion that anyone here is too dense or stupid to understand that Hollywood actors are not schooled in foreign policy and that they need you to explain it all to them, then I can't expect you to understand what I am trying to say to you.
I am not trying to make you look foolish or anything; just pointing out something that appeared to me to be inconsistent. The fact you are getting so exercised over it and seeing all sorts of nefarious reasons behind it is very telling, however.
6853. Cellar Door - 3/23/2003 4:33:10 PM
You don't have to try to make him look foolish, judith. He's quite capable of doing that on his own.
6854. Edmund Dantes - 3/23/2003 6:07:05 PM
concerned (6850): It's obvious to anyone with a shred of honesty and intellectual capacity what you were saying.
Stupid people equate criticizing stupidity with infringement of free speech because such speech is all they are capable of.
6855. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/24/2003 12:09:38 AM
Well, Wiz, there is killing on both sides today
Only because Bush decided for all of us to invade a sovereign country that never attacked us, Judith.
[these people]unqualified to dictate US foreign policy
They "dictate: nothing—including public opinion. But that is exactly what your surrogate of corporate bribery is doing—dictating war for the rest of the world.
Stupid people equate criticizing stupidity with infringement of free speech because such speech is all they are capable of.
Now there's one stupid sentence that truly does "conflate" as well as misconflate!
Hail Caesar!
6856. Al D - 3/24/2003 1:33:09 AM
The Wiz is in his glory because the U.S, had a bad day. You think this guy has any love of America? Give me a break. Crawl back in your hole you creep.
6857. jayackroyd - 3/24/2003 4:35:57 AM
Toys.
6858. magoseph - 3/24/2003 7:55:42 AM
Stupid people equate criticizing stupidity with infringement of free speech because such speech is all they are capable of.
Well said, Dantes. The response to a post should be a response to the position the poster has taken rather than an attack on the poster. What you fail to point out is that concerned is the most consistent violator of that measure of courtesy.
6859. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/24/2003 10:37:08 AM
For the record, Al, I think Gen. Tommy Franks is a superb officer and I've never been prouder of our military— whom I identify with completely—that is, being forced to fight in a war that should never have been started.
Like Viet Nam, this is a viper pit that will poison America's reputation for decades—maybe forever. If you had any "intellectual honesty," as Dantes likes to say, you'd admit that this war is about domination cloaked as "liberation."
The mounting death toll of the brave and the pure in Iraq will eventually be laid at the feet of Bush and his cowardly manipulators, but not until thousands more die, regrettably.
If you think that gives me any pleasure, you're dead wrong—it only infuriates me with a cold and bitter rage that will stiffen my resolve to bring about a change of regime, here in this country.
Make no mistake, it will stiffen the resolve of many others as well.
6860. Cellar Door - 3/24/2003 10:44:24 AM
Sing Out Louise!
6861. Edmund Dantes - 3/24/2003 10:55:00 AM
The response to a post should be a response to the position the poster has taken rather than an attack on the poster. What you fail to point out is that concerned is the most consistent violator of that measure of courtesy.
This is self-contradictory in that instead of pointing out an example within a post by concerned of his doing that which you accuse him of, you attack concerned himself.
I also doubt the practical veracity of your statement. Although because the gang that attacks him has greater numbers, as individuals they may each engage in fewer personal attacks, I expect he is no more "personal" in return than the sum of the personal attacks against him.
You are welcome to scan back through this thread in an attempt to prove otherwise. For example, I've gone back for two weeks and can find nothing by concerned comparable to "connie is a congential liar, Judith."
6862. Edmund Dantes - 3/24/2003 10:56:12 AM
it only infuriates me with a cold and bitter rage that will stiffen my resolve to bring about a change of regime, here in this country.
Which means we can all count on even more(!) monkey cartoons.
Wonderful.
6863. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/24/2003 11:47:25 AM
"That's all well and good for creating ugly little cartoons, but on a message board one should have a modicum of ability to put together an actual sentence now and then."
. . . Which means we can all count on even more(!) monkey cartoons.
Edmond, I'll gladly match the efficacy of my visuals to the verbal gruel you offer up—any time, anywhere.
Moreover, this place isn't solely a "message board" because it has the capacity to handle visuals and sound. So it's really you're limitations and lack of imagination that prevent you from expressing yourself in other forms. I would enjoy seeing your efforts to communicate in a visual language, for a fairer comparison of our communication skills.
Keep defending your merry band of ditto-monkeys and immoral apes and I'll keep painting vivid reminders of their evolutionary stage of behavioral development.
6864. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/24/2003 11:51:12 AM
you're limitations = your limitations
6865. thoughtful - 3/24/2003 2:57:44 PM
More on the Richard Perle story courtesy of Maureen Dowd
The confidant of Rummy and Wolfy serves as the chairman of the Defense Policy Board, an influential Pentagon advisory panel. That's why Global Crossing agreed to pay Mr. Perle a fat fee: $725,000. The fee structure is especially smelly because $600,000 of the windfall is contingent on government approval of the sale. (In his original agreement, Mr. Perle also asked the company to shell out for "working meals," which could add up, given his status as a gourmand from the Potomac to Provence, where he keeps a vacation home among the feckless French.)
Although his position on the Defense Policy Board is not paid, Mr. Perle is still bound by government ethics rules that forbid officials from reaping financial benefit from their government positions. He and his lawyer told Mr. Labaton that his work for Global Crossing did not violate the rules because he did not lobby for the company and was serving in an advisory capacity to its lawyers.
But that distinction is silly because Global Crossing has so many other big names on its roster of influence-peddlers that it doesn't need Mr. Perle's Guccis for actual lobbying footwork or advice on the process. His name alone could be worth the $725,000 if it helps win the Pentagon's seal of approval.
6866. concerned - 3/24/2003 3:00:56 PM
Re. 6858 -
Care to back up that swipe at me with anything, magoseph?
6867. Al D - 3/24/2003 3:11:08 PM
There is no one on the Mote who can compete with the Wiz in vile personal attacks, and there is no one the Mote who recieves more personal attacks than concerned. Even I have insulted concerned, and insults from me are rare.
6868. concerned - 3/24/2003 3:13:03 PM
I find it a bit surprising that a certain party who is denigrating what she sees as the total lack of 'courtesy' in my posting isn't considering the level of courtesy in others' posts (eg cllrdr) to me when making her comparisons.
6869. concerned - 3/24/2003 3:15:07 PM
Not that most of it bothers me, but there are certain 'interpretations', to put it courteously, of my posting I really won't allow to go unchallenged.
6870. magoseph - 3/24/2003 3:24:02 PM
6858 - Re. 6858 - Care to back up that swipe at me with anything, magoseph?
No, concerned, I can't because I am way out of line this time. The fact that you have answered this to Cellar--"Even an idiot wouldn't believe that lie.", does not qualify my remark because Cellar has numerous times called you an idiot. How big an apology do you want?
6871. concerned - 3/24/2003 3:30:50 PM
None. We're friends here:)
6872. concerned - 3/24/2003 3:33:57 PM
Btw, what did I post that to cllrdr about?
6873. magoseph - 3/24/2003 3:35:24 PM
I find it a bit surprising that a certain party who is denigrating what she sees as the total lack of 'courtesy' in my posting isn't considering the level of courtesy in others' posts (eg cllrdr) to me when making her comparisons.
On second thoughts, concerned, maybe I do not owe you an apology since you accomplished with me what you planned to do to one of us according to Alistair: No, Mago, Cerned was just doing his ongoing Frog-baiting thing. He's hoping one of us will lose it one day, and retaliate in kind. Chance would be a fine thing.
What do you think?
6874. concerned - 3/24/2003 3:38:37 PM
I think he speculates wrongly.
6875. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/24/2003 3:39:52 PM
Al D ". . . and insults from me are rare."
Hahahaha! Yeah, right and Jesus was a kangaroo!
You're the worst kind of attacker, Al, because your calumny is based on fabricated and unconscious assumptions. Some rebuttals to your invented charges:
I never claimed to be a war hero. I've never taken any glee in peoples' death, American or otherwise.
I don't hate Bush, I abhor his behavior and his hubris, though I don't doubt that he's taking us all to hell with the best of intentions.
You took issue with me comparing Dubya to Saddam, well it would seem others see these two thugs in the same light as well . . .
Notice Al, how you and Dantes haven't responded to my sincere defense of your venomous allegations above?
Do you think he'll honor us with a Photoshop response?
6876. concerned - 3/24/2003 3:39:55 PM
Btw, nice little dig there about cllrdr & his calling me an 'idiot', magoseph.
6877. Edmund Dantes - 3/24/2003 3:55:01 PM
the efficacy of my visuals
Eh? What do your funhouse-level visuals communicate, Whizzo? That you think the President is a simian. Well, we've seen that at least a few bazillion times from you now, dearie. If you really think you do such a good job of communicating, why do you need to post basically the same picture over and over, eh?
And then there's the exploding Bush and Saddam heads. What does that say, old chum? You deny that it implies anything like violence toward the president, but if your communication is so "efficacious," then why would you need to explain that?
Your visuals are effective in demonstrating that 1) you know how to use PhotoShop; 2) your "artistic vision" is slightly more advanced than a doodler drawing Hitler moustaches on his enemies in the high school annual and perhaps blacking out the star athlete's tooth from impotent envy; 3) you tend toward the sick, favoring imagery that is violent and often mixes that violence with the lurid.
Because what you produce relies on this last for its sole effect on the audience, you don't create art. You produce pornography.
6878. magoseph - 3/24/2003 3:56:30 PM
I think he speculates wrongly.
Alistair will glad to read that, concerned.
Btw, nice little dig there about cllrdr & his calling me an 'idiot', magoseph.
From me? Ouch! But you're wrong, I would never accuse anyone to be an idiot even by implication, no more than I would use profane language to anyone. I think you know that.
6879. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/24/2003 4:08:55 PM
It's all in the eye of the beholder, Countess. If you liked what I do, I'd quit doing it.
I don't seeing your scrawlings and rantings ever receiving praise or encouragement.
Show me one — other than those posted by the imbeciles you are forced to defend around here.
6880. magoseph - 3/24/2003 4:09:44 PM
And then there's the exploding Bush and Saddam heads. What does that say, old chum?
It says to me that those two are thinking the same thing: bombings, and that all they will accomplish is that the world will explode as will their heads along with ours.
6881. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/24/2003 4:10:37 PM
Thanks mago!
6882. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/24/2003 4:12:04 PM
I don't seeing your
6883. magoseph - 3/24/2003 4:14:13 PM
Not at all, Whiz, I always have fun interpreting your work.
6884. Edmund Dantes - 3/24/2003 4:19:57 PM
So you post pictures of Bush as a monkey ad infinitum because you think it plays to the crowd?
That's not just pornography, Wizzo, that's prostitution.
By the aesthetic standards you're espousing "The Family Circus" must rank higher than the Sistine Chapel.
Bush approval ratings back around 70 percent.
What does that say about "crowd approval," boy-o?
As for the difficulty of what you do, here's a five-minute effort on my part. It's no doubt less popular than "Dubya as Dr. Zaius, Take Number 643," but I don't dedicate my life to my art, either.
Link
6885. Al D - 3/24/2003 4:26:53 PM
magoseph
How did you interpret a post justapozing Hitler/Bush with the caption Same shit, different asshole. This was not his work; it does have meaning his cartoos really don't. And by the way, Bush's head exploding was put on the Mote way back shortly after 9/11. I was not the only one who took that to depict an assination. Do you think it meant Bush's head exploded from excessive ideas?
If someone had posted such a thing when Clinton was President, would you have approved? Do you think any expresstion of hate goes over the line, even that directed at conservatives.
6886. Al D - 3/24/2003 4:29:40 PM
Wiz
Had you been alive in the forties, would you have hated Hitler? For you to claim you do not hate Bush is palpable nonsense. You reek of hate.
6887. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/24/2003 6:21:52 PM
Countess Edmond, the "Liquify" feature in Photoshop is the telltale sign of a graphic nincompoop and dilatant who can't figure out how to use the rest of the tools —but I applaud your willingness to take a risk.
However, what are you trying to express about Gore? When your technique get's in the way of your communication, it destroys the message.
I can, at the very least, make Bush look like a monkey (an easy task, granted, because he's already there), but what are you trying to do with Gore—make him wavey?—signfying what, exactly?
6888. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/24/2003 6:23:37 PM
Right Al, the way you reek of love!
6889. magoseph - 3/24/2003 6:49:13 PM
magoseph
How did you interpret a post justapozing Hitler/Bush with the caption Same shit, different asshole. This was not his work; it does have meaning his cartoos really don't. And by the way, Bush's head exploding was put on the Mote way back shortly after 9/11. I was not the only one who took that to depict an assination. Do you think it meant Bush's head exploded from excessive ideas?
If someone had posted such a thing when Clinton was President, would you have approved? Do you think any expresstion of hate goes over the line, even that directed at conservatives.
I interpret a cartoon when I see it. I never saw the Hitler/bush one
.
After 9/11, many brains were seeing red, Al, or harboring exaggerated ideas of pain, bewilderment, or vengeance.
I would have approved of a cartoon depicting another part of Clinton's anatomy...
To answer your last question, Al, I have already explained my stance on freedom of expression.
6890. Al D - 3/24/2003 10:01:06 PM
Jesus Christ, I never suggested stoping someones freedom of expression, quite the opposite. The thing is, you would approve of whatever Wiz posted no matter how vile, or you would be silent about it because he is of the same political position as you are. Or you suppose he is.
When concerned was posting about Clinton (Cloontoon, White House Rapist, etc.) I spoke up against that kind of talk. What I'm talking about is speaking out against trash talk. But I give up. As Judith said, you can't force people to see things your way.
6891. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/25/2003 8:27:57 AM
Shock, Awe and Razzmatazz in the Sequel
With the new engagement in Iraq, however, the Pentagon and television news coverage are blurring the lines between movies and real life as never before, turning viewers into 24-hour couch voyeurs. In the opening days of the war the focus on television was almost entirely on the fireworks spectacle of the American air attack on Baghdad — which looked on the small screen like a son et lumière show, not the deadly bombing of a city of 4.5 million people — and on heroic and often unrepresentative images that deliberately recalled photographs and famous cinematic sequences: soldiers planting an American flag in Iraq with Iwo Jima-like determination; caravans of our troops driving across the desert, made famous by "Lawrence of Arabia"; a soldier tearing down a billboard of Saddam Hussein while video cameras rolled and smiling Iraqis looked on.
There were fewer images thus far on American television of the painful costs of war. While much of the world from the Middle East to the Philippines had seen videotape of American prisoners of war, broadcasters here initially elected not to show these scenes, and the networks said they would probably never broadcast the full version of the tape. American television showed little tape of Iraqi civilians affected by the bombing of Baghdad and little of the sometimes fierce resistance American, British and Australian forces are meeting.
6892. thoughtful - 3/25/2003 8:51:56 AM
Channels of Influence
Bushologists let out a collective "Aha!" when Clear Channel was revealed to be behind the pro-war rallies, because the company's top management has a history with George W. Bush. The vice chairman of Clear Channel is Tom Hicks, whose name may be familiar to readers of this column. When Mr. Bush was governor of Texas, Mr. Hicks was chairman of the University of Texas Investment Management Company, called Utimco, and Clear Channel's chairman, Lowry Mays, was on its board. Under Mr. Hicks, Utimco placed much of the university's endowment under the management of companies with strong Republican Party or Bush family ties. In 1998 Mr. Hicks purchased the Texas Rangers in a deal that made Mr. Bush a multimillionaire.
6893. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/25/2003 9:58:55 AM
Cigars? Cigarettes? CronyCapitalistOligarchism?
6894. magoseph - 3/25/2003 11:17:42 AM
toughtful's link
Arky has bribed me to do that, thoughtful.
6895. magoseph - 3/25/2003 11:55:17 AM
Al
The thing is, you would approve of whatever Wiz posted no matter how vile, or you would be silent about it because he is of the same political position as you are. Or you suppose he is.
No, Al, I wouldn't approve of this type of cartoons, for example:...clever cartoons of a fag hanging from a lamp post), women, Blacks, Jews
As far as the war is concerned, Whiz and I do not share the same views.
6896. thoughtful - 3/25/2003 12:58:47 PM
thanks mago, didn't realize my link was broken.
6897. judithathome - 3/25/2003 1:06:43 PM
Al, you might try reading before you make accusations. Magos supports the war and has since the beginning.
6898. betty - 3/25/2003 6:57:17 PM
A very funnyentry from a friend's blog. Not for those who are humor impaired.
6899. robertjayb - 3/26/2003 6:00:28 PM
Senator Moynihan is dead...
6900. concerned - 3/26/2003 6:02:16 PM
Sorry to hear that. Another real Democrat is gone.
6901. robertjayb - 3/26/2003 6:05:17 PM
NYTimes obituary...
6902. RickNelson - 3/26/2003 7:51:39 PM
I had heard Hilary Rodham gave an announcement today. I see that was reported. Yup, he was a democrate of some standing. He's got one of those names yah remember, like Humphrey.
6903. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/26/2003 11:52:38 PM
Cigars? Cigarettes? Deficits?
6904. wonkers2 - 3/27/2003 8:05:17 AM
Education Arkansas-style; Justice Bush-style; Religion fundy-style
6905. RickNelson - 3/27/2003 8:10:48 AM
Rhenquist. He's so line item. Hasn't the thoughtfulness of a rock.
arky may not like your beginning tag.
6906. wonkers2 - 3/27/2003 8:11:34 AM
"Education" in Arkansas
6907. RickNelson - 3/27/2003 8:18:03 AM
Ah, that clears it up. That's just sad.
There have been cases of some sort in Minnesota and surrounding states. It's always sad when oppressive methods are used against someone or a group underserving of such abuse.
6908. concerned - 3/27/2003 4:40:27 PM
Daschole regrets timing of comments
You almost have to feel pity for sorry li'l Tommy Daschole. Now he is regretful of his miserable, saddened comments.
6909. judithathome - 3/27/2003 5:51:10 PM
Story is midway down the page...
POWs of Last Gulf War Get Stiffed
As the world watches footage of the American soldiers taken prisoners of war by Iraq, those who suffered the same fate more than a decade ago say that they're still waiting for justice.
Twenty-two Americans were shot down or otherwise taken prisoner in Iraq 12 years ago.
One of them was Marine Col. Cliff Acree, a squadron commander shot down by a surface-to-air missile and captured by the Iraqis on the second day of the 1991 Gulf War.
6910. arkymalarky - 3/27/2003 7:06:55 PM
Hey, thanks for the link, Wonk. I'd seen that here but hadn't realized that it had gotten the attention of the NYT.
Here's another one from that same district (a large one, I might add), but in the high school:
"Jacksonville Rape Suspects"
and
a local article on it
6911. Edmund Dantes - 3/27/2003 10:18:36 PM
Re 6892 and the partisan hack Paul Krugman:
What he refers to as evidence of an oligarchical conspiracy involves a country music radio station sponsoring an event related to a country music act. That is not an unusual occurrence to anyone's imagination but the hysterical "Nazis are everywhere and only I am keen enough to spot them" Mr. Krugman.
A more detailed response to his column (by me) is here, but because of the severe limits on post length at this site I'll link to it rather than repost it in its entirety.
Otherwise, I suggest Mr. Krugman double the dosage on his smelling salts prescription.
6912. Al D - 3/27/2003 11:12:35 PM
Edmond
Good job showing Krugman's non-sensable points. I don't think you'll get much of a response on the Mote. I would respond on TPW except I don't know how to get on. It seems CalGal doesn't know my email and I don't know hers. Of course, I have no idea what my password is, and they tell me there is no one by the name of stamper listed.
Ms. No was nice enough to put a link on Notes.
6913. thoughtful - 3/28/2003 9:03:30 AM
Big headline in the papers that "Pentagon Adviser is Stepping Down". Richard Perle resigned in light of criticism of mixing his personal business with government policy roles.
Read the fine print and find out he's resigned his chairmanship but will remain a member of the board.
6914. judithathome - 3/28/2003 9:10:39 AM
They're discussing it in International right now, Thoughful. Read the piece I linked to in 2116; it may not be the entire Hersh expose but it contains a ton of info.
6938. jayackroyd - 3/29/2003 2:00:02 PM
So does anyone have any opinions on the political fallout of an extended war? Is Bush helped or hurt if it goes on for months rather than weeks?
6939. vanTHEman - 3/29/2003 2:08:54 PM
The American people, more than 80% support, President Bush.
The fact that Saddam's thugs are executing our POW Marines only get us angrier.
6940. vanTHEman - 3/29/2003 2:09:41 PM
The American people, more than 80%, support President Bush.
The fact that Saddam's thugs are executing our POW Marines only get us angrier.
6941. Cellar Door - 3/29/2003 2:24:31 PM
More propaganda. Where did you pull that 80% figure? Out of L. Brent Bozell's ass?
6942. vanTHEman - 3/29/2003 2:42:36 PM
Spam king Cellar, the penis man, joins masturbation Whimey to complain about propaganda.
It is tooooooooooooooooooooooooo laugh.
6943. Cellar Door - 3/29/2003 2:59:16 PM
I'm sure you'll find this hilarious, Tiernan.
6944. vanTHEman - 3/29/2003 3:08:36 PM
I never link to your sites anymore, cellar. It's always penises. You obviously have a problem.
6945. jayackroyd - 3/29/2003 3:13:24 PM
Cheney, face the nation March 16:
"I think it will go relatively quickly... weeks rather than months."
6946. vanTHEman - 3/29/2003 3:35:08 PM
week(s) it will be. Our troopers want to get home for the Memorial Day parades.
&
Peaceniks laugh as 9-year-old boy is executed, but cry as marines near victory in Nasairiya.
A CNN correspondent embedded with the 2nd Marines, Task Force Tarawa, reported that the operation is the latest attempt to secure the town. Nasiriya has seen sporadic fighting during the past two days.
Military intelligence officials found what they described as a treasure trove of Iraqi military information, including codes and identification, in a field in the Nasiriya area.
Col. Ron Johnson, operations officer for Task Force Tarawa, said Friday that the Marines were "very close to controlling Nasiriya and making it secure.
"If they didn't, they said they would shoot a sibling," said Marine Capt. Peter Tabash, who speaks fluent Arabic. One civilian told Tabash that a 9-year-old boy was shot because his family refused to cooperate with the paramilitary groups.
6947. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/29/2003 3:39:05 PM
Hey! Where are my posts? I wasn't the one who started flaming and my links were politically related--why were they deleted, Jay?
6948. vanTHEman - 3/29/2003 3:48:52 PM
Get used to it, woody. People are sick of your monkey cartoons. Same old, same old. The jerking-off one yesterday was the last straw.
6949. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/29/2003 4:05:13 PM
That wasn't one of mine, jerk-off..
6950. Edmund Dantes - 3/29/2003 4:10:45 PM
Bush poll numbers surge
6951. Cellar Door - 3/29/2003 4:16:14 PM
Those figures are wrong. Rosie said it was 80%.
Are you some kinda commie, Count?
6952. vanTHEman - 3/29/2003 6:19:27 PM
The correct number for support of the war is 78%, not 80%. So sue me.
Attn: This link doesn't show Cellar/WoW's favorite penis
6953. Al D - 3/29/2003 6:25:50 PM
jay
I think it will go relatively quickly... weeks rather than months
Wouldn't it be proper to put his entire words in your post, like when he said he might be wqrong and that in war things are unpredictable. Besides, what is the point of harping on this point of shortness of conflict. If it is important to you, please define excatly what is meant by a short war.
Well, I'll tell you the point of harping on it by you and the press; it is political, nothing more, nothing less. It is an attempt to blacken the administration. Politics used to stop at the waters edge, but not anymore by the democrats. Better to see our forces slaughtered than for Bush to look good. It is a disgusting display.
6954. judithathome - 3/29/2003 7:14:52 PM
I didn't hear you carping about what a disgusting display it was when the Republicans were smearing Clinton with their "wag the dog" theories, Al.
No one wants our forces slaughtered and no one cares if Bush looks good so long as the war is waged successfully and our troops come home intact. For you to imply otherwise is what is disgusting and you do it constantly. Give it a rest and try discussing something of substance, if anyone can even do that amongst all the flames and spamming going on around here the last two days.
6955. Al D - 3/29/2003 7:48:19 PM
You know Judith, you have been on my ass on every post I have made. email bubbette and tell her she should come back on the Mote. Forget dinner in Kona.
6956. Cellar Door - 3/29/2003 8:30:47 PM
I'll have Richard Perle sue you.
6957. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/29/2003 9:43:04 PM
6958. jayackroyd - 3/29/2003 9:45:39 PM
Wouldn't it be proper to put his entire words in your post, like when he said he might be wrong and that in war things are unpredictable.
That happened because I cut the quote from a third party. But that's why god made elipses. I notice that I've mixed up my threads. Wasn't it you over in the Iraq thread demanding one source in the administration that said it would be short?
Besides, what is the point of harping on this point of shortness of conflict. If it is important to you, please define excatly what is meant by a short war.
The point is that it is now clear that the coalition prepared the battle plans under the assumption that the south would rise. That assumption has proved false. The further point is that the public was led to believe that the US held an overwhelming advantage, with talk on the aftermath "when" the war was over, before it began. Now this was partly propaganda to encourage the rising in the south, but Americans heard it. In the first few days of the campaign the government was saying to the Iraqis that defeat was inevitable and to lay down their arms and surrender. They drop five leaflets per person telling people how to surrender.
That strategy didn't work. It is now apparent that it was a centerpiece to the overall plan.
Back to my question. Is a long war good or bad for Bush? It, as Arthur Kent just said on CNN, is certainly bad for Blair.
It is an attempt to blacken the administration. Politics used to stop at the waters edge, but not anymore by the democrats.
This coming from the people screaming "wag the dog" in 1998 is pretty ironic.
6959. Al D - 3/29/2003 9:56:32 PM
jay
How did I get to be "the people"? the only war Saddam can win is the propaganga war. That he will win it in most countries of the world seems obvious. It makes me sick that he is getting support from many in the U.S. Is the need on the left to get rid of Bush so strong that all this carping about quagmire and being mis-led by Bush is needed? I get told I should shut up and stop carping, give it a rest, try discussing something of substance but the Wiz posts crap over and over again and nary a word is said by one poster on the left, except praise.
I have tried to discuss in a reasonable manner, and appreciate your responses. But let's face it, the Mote isn't the perfect place for a serious discussion.
6960. Al D - 3/29/2003 9:58:28 PM
jay
By the by, just exactly is the lengh of a long war? I don't think anyone benefits from long wars, and I pity the Iraqi people.
6961. jayackroyd - 3/29/2003 10:20:16 PM
The point is not the length of the war. The point is that the strategy is broken, and the terms under which the war begun are no longer operative. Expectations have been set that were very ambitious, even if the Shi-ites had risen.
Take this from tomorrow's A Href ="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/30/international/worldspecial/29CND-ASSE.html"> NYTimes "A reserve officer was told some time ago, for example, that he would be needed as part of a provisional government in Baghdad, on March 28."
The old cliche is proving true--the plans did not survive the beginning of the battle. Since it's a cliche, that shouldn't surprise us. But this was started with a whole lot of hubris, and promises of minimal collateral damage. The longer it takes, the more civilians will die, especially if it comes to street fighting in Baghdad. The more civilians who die, the more this looks like Soviet-style "liberation."
The war could last so long that the American public loses patience, having been conditioned by predictions from American officials (to quote one of them, Vice President Dick Cheney) that Mr. Hussein's government would prove to be "a house of cards."
from the same article.
6962. jayackroyd - 3/29/2003 10:21:26 PM
One more:
"Saddam won't win," said Richard C. Holbrooke, the former United States representative at the United Nations. "Unlike L.B.J. in Vietnam, Bush won't quit. He's a different kind of Texan. He'll escalate and keep escalating. In the end his military strategy will probably succeed in destroying Saddam.
"But it may result in a Muslim jihad against us and our friends. Achieving our narrow objective of regime change may take so long and trigger so many consequences that it's no victory at all. Our ultimate goal, which is promoting stability in the Middle East, may well prove elusive."
6963. jayackroyd - 3/29/2003 10:28:46 PM
It makes me sick that he is getting support from many in the U.S.
It doesn't work that way, Al. That's like saying Bush supports Kim Chong-il because he didn't go to war against him.I don't know anyone who supports Saddam Hussein. The argument before the war was whether inspections should be continued. Now the argument is about how well the administration was prepared for adversity, and whether, it should have, for example worked out a way to establish a northern front before launching.
Or, iow, it looks like the thing that was most important to the administration was starting the war on time. UN slows things down. Screw the UN. Blix wants more time. He's out of time. Turkey won't agree to support an invasion. Screw them.
6964. Al D - 3/29/2003 10:30:58 PM
There is no way the west can lose this war, no matter how tough we have to get. We fucked up one war because we didn't have resolve, and I can't believe we would do it again. Iraqis will die in the proportion they fight. If they fight, they are not innocent civilians, even females. To defeat the strongst Nation in the world would so embolden Muslims that first Israel would be driven into the sea, and then they would pay back France, Italy, England, Christian Nations for the crudades, Spain for driving Muslims out of Spain, France colonizing African Nations, Englands occuping Palistine/Iraq, etc. Muslims have long memories and revenge a way of life.
6965. Al D - 3/29/2003 10:36:55 PM
jay
Do you really believe we could have kept troops in the ME for as long as France and Blix wanted to screw around? Do you believe that without the troops there Saddam would have put up with a weenie like Blix? You are much too bright to think that. And I am not accusing anyone of supporting Saddam, except Wiz and Cellar, but as useful idiots they are helping him win the propaganda war.
the only thing Arabs respect is power. That is why they give a grudging respect to a monster. All rulers of Arab countries can be brutal, as daddy Assad was in Syria. But Saddam tops the list.
6966. Al D - 3/29/2003 10:41:41 PM
jay
and whether, it should have, for example worked out a way to establish a northern front before launching.
Just what would you suggest? Perhaps we should have first taken over Syria, then we would have had lots of room for our forces. But maybe B. Assad will keep shooting off his mouth and give us the chance. Everybody says we're Imperialistic, so maybe we should prove them right.
But it does strike me as odd that you, a person who wants Saddam removed, and how else but by war, are so quick (10 days into battle) to start your hand wringing.
6967. jayackroyd - 3/29/2003 10:45:43 PM
Al,
The point is that, as I said during the run-up to this, that proceeding without support from NATO and the UN was going to be problematic. What I suggested then was to isolate France by fixing a deadline that everyone else agreed was reasonable. That would have given time to work out the deal with Turkey.
6968. Al D - 3/29/2003 11:01:55 PM
jay
But France insisted they would never accept any resolution that called for military action. Don't you believe that France's support of 1441 was set as a fatal trap for Bush and Blair? Do you really think Syria would have voted yes unless France had assured them they would never let the U.S. go to war? In some ways, it is a blessing Bush is not of high intelligence. He would be like Hamlet, never quite knowing if action was the right step. While Bush is not as brilliant as Clinton, he is decisive, and evidently quite odd, in that he doesn't prefer blow jobs to war.
6969. jayackroyd - 3/29/2003 11:36:23 PM
I believe it was well within the realm of possibility to create a deadline that Blix would have said was reasonable, and a majority of the Security Council would have supported and would have made France's obstructionism clear. As it is, the US ended up looking like an imperialist, wanting war at any price.
And, now, the fine principles of liberation, freeing the Iraqi people, preserving the infrastructure and striking only at the regime are crumbling. Things change rapidly, and it may be the case that enough southern Iraqis will come to believe that the US is not conquering the country, and will rise up. But the longer this last, and the more valid military targets we add to the list (I saw the first step down the slippery slope on Thursday, when a marine sergeant says there are certain civilian vehicle models that have been carrying munitions, and are now valid targets.)
6970. judithathome - 3/30/2003 10:02:46 AM
And I am not accusing anyone of supporting Saddam, except Wiz and Cellar, but as useful idiots they are helping him win the propaganda war.
What did you mean by this, then?
It makes me sick that he is getting support from many in the U.S.
Al, I am sorry we haven't the Perfect place here for you to post; evidently your idea of Perfect is the place where everyone aggrees with you and every thing is peachy keen. But you are right: this ain't that place.
I'm also sorry you feel we must cancel our dinner in Kona but that's your call. We were...and are...looking forward to it but if you'd rather skip it, I will understand completely.
6971. magoseph - 3/30/2003 10:06:27 AM
You two have plenty of time until then to make up and break again, in my unasked opinion.
6972. judithathome - 3/30/2003 10:07:43 AM
Ha! True.
6973. vanTHEman - 3/30/2003 4:53:16 PM
Mona Charen is scheduled to discuss her latest book Useful Idiots: How Liberals Got It Wrong In the Cold War and Still Blame America First at 8:00 pmest on this week's C-Span "Booknotes".
From the book jacket: "...she exposes: Prominent liberals who served in the Clinton administration - Madeleine Albright, Sidney Blumenthal, and Strobe Talbott - all of whom turned a blind eye to the Soviet "Evil Empire", but now want to be counted as Cold Warriors..." Should be worth much more than the price of admission....
6974. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/30/2003 6:01:45 PM
6975. alistairconnor - 3/30/2003 6:16:17 PM
I believe it was well within the realm of possibility to create a deadline that Blix would have said was reasonable, and a majority of the Security Council would have supported and would have made France's obstructionism clear.
Except that France would have supported it too. Which was why the US couldn't allow it to happen.
France's opposition to war without finishing inspection was based on the simple premise that such a war was a really, really bad idea.
History will judge.
6976. Al D - 3/30/2003 6:21:35 PM
Well, that's what makes horse races. For me, removing Saddam was reason enough. The rest is window dressing. It is somewhat of a surprise that so many people want to see such a monster stay in power. But why should it be a surprise? Europe didn't mind Hitler in power as long as he just killed Jews, Christians (mostly protestants), Slavs, and Reds.
Plese don't assume I like seeing American G.I.'s die. My brother spent many years in France before they shipped his body back home.
6977. ronski - 3/30/2003 6:34:01 PM
Christians (mostly protestants)
Jehova's Witnesses, pacifist sects, perhaps, but not Lutherans and Calvinists in any greater number than Catholics, I don't believe.
6978. magoseph - 3/30/2003 6:34:17 PM
Europe didn't mind Hitler in power as long as he just killed Jews, Christians (mostly protestants), Slavs, and Reds.
The United States maintained diplomatic relations with Germany until Hitler in what appears a moment of insanity declared war on us.
6979. ronski - 3/30/2003 6:34:55 PM
ital
6980. ronski - 3/30/2003 6:35:17 PM
Fixed?
6981. judithathome - 3/30/2003 6:35:54 PM
Toys
6982. ronski - 3/30/2003 6:36:31 PM
Again.
6983. alistairconnor - 3/30/2003 6:37:14 PM
I don't want such a monster to stay in power. The question was, what is the price? It was always going to be very high, in terms of Iraqi lives, and in terms of resulting upheavals, terrorism etc. I believe that Americans supported the war because they severely underestimated that price. Obviously, they support finishing the war now it's started, but once it's over, an awful lot will have changed their minds about the whole thing being worth it.
6984. magoseph - 3/30/2003 6:37:23 PM
Mona Charen? A wannabe Ann Coulter! I hear she's a very good friend of Murdoch.
6985. judithathome - 3/30/2003 6:37:24 PM
Not backing the war is hardly the same as wanting to keep Saddam in power. Does the Pope want to keep Saddam in power? Or does he simply oppose the war?
6986. magoseph - 3/30/2003 6:47:38 PM
So does anyone have any opinions on the political fallout of an extended war? Is Bush helped or hurt if it goes on for months rather than weeks?
Jay, I believe that if Bush establishes the fact that Iraq has stocks of nerve gas, mustard gas, anthrax, etc. all is forgiven and whatever happens on the war timeline, will have little or no negative effect. I believe his real vulnerability lies in the economy. In fact, I think that he could win the war going away and go down hard in the election if enough people are losing their homes.
6987. jayackroyd - 3/30/2003 7:24:45 PM
It is somewhat of a surprise that so many people want to see such a monster stay in power.
This is the most compelling argument for the war. It is one the administration chose not to make until very late in the game. And they didn't make this argument nearly as well as Blair did.
There are several obvious rejoinders, involving other monsters, and timing (Why now? Why not 1998? Why not 1992? Why not wait six more months and get international consensus?).
6988. vanTHEman - 3/30/2003 8:07:43 PM
Bill Kristol captured the American left perfectly today when he said:
The American left hates George Bush more than they love America.
6989. Edmund Dantes - 3/30/2003 10:16:08 PM
The United States maintained diplomatic relations with Germany until Hitler in what appears a moment of insanity declared war on us.
Technically true. However, the United States severed existing trade agreements with Germany after the Nazis rise to power and recalled our ambassador in protest of Kristallnacht (1938).
More importantly, US Naval forces had already been attacking German ships for about two months when Pearl Harbor occurred. Strict neutrality had already been abandoned as soon as war broke out, with the US selling arms to the Aliies, then transferring overage destroyers to the British Navy, and finally the Lend-Lease Act was passed and then extended to the Soviet Union as soon as the latter was attacked by Germany in 1941.
6990. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/30/2003 11:47:42 PM
http://www.expatica.com/index.asp?pad=34,368,&item_id=29857George's little antics
. . . The fact that the BBC has "profusely and repeatedly apologised" to the White House and that the administration has removed control of feeds from the networks and put it in their own hands as a result of the blunder, should indicate the seriousness of what you were not supposed to see. Ditto the absolute absence of any media coverage of the incident.
The footage was the most disturbing thing on television in some time. There was US President George W Bush, being prepped for his televised declaration of war. It was not the combing of his hair, the only aspect of the coverage reported by any American media outlet (the Washington Post in this case), which was cause for embarrassment; everyone expects that. Rather, it was the demeanour — I would say antics — of the president himself.
Bush, the so-called leader of the free world, was sitting behind his desk going over his speech, as we would expect. But then it got weird. I felt like I was looking behind the curtain, and it was uglier than I ever imagined. . . .
6991. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/30/2003 11:49:06 PM
George's little antics
6992. robertjayb - 3/31/2003 12:09:39 AM
"...lackadaisical lily-dipper"
Wish I had typed that.
6993. Al D - 3/31/2003 1:52:47 AM
Edmond
Of course you are correct that Roosevelt took a dim viewe of Hitler. After June 1940, he took a much dimmer view. Why do suppose that was?
Not backing the war is hardly the same as wanting to keep Saddam in power. Does the Pope want to keep Saddam in power? Or does he simply oppose the war?
Well, I suppose this is kiss and make up time. Sorry I got so pissed. I know you don't want Saddam in power, and I know you don't want war. Me either. If I had a tooth ache I would want the pain to go away. Would it make sense to say I didn't want the dentist in my mouth? I'm not questioning your motives, just your judgement.
6994. alistairConnor - 3/31/2003 3:24:52 AM
Al :
But why should it be a surprise? Europe didn't mind Hitler in power as long as he just killed Jews, Christians (mostly protestants), Slavs, and Reds.
Isn't that a little bit anachronistic? What is this "Europe" you're talking about? Sure, Hitler started persecuting people, locking them up etc in the 30s, but extermination only started once he had conquered most of Europe.
6995. alistairConnor - 3/31/2003 3:39:44 AM
Monty :
Roosevelt's hands are not clean with respect to 1940-41. The State Department's eagerness to maintain close relations with Vichy France made them actively collaborate in stemming the flow of refugees (mostly Jewish) through southern France, and sabotage the work of Varian Fry's Emergency Rescue Committee.
Just thought I'd mention that, because I've recently read Mary Jayne Gold's memoir Crossroads Marseille 1940, which I warmly recommend, and I'm very much looking forward to the film.
6996. vanTHEman - 3/31/2003 8:52:49 AM
The death of retired New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan has written yet another chapter in the bitter war between junior senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and senior senator Charles Schumer. Last Wednesday both senators received calls from the Moynihan family informing them of the senator's death as well as of their plans to announce his passing at a time convenient to the family.
Both Clinton and Schumer were participating in meetings when the calls came but evidently did not want to miss out on the PR buzz that would come from announcing the great Moynihan's death themselves.
"Clinton could barely contain herself with the news," says a Senate Democratic staffer present at the meeting Hillary was attending along with a number of other Democratic senators. "She practically ran out the door to make the announcement."
Clinton beat both Schumer's and the Moynihan family's announcements by several hours. But Schumer, instead of being angry at Clinton's ghastly behavior, was more upset that she did not follow Senate protocol and allow the state's senior senator to make the announcement.
Word now is that both Clinton and Schumer are jockeying for the better seating position at Moynihan's funeral.
6997. alistairConnor - 3/31/2003 8:58:34 AM
Advisers Split as War Unfolds
Already there is a behind-the-scenes effort by former senior Republican government officials and party leaders to convince President Bush that the advice he has received from Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz -- a powerful triumvirate frequently at odds with Secretary of State Colin L. Powell -- has been wrong and even dangerous to long-term U.S. national interests.
Oh really? Whatever makes them think that?
Bush, who appears to value tension among his top advisers, "has been very Delphic on this and hard to read" on the emerging internal debate, a Bush adviser said.
You lucky people. You have Chance the Gardener for president.
6998. jayackroyd - 3/31/2003 9:08:47 AM
kausfiles analyzes this, and other related stories.
6999. vanTHEman - 3/31/2003 9:22:53 AM
In 1994 Peetah Jennings claimed that the American electorate had a 'temper tantrum' when they elected a Republican House and Senate.
How is it that Peetah cannot recognize the ongoing tantrum on the left about the 2000 Presidential election?
7000. alistairConnor - 3/31/2003 9:45:04 AM
Humbug.
7001. alistairConnor - 3/31/2003 9:45:23 AM
Haven't had a millenial in years.
7002. VanTHEman - 3/31/2003 2:49:01 PM
When anti-American war protesters descended upon Fox News Channel's Manhattan headquarters yesterday, the No. 1 cable news network used its news zipper to fire back.
In red neon letters that crawled across the building from the Avenue of the Americas to 48th Street, the peacenistas were taunted with barbs like:
"War protester auditions here today. . . . Thanks for coming!," "How do you keep a war protester in suspense? Ignore them" and "Attention protesters: The Michael Moore Fan Club meets Thursday at a phone booth at Sixth Avenue and 50th Street."
"I thought I'd have some fun with it," Fox zipper-writer Marvin Himelfarb told the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz. "I couldn't resist."
7003. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/31/2003 4:37:40 PM
7004. VanTHEman - 3/31/2003 4:49:03 PM
- - - - - - - - - - - -
"A million Mogadishus"
Those antiwar leftists who equate Bush with Saddam and cheer U.S. military setbacks bring moral squalor to their cause.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
By Andrew Sullivan
March 29, 2003 |
The coming weeks are going to be critical for the left in this country for a very simple reason. Legitimate, important, valid or even extreme and hyperbolic arguments before a war are one thing. But they have a different salience when they are made during a war -- especially one that has barely even begun. There are already polling suggestions that the antiwar movement is at this point bolstering public support for the war. But if the antiwar rhetoric among the extreme left continues in the same vein as it has this first week, the marginalization of the left in this country, already profound, might become irreversible.
Let me take two comments this past week. In the Boston Globe, James Carroll explicitly denied any moral difference between the regime in Baghdad and the administration in Washington. He described the "shock and awe" air campaign as if it were the direct equivalent of 9/11:
"And what, exactly, would justify such destruction? What would make it an act of virtue? And is it possible to imagine that such violence could be wreaked in a spirit of cold detachment, by controllers sitting at screens dozens, hundreds, even thousands of miles distant? And in what way would such 'decapitation' spark in the American people anything but a horror to make memories of 9/11 seem a pleasant dream? If our nation, in other words, were on its receiving end, illusions would lift and we would see 'shock and awe' for exactly what it is --terrorism pure and simple."
7005. VanTHEman - 4/1/2003 10:00:37 AM
Ex-Clinton aide reveals Bill lost the nuclear codes
Former President Clinton lost the codes to nuclear war the day the Monica Lewinsky affair broke, was MIA in the fall of 1998 when a decision was needed on the killing of Osama bin Laden, and was "too busy watching a golf match" to OK a 1996 bombing mission in Iraq, says a blockbuster new book by Clinton's former military aide. Lt. Col. Robert Patterson, who carried the nuclear "football" from May 1996 to May 1998, crosses a line no other "mil aide" has before in condemning his commander in chief in Dereliction of Duty: The Eyewitness Account of How Bill Clinton Compromised America's National Security. "This story had to be told." But a Clinton national security aide, William Danvers, tells us Clinton was never "unavailable for key" decisions and didn't jeopardize U.S. security. One story: The day the Lewinsky scandal broke, Clinton was to trade in his "biscuit" with the nuclear launch codes. But they were missing. "We never did get them back," says Patterson. Then there's bin Laden: Clinton ducked calls from the Situation Room to ok a Tomahawk attack in 1998, then waffled until it was too late.
7006. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 4/1/2003 11:29:07 AM
Work that ballistic missile, Rosie!
7007. OhioSTOPAS - 4/2/2003 5:25:18 PM
Today’s episode of “George W. Bush: Instrument of Providence,” from today's USA Today :
"Bush believes he was called by God to lead the nation at this time, says Commerce Secretary Don Evans, a close friend who talks with Bush every day."
It was God who put Bush in charge? Maybe Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson were right in their post-9/11 remarks - He IS mad at us.
7008. judithathome - 4/2/2003 5:34:40 PM
I think it's wonderful Bush gave up sweets, though.
7009. magoseph - 4/2/2003 6:36:12 PM
He has a very good inner gyroscope, a stabilizer that keeps him centered.
I wonder what it is, that gyroscope. Instead of watching his war right now, I could use one to keep me centered on what I am supposed to do around here.
7010. OhioSTOPAS - 4/3/2003 6:21:12 AM
Regarding Bush's reported belief that "he was called by God to lead the nation at this time."
1. Isn't this evidence of dementia?
2. If Bush's view is correct, what does this say about God and 9/11? There was no crisis when God installed Bush in office to lead America "at this time" [i.e., the trying times since 9/11/01]. Therefore God knew what would happen on 9/11/01 when He installed Bush in office in 2000? Why didn't God use His powers to stop 9/11 instead?
3. Will any member of our lapdog press have the temerity to perhaps ask the President, or a spokesperson for the President, if the President really fucking believes this?
7011. VanTHEman - 4/3/2003 6:54:07 AM
Eagleburger: NY Times Asked Me to Trash Bush
Former Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger revealed late Wednesday that the New York Times recently asked him to write an essay on the Iraq war - but only on the condition that he would be critical of the Bush administration.
"About ten days ago I was approached by the New York Times to write an op-ed piece," Eagleburger told Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes." "When I talked to them about it I was told, 'What we want is criticism of the administration.'"
"They told you that?" asked an incredulous Sean Hannity.
"Yes, right out, flat out," Eagleburger replied. "He told me, 'We want criticism of the administration.'
"Needless to say," the former Secretary of State added, "I did not write the op-ed piece."
FAIR & BALANCED NEWS FROM THE UNBIASED NYT
7012. magoseph - 4/3/2003 7:14:15 AM
...if the President really fucking believes this?
I think that Bush has two real beliefs--To win the next election requires a lot of money. He has taken care of that with his tax-cut to the wealthy. In addition, he has to hold the religious right: The true believers. With these two groups he wins. I don't think it is any more complicated than that. Every decision he and his group make is based on those two things.
7013. PelleNilsson - 4/3/2003 10:18:52 AM
You mean wealthy + religious right > 50% of the electorate?
7014. jayackroyd - 4/3/2003 10:29:14 AM
Wealthy = Television advertsing dollars
Religious right = turnout
Judiciously combined, you get > 25% of the eligible voters, since only half turn out. Add in the rural state bias imposed by the electoral college (and a dumbass opponent, due to be repeated in 04), and you have >50% of the electoral votes.
7015. marjoribanks - 4/3/2003 10:34:51 AM
Every indication we have, every personal account and every unscripted statement from Bush - everything- indicates that the simpleton President does in fact believe that he was selected by God to be in charge during this clash between Good and Evil.
Yes, he does fucking believe it and no one should be surprised because so much of his bedrock support comes from messianic Christians who also believe it and further believe all kinds of mumbo-jumbo about the coming apocalypse.
Thankfully, the men who actually chose Bush, surround and manipulate him, and who are completely in charge, are amoral cynics. Bush can scurry around believing that God chose him all he wants.
7016. PelleNilsson - 4/3/2003 10:47:15 AM
jay
I get your point (and magoseph's).
7017. magoseph - 4/3/2003 10:55:59 AM
Marjoribanks,
I read him as a sly and cunning opportunist. I don't believe he has a religious bone in his body. He just plays dumbo very well.
7018. marjoribanks - 4/3/2003 11:17:29 AM
For a variety of reasons — respect for the constitutional separation of church and state, deference to cultural pluralism, political expediency, modesty, uncertainty - American presidents have generally toned down the theocratic proclamations of their Puritan forbears...
The current occupant of the Oval Office is a striking exception. President Bush often sounds like a Puritan theocrat. In 2001, after the horrific events of Sept. 11, he told reporters: "Our nation was chosen by God and mandated by history to serve as a model of justice."
Bush envisions the world as a moral battleground between Good and Evil, the powers of Light pitted against the powers of Darkness. In a radio address on March 30, 2002, he said: "We place our sorrows and cares before him, seeking God's mercy. We can be confident that evil may be present and it may be strong, but it will not prevail. We are assured that history is of moral design. Justice and cruelty have always been at war, and God is not neutral between them. His purposes are often defied, but never defeated."
In a 2002 speech in Knoxville, Tenn., Bush specified how to deal with evildoers: "The best way to fight evil is to do some good. Let me qualify that -the best way to fight evil at home is to do some good. The best way to fight them abroad is to unleash the military."
When militant nationalism is bolstered by religious fervor, the world has reason to be leery. When heads of state view themselves as instruments of the divine will, they tend to be oblivious to mere human opinion, particularly when it differs from their own, since those who have God on their side always (as Henry David Thoreau said) constitute a majority of one. To the anointed, wars are holy crusades. Supporters become saints, protesters reprobates. The virtuous cannot fail to see where simple truth and goodness lie.
From the Anchorage Observer via Mother Jones.
7019. marjoribanks - 4/3/2003 11:18:52 AM
Doesn't the last para read eerily spot-on?
7020. magoseph - 4/3/2003 11:46:10 AM
Said Bush: Let me qualify that - the best way to fight evil at home is to do some good.
To him then, all of us who are not among the very rich must be evil. Didn't Hussein lately call for Jihad?
Doesn't the last para read eerily spot-on?
Yes, if you choose to believe his rheroric. Virtuous, Bush? Give me a break! And mind you, marj, I have been very vocal about my stance on this war, and it is not yours.
7021. judithathome - 4/3/2003 11:57:48 AM
The last paragraph in that article could apply easily to Saddam, too.
7022. magoseph - 4/3/2003 12:06:29 PM
Ouch, sorry, Dantes!
rheroric=rhetoric
7023. PelleNilsson - 4/3/2003 12:07:20 PM
No. Saddam is not motivated by religion. The last few years he has used religion as part of his rhetoric. Perhaps it's the same with Bush?
7024. marjoribanks - 4/3/2003 12:08:29 PM
My point (and the article's point) is that Bush does see the world in a manner that makes supporters into grand heroes and opponents into craven 'evildoer'-material, and views military campaigns such as the one in Iraq as crusades to deliver us from evil. It is also readily apparent that Bush is shocked when people oppose him and his tactics, especially people who have been on his side before - in his Manichean simpleton's vision of the world it is so very easily apparent what is good and what is evil and he expects everyone else to share that view.
I suggest a re-reading of this article which was quoted above.
7025. marjoribanks - 4/3/2003 12:13:03 PM
You are according Bush more brains than anyone knows he has. Cunning, a certain ability to use folksy-style, a winning aw-shucks manner, yes. Brains, the ability to pretend to be religious - no.
I wonder if Hooligan is around and would be willing to honestly state whether he (and presumably his fundie buddies) does or does not believe that Bush was ordained by God to lead a prophesied endgame leading to the apocalypse. I've taken to idly watching CBN late-night (they have news, with embedded correspondents and all that) and it is so terribly obvious that Robertson does believe it all.
7026. judithathome - 4/3/2003 12:34:44 PM
Saddam is not motivated by religion
Different ideologies, same megalomania.
7027. PelleNilsson - 4/3/2003 12:35:37 PM
I wasn't "according" Bush anything at all. I merely posed a question. What a gift it must be to be so dead-sure about things as you are.
7028. judithathome - 4/3/2003 12:38:13 PM
I thought he was addressing that to Magoseph, Pelle.
7029. marjoribanks - 4/3/2003 12:39:34 PM
And what a curse it must be, Smelle, to read everything written on this site as a personal missive directed at you.
Thbfft!
7030. PelleNilsson - 4/3/2003 12:41:09 PM
I apologize marj. Maybe we (including me) should make it clear whom we respond to.
7031. marjoribanks - 4/3/2003 12:46:05 PM
No problem, my Old European pal. I appreciated the opportunity to name-call gratuitously.
7032. judithathome - 4/3/2003 12:46:17 PM
Pelle:
If you had been reading the exchange between the two, you might have figured it out without a salutation. ;-)
7033. VanTHEman - 4/3/2003 12:59:04 PM
Concert-goers jam exits after anti-Bush display By Mark Brown, Rocky Mountain News April 3, 2003 Incensed fans walked out of Pearl Jam's concert Tuesday after lead singer Eddie Vedder impaled a mask of President Bush on a microphone stand, then slammed it to the stage. Most of Vedder's antiwar remarks earlier in the Pepsi Center show were greeted with mixed cheers and scattered boos. But dozens of angry fans walked out during the encore because of the macabre display with the Bush mask, which he wore for the song Bushleaguer, a Bush- taunting song from the band's latest album, Riot...
7034. thoughtful - 4/3/2003 1:27:04 PM
Is that usa toady..er...today article linked above for real?
The president is under a great deal of stress because he's given up sweets? He rarely jokes any more? He's worried about his weight and his running time? He's actually taken to reading the papers every morning? He's keeping Laura close at hand? He's had to shorten the length of some meetings? He watches war coverage on TV?
Is that for real?
Is he getting shot at? Is he waking up to the sound of gun fire? Is he wearing a flak jacket? Is he full of sand? Is he living in desert heat? Does he keep a gas mask at his side all night long? Is he thousands of miles away from his family? Does his family know where he is? Is he eating reconstituted food and MREs? Is he facing instantaneous life/death decisions as Iraqis approach him who may be either just thirsty citizens, or armed soldiers in civvies? Is he facing the wreckage and bloody corpse aftermath of bombs and battles? A bloody hand here, a torso there, picking up a wounded child from a dead mother's arms? Is he bandaging himself or his buddies after getting wounded?
Is this for real?
He's still going to bed at 10 p.m. every night. I guarantee you the unrelieved troops of the 3rd infantry division are not getting so much rest. The earliest they can be relieved by another division is weeks away thanks to Rummy's interference in military planning. See Seymour Hersh's New Yorker Piece to learn more.
Is this for real?
7035. magoseph - 4/3/2003 1:40:58 PM
Marj,
We each gave our opinion on this matter. Let's see what the others have to say about it.
7036. KuligintheHooligan - 4/3/2003 1:42:07 PM
"I wonder if Hooligan is around and would be willing to honestly state whether he (and presumably his fundie buddies) does or does not believe that Bush was ordained by God to lead a prophesied endgame leading to the apocalypse."
Looks like I decided to peek in at just the right time.
In answer to your question, marjori, I wouldn't presume to know such things, or even to surmise them. If Pat Robertson does, then that is just another reason why I don't particularly like him or his brand of Dispensationalism. These guys have for decades make declarations about this or that and haven't gotten it right yet.
However, I do believe Bush's Christian faith is extremely important to him, and for that I am very happy to have him at the helm. Clinton's claimed to be a Southern Baptist, but his faith was never really operative in his decisions, and in fact, many of the things he supported went against Baptist convictions. He was a Christian in name only. But I get the impression that Bush is a genuine believer in Jesus Christ, and for that, I am very grateful to have him as President.
Bush clearly sees the many moral problems our country has, and he seems willing to tackle those issues head on. With Clinton, you got the impression that he believed what the polls told him to believe. With Bush, he believes what he believes, and who cares if others do not. I like that. Very Reaganesque.
7037. thoughtful - 4/3/2003 1:45:24 PM
This really makes me angry. I was against this war from the beginning.
But war was decided. By some accounts, as early as last July. Certainly more than enough time to plan, prepare, ship equipment, supplies, etc. So if you want war, need war, decide for war, why on earth wouldn't you do it whole hog? Even a dope like me knows that if you are going to go to war, you need to do it the BEST way possible. Anything less means more lives lost, more wounded, more suffering and higher costs in the long run. Why on earth, even if you believe it won't be so long and messy, wouldn't you give our soldiers their best fighting chance by bringing overwhelming force, even if you don't have to use it all? Why on earth would you RELY on the assumption that the enemy will welcome you with open arms!?!?! If you want the enemy to welcome you, it's a lot easier to accomplish when they face an overwhelming force rather than a strung out one.
Certainly it can't be the money....not with this administration's desire to give billions back to the wealthy. Not with the billions they stand to make in rebuilding iraq's oil industry.
Is it Rummy's ego? He knows better than even the military professionals who he's currently hanging out to dry? He certainly was around during Vietnam....he knows why that war was lost. Has he forgotten in his dotage?
What is wrong with these people?
7038. robertjayb - 4/3/2003 1:45:59 PM
Good Lord! Good Grief!
7039. KuligintheHooligan - 4/3/2003 1:47:04 PM
However, don't assume that, just because the guy is a Christian, that I think he will make a good President. I deplored the one or two friends I had who said that, if I didn't support Pat Robertson those years ago when he made the run, that I was sinning. Also, I don't agree with everything Bush says or does. For example, his comments on Islam as a "peace loving religion" is just nuts.
It is a breath of fresh air to see a President care about moral matters, especially after the eight years in the cesspool that we had with Clinton.
Also, just keep in mind that I am not inundated with the press and the coverage of Iraq, the Presidency, and so on, while here in Africa. We get one hour of CNN a day here.
7040. judithathome - 4/3/2003 1:58:06 PM
So you think it Christian to kill people in order to liberate them? Give me the cesspool that was Clinton any old day.
7041. KuligintheHooligan - 4/3/2003 2:10:12 PM
In any war, there will be civilian casualties. But the amount of civilian casualties caused by Saddam's regime far outweigh what has been lost in this present war against his regime.
My uncle was a Colonel in the US Army, and he fought in WW2 and Korea. I asked him once if he had any problems with his Christian faith and fighting in war. He told me, "If you saw what Hitler was doing to people, how could you just sit back and not attempt to stop him." The exact same thing can be said today.
So, if you prefer that scumbag Clinton, Judith, so be it. He did nothing about Saddam, and if you like that, fine. It is your right to like what you like, no matter how stupid it might be to like it.
7042. VanTHEman - 4/3/2003 2:39:10 PM
She only hopes...
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., predicted Tuesday that the Iraq war will not only cause mass casualties among Iraqi forces, but it will also cost the lives of "thousands" of U.S. soldiers. "I think that it's very important to have as pillars of our foreign policy promoting democratic values [and] stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction," the top House Democrat told CNBC's "Capital Report." Then Pelosi unloaded her morale-crushing comment, "But I think that there are other ways to go about it than to have thousands of people killed on both sides." With the exception of Rush...
7043. marjoribanks - 4/3/2003 4:15:54 PM
Thanks for the response, Hooligan.
--
Now, you want to be really scared and outraged? Read these comments by ex-CIA chief Woolsey. These unbelievable statements aren't made in a vacuum - this is the man the Pentagon is heavily backing to be the interim head of Iraq's all-important Ministry of Information.
Can you imagine? Read this from any Arab's perspective, even one who is a supporter of this campaign in Iraq. Hell, read it from any sane person's perspective let alone America's allies in the region.
I hope that these comments instantly disqualify Woolsey from any post-War role. And if they don't, all of us sitting in potential target cities in this "World War IV" better get our tickets booked for distant hinterlands. What a fricking disaster.
7044. VanTHEman - 4/3/2003 4:53:19 PM
WASHINGTON, Apr 3, 2003 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Marc Racicot, Chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC), today issued the following statement on recent comments made by Senator John Kerry (D-MA) in which he suggested America, like Iraq, needs a "regime change":
"Senator Kerry crossed a grave line when he dared to suggest the replacement of America's commander-in-chief at a time when America is at war. Critical analysis offered in the best interests of the country is part of a healthy democracy. But this use of self-serving rhetoric designed to further Senator Kerry's political ambitions at a time when the lives of America's sons and daughters are at stake reflects a complete lack of judgment. The men and women who are putting themselves in harm's way on the orders of our commander- in-chief deserve better from someone who aspires to that high office."
7045. judithathome - 4/3/2003 5:00:08 PM
this use of self-serving rhetoric designed to further Senator Kerry's political ambitions at a time when the lives of America's sons and daughters are at stake reflects a complete lack of judgment.
Please. It's difficult to see the rhetoric for the trees.
7046. ronski - 4/3/2003 5:48:55 PM
He (Woolsey) said the new war is actually against three enemies: the religious rulers of Iran, the "fascists" of Iraq and Syria, and Islamic extremists like al Qaeda."
marj,
He's not saying America is at war with Arabs or Muslims. He is saying there is an undeclared war between America and Islamofascists, whether of the theocratic or secular variety. I agree with him.
Whether he should be appointed to a post in Iraq is another matter, but I would not have a problem with it.
7047. concerned - 4/3/2003 5:50:12 PM
Re. 7037 -
'thoughtful' -
Good stuff, that. What you lack in accuracy, you make up for in conviction.
7048. judithathome - 4/3/2003 5:59:02 PM
Whether he should be appointed to a post in Iraq is another matter, but I would not have a problem with it.
Well, that's good because he's probably packing his bags even as we read.
7049. concerned - 4/3/2003 6:01:20 PM
Re. 7046 -
Many among the Left more or less secretly admire fascism....
7050. marjoribanks - 4/3/2003 6:08:21 PM
He's not saying America is at war with Arabs or Muslims. He is saying there is an undeclared war between America and Islamofascists, whether of the theocratic or secular variety. I agree with him.
Ronski,
This is an appalling oversimplification of the facts involved in the US-led campaign, of what the past couple of years has thrown up, and even of what Woolsey said (the lunatic put close US allies Mubarak and the Sauds on notice as well.)
Any attempt to put Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, Iraq, and al Qaeda all into the common folder marked enemy is insane and it would be a very very grave error for the US to do so and is also a grave error coming from you, a usually thoughtful man. I will detail some of these errors:
1) Al Qaeda is a non-state actor whose main enemy for the past decade (before 9/11) has actually been some of these state governments you want to pile in with it as the enemy.
2) Islamofascist is an absolutely idiotic term when applied to Mubarak or Assad - both avowed secularist strongmen who have killed more Islamists individually than the US is likely to kill Iraqis in this campaign. Furthermore, Mubarak is a very close ally of the West - he is your/my friend if you want to draw any us/them lines in the Arab sands.
3) Assad is not only cozying up assiduously to the UK - it has been one of the closest collaborators of the US in the region in the other war, you know - the war on terror and Al Qaeda. In the case of some arrests made in germany, the US hastened to have the detainees sent to Syria rather than to Guantanamo.
7051. marjoribanks - 4/3/2003 6:08:47 PM
4) Iran is building ever-better relations with the West, especially the UK, under Khatami. Even with regard to the US, there has been a massive softening up of the unofficial stance. Iran, as a society, has learned to like the US. Repeatedly slapping them in the head is very stupid.
5) Saudi Arabia is the best friend the US has in the region, when it comes to economic impact. They have 25% of the world's oil reserves and have never ceased to play ball when called on. Yes, they've played an endless double game - Woolsey's comments can be seen as evidence that the US is too - but putting the Saudi leadership into the enemy folder is absurd.
7052. marjoribanks - 4/3/2003 6:15:48 PM
It is totally fucking insane to call your allies the enemy, your only real partner's (UK) allies the enemy, and to lump them all in with their own sworn enemy - al Qaeda. At this rate, you may as well toss in the deeply religious and anti-war populaces of Qatar, Kuwait and UAE (all staging-grounds for this war and US collaborators) and be done with it. Everyone is the enemy.
7053. OhioSTOPAS - 4/3/2003 8:00:29 PM
From #7044:
"Marc Racicot, Chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC), today issued the following statement on recent comments made by Senator John Kerry (D-MA) in which he suggested America, like Iraq, needs a "regime change":
""Senator Kerry crossed a grave line when he dared to suggest the replacement of America's commander-in-chief at a time when America is at war. . . ."
It's a thing called an election, Marc.
7054. Al D - 4/3/2003 8:09:01 PM
It is amusing to read the liberals above going nuts. The same old really stupid Busdh bashing. That article from Mother Earth is just silly. You are all so good at googleing, why not do a search for religeous statements made by past Presidents? Now I realize that the last fellow was such a fucking liar that whatever he said had no real meaning. banks, you are such a pompus fellow that almost anyone on earth pales in intelligence to you. But have no fear, Bush has enough on the ball to get the job done. I would love to play a game a chess with you, because your ability to underestimate is remarkable.
The success of the War is driving you guys bonkers. Sure, you wish no harm to our troops, but you are really pissed that Bush just might come out of this looking pretty good.
b
But I'm sure some of you will insist it was all Blair or Powell.
7055. Ronski - 4/3/2003 9:05:55 PM
marj,
Thanks for the comments. I will respond tomorrow.
Good night.
7056. magoseph - 4/4/2003 10:58:06 AM
Get Ready for PATRIOT II
The "fog of war" obscures more than just news from the battlefield. It also provides cover for radical domestic legislation, especially ill-considered liberty-for-security swaps, which have been historically popular at the onset of major conflicts.
The last time allied bombs fell over a foreign capital, the Bush Administration rammed through the USA PATRIOT Act, a clever acronym for maximum with-us-or-against-us leverage (the full name is "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism").
Remarkably, this 342-page law was written, passed (by a 98-1 vote in the U.S. Senate) and signed into law within seven weeks of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack. As a result, the government gained new power to wiretap phones, confiscate property of suspected terrorists, spy on its own citizens without judicial review, conduct secret searches, snoop on the reading habits of library users, and so General John Ashcroft wants to finish the job. On Jan. 10, 2003, he sent around a draft of PATRIOT II; this time, called "The Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003." The more than 100 new provisions, Justice Department spokesperson Mark Corallo told the Village Voice recently, "will be filling in the holes" of PATRIOT I, "refining things that will enable us to do our job."
7057. VanTHEman - 4/4/2003 2:48:43 PM
Another round of pro-American patriotism, pro-President Bush and anti-liberal jibes, jests, zingers and slams from actor/comedian Dennis Miller on Thursday's Tonight Show with Jay Leno, including a nice shot at Peter Arnett: "How am I supposed to trust the honesty of a reporter that has that bad of a comb-over on top of his head?...Hey guess what Pete? We know you're bald, okay? The outside of your skull is as empty as the inside."
From the April 3 Tonight Show on NBC, most of Miller's cutting observations about the present situation:
-- Pride in conduct of the war: "I cannot tell you how proud watching that war coverage makes me. I know a lot of people are saying that they think that it's, that you know what we're doing is imperialistic. I watch the way we handle ourselves over there and I've never felt more patriotic in my life."
-- Denouncing anti-war protesters, Miller described how he puts them into four categories, the second one made up of those who call everyone but Hussein a Hitler: "The second type you have at these parades seems to be the people who want to mislabel Hitler. Everybody in the world is Hitler. Bush is Hitler, Ashcroft is Hitler, Rumsfeld is Hitler. The only guy who isn't Hitler is the foreign guy with a mustache dropping people who disagree with him into the wood chipper. He's not Hitler."
7058. VanTHEman - 4/4/2003 2:50:59 PM
-- On the up side of war protesters: "I'll say this about the war protesters: At least most of them are only putting duct tape across their mouths so I can still tell the rest of them to blow it out their ass."
-- On the Dixie Chicks: "Surprisingly, making fun of the President on foreign land in a time of war doesn't seem to play with the NASCAR crowd!"
-- On Peter Arnett: "How am I supposed to trust the honesty of a reporter that has that bad of a comb-over on top of his head? He's got four hairs left and he's swirling them around...This guy is dangerously close to pulling hair over from another guy's head. Hey guess what Pete? We know you're bald, okay? The outside of your skull is as empty as the inside."
-- On Michael Moore: "He's going to wake up every day for the rest of his life, and he's going to tell us how he hates everything about this country except his right to hate it. And then we say that we love it and he's going to tell us what naive sheep we are and that he's the true patriot because he hates it and he sees all the problems in it. Yeah, right, Mike. You know something, if my yawn got any bigger they'd have to assign it a hurricane name, okay? "Michael Moore simultaneously represents everything I detest in a human being and everything I feel obligated to defend in an American. Quite simply, it is that stupid moron's right to be that utterly, completely wrong."
7061. VanTHEman - 4/4/2003 3:28:32 PM
The House of Representatives has passed a supplementary budget amendment excluding France, Germany, Russia and Syria from taking part in US-funded reconstruction bids in Iraq, because they opposed the US-led war in Iraq.
7062. arkymalarky - 4/5/2003 12:04:40 AM
Have they passed a resolution to collectively hold their breaths and pout? What a ridiculously petty move.
7063. Ronski - 4/5/2003 9:10:02 AM
marj,
Your main point about Woolsey, in your original post, seems to be that he is going to offend the Arab street. But in addressing the governments of Egypt and Saudi Arabia in his remarks, read what his actual message was to their citizens:
"We want you nervous. We want you to realize now, for the fourth time in a hundred years, this country and its allies are on the march and that we are on the side of those whom you -- the Mubaraks, the Saudi Royal family -- most fear: We're on the side of your own people."
Hardly the sentiments of someone who wants to abuse Arabs. Rather, it is the sentiment of someone who recognizes that the U.S. has made mistakes propping up unpopular regimes in the region, and is fed up with the double dealing of those regimes.
In your subsequent post, you offered evidence of support of America by those regimes. But you miss a key point: the duplicity I refer to above.
Egypt is an ally to a degree, of course, and has been for years. It has done something the West is very happy about: cracking down on terrorists who murdered tourists (though this was clearly in the regime's own interest as well). But it continues to flout most human rights conventions, and far worse from the U.S. perspective, use its state supported media to fan hatred against the U.S. and Israel.
Syria may or may not be aiding Iraq right now, but it supports anti-Israeli terrorism.
Iraq is paused to throw off their mullacracy when the next generation takes over. We will simply let it happen, unless the mullahs get the bomb first, in which case we will deal with them before that happens.
(cont.)
7064. Ronski - 4/5/2003 9:17:09 AM
Saudi Arabia is arguably the worst case, acting like an ally in many respects while subsidizing the most virulent, anti-American, anti-Israeli, anti-Western, and anti-liberal form of Islam. Even in the U.S., eighty percent of the mosques are dominated by Wahabbists.
Wonderful allies? Hardly.
The WW4 meme that Woolsey used is based on the notion that America, Israel and the West are under assault from a parcel of related violent strains of Islam, both secular and religious (not just religious). Granted, the secular and religious strains would be at each other's throat if they ever won in the first place, but they are not going to be allowed to win.
All the secular opponents of the West, from the Saddam regime to the Palestinian terrorists, are happy to use the same jihadist language the bin Laden forces employ. There are distinctions between the secular and theocratic forces attacking the West, but in the end not much practical difference.
Force had to be used in Afghanistan and Iraq. I hope it will prove all that was necessary. I also hope the Administration will do what Blair wants, and follow through on a new peace plan for Israel and Palestine.
As for Woolsey, good cop, bad cop is a time-honored technique. Woolsey makes a fine latter, Powell a fine former.
7065. magoseph - 4/5/2003 9:49:01 AM
Very good analysis, in my opinion, Ronski.
7066. PelleNilsson - 4/5/2003 10:43:41 AM
Ronski
What do you mean by the oxymoron "secular Islam"?
7067. JayAckroyd - 4/5/2003 2:50:24 PM
That is the 64,000 dollar question, Pelle. If that is an oxymoron, then a democratic state cannot exist in a Muslim country. IME with Muslims, it is not particularly oxymoronic, but there are states with governments that support your comment.
7068. PelleNilsson - 4/5/2003 2:59:45 PM
Is there such a thing as "secular Christianity"
7069. Al D - 4/5/2003 3:02:40 PM
Ronski
Hear, Hear! Ataturk was able to form a government with seperation of State and Islam, while the vast majority of Turks are Muslims. We often blame Islam for some of the insane behavior (opinion of many in the west). For example, honor killings, which exist in many Muslim countries, even Jordan. But such behavior pre-dates Islam. I believe such ideas existed in Jewish society; for example, when Jesus came upon a women caught in adultry by a group ready to stone the woman, he told them let the first stone be thrown by one without sin.
7070. jayackroyd - 4/5/2003 3:18:01 PM
Pelle--
There was a piece in the NYTimes Sunday magazine a couple of weeks ago about the islamist viewpoint, and it claimed that the islamists admit no separation of church and state. The guy the article was about was cited as saying that the separation of church and state in Christian societies dooms Christianity to a subsidiary role.
I happen to agree with that. The US is trailing Europe, but once you let science have its way, it becomes clear that any sort of traditional religious belief is nonsense. IMO, that's what the current battle is about--Islamic leaders recognize two things, that science is an opponent of religious belief, and American commercial culture is an insidious force undermining religious practice.
7071. magoseph - 4/5/2003 4:23:06 PM
Pelle, for what ever worth the following is, Islam also means:
a : the civilization erected upon Islamic faith
b : the group of modern nations in which Islam is the dominant religion
7072. Ronski - 4/5/2003 4:58:37 PM
I suppose it was obvious I meant Iran was ready to overthrow its mullahs, not Iraq, in Message # 7063.
Pelle,
Magoseph has answered your question about the seeming oxymoron for me, in Message # 7071.
As for the existence of a secular Christianity, there is also such a thing, as in America is (predominantly) a Christian nation. Also, in the U.S., the courts permit some religious expressions in government (on coinage, in Congress, and once the current case finishes its way through the courts, the pledge of allegiance), because they have traditional, historical overtones, and are as much as part of civil society as non-religious, non-sectarian, patriotic expression. I'd consider that secular Christianity.
But I did mean Islam as in the Islamic world, not simply Islam as a religion.
7073. Ronski - 4/5/2003 7:06:14 PM
Or, "Islam" as in "Christendom."
7074. Al D - 4/5/2003 7:10:06 PM
I don't understand some of these antiwar protesters ... Everybody in the world is 'Hitler.' Bush is 'Hitler,' Ashcroft is 'Hitler,' Rumsfeld is 'Hitler.' The only guy who isn't 'Hitler' is the foreign guy with the mustache dropping people who disagree with him into the wood chipper." -- Dennis Miller on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, April 3, 2003
7075. Ronski - 4/5/2003 7:16:21 PM
Yes. The only Jew-hater in the bunch is not Hitler.
Funny how that is.
7076. robertjayb - 4/6/2003 4:25:29 PM
Fascism creeps in on little pig feet...
(AP) Even as civil libertarians challenge police surveillance of citizens, including anti-war organizers, judges and lawmakers across the nation are easing long-standing restraints on police in the name of homeland security.
7077. thoughtful - 4/7/2003 3:26:45 PM
Jay, #7070, "The guy the article was about was cited as saying that the separation of church and state in Christian societies dooms Christianity to a subsidiary role.
I happen to agree with that. "
I disagree with that. Religion may have a subsidiary role to play in a secular government as it should, but that certainly doens't mean it has a subsidiary role to play in a nation. One need only look at the degree to which religion has flourished in America to see that it is the freeing of religion from government controls that fosters its growth.
Rather, IMO, the fear of theocratic leaders is the same fear of all dictators...that they will lose control of their people. Dictators control their subjects with threat of punishment. Religion in a theocracy is just the excuse, just as fealty to the state was the excuse in communism, fealty to saddam hussein the excuse in iraq, a relatively secular state by islamic standards.
7078. Wombat - 4/7/2003 3:45:31 PM
Al D:
Ataturk imposed a secular regime on Turkey. The democratic system such as it is came afterward. Ataturk took what was a very "western" view of religion at the time: that it was reactionary and enfeebled, and was the enemy of the modern state.
As the only Ottoman commander who was competent and successful in WWI, and who resisted the imposed post-war settlement, which dismembered Turkey, Ataturk was uniquely able to impose his views as the "father" of modern Turkey.
Unlike, say Pakistan, the guarantor of the secular republic is the army, which has two traditions, that of a secular national institution, and a propensity to meddle forcefully in politics if it feels the elected government is unsuited to govern.
7079. jayackroyd - 4/8/2003 12:33:04 PM
Religion may have a subsidiary role to play in a secular government as it should, but that certainly doens't mean it has a subsidiary role to play in a nation. One need only look at the degree to which religion has flourished in America to see that it is the freeing of religion from government controls that fosters its growth.
There has been, I agree, a growth in the evangelistic orders in the US. But Christianity is dying in Europe, as are the more traditional orders in the US. You have theologians, like John Shelby Spong, essentially throwing out all but the most abstract beliefs, because you simply can't be both well-educated and buy this stuff straight from the book.
And the evangelicals are ultimately doomed, because they're talking nonsense, and you can only talk nonsense for so long.
7080. judithathome - 4/8/2003 12:37:28 PM
you can only talk nonsense for so long.
This made me chuckle and come up with about 4 really good one-liners which I will refrain from posting in an overall spirit of goodwill.;-)
7081. jayackroyd - 4/8/2003 1:20:30 PM
Actually, I want to add to that.
Current liberal beliefs, which are in many ways consistent with the spirit of Christianity, like the rights of gays to marry, or, in Texas, to have sex, are very difficult to support from scripture. The gospels are silent on this subject, and Deuteronomy is very clear.
There's a real theological crisis going on among Protestants. The evangelicals are clearly wrong in any number of ways (except in the most solipsist of argument, and you are still left with weird apparition of a pro-war, pro-death penalty Christian), but the mainstream creeds are losing their center as they are forced to abstract themselves further and further from scripture. Secular humanism is only a generation or two away.
Catholics have it easier, because there's a little more coherence to the argument (death penalty bad, birth control pill bad, abortion bad, war bad). But they, too, have the problem in the US that folks pretty much feel free to ignore the vatican's strictures, when they are inconvenient.
7082. PelleNilsson - 4/8/2003 2:09:39 PM
Secular humanism is only a generation or two away.
So you will catch up with Europe in the foreseeable future?
(Sorry, Jay, couldn't resist.)
7083. jayackroyd - 4/8/2003 2:12:04 PM
I hope so. and believe so.
7084. labwabbit - 4/11/2003 10:28:16 PM
Dear France, [courtesy of CSN]
"Find the cost
of freedom,
Buried in the [your] ground.
Mother Earth will swallow you [us],
Lay your [our] body[s] down.
7085. concerned - 4/14/2003 1:15:05 PM
America's Cultural Values Are Determined By Man Holding Presidential Title
A 'no-think' piece-a which actually starts out with a viable premise but then does absolutely nothing to back it up. The idea that the tenor of two presidencies could be ascertained by the nature of one stage managed public display is ridiculous. However, we do learn that the author of this piece doesn't think much of the party that freed the slaves, works hardest to promote individual freedoms and voted in the greatest numbers for the Civil Rights Act.
7086. ronski - 4/14/2003 3:10:28 PM
Pelle,
It was, I believe, Patrick Buchanan who wrote a decade or so ago that Sweden was quickly on its way to becoming the "first post-Christian" society until a "recent religious revival."
Speaking as a somewhat lapsed Lutheran, what actually is going on there?
7087. PincherMartin - 4/14/2003 8:45:36 PM
Arky --
Bork is not an example of partisan blocking of a great candidate for SCOTUS. It's an example of congressional sanity.
Bork is no more conservative than three or four of the justices currently sitting on the Supreme Court. He does, however, possess a better mind than any of the current nine, even the estimable Scalia. By keeping such a good mind off the highest court, we lost an invaluable presenter of judicial reasoning.
PincherMartin: "[Clinton is]...poor at putting forth a coherent set of ideas and fighting for them."
Arky: "I disagree. He's a master at the first, and the last is due to his lack of follow-through to the conclusion (and of course sometimes there isn't one--it's a matter of maintenance), a problem he also had as governor.
You first disagree with me, but then you admit he had a problem.
He still accomplished an amazing amount as one president under the circumstances he found himself forced to work in.
Clinton had eight years as president, and the events surrounding the impeachment -- that nearly consumed his presidency -- did not take place until the final two. In his first two years as president, he failed to enact a national health care plan. This was the single most important program his administration put forward during Clinton's two terms. It was also a complete washout.
continued ...
7088. PincherMartin - 4/14/2003 8:46:25 PM
After the House of Representatives turned Republican in 1994, Clinton tacked right for the remainder of his presidency, so that his accomplishments from that point on included areas -- like welfare reform - that actually alienated significant parts of his base. These are, however, still accomplishments, and I'll be happy to put them on the positive side of the ledger for Clinton's presidency. But it's important to remember that Clinton did them for his political survival, not because they were part of a long-term plan he envisioned before he became president.
The only other area of Clinton's two terms that should be accounted for is his handling of the economy. As a rule, presidents don't do much to directly control a several trillion dollar economy. Like the eight hundred pound gorilla, that size of economy tends to go whereever the hell it wants.
But in the area of the economy presidents can exercise some leadership -- the federal budget -- Clinton did make good decisions early in his presidency, and he deserves credit for doing so. It's important though to understand that in this area Clinton followed the advice of his most conservative advisors (Greenspan, Rubin).
He's neither a cad nor a liar. He's done some caddish things and has lied and I have no respect for his sexual behavior in the White House.
This reminds me of the line "I'm not an alcoholic; I just need to have a couple of drinks after work to wind down."
If Clinton is not a liar, then liars must not exist. If he is not a cad, then that word has no meaning. Even Clinton's friends and supporters admit that he has a problem telling the truth, from important things (affairs) to the more mundane (on the golf course). That Clinton is a charming liar and cad is no less true. As a young single man during the nineties, I'd have loved to hang out with the guy.
continued ...
7089. PincherMartin - 4/14/2003 8:47:09 PM
The fact that his opponents were so ridiculously obsessed with it was much more detrimental to the nation, however.
They were definitely obsessed, although I don't know how harmful they were.
And I will guarantee you that you are wrong about his place in history. What history will record is the ridiculous tunnel-vision of his hard-right opposition and their funding of the baseless case of a wretched Arky hick. Enough Arkies knew plenty well what Clinton was about, but it didn't involve her. I know precious little (and that's more than I'd like to) and it involves a whole different situation than anything Paula Jones described. Whatever people think of Gene Lyons he knows exactly what he's talking about on that subject.
The preliminary results are in and they don't favor you. In a C-Span survey of historians, Clinton ranks 21st out of 41 presidents, just behind his predecessor George Bush (20th) and well behind Reagan (11th).
And keep in mind when looking at those results, that historians do not belong to the kind of profession likely to be inclined to favor a man like Reagan or likely to have been overly influenced in their rankings by the impeachment and the surrounding scandals. If anything, it's the opposite: historians belong to a class likely to favor a man with Clinton's high intelligence and general political leanings.
7090. jayackroyd - 4/14/2003 9:32:48 PM
If Clinton is not a liar, then liars must not exist. If he is not a cad, then that word has no meaning. Even Clinton's friends and supporters admit that he has a problem telling the truth, from important things (affairs) to the more mundane (on the golf course). That Clinton is a charming liar and cad is no less true. As a young single man during the nineties, I'd have loved to hang out with the guy.
This is fair, and true. What it does not recognize was that the administration was remarkably honest, as administrations go. When he said he supported welfare reform, he proceeded to implement a welfare reform policy. When he said he wanted to reduce deficits, he implemented policies that reduced deficits. This is in stark contrast to the current "healthy forests act" administration.
And he did nothing, policy-wise or personally, to justify the nuclear attacks that came from the vast right wing conspiracy. Policy-wise it's hard to see where the problem was. Personally, he did nothing that Newt or Teddy (or anyone else in Congresss who wanted to) wasn't doing at the same time.
7091. arkymalarky - 4/14/2003 9:57:54 PM
He does, however, possess a better mind than any of the current nine, even the estimable Scalia.
The best minds don't always make the best justices. I would have to go back and look at the specifics of some of his positions which struck me at the time as downright bizarre, but regardless, his willingness to fire Archibald Cox during the Watergate scandal was more than enough to keep him off the SC bench.
7092. arkymalarky - 4/14/2003 10:17:24 PM
You first disagree with me, but then you admit he had a problem.
The problem he had is not the one you defined. He's an absolute master at "putting forth a set of coherent ideas" and can be excellent at fighting for them, though he's more shrewd than most politicians about choosing his battles, which makes him very productive. Where he falls short imo is the maintenance/follow through. He goes onto the next project and leaves the one he established unattended. That's a tendency he has had since he was governor; it's not necessarily a chronic failing. He can be very tenacious, and I think he will prove so on some very good causes now that he's out of office.
And the hostile circumstances of his presidency began from his announcement he would run the first term. They are by no means confined to the impeachment proceedings and in fact emanated from Arkansas. This is a strange small state and people have long and complex grudges that stretch further and run more deeply than in a lot of other states. It's hard to explain, but it creates an environment of hostility that is partly a result of our unique demographics.
It's more than I can go into without giving a mini-lesson in Arkansas politics and media, and that's something I'm learning the hard way myself these days. Just name me any other president who had people within his state so opposed to him--and with enough money--that they would pursue such trivia and try to follow so many avenues to ruin him even after he was elected. Yet he had some of the most doggedly loyal friends here. Susan McDougal is probably the most fascinating example.
7093. arkymalarky - 4/14/2003 10:18:41 PM
(scrunching slowly out on this itty bitty twig on a very long limb) Clinton is a scrupulously honest politician (and no, I'm not referring to unfulfilled campaign promises), and for me that's the only honesty I care about. Anyone delving into anything that's none of their business deserves a lie. I think it should be routine of politicians to lie when they're interrogated about their personal activities that were irrelevant and in the past or don't interfere with the functioning of their offices. Note that I haven't made much of Bush's checkered past, though I might speculate whether it involved the loss of enough brain cells to affect his operation. There's a line, obviously, but I wouldn't necessarily draw it at legal/illegal. I also think the Gary Harts of the world reflect character flaws that have nothing to do with whether they are morally fit to be president, but whether they have enough sense to come in out of the rain.
7094. arkymalarky - 4/14/2003 10:25:34 PM
But it's important to remember that Clinton did them for his political survival, not because they were part of a long-term plan he envisioned before he became president.
That's where my observation of his function as governor aids my understanding of that. Clinton is interested in success and being liked and getting a lot accomplished. He's not interested in lining his pockets or taking a power trip. When he focuses on an issue he looks at it comprehensively and goes about what he can get done that he believes will be of the best benefit. When he bites off more than he can chew, as in the comprehensive health care plan, it can fall completely, but when he has something he can work with and adjust and compromise on, he can do a great deal. He did as much for Arkansas schools and his reforms were actually a model for a while, but some of the features implemented are problematic now and with a completely different political environment the system is too centralized and difficult to adjust and leaves far too much control over public education in the hands of the executive, which violates the AR Constitution. Now we're in a big mess and I don't know how we will extract ourselves from it--but feeling the rolling eyes of the people here who have read more than enough from me on that subject, I will refrain and put away the soapbox I was digging out from under my computer table.
7095. arkymalarky - 4/14/2003 10:32:20 PM
The preliminary results are in and they don't favor you. In a C-Span survey of historians, Clinton ranks 21st out of 41 presidents, just behind his predecessor George Bush (20th) and well behind Reagan (11th).
It will have to come in the context of a much longer view than that, but I have no doubt I'm right. For one thing, Reagan had much more impact on the big picture as it currently stands, so those results are not surprising (I will resist my primal urge to spit--I think Reagan was the most damaging president to the country in this century--surpassing Nixon by quite a bit--We can take that one up another day if you like). The fine tuning done by Clinton will be appreciated more in the perspective that distance of time gives, and more attention will be given to the circumstances surrounding his impeachment, why he stayed in office and fought it out, and the effect of that decision on the executive.
7096. judithathome - 4/15/2003 1:37:32 PM
Rumsfeld Seeks More Power Over Personnel
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is seeking new powers that would greatly expand his office's control over both military personnel and civilian employees.
Term limits for the Joint Chiefs of Staff would be eliminated and mandatory retirement ages for top generals and admirals would be raised under the 205-page proposal sent to Congress late last week.
7097. PincherMartin - 4/15/2003 7:53:51 PM
Jay --
This is fair, and true. What it does not recognize was that the administration was remarkably honest, as administrations go. When he said he supported welfare reform, he proceeded to implement a welfare reform policy. When he said he wanted to reduce deficits, he implemented policies that reduced deficits. This is in stark contrast to the current "healthy forests act" administration.
I have no opinion on this yet. The Bush administration is just two years old. So far there hasn't been anything explosive to come out about the Bush administration's ethics that has caught the public's attention. (There's just a suspiciously tight nexus of corporate interests and public policy. Personally, I wish the Bush administration would pay attention to this because I have the feeling that they are going to walk into something ugly one of these days which will stick to the front pages and that the public will care about.)
What I can say is Bush has core values that he was elected on and that he tries to implement into policies even in the face of opposition. This may or may not be a good thing, but many Bush supporters like the fact that he doesn't change his mind even if circumstances change somewhat -- they got what they elected.
One can argue that flexibility should be a job requirement for the presidency. If circumstances change then so should your policies. I don't disagree, but it's a balance depending on the importance of the policy. If Bush pushes too hard for tax cuts while the U.S. budget has growing deficits, it's difficult to find any policy Clinton believed in and would have tried to implement in the face of strong opposition. He had no governing philosophy beyond triangulation.
continued ...
7098. PincherMartin - 4/15/2003 7:54:04 PM
And he did nothing, policy-wise or personally, to justify the nuclear attacks that came from the vast right wing conspiracy.
The vast right wing conspiracy?
Policy-wise it's hard to see where the problem was. Personally, he did nothing that Newt or Teddy (or anyone else in Congress who wanted to) wasn't doing at the same time.
The presidency has a large moral component to it. A president diddling a young intern in the White House upsets many people (not all of them part of the "vast right wing conspiracy") because they have an emotional connection to the presidency and to the White House that they don't have to any congressmen or Capitol Hill.
7099. PincherMartin - 4/15/2003 8:29:07 PM
Arky --
When I said that Clinton didn't have a coherent set of ideas that he fought for, I meant that what he said in 1992 is different from what he said in 1994 which is different from what he said in 1998. We went from a government that would help people to the era of big government is over.
When FDR retired there was a legacy of programs which he passed that later generations of liberals would fight for. Ronald Reagan's policies and ideas also cast a shadow over later generations of Republicans. These two men were very dissimilar, but what they had in common were core values about governing that created a coherent framework later generations of politicians could use.
Even some failed presidents have this coherency to their ideas and policies. Say what you will about LBJ or Jimmy Carter, they both had certain ideas about government and what it should or shouldn't do.
Bill Clinton has no such coherency. He would fight remarkably successful pitched battles over particular policies or programs, but this didn't add up to a coherent framework. At the end of his two terms, there was nothing for him to pass on that Al Gore or other Democrats could pick up and run with. He remains popular, but mainly as a celebrity or as someone who's associated with the good times of the 1990s. What has eluded him is the sort of thing that Roosevelt and Reagan nailed: a governing legacy that would endure beyond his presidency.
7100. AceofSpades - 4/15/2003 8:40:59 PM
When he said he supported welfare reform, he proceeded to implement a welfare reform policy.
No, he claimed to be vaguely "interested" in the idea of welfare reform during his campaign, then did nothing about for three years, vetoed two attempts to implement it, signed a third bill only after Dick Morris took a poll and told him "If you don't sign this you run the risk of losing the upcoming election," then took credit for it.
7101. AceofSpades - 4/15/2003 8:42:51 PM
Is this the same JayAckroyd who has at various times claimed to be a Republican or an "independent voter" of some sort?
Yeah... this is the way Republicans and independents talk-- they praise Clinton for making the sun rise and they babble about dark conspiracies involving Bush's "oil cronies."
Yuhp.
I'm a Maoist, by the way. Nice to meet you. So long as we're deliberately mischaracterizing our political agendas, what the hell?
7102. PincherMartin - 4/15/2003 8:47:44 PM
Arky --
It will have to come in the context of a much longer view than that, but I have no doubt I'm right.
Historians are the last group you should doubt needs to be informed of the "longer view".
For one thing, Reagan had much more impact on the big picture as it currently stands, so those results are not surprising...
Yes, but then so did many presidents who came before Clinton, and not a few of them ended up behind him in the rankings.
...(I will resist my primal urge to spit--I think Reagan was the most damaging president to the country in this century--surpassing Nixon by quite a bit--We can take that one up another day if you like).
That's amazing. You think Reagan was more damaging than Hoover, LBJ, Nixon and Carter. You have there, in order, the Great Depression, Vietnam Part 1, Vietnam Part 2 and Watergate, and Stagflation (with a host of foreign policy debacles). With Reagan, you have The End of the Cold War and Good Economic Growth.
The fine tuning done by Clinton will be appreciated more in the perspective that distance of time gives, and more attention will be given to the circumstances surrounding his impeachment, why he stayed in office and fought it out, and the effect of that decision on the executive.
I think the impeachment and the circumstances surrounding it will be forgotten (I've already forgotten it).
What you don't understand is that one of the most important events in American history took place on 9-11, and that event will affect how we look at the past, including Bill Clinton's presidency. Just as The Great Depression put the 1920s into an entirely different perspective so 9-11 is likely to cast a poor light on Clinton's governing frivolity.
7103. arkymalarky - 4/15/2003 9:05:12 PM
VRWC? Well, actually, yes.
The weirdest thing about all this was that the core of what Scaife pulled his stuff from involved people I've seen and met and am familiar with, many who don't live terribly far from me. Jim McDougal used to eat at the same restaurant every Saturday--well after all this Whitewater stuff broke. I saw him in the Wal-mart parking lot once driving a red sports car with a blonde in the passenger seat--at the height of his fifteen minutes, I guess. I've posted this before, but I don't know if you read it, but Clinton sat at a tiny high school basketball gym and talked to my in-laws for an entire half of a game. He had come to watch a player who was getting a lot of attention and planning to play for the Razorbacks. He was always very gregarious. Susan McDougal has moved back to AR, btw, and my parents met her the other day at a book-signing. She lives fairly close. And they visited the yard of the woman who designed Hillary Clinton's inaugural gown the other day on a tour of lawns and talked to her quite a bit. It was very strange seeing all these people drawn into this vortex that was the Paula Jones "scandal" and Whitewater. She's used up her fifteen minutes and all the money that went with it, too, and ironically I believe she and Susan McDougal live in the same town. Made me glad I was too insignificant to associate in their circles, though friends of friends....
7104. arkymalarky - 4/15/2003 9:05:55 PM
What has eluded him is the sort of thing that Roosevelt and Reagan nailed: a governing legacy that would endure beyond his presidency.
That may be, but he was president in less focused times with general prosperity and few major issues for one thing, and for another, he's more a problem-solver and one who looks at specific programs rather than a broad spectrum of policies working toward one big picture. In AR he operated the same way and he had issues he addressed that were important and got a lot of good things done, but I see your point here as well as nationally that there was nothing for a successor to grasp except his success, and it was a thorny tactic that Gore avoided, which was probably a mistake for him. I think he should have drawn closer to Clinton for his own presidential run, but even with no scandal Clinton has a way of overshadowing others, even when he doesn't mean to.
Clinton's interview with the Atlantic was very interesting, because he talks through his thought processes and you can see what those areas of focus are. He's really an amazing man, and much of what he says is in a casual, personal style that adjusts itself to any environment naturally. It can make him seem oblivious to what's truly important, though, especially wrt his own behavior.
Dale Bumpers is the supreme, though, of AR politics, among some very great ones, and Clinton learned politics at his knee. I would have dearly loved to see that man as president, but his chance came a bit too late in his career. He has a book out now that is getting a lot of positive attention. Maybe this summer I'll get the luxury of some reading time and put it at the top of my list.
7105. arkymalarky - 4/15/2003 9:10:22 PM
Historians can't work with the future. They work with what's past in relation to now. I think perspective will be different on Clinton twenty years from now, because not enough time has elapsed for a president who led in relative peace and prosperity with no major crisis (end of Cold War, Depression and WWII and Civil War, etc etc) to deal with.
What 9/11 will cast a light on is the despicable response to every action Clinton took to handle it while he was president by his opponents in congress and their inexcusable deflection of a serious issue to trivial pursuit and a costly and embarrassing (and no, I don't mean any lurid details that came out--except DeLay and whipped cream. Ugh.) impeachment process.
7106. arkymalarky - 4/15/2003 9:18:01 PM
PM,
You're oversimplifying for the other men. Hoover didn't single-handedly collapse the economy, and while LBJ's escalation of VN was inexcusable and ruined him, he didn't start the conflict and he was operating under a widely accepted US policy at the time. Nixon's was a self-contained, self-destructive evil that damaged America's view of politicians in ways that I think have had some lasting effect, but political cynicism is nothing new, either, so I don't think we can rest all that on his shoulders.
Reagan's long-term impact on this country and a large number of the working class and the corruption and undue influence of the filthy rich on national policy has been far more damaging for far longer. And now here we have Trickle Down # 2 running with skyrocketing deficits saying a tax cut to the rich will fix everything. It didn't in the 80s. The prosperous times so mistily looked back on weren't all that great, even in relation to the two prosperous periods it was sandwiched between.
Dang.
Gotta go do my taxes. I'll try to look in later or tomorrow.
If you knew how busy I've been the last few months, you'd realize how much I've enjoyed this discussion and the diversion of the last few days.
7107. AceofSpades - 4/15/2003 9:24:34 PM
I'm confuuuuuuused again, Arky. During Clinton's second term, we were assured again and again that there would be no need for him to step down in the interests of national security because he was darned good at "compartmentalizing" between fighting his various lawsuits and impeachments and actually conducting the business of the country.
Now that that has been exposed to be a lie, you put the blame on the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
Incidentally, I think your premise is false. Far from stopping Clinton from taking military action against Saddam and Al Qaeda, the impeachment fight actually CAUSED him take the only action of his presidency in defense of actual US security interests. You will recall he suddenly declared that Saddam's deceptions, which he had allowed to occur for six years, were suddenly unacceptable the very day Monica Lewinsky returned to give testimony before a grand jury and thus demanded Operation Desert Fox.
And of course it seems that only an impeachment vote was capable of FINALLY provoking Clinton into some sort of (insignificant and piddling) military action against Al Qaeda. You remember the Monica Bombs, right? They occurred on the eve of the impeachment vote.
Before the impeachment vote-- no action against Al Qaeda. Just some empty talk about "justice."
After the impeachment vote -- again, no action against Al Qaeda. More talk about "justice." No military action; not even any strong diplomatic action.
So don't whine about the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy tying your beloved fatboy's hands. The only time this low character bothered to even attempt a pinprick attack on America's enemies was when he needed to do so to boost his poll ratings.
7108. arkymalarky - 4/15/2003 9:27:48 PM
No, I'm talking about the government's resources and focus. No one tied his hands, they just didn't use their own to help. They had more important things to do. Look at how all the executive departments and congress have worked on this issue despite the president they have to work with now.
I'll have you know you are making my husband glare at me. He thinks I'm installing the tax program while he channel surfs.
7109. AceofSpades - 4/15/2003 9:28:02 PM
Laugh. You Democrats have some nerve speaking of "Osama bin Forgotten." Osama bin Forgotten from 1992-2000, EXCEPT on the one occasion Clinton was facing impeachment and reached out for some dark, swarthy enemy to shoot missiles at in an attempt to appear "Presidential."
I'd be more inclined to believe the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Stopped Clinton from Attacking Osama" theory if the pattern were the opposite, that is, if Clinton had been crusading to attack/apprehend bin Laden all during his Presidency but was forced to stop during impeachment.
The truth is of course the exact opposite. He did nothing for eight years. Except that one day, the day before an impeachment vote, he suddenly decided it made good sense to lob a missile into a Sudanese aspirin factory.
7110. arkymalarky - 4/15/2003 11:30:59 PM
7109 illustrates my point beautifully. The dis/misinformation that still flies through the air is pointless to address for the humpteenzillionth time.
And yes, Ace, we believe that those funny little men with the squinty, slanty eyes and the pale green cast to their skins took you with them in a wienie-shaped vessel and took your brain out and studied it and put it back with some tiny microchip tucked away in it somewhere.
And the continual reference to 9/11 as though any discussion on anything foreign or domestic has to have it as the central focus or the opposing view is out in left field, so to speak, is idiotic. Surely you people can do better when seeking a substantive defense for the action/inaction of a president.
7111. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 1:23:06 AM
Arky -- Message # 7103
Vast Right Wing Conspiracy? No
Lone Right Wing Billionaire? Yes
Even your link says this: "If it's a conspiracy, it's a pretty open one. Scaife's tax-exempt foundations disclose their grants on the Web. Among them: $2.4 million over several years to American Spectator to pay for anti-Clinton reporting, even a private eye to dig up dirt. And millions more went to other anti-Clinton groups."
So, Arky and Jay, where's the vastness? Where's the conspiracy?
7112. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 1:46:27 AM
That may be, but he was president in less focused times with general prosperity and few major issues for one thing...
I'll grant that this works somewhat, but on the other hand, the rankings reflect the importance of what was going on at the time of the presidency.
Like many other presidents, Clinton may have had bad luck in that nothing disasterous happened to the country on his watch, but this has happened to several other mediocre presidents as well. Clinton can be graded down, however, for not recognizing the threat of terrorism or of WMD. It's true that few others at the time did, but a great president (like Washington or Lincoln or the first Roosevelt) anticipates what will be important in the future and moves to position himself and the country to deal with it.
If Clinton is a great president, then so is Calvin Coolidge. Silent Cal also presided over a period of remarkable economic growth with no real wars and no serious problems. Of course, when Cal retired in 1928, he also didn't anticipate the looming disaster that hit the country just over a year later. Not too many people remember Silent Cal anymore.
continued ...
7113. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 1:47:18 AM
Like the 1920s, the 1990s are probably going to be remembered as a political interregnum, a time of transition. Clinton certainly thinks of it this way and he's bright enough to recognize that it will affect his legacy in a negative way.
It's probably not fair to either the Republicans of the 1920s or to Clinton and Bush Senior of the 1990s, but that's how it usually happens.
...and for another, he's more a problem-solver and one who looks at specific programs rather than a broad spectrum of policies working toward one big picture.
I agree, but this is what I meant when I said Clinton doesn't have a coherent set of policies that he fights for. He tacks left; he tacks right; he triangulates; he's a problem solver who waits for problems to pop up before working on them.
7114. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 2:17:03 AM
Arky --
Historians can't work with the future. They work with what's past in relation to now. I think perspective will be different on Clinton twenty years from now, because not enough time has elapsed for a president who led in relative peace and prosperity with no major crisis (end of Cold War, Depression and WWII and Civil War, etc etc) to deal with.
Historians have historical perspective which allows them to understand very clearly that opinions on the presidents change, as well as why they change.
What 9/11 will cast a light on is the despicable response to every action Clinton took to handle it while he was president by his opponents in congress and their inexcusable deflection of a serious issue to trivial pursuit and a costly and embarrassing (and no, I don't mean any lurid details that came out--except DeLay and whipped cream. Ugh.) impeachment process.
Please. You're not speaking to some young dufus in your classroom. Ace is absolutely correct that, if anything, Clinton was emboldened to take action rather than prevented from it. Let's look at this chronology:
August, 1998: Clinton undergoes Grand Jury testimony.
August, 1998: U.S. missile strikes against Afghanistan and Sudan.
October, 1998: House votes to hold impeachment inquiry.
December, 1998: House impeaches Clinton.
December 1998: Operation Desert Fox against Iraq.
February, 1999: Senate votes to acquit Clinton.
March, 1999: NATO action against Kosovo.
That's three U.S. military actions in just six months at the same period in which the scandal was at its height.
7115. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 2:54:21 AM
You're oversimplifying for the other men. Hoover didn't single-handedly collapse the economy, and while LBJ's escalation of VN was inexcusable and ruined him, he didn't start the conflict and he was operating under a widely accepted US policy at the time. Nixon's was a self-contained, self-destructive evil that damaged America's view of politicians in ways that I think have had some lasting effect, but political cynicism is nothing new, either, so I don't think we can rest all that on his shoulders.
All true, but those men did in fact preside over disasterous times for which they are partly responsible. Hoover was slow to recognize the extent of the Great Depression and the role the government played in creating it (although it's questionable anyone recognized the government's role at the time). LBJ was responsible for escalating the Vietnam War far beyond anything done by his predecessors and at the same time severely limiting the ability of the military to attack North Vietnamese strongholds. Nixon is responsible for largely continuing LBJ's strategy of "not" going for the win in Vietnam as well as wholly responsible for the corruption in his administration.
Reagan's long-term impact on this country and a large number of the working class...
Some economists argue that this is more the fault of globalization than anything Reagan did, and that it was unavoidable.
...and the corruption and undue influence of the filthy rich on national policy has been far more damaging for far longer.
The undue influence of the *filthy* rich and their filthy *lucre*?
Reagan's economic ideas can be explained in two words: lower taxes. This is the legacy that everyone from the two Bushes to Clinton have had to deal with and it is now generally accepted that no serious candidate for president can call for (at least openly) a return to higher taxes.
continued ...
7116. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 2:54:41 AM
While the filty rich undoubtably have benefitted greatly from this policy, many other people have as well, and that is the key to its continuing popularity.
...And now here we have Trickle Down # 2 running with skyrocketing deficits saying a tax cut to the rich will fix everything.
You know those deficits were much discussed by people in the 80s who hated Reagan's economic policy. Critics at the time argued that the problems of the deficits created by Reagan's policy would plague the U.S. economy for several decades. Yet, in fact, Reagan was out of office about a decade before the U.S. budget deficit came down to lows not seen since the 1960s.
The prosperous times so mistily looked back on weren't all that great, even in relation to the two prosperous periods it was sandwiched between.
Hahaha! Yes, the seventies were certainly a prosperous time.
7117. OhioSTOPAS - 4/16/2003 6:54:39 AM
Pincher offers a defense of Reaganomics: It only took ONE decade for Reagan's successors to cure its failures.
7118. OhioSTOPAS - 4/16/2003 6:57:40 AM
Ace: Take a break from your complaining that Clinton didn't catch Osama Bin Laden and explain to us what Bush did, if anything, when he took office. It looks to me like Bush's determination to be the non-Clinton led him to do NOTHING. If so, you Bush defenders really shouldn't complain that Clinton didn't do enough.
7119. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 7:12:35 AM
Ohio --
Pincher offers a defense of Reaganomics: It only took ONE decade for Reagan's successors to cure its failures.
No, it took only one decade to erase the deficits; the economy was in good shape by the early nineties. This was contrary to the scare-mongers who claimed the U.S. might never recover from the Reagan budget deficits.
7120. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 7:16:37 AM
If so, you Bush defenders really shouldn't complain that Clinton didn't do enough.
I didn't complain that Clinton didn't do enough. I said a great president anticipates where the country is heading because he anticipates future problems and prepares the country to meet them. Clinton did not do that. For this reason -- among many others -- he should be judged, and will be judged, a mediocre president.
7121. RickNelson - 4/16/2003 8:22:00 AM
"Reagan's economic ideas can be explained in two words: lower taxes. This is the legacy that everyone from the two Bushes to Clinton have had to deal with and it is now generally accepted that no serious candidate for president can call for (at least openly) a return to higher taxes."
The above is what gets me worked up. The idea that anyone can believe such utter nonsense stalls my brain. How can you believe this? Check what happened, show me where the consequence of Raygunomics didn't raise taxes? Gas and other sales taxes skyrocketed because all the weight of govt was shifted more or less closer to home. While at the same time the Federal taxes were used to build a peace time military machine unprecedented in its sprawling capacity for waste. Did you get to use one of the $1,000 dollar toilet seats or $500 dollar ash trays? I sure as hell didn't.
And what of SDI. I can sell you a bridge in Brooklyn if you believe the spin of SDI back in the Raygun years.
The consequences of long-term decentralized government, which meant the qualifying for need Federal dollars means more spending by local governments to prove one needs those federal dollars is a larger, broader, more encompasing raise in taxes than the glib "no new taxes" humbug of Republican minions. And lastly the deficit related to Raygunonmics is now being rebuilt. Again, to pass another burden of debt reduction to another generation, who will again have to repeat legislation, that already exists, to balance the budget. Social Security will continue to be cause for concern and uneasy blue collar workers will continue to absorb burdens placed upon them by the lie of "no new taxes".
7122. RickNelson - 4/16/2003 8:33:32 AM
And should we get into deregulation?
Run free you hippy dippy rich fat cats. Let your emissions go, drop your waste nilly willy, expand your use of fertalizer and pollute local water resources, let alone other blooms down stream. We mighty know-it-alls knight thee with deregulation. Why, because we don't want to raise your taxes. No, we just want to shift what we do have away from such idealistic nonsense and the burden of social programs to the making of our mighty war machines. Especially hogs like SDI that will be an utter waste! Let's run among the flowers and fields, drill a well here, there, everywhere. Oh, and that toxic-waster super fund we're setting up. It'll take care of all the PCB toxins of earlier willy nilliness. Don't worry, be happy, believe us, let us take care of it all. There, there (pat, pat - upon your widdle head)
7123. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 11:16:08 AM
Rick --
I wish I knew what got you worked up so much, but half the time I can't understand what you're trying to say.
But to be a good sport, I'll venture a guess based on what I can make out:
In response to what I called Reagan's political (remember this word) legacy, you said that other taxes -- state, gas, etc. -- are higher than when Reagan took office. Being a taxpayer in California under Governer Gray Davis, I can vouch that indeed some taxes have gone up.
And the truth is that, overall, the federal taxes the government collects haven't changed all that much since Reagan took office. Under Reagan, they dropped. Under Clinton, they were raised. Under Bush Jr., they've been dropped again. The net effect has been that federal government collects approximately the same amount of taxes (as a percentage of the GDP) as it did in 1980.
But the same is true when you add state and local taxes. In fact, in 1981, when Reagan took office, total government receipts were just over 28% of the GDP. In Clinton's last year, they were 30.7% Last year (2002), after Bush's tax cut, they were 27.5% (almost all of the change was due to a decrease in federal government receipts).
But my point is that, since Reagan, successful presidential candidates have found it necessary to run on promises not to raise people's taxes. Sometimes those promises have been broken. Sometimes they've been massaged (calls for the wealthy to pay their fair share). But the general precept is respected.
7124. pseudoerasmus - 4/16/2003 12:16:27 PM
Message # 7116
You know those deficits were much discussed by people in the 80s who hated Reagan's economic policy. Critics at the time argued that the problems of the deficits created by Reagan's policy would plague the U.S. economy for several decades. Yet, in fact, Reagan was out of office about a decade before the U.S. budget deficit came down to lows not seen since the 1960s.
You make it sound as though those deficits went away all by themselves and those critics were silly raising those alarms. Well, the deficits did not disappear by themselves. The deficits disappeared, and surpluses were generated, because (1) federal spending fell by more than 3% of GDP in the 1990s; and (2) taxes had been raised under Clinton, Bush I and Reagan (viz. the 1986 tax reform act). So the prognostications of the critics were "wrong" only because those actions which the critics themselves, out of alarm, advocated to reduce the deficits were implemented.
Hahaha! Yes, the seventies were certainly a prosperous time.
Annualised average growth rate of real GDP per capita
1970-80: 1.52%
1971-80: 1.67%
1981-89: 1.87%
1981-90: 1.67%
No matter how you define the 1970s and the 1980s, the growth rates were not terribly different in either decade, despite the propaganda about both decades to the contrary.
7125. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 12:36:21 PM
PE --
You make it sound as though those deficits went away all by themselves and those critics were silly raising those alarms.
They were silly to raise the alarms in the manner they did, since the suggestion was that Reagan was doing something so outrageously wrong, it would be impossible to recover in the short term.
7126. jayackroyd - 4/16/2003 1:11:33 PM
They were silly to raise the alarms in the manner they did, since the suggestion was that Reagan was doing something so outrageously wrong, it would be impossible to recover in the short term.
If they were kept in place. They weren't.
Federal taxes at the end of Reagan's term were higher than at the beginning. He gave it all back, in payroll taxes and loophole closing in the 1986 tax reform and ss reform packages. It's another of the Big Lies told by the wing nuts--that Reagan cut taxes. It's like the Big Lie of opposing big government, as we are seeing played out yet again, it is about who gets the money, not how much is spent.
Then Bush 1, courageously, politically suicidally but in his what I've come to view as his longstanding commitment to public service and doing the right thing, went back on a key campaign promise.
And then Clinton, in not as courageous, but pretty farsighted as presidential decisionmaking goes, listened to Robert Rubin, took the slowing of growth early in his administration (and the resulting Gingrich revolution) upon the promise of the value to the economy of surpluses rather than deficits in the long haul. Which proved correct.
And has now been dumped in narrow pursuits of campaign funds, and Bush 2's political base. Fortunately, the senate will contain some of this, and Bush's need to look centrist, will contain some more. (The turn to the center has already started, with two recent environmental bills, limiting diesel emissions and taking down the Miltown dam, that are unimpeachably good ideas from the green point of view.)
In fact, thinking about this as I type, the senate containing it may be the best possible political result. He can pull off Clinton's trick of taking the money, and then not pursuing the policy, by blaming the failure to get his tax bill through on the democrats. That's certainly turning the tactic up a notch, if things fall right.
7127. AceofSpades - 4/16/2003 2:03:34 PM
It's another of the Big Lies told by the wing nuts--that Reagan cut taxes. It's like the Big Lie of opposing big government, as we are seeing played out yet again, it is about who gets the money, not how much is spent.
Again, is this the same JayAckroyd who claimed to be, several years ago, a moderate Republican?
I think it's awfully strange that a "moderate Republican" should write like the most crazed, Fergussen-Foont-Footjobbing liberal partisan puler, but then, I've got to accept that this is the truth, because liberals don't lie.
They keep telling me so, so it must be true.
7128. Edmund Dantes - 4/16/2003 2:39:00 PM
And then Clinton, in not as courageous, but pretty farsighted as presidential decisionmaking goes, listened to Robert Rubin, took the slowing of growth early in his administration (and the resulting Gingrich revolution) upon the promise of the value to the economy of surpluses rather than deficits in the long haul.
Incomprehensible.
7129. Edmund Dantes - 4/16/2003 2:48:08 PM
Federal taxes at the end of Reagan's term were higher than at the beginning. He gave it all back, in payroll taxes and loophole closing in the 1986 tax reform and ss reform packages. It's another of the Big Lies told by the wing nuts--that Reagan cut taxes
You're wrong. In 1981 federal taxes as a percentage of GDP were 19.6. After the tax cuts they shrank as low as 17.4 percent. By the end of Reagan's term they had crept back up, but only to 18.3 percent.
Total federal tax revenue did grow, but because the economy grew. Not because taxes went up.
7130. Al D - 4/16/2003 5:08:20 PM
Since I am not an economist, nor near as smart as any of the above, I have to use road scholar thinking. Now I understand that a President is favored by a good economy, and hurt by a bad economy. I also reason that Presidents like to get re-elected and loved by the populace. therego, it seems reasonable to me that any President would do everything he could to keep the economy flowing.
And yet, there are times when the econmy goes down, and it isn't always in the 2nd term of a President. Do you suppose it is possible that the President doesn't have a lot to do with the ups and downs of the economy?
7131. ee - 4/16/2003 5:13:44 PM
NO WAY its all Bush. Reagan too.
7132. arkymalarky - 4/16/2003 8:14:47 PM
Heyyyy!! PE and EE!!
EE, When your dad began posting again, I was wanting to get time to email and get him to prod you back in here. Please stick around!
Now I'll go back and read the thread.
7133. arkymalarky - 4/16/2003 8:21:56 PM
Message # 7111It was not a lone billionaire, PM. Did you read the article? Please look at all the connections there. A mere skim will not do. There was a vast network he managed to gather around him, due partly to issues here, and due partly to the RW groups willing to work with congressional support who have interesting ties to him. I've explained this many times.
7134. arkymalarky - 4/16/2003 8:27:36 PM
Clinton can be graded down, however, for not recognizing the threat of terrorism or of WMD,/i>
Now that's bullshit, and you and I both know it. They stopped a major plot on the millennial in Los Angeles, and there is plenty of evidence he put it as a priority when most of his political enemies pooh-poohed it. I linked something on that the other day, as well.
I guess Cal and Clinton have it in common that they should've realized the disasters of Hoover and Bush II were looming on the horizon. Or is that the fault of the voters/USSC? And while I don't blame Hoover for the Depression for obvious reasons, I certainly blame the Bush II (or whoever winds him up every morning) for the stagnation we're in now and the budget problems we're having.
7135. arkymalarky - 4/16/2003 8:29:58 PM
He tacks left; he tacks right; he triangulates; he's a problem solver who waits for problems to pop up before working on them.
Oh puhleeeze. Wrong again. Besides, how do you work on problems before you have them?
7136. arkymalarky - 4/16/2003 8:31:21 PM
You're not speaking to some young dufus in your classroom.
No, I'm talking to an old one who could have gotten some good out of having been in my classroom.
7137. arkymalarky - 4/16/2003 8:33:26 PM
Your timeline proves nothing except that Clinton competently handled crises while dealing with an idiotic single-minded Republican-dominated congress.
He didn't create those situations did he? He didn't ignore any that arose did he? So exactly what did your timeline prove?
7138. arkymalarky - 4/16/2003 8:35:42 PM
Yes, the seventies were certainly a prosperous time.
I was referring to the fifties and sixties. I didn't say anything about decades.
7139. arkymalarky - 4/16/2003 8:40:22 PM
Oh my.
7140. jayackroyd - 4/16/2003 8:41:10 PM
From http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/statab/sec10.pdf
Taxes
1980: 18.9% of gdp
1988: 18.1% of gdp
This is a revolution? And all that it did was put off taxes, by running deficits in the 20s instead of the teens for the Reagan period. The supply side growth thing simply didn't happen. Fiscal discipline in the Bush and Clinton administrations drove down deficits and lowered interest rates, which fueled the nineties recovery.
7141. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 9:32:57 PM
Jay --
1981 (when Reagan assumed office): 19.6%
1989 (when he left): 18.3%
1984: (lowest of Reagan's tenure): 17.4%
The figure for tax revenue as a percentage of GDP had been in the 17th percentile for most of the 60s and 70s. Except for 1969, at the height of the Vietnam War, and for the last two years of WW2 (1944 and 1945), federal revenues had never surpassed Carter's last year in office.
That is, until the last five years (1998-2002):
1992: 17.5%
1993: 17.6%
1994: 18.1%
1995: 18.5%
1996: 18.9%
1997: 19.3%
1998: 19.9%
1999: 20.0%
2000: 20.6%
2001: 20.7% (est.)
2002: 20.2% (est.)
2003: 19.7% (est.)
2004: 19.4% (est.)
2005: 19.2% (est.)
2006: 18.9% (est.)
Please note that even by the standard of the last thirty years, we aren't getting into uncharted territory here with Bush's tax cut. Clinton, on the other hand, had raised federal spending to levels it had never been before.
7142. RickNelson - 4/16/2003 9:35:29 PM
PM,
I knew what your post was espousing. And that has become plain. However, it's just as easy to say, if a pres. cand. speaks about raising taxes that's a losing proposition.
What I came away with is that there is a premise that these politicians continue to evoke, and all to many hear only what they want to hear.
I am tired tonight, so again, you may find this not the least bit in tune with your line of thinking.
What the Reagan years did with deregulation, decentralization and reallocation of tax revenues to higher military spending [upon wasted SDI in particular] was to realign the states tax structures to fit their own particular constituencies. The agendas vary widely, some states still have no sales tax, some like Minnesota have among the highest. There are huge gas taxes here as well. And let's bring up property taxes; home and liscense tabs for your vehicles.
The taxes of the federal government, correlate to the taxes of the states and local municipalities. Therefore is one realigns and restructures, that is the trickle down reality. Not that the money of the rich-fat-cat saving from his huge tax relief creates more jobs. Hogwash!
7143. RickNelson - 4/16/2003 9:35:44 PM
Minnesota is to damn liberal for its own good, but that doesn't matter now, it's realigning under the new Republican governor Pawlenty, which took its cue partly from former governor Ventura. Don't raise taxes any more (ha!) and spend less upon the programs that already exist. Tighten the belt, suck it up. And Pawlenty admits that the social programs meant to help the homeless and the poorest are being cut and those people will have further difficulty.
A lot of this is undefinable.
Whose doing the study to find out how many homeless there are? Whose studying the statistics of what makes a poor person suffer? Whose doing anything to quantify anything that will relate to the social framework of anything that has to do with the poor? My point is it wont likely be a government survey, nor a federal commission, nor anything to do with a political agenda. A non-profit might to something focused, but never a broad scale.
What I cannot understand is short-sightedness. The inability or perhaps more likely the lack of desire to care about anything that might be of concern to the poor. A lot of people know nothing about the poor and care even less. Then let's move beyond the poor to the blue collar worker, the service class and the struggling 20-30 somethings'.
It takes another broad sense of vision to open ones eyes to the needs of this group. What do they need, where do they get it, what might be of concern to this class? High food and gas prices are way up on the list. High rent and low cost housing is top on the list. Then day care, schools, and health care. Single moms might commonly fall into this class. Not the sure minded, professional, well educated mom, I'm talking about the average mom.
There's too much to get to. I'll just have to stop. This could go on and on. But, if I'm not getting any point across, then I'll have to look for a different tack.
7144. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 9:47:18 PM
However, it's just as easy to say, if a pres. cand. speaks about raising taxes that's a losing proposition.
No, it's not. We were discussing why that's the case. I'm arguing that Reagan had a lot to do with that.
As for SDI, it's not that important frankly. You may not like it, and you may be right that it was useless (although the Russians were sure worried about it), but it doesn't add up to much more than a needle in the budgetary haystack.
7145. RickNelson - 4/16/2003 9:55:36 PM
You want to give Reagan credit for the trend of Pres. candidates to state they will not raise taxes. Now do you see that I know what you mean?
But, I'm saying, so what? What's that got to do with anything anyway?
That I don't like SDI is just a needle in the haystack I'm equating that bit to. I'm trying to open the idea of tax cuts to the reality that they truly do not mean a tax cut is taking place everywhere. Fed. tax cuts mean raising taxes elsewhere. That's what I'm saying, that's what my examples are equating.
7146. Al D - 4/16/2003 9:57:48 PM
Rick
Do you have any concept of individual responsibility, or do you just view people as a series of victims? I know from your posts that your life has been no bed of roses, mine has not been either. It wasn't until my 40's that I stopped seeing myself as a victim, my bosses as my enemy, and decided to get to work tending my own garden. Now if a meteor falls out of the sky and injures a person, I'll give him victim status. But many so-called victims create their status.
The above is a little off the wall, I realize.
7147. jayackroyd - 4/16/2003 10:00:26 PM
Look Pincher, I don't want to get into an argument about fact, but here are the Statistical Abstract Numbers:
Stat abstract
But, iac, my point is there is no significant difference in democratic or republican positions on the size of government, or in the level of taxation. They want it as big as they can get the public to stand. Lately, in the last 20 or so years, the republicans have wanted to fund this agreed upon size of government with deficit spending. The last democratic administration wanted to fund it with current revenues. The ultimate level of taxation is the same, regardless of funding mechanism. You cannot reduce the size of government without reducing spending. The republican Big Lie is denying this fundamental fact.
The claim that they are funding it with deficit spending is hollow, because they have to get the revenue at some point, as Reagan did in 1986.
The claim is especially hollow now. It is deeply ironic to hear republicans, in control of the White House, Senate, and House saying that they need to cut taxes because that is the only way to reduce the size of government. That may have been true when control of the government was mixed (it was a lie then, but never mind), but there is now nothing stopping the republicans from voting in a greatly reduced government, funded by a fiscally sound budget process.
Instead they choose pork, and lots of it.
7148. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 10:01:34 PM
It was not a lone billionaire, PM. Did you read the article?
No Arky, I didn't. I just surmised that it must be about a lone billionaire and then, through my miraculous powers, cited something from the article without having actually read it.
Please look at all the connections there. A mere skim will not do. There was a vast network he managed to gather around him, due partly to issues here, and due partly to the RW groups willing to work with congressional support who have interesting ties to him. I've explained this many times.
Yes, there were a lot of connections. Being a billionaire will do that for you. But in my "mere skim" I was still able to deduce that our lone billionaire doesn't always get his way, even with his conservative colleagues, and that the "vastness" and "conspiratorial" nature of the relationships was heavily overdone by you and Jay.
7149. RickNelson - 4/16/2003 10:05:08 PM
Well, Al, As you can see I stopped getting on with my post 7143, because I was about to get into what you've just posted. The reality of many poor is self destructive behavior. Drugs and alcohol, crime and punishment.
The social fabric of this class is very complicated. There are many things that give rise to this class and you have noted that you understand some of it. And you've noted that I also understand some of it. That you ask if I understand the concept of individual responsibility is a good question.
That question opens up the counter question of do we need to understand the concept of community and the responsibility of community members to help the less fortunate within that community. Not just true victims, but those who have fallen. Do we need to help the one who has chosen the wrong path via drugs and alcohol?
There is another problem with this that I know you'll think. That's whether these problems are punishable crimes and the like. Well sure, some are. But, then there are the less inclined to deviant behavior, but just as inclined to screw up their life with drugs and alcohol. That's why there are programs for these people. I cannot get into the crime aspect. It's the most complicated and the most hopeless of persons.
7150. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 10:06:58 PM
Jay --
Why should I go to that site (which I can't read anyway), when I can just go the official U.S. government site on the budget
Budget of the United States Government: Historical Tables
Click on Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits (-) in Current Dollars, Constant (FY 1996) Dollars, and as Percentages of GDP: 1940-2006
7151. jayackroyd - 4/16/2003 10:07:28 PM
One last note. Since when has it been the case that the conservative position is that tax rates should be constant wrt to the gdp? How can there be tax cut if you're paying more each year?
It's always irritated me to see articles in the newspaper quoting, without comment, (usually democrat) claims that reductions in the rate of increase of spending are cuts in spending. This whole baseline budget thing--that we are gonna spend x% of the GDP on NPR, ad infinitum--is deeply broken. There's stuff that does not depend on the size of the population or the economy, and there's stuff that does depend on those things that needs periodic reexamination. Treating the current set of expenditures as the permanent set of expenditures is part of a very broken, very corrupt political process.
On this score, Bush 2 deserves some credit. I generally don't agree with the administration's priorities, but they have shown a willinginess to make substantial changes in the baseline budgets.
7152. jayackroyd - 4/16/2003 10:15:45 PM
PM, from your source. (Stat Abstract is also an official source of govt statistics.) As percent of gdp. I really don't get it. I'm saying that the dems and reps are the same in their treatment of spending, and in taxation. Are you saying this data indicates otherwise?
Year GDP recpts outlays deficit
1980 2,732.1 18.9 21.6 (2.7)
1981 3,061.6 19.6 22.2 (2.6)
1982 3,228.6 19.1 23.1 (4.0)
1983 3,440.5 17.5 23.5 (6.0)
1984 3,839.4 17.4 22.2 (4.8)
1985 4,136.6 17.7 22.9 (5.1)
1986 4,401.4 17.5 22.5 (5.0)
1987 4,647.0 18.4 21.6 (3.2)
1988 5,014.7 18.1 21.2 (3.1)
1989 5,405.5 18.3 21.2 (2.8)
1990 5,735.6 18.0 21.8 (3.9)
1991 5,930.4 17.8 22.3 (4.5)
1992 6,218.6 17.5 22.2 (4.7)
1993 6,558.4 17.6 21.5 (3.9)
1994 6,944.6 18.1 21.1 (2.9)
1995 7,324.0 18.5 20.7 (2.2)
1996 7,694.6 18.9 20.3 (1.4)
1997 8,185.2 19.3 19.6 (0.3)
1998 8,673.5 19.9 19.1 0.8
1999 9,130.4 20.0 18.7 1.4
2000 9,824.4 20.6 18.2 2.4
2001 estimate 10,312.7 20.7 18.0 2.7
2002 estimate 10,857.8 20.2 18.1 2.1
2003 estimate 11,445.8 19.7 17.6 2.1
2004 estimate 12,059.2 19.4 17.2 2.2
2005 estimate 12,701.2 19.2 17.1 2.1
2006 estimate 13,375.7 18.9 16.6 2.3
7153. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 10:29:48 PM
Jay --
But, iac, my point is there is no significant difference in democratic or republican positions on the size of government, or in the level of taxation.
There is not a huge difference, but there are differences, and I prefer the Republicans calls for lower taxation and higher spending on defense. I don't care much for the budget deficits, but I prefer forcing the Democrats to lower non-defense related spending later than I do waiting around expecting them to do so.
They want it as big as they can get the public to stand. Lately, in the last 20 or so years, the republicans have wanted to fund this agreed upon size of government with deficit spending.
That's true of two Republican administrations (Reagan and Bush Jr.) and perhaps the current congress, but it is not true of the first Republican-controlled congress, which was instrumental in persuading Clinton to maintain fiscal conservatism in the second half of his first term.
The last democratic administration wanted to fund it with current revenues. The ultimate level of taxation is the same, regardless of funding mechanism. You cannot reduce the size of government without reducing spending. The republican Big Lie is denying this fundamental fact.
If you're talking about supply-side economics, I agree. It's a bunch of crap. But, again, my support for the policy is based on expectations. I can wait until the end of forever for Democrats to help in lowering spending or I can go along with voodoo economics in the knowledge that Democrats will then be forced to lower spending, which they otherwise would not do.*
*My use of "lowering spending" should also include maintaining spending at current levels.
continued...
7154. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 10:30:09 PM
The claim that they are funding it with deficit spending is hollow, because they have to get the revenue at some point, as Reagan did in 1986.
That's not true. It depends on what you think the future might have been like without the deficits. The level of government revenue has been fairly steady for the last twenty years, but there is certainly an argument that if taxes hadn't been lowered, and the resulting deficits hadn't happened, federal spending could have continued to rise to European-like levels.
The claim is especially hollow now. It is deeply ironic to hear republicans, in control of the White House, Senate, and House saying that they need to cut taxes because that is the only way to reduce the size of government. That may have been true when control of the government was mixed (it was a lie then, but never mind), but there is now nothing stopping the republicans from voting in a greatly reduced government, funded by a fiscally sound budget process.
Instead they choose pork, and lots of it.
Pork is a miniscule part of the budget. Saying pork is responsible for the budget mess is a little like saying welfare queens are responsible for it.
7155. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 10:35:53 PM
Jay --
Depending on where the tax cut is allocated, the difference between the government collecting 20 percent of the GDP and 17 percent could be significant.
You could practically fund the entire armies of Europe and Asia in that 3% difference.
7156. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 10:38:10 PM
Correction: not "could" be signficant, but *would* be significant. It's just a question as to who would benefit from the tax cuts (and who would later suffer from the spending cuts).
7157. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 11:01:48 PM
Arky --
Now that's bullshit, and you and I both know it. They stopped a major plot on the millennial in Los Angeles, and there is plenty of evidence he put it as a priority when most of his political enemies pooh-poohed it. I linked something on that the other day, as well.
Let me be clear: I do not blame Clinton for 9-11. I do not think that Clinton was much different in the compromises he made with terrorists than either Reagan or Bush Sr. At a detailed level, one might make that argument, but I don't choose to do so.
We are talking about the difference between what historians think of as "great" and "mediocre" presidents, not about assigning blame for particular incidents. No serious historian is going to directly blame Clinton for 9-11, but undoubtably there will be many historians who see Clinton as not having foreseen or grasped -- as a great president would -- future opportunities and threats. And they will downgrade him accordingly.
I guess Cal and Clinton have it in common that they should've realized the disasters of Hoover and Bush II were looming on the horizon.
Coolidge actually believed that the good times of the 1920s were coming to an end and left office early because he thought he wasn't the right man to handle them. He could have run for reelection in 1928.
There are good arguments for saying Clinotn should have realized that terrorism and WMD were the threats he must prepare the nation for in the future, instead of, say, wasting time and rhetoric arguing that humanitarian missions would be the new focus.
But the important thing is not to assign blame, but to look at the presidency in retrospect and rank it. Fairly or not, the Great Depression has an effect on how the Republican presidents of 1920s are considered by historians. Fairly or not, 9-11 will have an effect on how Clinton is judged.
continued ...
7158. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 11:02:24 PM
Or is that the fault of the voters/USSC? And while I don't blame Hoover for the Depression for obvious reasons, I certainly blame the Bush II (or whoever winds him up every morning) for the stagnation we're in now and the budget problems we're having.
Budget problems? Yes. Stagnation? No. We just got out of one the most successful decades in U.S. economic history, one that blew up an enormous bubble of wealth. We were bound to hit the skids for a while no matter who was in charge.
7159. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 11:08:47 PM
Oh puhleeeze. Wrong again. Besides, how do you work on problems before you have them?
You anticipate they will be an even larger problem in the future, Arky. It's not as if terrorism or WMD didn't exist in the 1990s. It's not as if some people were not arguing at the time that terrorism and WMD would be major problems for the U.S.
To be fair, I think the Bush administration didn't anticipate -- any better than the Clinton administration -- that terrorism would be the problem it's become, but I do think that Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz did foresee that WMD and rogue states would be major issues the U.S. would have to tackle.
7160. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 11:10:51 PM
Pincher: "You're not speaking to some young dufus in your classroom."
Arky: "No, I'm talking to an old one who could have gotten some good out of having been in my classroom."
I would have been unbearable, throwing spitballs and teasing you unmercilessly. ;-)
7161. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 11:13:25 PM
Your timeline proves nothing except that Clinton competently handled crises while dealing with an idiotic single-minded Republican-dominated congress.
He didn't create those situations did he? He didn't ignore any that arose did he? So exactly what did your timeline prove?
Weren't you just arguing with Ace that he couldn't deal with these important affairs of state because dealing with the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy was taking up all his time?
7162. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 11:22:31 PM
Arky Message # 7138
I was referring to the fifties and sixties. I didn't say anything about decades.
No, you said in Message # 7106: "The prosperous times [Reagan's 80s] so mistily looked back on weren't all that great, even in relation to the two prosperous periods it was sandwiched between."
I can understand Clinton's 90s being one prosperous side of the sandwich, but how do the 50s and 60s sandwich up against the other side of Reagan's 80s?
Please, you're better off with PE's defense that the seventies were more prosperous than everyone thought at the time.
7163. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 11:24:09 PM
That's ten posts in a row so I think I'll give it a rest.
7164. jayackroyd - 4/16/2003 11:24:48 PM
PM--
I'd like to continue the discussion of the parties' views of debt, taxes and spending, but am out of gas right now.
The issues I am most interested in are policy issues rather than political issues; perhaps the discussion belongs on the slow thread. I am still struggling to find a way to make this a political thread. That is, a thread focused not on policy, and not on who is evil and who is not, but on the mechanics of how these guys achieve their goals. The presidential election cycle has now begun. Any suggestions on how to make this a discussion about politics, rather than a partisan screamfest, would be appreciated.
Here, or at my email address, jay@ackroyd.org. This request for advice and suggestions is directed at all participants.
7165. jayackroyd - 4/16/2003 11:29:12 PM
That's true of two Republican administrations (Reagan and Bush Jr.) and perhaps the current congress, but it is not true of the first Republican-controlled congress, which was instrumental in persuading Clinton to maintain fiscal conservatism in the second half of his first term.
All right. One comment before I shut down. You're crediting the '94 congress, and I'm crediting Rubin and Clinton. That's a bootless argument; there's no way to say who is right, and it is probably true that we are both right, and both wrong.
7166. PincherMartin - 4/16/2003 11:35:26 PM
Jay --
I think Rubin, Greenspan, the Republican Congress, and, yes, even Clinton deserve credit.
7167. jayackroyd - 4/16/2003 11:44:57 PM
Right, Greenspan did play a key role, on both the congressional and executive branch sides. Thanks for pointing that out.
7168. arkymalarky - 4/16/2003 11:47:20 PM
I'm shutting down too, but I must protest that I did have the 50s and 60s in mind when I posted that, so the 70s is a semantics thing. Call it the mayo or the lettuce--no, cheese--inside the first slice of bread, which would be the time I was referring to in the 50s and 60s, by way of comparing the 80s with the other two periods for perspective on how disappointing it actually was.
And no, I was arguing with Ace that Clinton did an amazing job of staying focused when all those morons who drove the impeachment could focus on was how much titillation they could get from delving into his pecadillos.
7169. Al D - 4/17/2003 12:50:33 AM
Ill just pick up on one point: great Presidents percieve problems and guide the Nation toward a solution. Should Roosevelt prepared the U.S. for war starting after he was elected in 1936? Instead he ran as an anti-war candidate against Wilkie, who was also anti war. For sure the majority of the country was anti-war, but leaders did nothing to make them face the facts. Maybe Roosevelt would have stayed anti-war had not Hitler attacked Russia in June, 1941.
7170. jayackroyd - 4/17/2003 10:35:30 AM
Michael Kinsley in Time argues in the same fashion wrt Bush, saying, if nothing else, he is a leader by taking these very bold actions.
Excerpt:
Bush's decision to make war on Iraq may have been visionary and courageous or reckless and tragic or anything in between, but one thing it wasn't was urgently necessary. For Bush, this war was optional. Events did not impose it on him. Few public voices were egging him on. He hadn't made an issue of the need for "regime change" during the presidential campaign or made it a priority in the early months of his Administration. If he had completely ignored Iraq through the 2004 election, the price would have been a few disappointed Administration hawks and one or two grumpy op-eds.
7171. Wombat - 4/17/2003 10:37:00 AM
From 1940 on, Roosevelt was preparing the country for war. The draft was reintroduced in 1940, "cash and carry" arms sales were permitted to the British and French, neutrality laws were evaded to favor the British.
7172. Wombat - 4/17/2003 10:38:16 AM
If Pincher would tease Arky "unmercelessly" than he wouldn't be teasing her much at all.
7173. PincherMartin - 4/17/2003 1:35:39 PM
Wombat --
Good catch. I mixed together "unmercifully" with "mercilessly".
7174. judithathome - 4/17/2003 1:43:51 PM
Been listening to Bush too much.
7175. PincherMartin - 4/17/2003 1:44:19 PM
Or you.
7176. PincherMartin - 4/17/2003 1:45:45 PM
FDR's preparation for WW2 is a good example of what I was talking about before, but not in the way Al D suggests.
Many historians think FDR's war preparations were wise decisions that helped ease the United States entry into the war. But those policies were not only taken in the absence of public support, they were often taken in the face of public opposition. Still, historians generally give FDR good marks for his pre-1941 moves.
7177. judithathome - 4/17/2003 1:46:32 PM
Oh, okay...forgive me for trying to make a joke and be pleasant. So sorry I didn't precede it with an insult.
7178. PincherMartin - 4/17/2003 1:50:09 PM
Judith, was that remark your way of being pleasant? Then so was mine.
Now that we know how to be viciously pleasant to each other, why don't we dispense with exchanging insults.
7179. judithathome - 4/17/2003 1:54:23 PM
Jeez, sounds good to me.
It is well known that I am not a Bush fan and I did happen to think it was funny that you said you'd mixed the two words, as Bush sometimes does. So yes, I was trying to be pleasant and make a joke. After your blistering remarks of the other day toward me, I thought I'd just try to move on and I see that in order to do so, I shall just have to not address you at all after this.
7180. PincherMartin - 4/17/2003 1:59:08 PM
After your blistering remarks of the other day toward me, I thought I'd just try to move on and I see that in order to do so, I shall just have to not address you at all after this.
My blistering remarks towards you were well-deserved.
As for you not addressing me, I hope you don't mean in the same way you don't address Rosie. I don't think I could put up with all that attention from you.
7181. magoseph - 4/17/2003 2:20:23 PM
You just came back some time ago, Pincher, and you haven't been witness to Rosie's unprovoked attacks on Judith, you know.
7182. PincherMartin - 4/17/2003 2:38:29 PM
magoseph --
I wouldn't defend Rosie if he had sprang from my own loins.
The joke is that Judith often seems to address Rosie even after publicly forswearing to do so. Now that she's making similar public promises to me, I'm hoping she's more true to her word.
7183. magoseph - 4/17/2003 3:25:51 PM
Alright, Pincher, you have the last word on this matter.
7184. Al D - 4/17/2003 5:19:25 PM
If someone tells you you have the last word, you really don't. Perhaps I've been listening to Bush too much. I had a friend you used to try to end every discussion with "Well, in the final analysis..." Oh yeah, who says so.
7185. concerned - 4/17/2003 5:32:06 PM
As of this moment, I have the last word.
So, there.
7186. arkymalarky - 4/17/2003 9:59:10 PM
Not any more, babbaloo.
Message # 7173
I caught it, but I didn't want to feed into the Persnickety Teacher stereotype by pointing it out. Being and Arky and a public school teacher is tough enough without feeding the fire.
I was reading an article the other day about the Language Police that have arisen since Bush came to office, and the article gave an example of one of his Bushisms explaining that his education program "would resignate with parents." This is why I continually tell people his "No Child Left Behind" program should be retroactive to its creator.
I wonder if a shock collar would help that sort of thing. Maybe Laura could be the one to wield it, since she was a school librarian.
And, ahem, it's "had sprung."
Sorry. I'll quit now--that is unless someone wants to pay me for grammar tutoring to help defer the tax I owe according to that idiotic program I used yesterday, April 16. I hope they have a net connection in jail.
7187. arkymalarky - 4/17/2003 10:01:45 PM
correction: and=an
7188. PincherMartin - 4/18/2003 2:23:04 AM
Arky --
I make mistakes like that quite often. But then so does everyone else. Even in Wombat's correction, he misspelled my unpretty creation "unmercelessly".
One of the sentences you wrote (the one I mentioned before with the two "ifs") was certainly not something an English teacher should show off to the class, unless it would be as an example of how not to write.
7189. arkymalarky - 4/18/2003 6:41:35 PM
Oferpetesake. Talk about sensitive, Mr. Kettle. Or maybe too thick to get it. I haven't decided yet. I said that in the context of the discussion. If I were into corrections, just dealing with AlD would be a full time job.
Sorry Al, but you know it's true, and I know they're mostly typos.
And while I'm at it, PM, you could learn a thing or two about dishing it out and taking it, or standing the heat or one of those axioms.
(PS and FYI--sentence fragments are ok when used as an element of style or tone)
7190. seadate - 4/18/2003 6:47:29 PM
How can you not just love Arky.
7191. seadate - 4/18/2003 6:48:26 PM
And that's as political as I'm gonna get.
7192. arkymalarky - 4/18/2003 6:58:04 PM
Kiss! You know I'd never let politics come between us!
7193. seadate - 4/18/2003 7:00:55 PM
Not meaning to be be condecending, Arky. I know your post was serious, I just thought it was funny.
7194. arkymalarky - 4/18/2003 7:18:52 PM
Not really, and I know you well enough to know you don't do condescending. I rarely ever take anything seriously here.
7195. arkymalarky - 4/18/2003 7:20:24 PM
IOW, my post wasn't really serious. My point was, though.
7196. PincherMartin - 4/18/2003 10:37:19 PM
Arky --
Oferpetesake. Talk about sensitive, Mr. Kettle. Or maybe too thick to get it. I haven't decided yet. I said that in the context of the discussion. If I were into corrections, just dealing with AlD would be a full time job.
Sensitive? Not at all, Mrs. Pot. I've enjoyed our back-and-forth.
And while I'm at it, PM, you could learn a thing or two about dishing it out and taking it, or standing the heat or one of those axioms.
I think I both dish it out and take it pretty well.
But in this case I wasn't the slightest bit put off by your seconding of Wombat's correction. I hope you continue to point out my errors; I know I will continue to point out yours. It could be the basis of a wonderful relationship.
7197. arkymalarky - 4/18/2003 10:55:28 PM
Hmmm. Sounds a bit S&M for me. I'll bet you'd play prescriptivist, too, just so you could zap me more often and take advantage of my Southern idiom.
7198. judithathome - 4/19/2003 1:09:29 AM
Bush Goes AWOL: Eric Alterman
...But as with Vietnam, "W" is AWOL and Cheney has "other priorities." They have not merely ignored "homeland" protection, they have sabotaged it. Shocking, yes. But don't take my word for it. A January Brookings Institution report explains, "President Bush vetoed several specific (and relatively cost-effective) measures proposed by Congress that would have addressed critical national vulnerabilities. As a result, the country remains more vulnerable than it should be today." A Council on Foreign Relations task force chaired by Gary Hart and Warren Rudman concurs: "America remains dangerously unprepared to prevent and respond to a catastrophic terrorist attack on U.S. soil," it warns.
7199. Edmund Dantes - 4/19/2003 6:43:00 PM
But don't take my word for it. A January Brookings Institution report explains, "President Bush vetoed several specific (and relatively cost-effective) measures proposed by Congress that would have addressed critical national vulnerabilities. As a result, the country remains more vulnerable than it should be today."
Sorry, Mr. Alterman, but I won't take your word for it, nor that of the Brookings Institute report which you cite.
According to this Gannett News Service graphic, Bush recorded zero vetoes in his first two years in office:
The January 2003 Brookings reports doesn't list which measures it's talking about because such measures don't in fact exist.
7200. magoseph - 4/20/2003 8:09:02 AM
The War at Home
While President Bush pursues the fight against terrorism and the military effort in Iraq, he's also staging a new battle on the home front for his domestic programs. Last week he began by stumping the country for his tax cut plan, a cornerstone of his presidential ambitions. Mr. Bush's successful prosecution of the war in Iraq does not mean that Americans must now fall in line behind his misguided domestic agenda. On almost every front, it is a disaster, a national train wreck that must be headed off for the country's well-being.
As far as the big tax cut for the rich is concerned, that was the Bush pay-off for financing his capture of the presidency--anyone who has any grasp of economic reality knows that when you have over-capacity, you can't create additional capacity with a tax-cut. However, this article is worth reading because it really exposes the total lack of morality that is the hall-mark of the Bush administration.
7201. alistairconnor - 4/20/2003 8:25:21 AM
Not at all, Mrs. Pot
Frankly Pincher, you've crossed the line here. You're accusing Arky of being married to Pol?
7202. OhioSTOPAS - 4/20/2003 10:19:35 AM
Re 7199: Are you serious, Eddie? You devote a post to "refuting" the Brookings Institution's statement that "President Bush vetoed . . . measures proposed by Congress . . ." with the undisputable fact that President Bush has not exercised his Presidential veto against any law enacted by Congress. How could the Brookings Institution make such an outrageous, easily refuted, lie?
Here's a clue, Eddie: The verb "veto" does not necessarily mean formal exercise of a President's constitutional authority. It also means simply to forbid, to disapprove, to prohibit. Obviously that is the sense in which the quoted sentence uses the word "veto".
Surely you're smart enough to figure this out by yourself. Maybe, as conservatives so often do, you saw a criticism of Bush and had your reason overcome by your feeeeeeeelings.
7203. judithathome - 4/20/2003 11:07:08 AM
Nice catch, Ohio.
7204. arkymalarky - 4/20/2003 12:31:07 PM
Hey Alistair, at first I thought he was accusing me of *being* him.
The economic effect the Bush administration's policies has had on the states is unreal. I don't know what they're going to do. Ours is in a deadlock and funds have been cut to the bone and there are necessary things that have to be addressed. We had the second longest legislative session in history (they only meet every other year) and they adjourned without passing a budget and the governor will now call a special session he sets the agenda for and it will likely make matters worse, since he's engaged in a big powerplay with congress rather than listening to options and hashing out compromises, and the major media is behind him.
I've never seen anything like it in all my years in AR. The closest state university to us, where my dad taught, will offer NO academic scholarships to incoming freshmen next fall (the one coming up was already in place), and Mose almost didn't get hers funded where she's attending.
7205. OhioSTOPAS - 4/20/2003 1:21:34 PM
Further to my Message # 7202: In August 2002, President Bush rejected some homeland security spending authorized in a bill passed by Congress. Although not technically a "veto" (but maybe a "pocket veto"), this may be what the Brookings Institution is talking about.
7206. OhioSTOPAS - 4/20/2003 1:27:46 PM
This article by Jonathan Chait of The New Repulic is a strong critique of the Bush Administration's homeland security efforts, or rather lack of efforts.
(At least so I've read; the entire article is not available online and I have yet to read it.)
7207. robertjayb - 4/20/2003 1:38:20 PM
WRT education funding: pigs are flying over my CenTex community this morning. Hell, they're not just flying, they're doing barrel rolls and chandelle turns and all manner of stunts. Reason is...our local rag has a half-page editorial calling for a state income tax to fund public education. Stunning heresy on this Easter day.
7208. judithathome - 4/20/2003 2:04:20 PM
I'll bet it was placed by some Rick Perry toadying minion who can't be treaced back to him.
You are so right...pigs are flying but that will be nothing to compare to what the fan output will be if they try to put this through.
7209. OhioSTOPAS - 4/20/2003 3:46:09 PM
Time Magazine
WHERE ARE THE WEAPONS?
. . . For months before the war began, everyone from Bush on down argued that Saddam's arsenal of biological and chemical weapons was so dangerous that destroying it was worth a war. They laid claim to information so certain that Colin Powell was able to provide graphic details to a U.N. audience in February. Pentagon officials were confident that the quality of their intelligence would lead troops to the illicit stockpiles fairly quickly once U.S. boots were on Iraqi soil. Now they're adjusting the picture: the Pentagon says its soldiers are no more likely to stumble over a weapons cache than top U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix was. "Things were mobile. Things were underground. Things were in tunnels. Things were hidden. Things were dispersed. Now, are we going to find that? No, it's a big country," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said last week. "The inspectors didn't find anything, and I doubt that we will;what we will do is find the people who will tell us."
However sanguine officials sound in public, in private the pressure is rising. The Pentagon dispatched an entire brigade . . . and offered $200,000 bounties for any weapons of mass destruction (WMD) uncovered. Local officers were authorized to make payments of $2,500 on the spot. "The White House is screaming, 'Find me some WMD,'" says a State Department official . . .
Even the hard-liners concede that they have confirmed absolutely nothing so far. . . Some officials now question whether huge stockpiles will ever be found: it's easy to hide a liter of anthrax, but not the factory-size facility needed to produce it. . . .
7210. Edmund Dantes - 4/20/2003 6:19:41 PM
The verb "veto" does not necessarily mean formal exercise of a President's constitutional authority. It also means simply to forbid, to disapprove, to prohibit. Obviously that is the sense in which the quoted sentence uses the word "veto".
Surely you can't be serious. In that case the language they should use is "President Bush forbade, disapproved, or prohibited measures by Congress."
In the interactions between Congress and the President veto has a very specific meaning, and you know it, but as usual there is no depth to which you won't seek in trying to find cover for your partisan position. In this case, moreover, you don't even know if there's any cover to be had. You have no idea what the Brookings Institute is talking about--and of course Alterman doesn't either because he lifts the language wholesale from the Brookings report. So you are left with saying that you believe that is the sense in which they meant the word. You believe that because you are a partisan hack who doesn't mind it when those "on your side" use clearly false language (i.e., lie).
"The President vetoed a specific and cost-effective measure proposed by Congress."
There is no ambiguity in the above sentence except for that ilk who argue about the meaning of simple words like "is."
Although not technically a "veto" (but maybe a "pocket veto")...
Then again, I may give you too much credit. Obviously you have no idea what a pocket veto is, if you think what you've described is "maybe a 'pocket veto.'"
7211. Edmund Dantes - 4/20/2003 6:32:54 PM
President Bush vetoed several specific (and relatively cost-effective) measures proposed by Congress that would have addressed critical national vulnerabilities...
"Veto" we've already covered; it's a lie.
"Specific"--well, no one seems able to list these "specific" proposals.
"Cost-effective"--another word that should be a flag to any critical reader that this is propaganda. What does cost-effective mean? It means the benefits outweigh the cost. Yet in this case we're talking about some specific measures--that no one seems able to list--that were never approved. Hence, how could they be cost-effective?
Presumably, these measures would be designed to prevent terrorism, correct? The only way they could be cost-effective is if they actually prevented a terrorist act that would have resulted in more damage than the cost of the measures themselves.
Given that since 911 we have yet to experience any successful terrorist acts in the US, there have been zero acts that these measures might have otherwise prevented. Therefore, any expense for such measures would not be cost-effective.
In fact, cost-effectiveness is extremely difficult to measure hypothetically in the case of terrorism--unless someone merely wishes to grind an ax.
7212. vonKreedon - 4/20/2003 9:58:47 PM
If in fact Bush has not exercised his Veto power on the security measures being discussed then the article is dishonest. When talking about the President and using the term veto one is being quite specific.
7213. OhioSTOPAS - 4/21/2003 5:28:08 AM
President Bush himself characterized his August 2002 action as a sort of "pocket veto."
I agree that "vetoed" is not the most precise word for Bush's actions. I propose "put the kibosh on" instead.
7214. magoseph - 4/21/2003 6:29:37 AM
Religious people are gaining influence in government.
Fellowship finances townhouse where 6 congressmen live
WASHINGTON — Six members of Congress live in a million-dollar Capitol Hill townhouse that is subsidized by a secretive religious organization, tax records show.
The lawmakers, all of whom are Christian, pay low rent to live in the stately red brick, three-story house on C Street, two blocks from the Capitol. It is maintained by a group, alternately known as the ''Fellowship'' and the ''Foundation,'' that brings together world leaders and elected officials through religion.
Few in the Fellowship are willing to talk about its mission. It organizes the annual National Prayer Breakfast attended by the president, members of Congress and dignitaries from around the world. But the group leaves its name off the program, even though it spent $924,373 to be host of the event in 2001, bringing in $606,292 in proceeds, according to the most recent available IRS records. It pays travel expenses for foreign officials to attend.
7215. concerned - 4/22/2003 12:49:04 PM
Prayer breakfasts, low rent. Where will this all end? I think you're on to something big, magoseph.
7216. magoseph - 4/22/2003 6:32:43 PM
Yeah, religion and politics do mix, concerned!
7217. ronski - 4/22/2003 8:22:09 PM
As Here, For Example
7218. judithathome - 4/22/2003 10:24:57 PM
This is a great response to what Ronski linked in:
Howard Dean Speaks Out
In an interview published yesterday with the Associated Press, Rick Santorum, the third highest ranking Republican in the Senate, compared homosexuality to bigamy, polygamy, incest and adultery. I am outraged by Senator Santorum's remarks.
That a leader of the Republican Party would make such insensitive and divisive comments-comments that are derogatory and meant to harm an entire group of Americans, their friends and their families-is not only outrageous, but deeply offensive...
7219. robertjayb - 4/22/2003 10:27:58 PM
Students, Prof say Fred Fielding was Deep Throat...(Chicago Tribune)
WASHINGTON -- Attempting to solve one of America's greatest political mysteries, student investigators at the University of Illinois have concluded that former White House lawyer Fred Fielding is the Deep Throat who broke the Watergate scandal wide open.
Some of the students and their teacher, Bill Gaines, a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner for the Tribune, named Fielding as their choice for Deep Throat in a press conference at the Watergate Hotel, site of the famed break-in at the Democratic National Committee nearly 31 years ago.
7220. magoseph - 4/23/2003 7:17:03 AM
I have no patience with people like Santorum because religion has impacted their ability to reason.
He states he has no quarrel with the fact that some individuals have a sexual orientation other than heterosexual. However, evidently based on his religious prejudice, he demands that they not act out their natural desires. There is absolutely no difference between the rantings of the Shia mullahs in Iraq and those of Senator Santorum. Except perhaps those in Iraq come from an uneducated and backward society while this official as had all the benefits that flow from a secular society. It is really a testimony to the weakness in some aspects of our political system that an individual of this caliber could actually be elected to the Senate of the United States.
7221. RIckNelson - 4/23/2003 10:27:19 AM
I'm home sick so might as well complain a bit.
I'm still rankled by the idea that presidential candidates use the prolific worded phrase "no new taxes" and expect to be believed. Specifically here at home it is a crock of crap. The smell is overwhelming.
What oozes from the doors of home town government is that with budget cuts and no new taxes, but with subsidies, bloated salaries of servants (elected or otherwise) and the stupid "Light-Rail" project here at home there is a woeful undermining of local municipalities. My home town is facing a 50% cut in funds next year and 100% the following year.
Ok, so what was the state funding?
Schools, roads and infrastructure. Nothing important!
So, my local rag is mentioning budget meetings that are coming up to raise fees and property taxes.
Trickle down economic shit!
My property taxes have doubled in the 10 years I've lived here. And now they'll in one swoop possibly add 50% or more. Seems acceptable in light of the need to fund education and the like, but my spending to local business will decline by that measure, my income staying the same but now less when that tax hits.
So, no new taxes is the mantra of swine and the idiots who believe in it are fools.
We pay to park in a park's parking lot, we pay to use public parks, we pay to park on public streets, we pay huge fees to park on ramps, we pay, we pay ,we pay! I can think of some tea spillers who didn't much like taxation like this.
What is my response to the fees? What can I do? I pay if I have to use the facility to which the fee applies. Otherwise I absolutely avoid it. So far Malls have free parking, if they ever charge I will never, ever use that mall. I avoid downtown because of this. I avoid many parks because of this. It's my loss because these parks are nice. But, so are the free gardens and evirons.
Sigh, So much to complain about.
7222. judithathome - 4/23/2003 11:15:47 AM
Sprint To The Finish For GOP
...The president is planning a sprint of a campaign that would start, at least officially, with his acceptance speech at the Republican convention, a speech now set for Sept. 2.
The convention, to be held in New York City, will be the latest since the Republican Party was founded in 1856, and Mr. Bush's advisers said they chose the date so the event would flow into the commemorations of the third anniversary of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks.
The back-to-back events would complete the framework for a general election campaign that is being built around national security and Mr. Bush's role in combatting terrorism, Republicans said. Not incidentally, they said they hoped it would deprive the Democratic nominee of critical news coverage during the opening weeks of the general election campaign...
Ah well, if you've got it, milk it for all it's worth, I guess.
7223. concerned - 4/23/2003 12:51:12 PM
Remember 2000? Well, Ralph Nader wants to do it again in 2004.
Ralph Nader - the candidate for liberals with consciences.
7224. jayackroyd - 4/25/2003 9:49:34 AM
Can somebody explain to me what the heck Santorum meant? I mean, I understand the punch line--that Americans have no right to privacy, and the government may regulate their sexual behavior in any way it chooses.
My question is why is he talking about bigamy and sodomy at the same time? Bigamy is not about conduct--it's about government recognition of a contractual arrangement. The state only recognizes on marriage at a time as valid. Bigamy has nothing to do with privacy rights.
Is he trying to simultaneously make an argument against homosexual marriage? I just couldn't follow the reasoning. Can someone explain?
7225. RickNelson - 4/25/2003 10:09:19 AM
Lindner, a local Minnesota House member was just cleared for ethic violations. Matt Entenza has stated that the committee was partisan.
I say that this is the problem that occurs when the top leads via Religious bigotry, subtle or otherwise. Now we have two examples of overt bigotry. Lindner here in my home state and Santorum.
My opinion of the problem is that these actions are coming to the fore because of the environment they think they're in. It's obvious to me that these politicians have decided their free speech rights take precedent to pander to the religious conservatives within their constituancies.
Locally, subverting the truth of the Nazi holocaust isn't important as long as the agenda of pandering is met. This is sick shit!
7226. RickNelson - 4/25/2003 10:18:07 AM
I'm rankled again today because a concealed gun bill has passed. Overwhelmingly passed by outstate republicans, this is another farce of the far reaching bigoted actions of conservative religious fanatics. Damn I'm getting pissed.
Fortunately my local congressman voted no, but so did the majority of inner city-suburb members. You see they know the truth, the city can ill afford to have concealed weapons running around. We have enough gun related violence to open the door to vigilantes. F'n, f'n, f'n...
7227. RickNelson - 4/25/2003 10:29:09 AM
"Conservative Republicans, including Gary Bauer, rallied to Santorum's defense.
"I think that while some elites may be upset by those comments, they're pretty much in the mainstream of where most of the country is," Bauer said."
Santorum uses his "feelings" of what the American family is to conduct himself in a self-proclaimed moral manner. Is he moral? Whose going to find dirt about his life? He's a target for smear so what's he in for? I wonder?
His remarks are plane and flat, clearly bigotted toward homosexuals. This was malicious, he intended to equate the lifestyle of homosexuality to polygamy, incest and adultry. Owing that more commonly people find polygamy and incest abhorrent. I think many will pshaw adultry because they are guilty themselves. Reckless and malicious is what I think it'a all about.
It's coming from sitting in prayer meetings in the White House, getting vibes about the religious voter strength and pandering to those votes.
7228. PelleNilsson - 4/25/2003 10:58:47 AM
Just out of curiosity, how does American law treat sexual intercourse with animals? Is there a name for it. I got "not in dictionary" when I tried the Swedish word.
7229. RickNelson - 4/25/2003 11:03:50 AM
I think it's bestiality.
7230. PelleNilsson - 4/25/2003 11:11:15 AM
You are right. I looked it up. It carried the death sentence here until 1734 while homosexuality was not a crime at all.
7231. RickNelson - 4/25/2003 11:14:40 AM
I think objective thought among American politicians is fast degrading.
7232. concerned - 4/25/2003 11:19:44 AM
Re. 7230 -
History aside, it's a state level issue in the US today. I imagine the great majority of states prohibit it, but a running joke is that bestiality is not illegal in Missouri. How is it in Sweden?
7233. concerned - 4/25/2003 11:21:34 AM
Re. 7231 -
RN -
I don't think Pelle's parchments and foolscaps exactly contain the last word here.
7234. PelleNilsson - 4/25/2003 11:26:11 AM
It became decriminalized 50-60 years ago. I guess people who are caught in the act are offered psychiatric care, but I don't know. Such stuff doesn't make the news.
7235. concerned - 4/25/2003 11:28:01 AM
How about if it's Fido that's humping one's leg?