Just curious to see how the FoLC vote would go. Doesn't matter if you live in the US or not. If you have an opinion, express it! It's not like this actually counts for anything.

(Candidates appear in alphabetical order. Huckabee and Gravel are not included, as they have little actual chance of being nominated.)

And to help you sort things out, here's a quick chart put together by the Associated Press which shows the major candidates' stances on most issues.

Personally, I'm with Obama. Clinton and Obama have fairly similar policies. Clinton has more experience, but that also means that Obama hasn't been as jaded by the political process. To me, the main difference is lobbyists.

Hillary has taken more money from lobbyists than any other candidate. Obama won't take any money from lobbyists, and has pledged to do what he can to reform the political process so that money can't buy laws. Instead, he's raised far more money than anyone else, and he's done it through small donations - over a million individuals have contributed to his campaign, with an average donation of just over $100. It's an incredible level of grassroots support. He owes his campaign to the people, not corporations and special interests.

As for McCain, well... What can I say? I'm dyslexic. I believe Left is right and Right is wrong.

Obama!

Don't know!

:p

Problem is, i could write out the list of major issues, and I'd need both McCain and either Hillary or Obama to cover everything. I guess I'll just have to decide which issues are more important...

JD

I chose none because your poll says which do I LIKE. I don't LIKE any of these candidates and under their leadership our country is going to SUCK for the next four years. I will vote McCain when the time comes, though. He's the only one I trust in the matters of keeping the military strong. Other than that tho, HE SUCKS.


TEEEEEEJ

To nobody's surprise, I would vote Democratic. I chose Obama, but that was not an easy choice. I think Hillary is better when it comes to health care and when it comes to spreading the amazing American wealth a bit more evenly among its citizens, which, I think, would probably do more than anything else to avert the looming recession. Also, a somewhat greater economic equality would probably strengthen the, well, "cohesiveness" of the United States and just generally make the country stronger. Additionally, such an increasing economic equality would probably do a lot to improve other nations' perception of America and make America once again look like a great inspiration to the rest of the world.

Unfortunately, I think Hillary creates an incredible amount of ill will among her opponents. I think she generates a lot more resentment than enthusiasm among Americans. While the fact that George W. Bush is his father's son was brought up hardly at all during the campaigns of 2000 and 2004, Hillary's close association with Bill seems to be regarded as a very big problem.

All in all, Hillary seems to generate so much resentment that I fear that she would be unelectable, and if indeed she was elected it could be that those who dislike her would concentrate all their efforts into stopping Hillary from getting almost anything accomplished at all. I'm afraid that she could become a "lame duck" from the day she was sworn in as a President.

Obama, on the other hand, is not only an unspoilt force in politics, but he is so very inspiring and charming, too. It will be hard for his opponents to join forces against him without looking bad themselves for doing so. Compared with Hillary, he is eminently electable.

Also, chances are that Obama's charm will not only win the Americans over, but it should reach and touch people in other countries, too. While I think that Hillary's politics could probably do more than Obama's to make the United States look good in the eyes of the world again, I'm convinced that Obama himself can do more than Clinton to make America admired among foreigners again.

Ann

I don't actually have the right to vote in the US, but if I did, I'd vote Obama.

Obama, for a lot of what Ann mentioned. And because what's coming out of Hillary's side has been really ridiculous recently IMHO.

alcyone

IMO, they're all bad choices. I voted for Romney.

As far as I'm concerned they all suck. I may not even vote for the presidential slot. The rest of the ballot is another matter.

Nan

If the poll were widened to encompass all presidential contenders, current and dropped out, I would have chosen none of the above. In the poll, however, I went ahead and chose who I would vote for on election day.

I would vote for McCain on election day because I am not in the least bit liberal. Oooh, shock. Yeah, I know.

While McCain is a decent social conservative, he is an anathema to the Reagan Republicans, supporting such things as McCain-Feingold and not supporting tax cuts. He is more of a Keynesian, economically, believing that tax increases actually increase revenue and tax cuts reduce them in all cases, something that is demonstrably false. Even Bill Clinton cut taxes on yachts after raising them in 1993 only to find out the only thing the tax did was put all the yacht builders out of work with revenue drying up to almost zero. Also against the mainstream of the party, McCain supports increasing immigration and opposes large crackdown on illegal immigration. Probably surprising to most here, I generally agree with McCain on this issue, believing that widening legal immigration is the best way to diminish illegal immigration, not a wall or increased Border Patrol.

But compared to Clinton and Obama, there's no contest. Clinton and Obama would not protect the country properly as shown wonderfully by Bill Clinton, whose major feats in office were selling military secrets to China for campaign donations and advancing Chinese ICBM technology 30-50 years so that their missiles can now target America, allowing North Korea to develop atomic weapons by basically ignoring the premise of trust but verify after signing a worthless treaty, treating terrorism as a crime after ignoring the first World Trade Center bombing and raising a wall between the intelligence services and the law enforcement agencies, and completely ignoring the economy and basking in the false prosperity of the dot com boom and handing a failing economy to his successor after the dot com bust. McCain, at least, can be trusted to defend the nation. I'm queasy on what he'll do with the economy, but not nearly as queasy as I'd be with Obama or Clinton in charge.

I've always had this interesting (at least to me <g>) theory about America's popularity. Whenever America is on its knees, as shown in the hostage crisis in 1979 or the immediate aftermath of September 11, America is never more popular in the rest of the world. Whenever America is strong and projects power, its popularity reaches those of Richard Nixon after Watergate. Ronald Reagan was about as popular in Europe or Central America as President Bush is now, for instance, yet he was proven right as he successfully toppled the Soviet Union and took out every communist foothold in the western hemisphere except Cuba. I remember the calls of "warmonger" when he tried to deploy Pershing II missiles in West Germany or when he pushed ahead with SDI, walking away at Reykjavik when the Soviets demanded its dismantling before any treaty could be agreed to. In all cases, he was criticized heavily by America's allies, yet in the end, he won and defeated America's enemies in the Kremlin and in the streets of Managua. Germans owe him their thanks with a reunited Germany, no longer East and West facing each other across barbed wire and mine fields.

Bill Clinton, on the other hand, was loved by America's allies, mostly because he did nothing. And also because he was a left-winger like most of Europe. His biggest issue was school uniforms, which he failed at, btw. Yet his popularity was astounding for a guy with nearly no accomplishments, except welfare reform which was heavily criticized by his own party as a betrayal. As usual, though, the left was wrong. Welfare reform was an amazing success. Instead of soup kitchens, we got the lowest unemployment in decades. Europeans would kill for our levels of unemployment. Using Sweden again as an example, their "public" unemployment rate is 8%. In reality, most studies put it at around 20% with an equally astounding statistic that on any given day, an average of 14% of the entire work force is on sick leave. Isn't that universal health care supposed to prevent that? <bg> Then there's the six weeks of paid vacation a year whereas most Americans get two. That's what you get with cradle-to-grave care with no incentive to do any work. The rest of Europe is hovering at 10% unemployment, plus or minus.

My belief is that Bill Clinton remained incredibly popular in polls because he was perceived to be a victim of crusading, self-righteous Republicans, not because of anything he actually did.

Enter our current president, George W. Bush. He was the most popular guy in the world after the twin towers fell. Even Rosie O'Donnell wanted to meet him. America was a victim. That good will all disappeared right after he had the gall to actually take action against the enemy. What he should have done to be wildly popular was to arrest a dozen people and to hold a trial and to leave it at that. Instead the US military went into a war footing. It wasn't about popularity, though, unlike the poll-driven Bill Clinton who would change the part of his hair if it would gain him an extra point in the polls and would avoid any issue that would cost him points. It was about defending against a mortal enemy who had declared they would kill us all. Afghanistan fell in a matter of weeks after his opponents moaned about quagmire, yet Bush put together an amazing coalition among the Pashtuns and the Pakistanis in defeating the Taliban and chasing al Qaeda into hiding. While fighting continues, a fairly popular elected government has ruled Afghanistan for years now.

In Iraq, we have the biggest point of contention and the biggest reason for his fall in popularity. For most of that, I blame the media for its appalling lack of knowledge of history. In Iraq, we have a friendly government in place, remarkably light casualties, and Sunnis turning against al Qaeda, now our principle enemy in the country. We've practically pushed them out of Baghdad and out of the formerly deadly Anbar province. With al Qaeda on the run, we still get calls for immediate withdrawal, i.e defeat.

I ask all those who ask for withdrawal today, if al Qaeda is the main enemy in Iraq today, what are all those al Qaeda fighters going to do if we leave? I'm sure they'll all take up knitting or become honest business people and love Americans. Isn't the entire reason we went to war because of al Qaeda? Didn't Osama bin Laden say that Bill Clinton's weak responses to terrorism were the reasons New York was attacked? Doesn't it make more sense to kill them there than have to face them at home? Even President Bush's harshest critics will have to admit he's kept the country safe for six and a half years. Yet he gets no credit. In fact it hurts him because Americans have turned to other issues that are more "important." So successful was he that Americans have completely lost the sense of urgency that we all had in 2001. Few even know of incidents such as the attempted attack on the Brooklyn Bridge where intelligence led the FBI to the plot, neutralizing the threat before it fully formed. al Qaeda's failures aren't for the lack of trying.

As for the media's woeful lack of historical knowledge, just look at all the other wars America has ever fought. Did you know we lost over 400,000 in World War II? 70,000 on the Korean peninsula? 59,000 in Vietnam? 116,000 in a single year of World War I? 600,000 in the American Civil War? 25,000 in the 8-year Revolutionary War? Today, we stand at roughly 4,000, about 800 of them due to accidents. To put that in perspective, the American military averages roughly 1,000 deaths per year from accidents in peacetime, which is higher than our casualty rate in a shooting war. I'll bet most people didn't know that about our accident rates in the military. At the end of the Civil War, a riverboat caught fire and sank while taking Union soldiers home from the war. 4,000 died in that accident. A single training accident in preparation for D-Day in WWII cost 2,000 lives. Yet, Iraq somehow is considered one of our costliest wars and somehow more inept than the charge by Union General Ulysses S. Grant at Cold Harbor, Virginia, which had 12,000 Union soldiers shot down in 15 minutes. Soldiers pinned their names to their uniforms, many of them knowing they wouldn't be returning from that charge towards Lee's center. Grant lost 60,000 men in one month and was nicknamed "Grant the Butcher" in the North. How do historians see Grant today? He's considered a great general and is credited with winning the Civil War. The people of the time elected him president a few years later. Historically, Iraq has been one of our best-run wars, something you wouldn't know by reading our media. The only better run war would have been the one run by the other President Bush, the Gulf War.

The media obsessed over every single bomb and every single name on the casualty lists. They focused on nothing but for four years, almost ignoring everything else happening in the country. That had the effect of beating down the morale of the country and in the allied countries. There was a reason why attacks were always close to the Green Zone where the reporters sat, safe in their hotels, just in time for the next American media cycle. Sentiment nose-dived with every roadside bomb. It cost Tony Blair his job. Today, our president would not win re-election, even if only Republicans were voting. People outside Iraq were never told by the media that in 15 of the 19 provinces, there are no threats of car bombings and kids play freely in the streets. When WMD were actually found in Iraq, only Fox News covered it. I checked every other major news source I could find that day, wondering what the reaction would be in the mainstream media to this earth-shattering event. Not one other bothered to report it. Even knowing the incompetence and bias of our media, I couldn't believe it.

Ann had this theory that America would become popular if we were only to become more liberal like Europe or Canada. That would probably make us more popular, but it would also bring our economic engine to its knees. The reason why most innovation comes out of America is because of its lack of high, burdensome taxes and government regulations (in comparison to others). In Europe, it's nearly impossible to be laid off. Here, a laid off employee can potentially establish the next eBay or Federal Express. By spreading wealth more evenly, we'd end up just like the permanent economic basket cases of Europe with less overall to go around. There should be no surprise that America leads in almost every high-tech industry in the world. There is no equivalent of Hollywood in any other country. All major computer companies are here like Intel, Microsoft, Apple, IBM, AMD, etc. Even in wireless communications where Nokia leads in handset sales, it's the innovation of American companies like Texas Instruments, Qualcomm, Flarion, and others that created our 3G and 4G communications technologies behind those phones (3G WCDMA was based on Qualcomm's CDMA while 4G LTE was based on Flarion's OFDM). And in terms of innovation, be honest, would you rather have an iPhone by Apple or any Nokia phone? American universities created the Internet. (Sorry, Al Gore <g>) The only place where America tends to lag is in manufacturing, a place where innovation is not very important and where cost of labor is king. While it's impossible to eliminate the business cycle, it's cutting taxes and eliminating regulatory burdens that will get our economic machine humming again, not imposing high taxes and cradle-to-grave services. If Europeans want continuing innovation, they don't want us to be like them.

My response does not include Nader because he is an idiot...He will NEVER win.

I had to chose none of the above.

I cannot, in good conscience, vote for any of them. Only McCain has a stand against abortion but all of them would allow embryonic stem cell research, which is abhorrent to me.(still with GW on that one.)

I'm with Nan, the other slots are going to get my attention....

James

Oddly enough, last election I was the complete opposite. I voted for most of the ballot, but I wasn't familiar with the local candidates. I happily voted for the bonds and law votes. I was more focused on the presidential election, figuring that my one vote would express my extreme dislike of the current president.

I answered "Don't know." As I think I've mentioned before, I'm only keeping an eye on the election for right now. Being registered as independant means I can't vote on the primaries, my state having closed primaries. So I'm waiting until the ballots are final before investing any time and energy on researching the current hopefuls.

OMGosh!! I'm in awe! Can I vote for YOU???

Seriously, THAT was the most amazingly astute response about political thinking I have ever read.


TEEEEEEJ

Thanks TEEEEEEJ. I appreciate it. You can't vote for me, unfortunately (maybe fortunately. Who'd want a job like that?). I was born in Taiwan, being one of them gosh darn immigrants who became a citizen when I was ten. I'm not eligible to run.

Ditto.

I teach Poli Sci/US History and I tell my students that all the time about casualties. How many were lost on DDay alone? Something like 6000 [not going to look it up right now to double check]. One question I pose to them... Given today's news media, could we have won WWII? Would CNN et al been calling for a pull out of Europe by June 10, 1944? What about Iwo Jima or Guadalcanal, etc?

Anyway - I will probably vote for McCain because DH and I work hard for our money and I want to keep it and he's more likely to let us than the others. Before I get attacked for not caring, I do. We give lots to charitable causes. We've been on Medicaid and Food Stamps but for a short period while we got on our feet. We'd give more if we had it. I have issues with universal health care. We pay out the nose for good coverage and I'm grateful we have it. We've lived on next to nothing and always made health care a priority. It's there [for most people] if you are willing to pay for it. We never went out to eat and gave up other things like cable, but that was one of our priorities [rent, food, utilities, insurance - then other stuff]. It is possible to live on cash [Terry's? post in the other thread] even as a broke college student. We did it, we know others who did it and are doing it now. We didn't do stupid until later.

I like the Fair Tax and have little desire to support the IRS. Those who work for them, should it ever manage to get abolished, should be able to find work elsewhere and then the average American won't have to pay something like 400/yr to get their taxes done.

Obama and Hillary both scare me. Pulling out = losing. We're not if you believe the soldiers I and others I know have talked to rather than the media.

Our primary was on Super Tuesday and it came down to the lesser of about 7 evils [and it wasn't McCain]. Heck of a way to pick a president...
Carol

This is probably stupid, but...

1. Al Qeada wasn't in Iraq until we invaded, threw the region into chaos, and earned the enmity of the people who were supposed to have "greeted us as liberators."

2. I don't even want to think about what Bush has done for our national security. The man hasn't made a single decision I've agreed with since before he took office. (He announced, a month before taking office, that he was expecting a recession. Even if true, doing so could only make things worse.) I will mention that angering our major allies and giving our enemies more reason to hate us is not, in the long run, good foreign policy.

3. As for the good will our president had after 9/11... He squandered it. People gathered around in sympathy and patriotism after the attack, but his follow-up left much to be desired. Actually, I was cursing him on the 12th, when he completely mishandled (IMO) his response to the country. It should have been a time for reassurance. A call for unity and healing. "Take care of each other. We can rebuild. And don't worry about the guys who did this. We'll send in covert teams to find them and get them." Instead, he called for vengeance and sent an army to rip Afghanistan (a country whose greatest natural resource is landmines left by previous invaders) apart with brute force when the job called for subtle and intelligent work.

As for our allies... When you treat them as if you don't care what they think and just charge ahead and do whatever you want... It tends to wear away their goodwill.

4. Clinton's administration specifically warned Bush that Bin Laden was going to attack us. He ignored it. And, while I can't dispute that we haven't been attacked again, I'm not sure how much credit for that actually goes to Bush. Nor is there any way to say what would have happened under a different president.

5. Casualties are to be expected in a war, yes. But you have to have good reason for the war in the first place. We had no place in Iraq. There were no WMDs. Al Qaeda wasn't there. We weren't granted an easy victory and greeted as liberators. Heavy casualties are one thing, when the war is for a good cause. But when it's based on lies, incompetence, and mismanagement, then it's unforgivable. (And the casualty lists we do see from Iraq don't include our friendly neighborhood mercenaries, who aren't officially part of the army.)

6. As for the economy... no one really understands it. Any decent expert will tell you that. But I'll point out that our economy was a lot stronger under Clinton than it was with the Republican "let's give money to the rich and hope they decide to make things better for everyone else" plan. (Not to mention that Clinton not only balanced the budget, he had a budget surplus. Do you know what Regan and Bush, Jr. have done for our national debt?)

Sure they were. Ansar al-Islam was an affiliated al Qaeda group. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (remember him?) was already in Baghdad long before one US soldier stepped foot in Iraq. He took over the group and renamed it al Qaeda in Iraq. Plus there are many intelligence links to a Fedayeen Colonel who met many times with al Qaeda. The fear was that Iraq, full of WMD (there wasn't a single Democrat of note who actually thought there weren't any), was about to turn over large quantities of chemical weapons over to al Qaeda. That would have been a disaster waiting to happen. A president would be negligent to ignore a danger like that.

Angering allies is a lot better than letting the bad guys kill us. Any time the US projects power, our allies hate us. What else is new? Should Reagan have given up SDI? Should he have meekly surrendered on the issue of Pershing II missiles or the MX missile, the only threat we had to get them to the START talks? We'd still have a Soviet Union and an Iron Curtain if he had. The US public at the time was fully supportive of invading Afghanistan and demanded significant action.

The reason Bush said a recession was coming was to get his tax cut package passed. Remember that the Senate hinged on a 50-50 split with Jim Jeffords defecting to the Democrats to make it 51-49. Without the argument for the need for stimulus, why would a 50-50 Senate pass the bill? We needed the cuts and the Senate wasn't going to agree without that need.

You make it sound like he said it just for the sake of saying it. We were suffering from the hangover of the dot com bust in 2000 that Bill Clinton did nothing about. His economy was good up till then because he had the full benefits of a dot com boom where tons of people were making money from the stocks of companies that hadn't a prayer of ever making a profit. He didn't have to lift a finger to do anything. The one time he did was in passing a huge tax increase in 1993 when he first took office. Guess what? In the fourth quarter before he took office, the economy grew at over a 4% rate (not bad for the "worst economy in the last 50 years"). When the tax increase was passed, the next quarter slumped to a 0.7% growth rate. He's lucky the dot com boom got us out of that.

The thinking that doing anything against our enemies would just give them reason to hate us more ignores the fact that it was our weakness that caused us to be hit in the first place. bin Laden said that the 9/11 attack was in direct response to the pathetic response Bill Clinton had towards the first World Trade Center attack. A quick strike against a paper tiger would defeat us and force us to pull completely out of the Middle East, leaving Israel and other friendly governments completely at their mercy.

To do nothing would be to invite another attack, even more deadly than the last. There are severe limits to covert activity and that's why it would have been an untenable response.

They already hated us to the point of threatening death to every American and then actually killing 3,000 of us. Can they hate us more than they did?

Our allies would have had us appoint a commission to study the problem and to talk ourselves, literally, to death while al Qaeda planned its next attack. The Europeans never want to take action on anything. They couldn't even handle Bosnia right in their own back yard. The European reaction is always inaction. That's what got us in trouble with Neville Chamberlain and that's why the US is the leader of the free world. We take action when others fear to tread. The American public was fully behind the invasion of Afghanistan. Iraq was a different matter but the consensus was still there.

And you believe Bill Clinton? His concern was protecting his own legacy of inaction. If he was so concerned about an attack by al Qaeda, why didn't he do a thing about it? Clinton claimed he had left detailed plans to take out al Qaeda. Both Bush and Rice indicated there were no such plans. Clinton's own advisors, including his CIA Director George Tenant, told us that he had had numerous opportunities to strike against bin Laden. He passed them all up, getting cold feet each time. That sounds to me like he didn't care enough to act.

And I disagree. There were no lies told. From all information available to us, we believed there were large stockpiles of WMD in Iraq. The French and the Germans even told us that they had more information than we did and that confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt that the massive stockpiles were there. Despite their own intelligence, they still wanted to do nothing. We now know why the French and Russians opposed it since they had very lucrative economic deals with Saddam. The Germans probably opposed it because of their violent history and newfound pacifism (within the previous 50 years).

BTW, there were WMD's if you read the report by the ISG. At least 500 chemical warheads were discovered there, including about 17 rockets containing still-active, deadly cyclosarin that was about to be sold to al Qaeda. The Poles got wind of it and outbid them, buying the rockets right out from under al Qaeda. The press ignored the entire latter half of the ISG report, focusing on the part that said there were no large stockpiles. The latter half showed that Saddam had many communications with the French to get their help to overturn UN sanctions. The second sanctions were removed, his weapons programs would be immediately started at full tilt.

Later Saddam admitted that he had tried to make the world believe he had large amounts of WMD because he was using that threat as a deterrent against Iran. In the ten year war against Iran, Saddam had used huge amounts of chemical weapons against the Iranians. The sanctions were getting in his way, though, so he absolutely needed them removed before he could resume production since it would have been too easy for inspectors to find them. He also said he never believed the US would invade and therefore never tried to convince the allies that he didn't have an active weapons program.

So if our intelligence said he had them and Saddam tried to make us think he had them, plus he has a history of using them against the Iranians and even against his own Kurdish population, what possible conclusion could we draw? We never did elect a clairvoyant to the office of president. So how's that a lie?

I've already given my opinion on how well the war has been managed. From a historical perspective, this operation has been fairly well run with a minimum of casualties. There were mistakes made, but what war doesn't have them? As an avid student of history, I could tell you about dozens of mistakes made in every war we've had.

In this day and age of video game warfare and the 24-hour news, people expected immediate results and perfection. That just doesn't happen in the real world. They completely ignored the president saying this war would be a long one that could last through our lifetimes. He never promised a quick victory with no bloodshed.

Tax cuts actually prevented the recession of 2001. The third quarter went into the red while the fourth quarter eeked out a small gain, which accelerated after that. A recession, as any economist will tell you, is two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth. Bill Clinton was essentially handed a 4% growing economy, got lucky with the dot com boom after nearly sabotaging it with tax increases, and then handed a failing economy to Bush. Bush, meanwhile, had 9/11 happen on his watch, costing 1 million jobs over two months, mostly in the transportation industry. Then Hurricane Katrina hit, damaging the economy again. Even then, the economy weathered the storm.

Our current slow growth period is due to the overexuberance of the real estate boom of the early 2000's where subprime mortgages were plentiful and cheap. When the stock market fell apart in early 2000 (I remember because my company's stock was at 185 in January 2000 and dropped to 40'ish a few months later) investors routed their money to real estate. With rising interest rates as a result of a growing economy, the foolish mistakes people made in overinvesting in real estate came back to haunt them, leading to the current subprime mortgage credit crunch and depreciating housing values.

Basically, it's the business cycle. People spend more than they ought to followed by holding back more than they ought to after overspending. Clinton got the beginning of the good part of the business cycle and handed over the back end of it. Bush got it going again with the tax cuts and now the cycle is coming to a close unless the Fed in conjunction with tax cuts can get it going again.

As for a budget surplus, do you think the economy can take a hit on both the dot com bust and 9/11 and maintain that surplus?

One point made above hit me as horribly wrong, but unlike Roger, who explains things so eloquently so immediately, I really had to think about why I felt this way about this statement: Honestly, the best I can come up with is what a load of complete hogwash that statement is. Spreading earned money out EQUALLY??? Makes no logical sense to me at all. I become absolutely incensed to think someone in the government should have any say in how MY money is spent. I worked for the $29,000 I made last year. I'm the one who got up 5 days in a row, spent 40 hours away from my family for that money and I will be fargon blasted if anyone has *any* right to tell me why some of my money should go to someone who DOESN'T do that. Before you think I'm a heartless miser let me say, I have no problem GIVING to charity. I consider it an honor and priviledge that I have enough to GIVE to charities, but I choose charities that actually get around to helping folks(Salvation Army, my local Christian radio station, my church) not this blasted red tape bureaucratic hogwash of taxing for welfare.

It's proved a complete waste in Lousiana where you had grown able-bodied people unwilling to move away from a FARGON HURRICANE without government assistance and unwilling to assist neighbors who WEREN'T able-bodied. That was a shameful sight even aside from the inability of the LOCAL government to tow the mark.

Yes I realize it all may seem selfish and harsh to those used to living on a government dole or maybe the enlightened elite, so let me invite a comparision for the "educated" who might think differently.

Say you're a straight A student in college, you study hard and miss out on parties and fun to get those A's. Then you find out your flunkly classmate who has partied all semester and hasn't done a lick of homework will be getting some of YOUR points to "equal" everything out. Sounds pretty far beyond logical to me and it's the same gorram thing with money. Anybody who tells me different is very likely getting a cut as far as my opinion is concerned.

DONE!!!
TJ

I'm mostly with Roger. Shocking, I know But I don't know who I'm gonna vote for this November, because (as has been mentioned by several people) THEY ALL SUCK.

For my primary (in May, when it's long past time that anyone cares what my opinion is) I'm planning on writing in Fred Thompson.

Side note, as a language-lover it's distressing to me to see the way "lying" has been re-defined since 2003. There is such a thing as a sincere, well-intentioned statement that you *later* find out is untrue. That is not the same thing as lying, which means you're knowingly speaking an untruth with the intent to deceive.

Specifically, about Iraq -- just Google it. Everybody who was anybody -- left, right, or center -- believed that Saddam had WMDs stashed all over the place. Turns out, we were mistaken (mostly) -- but being mistaken is not the same thing as lying. [/side note]

It is fascinating to watch the Democratic primary fight, though, since it's looking like neither Hillary nor Obama will have enough delegates to clinch the nomination before the convention. I expect it will get ugly. As a Republican, I can only say... pass the popcorn!

PJ

Let me explain how I remember the aftermath of 9/11 and the months leading up to the Iraq war.

Everyone in Europe was absolutely shocked that the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon could happen. I had come home from work a bit early that day, and I was turning on the radio to find out who had won the election in Norway on 9/10. Instead there were all these frenzied reports from the United States. I turned on the television. Both towers had already been attacked, but none of them had fallen. As I watched, the towers fell, one after the other. I was numb. Reporters talked about the Pentagon and about a fourth plane that had been hijacked. It felt as if a war had started, and you didn't know when it was going to end.

After a while it appeared that the immediate attacks had stopped. Only the utter shock remained. I don't remember how soon after the attacks that Sweden's present - but back then, former - minister of foreign affairs, Carl Bildt, started explaining his views on the matter. I should add that Bildt is Sweden's most respected expert on foreign affairs, and he was deeply involved in trying to sort out the mess in former Yugoslavia in the nineties, since he had been appointed by the EU, the European Union, for the job. In other words, Bildt is respected in Sweden. He is also known as a man with right-wing sympathies.

Anyway, it didn't take Bildt many days to point his finger at Al Qeada. Bildt also confidently stated that Al Qeada's base of operation was in Afghanistan. He explained that the very fundamentalist Islamic Taliban government in Afghanistan had given Al Qeada a safe haven there.

I remember that Bildt's statement made a lot of sense to me. No, I hadn't actually heard the name "Al Qeada" before, but I had indeed heard of strange and scary attacks carried out by Muslim groups before. I did remember that the Twin Towers had been attacked before, and Bildt claimed that Al Qeada had been behind that attack, too. And I remembered a horrible attack on U.S. forces in Somalia(?), where more than two hundred Americans had been killed.

Also, I was very well aware that the Taliban government in Afghanistan seemed to be, in opinion, horrible. They practiced the most severe form of the Sharia law. They oppressed women horribly. I remembered very well that they had taken over Afghanistan a few years back, and I had followed reports of how they started oppressing women. It was horrible. It did seem reasonable to me that people who were so extreme would support a movement like Al Qeada.

Apart from Afghanistan, two other countries were mentioned in connection with Al Qeada and 9/11. They were Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Al Qeada was described as a Saudi invention, founded by Osama bin Laden of Saudi Arabia. It had its roots in an extreme Saudi Islamic movement known as Wahabism. The other country mentioned was Egypt, since most of the people who actually carried out the attacks on 9/11 were Egyptians.

Relatively soon, George W Bush demanded that Afghanistan must hand over the Al Qeada people it sheltered to the United States. If Afghanistan refused to comply, the United States would declare war on it. This seemed quite reasonable to me. The way I remember it, Bush's threat of war led to very few protests, and those who protested were widely regarded as crackpots. We thought that they were either incredibly naïve, or else they were militant Islamists themselves.

After a while the United States attacked Afghanistan. Again there were a few scattered protests that no one paid any attention to. The war went very well, the Taliban government was toppled - what a relief that was! - and Osama bin Laden was almost captured. I remember how disappointed I was when he got away. That was really frustrating. But apart from that, it seemed to me that the United States had dealt very properly with the enemy that was behind 9/11. Now, I thought, the United States would go home again and do other things than making war.

Imagine my shock when I read in my newspaper that George W. Bush wanted to attack Iraq, too. Believe me, I read newspapers. I listen to the news on radio and TV. I read British and American publications. But no one - no one - had suggested that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 before Bush said that he would attack it.

Sure, I knew very well that Saddam was a horrible dictator. I remembered the unspeakably awful poison gas attack on the Kurds in northern Iraq back in the eighties, which left thousands of people dead. That was a genocidal attack. I believe that Bush Sr. was President of the United States back then, or else it was Reagan. If the United States had attacked Iraq after Saddam's gas attack on the Kurds, I would not have protested. And I certainly didn't protest when the United States and a lot of Arab nations attacked Iraq in the early nineties. I remember very well how shocked I was when I heard on the radio that Saddam had invaded Kuwait, just like that. I was glad that the United States and its allies drove him out of there.

Bill Clinton enforced a lot of sanctions on Iraq. I remembered that Carl Bildt, among others, claimed that Saddam tried to make a nuclear bomb. Also he definitely possessed poison gas, as his attack on the Kurds demonstrated. But Carl Bildt also said that the sanctions that were enfored on Iraq would make it hard or impossible for Saddam to make any more poison gas, or to make a nuclear bomb.

When 9/11 happened, nothing had been said about Saddam Hussein for a long time. He hadn't attacked another nation since Kuwait. He hadn't carried out any horrible attacks on the Kurds since the 1980s. No known international terrorist had ever come from Iraq. No one, certainly not Carl Bildt, had ever claimed that Saddam Hussein and Iraq was a dangerous international threat at the beginning of the 21st century that had to be dealt with urgently. And no one had ever said that he was behind 9/11.

I remember how utterly shocked I was that the United States would attack Iraq. The idea that Saddam was an immediate threat to the world seemed to come absolutely out of the blue. It seemed so totally unfair and unreasonable. And I was not the only one who didn't understand anything at all. There were big protests and demonstrations worldwide in February 2003:

Millions join global anti-war protests

Those who had protested against the war in Afghanistan had seemed like crackpots to me. Those who protested against the war against Iraq seemed like very reasonable people to me. What will the world be like if wars are started so easily, just because one nation doesn't like another nation?

TEEEJ, I have to comment on something you said. I'm not advocating the idea of spreading eveybody's money out absolutely equally, just spreading it out a bit more equally. And if you earned - and worked for - $29,000 last year, I wouldn't want you to have to pay very high taxes at all. But if you had earned $290,000 it would have been another matter. Or if you had earned $2,900,000... or $29,000,000... or $290,000,000....

I seem to have earned the reputation of being a communist among some people on these boards. So I can't resist telling you about when I studied sociology at the university in Lund in 1974. All the other people who took that course with me were communists, I'm not kidding you. They were nuts, some of them. Really. I remember that one day a whole bunch of them went on strike. And guess why? Because the Professor who taught us had decided that we all had to read a particular book on sociology. The book was written by a man who was an avowed communist. So why were all those communist students protesting? Why, because the author of that book was an American, of course!!! Imagine being forced to read a book that was written by someone from the United States!!!

I remember I spent hours and hours and hours arguing against those other students, trying to make them see that communism didn't really work. In the end, however, I gave up. That was when one guy said this to me:

"You can't compare the Soviet Union with the Capitalist world! Capitalism has had 200 years to perfect itself. But Communism has only existed since 1917. You must wait for a hundred years, and then you'll see that the Soviet Union will be a paradise!"

Can you believe it? The guy told me that I would see that he was right in a hundred years, when I would be dead. I would see that he was right when I was dead!

I realized two things. This guy was using the same argument that my Pentecostalist relatives would ultimately resort to if someone put pressure on them - those doubters would see that the Pentecostalists were right when the doubters were dead! And I would see that Communism was paradise when I was dead! Yeah, maybe. But it is a lousy argument.

People who claim to know the future are just too self-assured. People who claim to know that their God or their political movement will triumph when we all are dead... well... there's just no reasoning with them.

And if you ask me... no. I'm not a communist. And I never have been one.

Ann

The amount I earn has nothing to do with sharing out the hard work I put into it or why I should share with someone who doesn't. Sorry, but I'm not convinced and think even more so that given the US has become the most progressive and advanced country in the free world due to capitialism in only 200+ years just goes to show that capitalism works logically best. It's only breaking down recently because of the socialist regime of the liberals infiltrating our government and it's going to get worse. I will be glad to be dead (or Raptured) before the disease of socialism has completely infected my country.

Here is a link that explains why it's wrong to make people who make more money pay more taxes.

Honestly, we all know a 10% sales tax across the country is all we need to pay for roads and military, which is all the government should ever be responsible for.

Per Thomas Jefferson, when a government gets big enough to DO everything for you, it's big enough to TAKE everything from you.




TEEEEEJ

Agreed. And it's the latter that I'm claiming. Intelligence reports said there were no WMDs. Except the ones that cherry-picked facts, relied on untrustworthy sources, took stuff out of context... He pressured people into saying it was a "slam dunk" even when they knew better. There was no reason to go to Iraq except that Bush wanted to. He implied a connection to 9/11 that wasn't there and claimed he had surefire evidence of WMDs. And if he didn't know better (and I think he did), it's because he chose not to hear it from people who did. That's lying.

Ann, on your point about Iraq, it's true that no one ever accused Saddam of being behind 9/11. He wasn't and no one with any authority in the US government said he was.

In President Bush's speech on September 20, 2001 before the joint session of Congress, the president laid out the foundations of the War on Terror. It was not intended to punish merely those behind the attacks on New York and Washington but was intended to prevent any such danger from reaching our shores ever again.

In the speech, the president outlined the Axis of Evil: North Korea, Iran, and Iraq. It was never even hinted at that any of those three nations were behind 9/11. They were merely the foremost sponsors of terrorism in the world. Instead of playing defense, the United States would go after all terrorists of "global reach" wherever we find them. This exempted local organizations such as the IRA in Northern Ireland, the Basque Separatists in Spain, or FARC in Columbia but included groups supported by the Axis of Evil nations.

In each case, the response would be different. For North Korea, who had just announced that it was now a nuclear power, the Six Party talks would be convened, including the regional powerhouses of China, Russia, and Japan, as well as South Korea and the United States, to pressure North Korea to give up their nuclear arsenal and to stop sponsoring terrorism. For Iran, it would be pressure from the UN to stop the enrichment of uranium and to stop them from sponsoring terrorist organizations like Hezbollah. For Iraq, stonewalling by Saddam and the violation of all seventeen UN resolutions meant that the Gulf War armistice would come to an end unless Saddam allowed unfettered access to all suspected chemical, biological, and nuclear facilities. When the stonewalling continued, that's when the military option came to the forefront.

When Iraq failed to comply, that's when the president went to Congress and to the UN to authorize the use of force. Congress voted to give the president the authority in a vote of 296-133 in the House of Representatives and 77-23 in the Senate. Following fourteen months of agonizing negotiations with the permanent members of the UN Security Council, the Security Council gave approval to UN Resolution 242 warning of "serious consequences" if Iraq continued to violate the resolutions. Everybody knew what that phrase meant. It meant invasion. Saddam refused to cooperate and rejected an eleventh hour offer from President Bush for Saddam and his two sons, Uday and Kusay, to go into exile to avoid attack. That final offer was rejected and Operation Iraqi Freedom began.

Some will say that UN Resolution 242 did not grant the allies the right to use force. It certainly did and that was the understanding the US had gotten from the permanent members. On the eve of the attack, Tony Blair began to get cold feet and wanted an even stronger resolution saying outright that invasion would happen. To give his friend political cover at home, President Bush agreed to go before the Security Council again despite already having the authority, even knowing such a new resolution was likely to fail. It had taken fourteen months to get the wording, "serious consequences." As expected France and Russia balked at the explicit language of the proposed resolution and the motion was withdrawn. It's one thing, diplomatically, to passively support an attack but actively supporting such a thing was a bridge too far.

The War on Terror was not merely military in nature. The domestic component had to do with beefing up the intelligence agencies and reorganizing the government to go from fighting terrorism as a crime to fighting terrorism as a threat to national security. The wall between law enforcement and intelligence agencies had to come down. The Patriot Act essentially gave the federal government the same powers as they had to fight organized crime under the RICO Act. While some claim the Patriot Act went too far, they ignored history, showing many wartime presidents with far more unilateral power than President Bush ever asked for. President Franklin Roosevelt used secret military tribunals to punish and execute spies caught in the US. Censorship of the press in WWII was unprecedented. President Lincoln unilaterally suspended habeas corpus and even went as far as expelling and exiling a sitting member of Congress to Canada, Ohio Congressman Clement Vallandigham.

Internationally, friendly governments all over the world would be enlisted in the effort to find the terrorists and choke off all forms of support, including any financial support terrorist groups enjoyed. You may recall the New York Times blowing the lid off of one of those programs to stop terrorist funding. If President Roosevelt had been in office, the owner and editor of the Times, Arthur Sulzberger and Bill Keller, would have gone to jail immediately without trial.

After having been caught napping, essentially, the people of the United States finally realized that we weren't safe behind the two oceans that had protected us for 200 years. Instead of passively waiting to be attacked again, we would root out any global terrorist organizations, not just al Qaeda. Besides Israel, the United States would always be the main target of any global terrorist organization. And in any subsequent attack, we could expect it to be either chemical, biological, or nuclear in nature. With such awesome weapons available to terrorist groups, we could not afford to sit back and play defense. The cost could be millions of lives. As President Bush has said many times, the terrorists only have to get it right once. We have to be successful every time. Just one successful attack could cause a slaughter of civilians that would make 9/11 look like a street mugging and make Nagasaki look like an IED. The dire consequences of failure are the reasons why we are engaged in the Global War on Terror and why stopping at Afghanistan would not make us safe.

Well, Ann. You wanted to know why. I hope that answers your questions.

Except that was false. President Bush's opponents wanted to cover their votes on approval of the use of force after public opinion began to turn, claiming that President Bush had access to information they didn't. A bipartisan commission looked at those Presidential Daily Briefs and concluded that the information within them was not significantly different than that provided to the Intelligence Committees in both houses of Congress. They were merely organized differently.

The lie was on the part of the Democratic Congressmen who had to justify the votes to their anti-war constituents by claiming the president had lied to them. That simply didn't pan out. Even Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller and Democratic Representative Jane Harman, the senior minority members of their respective Intelligence committees disputed that the president had lied.

Even if you don't believe President Bush, name one intelligence service in the entire world that thought Iraq had no WMD's. There weren't any. Even the finest intelligence service in the world, Israel's Mossad, believed it as did all of America's principal allies: France, Germany, Russia, and Great Britain. You can fool a few Congressmen, but how do you fool the intelligence services all over the world? George Tenant wasn't that good.

Oh, and on hinting that Iraq was somehow involved in 9/11, every time they were asked by the press, both President Bush and Vice President Cheney would deny it. This was just another story concocted by the anti-war crowd in their attempts to rewrite history. It was basically a hatchet job to try to get the president's poll numbers down as far as they could get them. Pure politics in action.

If CNN were around during World War II, they would have advocated learning to speak Japanese following Pearl Harbor and telling us how little we had to fear from Nazi Germany.

We would never have even gotten to 1944 with organizations like today's CNN or MSNBC or CBS. The call to surrender or pull out would have happened after our defeat at the Kasserine Pass in North Africa or after the Bataan Death March and our loss of the Phillippines.

Wolf Blitzer would have accused President Roosevelt of exaggerating the danger when he said that December 7, 1941 would be "a day that would live in infamy".

Pinchy Sulzberger would have demanded that we put a wall around the intelligence services and would have decried warrant-less wireless intercepts after breaking the Japanese code just before Midway and after our P-38 Lightnings shot down Admiral Yamamoto's plane after our code breakers learned about his itinerary.

After our victory at Midway, Aaron Brown would have been criticizing Rear Admiral Spruance for sinking all four Japanese heavy carriers, saying that was overkill and would only anger the Japanese.

Lou Dobbs would have demanded that we return the artwork and gold "stolen" by high-ranking Nazis from museums all over Europe to the thieves since we didn't have the right to confiscate them.

The invasion of Italy would have prompted calls for impeachment from Christiane Amanpour, who would wonder why President Roosevelt was hinting that Benito Mussolini had something to do with Pearl Harbor. And that wallpaper hanger guy with the funny mustache. What did he ever do to us?

Even if by miracle we made it to D-Day, the failure to break out from the hedgerows on D-Day plus one would have prompted calls of quagmire. We'd have been accused of littering with all those parachutes hanging over the steeples of St. Mere Eglise. Operation Cobra, the breakout in France, would have been called demeaning to snakes. George Patton's dash across France would have drawn accusations of pollution for using up too much gasoline. MSNBC would have demanded a speed limit on the autobahns to keep those Sherman tanks from going too fast. Shouldn't we be using electric tanks?

Our defeat in Operation Market-Garden, which prompted Cornelius Ryan's brilliant book, A Bridge Too Far, would have caused Paula Zahn to say that our commander-in-chief was incompetent and that the enemy was too strong for us to beat.

The Battle of the Bulge would have had Dan Rather saying that we needed to lose weight. Then he'd spy that Snickers bar in the corner and say, "Aww, nuts!"

And the signing of the peace treaty between the Allies and Imperial Japan on board the battleship, Missouri, would have been criticized for embarrassing the Japanese.

Nope. I'm convinced we would never have made it past Kasserine.

I'm not going to convince you, and you're not going to convince me. We've each got our sources and our beliefs.

But Bush did lie to our troops. They had contracts specifying how long their tours of duty would last, with the option to renew or not. Contracts expired, but he still needed troops there. So he broke the terms of the contract and refused to bring them home, forcing them to stay.

And while they were there, what did he do for them? Well, after he slashed taxes on the people with the least need for yet more money, seriously cutting into government revenue, he went and spent piles of money we didn't have on the war. Multi-million dollar missiles. Billion dollar airplanes. Huge transportation costs. Thousands and thousands of mercenaries paid several times what our troops make. You know where he decided to cut corners? Protecting our troops. Body armor? Forget it. Don't have the money. Armored vehicles designed to be far less vulnerable to IEDs? Too expensive.

But at least they had people to keep them company. The national guard is the branch of the military tasked with dealing with emergencies on US soil. When something like Katrina happens, its their job to come in and help out. They have the equipment to get through to difficult places and clear roads and paths, and the uniformed manpower to provide help and order. And if terrorists actually strike within the country, it's their job to mobilize and respond. So where were they and their equipment when we needed them? Where were our national defenses against terrorist attack? Sent off to Iraq. Because, for some reason, they were having trouble getting enough troops. I guess he lied to them, too, because their terms specify service on US soil.

And spies. We needed good intelligence. People who could quietly go around, find our enemies, and figure out how best to defeat them. Valerie Plame, a covert operative specializing in WMDs, was outed. Bin Laden wasn't found. We were in Iraq for years before the people in charge realized that they were using the wrong tactics. So where were all our spying efforts going? Spying on Americans. Things like warrantless wiretapping of US citizens. Why no warrants? They were easy to get. Quick, quiet, nearly 100% approval rate. But a secret executive order said not to bother with petty things like due process and civil liberties. In this and many other things, the Bush administration has shown us that they care more about their own unchecked power than they do about anything else - rights, freedoms, laws... right up to the constitution itself. (Where's Tempus in all this? "Let's wrap fish in the constitution and chuck all the old laws...")

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. Environmental policy has been set back 30 years. Education is a mess. I could go on.

And you're trying to tell me that he's done a good job? Been honest with us? Managed things well? Protected us from attack instead of making new enemies and stripping our defenses? Made us stronger?

You're never going to convince me of that.

Roger, I remember that a lot of experts said that Iraq most probably didn't have any weapons of mass destruction. The reason why it was widely believed that such WMDs didn't exist was precisely because of the sanctions that had been imposed on Iraq for many years by President Clinton. I remember that the UN was really skeptical that Iraq had any significant WMDs. In Sweden, we had a man, Hans Blix, who had worked for the UN before, inspecting Iraq for WMDs. He hadn't found any. Another Swede, whose name I have unfortunately forgotten, had also worked for the UN as a weapons inspector in Iraq. I once had the opportunity to listen to this man and ask him how the inspections were carried out. He told us many interesting details, for example how he oversaw the inspection of flood water in the Tigris and other floods. The inspectors were looking for the kind of chemicals that would be there if Saddam was trying to build a bomb. They also continually took samples of water and soil to look for increased radioactivity. They never found anything.

I remember that Hans Blix expressed the opinion that Iraq probably didn't have significant WMDs. The UN decided that Hans Blix would go to Iraq with a number of inspectors to look for WMDs. If Saddam didn't let them in, the UN would automatically OK a military attack on Iraq.

The inspectors were let in. They looked. They found nothing. They wanted to keep looking. But after a while, President Bush said that the inspections were a waste of time and that it was time to take decisive action. Most of the allies of the United States didn't dare to contest the U.S. over this. The weapons inspectors were pulled out of Iraq, and the United States attacked.

Right or wrong, Roger, it is certain that the international approval of the U.S.A. has plunged precipitously over this. Perhaps it will turn out to have been the right thing to do after all. Only time will tell.

Ann

He followed the rules. The rules entitled the commander-in-chief to extend tours of duty. This is a lie? That's a stretch. I don't remember President Bush ever giving a timeline. Do you? I seem to recall the words, "long war" and "may last beyond our lifetimes and certainly beyond my administration." That was said back in 2001. I didn't ever hear, "you'll be home by Christmas," or "it'll be over quickly and you'll never have to go back." I'm with Pam. The definition of lying has been completely redefined for President Bush and really, really re-defined for President Clinton.

John Kerry, who I'll bet you voted for, voted against body armor. Oh, after he voted for it, of course. The military had supply problems, partly because Bill Clinton gutted the military. Every Democratic president's first task upon taking office is always to gut the military. And the men and women in uniform know it. That it's the job of Democratic presidents to gut the military and the job of Republican presidents to build it back up is a given like the sun coming up in the East.

What good's the National Guard when the governor (I'm looking at you, Kathleen Blanco) won't send them in and won't let the president go in with troops until it was too late. Ever heard the term, Posse Comitatus? Once the Coast Guard, the Navy, and the Army were allowed in, relief help came quickly. Oh wait, there aren't any. They're all in Iraq. I guess all those Coast Guard choppers pulling people from their rooftops were special effects by Industrial Light and Magic.

Plame was outed by her own husband, probably the biggest publicity-hound there ever was. Plus his own book, the Politics of Truth (an oxymoron if I've ever heard one) proved she wasn't covert. She was a desk jockey, not a covert agent and had been for six years. Covert agents don't do photo layouts for Vanity Fair.

President Clinton gutted our intelligence services. President Carter made sure that human intelligence (humint) was non-existent. You're trying to tell me that Democrats support intelligence services?

Power wasn't the reason why the warrants were deemed unnecessary. The process of obtaining warrants usually took so long that the need for wiretaps was over before they got approval. Minutes mattered. Even hours was too long. And those warrantless wiretaps were only permitted for calls into the US from outside or to outside the country. That rule was absolute. Any intra-US calls required a warrant. The Speaker, Minority Leader of the House, the Majority and Minority Leader of the Senate, the chairman and vice chair of both Intelligence committees and the chief judge of the FISA court were kept fully informed of everything that was happening related to the program. This was unchecked power? Unchecked power is the abolition of habeas corpus and the unilateral imposition of an income tax by Abraham Lincoln, one of our greatest presidents. The Emancipation Proclamation would have been an egregious misuse of executive power. I guess you would have had President Lincoln impeached.

Yeah he signed the bill to outlaw incandescent lights that Democrats so desperately wanted to become law, meaning that we're going to be filling our landfills with poisonous, mercury-filled flourescent light bulbs. I hate fluorescent lighting. You should be demanding Nancy Pelosi's removal for that one.

Since when was education a federal matter? Go talk to your governor about that. He's a Democrat, isn't he? Why hasn't he fixed it? I would have voted against the No Child Left Behind Act as an unconstitutional encroachment upon state powers. Doubly-so especially since Ted Kennedy wrote most of it.

Yes. When was the last successful attack on American soil? A president's chief job is to keep the country safe, not to provide cradle-to-grave services and a pension. Considering there hasn't been a successful attack, I'd say he's doing his main job quite well. al Qaeda's on the run. bin Laden's been reduced to a video star. Zarqawi's dead and 30 feet under (big bomb crater). Saddam and his precious boys, Uday and Kusay, are safely in the ground, no longer free to rape and kill millions of their own people. al Qaeda's tied up in Iraq, desperately trying to stop the spread of democracy, knowing that democracy is the death knell of terrorism and not free to launch unlimited attacks on us or our allies.

Blix also said he couldn't be sure since he wasn't given unfettered access to many facilities.

It's unfortunate that many in the international community don't support our efforts. Unfortunately, the only way to not earn the ire of most of our allies is to do nothing about terrorism. And that is unacceptable. As Americans, we're right in the cross hairs of just about every bad guy there is. Until you're in that position, it's hard to see that viewpoint.

I've got two young kids who I want to see grow up to be adults. I want them to live in a world where terrorism is something you read about in history books, not watch on your TV screen. That won't happen with the European way of doing things which is to do nothing. These bad guys look at inaction not as strength, but as weakness. If President Clinton had reacted strongly against the first attack on the World Trade Center or against the bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia or against the attack on the USS Cole, or against the twin attacks against US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, maybe September 11 might have just been another day?

To give equal time, I'll also criticize President Reagan here. His reaction to the bombing in the Lebanon airport that killed 241 Marines was shameful and contributed to the terrorists' feelings that the United States was nothing more than a paper tiger.

I should turn around the statement about popularity and say that our allies aren't terribly popular in America either, except for Great Britain, Australia, and Poland, since America's always left alone to do the dirty and hard jobs. I wonder why Europeans never seem to care what Americans think of them?

I've been staying out of this, since I don't have a lot of facts, but I just wanted to comment on this:

Let me say first that I was one of these people affected by the stop-loss. I was never deployed (thank god), but I did spend time in service beyond my contract. There is a clause in every service contract that states that the contract can be extended at will by the government in a time of conflict. Trust me, I looked, trying to find a way out. When a contract expires while deployed, the contract is extended until the end of the deployment, plus a certain number of days. Deployments can be extended at will. I don't believe that Bush is the one to extend the individual troop deployments, since he doesn't sign every order. He just says "send troops!" Rather, that would be the military heirarchy who actually determines which units are going where.

I have other issues with the military heirarchy, such as the lack of communication that ended my contract in May and I wasn't notified until August. Not to mention all of the conflicting reports I heard. "Your contract is done." "No it's not." "If you don't show up for six months, you're out." "No, you have to show up for at least 1 period a month or you're AWOL." AUGH!

Hey, doesn't seem to have stopped most everyone else from posting, Karen!

LabRat

I chose McCain because well, as most of you know, I'm pretty conservative and he's the most conservative of the group. I'm not a big fan of any of them though. They just reek of 'slimy politician' to me. All of them. I guess the reason that I love Bush so much is because he is such a doofus and lacks that smooth talking political savvy that irks me in so many other candidates. And of course I agree with a lot of his policies.

I took this quiz online that's supposed to let you know what issues you agree with and disagree with for each candidate and I had Alan Keys as my number one and Fred Thompson as my number two. But of course they're not going to be options. McCain was maybe about the 6th for me but Obama and Hillary were way at the bottom. What can you do? There's never going to be a candidate that is 100% for everything I believe... Unless of course I was running... Hmmm <me starts planning my political career to be President by 2028>

I agree with Teej on that issue. One of the great things about America is that it is a Capitalist nation. We can work hard and be rewarded for our hard work accordingly. I'm not against every social program but I see too many of them being taken advantage of by lazy people who basically just don't want to work hard for anything. There are definitely people who really need the programs but I don't want my hard earned money going to the ones who don't deserve it. I think the social programs in the US need to be reevaluated and modified, not abolished. In the mean time, I'll work for my money, spend it how I want, and give to charities that I feel led to give to.

I probably should stay out of this, too. But I'll take one more (hopefully the last) try at a few points:

Thanks to Karen for clearing up the contract issue. I stand corrected.

We could debate the finer points of lying and get into intentions and implications and created beliefs and suchlike, but that's just going to get us into a murky swamp. I do, however, agree that Clinton perjured himself and did a pretty sleazy job of it. I don't think you'll find many people who disagree. If you believe otherwise, you might want to check your sources.

Speaking of checking sources... You state that Plame's husband is a publicity hound and then take his own self-glorifying book as a reliable source? Plame was outed by Novak, who was tipped off by Karl Rove. And her actual job was covert nuclear inspection... finding evidence of production of nuclear materials for WMDs. She went to Africa looking for the presumed source of Saddam's supposed WMDs, and when she reported that the supply lines weren't there, she was outed... essentially a public firing.

Huh? Oh. You mean that it's the Republicans' job to complain about government spending, slash income, and then spend billions of dollars that they don't have bloating the military so that they can buy thousand-dollar toilet seats and several-hundred-dollar intra-ship phones that can't even do the job of a $20 walkie-talkie.

And then it's the Dem's job to come in, balance the budget, and deflate at least some of that bloating.

You know, there was a thing in Newsweek (not the greatest source, but not too bad) about where the candidates would spend the most money. How much it'd cost to put into effect their top 3 most expensive plans. The dems (both of them) want something like $300 billion for health care, and then 50 or so for education and the environment. Comes to about $400 billion. Sounds like a lot? McCain's number one alone tops that. They estimate that his plan for Iraq would cost $550 billion over the next four years.

That's the Coast Guard. But there were calls for the National Guard to bring in equipment to help clear the roads, rescue people in need, transport them over land, etc. I'm sure they could have helped out at places like the Superdome, too. But they and their equipment were in Iraq.

As for the governor... There was no shortage of incompetence. Plenty of mistakes made by just about everyone involved. One person's screw-up doesn't excuse the next.

Environmental policy... There was a law on the books enacted in the 70s that would have required major upgrades to heavy polluters. The regulation was designed to have major impact 30 years down the road, when the buildings in question came due for repairs (and thus their equipment would no longer be grandfathered in). We would have had much cleaner air, and the upgrades would most likely have boosted efficiency, too... But the companies didn't want to deal with the one-time expense of making the upgrades. So, just when they were finally about to make the key difference... guess who made sure those regulations expired?

You mentioned No Child Left Behind, so you know. Many things are set at the state level, but Bush put national regulations into place in the form of NCLB. He was pushing hard for them. He was very proud of them. It's a program which he instituted in Texas, and which he and his wife made into major talking points at the elections. But, well... Maybe I should let the National Education Association explain what\'s wrong with it .

And when was the last successful foreign attack before that? And before that? Going 6 years without a major attack is hardly uncommon in US history.

Saddam wasn't a threat to us.

North Korea, who arguably was the greater and more credible threat, has gone largely unignored.

Any president would have gone after Bin Laden. But others might have done it more subtly. And perhaps more effectively. But who can say, really?

As for democracy... It works for us, but that doesn't mean it's the one true path, right for all people and all cultures. People don't like it when you take over their countries and tell them how to run them. (In fact, wasn't that the reason for the first Gulf War?) And democracy doesn't automatically mean freedom and rainbows and the end of terrorism. And the idea that you can impose freedom is just inherently contradictory.

coming late to this, and this is not as lengthy a response as this hugely important topic merits.

But:

Why are people even talking about Bill Clinton? He's not a candidate.

The American media (and also the Canadian ) have been quite sexist in their coverage of the Clinton-Obama race. As well, they've mostly failed to provide serious coverage of the campaign, and fallen into a cult of personality thing. Admittedly, an easy thing to do because it's much easier to do personality/celebrity that to do research and analysis.

As an outsider, I'm troubled by both Democrat candidates' trade protectionism, and by Obama's willingness to attack Pakistan unilaterally as well as his lack of interest in European Affairs (that Senate sub-committee!)

Mr. Obama's personal financial relationship with Tony Rezko. (Honestly is any politician anywhere free of lobbyist money?? - my cynical self here)

Were I an American, I would never have though I'd be a Rebublican, but honestly right now, McCain is looking like the best of the lot.

better stop now

c.

Correct me if I'm wrong (and I want to know, if I am since it affects how I feel generally about candidates) but didnt't he give back the money? .

More discussion on that and the media circus related to that here here .

Frankly the media frenzy is driving me up the wall. I have been increasingly alienated from the Hillary camp by stuff like that that obnoxious Gloria Steinem article on the Times that basically said that if you're a woman you should ally with Clinton and then played "who's oppressed the most."

*facepalm*

Not my feminism, thankyouverymuch
alcyone

PS I'm greatly enjoying the back and forth (and actually whenever you disclaim Paul, I'm like NOOOOO, please keep talking ).

All joking aside, even if I tend not to agree with conservatives, I do like knowing what other people think and why on a one to one basis. So thanks, Roger.

No, the money for Obama's house wasn't returned, although the Obama committee did refund $40, 000 of Rezko's cash donation to the campaign.

Even the editor of Tine has admitted (on The VIew) that his magazine was much tougher on Hillary from the outset of the campaign. (although he didn't seem to regret this much ) And what about the t-shirts worn by Obama's people , directed at Hillary: Cry Baby? Or the shout out in the McCain campign: How do we stop the bitch? or.... so many of these examples.

but more importantly, where is the serious covergae of the issues in the campaign?

It's okay, Carol. If it'll make you feel better, I can assure you that liking McCain by no means makes you a Republican. That's part of his whole schtick -- "even non Republicans will vote for me!" Trust me, there are a lot of Republicans who cannot stand John McCain.

I agree, the media's being exceptionally shallow on this race, especially re: Clinton v. Obama. I suspect part of it is that their programs aren't all that different. So it's easier to focus on things that should be irrelevant. "Oh, look, a woman! and a black! aren't we wonderful that we're so progressive."

It ticks me off when Hilary plays the "poor little me; those big bad men are being mean to a girl!" act. I like her a lot better when she's cranky. At least that points to her strength of character, instead of weakness. Come *on*. You can't face Tim Russert, how on earth are you going to do anything about Iran... or much of anything, really. Speaking of Kathleen Blanco...

Paul, you are correct. Saddam wasn't a threat to us at that point. The idea was to stop him from ever *becoming* a threat. He probably didn't have a thing to do with 9/11, either. So what? We acted against him *before* he had a chance to act against us or anyone else (remember Kuwait?). That kind of pre-emption is somewhat speculative, I grant you. The signs seemed clear that Saddam would love to be a danger to the region and hence the world. Now, since we went in, there is no way to know what he might or might not have done by now. We can argue that. But I don't think anyone really misses him much.

And really, if you found a rattlesnake was living in your backyard, would you leave him there on the grounds that he hadn't killed your children *yet*? Why, he might not *ever* kill them. I mean, sure, the neighbors' kid died last year, but that's different. Probably it was some other snake, anyway.

Or would you think it was a lot smarter to get rid of the rattlesnake?

(Yeah, yeah, the analogy's not perfect. And actually, I can imagine some people agreeing with the first approach, so for them it won't make the point at all. But that's what the thinking was.)

Saddam's Iraq was a rattlesnake. Me, I'm glad the rattlesnake's not out there anymore.

Could we have done it better? Yeah, probably. But I'm a bit cynical about that -- it's the government, of *course* they screw up. Which is another reason I don't want them taking over my health care, come to think of it...

PJ

Come on, Paul, this is fun! I love political debates. I could do it for hours on end. I've enjoyed the give and take.

I will have to correct you here since a few of your facts are off. The reason why I said her husband outed her was because of his eagerness for publicity. Everybody in town knew she was the one who had sent him to Niger. And everybody knew Valerie Wilson, which is how she introduced herself. She and her husband were very big on the Washington party circuit so just about everyone in the press knew her. Andrea Kramer of NBC, plus a few other reporters came out and said they knew her and what she did. She was an analyst in the WMD division, not a spy. She was well known long before any of this Niger stuff came about, so there wasn't any necessity in outing her. She'd already been outed.

She had been classified as covert many years ago at the lightest classification, meaning she was no James Bond. She went abroad a few times, but after a few years, she and Joe wanted to come home and stay home. Six years before the whole incident, they came back to the US to stay. The source of this? Joe Wilson's book. The CIA basically said that she wasn't really covert but they hadn't bothered to change her classification, but she was never planning to go back into the field. The law that was supposedly broken was co-authored by Victoria Toensing, who said that the law didn't apply to Plame. That's why Fitzgerald indicted no one on the charge of outing a covert agent. It was not a very merry Fitzmas for liberal Democrats.

As for the whole Niger incident, Wilson's report alleged that he was sent to Niger by the Vice President to see if there was any truth to the reports that Saddam was looking to buy yellow cake uranium. When this report came back in the negative, Cheney was informed about it and started some inquiries about who this Joe Wilson was and why he was saying he spoke for the Vice President when in fact nobody in the VP's office had ever heard of him. Even worse, Joe Wilson was a major critic of the administration and was no supporter of the Iraq policy, so people wondered why this person, of all people, was given that job. Paul, Valerie did not go to Niger. Joe did.

That's when the VP's office discovered that Joe Wilson was sent by his wife. When confronted with it, Wilson lied, denying his wife had anything to do with it. The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence then uncovered emails from Valerie Plame to her boss recommending her husband for the boondoggle. All Wilson did was have two lunches with a Niger official and took his word that Saddam wasn't looking for yellow cake. Considering Niger has only one major export, uranium, just what else would Saddam's agents be looking to buy?

Wilson's report was immediately round-filed by the CIA as much evidence came about that he was dead wrong. The Butler Commission in the UK and the Senate Select Committee both determined that the 16 words about Niger spoken by President Bush in his State of the Union address were "well founded."

That his wife didn't send him was only one of Joe Wilson's lies. He also claimed that he debunked some forged letters alleging that Saddam was looking for yellow cake and that was one of the reasons why he concluded that Saddam was not trying to obtain uranium. The problem for Wilson was that those forged letters were not in American possession until ten months AFTER his report was filed. He could not possibly have seen them.

Once his lies were exposed, John Kerry's campaign dropped him like a hot potato. Once an advisor of the Kerry campaign and prominently featured on Kerry's website, his name quickly disappeared from the website and he was publicly disavowed by Kerry, himself. So much for Wilson's veracity.

Bob Novak started nosing around, trying to figure out who was whom and who told whom. Novak's main source was NOT Karl Rove, but Richard Armitage, Colin's Powell's deputy at the State Department and a harsh critic of the administration's Iraq policy. Armitage was no friend of Bush.

Novak asked Rove in a wide-ranging interview about many topics about Plame. Rove's response was that he'd heard that too. So he was basically acknowledging that he'd heard what Novak had already known. Rove didn't even know her name. Rove's legal problems were due to his testimony that he claimed that it was Tim Russert of NBC who had told him about Plame. Russert denied it. As it turned out, Rove just had a bad memory. Bob Woodward of the famed Woodward and Bernstein was the source who had told Rove, not Russert. Since guys like Rove do dozens of interviews a week, it shouldn't be so surprising he couldn't remember precisely who told him. In any case, Rove was told by a reporter, not the other way around. So Rove was completely innocent and was not indicted for perjury since Fitzgerald essentially took Woodward's word that he was Rove's source and that Rove simply didn't remember correctly. So if Rove was such a bad guy, why is it he had to find out about Plame from the press?

So no, the administration was not out to destroy a covert agent. They were trying to figure out who was trying to sabotage their Iraq policy by claiming the Vice President was responsible for Joe Wilson's trip. it was Wilson's own big mouth and his huge desire for publicity that made this even a story. As I said, covert agents don't do photo layouts for Vanity Fair.

Wasn't I the one complaining about how bad the government was at spending? And wasn't I the one who used that as an example of why government shouldn't be trusted to run health care? Wars are expensive. First you complain about no body armor because it was too expensive, now you complain about them spending too much on the war. Which one is it?

Also when it comes to fighting wars, do you really want bean counters making war decisions? No, wars are not fought on the cheap. It costs billions.

I am not a McCain fan and never said I was. This is the guy who tried to beat Bush in 2000 by relying on Democrats and Independents in the open primary states like Michigan.

We agree. Anytime a liberal like Ted Kennedy gets his hands on education, like with his principal authoring of the NCLB Act, education is bound to suffer. That's why so many Republicans voted against it. Unfortunately, the Texas portions of the bill that would have made a difference were stripped out by Kennedy. The federal government has no business being in education. It's best left to the states and localities.

We could give it back to Saddam's family if you think democracy's a bad idea for them. Seriously, though, we didn't tell them how to run their government. It was their decision to go for a Parliamentary system where we urged a strong executive like ours, mostly because a strong executive to them meant Saddam and they wanted nothing to do with Saddam. We made many recommendations that they simply ignored. The government of Iraq is their own. We didn't fashion it for them They were the ones who wrote the constitution and voted on it and risked death threats from al Qaeda. The people voted overwhelmingly to ratify it. The people spoke, and without a gun held to their heads, unlike when Saddam always received 100% of the votes when he held an election.

Thank you for your posts, Roger. You've said everything so eloquently that I couldn't even begin to put into words.

I should probably stay out of this too by now, but....

Originally posted by RL:

Translation: President Bush defined North Korea, Iran and Iraq as the three countries on the Earth representing evil. And because President Bush's speech made these countries evil by definition, the United States thereby gained the (moral) right to attack Iran, Iraq and North Korea preemptively. That meant that the United States officially claimed the right to attack these nations before they had actually done anything, to prevent them from doing something bad in the future.

Imagine if preemptive attacks became an acceptable method of self defence in the United States, on American soil, among ordinary Americans. Imagine if you could attack and kill your neighbour preemptively, because people said bad things about him, and he really did beat somebody up ten years ago. Imagine that you could break into his apartment and kill him preemptively to make sure that he won't attack you some time in the future. And by the way, not only do you kill him, but you kill two of his kids as well: one teenager who is already on his way to becoming a gangster, and one toddler, three years old. And afterwards, you tell the court that this wasn't murder at all, but a preemptive strike to protect yourself and your family from being harmed in the future. And the court says that you acted within your rights. Would you like to see that sort of "preemptive killing" become an acceptable form of self defence within the United States itself, Roger? Remember that for all you know, your neighbour could kill you and get away with it, by claiming that it was a case of preemptive self defence.

I once heard an interview with John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Bolton didn't mince words in this interview. He said that because American lives are more important to the United States than the lives of people in other countries, the United States had the right to attack and kill other people in other countries to make sure that these people could not attack and kill people in the U.S.A. in the future.

Roger, do you think it is at all reasonable that other people in other countries will not love the United States when they hear a high-ranking representative for the U.S. administration talk about America's right to kill others as they see fit in order to prevent future attacks on America?

Seriously, though, shouldn't it ever be allowed to attack a country preemptively? Yes, i think it should, if you have a very good reason to believe that this country is on its way to becoming supremely dangerous. But if you want to convince - really convince - the world that you are right about this, you need very good evidence. President Bush's accusations against Iraq came pretty much out of the blue, or at least it certainly looked that way to the international community. All that the rest of us knew was that Iraq hadn't attacked another country for about ten years, it hadn't carried out a genocidal attack on anyone for more than ten years, no international experts had claimed that Saddam was stockpiling dangerous WMDs, and no international terrorist had ever been known to come out of Iraq before Al Qeada took up residence there in response to the U.S. intervention. And, unsurprisingly, after the United States had occupied Iraq, no WMDs were found anywhere and no pre-existing Iraqi terror network was found, either. (However, other nations were known to have terrorists, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, or to have WMDs, such as Pakistan.)

It is absolutely true that the UN finally approved Resolution 242, which gave the United States green light to attack Iraq. So yes, you can say that America's war on Iraq has the blessing of the international community. I remember, however, that as the war was about to start, the populations of a whole bunch of nations had been surveyed to find out what they thought about the idea that the United States would attack Iraq. It turned out that the population of one country, Israel, was enthusiastic about a U.S. attack. The populations of all other U.S. allies, Great Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Canada, Australia, everyone - were against it. Populations in important countries like India, Russia and China, were negative, too. As far as I can remember, Israel was in fact the only country whose population supported the attack. This means that when the United Nations approved Resolution 242, a whole lot of governments defied the will of their own populations. By going against their own people, these governments created strife and ill will at home.

In countries which are democracies, it is hard to go against your own voters for a very long time. The governments which act like that will be voted out of office.

I think that the idea of preemptive strikes is a wholly new one. To my knowledge, no American President or Administration before the current one has ever talked about America's right to attack its enemies preemptively. I'm convinced that this idea has an enormous lot to do with the United States' poor ratings in the current "popularity league".

Carol, I agree with you that many of Hillary's policies are better than Obama's, and I agree that very many of Hillary's difficulties stem from the fact that her gender forces her to fight an enormously uphill battle. (Then again, Carol, how many female Prime Ministers have you had in Canada? And how many have we had in Sweden?)

I absolutely disagree with you that John McCain would be a better choice than Obama, at least as far as the international community is concerned. When McCain was asked what he wanted to do with Iran, he answered by singing - singing!!! - "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran". As if bombing another country was a funny thing that you could sing a song about.

The United States was incredibly shocked and horrified at the loss of American lives on 9/11. That is certainly understandable. But that also makes it painful to see how totally insensitive and sometimes almost flippant some Republican politicians seem to be to the idea of causing the loss of lives in other countries.

Ann

One, actually. Kim Campbell, for a few months in 1993.

In a non-nuclear age, I'd agree with you. The policy of pre-emption is a difficult one to take on but the consequences of failure are immense today. It's one thing to compare neighbor against neighbor but when you're talking about the slaughter of millions in a single strike, no president can afford to sit still and play defense. One bomb could destroy an entire city. Try to imagine that kind of carnage and how you'd feel if the perpetrator were one of the identified terror sponsors. One life against millions is not a accurate comparison. That is why the president chose that policy and why I agree with it. The consequences are just too high. September 11 was an awakening to the real dangers in the world. With suitcase nukes out there and willing buyers in al Qaeda and sponsors of terror like Iran freely providing money and training to those out to kill us, what choice do we have? Wait for them to come here?

Some have recommended covert operations. Those are completely useless against state sponsors of terrorism. In Iran alone there are potentially dozens of nuclear enrichment facilities close to being able to produce weapons grade fuel.

It only takes one attack to kill many of our citizens and to set back our way of life by many decades. Knowing that threat is out there now, can we sit back, cowering in fear, hoping our acquiescence will keep our enemies from hurting us again? No, against entities like al Qaeda, they must be destroyed before they can succeed again. State sponsors of terrorism have to stopped one way or another. Negotiations is the preferable approach such as with our attempts in North Korea and Iran, but when those fail, you must have a stick to back up the carrot.

You mean John Bolton, the guy with the really big whiskers?

It's perfectly reasonable if a country is a state sponsor of terrorism. Those countries who are not have nothing to fear from the US. Every country has the right of self-defense. This is self-defense by hitting the terrorists before they can kill millions of our citizens.

The US is THE target of terrorists. We are in much greater danger than most of the countries of the world. When you are sitting in the bull's eye, perhaps you'll have a different opinion.

I ask again, why is it Europeans don't care what Americans think of them? We feel Europeans (collectively, not individually) are cowardly do-nothings who hide under our nuclear umbrella and won't lift a finger to help us when we're in danger (with the sole exception being Great Britain), unlike how the United States stepped in to help Europe when it was overrun by the Nazis. The Nazis had not been a threat to the United States at the time of the American entry into World War II. Since the Nazis hadn't done anything to us, why is it we went into Europe to save it? Does Europe regret that the United States preemptively entered the war in Europe? Despite being attacked by Imperial Japan, the US committed the bulk of its forces to Europe as we felt it was the greater threat. If European opinion today is any indication, they would have opposed US entry into the European theater as none of our business, unless they, of course, were the ones occupied by the enemy.

We thought the Nazis were a threat and the greatest generation died by the thousands to bring freedom to Europe. The US dispatched 12 million soldiers to Europe and lost over a quarter of a million of them in the defense of our friends.

I had a bit of a tongue-in-cheek post above in response to Carol's question about whether we could have won WWII with today's media (bonus points if you got the reference to the quote, "Aww, nuts"). It was humorous because the comparisons were so true. History repeats itself over and over. That's why I support our war effort and our policy of preemption because I am a student of history. I've read about the mistakes made in ignoring threats. We've paid the price over and over again. Some still don't learn from those painful lessons.

According to what you said, we had no business invading North Africa, Sicily, Italy, and France. The Nazis had done nothing to us but yet we thought they were a future threat to our survival. We preemptively attacked them and killed five million Germans through a process of total war against both military and civilian. Bombers of the US Eighth Air Force flew dangerous daylight raids to destroy German infrastructure, costing us 80,000 of their lives in the process when even the British were too afraid. Their Lancasters flew only at night. Often these B-17 aircrews bravely flew in without air cover, dying by the hundreds on each raid, all in a cause we thought was just even though it did not directly involve us until we involved ourselves. It was so rare for a crew to survive its 30-35 missions that a movie called "Memphis Belle" was made honoring the first aircrew to survive all of its missions without losing a life.

When we came to France in 1917, General John J. Pershing said, "Lafayette, we are here," in honor of the brave Frenchman who fought alongside General Washington in our fight for freedom in the American Revolution. Americans have long memories. We paid back that help many fold in blood, tears, and treasure with many crosses and Stars of David dotting the Normandy beaches and countryside. With the exception of the British, we're still waiting for that General Pershing to come to our aid. It seems we'll have even longer to wait since your opinion is so common.


Not really. See above.

I really apologize for the "Roger Bolton" gaffe. The only thing I can say in my defence is that I had corrected the mistake myself before I saw your post.

But how can you call the U.S. attacks on Nazi countries and forces during World War II a preemptive atack? Taking sides in an ongoing conflict is not preemptive. That is rushing in to help someone who needs your help. I said earlier that if you break into you neighbour's home to kill him, just so he won't be able to kill you in the future, then that is a prememptive attack. But what if you hear noises from your neighbour's house, and you realize that others have broken in there and are trying to kill your neighbour? If you yourself rush in there to defend your neighbour, you are most certainly not carrying out a preemptive attack.

What if you are taking a stroll down a street where you don't live, and you hear cries for help coming out from a house whose occupants you don't know? If you run in there to help, you are still not carrying out a preemptive attack. Because the conflict is already there and you just want to help.

That is what The United States did during World War II. They sacrificed thousands and thousands and thousands of their soldiers for their "neighbours", or rather for the people on another street, when they heard their cries for help. America heard Europe's cries for help, and America elected to help us. That was the decision that the Roosevelt administration made for us Europeans, for our sake. America under Roosevelt (and Truman) did Europe an enormous favor, and at least people of my generation have certainly not forgotten it.

But the present U.S. administration seems so incredibly different from the Roosevelt (and Truman) ones. So incredibly different.

Ann

By this definition, then you fully support American forces going into the Palestinian territories and conquering it or maybe the entire Middle East. After all, our friends the Israelis have called for help time and time again as a small nation of 3 million faced 40 million Arabs around it in three separate wars and an ongoing hot and cold war in the territories. We help them with a total of $3 billion/year and much of their high-tech weaponry. There's a reason the Israelis in that poll you cited were wholeheartedly in favor of our attack on Iraq. We were taking out a huge threat to them. So to satisfy your definition of justified action, we'll just say we invaded Iraq to help Israel.

I seem to recall European governments begging President Clinton to intervene in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Why? Americans had absolutely zero interests there. Europe was not under a direct threat from Slobodon Milosevic, yet US troops were requested to bomb Serbian targets. Again, why? Out of friendship for our allies, US soldiers and airmen put their lives at risk for a cause that meant nothing to us and wasn't even understood by most. Ten years later, our soldiers are still there, despite having been promised that their deployment would be short and very limited.

It seems to be a huge double standard. When European interests are perceived to be at stake, it's justified for some country halfway around the world where most people hadn't even heard of Bosnia and Serbia to go and bomb Serbians. Even our illustrious Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, when asked where Serbia was, couldn't locate it on a globe.

Europeans don't feel they are being threatened, despite the terrorist attacks in Madrid and London, so when their interests are not at stake, it seems they feel action isn't justified.

We are doing this to save ourselves this time, not directly to save others. That appears to be the difference between Roosevelt and Bush. It's okay to help friends in need, but helping ourselves is somehow not okay.

I should ask you. Is it only justified after the attack, after one of our cities lies in ruins and the mass graves are filled? Because if that's the only condition where an attack is justified, then it's far too late. Any defensive move earlier than that is preemption. If that's the case, then Europeans can feel free to hate us. We'd rather be alive than dead and popular.

<Of course, I'm being facetious about invading the Palestinian territories, but I'm using it to make a point.>

Back again with just a few things. I'm tired, and I don't really feel like we're getting anywhere. I give my points, you return with your own version of things. I think you're wrong but can't definitively prove it. There are conflicting reports and different takes on the same thing and ultimately... I'm going to go on thinking what I think and you're going to go on thinking what you think.

It has been nice getting some stuff off my chest, and I'm glad that at least some people are enjoying it. What's really cool is that despite strong disagreements, this thread has remained civil. I've said it before, but I love that about these boards. I know, in the past, that I've had to back away from threads because I've become too upset to post rationally. I'm glad it hasn't come to that here. Like I said... I'm tired, but not angry.

Is the world better off with Saddam out of power? For the most part, yes. I mean, he was a ruthless dictator killing his own people. On the other hand, we've thrown the country into such chaos that the people are now doing a much more effective job of killing each other. And, more importantly... we didn't really have the right to go in and seize power. We can't go invading every country whose government we don't like. We're supposed to be the good guys.

Right. You don't like government spending. But you're happy about the ridiculously bloated Republican defense budgets.

Both.

I don't think we should have been in the war in the first place. I don't think we should stay in Iraq now. So I can complain about the expense on those grounds. And I can point out that it'd be more expensive to stay in Iraq than it would be to fund major programs at home.

On the other side of things... If we're going to be there, then let's take a look at how we're spending all that money. For the cost of one fighter jet, we could have bought body armor for everyone. (Something like that, anyway. I'm not going to run through the exact numbers.) Body armor shouldn't have been too expensive to provide, especially if we could have slashed some of the wastage. And then there's the whole issue of hiring expensive mercs instead of doing better by our own troops. And the lack of armored vehicles. And the whole situation with health care. And the programs for vets... In short, if you're going to go to war, support the troops!

Yeah, it's kind of funny that way. He's the Republican nominee. The only viable alternative to Clinton or Obama. Let's face it, third parties don't have a chance this year. Best they can hope for is to gain attention and momentum for the next election. And yet... most core Republicans I hear from hate the guy. His Straight Talk Express drove him straight off a cliff last time, and he was a fringe candidate at best at the beginning this time. I honestly don't understand how he got where he is today.

I'm sorry that you and so many others are left without an option you like. I mean, you're completely wrong about a lot of major issues ( ), but you should at least have a decent choice come election time.

Actually, Mossad has a pretty good history in that department...

I think Israel might disagree with you on that point.

Actually, given our history, I think a lot of countries would disagree on that point. That's one of the major things about 9/11. Before that, attacks had been so scarce that we didn't really take the idea seriously. We felt safe over here on our side of the world, when so many other countries had to deal with bombings as just another fact of life. Then, they were the ones telling us, "When you are sitting in the bull's eye, perhaps you'll have a different opinion."

Could it have something to do with the way we constantly declare that we're the best, ignore what they have to say, and just go ahead and do what we want because we're America and we have the power? If you make it clear that you don't care what they think, why should they have any reason to care what you think?

As for WWII... Take another look at your history books. We stayed out of it. The Nazis were invading one country after another, bombing our longstanding allies, and killing people by the millions. (Big difference between making threats to attack/invade or building weapons/military within your own borders and actually attacking.) But after WWI, most Americans didn't want to get involved in another war across the ocean. Especially not with the Depression.There was a movement to pretty much close our borders and ignore the rest of the world. It wasn't until we were directly attacked at Pearl Harbor that we really got involved.

No, we don't. Some of us do. But plenty of us don't. As one of the latter, I'd like to ask you to please refrain from making such offensive statements on my behalf.

... And that's a lot more than I thought I was going to say. But at least it passed the time.

You are absolutely correct here. Americans did want to stay out of the war. Franklin Roosevelt knew this but still created ways to help our friends, such as Lend-Lease or even aiding the creation of the Flying Tigers in China. When we were attacked, we finally realized the dangers the Axis powers presented. Pearl Harbor was 1941's equivalent of September 11. It woke the population up to the fact that we couldn't stay isolated from the world. There were dangers that had to be addressed to save our way of life. The result was the invasion of Europe and nearly the invasion of Japan if it hadn't been for the timely development of the atomic bomb.

Today is the same, though this time the enemy isn't facing us with armored columns of Tiger tanks but rather suicide bombers or hidden plots to destroy a bridge. The equivalent of the Pacific theater would be the invasion of Afghanistan, a direct attack on the country that had attacked us. The invasion of Iraq would be the equivalent of the invasion of Europe. This was the elimination of a threat that had never directly attacked us.

It is amazing, isn't it, how history continues to repeat itself.

Glad you're enjoying yourself, Paul, even if you are wrong.

No, I certainly don't. Israel kills so many more Palestinians than any Palestinian organisation kills Israelis. Imagine your neighbour again. Suppose he's being bothered by one of his neighbours. They jeer at him, dump trash on his lawn and paint graffiti on his house. In response, your neighbour rents a bulldozer and flattens his tormentors' house. If you help your neighbour flatten that house, you help him being a bully.

Imagine that your neighbour has some other neighbours, too. They shout insults at him because he flattened those other people's house. Your neighbour doesn't like being shouted at, so you rent a bulldozer and flatten all those other people's houses, too. Have you carried out a preemptive attack? No, but I'd say that you are guilty of a horrible case of bullying.

Ann

There's a big difference between bullying somebody and setting off a nuclear bomb in someone's back yard. If it were a person bullying my son, for instance, I'd go talk to his parents and see what they can do to stop him from being a bully. If I knew someone was about to flatten my house, I'd go to the police. If I knew somebody was ready to detonate a nuclear bomb, I wouldn't go talk to his parents. The seriousness of the danger determines the response. You do not respond the same way in all circumstances.

Nice analogy but the consequences simply aren't comparable. Even the law separates between harm against property versus great bodily harm. In the case of the threat of great bodily harm, the law allows you to act in self-defense, killing the perpetrator.

Again, I ask. When is it appropriate to use force? After we've buried our dead? Some would say that it's a matter of proportionality. If someone commits a terrorist act and kills one or two, a million dollar missile fired at a ten dollar tent, hitting a camel in the butt is the appropriate response. Taking out the whole country isn't.

Since so many believe in proportional response, then that implies that only the death of thousands would merit an attack on another nation. Again, though, that means we have to wait to be killed before we could respond. Is that what you support? There are no situations where you would advocate taking preemptive measures?

Bottom line is that you're advocating that they have to take a shot at us before we are allowed to respond. If that shot is a good one, gets through our defenses, and successfully kills, say the entire city of Malmo, would your conscience be satisfied that no one acted until after the attack even though your Prime Minister knew there was the possibility of that happening but had not acted upon his intelligence reports? Or would you do everything in your power to stop it?

It is clear that we are pushing each other's buttons, Roger. So I really hope that this will be my last post.

I think you are exaggerating enormously here:

Taking out a whole country? What? Are you suggesting that this is something that may be about to happen to the United States? As far as I know, there are 300 million people in America - 300,000,000. There were fewer than 3,000 killed on 9/11, fewer than one in 100,000. Losing one person out of 100,000 is evidence that someone could be taking out your entire country?

Are you seriously comparing taking out the entire city of Malmö with killing 3,000 people on 9/11? There are almost 300,000 people in Malmö. Are you seriously saying that killing 3,000 people is equivalent to killing 300,000 people? Is 3,000 the same as 300,000? Or maybe one American is as valuable as a hundred Swedes?

There are nine million people in Sweden. If someone took out the entire city of Malmö, then one out of thirty Swedes would be killed. That isn't equivalent to taking out a whole country, but is certainly more damaging than killing one person out of 100,000.

And if you say that President Bush had to attack Iraq because his intelligence reports said that the entire United States of America could be taken out if he didn't, then I'd say you should worry about the quality of America's intelligence reports instead. Because there were no WMDs to be found in Iraq at all. Whatever Iraq was up to, it didn't have a snowball's chance in Sahara to take out the U.S.A. And there were so many experts who said that this was the case. Roger, are you seriously telling the world that we should like and support your country if it relies on faulty intelligence, refuses to listen to experts who disagree with you, and claims the right to attack and raze another country just because you have decided that it is in your best interest to do so? What if someone tells the Bush administration that the Swedish government is about to build a bomb? Would you have the moral right to attack and bomb us if you want to, whether or not we have any weapons at all?

Seriously. I'm not suggesting that the United States would attack Sweden. Such an implicit charge is far too serious to be made even in jest. But honestly, I'm a bit scared of a military superpower which is so paranoid about being attacked by others. Yes, 9/11 was horrible. And it lasted for exactly one day. And there have been no attacks on American soil since then. Your country is not about to be taken out. How can you honestly think that any of the Arab or Muslim nations can take you out? Destroy you? The only such nation which has any chance at all to do serious damage to the United States is Pakistan, because it does have the bomb. And yet Pakistan is hardly ever mentioned as a threat to the United States, whereas Iraq was described as an immediate threat to the entire world. How weird.

Roger, your nation is the greatest in the world. Don't squander your strength. Don't be unwise. Don't be paranoid. Don't be cocky. Don't think that the rest of the world does not exist. Don't tell yourself that everyone in the world is out to get you. Try to be in the world, not apart from it. The United States has been such an inspiration to the world for such a long time. There are so many people all over the world who would love to see you play that part again.

Ann

oh Saddam definitely would have liked to try to take out the entire US, don't try to fool yourself...


Yeah, this is about as good a Monday morning quarterback as the rest of the frisking world, Ann.

and typical repeating of anti-war dogma, you think when you say "there were no WMD's" over and over again that'll make it true, when Roger has already cited you when and where they were found, not to mention the ones Saddam snuck out of the country while Hans Brix was screwing around.
No you should like and support the US because WE KEEP THE WORLD AFLOAT, WE WERE THE ONES THAT MADE SURE THE NAZI'S DIDN'T RUN ALL OF EUROPE'S WEAK BACKSIDE OVER. Right now the threat of US response is all that is standing between the women of Europe and a burka.

hand-wring away; if you think it helps keep US in line, you go right ahead.

'scuse me, but we don't want to take ANY more losses like 9/11, can you grasp that. Their little suicide bombing might not take out our whole nation, but we don't want to loose another 3000, another 235, another 11, another 1!! Call us sentimental, but if the people who live in the US are here legally, we're going to protect them.

Glad the truth can finally get around to being said.

repeat this back to me when Sweden becomes a caliphate, 'kay sweety

Don't follow the example of other countries who think protecting themselves is wrong.

Sorry but 200+ years of progress to become the greatest nation in the free world is a bit hard to shrug off overnight.

Even if they are GREEEEEEEN with jealousy.

Even at the risk of your free world status and progress; why can't you just join the collective, darn it all? TJ

Sorry to be imprecise on that, but I did write that "next to Israel" in a previous post and was too lazy to write it again.

Yeah, you're right! They've been so successful that they've stopped all terrorist strikes against them! Oh wait...

Getting back to the armored vehicles and body armor, I mentioned earlier that it was essentially a supply problem. When asked about it, then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld put it this way, "You go to war with what you've got, not what you think you'd like to have," essentially saying that the war couldn't be postponed long enough to get enough equipment. As it is, it took two years to fully outfit our troops and then make ongoing adjustments to the changing tactics of the enemy.

Case in point, just look at the Pacific Theater in World War II. After WWI, America had essentially disarmed itself and wasn't ready to go to war against anyone, but circumstances dictated that we didn't have the luxury of time. In the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, the US was left without a single operational battleship, all eight of them having been crippled or sunk in the harbor. Fortunately for us, Halsey's carrier battlegroup composed of the Enterprise and Hornet had been delayed by a day getting into port by a storm. Up until that point, naval wars had always been fought ship to ship with battleships slugging it out. Without a single battleship, we were forced to change tactics to the almost exclusive use of the carrier airwings. For the first time, naval battles were fought without a ship having sighted the enemy ships.

Even with the change in strategy, we went into the Pacific war with only five carriers: the Enterprise, Hornet, Lexington, Yorktown, and Saratoga, against the cream of the Japanese Navy. We eventually brought the Wasp over from the Atlantic theater. Over the course of 1942, we lost the Lexington at Coral Sea, the Yorktown at Midway, the Hornet and Wasp in the Solomons. The Saratoga was crippled but not sunk by a torpedo, and the Enterprise had its forward elevator knocked out of alignment by a bomb. So at the end of 1942, only the half-crippled Enterprise stood between Japan and California. By 1943, industrial production began putting out a navy that could formidably take on Japan with the addition of the Essex class carriers. We eventually finished the war with over 70 heavy carriers and countless light carriers and escort carriers while attrition left the Japanese with none.

Admiral Yamamoto had pressured his government in 1941 not to attack the US, lest they "wake a sleeping giant." He warned them that if the US could not be defeated in the first year, the industrial might of the United States would eventually be more than Japan could withstand. Tojo rejected his recommendation, believing the Americans to be soft and weak, a paper tiger. Yamamoto was right, but he never lived to see it. In late 1942, US code breakers intercepted his itinerary and US fighters met and shot down his plane over Bougainville.

As another instance of history repeating itself, al Qaeda woke the sleeping giant in 2001 and was surprised at the ferocity of the response, believing the response would only be another cruise missile in the desert.

I think you're misreading the intent of what I wrote. I never said they could take out the whole country. That phrase was meant as a response to an attack on our country that we would, in response, take out theirs after losing several thousand of our citizens.

And no, it was not an exaggeration. I'm not talking about what happened in New York and Washington back in 2001. I'm talking about preventing an abomination from happening in the future where a single nuclear weapon could take out a city the size of Malmo. This is not about the past but an uncertain future. And about this paranoia about being attacked. Paranoia is when you're afraid someone will attack you when they aren't actually going to. What happened on September 11 was real. It happened and we were attacked. That was our wakeup call that there are people out to kill us. It's not paranoia when there's a terrorist on videotape who's constantly telling us he will kill us.

I would like to bring up a television show that many may have or may not have seen, 24.

If you don't like spoilers for the sixth season, proceed no further.

In season six, the United States was facing the ultimate nightmare scenario. Terrorists had infiltrated the country to the degree that shopping mall bombs and mass shootings were taking place every day with hundreds dying with each attack, making what happens in Israel look tame.

Even worse, three ex-Soviet nuclear warheads had been stolen from the Russian arsenal and were in the hands of a mythical Middle Eastern terrorist organization.

It's Jack Bauer to the rescue. But in the process of finding those suitcase nukes, one of them goes off in Valencia, California, instantly vaporizing 70,000 people. Even Jack couldn't save them.

President Wayne Palmer, having just survived an assassination attempt, tries to get information from the ambassador of the country known to be harboring and financially supporting the terrorists. The ambassador refuses to cooperate, basically saying they knew nothing and were completely innocent.

President Palmer then orders the launch of a nuclear-tipped missile at the capital of that country with the deadline that he would not abort the missile without hard information that would lead to the terrorists. With the imminent destruction of his capital, the ambassador finally gave in and provided the name of the Russian general who had obtained the three nukes and the location of where the bombs would be.

Of course, after the missile was aborted, we found that the missile was a dud and would not have done any damage, but the point was that we never want to get into any situation similar to the one depicted on that fictional TV show. The policy of preemption is designed to keep us from ever getting to the point where we need a Jack Bauer to save 70,000 people or more from being murdered.

September 11 was just a taste of what could happen in the future. The next attack could likely be chemical, biological, or nuclear in form, as opposed to the airplanes used as missiles. We are not talking about saving 3,000. We are talking about saving millions from a potential devastating attack. That kind of nightmare scenarios is what we are trying to keep from ever happening. I certainly hope you're not saying that 3,000 is an acceptable loss or even 300,000 if it will maintain good will in the international community because it sure seemed that way. I don't know about you but I don't consider 300,000 to be an acceptable loss just to make Europeans like us.

I hope that makes it clear. I was not saying that 100 Swedes were worth 1 American. I was putting it closer to home for you as opposed to using a remote city like Washington D.C.

And you were wrong about WMD. There were WMD found. Over 500 warheads to be precise and who knows how many weren't found in the desert or were moved to Syria as has been hypothesized in the fourteen months we spent convincing the UN Security Council. Just because CNN and CNN International didn't cover it doesn't mean it wasn't true. The Iraq Survey Group (ISG) report indicated full resumption of WMD production would be started as soon as France helped to remove the UN sanctions. While not an imminent threat, President Bush stated on several occasions that to wait for a threat to become imminent would be too late because then a single attack could slip through causing devastating results. In that nightmare scenario, only a mythical person like Jack Bauer could save us.

Oh, and do you know what else was found in Iraq? In military bases around the country, large stockpiles of 55-gallon drums were found, all filled with pesticides that made many American soldiers ill. It's interesting to note that the pre-cursor to mustard gas before it is processed is... drumroll please... a pesticide-like material. So only two conclusions could be made about that discovery. Either Iraqi military bases had huge insect problems or they were the base materials from which future WMD would be made.

So even though there has been disagreement in this thread on various principles and events, up until now people have been giving civilized, well-reasoned out and thoughtful responses to both "sides". TEEEJ, however, has just laid it all out that conservatives think and use facts, whereas the liberals just feel and say things with no factual grounding whatsoever.

Thanks a lot, TEEEEJ. Your tolerance and understanding overwhelms me.

Kathy

It all depends on the country. Tell me, would you personally rather have Sweden get the bomb or Iran? Would you rather Switzerland get the bomb or Syria? Americans wouldn't blink an eye if Sweden or Switzerland got the bomb. We wouldn't care because we know Swedes or Swiss aren't out to destroy western civilization. In our eyes, they're the good guys. We would certainly take notice if Syria or Iran got the bomb, countries that have both expressed the willingness and desire to do harm to us or our friends. That chant of, "Death to America! Death to the Great Satan!" certainly makes for a great slogan to make us raise an eyebrow and wonder at their intentions. The Swedish government would certainly take notice and start sweating if Iran suddenly set off a test bomb even if they are far down the list of potential attackees.

Britain and France have nuclear weapons. We don't have a problem with that. They're allies. No matter our disagreements of the day or whether we like each other or not at the moment, we always know that deep down we're friends. We'd prefer Russia and China not have the bomb but there's not much we could do about it. At the moment they are both considered partially allied and partially adversarial, not necessarily friends but not enemies.

From the tone of fear in your posts, it seems you think Americans can't tell the difference between friends and enemies and are frothing at the mouth just hoping to attack somebody. Are you really frightened that America would attack Sweden if they got the bomb? If I were a Swede I wouldn't. I certainly doubt the Swedish Prime Minister loses any sleep at night worrying about a B-2 bomber strafing Stockholm.

I don't see how my calling a duck, a duck is intolerant or inconsiderate and it's fairly amazing that of all the logic I presented, this was the only item you took note of...did I hurt your feelings?

TJ

TEEJ, no, you didn't hurt my feelings, but I do admit to feeling somewhat insulted by your blanket statement. You say you're calling a duck a duck. What facts are you using to establish this? An anatomical description of a duck is established - where is the equivalent for the indisputed definition of the true basis for the thinking of liberals vs. conservatives? I'd like to see this data.

It's one thing not to agree with someone, but quite another to make generalized statements that seem intended simply to say something insulting about the other "side". If that's the way you feel, fine, but why make a demeaning comment to your "friends" on the mbs?

And no, I chose not to respond to anything else that you had posted, nor have I responded to comments made by Roger, Ann, Paul, or anyone else who has posted in this thread. I do not relish political discussions and usually do not get involved. But quite frankly, I was dismayed enough by your generalization that I felt the need to voice my concern.

Kathy

TEEEJ also said, in response to Ann:

Believe me. We're not. We're so very not.

America has a lot of great things going for it. There are wonderful people in America. You have beautiful countryside and national parks and coastline and monuments. You also have things - just as any other country does - that people from other countries don't like. Every country has its good and bad points. When your country is torn apart by war or brutality, then you want to get out, and America is one of a few countries worldwide with a reputation for welcoming immigrants... though less so these days. I see many people fleeing from persecution or fear of terrorism whose asylum application was rejected in the US but granted in Canada.

My main point, though, TEEEJ, is that - as Paul and Roger have commented - this discussion has been very polite so far. People are disagreeing, but not getting personal about it. Your posts seem to me to be starting to verge on the personal, and that's not so nice - as well as the point KathyM quoted back to you, which I think you'd be pretty darned offended at if a liberal had made it about conservatives, you said:

So let's chill and agree to respect differences, okay, thanks?


Wendy

I guess I'm the polar opposite of Kathy here in that I love to discuss politics and history, and most especially with someone who disagrees with me. It's more interesting that way. Think I was born a political junkie. (and I'm not at all interested in rehab <g>)

Still, I can see that this stuff is not everyone's cup of tea.

All this about liberals and conservatives reminded me of a man who died last week - Bill Buckley. This tells you how old I am, but years ago I used to watch his show - a frequent guest was John Kenneth Galbraith. So there they were: two old men, brilliant and completely in disagreement with each other , exploring issues - expanding them, raising questions, providing back up facts and arguments. Listening to each other. The respect the two had for each other, affection even, was always evident. A conservative's conservative and a liberal's liberal.

What debate and discussion should be.

c. (who understands that most people would rather be watching hockey. )

There's a difference?


True, I totally admit that my candid manner tends to raise hackles. That's why I generally leave the eloquence and articulation to folks of Roger's caliber. At the same time, for telling the truth, I got hit with the "tolerance" tag.
So my wanting to defend my country is intolerant? My wanting to keep the money I earn is intolerant? My wanting to protect my girls from possibly being forced into a culture that mutilates girls' privates and treats women as second class citizens is intolerant? Well, gee whiz you must have me pegged then. Good on you

Another thing I admit I am intolerant of is seeing the logic and common sense presented by right-thinking people continually shot down by emotional raving, so I'm out. Ya'll have fun in your civil discourse.


TEEEEEEEEJ

TEEEJ has announced that she's out of this thread, so she probably won't even see this, but as I feel that she has twisted my words from their original intention, I would like to clear up any possible misunderstandings.

I was not trying to hide my sarcasm when I made my first response to her, but I thank TEEEJ for making sure it was plain to everyone.

And then she responded to me:
My sarcasm about her tolerance had nothing to do with her defending her country, or keeping her money, or keeping her children safe. It had SOLELY to do with her interpretation about the differences in thought processes between conservatives and liberals. That was the only comment of hers that I quoted, and the only one that I was referring to.

Finally, I would like to apologize to everyone for my role in the degeneration of this thread. For a great many posts it was a thoughtful and interesting discussion of different political views, and I hope that can resume.

Kathy

I keep posting here expecting that I'll regret it. Maybe this'll be the time.

The problem is that you can't argue with someone who has decided that her personal opinion is simple, obvious, irrefutable, objective fact. Best you can do is sit back and try to appreciate the ironies.

Moving on (or perhaps back) to Israel, then...

Mossad has done an amazing job of protecting the country from attack. The country is surrounded by enemies. Their neighbors refuse to acknowledge that they even have a right to exist, and have vowed to wipe them off the map, drive them into the sea, and kill as many as possible doing it. But they're still there.

When they identified a nuclear reactor that was producing materials for WMDs, they had an appropriate response. They snuck in and took out that specific building. No invasion. No killing of innocent civilians. Just a single surgical strike, leaving the clear message that the threat will not be tolerated.

So, yes. There have been attacks against them. Suicide bombers, car bombs, insurgents... Those aren't the kind of attacks you can stop with intelligence organizations. They're not the kind you can stop with military attack, either, as shown in both Israel and Iraq. When you're faced with fanatics who will scrounge together whatever weapons they can get, there's only so much you can do.

You can try to limit their supplies. Make sure that they can't get their hands on seriously destructive stuff. You go after their funding and supporters. You can use guards and security protocols to catch more attacks and minimize the impact of the ones that get through. But that's only symptomatic treatment.

The only real solution is education. You have to combat the hate and lies and propaganda. Otherwise, they'll keep attacking, generation after generation, with whatever weapons they can get.

As for Israel's response to attack...

Little kids, raised on blind hate, were throwing rocks at Israelis, particularly Israeli soldiers. People said "They're just kids, they're just rocks." But thrown rocks (or rocks dropped from low roofs) can break bones. If they hit you in the head, they can cause serious brain damage, even death. A rock thrown at our car when we were on an Israeli highway (thrown with no idea of who we were or why we were there) blew out a tire. That single rock could have caused an accident that would have killed our whole family and the people in any other cars involved.

To combat the problem, Israeli soldiers (for the most part, teenage draftees) were set on patrol. To try to keep order. To protect themselves and others, they were given guns that fired rubber bullets. Rubber bullets can hurt, but they're most likely to cause little more than bruising. They're used by US police for riot control - when they go out expecting to find out-of-control civilians who might be doing dangerous things like throwing rocks.

So we have these kids who are throwing rocks. Attacking people just because they're Israeli, but particularly targeting soldiers.

And then we have the soldiers, who are barely more than kids themselves, out on patrol. Tasked with keeping the peace, ordered to fire only in self-defense or defense of civilians.

Kid throws a rock. Soldier fires a few rubber bullets at him. What happens? There's an international backlash. "Look at this! They're just kids! And here are these big, mean soldiers with guns shooting at them! Someone has to stop these violent Israelis!" Exactly the kind of thing Ann echoed above.

And yes, the country has become more aggressive in recent years. For decades, they tried the more passive approach. They tried defense only. But they were criticized for defending themselves, and the attacks didn't stop. They tried negotiation, but extremists kept stopping the process. And, really, you can't negotiate when the other side not only refuses to even try to stop the extremists but are even quietly helping them. They tried giving away bits and pieces of the country, but it didn't really slow the violence. And so, finally, they started pushing back.

I don't know that it's the right answer. I don't know what the right answer is. And I do know that Roger is going to seize on this as proof that the US needs to take a hard-line, militaristic approach, too. I don't agree that the situations are the same, and I don't agree that the response is doing any good. But I can understand why they've opted for it.

Of course, I'm not claiming the Israelis are perfect. They have their extremists, too. And, in general... you have this kind of violent, long-standing, two-sided conflict, and, inevitably, people become polarized over it. The hate is reflected, the racism spreads, it all becomes more and more entrenched.

Israel has done wrong, too. But, considering the circumstances, I think they've done remarkably well. I just wish there was a way to settle the situation. To get people on both sides to recognize each other as human beings and individuals.

I don't think anyone knows what the answer is in the Israeli-Palestinian-Arab conflict. Wiser men than we have tried to solve their seemingly intractable problems.

My point before had only to do with covert operations versus dozens of hard to find targets. It wouldn't work at all with a situation like Iran whereas with the Incirlik reactor in Iraq back in the 80's it was a great solution. The Israelis likely kept the Iraqis from gaining nuclear weapons. While our politicians slapped Israel's wrists for their incursion, behind closed doors they were back slapping and high-fiving the Israeli ambassador. Iran had learned from the Incirlik operation and had made sure their facilities were diversified beyond the ability of even the United States from taking them out in all likelihood.

On virtually all of what you said, I agree with you 100%. Education is important in the region to try to erase centuries of blind hatred. The Arab behind the curtain really isn't a monster, neither is the Jew around the corner. While I think hatreds can be eased over time, especially in this day and age when information is so easily discovered and so hard to suppress, it'll take many lifetimes, I think.

The democracy experiment in Iraq, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories is one of those educational experiences. If people feel they are part of a government that they helped to create, then those preaching hatred and blaming Israel for all their problems will find fewer and fewer audiences willing to listen to their messages of hate. With Iraqis concentrating on becoming a unified nation, no matter how rocky the path, they no longer pose any sort of threat to Israel. There's no guarantee in the future, but for now, Iraq is not a problem for Israel.

Zarqawi realized the dangers of democracy several years ago. An intercepted letter from Zarqawi to bin Laden showed how much he feared democracy and what it would do to their movement. He felt that a democracy taking hold in Iraq would force them out, requiring al Qaeda to find a new home. If democracy were to spread further, that could destroy their cause, which is why they've fought so hard to destroy the nascent government.

There will always be the completely unreasonable ones like al Qaeda where no amount of negotiations or attempts at being friends will ever work. Those are the ones to keep an eye on, the ones for which the military option must always be open. Even with Iran, though, there is always hope. The population is very young, half 25 or under, who have been exposed to western culture to some degree. Many of them aren't happy living under a theocracy controlled by the mullahs. Some day the theocracy could end, which could potentially end the threat from Iran. For now, though, they are the main ones to keep close tabs on.

For most of the Middle East, I think that eventually there could be a solution. Every so often, we feel like we're so close to finding a resolution all parties can agree upon and then somebody tosses a hand grenade into the room, sometimes literally. Carter came very close and brought together Egypt and Israel. Jordan came to an agreement with Israel and ceased being a blood enemy. Clinton tried and came close with the Palestinians. I thought Bush's proposal for a homeland had great promise, especially since real elections were held in Gaza and the West Bank.

Who knows? Maybe someday a president will succeed in bringing them together. The United States is the only country with the clout on both sides to do it. If democracy can hold in the Palestinian territories, perhaps the Palestinians and Israelis can finally come to an agreement and live in peace. Once that happens, maybe the military option can be shelved once and for all.

I'm hoping right with you there, Paul.

I said that I would stay out of this thread from now on. I'm sorry I was unable to.

TEEEEJ, I'm afraid that I'm not going to reply to any of your posts. You and I have very different debating styles, and I don't know how we could have a political discussion that would be, well, satisfying to me. So I'm just going to say that we have extremely different political views, and leave it at that.

Roger, you asked me:

No. First of all, Sweden isn't going to get the bomb. If a Swedish politician seriously suggested that we should, he would meet with the same reaction as if he proposed that Swedish schools should teach kids that the Earth is flat. He would be a huge embarrassment to his party, and he would have to recant or be expelled. (Unless he represented one of those kooky fringe parties that no one pays any attention to.)

Second, if Sweden were to get the bomb after all - which I guess could happen in the future after all, because no one can foresee the future - then no, if the political climate stays the same as it is now, then I'd say that there is a 99.999999999% chance that the U.S. would not attack Sweden. And no, I'm not losing sleep over the 0.00000000001% chance that it would.

However, Roger, the reason why I'm posting again is because I need to ask you a question. You say that weapons of mass destruction were really found in Iraq, and therefore, if I get you correctly, President Bush was right when he said that Iraq was a threat to the world that needed to be dealt with urgently. You posted a link which I could follow to find corroberation of this. I'm sorry that I have not read the text you suggested that I read. But, Roger, to me it is so much less interesting to know why I haven't read that text before, as it is to know why the world's dominant media don't seem to have read that text before. I try to know what is going on in the world by following, as well as I can, what important media is reporting. And to the best of my knowledge, no important media have ever claimed that WMDs were indeed found in Iraq.

Let me explain my reasons for saying that important media have not reported the finding of WMDs in Iraq:

I regularly read New York Times, The Guardian, Time and Newsweek. I sometimes read The Washington Post and The Times. I watch political documentaries on TV. Almost every week I listen to a Swedish radio program, Konflikt (Conflict), which makes a point of it to let proponents of different political ideas and convictions express and explain their views.

Why haven't I ever read in New York Times, The Guardian, Time, Newsweek, The Washington Post or The Times that Iraq really did have WMDs? Why haven't any of the TV documentaries about Iraq said that Iraq had WMDs? Why haven't anyone who was interviewed on "Konflikt" said that Iraq had WMDs?

Is it because I only read, watch or listen to liberal media? No, that is not the reason. Because conservative voices are indeed invited to express their views in liberal media, too. For example, one of the Op-Ed contributors to New York Times these days is William Kristol. Charles Krauthammer regularly writes for Time. I have heard many conservative people being interviewed on "Konflikt", for example Krauthammer and John Bolton. Most Swedish dailies are actually politically conservative, believe it or not, and at least between 2003 and 2005 they repeatedly defended the Iraq war to a skeptical or hostile Swedish population. Why have these conservative voices never told me that significant WMDs were found in Iraq?

I remember that Colin Powell made a dramatic speech in the U.N. on the eve of the war, where he put all his prestige on the line when he insisted that Iraq was an immediate threat to the whole world because of the WMDs that it almost certainly possessed. Colin Powell later resigned and recanted. He expressed regret that he had made that speech in the U.N. If he knew, by the time when he resigned, that WMDs really had been found in Iraq, why didn't he say so?

I remember that a year or so ago, Swedish radio reported that the American WMD inspectors in Iraq had given up looking for WMDs there. The newscaster said that no WMDs had been found in Iraq. Why would Swedish radio make such a claim if it was blatantly untrue?

And why didn't I see any news reports elsewhere claiming that WMDs had been found, if that was actually the case?

I don't have the time or the energy to read every little article that people might want me to read. I have to rely on world media. I have to trust that they tell me more or less the truth. I try to check their credibility by memorizing what they tell me and checking what predictions they make. Then I try to see if those predictions come true. If they do, I note that these media were knowledgeable and trustworthy. If the predictions don't come true, and the media themselves point this out and apologize for their inability to make predicitons and explain the reason for their failure, then they strike me as honest and serious. If they make predictions which don't come true, and yet they don't acknowledge their own failures, then they strike me as rather trashy media, not worthy of taking seriously.

I try to weigh and assess the information I get through the media. And as for the WMDs in Iraq, I know that I have read again and again, in New York Times, in The Guardian, in Time and Newsweek, in the Washington Post and in The Times, that there weren't any WMDs in Iraq. The TV documentaries I have seen which have addressed the question have said that there weren't any WMDs in Iraq. It has been said on "Konflikt" several times that there weren't any WMDs in Iraq.

I even remember that back in 2003, you could use Google and make it display a page saying "These weapons of mass destruction cannot be found". Not "This page cannot be found", but "These weapons of mass destruction cannot be found".

All in all, there has been what I would call a "massive" and "univocal" reporting that there were no WMDs in Iraq. This reporting has made President Bush look like a liar, it has made the U.S. intelligence look ridiculous, and it has made the United States look bad. Surely those who like President Bush can't like this? Surely those who support the Iraq was can't be happy about this? Why haven't they spoken up? Why haven't they said, look here, there were WMDs in Iraq too! Here is where we found them! Look here!

Why haven't the conservative commentators who have their own slots in liberal media forced the issue? Why haven't they told their liberal colleagues to stop lying about the WMDs in Iraq? Why haven't they made so much noise that the liberal media had no choice but to address the issue?

Roger, it is all well and good that you have given me a link where I can read all about the presence about WMDs in Iraq. But I can't get my information that way in the long run. I have to rely on big world media. If you want me to read that link which you posted, you have to explain to me why New York Times, The Guardian, Time, Newsweek, The Washington Post and The Times have not read the information that you sent me, or why they thought it was irrelevant.

Ann

Ann, remember when I said that when the first WMD were first found, only Fox News bothered to report it? I had checked every other major news source, including most of the ones you listed that you listen to/read.

Here's one for you:

Report: Hundreds of WMDs Found in Iraq

Pete Hoekstra and Rick Santorum, at the time members of their respective Intelligence Committees tried to get this report coverage. They were basically ignored. Santorum even went to the White House asking why they weren't touting the report. The answer that came back was that they had fought that fight earlier and had lost. It was time to move on. Essentially the Bush Administration had lost the fight and weren't willing to stir up the controversy again. It was an incredulous statement, especially since it went straight towards the president's credibility. Instead the administration left people with the impression that there were no WMD's and there never were any to find.

The only reason I can figure that nobody wanted to report it was that it didn't constitute evidence of an ongoing weapons program. But the ISG report did state that they were ready to begin again once sanctions were removed as I've stated twice before.

Reporters are people. If a story doesn't fit into their world view, it's not news. And their world view was that there were no WMD's.

When you heard administration officials talk about WMD, they were always careful with their words. They never stated there were no WMD found in Iraq. They only said there were no "stockpiles" found. That's the difference that always confuses everyone.

I mentioned in an earlier post that the Poles had gotten wind of some rockets containing cyclosarin that were about to be sold and bought them out from under the terrorists. Here's a link to that story:

Shell Shock

Here's another link pertaining to the reports of chemical weapons precursors found. This story also tries to guess at why reporters weren't interested or why the government wasn't terribly eager to tout the findings.

Saddam\'s WMD Have Been Found

Here's a summary of the Iraq Survey Group's report. Note one of the highlights:

Wikipedia: Iraq Survey Group

It seems to me that what you are telling me is that Saddam wanted to have the bomb. Yes, I don't doubt for a moment that he did. And some people want to pick down the moon. The question is, what are they in fact able to do?

Saddam wanted the bomb. That is why there were all those international sanctions against him. And that is why all those international experts said that Saddam didn't have the bomb: he wanted to have it, yes, but he wasn't able to get it.

You quoted this part of the Iraq Survey Group to me:

Who said that sanctions would be removed? I don't remember anything being said about that at all. In any case, if they had in fact been removed and I just don't remember it, it wouldn't have been hard for President Bush to insist on a very tough international weapons embargo against Iraq. He could have imposed various kinds of additional sanctions against Iraq. I don't see anyone contesting Bush over this. Everyone had agreed with Clinton on the sanctions, so why wouldn't they have agreed with Bush?

It seems to me that what you are saying is that most conservatives, including President Bush, think that the WMDs found in Iraq were nowhere near as frightening as they needed to be if they were to justify the war that was being fought against Iraq because of them. Conclusion: President Bush's initial claim that Iraq needed to be attacked because of the WMDs it possessed didn't hold up at all. All the conservative commentators who are invited to speak their minds in liberal media worldwide are, I guess, too embarrassed about the whole thing to suggest that Iraq's WMDs justified a war against that country.

I certainly agree with you on this:

Indeed. A President who is willing to defy the opinion of the majority of the people of the world, according to the surveys I have referred to earlier, and who does so because he insists that Iraq possesses dangerous WMDs, and who isn't willing, afterwards, to insist that he was right about this - well, such a President has lost all, or at least most of, his credibility in the eyes of the world.

And just one more thing. If that information from Fox News about the presence of WMDs in Iraq isn't impressive enough for President Bush, then I'm afraid that it isn't impressive enough for me.

Ann

Here's an article in the London UK Telegraph on Saddam's move to have sanctions lifted and how he was confident in that success through his bribes to the French and Russians in the Oil-for-Food program.

The relevant part of this article was:

I mentioned earlier how Saddam was relying on the French to help lift the sanctions. The Russians were also complicit. So it was a lot closer to removal than you thought.

The Sordid Truth about the Oil-For-Food Scandal

Did you read the second article called "Saddam's WMD Have Been Found?" That article details explicitly what was found. You'll find the "No WMD" story is a whole lot more complicated than you think. There was plenty found, far beyond 500 chemical warheads. I'm sure you'll find it fascinating.

It seems that your own biases are now easily allowing you to discount evidence as meaningless just like the reporters in the media have done. You just answered your own question to me. "Yeah, there were WMD, but they didn't mean anything. Bush was right. He just wasn't right enough to satisfy me, so he's still a liar."

Forgetting politics for a moment, the question I pose to you is this. Were there WMD or weren't there? Regardless of how the politicians acted, was Bush right about the presence of WMD? If your answer is no, then what do you believe those 500 warheads were? And what were those biological warfare strains found? Or the delivery systems that were found? Or the chemical weapons precursors that were found? If you've read any of those stories, you'll start to doubt the mainstream media. Why weren't any of these things at least reported so that there could be a discussion about it? Why not at least an editorial saying how meaningless the findings were? Instead you got the sound of crickets coming from the mainstream media. It seems to me that the media were continuing to foster the world view that nothing at all was found, and that is a lie by omission by the media. I learned long ago not to trust the media. So far they haven't disappointed me.

My guess is that the White House saw its popularity ratings go from 50% down to 30% over the debate on WMD's, saw how the press were ignoring the damaging aspects of the ISG report. They didn't want to lose another 10-20% over an argument they'd already lost. No matter what evidence was uncovered, they likely knew the mainstream press would bury it.

I would guess by now you probably have some doubt creeping in. You like thinking that Bush is a total liar and that you were completely justified in that opinion. Now all of a sudden you find evidence that maybe things aren't so cut and dried. This is all evidence I found in minutes yet you've never seen it anywhere in the mainstream media. How can that be? Maybe the media isn't being so honest. Now you have to try to change your own world view. Not so easy to do.

Since I don't trust the mainstream media as far as I can throw it, it's very easy for me to find information they won't tell me. To exclusively listen to them is locking yourself into their way of thinking. I check the mainstream media so I know what they're saying and what they're not saying and check it against my own sources and I find the mainstream media lacking.

Oh btw, my Swedish relatives tell me that a conservative in Sweden is still a socialist compared to the United States conservatives. Since they've lived in both countries they can tell the difference. So what you're listening to are left wing sources and even further left media. A Swedish conservative would fall somewhere in the left of the Democratic Party, not the extreme left, but still on the left.

Of all the sources you listed, only the Washington Times can be considered a non-leftist source. Of course you only said, "The Times," so that could actually be the LA Times. If it's the LA Times, that's a leftist paper, too.

No, I didn't read the article about Saddam's warheads. Honestly, I don't know that much about wepons. But, by and large, I expect most countries to have weapons. I would have been surprised indeed if Saddam didn't have more to defend himself with than a couple of rusty old Kalashnikovs.

I have never believed that Saddam had no weapons. Everybody does. The question is, did he have more WMDs than a lot of other countries? Were his WMDs fully functional at the time of the Iraq war? Did he have more WMDs than the United States, Russia, China, Great Britain, France, India, Israel and Pakistan? Was he able to launch missiles against the United States? No, of course not, because if he had been, President Bush would most certainly have said so. Was he, at the time of the beginning of the Iraq war, able to launch missiles against Israel? Probably not, or President Bush would have said so. (Was Israel, at the time of the beginning of the Iraq war, able to launch missiles against Iraq? Yes, undoubtedly. And according to what I have heard on Swedish radio, some Israeli politicians or militaries have quite recently discussed the possibility of making a unilateral attack on Iran by launching a nuclear warhead at them.)

The question is not if Iraq had any weapons at all. The question is if the weapons they had made Iraq uniqely dangerous and made them a threat to the whole world, as President Bush claimed. The question is if they were dangerous enough for the United States to start a war against Iraq over their weapons.

It is up to you not to trust the mainstream media. I certainly don't completely trust them, either. For example, I remember very well how most mainstream media, including my own daily paper which I would describe as conservative, though you might describe it as socialist, said that Iraq most probably had just as many dangerous WMDs as President Bush claimed. And they said this not because they didn't have any other infomation available, because indeed they did. Left-wing Swedish media interviewed Sweden's former weapons inspectors to Iraq, who both said that President Bush's claims seemed far-fetched and improbable. And there were several other experts who were interviewed in left-wing Swedish media, too. It was not as if the information was not available to the right-wing media, but they just ignored it and repeated what President Bush had said. The right-wing media in Sweden were not interested in any facts about Iraq, only in selling the war to us. Sweden's most prestigious daily, Dagens Nyheter, has apologized afterwards, but my own daily paper, Sydsvenskan, hasn't.

I, too, know where I can easily find information that usually makes the mainstream media look biased. Of course, I usually find the information that makes mainstream media look ultra-conservative. I know people who know things, too. For example, I know two persons who have lived in Israel and who regularly return there to work for peace organizations there, and they tell me things about how the Palestinians are treated that I don't think I have read in mainstream American media for a very long time.

Ann

Part of the difficulty has been the North American 4th Estate's sloppy journalism over the last several years. Mostly they've stopped doing significant background research, asking analytical questions and writing thoughtful reports and columns. I hasten to add this isn't as true of some magazines. But it's even more true of mainstream 5th Estate news programs.

They reduce everything to high school drama, celebrity-style coverage, and sound bytes that inevitably take quotes out of context. The term 'investigative journalism' is now an oxymoron unless you want the searing truth about who propositioned whom in a public washroom.

Print and electronic media play a huge role in a democracy. They are an informal part of the 'checks and balances' principle that underlies the American constitution. By and large they failed the American people over the Iraq issue. And I'm not so sure. looking at the shallow coverage of the American primaries, that they've improved.

'Freedom of the press' is useless if it isn't exercised in a substantive way.

Although, of course , I do get a kick out of reading the National Enquirer headlines at the grocery check-out. But I shouldn't have the sense when I check out the Washington Post in the morning that it's the same newspaper as the National Enquirer.

Okay, that's my morning rant. I feel better now.

c.

You mean the way they're treated like second-class citizens? Looked down on, rarely hired, all that sort of thing?

It's awful. I have family who live there, and they see it and they don't think it's right, either.

A cousin tried hiring some of them as farmhands for a few years. Offered fair wages and fair treatment. But a lot of them were bitter and resentful. Over time, a few too many of them helped themselves to more than they'd earned. He doesn't hire so many anymore.

Like I said, it's a problem when you have two groups who don't get along stuck together for too long. The racism takes root on both sides, making it harder and harder for either one to deal well with the other.

And, when you get down to it... It's not news. Any more than widespread antisemitism in certain parts of Europe is news. It's just the way it's always been. And, let's face it, if you want to write a story about racism or religious intolerance, there are more interesting examples to be found than either of those.

Really, disparate people coming together and treating each other like human beings... that would be news.

lol, Paul. I started reading your post, thinking your 'they' referred to reporters, and than clued in that it didn't.

But for a minute there I was prepared to take up a collection for 'them'

Sorry, I see now that your post is very serious and not about media workers.

c.

lol, yeah. Your post came in as I was writing mine. Probably should have edited to make that clear. Sorry.

Paul, I don't want to talk too much about Israel, because I don't know enough about the situation there.

There is one thing I've been thinking, though. The Jews suffered what is almost comparable to one holocaust after another in Europe over the centuries. When the U.N. finally gets around to giving the Jews a land of their own, they give them a part of Palestine. Where Arab tribes already live, and have lived for centuries.

Yes, I know, I know that the Bible says that God will give the children of Israel the promised land. I have read the Bible, too. And of course I know that the Jews did live there for many centuries. There is no doubt whatsoever that King David founded a mighty kingdom there around 1000 B.C. And the Jews weren't really expelled from Palestine until, I think, 153 A.D. or thereabout.

Even so... I've been thinking to myself how I would have felt if the U.N. decided to give another homeless people, maybe the gypsies or the Kurds, their own land in Sweden. What if the U.N. decided to take the nicest part of Sweden, Skåne, where I live, and give it to the gypsies or the Kurds? I would furious, shocked, outraged... I don't know if I could get over it.

And then suppose that the gypsies or the Kurds, the people who had come to take over my land, were heavily armed by someone, maybe the Russians or the Chinese, and not only did Skåne become their land, but the "intruders" chased us away from our land, too, and shot many of us. How long would it take until we could forgive? How long would it take until we could be friends with them?

I think that many, many Arabs use Palestine as a symbol of the general Arab misery and all the unfair things that the world has done to them. Is the economy down in many Arab countries? Blame the occupation of Palestine. Are many young Arabs unemployed? Yeah, well, how can you expect Arab kids to have jobs when the world is allowed to steal everything from the Palestinians? Can Arabs get no respect? Right, what respect can you give when they can take your land away from you and shoot you when you try to defend yourself?

All of this is exaggerated. The overwhelming number of bad things that plague the Arab world has nothing to do with Palestine at all. But Palestine has become a symbol of the humiliation that the Arab world is perceived to suffer at the hands of the world. In particular, at the hands of the West. In particular, at the hands of the United States of America. (And, of course, at the hands of Israel...that goes without saying.)

I don't know what to do about the conflict between Israel and Palestine. But I do believe that as long as this conflict has not been resolved at all, and certainly as long as there are horror stories coming out of Palestine describing how their land is turned into a patchwork of little "islands" with innumerable checkpoints in between, how people get stuck for hours at checkpoints, how occasionally someone dies because they are being kept at a checkpoint and prevented from going to hospital, how people who live two miles from each other inside Palestine can't even go and visit one another, how the Israeli wall is built inside Palestinian territory, how Israeli bulldozers level Palestinian houses, how olive tree plantations are razed and destroyed, how so many Palestinian children get killed by Israeli missiles (which they have gotten from the U.S.A.) - well, as long as that is kept up, this Palestinian suffering is going to fuel Arab and Muslim anger and even hatred of the United States. That is what I believe anyway.

Ann

I'm afraid I agree with you. But then what's the answer? As Paul has said, Israel has tried some very different approaches to the problem. None of them have worked all that well. When you've got Palestinian organizations that continually proclaim that they will not rest until Israel is "pushed into the sea" and no longer exists -- organizations that have sufficient clout to keep the hostilities going (Hamas won Palestinian elections, didn't they?) -- there's not much chance of a peaceful solution.

As for the mainstream media... most of them have taken sides, and they're not going to report anything that goes against their pre-decided meta-narrative (even conservative columnists have to work with liberal editors). Carol, you are dead right about that.

Also, there seems to have been a contentious misunderstanding earlier, so at the risk of re-opening hostilities...

Ann, you responded to Roger:

And I think you misread him. No, losing one person out of 100,000 is certainly *not* evidence that someone is taking out your entire country, and I don't believe that's what Roger meant at all. He was talking about proportional response. His point, if I read him correctly, is that if a few people are killed, then a missile strike is an appropriate level of response. For the US to move to "take out an entire country" over such a small event would not at all be an appropriate response.

(The thing about hitting a camel in the rear is a sarcastic reference to an incident that took place during Clinton's administration, and I think it confused the issue.)

It took a much larger event (everyone throws around the 3000 number, but it's only the grace of God that tens of thousands weren't killed that day; if the planes had hit two hours later, or if the towers had fallen more quickly, the death toll would have been much more appalling) and the realization that a future event could take out *millions* of people (dirty bombs, suitcase nukes, etc) that prompted the US to take stronger, pre-emptive measures.

TEEEEJ... Tell you what, the next time you feel the need to compose a scathing post, you send it to me instead of posting it? I understand where you're coming from, but you can get really, um, abrasive, and it's counter-productive. 'Kay, sweetie?

PJ

It's not that the UN gave it to them. The UK had moved in and claimed the whole thing as a colony, which wasn't very popular with anyone. They promised both sides that they'd hand over control to them. That didn't work out so well, either. There was much chaos and confusion and messiness and even this is a real simplification. But, in the end, Israel managed to set up a working democratic government and then defend themselves from large-scale invasion. At some point along the way, the UN acknowledged that they were actually a country.

As for the Pallestinians... I recognize that they, too have a good claim on the same small strip of land. It's a tough issue. And sharing doesn't seem to be work too well as a solution.

I have sympathy for their plight. But I have to lay at least some of the blame for that on their own government, or lack thereof. They have leaders, but those leaders don't seem to do much for them. They take large amounts of international aid, then pocket most of that for themselves, leaving their people to live in squalor. And they refuse to do anything to even try to stop the terrorist groups that have taken root within their borders. Rather, they tend to have ties (perhaps out of necessity) to those exact groups.

So... yeah. The Palestinians are poor. And poorly educated. And not well cared for. And have to deal with Israeli suspicion and security checks. (The walls and checkpoints are a very recent development, BTW. A response to terrorists winning the Palestinian elections, IIRC.) I wish they had better. But if they had a stronger, better, less corrupt government, they wouldn't have to deal with a lot of that. And if they had a real education instead of terrorist propaganda...

If you want to talk about self-defense... most of what Israel does is out of self-defense. And, up until recently (when the populace finally got fed up with it and voted in a more hawkish government), it was remarkably restrained self-defense. And if you want to talk about missiles and bombings, what about the bombings of Israeli lands? Shells, mortars, missiles. Destroying homes, blasting farms, killing city people by the busload, putting snipers on the roofs near the holiest sites...

There are two sides to the story, Ann. You're talking as if Israel is doing all the bad stuff to the poor oppressed Palestinians. And it's just not the case. I feel bad for them. I recognize that they got a raw deal. And that they have some valid claims. But the Israelis have valid claims and raw deals and dead children, too. And it seems like sometimes they get a lot less sympathy and understanding for it.

Well said, Paul.

I think that in some quarters there's an urge to reduce the situation to a simple "oppressor vs. victim" narrative, with victims automatically having moral superiority, and since Isreal is stronger...

PJ

Paul, believe me... I told you that I tried to imagine what it would be like to have my land taken away from me, like the Palestinians have had. But I do realize that what the Jews have suffered is much worse, with repeated pogroms, culminating in the Holocaust. I can so very much sympathize with their longing for a land of their own, where they are not being persecuted. The land of Israel has therefore become enormously, enormously important to them. I think that they sometimes go too far when they protect themselves. When you hear that one Israeli student was killed, and in retaliation, dozens of Palestinians were killed... well... I can imagine what Arabs everywhere might be thinking when they hear that.

But what would I think if my home was continually being bombarded with missiles? You bet I'd want to retaliate.

I wasn't trying to point my finger at Israel, even though I probably do blame them more than you do for the current situation. But I wouldn't dream of putting all the blame on them. What I was really trying to say is that the conflict between Israel and Palestine is a bad, bad thing, which just keeps breeding more hatred. I wish I had a good suggestion about what could be done to solve it all, but I don't.

Ann

just to muddy the waters.

Prior to the UK's involvement, the Palestinian territory had been part of the Ottoman Empire, governed from Istanbul. That ended with the collapse of the Empire at the end of WW1.

Although huge numbers of Jewish (that means I don't have the stats in my head ) settled there from about 1900 onward as they fled from various pograms in Eastern Europe and, later from Nazi Germany, they came as immigrants not as 'conquerors'. For religious, historical, and cultural reasons, they chose Palestine. (although many emigrated to the US, South America, and Canada all of whom had been actively seeking immigrants.)

However a significant proportion of Jews had remained in the Middle East since Roman times - in Palestine, but also in areas now called Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt. These areas also have significant numbers of Palestinians.

In 1947, when the UN set up Israel many Jews were forced to flee from those countries and took refuge in Israel. At the same time many Palestinian Moslems left Israel. Much nastiness on both sides. But , as well, a significant number of Moslems decided to remain within Israel where they are an important minority. (not just Palestinians which is why I've referred to their religion rather than their ethnicity)

I'm not sure that the analogy of taking land from Sweden and giving it to Kurds is a fair one because it ignores the cultural and historic roots which pulled European Jews to Palestine.

Anyway, I have no clue how to settle it except for, as a good Canadian I will apologise to everyone for it and of course urge the Whole World to accept Mutliculturalism, Chill, and sublimate through Hockey.

c.

I also sympathize with both Israelis and Palestinians. The problems are numerous, starting with the creation of the Jewish state. What the UN should have done was to create two states side-by-side, a Palestine and an Israel. Sometimes the argument gets a little muddled as many think that Israel was carved out of the country of Palestine when at the time it was British territory. There hadn't been a Palestine or an Israel in thousands of years.

But that's beside the point since it did end up displacing many Palestinians from their homes, regardless of its geographic identity. For quite a long time they had lived dispersed among the various Arab countries like Egypt, Jordan, and Syria for instance. Jordan, in particular, is heavily populated with Palestinians (if memory serves, about half) which is why you hear a number of proposals that any Palestinian homeland could be coupled to Jordan. It wasn't until much later that many of the Palestinians gathered together into what is now the West Bank and Gaza, which Israel eventually annexed as a result of an Arab invasion to use as a buffer zone, Israel being only 10 miles wide at its thinnest point. Yassir Arafat, for instance, spent most of his life in Egypt.

Here's where much of the injustice comes in from the Palestinians' own brothers. The people were encouraged to stay away from building towns and cities as much as they could, creating camps instead, to prevent the people from settling in, always guaranteeing that eventually Israelis would be driven into the sea and that the people could go home. It's tough to live in a refugee camp for generations. The Arab countries, themselves, flush with oil revenue could have easily taken care of them keeping them in fairly comfortable conditions, but a combination of graft and outright theft kept much of the money away from the actual people. Then there's the politics. The Arab countries in a way deliberately kept the Palestinian people in squalor for the reason of fanning the flames of hatred towards Israel. With the monarchies in the Middle East, you have a lot of very unpopular governments. They had to deflect anger away from themselves, so the Jewish state was a natural target for that anger. Decades of madrassas taught people to hate the Jews and to hate America, blaming them for every problem, despite the fact that America and Israel are some of the Palestinian's greatest benefactors, supplying them with hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

The situation now could be the closest we've come to an actual settlement between Israel and Palestine since 1948. The Palestinians have a government of their own, though it is a very divided government with a Fatah president and a Hamas Prime Minister. Part of that was Fatah's own problem. In the elections where pluralities ruled, Fatah often ran two or three candidates on the same ballot while Hamas wisely ran one. The divided vote ended up handing the legislature to Hamas even though Fatah actually won more votes. The problems between the two groups is nothing like what we think of when we think of political parties. Here, their disagreements are decided with firefights, not debates. Not surprising, I suppose, since both started life as resistance groups, not political parties. So in part, the divided government has kept the Palestinians from speaking with one voice, making an agreement with Israel much harder. Also the fact that Hamas refuses to recognize Israel and still actively advocates the destruction of the Jewish state has caused more headaches whereas Fatah was willing to recognize Israel to get its own country.

I feel, perhaps naively, that when the Palestinians can settle their own internal disputes, then perhaps the way could be open to an agreement. That would go a long way towards defusing the entire Middle East, though the hatred will still likely go beyond any of our lifetimes. The important thing, there, is to give the Palestinians their own homeland so that they can concentrate more on bettering their own lives than ending the lives of Israelis.

After reading all the posts and thinking twice before deciding to comment I finally had the courage to post. Before I begin, though, I have to say: Paul and Ann I agree with everything you said so far I won’t be so eloquent as you guys but I’ll try

Paul, I couldn't agree with you more!

Yep, you're totally right on this, Paul. US didn't go to war until they were attacked but some people tend to forget that part since US is doing so many great things to erase the evil from the world

Ann, you're right! Even a big and powerful country like US can’t live without the rest of the world, especially because it depends and relies on product importation but that’s another matter that I don’t want to go into. US needs the world as much as the world needs US.

US is the country that gave me my dear husband and the country where I'm living in and where I intend to raise my children (US is in my heart and I will become a citizen next year ) but just like I don't close my eyes to the wrong things about Brazil, I don't close my eyes to the wrong things I see here. I support the troops, but I don't support the war although there are a lot of people out there who think these two things can't co-exist. Right now I think the Bush administration used people's fear to stay in power. If it wasn't for 9/11 Bush wouldn't have been reelected. He lied to his own people to justify the war. It’s incredible how his lies didn’t take the same proportions as Clinton’s lie did. Maybe I can’t see it because where I’m from we could care less if our president lied about whom he has been sleeping with as long as he was a good president We just think it’s his wife’s problem not ours

Ann, once and again I agree with you. It wasn’t until I moved to US that I realized how the government here tries to inflict more fear in the population and how it has been working so far. Yes, 9/11 was a horrible event. I won’t ever forget that day and how I cried and tried to call everyone that I knew to see if they were okay (my mom has a cousin who lived in NY City for 30 years but moved after 9/11) but you can’t become paranoid and think all Muslim nations must be attacked or they will take down your country. You can’t just go to war without thinking about the consequences. You just generate more hate towards you and that’s never good. Maybe I’m just a pacifist and believe in Utopia but I always try to think rationally and talk rather than going straight to fight.

As for the media Carol said: “They reduce everything to high school drama, celebrity-style coverage, and sound bytes that inevitably take quotes out of context. The term 'investigative journalism' is now an oxymoron unless you want the searing truth about who propositioned whom in a public washroom.” I will just agree with Carol on this and say that I much rather get my news through foreign press than through our US one. I end up knowing more about what’s happening here this way than if I only watched US news .

In conclusion, I try not to be bias when I talk because I have seen things from the outside when I was still in Brazil and I have seen them from the inside since I’ve been here for the past 2 years and 4 months. Even when I was in Brazil I would voice everything that I found wrong there. Loving one country doesn’t mean you need to agree with what your president does all the time. It doesn’t matter from which party he is. It doesn’t mean you have to be blind. I certainly don’t agree with Brazil’s current president and his socialist/communist thinking and his friendship with Fidel and Hugo Chavez. I actually fear him. I know I might not have the rights to voice my opinion about US, at least not yet since I can’t vote but I will someday (right now I would vote for Obama, there I said it ) But there’s one thing I love about free countries, though: freedom of speech

There’s a song from the musical Wicked that always makes me say: “That’s sooo true!” So I’m leaving this topic with a part of the lyrics for you to think about:

WIZARD:
(spoken) See - I never had a family of my own. So, I
guess I just - wanted to give the citizens of Oz everything.

ELPHABA(spoken): So you lied to them.

WIZARD:
(spoken) Elphaba, where I'm from, we believe all sorts of
things that aren't true. We call it - "history."

(sung) A man's called a traitor - or liberator?
A rich man's a thief - or philanthropist?
Is one a crusader - or ruthless invader?
It's all in which label
Is able to persist.

Raquel (who probably said more than she should have and apologizes in advance )

Raquel, welcome to the party! The more the merrier.

I will, of course, take some issues with some of your comments but you expected that, right?

You wondered why people don't take Bush's "lies" as seriously as Bill Clinton's. That's because it's never been proven that Bush has lied. As Pam eloquently put it, people have completely redefined the definition of lying when it comes to President Bush. Lies are intentional mistruths. We'll take Colin Powell as an example. Nobody questions his integrity. He was in on most of the discussions as Secretary of State and saw all the intelligence the services had provided. He's stated that for the most part, we were mistaken that we believed Iraq had an ongoing weapons program in place. Since he was in charge of presenting the evidence to the UN, he apologized for being wrong. He did not apologize for lying to people. Even after he left the State Department, he never once intimated that the president lied about anything.

The only reason there are some people who believe he "lied" is because of Democrats trying to cover their rear ends with their virulently anti-war constituents. It's impossible for them to be at fault for their votes on Iraq because obviously somebody had to have lied to them. And you know the press in the US. Whatever a Democrat says is axiomatic. Whatever a Republican says is looked at with suspicion or just plain ignored. Hence the fairy tale was spun that Bush lied, people died. Paul accuses the president of cherry picking. Well, how does he know that? Because some Democrats, fearing for their re-election said so? Oooh. I prefer to listen to House Intelligence Vice Chairwoman Jane Harman and Senate Vice Chairman Jay Rockefeller, Democrats both, who also saw the intelligence and believed them. Because Harman preferred to tell the truth as she saw it rather than tow the Democratic Party line of Bush lied, people died, Harman was overlooked as Chair of the Intelligence Committee when Nancy Pelosi took over the Speaker's chair. The job went to an inexperienced Congressman named Silvestre Reyes, a guy who couldn't answer the question of whether al Qaeda was made up of Sunnis or Shiite. His answer was laughingly both. The real answer is that al Qaeda considers the Shia to be heretics and would like nothing better than to wipe them off the face of the earth.

So any accusation is just that, an accusation. It has never been proven that the president said anything he believed to be false. If you are liberal, then you are inclined to believe Bush deliberately lied. That's fine, but it's not fact. Now with Bill Clinton, that was fact. He lost his law license and was disbarred from the Arkansas Bar and from the Supreme Court. He's a proven liar. Whereas Democrats HOPE Bush lied. They don't like thinking that intelligence might have been wrong, despite the overwhelming evidence from every major intelligence service in the world.

As for the statement that Bush would have lost re-election in 2004 if 9/11 hadn't happened is strange. How would you know that? The entire dynamic of the 2004 election was the War in Iraq. And Bush was re-elected despite that drag on his popularity. Without 9/11, there would never have been a War in Iraq. The 2004 elections would have definitely been about something else, most likely a good or bad economy or some other issue like Social Security. It would have been a run-of-the-mill election without national security as a major issue, likely. I don't know that for sure because I can't see into an alternate universe where al Qaeda didn't attack us. The world was drastically altered on that day. To project 9/11 as the only reason Bush would be re-elected is a far stretch. We don't know if he would have been. It would all depend on what the issue of the day was. It most likely wouldn't have been terrorism or war.

President Bush campaigned in 2000 on a platform of fixing things at home. He would be a domestic president instead of an international president. He barely mentioned foreign affairs in his campaigning, partly because he was inexperienced. In a debate he had trouble coming up with the name of the president of Pakistan. Without 9/11, this would have been a very different seven years. For all you know, you might have ended up being a big Bush supporter, though agreeing with everything Ann and Paul say probably means that you'd be a Democrat in which case you'd probably hate Bush anyway. We'll never know, though.

I've heard in some quarters Democrats accusing him of lying because he had campaigned on being a domestic president, yet he focused his entire administration on the War on Terror. Some people will go to any lengths to denigrate the opposition.

Thanks, Roger And I really appreciate your posts because you've been truth to what you believe in and you're not insensitive to other people's opinions and feelings We can always agree to disagree and respect different views and that's what I like about your posts, Ann's and Paul's. You guys rock!

I'm not liberal or conservative, I fall in the middle and that's why I will register as an independent when the time comes. I believe he lied for the same reasons Ann gave you (the press not reporting anything about it, not even foreign press, etc. After all, you would think that it would be such a big deal to the press if they really had found those weapons of massive destruction ) Besides I find it hard to believe that the security agencies wouldn't know better unless they were trying to make President Bush look bad. Believe me I know some things about NSA, for example, and I can assure you that NSA have all the means to know better

Because he wasn't that popular before 9/11 But then I'm not sure if Kerry would have won either since he was kind of weak so I guess we will never know. All I know is that 9/11 helped President Bush a lot and his popularity improved afterwards.

Again, like I said before I'm not liberal or conservative. I don't like President Bush not because of what party he is in (I could care less since I would probably vote for Rudolph Giuliani if he was a candidate. I really like his views regarding illegal immigration, for example and of course other things as well). I don't like him because he has put this country in a worse situation internationally (if you’re American now and travels anywhere in the world you’re probably in a bigger danger than you were before). Not to mention that you don’t have many allies. He has spent too much money in an unjustified war. Our economy is worse than it was in the past. People can’t buy as much as they could before

It seems like he didn’t fix anything at home, quite the opposite, actually. Where is our progress? Besides a good president in my book is one that can balance national and international matters because just a very naïve person could believe that we can ignore the rest of the world nowadays. And we know that his election in 2000 was strange to say the least.

Raquel (who is a pacifist and doesn’t want to upset anyone and thinks we should just agree to disagree and move on )

P.S.: Roger, I love your signature because I love Enchanted and because the scene with the song “That’s How You Know” is one of my favorites! See, we can find something to agree on

I have to take exception with pretty much every word of that.

You don't know what went on behind closed doors any more than I do.

Yes, I believe he lied. I believe he and his administration deliberately perpetuated falsehoods, using rumors and implications and cherry-picked reports. An adviser comes in, says the intelligence doesn't support the WMD claims. He's badgered about it throughout the meeting until finally he says, "What do you want me to say? It's a slam dunk? Fine." And what happens the next day? They spread the news across the country that their adviser says it's "a slam dunk." I only have his word for it, but I'm inclined to believe him. Now, is that technically a lie? He did say those words. But it completely misrepresents his position.

I'm sure I could come up with better examples.

The point is that you choose not to believe that. But you can't prove that Bush hasn't lied. You weren't there. You haven't read every report. I hear about reports which contradict what you're saying. But I don't remember the specifics well enough to quote them back to you. So you choose to believe that Bush is telling the truth and the people who claim otherwise are the liars. But you can't prove it.

No, I can't prove that he lied. If I were better informed, if I had a better, more reliable memory, maybe I could. It's what I believe, based on what I've heard and seen. I believe there's been gross mismanagement, huge coverups, unbelievable attacks on civil liberties and the very foundations of this country's government... But you, on the other side of the political situation, don't. So you pick which things to believe in to support your views and I pick mine. And with the flood of information and non-information available, there's plenty to support both sides. And we get nowhere.

As for the media... Maybe there's a liberal bias, maybe there isn't. As a liberal, I'm biased, so it's hard to tell. As a conservative, you're biased, too. I've certainly heard enough reports about conservatives trying to claim that reporting objective facts was biased. (When the truth is biased against you, you know there's something wrong.) But you're just going to come back and say that the problem is which facts they reported and which ones they didn't. (For the record, IIRC, The Daily Show did cover the WMD discovery... and Fox's ever so "fair and balanced" slant on things.)

But a blanket statement that the media says Dems are always right and Reps are always suspect? I expected better of you, Roger.

Fair enough. I wasn't in the room when everything was discussed. But I do have a number of commissions like the Robb-Silberman Commission that have been appointed to look at everything from President Daily Briefs to interviews with analysts in anonymity by those commissions. Democrats have investigated till the cows come home. Nobody has ever uncovered a shred of proof any analyst was ever pressured to manufacture a result. The Daily Briefs essentially matched the information given to the Intelligence committees. I've got several Democrats who say he didn't lie. And not a single Republican who said he did. I'd say the preponderance of the evidence show that no, he didn't. But you're right. I can't prove it in a court of law.

Here's an interesting article about liberal lies about the president and his team. Factcheck.org, run by the Annenberg Institute is famously known for its impartiality in critiquing both sides. Here's an examination of an ad a liberal anti-war group published called "They Lied." It covers quite a bit of some of the "lies" Bush and his team have been accused of. Annenberg shoots down most of the assertions and confirms none of them and shows how some of the facts were twisted by the left to fit their world view of "Bush Lied," primarily through the use of quotes out of context.

Anti-War Ad

You might find it interesting.

Here's the last line from the article:

Here's another FactCheck.org analysis of those 16 fateful words in the president's State of the Union Address regarding Niger and how the left tried to use it to label Bush a liar:

16 Words

What this shows is a concerted effort by the left to destroy the president by falsely accusing him of lying when not a shred of proof existed to support their assertions.

Those two FactCheck.org articles go to the core of the arguments made by the left to say that the president lied. An impartial examination shows that the left, in some cases, distorted and lied to try to prove their case.

Roger, you said:
In early 2003, my best friend's sister, Carina, who is married to an American, was in Sweden for a visit. We were talking politics because of the upcoming Iraq war. I was comparing George W. Bush to Bill Clinton. And Carina said:

"I really wonder what historians will say about Bill Clinton a hundred years from now. I'm sure they will say that he was the most disgusting American President ever."

"Why?" I asked, totally shocked. "Come on... the United States was doing splendid economically under Clinton, the dollar was sky-high... don't I remember... and you had a great budget surplus, and all of us in Europe were so thankful to you for coming to us and helping us sort out our Balkan mess! And I'm sure that the U.S. was quite well-liked in most other parts of the world, too. And you were not at war. Why would Clinton have been so disgusting? You mean because of the Monica Lewinsky thing?"

"He lied to us!!!" Carina replied, her eyes blazing. "He lied to the American people!!!!"

Carina is married to a conservative American, and she has adopted his views. She might have thought that Bill Clinton was the most disgusting American President of all time even if the American media had been Clinton-supporters. But there is no way that so many Americans would have disliked Clinton so much when America was doing so well at home and abroad, if the liberal media had ruled back then.

Only eight years after George Herbert Walker Bush, America's forty-first President, was defeated by Bill Clinton, his son George Walker Bush ran for President. I thought that this was quite noteworthy, but the American media didn't comment on it much at all. It was mentioned, but not discussed. In fact, I didn't read any comments on it at all, although I realize that there may have been many articles on it that I can easily have missed. Anyway, when I mentioned it to my brother, who I regard as well-informed, he protested. Was George W. Bush the former President Bush's son? Oh no, he wasn't! Surely the U.S. presidency can't pass from father to son like that. No, obviously George W. Bush had to be the elder George Bush's nephew!

This year there has been so much talk about how strange it would be if Hillary Clinton sort of "succeeded" her husband as the U.S. President. In 2000, George W. Bush's very close relationship with George H.W. Bush was seen as no problem at all, hardly worth mentioning. I don't see this as evidence that liberal media rules in the United States.

In the election of the year 2000, George W. Bush ran against Al Gore. Gore won the popular vote, that is, there were more Americans who voted for Gore than there were Americans who voted for Bush. But because of the American voting system, winning the popular vote doesn't guarantee that you win the Presidency. The election would be decided in Florida. There was an enormous amount of criticism against the sheer technicalities of the voting in Florida. I remember, for example, that the ballots were oddly designed. I saw a picture of a Florida ballot. There were many different names on it. It was easy and obvious to see where to punch a hole if you wanted to vote for Bush, because his name was placed in the upper left corner. There was no mistaking the proper spot to punch if you wanted to give your vote to him. Gore's name, however, was more oddly placed, and there was a real possibility that you might vote for another candidate altogether, Pat Buchanan, when you tried to vote for Gore. If one Gore-supporter out of a thousand accidentally voted for another candidate, that might make a difference.



Also, it was necessary to punch a hole clear through the ticket, or else your vote might be considered invalid. Lots of ballot tickets were reportedly deemed invalid because they were just "pregnant", they were just "bulging", instead of having a hole punched clear through them. It was up to those who counted the votes to decide for themselves if a ballot had a sufficently good hole in it to be valid.

The man who was responsible for the whole voting process in Florida was the Governor of Florida, John Ellis "Jeb" Bush, who is George W. Bush's own brother. Is it reasonable to assume that Jeb Bush was wholly neutral in his approach to the voting process? Would he have been just as happy to see Al Gore win as he was to see his own brother win? Is it at all possible to imagine that he might have done a little something, in his position as the Governor of Florida, to help his big brother win in Florida? Such as okaying the design of the Florida ballots?

Bush won a very narrow victory in Florida. If I remember correctly, he got a couple of hundred votes more than Gore. But given all the controversy over the "pregnant" ballots, somebody - I don't remember who - asked that the ballots in Florida should be counted and scrutinized again. The renewed counting of the ballots started. But before it was finished, the Supreme Court stepped in and ordered the renewed counting to be stopped. The Supreme Court thereby declared that George W. Bush was the winner, and the new President of the United States.

Guess what? Most of the jurors on the Supreme Court had been appointed by Republican Presidents. They had been picked partly because of their conservative views. Is it likely that these jurors were wholly neutral, when it came to making a decision which might have an enormous bearing on whether the United States would have a Republican or a Democratic President? Is it possible to assume that most jurors of the Supreme Court, who had been appointed by Republican Presidents, would prefer that George W. Bush won over Al Gore?

We can't know what the jurors were thinking, but by stopping the renewed counting of the ballots in Florida, they made sure that Al Gore couldn't win.

Let me summarize. In 1992, George Herbert Walker Bush is defeated by Bill Clinton. America is doing very well under Clinton, both at home and abroad. The media in America portray Clinton in such a way that at the end of his second term, Clinton is widely and strongly disliked.

George Herbert Walker Bush's eldest son, George Walker Bush, runs for the Presidency in the year 2000. George Herbert Walker Bush's younger son, John Ellis "Jeb" Bush, is Governor of Florida. George Walker Bush loses the popular vote to Al Gore, but the election will be decided in Florida. Because of the design of the Florida ballot, it is likely that hundreds of Gore voters accidentally vote for Pat Buchanan instead. It is also hard to say which ballots are valid or not, so those who count the ballots may be free to discard or accept ballots at their own discretion. When the Florida votes are counted again, the Republican-appointed Supreme Court steps in and stops the re-counting, thus handing the Presidency to George W. Bush.

Can you imagine what this looked like to a foreigner? During that election, the United States didn't look like a country with a fair voting process to me. It didn't really look like a democracy to me.

And it seems to me that if the liberal media had ruled the United States at this time, there would have been such an outcry that the Constitution would still be in the process of having new amendments attached to it, to make sure that the scandals of the election of 2000 could never happen again.

Then in the election of 2004... George W. Bush ran against John Kerry. Kerry was a decorated Vietnam War veteran. George W. Bush never went to Vietnam. You'd think that the respective Vietnam War records of the two candidates would speak very strongly in favor of John Kerry. But the "Swift Boat Campaign" succeeded in making John Kerry's medal of honour look like a stigma of deceit and cowardice instead. How could this possibly happen? Not because the liberal media were ruling the United States.

Yes, I agree that the mood in America has shifted. People are getting tired of Bush. They don't believe in him like they used to. And the liberal media are getting back at him.

He had it coming to him, if you ask me.

Ann

Ah, wonderful can of worms you opened up there, Ann.

I could wax on quite a bit about this, but .... ok, you convinced me.

That famous butterfly ballot was designed by... a Democrat, Theresa Lapore, the Supervisor of Elections for Palm Beach County. If people were confused, it was her fault. Florida law stated that each county was responsible for creating its own ballots. In this case, heavily Democratic Palm Beach had its ballot designed by a Democrat. Jeb Bush had nothing to do with it. In fact he recused himself and stayed far away from the counting process.

You also failed to mention the fact that a number of television networks declared that Florida had been won by Al Gore... one hour before the balloting closed in the western part of the state. The western panhandle of the state votes heavily Republican with a rural and heavily military population. Independent analysis of the election on the effect of that early call showed Bush to have lost roughly anywhere from 6,000-15,000 votes because of disgusted Republicans who went home rather than voting since the state had already been lost. The reason why the state had two closing times was because the western part of the state is in the Central Time Zone while the eastern part is in the Eastern Time Zone.

Many complained later that at 5:30AM Eastern Time (I remember because I was up at 2:30 Pacific Time watching election returns), Fox News declared Bush to be the winner of Florida, followed by several other networks. This obviously caused Gore to lose votes. But wait. Polls had been closed for over ten hours, unlike the situation in which the networks had called the state for Gore an hour before the panhandle closed. All networks retracted their call hours later.

Al Gore, in challenging the election in Florida, did not challenge the state election by asking for a fair recount. He challenged it in only four counties, all of them heavily Democratic. He demanded a recount of all the chads and dents, using counting techniques never before used by any county in the country. He did not ask for recounts in any of the Republican counties. Ask yourself if that is fair. Among the votes he wanted to have counted for himself was a hole punched for another candidate but only a pregnant chad in his slot. He also wanted double votes counted for himself. The only way you can have those count is if you were somehow clairvoyant and could read the intent of the voter because of a small dent on a piece of paper or two holes.

Some complained that Pat Buchanan got an unusual number of votes in Palm Beach, so obviously all of those votes were Gores. Not so fast. Pat Buchanan actually had quite a following in Palm Beach County, and had campaigned there numerous times. It was one of the counties where he had done much of his fund raising. So maybe that unusual count wasn't so unusual after all.

Ah, but what about Kathryn Harris? Clearly she stole the election from Gore. Well, Harris took unusual steps to appear non-partisan, not that it helped since she was demonized from day one. She hired a Democratic law firm with her lead attorney being a prominent Democrat, Joe Klock. And in each case, she followed the letter of the law, though in each case she was overruled by the Florida Supreme Court which made up law as it went along, basically ignoring the state's statutes. It was so bad that the Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court, Democrat Charles Wells appointed by Democratic governor Lawton Chiles, chastised his associates for their rulings in a blistering dissent, believing the rulings would create a constitutional crisis.

Dissent of Chief Justice Charles Wells

Fast forward to the US Supreme Court at the time. Of the nine, seven had indeed been appointed by Republican presidents. Of the seven, only three of them were conservatives: the late William Rehnquist (Nixon), Clarence Thomas (Bush, the elder), and Antonin Scalia (Reagan). The most liberal member of the court was John Paul Stevens, appointed by a Republican, Gerald Ford. David Souter, a George H.W. Bush appointee, was also incredibly liberal. He was recommended to President Bush by John Sununu, the president's Chief of Staff, since Souter came from Sununu's home state of New Hampshire. Bush appointed him on that recommendation alone and had done insufficient checking of his record. Bush claimed that Souter was the biggest regret of his presidency. Two others were mavericks, Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy, both Reagan appointees, neither of whom vote consistently liberal or conservatively. The other members of the court were Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg (both Clinton appointees), and Clarence Thomas, a George H.W. Bush appointee.

The Supreme Court made two decisions that day. One was whether the vote was constitutional. The second was whether to conduct a full recount. The decision on whether the vote was constitutional was 7-2 against as a violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution with the liberal Stephen Breyer and David Souter voting with the majority. Only Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens, the Ford appointee, voted in favor of Gore. On the question of the recount and whether a full state recount would take place, the vote was closer, 5-4 against where Breyer and Souter voted for a recount along with Ginsburg and Stevens. The press completely ignored the more salient 7-2 decision, which basically said that Gore was using unconstitutional methods to win the election and focused solely on the 5-4 decision.

The reasoning behind the 5-4 vote was that they deemed insufficient time remained to conduct the recount according to Florida state law without risking the disenfranchisement of all Florida electors with the safe harbor day already passed (electors met on Dec. 18, 2000 while the Supreme Court's decision was on December 12), and set the final vote count as a George W. Bush win at 537 votes. As a note, in 2004, Bush won Florida by 10% (55-45), or 500,000 votes.

Let's fast forward even more. Following Gore's concession, many news agencies went to Florida to conduct their own recounts and there were very many. The newspapers and networks used several counting methods to see what the results would be, including using Gore's own counting methods. Every nick or indentation was counted if it was in the same zip code as Gore's name. In every single case but one, Bush won the recount. The only recount that Gore won was when double votes were counted for him, exclusively. And then he won by a grand total of two votes, IIRC. As a note, there isn't a county in the entire country that allows double votes to count. They are always thrown out.

The correct decision was made and the proper winner became president. Even the newspapers conceded that after conducting their own recounts.

You can argue about whether it's fair for the popular vote winner to lose the electoral college, but those were the rules of the game going in that had been in place for two hundred years. Ask President Samuel Tildon how it felt to win the popular vote as he watched Rutherford B. Hayes take the oath of office. It has happened four times in our nation's history.

John Quincy Adams became the sixth president despite losing the popular vote to Andrew Jackson. Jackson became the seventh. Neither had a majority of electoral votes, so the presidency was decided in the House of Representatives. Ironically, Adams' father, John Adams, was the second president of the United States.

Samuel Tildon won the popular vote but lost the presidency when the vote went to the House. In a back room deal, Republicans got their president in Rutherford B. Hayes (nineteenth president) at the price of withdrawing all Union troops from the southern states, thus ending Reconstruction following the Civil War.

Grover Cleveland failed to win re-election, losing to Benjamin Harrison despite having the popular vote. Cleveland won four years later to become the only president to serve two non-consecutive terms (22nd and 24th president). Harrison had a majority of the electoral votes so this was decided by the electoral college. Benjamin Harrison's grandfather was the ninth president, William Henry Harrison, who set a record of shortest presidential term when he died in office 31 days into his term of pneumonia.

George W. Bush (43rd president) became president after losing the popular vote to Al Gore. He won Florida by 537 votes.

Oh, let's not forget the typical Democratic October surprise. Three days before the election, a story broke about George W. Bush having been arrested when he was younger for a DWI (driving while intoxicated) after a reporter had been tipped off by some Gore operatives. That story cost Bush a lot of votes from religious conservatives, most likely costing him the popular vote, despite the fact that he had not had a drink in over ten years and was an admitted recovering alcoholic.

I'll bet much to the surprise of many of the liberals on this board, guess who it was who broke the story of the DWI arrest? None other than Carl Cameron of Fox News. Fair and Balanced.

interesting stuff.

Roger your story about GW's drinking gives me the op to rant about the media again.
What was the NY Times thinking with its recent story alleging an affair that one of the current candidates had. And Swift Boat!!

What are they doing???? Would Perry White be publishing this stuff?

Anyone ever see "All the President's Men'? Notice the Washington Post editor's ruthless insistence on reliable sources plus more than one of those. His insistence on evidence? To-day, at a time when we need reprorters and journalists who model themselves on invesitgative reporters, what we get are guys who model themselves on paparazzi.

Btw on the subject of Bush lying - my interpretation is yes he did, but he it was not his *intent* to lie. I think he believed what he was saying. The trouble, imo was that he was influenced by Cheney, Rumsfield and Rove.

When I watched the Gore/Bush debates (I told you: born a political junkie ) I was struck by how little Bush knew about the world. His background knowledge was sketchy and he had no meaningful intellectual framework to handle the questions. Instead he kept repeating the same few cliches. I think that's likely why he bought what R & C presented to him later. He lacked the knowledge, the intellectual skills, and the experience to evaluate and assess what he was given. In other words, no cherry-picking.

But as the media said at the time, Bush was the more likeable and personable candidate - people wanted to have a drink with him. They were comfortable with him (This was before Gore morphed into EnviroMan) Plus Bush presented himself well on stage - he was more at home there than Gore was (and later, Kerry). I think, too, many Americans found Bush's religious faith comforting. (nothing wrong with this - as I've said before, I envy those who are able to find comfort in their faith)

Who knows how much influence a trash story has or a leaked document?
Right now opposition Canadian federal politicians, cheered on by our media, are hysterical about a leaked note reporting a comment made by an Obama staffer to a Canadian diplomat.

The accusation by the Oppostion and our news media: The Canadian government is trying to .... gasp.. influence the American election! The Americans will be hostile now! And of course, the Democrats, if elected, will retaliate against Canada! To which I think... get a grip, people.

My bet is that 99.5% of Americans don't know about this leaked note, and if they did it would not have any influence on them. For example, I'm betting no one on these boards even knows what I'm talking about here

Nevertheless, our PM has already apologised to Americans for this. I am not making this up.

love ranting first thing in the morning.

c.

Ann, I have stayed quiet, watching this debate. I don't like to get into political arguments, because nobody ever wins them -- but one thing you can take to the bank. Roger's facts are correct. I watched this whole scenario play out, tearing out my hair and wondering if our political system was going to survive all the games in Florida and elsewhere. I'm still wondering.

Nan

PS. Oh, and Carol, <g> it's beginning to look like there's a good chance that Enviro-man may have to buy himself a dunce cap. Have you seen anything about the International Climate Conference held in New York this last week? If absolutely nothing else, all the distinguished scientists that showed up to dispute the Global Warming dogma gives the lie to the "consensus" argument. The argument isn't settled at all -- except in Al Gore's mind.

http://icecap.us/index.php

I'll be writing in Ron Paul. I can't in good conscience vote for any of the "recognized" candidates and Ron Paul agrees with me that the government has way overstepped our founding father's original intent. I'd like to continue farming the land that has been in my family for over 100 years and the current administration and all recognized candidates support the over-regulating of farming to point that only large, factory farms (Monsanto, Cargill, Tyson) will be able to survive. Can you say, "Welcome to McDonalds, would you like genetically modified french fries with your cloned hamburger?"

I have mixed feelings on Iraq. I grew up in the military so my first instinct is to always support military action. But I still want to know why we haven't caught Osama bin Laden and if the Iraqis want a democracy why are American soldiers doing the work? There will never be peace in the middle east, so do we keep sending soldiers over there to fight the never ending war or do we call it quits at some point? If so, what point?

I should bring up one additional aside on the whole Florida mess. Under federal law, the safe harbor day is the date by which all recounts must be complete in order to allow electors to participate when the electors choose the president and vice president. The law stated safe harbor was six days before the electors were to meet. Since the electors were scheduled to meet on Dec. 18, the safe harbor day was Dec. 12. The recount would have already had to have been completed by the time the Supreme Court ruled, one day after arguments.

Following a hand recount, which would take several days, Florida state law requires that each interested party must have the opportunity to legally challenge the vote totals and any individual vote that may have been counted. Given that only five days would have remained before the electors met and no recount had yet begun, the strong likelihood was that the Florida electors would not have been certified and therefore could not vote when the electors met on Dec. 18. That would have the effect of disenfranchising six million voters. The Supreme Court determined that was unacceptable.

So there actually was a reason why the recount was stopped. It was not an arbitrary decision so that they could crown George W. Bush the president. It was mainly made to prevent the disenfranchisement of Florida voters.

If such a scenario were to happen and Florida could not vote, the final tally would have been Gore 268-246. Gore lost the vote of one Democratic elector in Maryland so he didn't get the full 269. Since Gore would have failed to reach 270 votes required to win election, the decision would have moved to the Congress. Under the Constitution, the House decides who becomes president while the Senate decides who becomes vice president.

In the House, the rules are such that it is not an individual vote. Votes are tallied by state delegations where each state gets one vote. So if a state has three Republicans and two Democrats, for instance, the Republican candidate would win the vote of that state. In the House at the time, Republicans controlled 28 state delegations, so the final vote would have been George W. Bush 28-12 with Texas, ironically, voting for Gore since at the time, Democrats controlled the delegation 17-15. States with tied delegations did not get a vote.

In the Senate, Cheney would not have necessarily won the vote. Jan. 3 is the date that a new Congress is seated and when a vote would take place for president and vice president in case the vote is required. On Jan. 2, the makeup of the Senate was 55-45 GOP. On Jan. 3, the makeup was 50-50 with Al Gore casting the deciding vote as President of the Senate in case of a tie. And among the 50 Democratic votes would have been Joe Lieberman voting for himself. Assuming Lieberman voted for himself, that would have made it 50-50 with Al Gore casting the final vote for Lieberman. If Lieberman were to recuse himself, the vote would have been 50-49 in favor of Dick Cheney. So there was a possibility of having a Republican president and a Democratic vice president. The House vote would have remained the same at 28-12 before or after Jan. 3.

It was kind of interesting that between Jan. 3 and Jan. 20, when the new president and vice president are inaugurated, Tom Daschle (D-SD) was Majority Leader of the Senate. On and after Jan. 20, Trent Lott (R-MS) became Majority Leader.

Any way you look at it, Al Gore had no chance of winning. The Florida vote was against him and the makeup of the House at the time was against him as well.

Interesting how the Constitutional process works, huh?

I watched the Hurricanes v. Wild last night. One of the Wild players hit a Hurricane from behind, smashing him into the wall and down onto the ice, and other Hurricanes players immediately began, ahem, a spirited effort of retaliation. And the sports-casters thought that was a really positive thing. Team spirit, male bonding, defend your buddies, etc. Really.

Is this the flap about the Obama staffer telling some Canadian official not to pay attention to Obama's public villifying of NAFTA, 'cause he didn't really mean it?

PJ

On a more serious note, about the Palestinian problem...

There's some video footage of the reaction in Gaza, when news came in that eight teenagers had been shot dead and many more injured in the library of a Jewish religious school in Jerusalem. It's taken from Palestinian TV.

Fuller story (with pictures) is here .

Has anybody seen anything about this in the major media?

PJ

Pam wrote:
Yes, that's what I think, but I didn't want to say all that - so much to write But you're right to call me on my use of "lie" in that context: it's not the right word.

Glad to see you got my point about hockey. It's hugely violent, thuggish - allows fans to subliminate all their inner violent tendencies and hostilities. It's all out there on the ice - and then they go home and do no harm. Think the same thing probably holds true for soccer, football etc.

But I can only guess about what is going with the fans of beach volleyball.

Yes. There's a flap? - had no idea.

c.

I'll go with American football. I don't really enjoy watching hockey.

Interesting, Pam. Because it is my impression too, that George W. Bush isn't exactly a liar, or at least that this word - "liar" - does a poor job of characterizing him.

What amazes me about George Bush is the way he seems so completely untroubled and untouched by any criticism, and the way he seems so unconcerned when the world around him fails to behave as he had predicted that it would. (Or maybe it was his aides that had predicted that the world would behave in a certain way, which didn't come true at all.)

Anyway, I find Bush's self-confidence remarkable. When the Iraq war didn't go as he or his aides had predicted - although things are better there now, certainly - or when his popularity figures are down to thirty per cent, or when the budget deficit keeps growing and the dollar keeps falling and a recession seems to be looming on the horizon - then Bush seems unshakably confident and at peace. I once heard an interview with Bush when he was asked if he had ever made a bad choice as a President and done something that was bad for his country. "I'm sure I must have," Bush replied. "Can you give us an example of when you made a bad choice?" the reporter asked. "No," Bush answered. "I can't remember that I have ever done something wrong or made a bad choice while I have been the President."

Well, I could bring up something that most economists would probably describe as wrong or really unwise. Waging a war is costly. The cost of the war has to be paid for by the central government. In order to pay for the war, the government needs tax revenues. Therefore the tax revenues that are at the government's disposal need to increase during war times. Most economists would probably say that it is a very good idea for a government to raise taxes if it plans to start a war.

Bush didn't raise taxes. He lowered the taxes instead. At a time when his administration needed more tax revenues, he made sure that it got less tax revenues instead.

As a result, America's budget deficit rose sharply. As a result, the dollar started falling. As a result, the price of oil, which is set in dollar, has reached new record heights. Yesterday, the New York Times reported that President Bush had called for OPEC to increase the supply of oil to reduce prices. OPEC rebuffed Bush, saying that the world is well supplied with oil, and the high price of it is caused by America's mismanageement of its own economy.

And let's not even mention the subprime loan bubble and the housing crisis and the recession which is waiting to happen. Bush's response to that was - surprise - more tax cuts. More tax cuts, as the war in Iraq is going on and racking up more costs all the time.

I think that most economists would agree that lowering taxes while you are at war is a bad move. I think most of them would say that the present economic difficulties in the United States are at least partly caused by President Bush's economic politics. And yet I have read again and again that people who meet Bush in private describe him as calm, serene, happy, and in good spirits. Untroubled. How can he be so untroubled when many things appear to be going wrong around him, and when he may be thought of as responsible for them?

I don't think Bush is primarily a liar. I can't see a liar being so self-confident, so serene and so, almost humble at the same time. Is he stupid, then? Many people have accused him of that. But I think that the charge of stupidity, too, is a too simple answer. Bush has gone to many schools and graduated from them, and you just can't do that if you are too slow-witted.

No, I don't think that Bush is primarily a liar or that he is primarily stupid. Those words do not explain what he is. I think that Bush, much like my own relatives, is primarily a believer.

My grandfather was a smart, intelligent man. He had had little formal schooling, but that didn't prevent him from becoming a self-taught engineer. He understood many important principles of science. He invented, designed and constructed new machinery for the mill he was working for. He wasn't stupid! And it wouldn't surprise me too much if he never told a lie in his life, at least after he had become an adult.

But my grandfather was a believer. He was locked inside his own bubble reality of Pentecostalism. Nothing that contradicted his belief ever penetrated his bubble. For example, he was a strong believer in miracles. All his adult life he subscribed to a religious weekly, and every week it told him new amazing stories of totally improbably miracles that had happened in distant corners of the world - Bali, Borneo, New Guinea... A boy was born without eyes, but God gave him his eyesight anyway so that he could look at the world with his empty eye-sockets. A woman was chock-full of cancer and dying of it, but a Pentecostalist pastor prayed for her and the next morning she woke up as healthy and as perfect as she had ever been before she fell ill.

So of course, when my grandmother got cancer at the age of 84, then grandfather knew that God would cure her. He knew it. For the next two years, my grandmother was slowly wasting away. But every time she seemed to show the slightest little improvement, my grandfather was jubilant. Now God was going to cure her! The next day she was worse, and grandfather was devastated again. But two weeks later she seemed a tiny bit better, and grandfather was over the moon. Soon he was despondent again. Things went on like that for two years. My grandfather was on an emotional rollercoaster as he kept believing, right up to the very end, that God would cure his wife. So what if she had become emaciated and tiny like a child? God would cure her. He would cure her because he would. Because that is what had to happen.

I think that President Bush is a man whose faith is as strong as my grandfather's. I don't necessarily mean that President Bush is as fervent a Christian as my grandfather was. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. But I think that Bush had an almost religious belief that it was right and necessary to attack Iraq and take down Saddam. And because it was necessary and right that he should do it, it was necessary and right that that he did it. So what if Iraq proved to be a much bigger mess than he had predicted? It is going to turn out right in the end. Anything else is impossible. Because when you do the right thing, it will turn out right in the end. Because it must.

Similarly, President Bush probably believes that taxes are intrinsically evil. Therefore it was up to him to liberate America from as much of its tax burden as he was able to. What if that created an imbalance in the American economy? It is going to turn out right in the end. So what if there seems to be a recession looming? It won't happen. But even if it will, it will turn out all right in the end. Because it must. Because it can't end any other way.

Nothing could penetrate my grandfather's reality bubble. Nothing can penetrate President Bush's reality bubble.

I once heard someone say that when George W. Bush was new as a President, he didn't really know what to do with his Presidency. He spent much of his time on his farm, relaxing and having a good time. To him, 9/11 was more than a wake-up call. It was a totally soul-changing experience like Saint Paul's conversion on his way to Damascus. Paul's experience changed him utterly for the rest of his life. His glimpse of the majestic Christ of Heaven sent him travelling around the Roman Empire, as he worked tirelessly for the conversion of the heathens. So what did 9/11 do to Bush?

I have heard it said that Bush regarded 9/11 as an event through which Destiny, or Fate, or the Universe, or God, shone its searchlights on Bush and made him its knight and envoy. Bush was singled out, chosen. He was given a sacred mission - to set right the time, which was out of joint. In particular, he had to set right or fulfill what his father had not managed to do. His father had declared war on Iraq, but he had retreated from Iraq before he had captured Saddam, and before he had remade that country. Also, his father had promised not to raise taxes, but he had done so anyway. Now Bush Jr. would do what his father had not been able to. He would take down Saddam, remake Iraq, and lower taxes in America. Because Destiny, Fate, the Universe or God had given him that sacred mission.

Do I know that Bush regards himself as the envoy and knight of Destiny or God? Of course not! Of course I can't know such a thing! Does his behaviour make sense to me if I regard him in that light? Yes. It also explains to me why Bush is so serene and happy now that things look rather bad in many quarters. Because Bush did carry out his sacred mission. He did take down Saddam. He did remake Iraq - well, sort of. And he did lower taxes. He did what Destiny or God told him to do. Now it is up to Destiny or God to keep its part of the bargain, and give everything a splendidly happy ending. And that will happen. Because it must.

Of course, if you don't share George Bush's beliefs, it will seem to you as if he is driving America towards the edge of a cliff, oblivious to all the cries around him imploring him to stop. Would you rather have a President who lies to you about his private life like Bill Clinton did, or would you rather have a President who is locked inside his own reality bubble and who keeps driving his country towards a cliff?

Well. Thankfully the Constitution makes sure that George W. Bush can't be reelected in 2008. If indeed America is on its way towards the edge of a cliff, it will be up to another President to try to steer his or her country away from it.

Ann

You know, the thought occurred to me that Obama and Bush are more alike as political campaigners than are G W Bush (W) and Clinton or W and McCain.

Now bear with me, and erase the post 9/11 W personna from your mind.

Both W & O are personality campaigners, both stress the insignificance of experience (recall that Gore had more and 'weightier' political experience than W). Both ran as populists, using the rhetoric of faith. In W's case it was religious faith, in Obama's it's secular; but, nevertheless it's an appeal to the irrational rather than the rational. (I'm not knocking the irrational here - it's a part of all our minds) Their use simple sentences laced with abstract value terms that are vague enough that the listener can interpret them however.

They appeal to 'the Folk'.

In that sense, they were both the benefactors of that old Coke add. "I'd like to buy the world a Coke and sing in Perfect Harmony... it's the Real Thing...." That add conditioned us for that type of leader.

Both men are comfortable on stage - in 'their own skins' as people say. Gore certainly wasn't, nor do I think Hillary is. McCain, yeah, he is I think, but not in the same way.

Am now expecting to get shot down by both sides (all sides?) but seriously, don't I have a bit of a point here?

c. (staring at all the snow.... another foot again)

edited to reflect Pam's correction

Carol, I must take issue with you. Don't call him B for Bush, it's confusing. Call him W. Everybody else does

PJ

Oops - major error I shall go back and edit that post!

c.

Other than that, Carol, I see your point. I read a column in Slate (I think) the other day talking about candidates in terms of Bugs Bunny & Daffy Duck. Bugs is cool, calm, collected. Daffy is excitable, angry, impulsive. According to this columnist, the American people always pick Bugs over Daffy. In the 2000 election, Algore was definitely more of a Daffy type, whereas Bush -- as you say -- was much more laid back, so he was Bugs. It was a famously close election, of course, but still. Obama, also, is the Bugs Bunny type, while Hilary is much more Daffy Duck. Also a very close election, but Obama has the lead. John McCain, I'm not so sure about. I suspect he's more of a Daffy. FWIW.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glad to see you got my point about hockey. It's hugely violent, thuggish - allows fans to subliminate all their inner violent tendencies and hostilities. It's all out there on the ice - and then they go home and do no harm. Think the same thing probably holds true for soccer, football etc.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Um, have you ever been to a World Cup game? I'm pretty sure riots are routine...

Ann, I'm certain Roger will explain this better than I will, but it is actually a proven fact that *lower* tax rates produce *more* tax revenue. Counter-intuitive, but true. The Bush tax cuts averted a recession. The deficit's because spending rose faster than revenue -- the US gov't is really really good at spending other people's money.

On a bit of a tangent -- PJ O'Rourke discussed spending, etc, a while back. There's four types of spending.

You can spend your own money on yourself. Quality is important, but you also want the best price.

You can spend your own money on other people. Price is still important, quality not so much.

You can spend other people's money on yourself. Quality is important here, but who cares whether it's overpriced.

Then there's spending other people's money on other people. There's much less incentive to care about either price or quality.

All government spending is the fourth type. (He also observed that giving Congress control over spending is like giving a teenaged boy whiskey and car keys.) It's astonishing that we get anything of value, really.

PJ

Love the Bugs and Daffy theory! It works.

c.

Pam, I realize that there are economists who argue that lower taxes mean higher tax revenue. And I even agree with you that there are special situations where this is true.

But I'm sure that the majority of international economists - not U.S. ones - will say that cutting taxes while you are waging a war is counter-productive and will increase your country's economic problems. And for that matter, I'm sure that there are American economists who say the same thing.

So you don't need to convince me that there are economists who do say that cutting taxes is always the right thing to do, and it is the right thing to do when a country is undertaking a major new economic burden, such as waging a war. But the fact that some economists say that tax-cutting always works doesn't in itself make it true, and the fact that America has run up a huge budget deficit and that the dollar has been weakened doesn't make those economists wrong who said that cutting taxes while fighting a war would produce exactly this result.

Ann

Hmmm. I said, about ten posts or so ago, that that would be my last post. Now I'm posting two in a row. :rolleyes:

Anyway. Roger, you explained why all those things that looked so strange about the election of 2000 were really fair and square and perfectly constitutional. All right. And I'll keep insisting that the election of 2000 still looks bad and unfair to a foreigner - or at the very, very least, it looks bad to me. It is not any one of the little "irregularities" in themselves that makes the the election look bad. It is all the little irregularities added up together.

To make you see what I mean, I'll have to ask you to imagine a non-existing country, which I will call, for no reason at all, Irelia. I imagine it to be a little bit like Hugo Chavez' Venezuela, but really far more democratic. But the country is also a bit like one of those "new" nations that used to belong to the former Soviet Union, and I imagine it is situated there, too. But even though this country is religiously mixed, and even though there are strong Muslim groups there, this country does not have militant Islamism. And there are large groups of Christians there as well, who co-exist relatively peacefully with the Muslims.

Anyway. I imagined that this country is anxious to be a democracy. To achieve that end, it has copied large parts of the American voting system and the American elections! So, for example, is it unconstitutional for a President of Irelia to be reelected more than once. Each term he (or very possibly she) serves lasts for four years. Just as is the case in the United States, it is possible in Irelia to win the popular vote and yet lose the election. That is because the country is divided into districts, each with its own governor, and it is the votes from the districts that counts, just like the case is in the United States.

So. I want you to imagine a President of Irelia, called Asaf Ashkov. Ashkov is sharply critical of many U.S. policies, accusing the United States of acting like an international bully. Therefore, Ashkov refuses to sell any of Irelia's oil to the United States. Instead, President Ashkov sells oil at reduced prices to countries that could be regarded as enemies of the United States, such as Cuba.

After four years in office, Ashkov is sensationally defeated in the next election by a man called Konstantin Yusuf. Yusuf is much more of a friend of the United States than Ashkov had been. Yusuf normalizes Irelia's relations with the United States and starts selling oil to it. Irelia's economy improves very noticably during Yusuf's Presidency.

However, Ashkov's political party resents the new course that Yusuf has charted for his country. Ashkov's party controls many important media in Irelia. These media start smearing Yusuf, printing various stories about his private life that make large parts of the Irelian people more and more disgusted with Yusuf. Unfortunately some of the accusations regarding Yusuf's sex life appear to be true, and Yusuf makes a bad situation worse by foolishly denying some of the accusations. Yusuf just barely manages to ride out his second term without being impeached.

Most Irealians are sufficently disgusted and embarrassed by the whole situation that they are happy to see Yusuf go. Now a new President will be elected. The candidate running for former President Ashkov's party is none other than President Ashkov's own son, Asaf V. Ashkov. He is up against the candidate for Konstantin Yusuf's party, a man named Christos Christov.

In spite of all the embarrassment and bad feelings surrounding former President Yusuf because of the sex scandals ascribed to him, many Irelians still want his policies to continue. They like the improved relations with the United States, for example. On the other hand, other Irelians want to return to former President Ashkov's policies. It is touch and go which of the candidates will win.

It was Christos Christov who won the popular vote. But the election was decided in a province called Firia, where Asaf V. Ashkov's own brother, Bilal Ashkov, was governor and somewhat responsible for the voting process.

Later the voting ballots were sharply criticized. They were constructed so that people who wanted to vote for Chistov could be fooled into voting for another candidate, Piotr Babov, instead. Presumably Christov lost important votes that way.

The vote in Firia was very close. In the end, Asaf V. Ashkov was declared the winner by a margin of about a hundred votes. Christov's party protested and wanted a recount. A recount started, but the Irelian Supreme Court, where seven of the nine jurors had been appointed by Ashkov's party, stepped in and stopped the recount, deeming it unconstitutional.

Asaf V. Ashkov was thereby declared the winner. He immediately lashed out at the United States and put an immediate stop to his country's oil export to the United States.

And now I'm just wondering if you, Roger, would have said that Asaf V. Ashkov's win was fair and square and a fine tribute to the democratic system of Irelia.

Ann

Can't speak for Roger, but, if there's no actual provable vote fraud, I'd have to respect their system. Especially if it's been working for over 200 years. Doesn't matter whether I like the result or not.

And really, "Christos Christov"?? Subtle. :rolleyes: Well, they do say environmentalism is turning into a religion.

Political systems sometimes look very strange from the outside. Or inside, for that matter. Personally, I've never understood why people like the parliamentary system. Nobody votes for Prime Minister. You get some weird coalition governments sometimes. Not to mention the myriad of parties. And calling elections just whenever? Okay, fine...

PJ

The two are independent.

We don't have proportional rep in Canada, although there has been some advocacy for making some changes in our constitution to add in prop. rep.

Our federal system is like yours - a combination of rep by pop (our House of Commons which parallels your House of Reps) and rep by region (our Senate). What's different is that our HoC is more powerful, while your Senate is.

What I don't get is the caucus system of selecting a candidate. I know how it operates, but it strikes me that it violates the principle of the secret ballot, making voters more susceptible to peer pressure etc.

I think our systems are probably equally dysfunctional, just in a different way.

c.

I would say that direct popular vote would work better And don't say that it wouldn't work because larger states would always "choose" the president because that's not true. Not everyone in the same state would vote for the same person/party. A democrat state still would have independents (who can vote either way) and republicans specially the way sociaty is right now where people move from one state to the other. At least with a direct popular vote you just have your own people to blame for the guy that is your President And trust me, I still blame the stupid Brazilians that voted for Lula twice even after all the corruption and scandal in his first government :rolleyes: But at least it was the people's choice... it wasn't an electoral college making that decision. Electoral college used to make sense back when the country wasn't as big as it is now but I don't think it works anymore.

Raquel

Raquel,

True. But the electoral college is also useful in making the candidates try to appeal to the largest cross-section of people. The US is very large and very diverse -- Massachusetts and Mississippi don't have very much in common, for instance. When candidates have to win states and not just individual voters, they have to try to woo voters in both Mass. and Miss., instead of appealling solely to, say, big city dwellers and ignoring the rural parts of the country. That's the theory, anyway.

Caucuses...yeah, those are weird. And definitely not compatible with the secret vote idea. I think it's the state political parties that are in control of how those things are arranged, though.

In general, no matter what the system is, I'd be very cautious about changing it. Changes always bring unforeseen consequences. Although I'm open to looking at how the primaries/caucuses are scheduled, since my state is always too late in the process to matter. I've heard a proposal to organize the country into "regions" and each election cycle, one of the states in each region would have the earliest voting, with it rotating on each cycle. Get Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina out of the spotlight, and spread the influence around. So I'd be (cautiously, of course) interested in seeing that arranged. It'd be really tough to get everyone to agree, I think, and like I said, a lot of this is at the discretion of the state parties. The national party has some influence but states can challenge that. Like Florida & Michigan this year. As it stands, since those states had earlier primaries than the national party wanted, none of their delegates will count at the convention. But is it fair to disenfranchise two whole states' worth of voters? There's already a movement to get those delegates "seated" -- to make their votes count. It'll be interesting to watch.

Actually, I'm getting kind of excited. With Hilary & Obama running so neck-and-neck, they might have to actually campaign in NC! We never get that...

PJ

We'll take this one at a time. On the issue of tax cuts, it's universally accepted among economists that the absolute worst thing you can possibly do is to raise taxes at the beginning of an economic slowdown or recession. That would merely exacerbate the problem. Even Keynesians would not advocate a tax hike and John Maynard Keynes was a socialist.

Tax cuts do not universally create higher revenue. It's tough to explain without the use of pictures, but I can explain the theory of the Laffer Curve, named after the economist, Arthur Laffer, the father of supply-side economics. The Laffer curve looks like a graph with an upside-down U with the X-axis labeled as tax rate in percentages and the Y-axis labeled as total tax revenue collected. At a 0% tax rate, you'll obviously have 0 revenue, so the left side of the inverted U touches at 0,0. At 100% tax rate, you'll also have 0 tax revenue so the right side of the inverted U touches at 100,0. Somewhere at the top of the U is a tax rate that obtains the maximum amount of revenue.

Now to explain why the curve is shaped the way it is, the theory breaks the convention that as you raise taxes, you get higher revenue proportionally and vice versa if you cut taxes. The reason why the curve is inverted-U shaped is because of how people react to taxes. If taxes are low, people don't pay a whole lot of attention to the rate and go about their business, relatively unaffected by low tax. As the rate rises, people begin to take notice that it's taking chunks out of their disposable income. They suddenly begin protecting themselves by behaving differently. Either that's from sheltering income or spending on alternative goods or just not spending. The curve begins to flatten and eventually levels off. At a certain point, you reach a level of taxation where people will do just about anything to avoid paying taxes at which time the curve is now headed downward. You can raise tax rates all you want but all you'll get is less money. Clearly at 100%, nobody's going to bother working. If nobody works or performs any kind of economic activity, revenue goes to zero. Nobody's going to sit there and let the government take all their money.

At one point Sweden had a marginal 103% tax rate where people paid more than they took in. Lots of people who made that kind of money just left the country to go elsewhere where tax rates aren't so punitive.

The optimal level of taxation from the point of view of the government is the very top of the inverted-U. Obviously nobody knows exactly where that point is but taxes are high enough that the cutting of income tax rates will ironically give you more money if you're on the right side of that inverted-U. People will believe that taxes aren't so high that they can skip their tax shelters and be more free with spending as rates go down. So far, every time tax rates have been cut, revenue has increased, so we are still on the right side of that curve. Eventually we'll reach the point where revenue falls, but we've not seen that point yet. Europeans, who want to fund their incredibly expensive welfare states, could take a lesson from the Laffer Curve. Instead, they maintain ridiculously high tax rates at the expense of high unemployment and almost non-existent growth.

Keynesian theory believes that higher rates will always get you higher tax revenue and lower tax rates will give you lower revenue every time. However, Keynesian theory says that if an economy is growing quickly, that's the time to raise taxes and reap revenue increases. If an economy begins to slide, Keynesians believe taxes should be cut. Strangely, Keynesian theory is contradictory. It advocates cutting taxes to spur economic growth but yet continues to believe in the straight line relationship between tax rates and revenue, which is impossible if changing rates does indeed change people's behavior.

So with either theory, supply-side or Keynesian, the conditions right now would advocate the cutting of taxes. Anything else and both theories would believe that the economy would tank.

I am personally a supply-sider. I believe that the levels of taxation affect people's behavior.

Now why is supply-side theory called supply-side? There are two theories on how we can affect people's behavior. There's demand-side economics and supply-side economics. Demand-side is more traditional economic theory where spurring the economy should require concentrating tax and spending policy on consumers, those who demand goods and services. Give consumers back more money and they'll spend it, increasing economic growth. On the supply-side, those are the people who provide the goods and services. To spur investment and promote higher supply, supply-side economics says to stimulate that, you reduce the tax burden on the producers.

Now why is one better than the other, I hear you ask? Why do supply-siders believe that it's more beneficial to influence the supply side of the equation? On the demand side, having more money in the pockets of consumers allows them to buy more of the available goods and services. That boosts the bottom line of the producers and increases the standard of living of the consumers. There's this interesting concept in economics called the Multiplier Effect, though. You can think of it as money begetting more money. An investment of a dollar provides more than a dollar in benefits. With demand-side theory, the multiplier effect is minimal, roughly 1:1. One dollar spent increases the GDP by roughly one dollar. On the supply-side, though, it's been demonstrated that the multiplier effect can be enormous. Companies think in terms of ROI, or Return on Investment, or basically the total sales minus cost of capital. With a higher return on investment caused by a lower cost of capital, and the lower cost of capital is the big key, companies are far more willing to invest in new and better things and more capital. More capital means you can produce more goods and services. It means another factory or a new computer center. More capital also begets more hiring of employees. In the end, a dollar spent on additional capital means that more than a dollar eventually ends up being added to the GDP. If the ROI is prohibitive, companies won't invest and nobody benefits. A lower cost of capital means a directly higher ROI and more jobs and more money for everybody. It's the optimal way of creating wealth.

Why doesn't consumption help as much as investment? Every dollar spent by the consumer adds pennies to the bottom line of a company after expenses and therefore has minimal effect on the ROI decision. Meanwhile a dollar in the form of tax cuts directly adds a dollar to ROI, a very powerful way of stimulating investment. And it is investment, not consumption, that increases the economic base and increases jobs. That is why the multiplier effect is so much higher on investment. Higher investment and more jobs means increasing the tax base and that results in higher revenue in the form of taxes. The government reaps more in revenue when taking pennies from many than a dollar from a few.

Oops, I'm getting a bit ahead of myself. The GDP is the Gross Domestic Product, or the total value of all goods and services output by a country. The equation is GDP=C+I+G where C is consumption, I is investment, and G is government (spending minus taxes). Demand side ignores I and G and focuses entirely on C. Supply side affects both C and I with its multiplier effect. Hiring caused by additional expense on capital means that consumers have more to spend. As I mentioned, money begets money. Note that lowering taxes will also increase the size of G, which is why Keynesians also support tax cuts in a downturn and advocate running deficits. G gets bigger as taxes go down.

While this is rather a geeky explanation, the bottom line of it is that more money in the hand of producers will end up benefitting all, far more than simply giving money back to consumers. More money and a lower cost of capital that spurs investment will lead to more jobs and higher pay. That's why this whole tax rebate the Congress passed and the president signed is not going to work. It's an entirely demand-side solution. People who provide the jobs get nothing while many who get the rebates will simply sock it away without spending it. The real solution to get more revenue and to expand the economy is a tax rate reduction for everyone. That's why supply-siders insist on tax cuts for everyone, not just those at the bottom of the income rungs. There's very little bang for the buck on the demand-side.

That politician who advocates soaking the rich, i.e. the job producers, and wants "targeted tax cuts" really does not help the economy in the least. Politically it sounds the best because, after all, it always sounds good to give those poorer amongst us more money. But ironically, targeted tax cuts end up benefitting those lowest on the economic ladder less than the lowering of taxes for all.

It's not the rich getting greedy, but merely capitalism producing the best results for all. As President John F. Kennedy put it when he proposed lowering the top marginal tax rate of 93% to 70% and cutting all other marginal rates as well, "a rising tide lifts all boats." John Kennedy, the brother of arch-liberal Ted Kennedy, was a supply-sider. In a speech to the Economic Club of New York on December 14, 1962, President Kennedy said, "The most direct and significant kind of federal action aiding economic growth is... to cut the fetters which hold back private spending... Our present tax system exerts too heavy a drag on growth, siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power, and reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking... In short it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low - and the soundest way to raise revenues in the long run is to cut rates now."

So Ann, that's why supply-siders advocate tax cuts so much. Because they are the best way to help the most people, with the side effect that tax revenue rises. With across-the-board tax cuts you are essentially tackling C and I together and they end up feeding on each other with both growing faster than they would if tackled individually.

And next week, class, the lesson will be on the effect of monetary policy.

Since I have no interest in discussing the finer points of economic theory (about which no two economists agree), I thought I'd jump back a few posts...

Ann, you're not alone in your beliefs about Bush's beliefs.

From here :

From here :

(The article referred to in the last paragraph is here .)

And from here :

There's more, but I think that covers the essentials.

So, yes. It seems that, on some level, Bush believes that he was chosen by God to lead the country, and that the Iraq war is part of what is in his mind a religious crusade.

A couple of side notes:

He's also spoken out in favor of teaching Intelligent design .

At the beginning of his presidency, he created the Faith-Based Community Initiative , a government program specifically designed to give aid (monetary and otherwise) to faith-based non-profit organizations (and thus promote them over secular ones).

I'll refrain from adding own personal feelings about all of this (which are probably clear enough anyway), but I thought it worth mentioning for consideration.

Even if one candidate's own brother was governor of the province where the decisive voting was taking place? Even if the ballots were oddly designed, so that they seemed to favor the candidate whose brother was the governor of that province? Even if the recount was stopped by a Supreme Court where seven of the nine jurors had been appointed by the party which fielded the candidate with the brother? Even if a previous President representing the other party had been badly smeared by media siding with the party with the brother, so that the previous President had almost been impeached over a sex scandal? So that the sex scandal made a lot of people disgusted with that President and distrustful of that party, so that they wanted a President from the party with the brother instead instead?

So that the election, because of all this, produced a President who was really hostile to the United States and who stopped all oil exports to it? And who sold oil at a reduced price to Cuba instead?

You wouldn't have had any objections to that election, with in spite of its lack of real vote fraud had all those little "irregularities" favoring one candidate over the other one, and which gave the victory to the candidate who got all those little extra favors, even if the other candidate won the popular vote?

You wouldn't have had any objection to the fact that it seemingly took all those little extra favors to the candidate who was hostile to the United States to get him elected?

Okay, Pam. If you say so. If you really, really say so, and you would have been comfortable with such an election in another country producing such an "unfortunate" President, then I understand that you have no objections whatsoever to the U.S. election of 2000.

Ann

Ann, I guess you didn't bother to read what I said about all those points you brought up since you seem to think that your accusations of unfairness were still true. Just because Jeb Bush was governor didn't mean a thing towards the ballot. I even identified the person who created the butterfly ballot that you think cost Al Gore the election. It was the Democratic Supervisor of Elections for Palm Beach County, Theresa Lapore. It was unlikely Jeb Bush ever saw the ballot because it isn't his job according to Florida law. Every single county is different and each supervisor of each county is responsible for drawing up its own ballots. The ballot is then voted on by the county elections board, of which two were Democrats and one was a Republican in Palm Beach. On top of that, each and every county was responsible for its own voting equipment. Did you know that some Florida counties used optical scanners? Others used the old tried and true punch card ballots. Some even used those old fashion levers. Florida did not have a uniform method of voting. My own state used punch cards in 2000. Jeb must have been very busy going around Florida's sixty-seven counties, trying to make sure each and every ballot favored his brother.

Did you also know state law decreed that the first ballot slot of any ballot had to be the candidate from the party of the state governor? If a Democrat had been governor, Gore's name would have been in the top slot and Bush would have been in Gore's slot. That's about as close as Jeb Bush ever got to influencing the ballot design through his voter registration card.

Falsely accusing Jeb Bush of favoritism without a shred of evidence isn't being very fair to him, is it? And when it came to the recount, he recused himself from being on the three-person Florida State Elections board. He wanted to stay as far away as he could.

There were no irregularities in the voting, except for accusations from the Gore camp that held no water and could never be proven, such as people keeping blacks from voting. The press never could find anyone who didn't vote who wanted to and they interviewed a lot of people. If you want any kind of irregularity, they favored Gore. He tried to keep the ballots of overseas military personnel from being counted since the military always votes heavily Republican. He tried to cherry pick counties that had mostly Democrats because he figured if he needed to manufacture a few votes, those were the places to do it. He wanted no part in recounts of Republican counties. Just look at what happened in the Washington State governor's election four years later. Despite all deadlines having passed, the Republican Dino Rossi led the whole way. Yet, King County kept coming up with new ballots that unsurprisingly favored the Democrat, Christine Gregoire. Long after the election, by state law, should have been settled, King County still kept finding new ballots, some of them in unprotected areas where there were no guarantees they had not been tampered with. Eventually, Gregoire was declared the winner. Talk about stealing an election.

You'll talk about hanging chads. Studies have shown that Palm Beach's hanging chads were no different than those used in the rest of the country. All ballots, even optically scanned ones, have a rate of failure. It's when the election is very close that candidates can ask for recounts. But do you think it was fair to ask for recounts in only Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade, and Volusia Counties? Who was really trying to break the rules of the election?

Then you still go and accuse the Supreme Court of trying to crown a king. Talk to Stephen Breyer, a Clinton appointee, who voted to say that Gore's recount was unconstitutional and a violation of the equal protection clause for trying to cherry pick counties (I know liberals love that phrase, "cherry pick," especially when it comes to war intelligence). I know Clinton and Gore were never really best buddies, but you think Clinton called up Breyer to tell him to vote for Bush?

Then there's the vote to stop the recount. If the recount had gone forward, Florida in all likelihood would have lost its electors since the vote could not start until after the safe harbor day. If the election had gone to the House of Representatives, Gore would have lost anyway.

Then the press went to try and recount the vote to see if Gore could have won. The conclusion: Bush would have still been president. Any way you look at it, Gore was a loser. There wasn't any chance of him becoming president when playing by the rules.

What's your complaint? That you don't like the electoral college? Nobody on the Bush team did anything untoward but defend their right to a fair election played by the rules set down before election day. Gore was trying to change the rules along the way to favor himself in any way he could. Picture yourself as an Army soldier sitting in the Balkans casting a vote for George Bush only to find out Al Gore tried to have your vote thrown out. Is that fair?

And just what the heck does oil have to do with the Florida elections?

What does Bill Clinton have to do with the Florida election? As a technicality, you say he was smeared and almost impeached. Umm, it isn't a smear if it's true and he admitted to lying in court and lost his law license. He wasn't convicted but he was impeached, btw. Impeachment is the accusation. Conviction on impeachment is removal. It wasn't the sex that lost him his law license. It was that little matter of perjury. You don't mind if a president lies under oath? But what did Bush have to do with Bill Clinton? Why was oil or Bill Clinton a part of your story? Too much oil on the ballots spoiled them?

I did read your answer, Roger. And I still believe that if the things that happened in the United States had happened in another country, and if the outcome in that other country had been that a President was elected who was hostile to the United States, then I still think that very many Americans would have grumbled that the election in that other country wasn't fair.

Then again, if these Americans recalled the US election of 2000, I agree that they might have stopped grumbling.

Ann

There are a lot of unfair elections around the world, the Hugo Chavez election being one of them. I didn't see anything beyond a grumble or two. The rest of us just take it for granted that fraud takes place in some countries like Venezuela. But it's none of our business. I do recall some Americans refusing to buy gasoline from some gas stations owned by Venezuela.

Just one question about the American economy. If Bush Jr. really did manage the economy well, where did the huge budget deficit and the weak dollar come from? He sure didn't inherit them from the Clinton administration.

Ann

Ah, that will be covered when I get the inspiration to cover the economics lesson on monetary policy and trade deficits. It'll be a fascinating discussion of the famous IS-LM curves.

Do I take this to mean that if the things that happened in the United States had happened in another country, a country that is generally hostile to you, and if it produced a President that was hostile to you, then it would probably have been fraud? But when it happens in your country, then it is not fraud?

Ann

We know the specifics of our election. It was clearly not fraud. In the case of Venezuela, and I take it that's the country you were referring to in your analogy, there were documented cases of fraud. If it's true, then it's par for the course and nobody blinks an eye. If it's false, it still isn't our business who some other country votes on to be their leader. The United States has a reputation for fair elections. True or not, it takes a lot of evidence to prove it wasn't. There wasn't any. If the foreign press tried to paint it as a stolen election for Bush and that somehow fraud occurred, then the foreign press was irresponsible given the available evidence by the US press. The US press didn't think there were any irregularities and everyone knows the US government has no say over what the press says. Just look at the New York Times which tries to expose a secret government program seemingly every other week. Why would the foreign press think there was fraud?

In a country like Venezuela that isn't entirely free, fraud is expected. If it happens, then it happens. If it doesn't, it doesn't. If the press had said there were no irregularities, then I would have no proof of fraud and would have nothing further to say. A country like Mexico is famous for fraud. If it happens, nobody's surprised or upset about it, except for the losing opposition parties.

Now point me to another country like Great Britain, Canada, France, or Japan. If somebody alleges fraud, I wouldn't believe it unless it was incontrovertible since those countries have reputations for fair and honest elections.

And to the very best of my knowledge, Great Britain, Canada, France and Japan have never had an election that was remotely like the US election of 2000. Or at least, none of them have had such an election after World War II. So of course there has been no need to question the outcome of any of their elections.

As for the fictional country of Irelia, it wasn't meant to be exactly like Venezuela. It was meant to be more democratic than Venezuela, and not as taken over by its President as Venezuela is taken over by Chavez. But if Irelia had an election much like the US election of 2000, and if it produced a President like Asaf V. Ashkov, who in many ways would act much like Hugo Chavez in his dealings with the United States, then it wouldn't have surprised me too much if the United States had tried to bring about an uprising towards President Ashkov. If there was a coup against President Ashkov, and there was strong evidence that the United States was involved, I guess you could always say that you were only trying to depose a President who hadn't been fairly elected anyway.

I seem to remember that there was indeed such an attempted coup against Hugo Chavez of Venezuela some years ago, but the coup failed.

Ann

And Roger, I know that you probably don't give too much credit to anything that is written or produced by New York Times, but I want to call attention to the following claims in an article in NYT from yesterday, March 8, 2008:

If New York Times is right about this, the economic boom that was there during the best of the Bush Jr. years never benefitted the median American household. Bush's tax cuts really only benefitted the very rich Americans, who indeed got amazing "raises" thanks to their lowered taxes. Is this the sort of economic boom you would recommend, Roger? One that benefits the richest Americans enormously, but gives no raise at all to the median American?

Here is the full article. If you can't access it because you don't have a login account with the New York times, try googling for it. The article was written by David Leonhardt, and the heading of the article is Seeing an End to the Good Times (Such as They Were).

Ann

Ann,

In Bill Whittle’s essay “Magic” (which you can read on his website, Eject! Eject! Eject!, here: http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000051.html ) he recounts a story which he says is typical of the world we live in:

“Robert Wayne Jernigan is now 28 years old. People who knew him said he was quiet, somewhat stand-offish. He was not widely liked in high school.

Four years ago, a witness reported seeing Jernigan enter a building in a remote suburb of Dallas with an axe. Four people were found dead at the scene, including a nine year old girl. No charges were filed. Less than two days later, Jernigan turned up again, this time at the scene of a suspicious fire in a day care center. Miraculously, no one was injured. But it was just a matter of time.

During the next several weeks, it is possible to place Jernigan at the scene of no less than thirteen suspicious fires. Eleven people died. Eyewitnesses were unshakable in their determination that Jernigan had been on the scene. And yet the police did nothing.

Jernigan had long been fascinated with fire. A search of his apartment revealed fireman-related magazines, posters and memorabilia. Despite the deaths of fifteen people, despite repeated eyewitness accounts and photographic evidence placing Jernigan at these fires, no criminal charges were ever filed against Robert Wayne Jernigan. He remains a free man to this day.”

How can that be, you ask? Well, what would you think if I told you Jernigan’s brother-in-law was the chief of police? Would *that* explain why the police refuse to bring Jernigan in for questioning? Or, could it have to do with the fact that Jernigan donated $5000 to the mayor’s re-election campaign?

How many more “coincidences” do we need? Why has there been no public outcry? There is no public outcry because Robert Jernigan is no serial arsonist; he is an ordinary fireman for the Dallas Fire Department. If you go back and re-read, you will see that every statement is true. Whittle calls this an example of “misdirection”, or “how to tell a lie by telling the truth”.

I can understand how, in the absence of certain key pieces of information, the past elections might, at first glance, look suspect, especially to a foreigner or to an American who depends solely on the main-stream media for his or her information. However, it has been amply demonstrated that there was NO fraud and that everything was indeed done according on the up and up. It seems pointless to me to continue to insist that those who don’t have all the facts are jumping to erroneous conclusions. Other than explaining the facts, as RL has so eloquently done, I really don’t see what else you would have us do. It also seems vastly illogical to claim that this somehow reflects poorly on our election process, rather than reflecting poorly on those who have set about to mislead and those who have allowed themselves to be misled.

Actually, Vicki, I have not claimed that there was any actual fraud. I have not claimed that the ballots were counted wrongly, although the whole "pregnant" ballots thing smells quite bad to me. Even so, I can't know or claim that the ballots were counted wrongly.

But if the election of 2000 had been a hundred meter dash at the Olympics, then I'd say that George W. Bush was allowed to start 99 meters from the finishing line. Because of his father and brother, because of the design of the Florida ballots, because of the fact that Gore's popular win didn't count, and because of the bias that I personally definitely expect from a Supreme Court where seven out of nine jurors were appointed by Republican Presidents. Also, in fact, because of the incredible way that conservative media had smeared Bill Clinton's name, so that he almost got impeached over a sex scandal (which didn't even involve anything illegal - nothing like rape or anything like that), so that quite a few people probably associated Democratic candidates with lewd and off-putting people.

Al Gore, unlike Bush, had to start the race at the stipulated 100 meter mark.

Ann

Ann, my leanings are definitely liberal rather than conservative, but I have to say that you might be beating a dead horse with this 2000 election stuff. Tempting as it is to point a finger at Jeb Bush and say that he gave the election to his brother, he does not appear to have had any influence at all.

Since I'm not a US citizen I have never had a chance to fill out a ballot here, but based on the picture that you posted I see no problems with the way the names are placed. Somebody has to be listed first, and if state law requires that it is the candidate of the same party as the current governor, then obviously Republican had to be at the top. To me, at least, it seems very clear which was the proper place to punch for the candidates.

And whether or not people like it, right now the system in the US is that the electoral vote takes precedence over the popular one. Many people are unhappy with this, many others see no problem with it at all. If this is the way the system is designed, then there is no fraud involved. The rules are clearly laid out, it's just that most people before 2000 probably weren't aware of it, because I don't think such an occasion had ever arisen before.

So I can understand how suspicious it all looks to people "looking in", but I do believe that the legal issues were in fact on the up-and-up, and the same would have held true if Bush and Gore's positions had been reversed.

Kathy

I can't speak for Ann but here is what I think: If he lied about something major that would change our country then of course I would mind. I would be furious! But like I said before I don't get why lying about who you slept with or not is such a big deal. A president is also a man and any man in that same circumstance would have lied or do you think there are many ordinary American men who would go on TV and admit to the world that he had had sex with a woman other than his wife? Throw the first stone who think under the same circumstance any man would be honest

I guess it's just different here where people think that to be a good president your past has to be clean (God forbid if you used marijuana in college! Or if you cheated on your wife ). IMHO a good president is the one that has good plans for this country and after elected I see how many of his/her electoral promisses were kept and done. I could care less about his/her personal past or if they are in the same religion that I am. I do care about their political past, though but not their personal lives. His wife should be the only one worrying about what he does with other women

Raquel

Actually, Kathy, I have to agree with you here. It's time for me to stop going on about the election of 2000. But the reason why I have said so much about it is that the details of that election shocked me so deeply. And then the President who got elected by such an incredibly narrow margin - who wouldn't have won at all if the ballots had been counted individually - started behaving so outrageously, indeed as if he had been appointed by God himself, as he made dictates to the whole world.

Yes, I'm politically left-wing. Very much so. But that doesn't mean that I have some sort of blanket hatred for Republican politicians in America! Absolutely not. The first American President that I can remember clearly is Richard Nixon. And no, I didn't like him very much at all, because of the Watergate scandal. But guess what? I admired America like heck because of the way it went to the bottom of the Watergate scandal and because of the way it dealt with Richard Nixon! Wow! I thought it was all so great. Those of you who are Americans, you don't know how much I admired your country during the last two Nixon years!

Besides, it wasn't as if I hated Nixon himself, either. I really, really admired him when he went to China and started his "ping-pong diplomacy". Really! I thought that he made the world so much safer than before! You think that I always hate Republican Presidents? Think again.

(And besides, Nixon ended the Vietnam war. He didn't start it, but he did end it. Now wasn't that admirable? You bet I thought so!)

Then there was Gerald Ford. He didn't make very much of an impression on me, and what I can clearly remember about him is that our Swedish newspapers wrote that Gerald Ford couldn't chew gum and walk a straight line at the same time, because he had played football when he was young and gotten so many concussions... No, I didn't really believe that Gerald Ford was slow, and I most certainly didn't think that he was brain-damaged, but I couldn't help giggling at him a little. I regarded him as "mostly harmless", as Earthlings are famously described by the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Don't be angry at me for giggling at Gerald Ford. I was a kid.

Then Jimmy Carter became the next President. Ah, poor Carter. I really think that he was unlucky about the kidnappings of American diplomats in Khomeini's Iran.

Then there was Reagan. I'll be honest with you... when I saw how right-wing Reagan was about certain things, I realized that I just couldn't define myself as right-wing anymore. Yes, I had voted for right-wing parties in Sweden up until that point, but because of Reagan I redefined myself politically. I have called myself politically left-wing ever since then.

But does that mean that I hated Reagan? Absolutely not! I, too, was touched and moved by Reagan's charm. You think Bush Jr. is charming? Hah! He can't hold a candle to Reagan's charm.

But there was more to Reagan than a charming smile. I'll never forget how he behaved after he was shot. People, consider. Someone had tried to murder him. And they had hit him, too, and he was in hospital, and he had had to have surgery. But afterwards, he was smiling, leaning on his wife Nancy, and that smile... oh wow! The optimism that was there in that smile, the faith in the future, both his own future and America's future... it almost blew me away. The sheer power of his personal strength and optimism.

And how did Reagan deal with the world? Not by making war on it. Not by telling the other countries of the world that they were either for America or against it, and if they were against it, they would have to deal with the consequencies. Not on your life! Not Reagan! No, what Reagan said was this: "Please, Mister Gorbachev, tear down this wall." And the wall fell, only a few years later. And the cold war ended. Those were the days.

Then Bush Sr. became President. George Herbert Walker Bush. He made war on Iraq because Saddam had invaded Kuwait, and I thought that Bush was so totally justified in his decision. And he went about the war so cannily, too. He made sure that almost the entire Arab world was behind him and took part in the war. It was brilliant. It was not Bush Sr's war, it was just as much the Arab world's war against one errant Arab nation.

And Bush bravely raised taxes. Bravo! When Clinton came after Bush, he was given such a great starting point because of the extra money that Bush Sr. had brought in to the Federal coffers. Clinton was in a position where he could lower taxes - and unless I remember wrongly, he did, too - and yet he didn't create economic problems for his country. Instead, during the Clinton years, the U.S. economy was booming.

And during all this time, I felt so good about the United States. I liked it so much. I felt so lucky that the United States was the strongest country in the world. I could think of no other country that I would be even remotely as happy with in the role of "stern but kind Daddy to the world".

And then Bush Jr. came along. Sigh.

How do I describe Bush? Do I hate him? Oh, what a simplistic word. Hate. It doesn't explain what I feel about Bush at all.

I guess the closest I can get is to say that this is what Bush Jr. has done to my image of America:



A new President will be coming soon. I can hardly wait.

(But I hope it won't be McCain... bomb, bomb, bomb Iran... )

Ann

Ignoring all the rest because Roger spelled it out so well already [things like 2 of the Republican SC Justices are so not Republican it's almost funny regardless of who they were appointed by]...

Clinton WAS impeached. Probably 90% of AMERICANS would tell you he wasn't because he wasn't removed from office, but he was. Two Presidents have been impeached. Andrew Johnson, immediately after the Civil War, for violating part of the Tenure of Office Act that was later declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court anyway. He was acquitted by one vote.

Richard Nixon WAS NOT impeached, though those same 90% of Americans would probably tell you he was. He resigned before the House of Representatives could vote on the Articles of Impeachment. He is the only president to leave office without dying or reaching the end of his term. In doing so, Ford became president - the only president to not have been elected either president or vice president [Spiro Agnew, Nixon's VP, had resigned over his own scandal some time earlier - Ford had been appointed by Nixon and approved by the Senate to replace him. There are allegations that Ford's later pardon of Nixon was part of the deal, but I don't believe it's ever been definitively proven. Rockefeller was appointed/approved as Ford's VP, also never having been elected. 2000 election aside - that's a odd way to get a president...]

Bill Clinton WAS impeached. He was impeached for lying/perjury and obstruction of justice, NOT because he had a sexual relationship with Lewinsky. Though inappropriate as a married man, it was doubly so as her 'boss' and could easily constitute sexual harassment though there was nothing 'illegal like rape' involved. (Sexual harassment however, is illegal *gasp* - and sexual relationships with bosses can *almost* always devolve into harassment.] So the only thing that the impeachment had to do with the sexual relationship was that he lied about it and encouraged others to do so.

The Constitution says certain government officials can be impeached for treason and high crimes and misdemeanors. Perjury and obstruction of justice are crimes, but are they high crimes? That's the biggest point of contention. As Roger pointed out, Clinton lost his license to practice law. Very few people would argue that he wasn't guilty of perjury at least - but was it an impeachable offense? Depends on who you ask.

The way impeachment works:
1. The appropriate committee in the House of Representatives votes on and then presents the full House with Articles of Impeachment. There was 4 in the Clinton case - 1 each of abuse of power and obstruction of justice and 2 of perjury

2. The House of Representatives acts as a Grand Jury to determine if there is enough evidence to charge the official with the crimes listed in the Articles of Impeachment. Once there is a majority vote to approve the Articles, the official is impeached. Clinton was impeached on one count of perjury and one of obstruction of justice.

3. The Senate acts as a petit/trial jury like you'd see in a legal drama. Members of the House Judiciary committee act as 'managers' or prosecutors. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the trial [in this case Rhenquist].

4. If the Senate votes with a super majority [2/3] to convict, the official is convicted and removed from office. Clinton was not convicted and it really wasn't even close. In the end, a number of Republicans basically decided that perjury/obstruction were not impeachable offenses, as mentioned earlier. To the best of my recollection, his actual guilt was in question by few people.

Removal from office is the only punishment that can be given through impeachment. Acquittal or conviction in impeachment proceedings has absolutely nothing to do with any criminal charges brought by the appropriate authorities outside the federal government.

I teach American government/political science at a community college and the majority of students in my classes believe that:
a. Nixon was impeached
b. Clinton was not impeached

And they're wrong on both counts.

And thus ends my participation in the poli sci lesson for today.
Carol

Oh my, where to start?

Paul and Ann, yes, Bush believes in a personal God who gives people things to do. So do I. And we know that human beings *never* do things exactly the way they should. But I do think people see this as a lot more scary than it ought to be. He's not hearing voices, here. He's in this job, and he's got choices to make, and he tries to make the best choices he can -- and in his case, figuring out the "best" choice involves considering what God might want. Millions of Americans do the same thing every day.

I don't agree with all his choices, of course. I think his heart's in the right place, but that's sometimes insufficient.

Yes, even if. The election went according to the rules. Those were the circumstances, that was the outcome. Can't change the circumstances, can't change the outcome. You don't like the rules, fine, you can try to get them changed for next time, but wanting to go back and change the rules *after* the votes were cast strikes me as deeply unfair. Not to mention whiny.

Glad we got that settled

Can't speak to that, really, except that I don't think he's managed the economy very well at all. I never liked his economic approach, personally. I think he's added billions of entitlement spending that's just going to keep getting more expensive. Tax cuts are good, but if spending's not reigned in, the revenue's still going to be insufficient, hence a deficit.

No. But we're resigned to the fact that election fraud does occur, from time to time. In some countries a lot more than others. Like the last time Saddam Hussein was "elected" -- with an astonishing 100% of the vote! Oh, no, wait, he was hostile to the US. So it can't have been fraud.

Unless of course fraud and hostility of outcome aren't really correlated at all.

Of course they haven't. They don't have our election system. The electoral college is fairly unique, I believe.

Really? The New York Times was negative about the state of the economy under a Republican president? No relation, no relation! But I respect Bill Whittle a lot so I should have known better.

I think the theory is that a guy who blatantly lies in one area might just be much more likely to lie about other, more national-interest type things. If he doesn't honor his vow to his wife, I get nervous about him honoring other vows -- like the one to uphold the Constitution, protect the country, etc. But I understand how that would have looked weird to Europeans; it sometimes seems like *all* their politicians have mistresses. They don't lie about it, 'cause they don't need to.

As a matter of fact, no. Nixon (and Congress) abandoned millions of people we'd said we would protect, leaving them to be slaughtered, and in the process showed that Americans would run away from a fight if enough grisly pictures showed up on the evening news. What exactly is admirable about that?

Yeah, poor Jimmy. He was incompetent from the start. 5th graders were making fun of him.

That's how you remember Reagan? And here I thought everyone was convinced he wanted to end all life on earth because he was so eager to nuke the Commies...

Well, Ann, of course I'm devastated that you don't like my country. But I'll try my best to soldier on -- no, wait, you probably don't like soldiers -- do my best to keep going anyway... somehow...

PJ

Kathy, such a thing as the loser of the popular vote winning the White House had happened three times previously to 2000 (with # of presidency in parens): John Quincy Adams (#6), Rutherford B. Hayes (#19), and Benjamin Harrison (#23).

Funny thing about Florida was that before election day, George Bush had been in the lead in the polls all the way to the end. The speculation in the press was what would happen if Bush won the popular vote but Gore won the electoral college vote since the polls were so close with Bush leading by roughly 1-3% in all major polls but Zogby International which had them in a dead heat. Nobody in their wildest dreams thought it would happen the other way around since Gore had never led in any poll up to election day after they had settled after the conventions.

If it had happened the other way around and Bush had challenged the election in the way Gore had, I would have lost a great deal of respect for him. While I didn't like Gore, he was no Clinton and would likely have done a much better job than Clinton up to the point where he turned into Enviro-man, going off the deep end.

Roger, I didn't realize that this had happened before. I guess it must have come up with news reports at the time of the 2000 election results, but I don't remember reading it.

Kathy

Roger, I love your posts, (although I suspect you're a tad more conservative than I )

but i stand in awe

c.

The US has a very poor record of follow-through and Vietnam is probably one of our more shameful ones, another being the aftermath of the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Unfortunately, once the US achieves its goals or leaves the area, we tend to wash our hands of it all. In Vietnam, we essentially withdrew all support to the North Vietnamese and didn't even try to support those in Laos and Cambodia. In part, it was the weakness of President Ford and in part it was the fecklessness of the Congress, which defunded the entire region, leaving our allies to their fate. What happened next was the bloody rise of Pol Pot and the massacre of millions. It also led to the large numbers of Vietnamese who risked death to reach our shores.

In the aftermath of our success in Afghanistan, we also turned tail and left the region, feeling that our money was better spent elsewhere. The result of the failures of President Bush (the elder) and the Congress was the rise of the Taliban, who stepped into the vacuum we created. We all know what happened around a decade later with the Taliban in place in Afghanistan.

A third one was our removal of support for the Shah of Iran. Granted he was a despised dictator, but the result of President Carter's withdrawal of support was the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Iran and the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. We all know how little trouble fundamentalist Iran has been in the subsequent 28 years.

I predict that a poor follow-through in Iraq will lead to similar or worse problems than the three above if we were to pull out prematurely.

Pam, what I think of the United States matters zilch to nobody. But there is a lot of evidence that so many people in so many countries feel the same way as I do. This quote is from Dipnote, U.S. Department of State Official Blog, and it was Question of the Week on January 9, 2008:

The article below is a bit old, as it is from January 2005, but it might be worth calling attention to anyway:

Global poll slams Bush leadership

Fareed Zakaria, who used to be editor of Newsweek (and who may still be that) stood firmly behind Bush when Bush called for war against Iraq. But Zakaria has grown increasingly disappointed with Bush. I remember that Zakaria reported from an economic forum for Southern Asia a couple of years ago. Bush was invited, and Zakaria reported how representatives from the other countries listened politely, but without much interest, as Bush devoted his speech to the matter of terrorism. But when the representative of China spoke of his country's commitment to the sound economic development of southern Asia, people were interested and enthusiastic.

The way that much of the world has been fed up with the Bush administration was made very clear during the U.N. climate summit on Bali last year, when the United States stalled and wouldn't sign an agreement. That is when Kevin Conrad, representative of Papua New Guinea, spoke up (the full article is here :

After that, the United States gave in and signed the agreement.

And just a week ago or so, OPEC rebuffed President Bush when he asked for an increase of OPEC's oil supply. The spokesman for OPEC said that the high oil price was caused by the American mismanagement of its economy.

My point is that something has happened internationally. The United States doesn't have the clout that it used to have. Oh, it has every bit as much military clout as it ever did, but it really seems to have lost so much of its moral leadership. People in other countries aren't listening to the Bush administration much any more.

I think that many people all over the world are eager for a new American President. I think that whoever the new President is, he or she will be welcomed by the world. For all of that, I think that the new President will have a tough job giving America back the international respect that it used to get from people everywhere.

Ann

All people everywhere? I'm sorry, but I don't remember that time. Sounds like I'm about ten years younger than you, but that still leaves me with about 25-30 years of political memories, and I really don't remember a time when "people everywhere" admired and respected America. And when there is a choice to be made between American interest and international goodwill, I really prefer a president who acts in America's interests. That is, after all, his (or her) job.

Oh, and to go back to an earlier point -- someone mentioned that the idea of W being the son of a former president didn't get nearly as much skepticism as the idea of Hilary being the wife of a former president. I think the order of events has a lot to do with it.

We've had father-son presidents before (cousins, too). Not frequently, but it's happened. A long time ago. Then too, W worked hard to distinguish himself from daddy, and he'd had executive experience of his own as the governor of Texas. GHWB was seen as a northeasterner, whereas W managed to come across as a southerner, which played better in the Republican party. All this put together blunted any appearance of nepotism or duplication.

Eight years later, along comes Hilary. She hasn't got direct executive experience. From what I've seen, she's not coming across as very distinct from Bill, and she's not distancing herself from him. (Personally, I can't understand why she hasn't divorced him, but that's neither here nor there). And I think people looked at the Bush-Clinton-Bush years and got a little more uncomfortable with the political dynasty idea. (There was speculation that Jeb Bush might run for President someday, making these the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush years. And how old might Chelsea be by then? It could definitely get ridiculous.)

But that's just my theory. Might have zip-squat to do with reality

PJ
who should probably apologize for previous snarkiness -- it's not a good excuse, but all four of us in this house are sick, and three of them are counting on me to do everything for them, so I get a little ragged around the edges.

p.s., Ann, I feel for your grandfather. God does heal people -- I know some of them -- but He doesn't always, and that can be really hard to understand and live with. Been there, cried about that.

Oh? Who?

Ann

Me either. I stand corrected. But I still maintain that America has never been as internationally questioned and distrusted as it is now, at least not since the Vietnam war ended. But even during the Vietnam war, the kind of distrust that the United States received was different than it is now. I think that back then, the opponents of the Vietnam war were hopeful that the United States would change its ways. During the Bush Jr administration, people in other countries who have disapproved of Bush have not been hopeful about the George W. Bush version of the United States.

I'm certain that it has never happened before that a tiny country like Papua New Guinea has spoken up and told the United States to stand back and let others lead, and it has never happened before that the world, including the traditional U.S. allies, has listened to the tiny country and not to the United States.

Ann

John Adams [#2] and John Quincy Adams [#6]

William Henry Harrison [#10] and Benjamin Harrison [#23] - grandfather/grandson

Theodore Roosevelt [#26] and Franklin D. Roosevelt [#32] were 5th cousins and FDR was married to Teddy's favorite niece Eleanor.

Carol

Okay! That's good enough.

I've never heard of either of them... I guess they weren't much good?

And don't say anything about Teddy Roosevelt and Franklin Delano Roosevelt because they were fifth cousins! Come on! And hey, even if Teddy and FDR had been father and son, I wouldn't have protested against FDR's Presidency. I think most experts agree that FDR is one of the greatest Presidents ever, and we in Europe owe FDR so much. I'd say that most of us don't feel exactly the same way about W...

Ann

I'm old enough to remember Ronald Reagan and remember him well as I was 14 when he took office. Reagan was as distrusted as W. I remember the jokes. He never graduated further than "amiable dunce" with Europeans. It seems Republican presidents are always thought of as mentally deficient among both the American and European press. The mildest term applied to both Reagan and W was "cowboy." A lot of the same names were used to describe both of them. Most of them thought he would destroy the world. When he pushed to have Pershing II missiles deployed in West Germany, the demonstrations rivaled those of Americans over Vietnam.

When Reagan joked over an open microphone that, "I have just signed legislation that outlaws the Soviet Union forever. The bombing begins in five minutes," there was a tremendous uproar as if that were evidence Reagan was obsessed with nuking the Soviet Union. Reagan was a radio personality from his Hollywood career and from his days as California governor and frequently said things other than, "testing, testing" when doing mike checks.

During the START talks, Europeans pressured him relentlessly to abandon "Star Wars" to get that agreement with Gorbachev. When Reagan walked out rather than give up SDI, clearly it was Reagan who was the warmonger. Gorbachev was more admired than Reagan in European public opinion polls. It's always interesting when the leader of the free world takes a backseat to a communist thug in opinion polls of the free world.

I don't even want to think of the things that were said when Reagan admitted to being afflicted with Alzheimer's, the mildest being, "No wonder."

Only when he was dead did people's opinions begin to soften about him outside of the US.

This is just another of those times with W. Republican presidents are always despised among Europeans so we kind of expect it.

As with Papua, New Guinea, it's also true that America has less interest in some of these topics as others. Most Republicans, in particular, don't believe that global warming exists as a man-made phenomenon but is merely a cyclical occurrence in nature that happens regardless of whether humans are on the planet. When a single volcanic reaction spews more than all the cars that have ever existed, it's kind of tough to believe in the theory, especially with so many environmental scientists who refute the theory. Europeans care about those things like Kyoto or the Bali Climate Summit. We don't lead because we don't believe. Now Al Gore would have bent over backwards for those, but not W. With Kyoto in particular, most Republicans believe it's a plot by Europeans and Asians to destroy the American economy, not an effort to curb global warming. Would you actually want the leadership of someone who doesn't believe in your cause?

We still laughingly remember those same people crying about global warming now telling us in the mid-1970's the icebergs were approaching with the world about to suffer from global cooling.

On OPEC, they say that kind of thing all the time. At this time, though, I believe OPEC was right in their opinion that the world is well supplied with oil. Oil stopped becoming influenced by supply and demand concerns long ago and is more influenced by geopolitical issues and rampant investor speculation than it is by the latest oil supply reports. For instance, this latest run-up in the cost of oil to $104/barrel had nothing to do with American "mismanagement" and everything to do with the diplomatic incidents between Venezuela and Columbia. Constant fighting in Nigeria has also caused problems for the last decade on oil prices. For a long time, every time a bomb went off in Baghdad, the price of oil would add another dollar per barrel. And our current fall in the dollar and the sub-prime mortgage credit crunch has led investors to move money away from real estate, the bond market, and the stock market into commodities with gold and oil hitting record highs.

In some corners, people blame the fall of the dollar exclusively for the rise in oil. That's utter nonsense. The dollar has depreciated roughly 17% from a year ago with oil at around $50/barrel. If the dollar was the cause, oil would be around $58/barrel, not $104.

You know what gets me about this thread? I'm not qualified for the role I had. I deliberately avoid looking into details and specifics of this stuff because it ticks me off about things I can't realistically affect from here. And yet, despite that, even I know better than what's being said.

There were people saying that there were no WMDs. But the reports were quieted. This administration has a history of quashing and/or editing reports of things they don't want to hear. And the "liberal media" has a history of giving them a pass on it.

In fact, as I recall, the report that did support the WMD theory was pretty much entirely based on the word of one guy who was notoriously unreliable.

And the war? We settled things in Afghanistan (at least, as well as they were reasonably going to be settled - we are still there, after all), and then Bush gets up and tells everyone that, as the next stage in the "war on terror," we're invading Iraq. Next day, a huge percentage of Americans believed that a link had been found between 9/11 and Iraq. It was strongly implied by the action. And people continued to believe it. There were, I believe, people linked to the administration who were deliberately spreading rumors to that effect. It wasn't until we were committed to going in that questions about the link were acknowledged. "Oh no, we never said that there was a link. (We just wanted you to believe it.)" And, again, the "liberal media" gave them a pass on it.

And then there are abuses of executive power. Unprecedented expansion of it. Signing statements... When a bill is signed into law, the president is allowed to make a "signing statement" which modifies the law before it goes into effect. Up until recently, they were almost never used (before Reagan, only 75 had been issued), and were generally used rhetorically rather than to actually make functional changes. According to this page : "George W. Bush has issued 157 signing statements challenging over 1,100 provisions of federal law." And... well, maybe it's just better if I point you to this Slate article from 2006 . He has the right to do it, but there's a good argument for the idea that he's abusing that right.

And that's just the start. There's the PATRIOT Act. And... wiretapping? We needed immediate every-second-counts clearance for that? What have they gotten out of that program? Have they caught anyone? And is it really so hard to go to the court specifically set up to pretty much rubber-stamp requests for wiretaps as soon as they come in? And then the claims of "executive privilege" to keep his staff from being questioned when Congress finally wakes up and takes notice of activities that are, well... questionable. And on and on. Grabbing and expanding executive power at every possible chance, overriding or sneaking around checks and balances that are supposed to keep something exactly like this from happening.

Back to the media... they were behind the first Iraq war, when we had reason to go there. They even knowingly helped spread misinformation to make the invasion plan work. But no, by (finally) reporting about how going in was a mistake and how things have been bungled since, they're betraying our country and making it impossible for us to win. (Never mind that, by the words of the people who were actually in charge on the ground over there, it was our own flawed strategy.)

And WMDs... wasn't that cache they found a holdover from the first Gulf War? Which had gone pretty much untouched since? And hey, if just having WMDs is reason enough for invasion, why don't we invade the country with the biggest stockpile of them? The one that actually has gone and invaded other countries and toppled governments and which has an increasingly corrupt and autocratic government and... Oh, wait. That's us.

But... Can I prove this stuff? No. Do I know details? No. Can I quote chapter and verse and point to the right quotes and reports? No. And it's frustrating. And more frustrating that I'm the only liberal American speaking up. There have got to be more of us. And this thread has, as several people have remarked, remained remarkably civil. It's not like you need to be afraid to cause trouble or something.

As for faith... I understand and respect it. Being guided by your faith is one thing. Being blinded by it is something else. And supporting it is one thing, but... it's a matter of degree.

As for the FBCI... freedom of religion should include freedom from religion. There should not be a government program designed to promote religion over secular approaches. What bothers me even more is that the liberal-run faith-based charities I know of aren't taking advantage of it. And the conservatives are the ones saying that the government shouldn't be giving money to charities in the first place. But yet... there it is. The FBCI and, as they name it on their homepage, "the quiet revolution."

Read this yesterday in the NYTimes and found it interesting - it's not particularly partisan, just informative and relates to the title of the thread.

NYTimes: Obama in the Senate

c.

This is a post I'll title: The Federal Reserve, the Falling Dollar, and the Effects of Fiscal and Monetary Policy.

To start off with, I'll address people's accusations of mismanagement of the economy by the Bush Administration. I'll surprise you to say that in part, I agree with the assessment. I would give the administration a solid C on its handling of the economy. While the administration started off strong with its across-the-board tax cuts, it has since done very little to bolster the economy since. The beginning gets an A. The middle gets a C+ and near the end a D. You'll see why I don't blame the administration for everything further down this post despite the poor grade I give them.

The tax cuts essentially saved a drowning economy in 2001. After the dot com bust in early 2000, the economy was teetering on the edge of recession. The bust was primarily a technology bust. Anyone remember what the high was in the NASDAQ stock index? It was 5048.62 just before the bottom fell out. One year later, the index stood at around 2400 a loss of over 50% of its value in a single year. That loss of trillions of dollars in value from its high is one of the most devastating blows this economy has faced in its history, rivaling the crash of 1929. For those unfamiliar with the NASDAQ index, it is the main representative of the health of the high tech industry since most, if not all, of the high tech companies are represented in this index. The crash of 1929 began the Great Depression where unemployment went to 25%. The only thing that saved the American economy was World War II. The fact that we did not fall into a recession is a reflection of the resiliency of today's economy.

The NASDAQ has never recovered in all that time. Today, the index is even lower than that value at 2212.49 as last traded. The Dow Jones Industrial Average, OTOH, has more than recovered from its losses in 2000 and is significantly higher even after losing a thousand points recently. This dichotomy illustrates just how illusionary the prosperity of the 1990's was as "irrational exuberance" reigned in the high-tech field as shown in the ridiculous levels the NASDAQ reached. The 1990's prosperity was essentially a time bomb waiting to go off, and it did in 2000. Bill Clinton rode the prosperity of the dot com boom and didn't have to lift a finger to get a powerful economy. With so many millionaires making money from dot com companies that didn't have any earnings, money was plentiful for investment and jobs growth. When it did go bust as was inevitable, Clinton did nothing, handing a failing economy to Bush. I give Clinton a D for his handling of the economy overall with a slight upgrade to a temporary B for his capital gains tax cut in 1997 and a solid F for his handling of the economy when the stock market went bust.

Investors spooked off by their losses in the stock market began moving their assets into real estate. And that began the rise of the real estate boom. That move laid the groundwork for much of today's problems in the sub-prime mortgage mess we have. Real estate values boomed during the early 2000's. I remember in San Diego when housing values were going up as much a $50,000 a week where the selling price for a home was typically tens of thousands more than the asking price. A home that cost $200,000 the year before was selling at $800,000. Is it terribly surprising that real estate could take such a fall after such a drastic rise? But that's only part of the picture.

With Republicans in charge of both the presidency and the Congress, there was an opportunity to rein in spending and wasteful government programs. In both cases, the GOP failed and spent money like drunken sailors. It makes you think divided government isn't such a bad thing. When the White House and the Congress are controlled by opposite parties, neither tends to get what it wants. When both are controlled by the same party, watch out! These "fiscal conservatives" running Washington were anything but. Only when things were getting out of control and another election approached did Republicans start to get somewhat serious about domestic spending. It wasn't enough. Some blame Iraq for the drubbing the GOP took in 2006. I think it played a very tiny role. There were actually two factors at work then. First it's the common 6-year itch. Considering the GOP avoided any losses at all in the midterms of 2002 made it more likely 2006 would be bad for them. Second, the rank and file of the GOP were tired of the spending and angry over the lack of action on the illegal immigration issue. The Mark Foley October Surprise (you can set your 2-year clock to this every time an election approaches because you know the Democrats have a dirty trick up their sleeves) caused a lot of damage among religious conservatives. So the GOP was tossed out of control of Congress. It's still interesting to note that GOP losses in 2006 were still lower than what is normal in the sixth year of a president's tenure.

Overall, I agree with Pam with her low assessment of Republican control of the purse strings.

Fred Barnes wrote an interesting book called "Rebel-in-Chief." In it, he talked about the term "compassionate conservative" and what it means. He postulated that W was never a classical conservative or a Reagan conservative. The term, compassionate conservative, meant that rather than limiting government, he would use government to forward conservative goals. An example Paul gave was the faith-based initiative where money was given to faith-based charities the same as it's given to other charities, provided the money is used for helping the poor rather than to promote religion. The use of government funds for that purpose is not what a Reagan conservative would advocate. No Child Left Behind is another example. Conservatives (I'll use that generically to cover Reagan and classic types) believe education is not a federal issue and is best left to the states and localities, a concept known as federalism. Bush is no believer in federalism. Rather he wanted to use large government programs to promote conservative educational initiatives. Unfortunately in that regard, he gave up on accountability in order to pass it through a Democratic Senate. The rank and file GOP didn't care much for the big spending this compassionate conservatism required.

What would have given the GOP good grades in the midterm or near the end of the Bush term would have been a follow through on a tax cut every year along with controlled spending. In particular a capital gains tax cut would do wonders for the economy, something that even Bill Clinton acknowledged when he signed a capital gains tax cut a few years back. Did you know European capital gains rates are lower than in the US, the average being around 5%? Even the Europeans can get something right once in a while when it comes to taxes.

Was this all responsible for the current slowdown in the economy? Partly, but there are a lot of factors at work, the least being fiscal policy. The economy is a very complex thing where it's not easy to assign responsibility to any one area. People would be surprised at how little a president and Congress can influence the economy. Presidents get all the credit and all the blame but in reality much of the economy is out of the control of fiscal policy. Fiscal policy has two purposes. It can get in the way of a growing economy and ground it to a halt. Or it can get out of the way of the economy to let it flourish. But fiscal policy usually takes a backseat to monetary policy. While fiscal policy can have a significant influence over the economy, monetary policy is the trump card.

The Fall of the US Dollar

Much has been said about the fall of the US dollar, losing 17% in value to the Euro in just the last year. Speculation as to why it has fallen has mostly been complete bunk. So why did the US dollar fall so precipitously? The elephant in the room that nobody ever talks about is China. The US has a trade deficit with China of $256 billion in just the last year out of the total trade deficit of $711 billion. It is the trade deficit that is the primary culprit in the loss of value for the greenback. It was exacerbated quite a bit by the artificially low Chinese yuan. Unlike the US dollar, the Chinese yuan is not free floating, i.e. the value is not subject to supply and demand for its value and is controlled by the government. Consistently it has been roughly 8 yuan to the dollar. But that makes for an extremely weak yuan relating to the dollar. Many economists put a free floating rate of closer to 6 yuan to the dollar, which would do wonders for our trade deficit. Despite much diplomatic pressure from countries all over the world, and the Central Banks all recognize the dangers of such a weak yuan, China has resisted strengthening its currency by any significant amount. That artificially low yuan led to massive sell-offs in the US dollar causing much of the fall in its value. Guess where the largest foreign deposits of US dollars reside? The two largest are Japan at over a trillion US dollars and China at over $800 billion. China has a lot of control in the value of the dollar and has done everything it can to maintain the artificial value of the yuan to maintain its trade surplus. That's one of the reasons why almost everything in the US is made in China. The weak yuan makes it very cheap to make things there.

In the rest of the world, this puts enormous downward pressure on the dollar where supply and demand make a difference. Europe's entire trade with China is only slightly more than the US trade deficit with China so the Euro is relatively unaffected by Chinese trade. The artificial pressure, of course, leads to the depreciation of the dollar as it relates to the Euro and related currencies.

The irony of the situation is that a trade deficit is actually a sign of strength in an economy but the contradiction of it is that persistently high trade deficits will eventually sap an economy as money flows out of the country. Why is it a sign of strength? It means that Americans have money and can spend it.

The trade deficit, however, is not the only reason why the value of the dollar has fallen. That leads us to monetary policy.

Monetary policy and the Federal Reserve
The most powerful man in America is not President Bush. The most powerful man in America for the last sixty years has not been the president. The most powerful man in America right now is Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, the entity tasked with setting America's monetary policy. Before him, the most powerful man in the world was Alan Greenspan and before him, Paul Volcker.

Just what is monetary policy? Basically monetary policy is the control of the supply of money in an economy. It is the Federal Reserve which determines how many dollars are in the US economy and determines how much to put into it and how much to take out.

Every country has its equivalent. In Europe, it's the European Central Bank based in Germany and the Bank of England which sets the monetary policy for those nations.

Monetary policy has more effect on the dollar than anything a president can or cannot do. Why? The Fed has control of the money supply and full control over short term interest rates. It's not really a very difficult concept. When the Federal Reserve wants to change the money supply, it uses a mechanism known as the open market operation, essentially the buying and selling of US securities. When the Fed wants to increase the money supply, it buys outstanding Treasuries and deposits "money" into the banks that sell them. This money is completely created out of thin air with nothing behind it. Because there is no backing, the money supply goes up. When the Federal Reserve wants to shrink the money supply, it sells US Treasuries taking money from the banks and giving them Treasuries in exchange. That money is now no longer available to the economy. This control over the supply makes a huge difference in the value of the dollar.

Much is made in the press over Fed control of the federal funds rate (rate charged for overnight loans between member banks), the discount rate (money charged by the Fed to member banks in short-term loans), or the Prime Rate (a completely artificial rate that banks use to base private loans). The real power is in the open market operations. The changes in discount rate or federal funds rate are merely a signal to the financial community what the Fed intends to do in its open market operations.

The Fed is a completely separate entity that is self-maintained. The profits it makes from interest on the Treasuries held in its portfolio more than helps it self-finance. In fact, less than 1% of the funds earned by those securities is used by the Fed. The remaining 99% is given back to the US Treasury at the end of its fiscal year. Congress and the president also have no control over the Fed since it's an independent entity. It can do whatever it wants without any limitation from the rest of the government. This is what makes it the most powerful entity in the world.

The Fed is tasked with a delicate balancing act. It must maintain economic growth at the same time as it must keep the reins on inflation. In the 1970's a loose monetary policy led to skyrocketing inflation. Poor fiscal policy led to high unemployment AND stagflation. In the 1980's an overly tight monetary policy led to one of the deepest recessions in the modern era between 1980 and 1983. But it successfully wrung inflation out of the economy at the cost of millions of jobs and a recession. Some of that credit went to Ronald Reagan who refused to budge on fiscal policy even knowing his party would take a drubbing in the 1982 midterm elections. Most of that credit actually should have gone to Paul Volcker, then Chairman of the Fed. But as I said, presidents get all the credit or all the blame. Reagan rode a booming economy into a landslide victory in 1984.

Today's balancing act is still between growth and inflation. With the rise in oil prices, it's a matter of time before the risk of inflation rears its ugly head. The Fed must choose between allowing inflation to rise or clamping down to the degree that it risks recession. While the economy was faltering around 2000, the Fed loosened up the money supply while lowering interest rates. It was at that time that the dollar began its fall. The increased trade deficit combined with low interest rates were not conducive to a strong dollar.

At the same time, the European Central Bank has a completely different charter. It's main task is to keep inflation at bay no matter the cost. It is not overly concerned with growth while the Federal Reserve tries to maintain a balance between the two. This conflicting set of priorities has two effects. First, it tends to strangle European economies with high interest rates and high unemployment. Impressive economic growth in Europe is 2% while 2% in America is treated as a growth recession. Second it contributes to weakening the US dollar versus the Euro because of the discrepancies between interest rates between the Eurozone and the US. With US interest rates reaching historic lows and the European Central Bank stubbornly maintaining high interest rates, money fled from the US into European bonds. While the Euro strengthens, economic growth for the Eurozone has been forecast at an anemic 1.8% for the year, roughly the same as the current growth rate in the US economy.

This competition gives the Fed a more difficult job. While the European Bank has only one goal, making the job much easier for them, the Fed has two. Does it allow the dollar to fall or does it strengthen the dollar by raising interest rates but risking recession at home? With the triple pounding of the US economy due to the dot com bust, the September 11 attacks, and the impact of Hurricane Katrina on the economy, the Fed has gone more towards increasing the money supply at uncomfortable levels and maintaining historically low interest rates. That has come at a cost. With no entity policing the value of the dollar, simple supply and demand meant that the US dollar had to fall. It was inevitable. The only way to preserve the US dollar would be for the Fed to induce a deep recession, a cost it was not willing to pay.

Fast forward to today. In the last few years, the Fed has felt comfortable enough to raise interest rates for about a year and a half in an effort to slow the fall of the dollar. But for every action, there is a reaction. With rising interest rates, people began to default on their loans taken out during the real estate boom. A few years ago, sub-prime (less than Prime Rate) loans were plentiful. Now with these indexed rates rising, people couldn't afford to pay their mortgages taken out on real estate they couldn't really afford at normal interest rates. This defaulting has led to the current sub-prime mortgage crisis. Banks can no longer afford to loan money because of the defaults and this lack of lending power has developed into a severe credit crunch. As credit is the lifeblood of business, businesses are feeling the pinch and are cutting back on their investments. A prolonged cutback on investment can only lead to higher unemployment.

So once again the Fed is in a dilemma. Does it allow the credit crunch to take the economy into recession or does it make an attempt to stop it? Watching the stock market fall a thousand points as a result of the sub-prime mortgage crisis, the Fed has reacted as predicted. It has begun the process of lowering interest rates and loosening the reins on the money supply again. Predictably the dollar began to fall faster with the discrepancy between interest rates in Europe and the United States approaching 2%. With higher interest rates available abroad, money heads in that direction.

Will the Fed's balancing act be able to prevent recession, especially since the rest of the government is throwing essentially a band-aid at it with the worthless rebate checks it will soon send out (another reason I give Bush a D at this point. Cut the capital gains rate!!!!!!)?

BTW, those who blame the president for the sub-prime mortgage crisis and the falling dollar really aren't aware of the relative powerlessness the president actually has in this area. It is wholly the domain of the Federal Reserve. The power of this entity can make or break any presidency since the president takes all the credit or blame for its actions. Fiscal policy really has little impact in this area and that's all the Congress and the president can control.

WHH holds the record as the shortest lived presidency with something around 30 days. He died of pneumonia after one of the longest inaugural addresses in history on a cold, wet day without an overcoat [speech was in the neighborhood of 2 hours long - over 8000 words]. However, it was over 3 weeks before he actually took sick - as we all know the best cure for the common cold is rest, which had very little of because of the busy presidential schedule. It turned to pneumonia and he died.

His grandson, Benjamin, defeated Grover Cleveland, who defeated him 4 years later.

My point with the Roosevelts was simply that they were related. TR was still extremely popular when FDR was elected and probably played something of a role in his election [though at that point, a Daffy Duck probably could have run against Hoover and won]. The fact that Eleanor was TR's favorite niece didn't hurt either.

There are 4 sets of related presidents - Adams, Harrison, Roosevelt and Bush. [There are two Johnsons, but no relation.]

Something I find interesting... many - and probably most - Americans had no idea that FDR was in a wheelchair. I believe there is only one surviving picture of him seated in it.



Without fail, the media waited until he was already standing [which he could do with the help of braces or other support] or seated in another chair before taking pictures.

Carol

I knew that he was in a wheelchair. He had polio in his youth, didn't he?

The fact that he was in a wheelchair is just one more thing that I find admirable about that man - that in spite of his disability, he was able to be such a truly great President. He must have been in pain sometimes, because I think that people who have had polio often develop pains and aches as they grow older. And yet he was able to give so much to other people, to his country.

Of course, it helped that the media were so courteous and respectful. Then again, why should they necessarily write about FDR's disability? It didn't lessen him as a man, and certainly not as a President.

Ann

Sadly, even in this day and age, some people still equate physical handicaps with mental deficiencies. It's not true, but some people still feel that way, unfortunately.

And yes, it was due to polio.

And today's media - it seems - would have had a field day with it. I agree that it shouldn't matter, but today it would. For good or bad, I'm not sure, but it would. Today's media, generally, it seems [those Daily Planet reporters not withstanding ] are anything but courteous like those who covered FDR were when it came to his disability. However, I've run into more than a few 'old timers' who had no idea until much later that he was in a wheelchair.

Just a for instance... Whether you like W or not, the man is a decent athlete, but everyone falls off the bike once in a while. I remember a huge deal being made out of it and he had the facial injuries to go with it [nothing major - a few scratches, no stitches or anything like that].

The wheelchair shouldn't have been a big deal, but color of skin or gender doesn't have much to do with your ability to be a good president either, but it seems like that's all that's discussed about Obama/Clinton most of the time. It's a novelty and a physical disability would likely be treated the same way. Regardless of it's affect on his ability to govern, it would be in the forefront of the media.

And as for why Clinton/Clinton gets more attention than the Bush/Bush thing did... Personally, I think there's a big difference between being the spouse of a president [and didn't they make a comment at one point about '2 for the price of 1' or something? I have a vague recollection of that] and the child of one - especially a child who was 'out of the house' long before the parent became president. Chelsea might be a slightly different matter or even Barbara/Jenna someday should they choose to go into politics, but W had moved out and married etc, decades before Dad was in the White House. Just my .02 why the Clinton relationship is different than the Bush one.

Carol

Roger, I just want to compare what I remember of the reactions in Europe and Sweden to Reagan with what you seem to remember:

No. And not in the same way. Yes, some people were rather horrified at his extremely right-wing policies. I particularly remember reading about how middle-class people in America were sometimes just a paycheck away from becoming homeless and being reduced to living in their cars, because if they lost their job and their income there was absolutely no safety net that would break their fall.

But for all of that - and in spite of the fact that, yes, contemptuous things were being said about Reagan being an actor who really didn't know or understand much about politics at all. But you know what? Reagan's charm penetrated much of that. Reagan was never utterly dismissed, never written off as a hopeless ....(fill in a suitable noun yourselves). His sheer personality defied the most contemptuous charges levelled against him. Besides, what did Reagan ever do that is comparable with the Iraq war? He did nothing of the sort. Remember that Bush became extremely impopular abroad only after it became clear that he was going to attack Iraq.

Reagan was portrayed as politically naïve, because he was an actor and not a politician (that is what people in Europe said anyway). But I can't recall that he was ever portrayed as stupid.

He was called that, yes.

No! People were scared of his Star Wars program, yes. But they weren't nearly, nearly as scared as they were of Bush Jr's warmongering. Hey, we could tell the difference. Reagan's Star Wars program was primarily defensive, even though it could be seen as provocative, and even if people feared that it might start a new arms race. But for all of that, it was just that - a new weapons system, primarily used for defence. It was not as if Reagan declared war on the Soviet Union.

Besides, there were huge demonstrations in Europe against Bush in February, 2003. And don't I know it, because I took part in one of them. It was huge. The main speaker said to us: "People, I have never been so afraid in my life. Because we have gathered here in Malmö, and others have gathered in Copenhagen, and London, and Paris, and Madrid, and Rome, and in all those other great cities in the world, and we are all speaking to Bush, imploring him not to attack. And yet he probably will. Because he doesn't listen to anyone. He doesn't listen to the world. He is defying us, all of us all over the world, because he will have his war. And nothing can stop him." I remember the chill that went through me as I heard those words.

So were there great European demonstrations against Reagan? If there were, I haven't got the slightest recollection of them. Did I take part in any of them? Not on your life!

If there were any demonstrations in Sweden, I don't remember them at all. On the other hand, I don't blame the West Germans for protesting. Why should they have to have missiles deployed on their own soil just because the US wanted them there?

I don't remember that joke or that uproar at all.

Yes, I remember that we were scared of "Star Wars".

You know, that wouldn't surprise me. I remember that Gorbachev was very, very admired in Europe. And why? Well, because we could tell that he was loosening up the Communist system of the Soviet Union, slowly dismantling the system from within. We thought that that was a tremendously brave thing to do. After all, we could remember previous Soviet leaders who seemed to want to loosen up Communism a little, and soon afterwards these leaders were mysteriously deposed. For a long time, we Europeans were really scared of the Soviet Union. And here Gorbachev comes along, slowly inching his big mighty Soviet Union closer to Western democracy and ideals. I have to admit it, we rather loved him for it.

We didn't love Gorbachev for being a Communist thug, but for moving the Soviet Union away from Communist thuggishness.

I don't remember that at all! The newpapers I read, and the TV and radio channels I listened to, absolutely didn't mock Reagan because of his Alzheimer. Absolutely not!

I remember, instead, that I was once again so impressed with Reagan's strength of character and his dignity and courage. He actually announced the facts of his disease to the American people and to the whole world. If I remember correctly, he said something like "I am now approaching the twilight of my life". I was impressed and moved like heck by the sheer, stark beauty of it.

So I need to insist that Europe's, and probably the world's, distrust of George W. Bush is a phenomena all of its own, quite distinct and different from the kind of distrust that has met other Republican US Presidents. I do agree with you that a European distrust of Republican Presidents is there, and most Europeans tend to prefer a Democratic US President over a Republican one. W, however, has struck most Europeans as a man who plays a whole new kind of ball game, different from anything we have seen before.

Ann

Okay, found something that's not *really* connected but, you know, it's about Sweden and taxes, so... I hereby present: The effect of tax incentives on Swedish musical groups\' funny outfits.

Some of the linked articles are in Swedish (if they're translating wrong, Ann, please let us know), but the summary's in English.

PJ

Pam, I have to admit that I'm not really interested in the effect of tax incentives on Swedish musical groups' funny outfits. Maybe I'll read it later.



This is ABBA, who in the mid- and late seventies were hugely popular in much of the world, though they never made in in the United States. Maybe the poor guys found the Swedish taxes so forbidding that they could only afford to drape themselves in aluminum foil. That's the Swedish flag in the background, by the way.

Roger, I want to thank you for your post on the Federal Reserve, the falling dollar, and the effect of fiscal and monetary policy. I found it most illuminating. I understand what you mean when you say that Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, has more influence than President Bush on the U.S. economy, because you describe a situation that is quite similar to the one we have in Sweden. Here we have Riksbanken, the National Bank, which makes its decisions about the Swedish interest rates independently of what the government might wish. Ben Bernanke similarly "rules" over the interest rates in the U.S., which gives him a huge influence.

But here in Sweden, it is the government - or rather the Parliament, but usually the party that forms the government also controls the Parliament - that makes all decisions about tax cuts or tax hikes. We had a right-wing government in Sweden in the late eighties. That government lowered Swedish taxes, because lowering taxes is what right-wing governments do. But it didn't reduce spending as its tax revenue fell. The consequence was that Sweden soon had a huge budget deficit, which caused great economic problems in Sweden for the next decade. In some ways, Sweden has never fully recovered.

So when I hear that President Bush slashed taxes and hugely increased spending at the same time, Roger, you will have to excuse me for thinking that Bush's federal "buying spree" at a time when he had made sure that the "tax revenue flow" into his federal coffers had been reduced, must have had something to do with the fact that America suddenly found itself in debt.

But there is a huge difference between an American budget deficit and a Swedish budget deficit. The difference is that the US currency is the dollar, which is also effectively "the world currency". You can use the dollar to pay your way everywhere. But if you want to buy something and you want to pay for it with, say, the national currency of Romania, will people want to sell things to you? In return for your Romanian money? Remember that if they accept Romanian money from you, then they themselves will have to try to use that money to buy goods from others. And they will have to hope that others are interested in their Romanian money. But if no one wants that money, then that money is useless. And those who foolishly sold their goods in return for the useless money have effectively given their valuable goods away for nothing.

For all practical purposes, if you have a small national currency, you simply can't use it to buy anything from abroad. You have to use your own currency to buy dollars, or possibly euros, and then you use the dollars to buy the stuff from abroad. But if your country's economy isn't in good shape, you will have to spend huge amounts of your own currency to buy the dollars you may want.

For people in Romania, and for people in Sweden, their money is only as good as the strength and the dependability of their economy. If we in Sweden get our country into serious debt, then we are in serious trouble. Our Swedish krona is likely to fall like a stone. To rescue the falling krona, we have to fix our economic problems.

In the United States, however, if the country gets itself into debt, so that it doesn't have as many dollars as it needs to, then there is a very simple solution to the problem. Print more dollars. The United States can glut the world market with dollars and people will still accept your greenbacks as valuable money that can be traded in for goods. You literally have an inexhaustible gold mine in your printing press for dollars.

Of course, if the United States just spends and spends, and keeps importing more than it exports, and gets itself deeper into debt, the dollar will eventually take a beating. That is what has happened now. Of course you can blame your troubles on the Chinese and their undervalued yuan. Or you can partly blame OPEC for their inflated oil prices. But what I see when I look at what has happened in America is a President who cut tax revenue and increased spending at the same time, and expected to get away with it by printing more dollars. And I also see the money from the tax cuts ending up in the pockets of the richest Americans, while the median American has had his or her income lowered.

Ann

EDIT: I forgot... Romania is a member of the EU now, and their currency is the Euro. And the Euro is a much, much more solid currency than any previous Romanian money ever was.

I'm beginning to see comments about McCain which are ageist by some in the American media. Given this, I think were FDR covered by the contemporary American media, they would have been all over his disability and looked for those pictures.

c.

Ah, that finicky median family income, which by the way is up. Median family income was right around $50,000 in 2000. It is now around $58,000 and it's gone up each of the last 7 years.

You make a false assumption about revenue. Revenue dipped in 2001 due to the near recession but came back strongly as the tax cuts kicked in (usually a 6-12 month lag between tax cut enactment and effects as people adjust their behavior) and accelerated even faster after another tax cut in 2003 with 2004 being a banner year for tax receipts as the economy grew over 4%. I'd like to see a European nation reach 4% growth annually.

You're dead on about spending, though, and this president has been no better than any other at controlling it. Freezing spending to the rate of inflation for just one year would come close to eliminating the deficit, which at its high was $414 billion and was $162 billion last year. The fear is that tax receipts will start to fall again with a possible recession looming and no tax cut in 4 years. It's time for another real tax cut to jump start this economy. Even a Keynesian would agree with me.

BTW, the president has no say over "printing" money. Increasing the money supply is completely in the hands of the Federal Reserve.

I, too, remember the American economy was up in many ways between 2002 and, I guess, 2006. Maybe even 2007. And because the economy was up, I'm sure you are right that tax revenue was up during those years.

I remember, too, that the New York Times regularly pointed out during those years that while the American economy was growing, the United States sunk deeper and deeper in debt. The NYT also repeatedly said that if another country had mismanaged its economy so badly, it would have been mercilessly punished by the rest of the world, and it would have sunk into a bad recession. But, according to NYT, the rest of the world - not least China, the prime creditor of the United States - was so dependent on a well-functioning U.S. economy that it refrained from calling in the U.S. debt. I remember that NYT often pointed out that only the United States, because of its unique position in the world economy as the issuer of the world currency, the dollar, was allowed to get away with what no other nation would be allowed to do.

It is at least possible that the position of the dollar will be challenged in the future. It could be that other currencies, such as the yuan or the euro, could become currencies that can be used in most parts of the world, so that it will no longer be necessary for anyone who wants to buy something from abroad to have dollars to be able to pay for it. It could be that the importance of the dollar might be decreasing. If that happens, it will become more difficult for the United States to put itself in serious debt and not suffer the normal consequences of it.

You are right that a 4% growth of an economy as big as the one of the United States is staggering by European standards.

But the inflation is up because of the falling dollar, and freezing spending to the rate of a growing inflation does not sound like an easy thing to me. Particularly not as long as the United States keeps having to meet the costs of more than 150,000 troops in Iraq.

But here is where you have to take inflation into account. I don't doubt for a moment that the median American family makes more dollars now that it did in 1999 or 2000. But if the value of the dollar has fallen since 1999 - and it really has - the "real" income of the median family could still be lower today than it was in 1999.

If indeed the median income in the United States is down, while the average income is up, that can only mean that the rich are getting richer while the majority of the Americans are getting poorer. Let me try to explain what I mean.

Imagine nine people. One of them makes $9.000.000 annually. The others make, respectively, $1000, $700, $300, $100, $80, $60, $30 and $10 annually. (I know, totally unrealistic figures. Bear with me. This is a thought experiment.)

The total income of these nine people will be $9.000.000 + $1000 + $700 + $300 + $100 + $80 + $60 + $30 + $10, which is $9.000.2310. The average income of these nine people will be $9.000.2310 divided by nine, which is appoximately $1.000.0257. In other words, the average income of these nine persons will be a little more than one million dollars! Not bad!

But the median income of these nine people is the income of the "middle guy". You line them all up from the richest to the poorest. In this case, where you have nine people, the median guy is the one at fifth place. This person has four people ahead of him, who make more money than he does, and he has four people behind him, who make less money than he does. So how much does "number five" make, then?

In this case, "number five" makes $100. That is not a lot at all. So while the average income in this thought experiment was a little more than $1.000.000, the median income was $100.

If indeed the median income is down in America, then the robust growth of the American economy has not benefitted the majority of Americans at all. (Okay, there is a possibility that a largish chunk of the population was absolutely dirt poor before, and they have gotten a raise, at the same time as the richest Americans have gotten a raise. Then a majority of the American people have benefitted, even if the median American hasn't. But I have not heard of such an inflation-adjusted raise for such a large number of the poorest Americans.)

Ann

Roger, you talked about a 4% growth of the American economy. Let's assume that the (very imaginary) people that I talked about in my last post each gets a 4% raise, too. How much extra money will each of them make because of the raise?

The nine million dollar guy will earn an extra 4% of his income. 4% of 9.000.000 is 360.000. This guy will earn an extra $360.000 if he gets a 4% raise! His raise alone will be more than a hundred times what the other eight people earned together, because their total income was $2310. Admittedly, that was before they got a raise. So how much will their raise benefit them?

The richest of the people lagging behind the millionaire made $1000 a year. Give him a 4% raise and he will earn another $40. I'm sure he will appreciate his extra forty dollars, but will they make a huge difference to him? I don't think so.

The median guy, Mr "Number Five", will get an extra $4, because his income was $100. What can he do with his four dollars? Buy a packet of cigarettes? Let's hope he doesn't smoke.

The poorest guy, who earned $10, will get an extra forty cents. Wow.

Let's imagine that these nine people each have to pay an income tax of 10%. That means that the richest guy will have to pay $900.000 in tax. (We will ignore the 4% raise I talked about earlier.) The one thousand dollar man will have to pay a hundred dollars. The others will have to pay, respectively, $70, $30, $10, $8, $6, $3 and $1. (Imagine earning ten dollars annually and they'll take one dollar away from you in tax. You'll get to keep $9.)

Now let's cut taxes so that everyone just has to pay 5% tax. Wow! Such a tax cut will get the richest guy an income hike of $450.000. The others will get to keep an extra $50, $35, $15, $5, $4, $3, $1.5 and 50 cents, respectively.

My point is that if you are poor, either a raise that is a percentage of your income, or a tax cut that is a percentage of your tax, will give you peanuts in real money. Peanuts.

Anyway, if the government gives my nine hypothetical persons a tax cut from 10 to 5%, the government will initially lose money. Before any dynamic effects of the tax cuts have come into effect, the government will lose 450.000 + 50 + 35 + 15 + 5 + 4 + 3 + 1.5 + .5 dollars. All in all, the tax cuts would mean that the government would have its tax revenue from these nine people lowered by $450,114.

I once read a suggestion that the government should stimulate the economy not by slashing taxes, but by giving every American citizen an extra sum of money. Just handing it out to everybody, giving the same amount to everybody.

Imagine that the government would just give these nine people an extra $5000. Just give it to them. How much would it cost the government? Giving $5000 to nine people would cost the government $45.000. Only about a tenth of the amount it would lose from giving these nine people the tax cuts I described.

But what would an extra $5000 mean to the eight poor people here, those who earned between $1000 and $10? Oh wow! It would mean so much! There would be so many little things that I'm sure that they desperately needed, that they would now suddenly be able to get for themselves.

What would an extra $5000 mean to the nine million dollar man? Exactly. It would mean pretty much nothing.

But I wonder what would be the best thing to do for the economy, or for the general welfare of the American people.

Ann

Why not, instead, teach those who are making the least amount of money better skills to increase their earning power so they are making more than $1, $3, $6, or $8?

Personally, I've never been really comfortable with government handouts. It doesn't seem to fix anything.

Tara

The flaw in the reasoning is that you make the assumption that nobody ever changes and that 5% is 5%. Give an employer an extra $450,000 and what does he do with it? Does he pocket it? Does he reinvest it? Does he spend it? No matter what he does with it, it's creating economic activity. And if he's an employer, even better because people spend money to make money when it comes to investment. And that money spent after getting that $450,000 could be used to hire 10-20 more people. Rich people do not like idle money. They put it to use. That's why they're rich in the first place. The best definition of a rich person I've ever heard is from the Cosby Show. Bill Cosby said that "you're not rich when you work for your money. You're rich when your money works for you." Exactly right. Give a rich person an opportunity to make money and he'll seize it.

One thing I could never understand is the propensity of the left to always assume static responses. It's clear that people will change their behavior under different circumstances. Yet nobody on the left ever takes that into account. That's the whole thing behind supply-side economics. Behavior is changed depending on the circumstance. Give an employer a higher ROI and out come those investment dollars and more jobs. It's not like $450,000 goes into a black hole and is never seen again. It's put back into the economy to make more money. And when it's investment, you get the power of the multiplier effect that does more than just hand $5 to a poor person. It gives ten, twenty people new jobs that they've never had before. Then they'll become part of the tax base and will contribute even more.

What can be more compassionate than enabling an economy to produce more and better jobs? Direct government handouts aren't going to do it. That's a recipe for keeping poor people poor. You have to give employers the incentive to hire more people. You do that by making it more profitable for them to invest.

I've always had this theory that psychologists make the best economists. Not the money managers or the accountants, but the psychologists. Economics is called the study of money but in reality it's the study of human behavior. The whole supply-side theory is based on what people will do when government gets out of their way, economically. Under a static model, you cut tax rates by 5%, you rake in 5% less in tax revenue. Under a dynamic model where human behavior changes, that 5% can ADD revenue, growing by leaps and bounds as people get hired, pay more taxes, make more money and hire even more. This is what the multiplier effect really is. It's a behavior change that ends up benefitting the economy more as a whole than as a sum of its parts.

The absolute worst kind of tax cut is a demand-side tax cut, what politicians refer to as a "targeted tax cut." Employers get nothing. No jobs are created. People lower on the economic ladder get their $5. Tax revenue probably will go down because no significant economic activity is stimulated. What then? Explain how that makes anybody more than marginally better off. Give an employer a tax break and you can point to the ten people who were previously unemployed who are now contributing.

I don't know anything about those tax cuts by the Swedish right wing politicians, but since your right wing is further left than our left wing, I wouldn't be at all surprised if those tax cuts that lost your treasury so much money were of those inefficient "targeted tax cuts" variety that generate little to no economic activity.

Even stock analysts are psychologists masquerading as financial experts. There are two types of financial analysts. There are fundamentalists and there are technicians. Fundamentalists look at the numbers a corporation generates and decides whether that company is worth investing in. Technicians couldn't care less what company they're looking at. What they look at are the little squiggles on charts that show stock movement in the past. By studying the little squiggles, they can accurately predict to a certain degree how a stock will do in the future. That field of study is known as technical analysis. Fundamentals can tell you a good company to invest in but a technician can tell you when to buy and sell stocks from that good company. A really good technician can make money on any stock, as long as it's publicly sold and has good liquidity (lots of shares sold daily).

Those little squiggles are basically patterns of behavior. People behave differently under different circumstances and those circumstances can be interpreted by the movement of a stock over time. You can make out patterns like pennants, moving averages, Bollinger Bands, teacups, inverted W's, etc. Some predict that events over decades can accurately predict a stock's movement. Those are the Elliot Wave technicians.

One of the most successful investors of all time lives in San Diego. His name is Larry Williams and I've had occasion to chat with him a bit. He invests purely in commodities futures. He studies those little squiggles all day long and places his orders based on those squiggles. He makes millions a year doing just that. All he does is buy and sell futures contracts and never actually takes delivery of any actual commodity. All that's done just by studying people's behavior. I should also say he writes books on investing, too.

I wonder why the left, in the face of so much evidence that people do change behavior based upon the circumstance, simply can't seem to get themselves to believe in it and act accordingly? Instead it's always his 5% is bigger than his 5%.

Y'know, my in-laws are from Canada. When I first met them, they were pretty reliably liberal. But in the mid-nineties (I forget which year) they had moved from a large house in Nashville to a larger house in New Jersey, and that was the year that President Clinton hit people with a retroactive tax-hike. My mother-in-law was totally disgusted. She figured that if she'd spent that money, she'd have employed lots of local people fixing up and furnishing her house, and helped out the local economy. How was it supposed to be better for that money to get sent to Washington and then distributed... wherever? Especially after all the money the gov't would spend on collecting & processing it. Sort of an epiphany for her.

Sept 11th moved her a little more to the right. Two years ago, we even sort-of agreed on some things. One evening, over Christmas, we were talking in the living room, and she mentioned that my father-in-law was doing a sinus-cleaning procedure that involved squirting water up his nose. I snarked that she'd better not tell John McCain; he'd say it was torture. She laughed. My liberal brother-in-law was shocked. "Now I *know*," he said, "that you're not making fun of John McCain." We glanced at each other, grinned, and said, yeah, we were. Ah, good times...

PJ

I realize that I should probably leave this thread alone by now, but I have been thinking about a few things that you've said, Roger, and I'd like to add a few things on my own.

If I have understood you correctly, you say that rich people are the key to the well-being of a country. Rich people are, I think you have said, the ones who invest, who employ others, and who generally keep a country going. And the richer they are, the more they can invest and employ, and the better off their country will be. Therefore, it should be in everybody's interest that the rich keep getting richer, even if the median citizens, let alone the poor ones, keep lagging farther and farther behind. (Although I think you claim that siphoning off money and sending it selectively to the rich will eventually benefit the median and poor citizens, too.)

I have more or less scoffed at this idea. However, after giving the matter some more thought, I think I have realized something &#8211; namely, if a country has virtually no rich people at all, chances are that all of the country will be just dirt poor. Where will the surplus come from that is absolutely necessary if you want to invest money and create things that can generate further growth? For example, one of the countries today that is generally in trouble is Chad. Are there a lot of millionaires in Chad? Are there people who are willing and able to build factories and to run modern effective farms in Chad?

You are right, Roger. It does take a surplus to invest and to build things that aren't absolutely necessary to just survive for today. If no one has that kind of surplus, everyone will just have to concentrate on merely surviving.





That said, however. Can we really assume that rich people are always going to use their surplus wisely and in such a way that it benefits others? If you give a billionaire a huge tax break, what prevents him from taking all his extra money and putting it in a bank in Switzerland? Or what prevents him from investing it all in a factory in China?



Perhaps he will buy himself another luxury yacht... who knows if it was made in America?

It seems to me that the American ideal of cutting taxes for the rich is built on the assumption that rich people are particularly good, wise and altruistic. Therefore it is best to just entrust all that extra money to the rich and have faith in their ability to put their money to the best possible use. But this is something I can't do.

My impression is that there are very few countries in the world which suffer from a real shortage of filthy rich people. Surely you find the super-rich or the so-much-richer-than-you kind of people pretty much everywhere, except possibly in Chad. And yet there is poverty and corruption and all sorts of societal ills in so many of these countries, in spite of their billionaires.

Yes, I know. So many of these countries are not democracies. They are fractured along ethnic and religious divides, and people belonging to different clans, and so on. Clearly rich people in such countries will not try to benefit their societies as a whole, but instead they will try to favour their own clan, or their own ethnic or religious group. That sort of thing will not happen in a country like the United States, or at least, it will happen to a much lesser extent.

But for all of that, what will happen when the richest Americans always get the biggest tax breaks and the biggest raises, so that they increasingly move into another reality than other Americans? And what, in the long run, will it do to ordinary Americans to see the rich ones lose contact with the ground and soar higher and higher into a lofty realm far above ordinary people? Into a lofty realm, where ordinary people's troubles and worries don't exist, and can therefore conveniently be forgotten altogether?


The rich are taking off.

I once heard that a Professor of psychology or something like that had conducted a survey, where he asked a lot of people the following question. Which would they prefer, having their salary doubled but becoming relatively poorer all the same, because everyone else had their salary quadrupled? Or having their salary halved, but becoming richer all the same, because everyone else had their salary reduced to a fourth of what it was? What was most important, becoming richer in absolute terms or becoming richer in relative terms? A large majority answered that what they would have liked best would be to become richer than other people, and what they feared most was becoming poorer than other people. If this psychological need to keep up with other people in economic terms holds true for Americans, too, then an American society where the rich leave the rest of the population in the dust may be headed for trouble. Particularly if the median and poor citizens are not only left far, far behind, but especially if their incomes also go down in actual terms.

I think that a country which consistently keeps giving more and more of its resources to the rich will become a society which slowly but steadily moves away from the idea that all human beings are the same, and have equal values. Here in Sweden, everyone was acknowledged to have the same value in 1921, when every adult Swede, man or woman, got the same right to take part in the Swedish elections and cast their votes. Before 1921, women had not been allowed to vote. And in the very early twentieth century, rich men in Sweden actually had more votes than poor men. One rich man could have, I think, possibly dozens of votes. The richer he was, the more votes he got, quite literally. But if a man didn't have a job at all and no income, he also didn't have the right to vote at all. In 1899, when Sweden still had this income-based voting system, a well-known Swedish poet, Werner von Heidenstam (who was a rich man, too), wrote a poem where he protested against this system. The most famous lines from that poem go like this, in a rough English translation: It's a shame, it's a stain on the banner of Sweden, that citizenship is money.

(How did all of Europe become so stratified, with a rich upper class separated from the rest of the population? How did the rich Europeans get so rich? Well, many of them belonged to the nobility. The nobility were the people who, way back in the Middle Ages, had been given a special tax exemption, so that they didn't have to pay any taxes at all. Therefore they and their descendants became filthy rich, too. It was the poor people who had to pay the taxes that were necessary to keep society going. Ehh... does this sound familiar in any way?)



European nobility.

It was this kind of stratified society, with a privileged upper class of nobility and nouveau riches and an oppressed underclass of poor people, that drove so many Swedes and other Europeans to leave their home countries in the nineteenth century and move to the United States. But isn't this kind of stratified society making a comeback in America? Aren't the privileged upper classes back with a vengeance in the United States?

Is it, well, always fair that rich people in the United States are rich? Do they all deserve their money because they are gifted, driven, talented and smart? Have they all worked hard for their money? Or is it possible that quite a few of them are rich because they have been given money by their rich parents or spouses?

Let's consider a rich Swede, Björn Borg, and his son, Robin Borg. Björn Borg, born in 1956, had an extremely average childhood. His father owned a small neighbourhood grocery store, exactly the kind of grocery store that he would have been forced to close down by now if he had tried to hang on to it, because these days people prefer to go to shopping malls or supermarkets instead. Björn's mother was a housewife who helped out a bit in the store. Björn himself was a very average student in school, absolutely nothing special. He did excel at sports, though.

When Björn was nine, his father, Rune Borg, was a moderately good ping-pong player.



And one day Rune Borg won a ping-pong tournament, where the first prize was a tennis racket. He took the racket home and showed it to his son, who got interested. &#8220;Can I have if, daddy?&#8221; &#8220;Yes, sure.&#8221; And so Björn took the racket and some tennis balls and got outside and started pounding tennis balls at his parents' garage door, much to his neighbours' annoyance. He kept doing this, day after day, week after week, until he had learnt to control the ball. His PE teacher found out that Björn was good at tennis, and made sure that the kid became a member of a tennis club. That wouldn't have cost the family much at all. In Sweden, sports for kids are sponsored and subsidized by the government.

Björn soon proved to be amazingly talented. This YouTube video shows Björn at age fourteen, in 1970. He has just reached the final of a relatively big Swedish national tennis tournament, where he was beaten by a 25-year-old, and he is being interviewed by Swedish television for the first time. He is saying that he is tired, that the other guy was stronger, that he plays tennis nine hours a week and that he hopes to play Davis Cup in the future.

Interview with Björn Borg, fourteen

At fifteen, Borg became a high school drop-out. He believed that his time would be better spent practicing tennis than attending school, and accompanied by his coach, Lennart Bergelin, he travelled all over Europe by bus, taking part in all tournaments that would have him.



Björn eventually went on to win the Wimbledon tournament five times:



Because Borg was such a good tennis player, but also because he really became an international star, he became rich beyond his parents wildest dreams. They themselves became rich, too, only because of their son.

Björn has two sons himself. The older one, a chubby young man in his early twenties, is named Robin. (Well, Robin is mostly thought of as a boy's name in Sweden.) Robin Borg is a tennis player too. But, well&#8230;



This is Robin Borg, son of Björn Borg. I think it's fairly obvious from the picture alone that Robin Borg is never going to be a tennis star. It seems likely that Robin will never have any sort of splendid career of his own. And you know what? He doesn't need to. He is still going to be richer than most of us will ever be. Because he has a rich daddy.

It doesn't bother me at all that Björn Borg's parents and sons are going to be rich just because their son and father is able to give so much money to them. I don't see that Rune, Margareta, Robin and Leo Borg's wealth is going to hurt society in any way. However, if some positions in society are going to be given exclusively to rich and privileged persons who often owe their positions to their parents, then that may indeed be a real problem. And since we are talking about politicians in this thread, how about George W. Bush? To what extent does he owe his position as the President of the United States to his father?

It is of course impossible to know what kind of life and career George W. Bush would have had if his parents had been extremely ordinary, but let's try to imagine it anyway. If Bush's parents had been absolutely ordinary, they would only have been able to send him to a very ordinary, not-too-impressive college. I guess it is even possible that they would not have been able to send him to college at all. Let's assume, however, that they were able to send him to some sort of college, but let's also assume that a degree from that college wouldn't automatically open all sorts of doors for him.

Let's assume, too, that Bush had been forced to have a part-time job to meet the costs of his college studies. Maybe the demands of his job would have made him tired, so that he couldn't concentrate as much as he needed to on his studies. If he needed special tutoring, his parents wouldn't have been able to pay for it.

You remember, too, that Bush was a young man while the Vietnam War was going on. I guess you know that Bush never went to Vietnam. Who knows, maybe that had something to do with his father being able to pull some strings. Suppose he had had a very ordinary father instead, a father who couldn't do anything to keep his son out of Vietnam. Suppose Bush had been made to go to Vietnam.



If Bush's fate in Vietnam had been average, then he would have returned home alive and physically unhurt. However, there is a real possibility that he might have been killed or disabled.

It is even more likely that Bush might have suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome if he had been forced to serve in Vietnam. We do know about Bush that he has a propensity for addiction, since he came close to becoming an alcoholic. Maybe if his life had been harder for him, because he had to work while he studied or because he had to go to Vietnam, he might have been ever more likely to find comfort in the bottle. Maybe he would even have become a drug addict, particularly if he got traumatized inVietnam.

I guess that Bush would at least not have run a smaller risk of becoming an addict if his parents had been ordinary. Since we know that he drank too much in the rich and privileged life that his parents gave him, let's assume that he would have drunk too much if his parents had been ordinary, too.

I have no idea how Bush got over his near-addiction, except that he got religion. It is certainly possible that he would have found God if his parents had been ordinary Joes, too. So let's assume that this version of Bush got religion and stopped drinking, too. However, I assume that if our present-day rich George W. Bush needed professional help to get over his addiction, his parents would have been eminently able to pay for any help he needed. They wouldn't have been able to do that if their incomes had been average. Also, they wouldn't have known people who knew people so well that they would necessarily know what clinic or therapist would be best for their son.

Now consider George W. Bush, born to average parents. He went to a nothing-special college, had to hold a part-time job while he studied and graduated without distinction. He was sent to Vietnam and returned feeling jittery and shaken. He started drinking and was a drunk for a while. He then found God, and with the help of his congregation he was able to become sober. He would have had few connections, little money and a name that only his acquaintances recognized. Okay, and from this position he tried to become the President of the United States. Would he have succeeded?

Let's return for a moment to Björn and Robin Borg. I'm pretty certain that Robin Borg has a tennis scholarship somewhere in the United States. Would he have received such a scholarship if he had been an ordinary chubby guy from Sweden with a bit of tennis talent? You know the answer.

I once read a comparison between George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush in Time or Newsweek. The article said that whatever George W. Bush had tried his hand at, his father had done better before him. Is it possible that George W. Bush simply doesn't have the skills and ability that his father had? Could it be that he just isn't as qualified for his job as his father was? Is it possible that he is the President of the United States for two reasons, because he has a charming, TV-friendly personality and because he inherited everything else he needed to become elected &#8211; only he didn't inherit the skills?

A left-wing politician in Sweden recently said that all American Presidential candidates are right-wing, and the reason for that is that all American Presidential candidates are rich people. They are rich because you simply can't launch yourself as a Presidential candidate in the United States unless you have a lot of money to fuel your personal rocket:



And because the Presidential candidates themselves are rich, they are going to understand the concerns and needs of rich people better than they understand the concerns and needs of poor people. Admittedly, this doesn't always hold true. There have been many rich people who have devoted their lives to helping the poor and disadvantaged.

But the problem in the United States is not only that the Presidential candidates themselves are invariably rich. A further problem is that they are dependent on huge donations to finance their presidential campaigns. Who will give them those donations? Who will be able to give them so much money? Other rich people. So in America, rich people become presidential candidates and they have to appeal to other rich people to get the money they need to campaign. How do you get rich people to give you so much money? Not by telling them that you are going to increase their taxes and funnel more of society's money into helping the poor.

I think that because politics in America is so incredibly dominated by rich people, it has become almost a truism that it is good for society to do what is good for rich people. Because this is what rich people want to hear and this is what they will pay others for saying. Why is it so good to cut taxes for the rich? Maybe because it can be mathematically proved that this is going to be uniquely beneficial for society. But on the other hand, maybe this is what rich people want to hear, and because of their great influence in the American society they are able to pay others to repeat this message over and over again until it becomes a truism &#8211; cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes.

In 1974, when I studied sociology at the University of Lund, all the other people taking this course were Communists. I had all those interminably long arguments with them. They argued that Capitalism is evil and that it ruthlessly funnels money from the poor and gives it to the rich, creating a society reminiscent of slavery. I actually agreed with some of their points, but not with their conclusions. They insisted that it was necessary to overthrow the democratic system and give all power to the Communists, who would be in charge of making society fair and equal. This is the counter-argument that I repeated back at them, over and over:

&#8220;How do you know that those Communist people will not abuse the enormous power you want to give them? How do you know that they will use this power wisely and altruistically? How do you know that they will not hang on to their power just because it gives them so many advantages? How do you know that they will not make life worse for other people just so that they will be able to hang on to their own privileges?&#8221;

For those of you who think that the best way to make society better is to make rich people even richer, I have a similar question for you. How do you know that the rich ones will use their enormous wealth wisely and altruistically? How do you know that they will not be chiefly concerned with hanging on to and increasing their own privileges, maybe even to the detriment of others?

Ann

I've been lurking in this thread and am choosing to stay out of the debate, but I just wanted to say that I am really impressed with your last post, Ann. You made some very valid points that got me thinking.

This entire thread has given me food for thought.

I wouldn't generally post in this type of thread, but I need to point out something re the rich/poor debate.

My natural tendency is to be a socialist since I believe in equality. It's hard to climb a ladder you don't even know exists. So, my first instinct is always to say, yes, let's distribute wealth. I know a lot rich, selfish people. I don't think they have the foggiest clue how to help their fellow man, even if they have the desire to do so.

Unfortunately, having worked with the federal government far too often, I don't really trust them to spend the money any more than I trust a random wealthy person to spend the money.

IMO, all the systems are seriously screwed up. The socialist system depends on a bureaucratic nightmare wherein wealth is distributed on the basis of flow charts and computer programs, none of which can accurately represent reality. The money supposedly taken for the general welfare ends up being spent on needless renovation or endless studies that conclude nothing.

The capitalist system depends on the charity of the wealthy to care for those who cannot care of themselves. This is clearly problematic because of the simple fact that most humans are self-interested to the point of narcissism. If you're lucky, the wealthy person was raised with a conscience and cares about others. But even then, it's a matter of getting the 'ear' of the wealthy person in order to have your cause be heard. And, the wealthy can become swept up in their charity balls and other events that are more social activities than actual fundraisers.

Basically, I think we should all just agree that the systems we have are flawed. They were invented by flawed human beings and are therefore bound to have issues. I have friends in both camps (and a few Marxists and anarchists just to mix it up) and what I hate most about it is that they can't seem to be civil to each other. They're so sure their POV is right, they demonize the opposition instead of learning from them. I disagree with this entire mentality.

This is why I could not vote in this poll. Every single politician I know lies. It's their job. Even the ones I actually like as people aren't necessarily people I would want as friends. They wouldn't get to run for president if they were an honest grocery store clerk. Nobody wants to hear the hard truth or that someone doesn't have an answer. We want to be promised things, to believe that a utopia is possible. As long as we, the people, continue to expect marketing from our politicians to get votes, we are never going to elect anyone worthy of the office. It's pretty easy to stand on the outside and say what should be done, but by the time a politician runs for presidency, he has sold and compromised pretty much everything just to be able to get along with people. That's the sad truth. No matter how much Obama claims to be the fresh new voice, he's not. He got where he was by trading in the backrooms just like Clinton, just like McCain. They all do. Especially the successful ones.

This is why I now call myself a "nothing." I have no political views anymore. None. I only vote because I feel it's my civic duty. It's not a great place to be, let me tell you.

I now close this depressing rant. I also take this moment to encourage anyone with children to consider moving to a deserted island. Possibly on another planet.

(I'll be responding to things throughout your post, but that seemed to be the money 'graph. So to speak )

The answer is, we assume that the rich will be selfish (it's a basic Christian doctrine that all people are sinners). They will seek their own good, and they'll want to get richer. The trick is to set up society in such a way that getting them richer also makes other people richer, which is where capitalism comes in. Lots of people, all acting in their own self-interest, all benefit. The humble boy becomes a tennis star and hires, I dunno, a publicist, an accountant or two, massage therapists. His travel to tennis tournaments means he spends money on transportation (maybe a travel agent?). He buys nicer clothes, bigger TVs, cars and video game systems for all his kids. This all benefits the tennis star -- but it also benefits massage therapists, airlines, and auto workers. That's the theory, anyway.

You're right, wealth alone doesn't do it. For the above theory to work, it's crucial to have a stable society, rule of law, equality under the law, and property rights.

Have you heard of the Prisoner's Dilemma? Imagine two petty crooks robbed a bank together, were both picked up by the police, and interrogated separately. There's not much physical evidence. If they both stick to a narrative of innocence, they might both get away with it. If only one of them puts the blame on the other, that one gets immunity, but the other goes to jail for a long time. If both of them blame the other, everybody loses and they both go to jail, but not for as long. Cooperating is the best strategy *if* the other guy can be trusted to cooperate. If he's got a history of ratting you out, though, you'll be better off if you blame him.

So that's where rule of law comes in -- if, say, two people sign a contract and they're both honest, they both benefit. If there's cheating on one side, the honest one loses. If the laws of society have penalties for cheating, less cheating will occur. If there are no penalties, or the penalties aren't enforced, then it actually becomes illogical *not* to cheat.

tangent
(There are other factors like religious beliefs that play in here, but I'm ignoring them for now) (actually, no, that might fit -- some religions teach that sooner or later, cheating *will* be punished, and that increases the odds that those believers will stay honest)
/tangent

I notice, Ann, that relative wealth seems to be a theme.
I cut you off there because I don't want to take it as given that the results do hold true for Americans. Where was this survey conducted? Americans like to be richer, yes, but they don't usually want to make everyone else poorer. There's a phenomenon called "keeping up with the Joneses" which is about competitive consumerism. If the Jones family buys a new car, the Smith family wants one, too. Jones gets a new power saw, Smith gets a bigger one. The Murphys trump that with a remodeled kitchen. Etc. Nobody in this game is running around trying to destroy the neighbor's stuff. That wouldn't be the same thing at all. (They're probably all in debt up to their eyeballs, but that's another story.)

Money in a bank in Switzerland means more money that can be loaned to other people. That benefits entrepreneurs who go on to hire people, etc. Factories in China are a great source of cheap goods, which increases the spending power of Joe Average.

So what if it wasn't? Think globally! Perhaps there's an up and coming boat builder in Chad who could really use the hard currency.

In the mid-nineties, Bill Clinton & the boys hiked up a tax on luxury yachts. The principal result was that boat builders went broke.

You responded to Roger:
And the phrase "siphoning off money" struck me. First, you seem to be dealing with a zero-sum mindset here. If one guy gets a bigger piece of the pie, it's because someone else had part of their slice taken away. Except that isn't true. The entire pie can and does grow, which benefits everyone. Second, how does letting someone keep more of their own income constitute "siphoning off"? That seems to assume that the government owns the money in the first place, which I would strenuously disagree with.

Lower and middle income people really don't pay that much in taxes, btw. You can't just look at rates, you have to factor in deductions and exemptions. Speaking for the decidedly non-wealthy Jernigan household, over the last few years, our net personal taxes have run about 4-5% of our income, even though some of our income is in the 28% bracket. If the tax cuts are allowed to expire, we'll have to pay more.

The other general point I want to make is that membership in "the rich" is anything but static. People get rich, people go broke. Sometimes they go on to get rich again. A large percentage of "the rich" have not inherited money, they earned it. You compared it to nobility, but I don't think that works. Nobility is the ultimate old-boys club; if your ancestors didn't suck up to the right monarchs, you've very little chance of ever getting in. There's no such barrier to getting rich.

I'd write more (perhaps I'll get to W tomorrow) but I'm hours past my bedtime...

PJ

Thanks for the post, Ann. I always like to hear your opinion.

First I never said that rich people should get all the tax cuts. Notice I've always mentioned across-the-board tax cuts for everyone. Tax cuts for the rich only aren't going to help too much either. Rich people who invest aren't going to get much money if their customers can't buy anything. Taking into consideration that demand is low, and you know companies always forecast demand, companies will also cut back on investment. The problem I have with most politicians is that, first assuming they even support tax cuts, they always want to insist on "targeted" tax cuts that only go to people who aren't rich (and the politician always gets to define what rich means, and that figure always seems to go down every year). A supply-side cut would go to everyone equally. Granted 10% to someone making $30,000 a year isn't as much as someone making $300,000, but ask what $3,000 means to that person making $30,000 versus a $3,000 cut going to somebody making $300,000? It wouldn't mean nearly as much to the rich person, so by necessity a larger dollar amount will go to the richer person even if the percentages are even. Populism always sounds good but doesn't make for sound economic policy.

This is an extremely misleading statement. By whose measurement are the biggest tax breaks always going to the rich? I've never seen one in my lifetime. While those at the top usually get a larger amount, dollar-wise, they NEVER get a bigger percentage. In fact, the people at the top always get a smaller percentage. I've been watching politics for a very long time and I've never even seen a proposed tax break that gives the rich more as a percentage. In fact, after every single tax cut I've ever seen enacted, the proportion of taxes paid by the wealthy always goes up, not down. The top 1% make 25% of the income here in the states but they pay almost 50% of the taxes. The top 5% pay about 70% of the taxes. The bottom 50% pay just a bit more than 3% of the taxes, keeping in mind median family income is around $58,000. With percentages like that, just how much bang are you going to get with a "targeted" tax cut?

Wow, here's another statement that shows mindset. Nobody gives the rich anything. The rich weren't always rich. They had to make their money. While there are always children who get their money from their wealthy parents, at some point their parents made their money. It wasn't handed to them. The job of government is not to make sure all outcomes are equal. Government's job is to make sure opportunities are as equal as they can be. People, for the most part, are free to rise as high as their abilities can take them. There's a reason America doesn't have royalty. They saw royalty back in the 1700's and wanted no part of it. The society was set up so that class didn't exist. There was no bourgeoisie versus the peasants. Everyone was free to grab the opportunities that were available to them. No one can guarantee outcome, though.

Back to tax cuts, letting people keep more of what they earned isn't "giving" them anything. Once more the language has been altered in so many people's mindsets that the thought of letting people keep what they've earned is somehow a gift.

As for societies that are poor like Chad, you're right, besides the fact that no one's wealthy enough to invest. There's a missing ingredient besides the lack of rich people. It's a lack of freedom. Money without freedom doesn't mean anything either if you aren't free to do with your money as you wish. In places like Chad or even Saudi Arabia, where there's money galore, there isn't any freedom. The normal people are generally oppressed and don't get much, if any, of the benefits a capitalistic society could give them.

I don't expect them to. That's the great thing about capitalism. You said that capitalism is based on trust that rich people will do what's best for society. That actually isn't really a prerequisite for capitalism. The beauty of it is that people working for themselves in order to better themselves also end up benefitting others whether it's through giving many people jobs or buying a yacht made by those workers in Connecticut who now have a bit more job security, unlike when Bill Clinton raised a luxury tax on yachts and found workers being laid off by the thousands forcing him to retract the tax increase. Granted, you're right. There's not much stopping someone from shipping their money off to a Swiss Bank or buying a yacht made from another country. First with the Swiss Bank, that's money sitting around doing nothing. Rich people don't like money that isn't working for them. In their own self-interest, they would prefer to invest it in order to make more money for themselves rather than stuffing it away in a sock or just making simple interest on a bank account. Capitalism is based on self-interest. The interests of individuals work together to make everyone better off rather than relying on altruism, which is actually a failing of socialism and communism. Those types of economic systems are solely based on altruism and not at all on self-interest. The only effect is to make everyone equally poor. That's actually why they fail so miserably because people inherently aren't completely altruistic as a whole. Granted communism also tends to create a fabulously wealthy oligarchy that lords it over their "comrades," so socialism has one benefit communism doesn't have, a political yoke that doesn't need to be thrown off.

I contend that the reason why capitalism works and socialism and communism don't is because capitalism is based on human nature. Socialism and communism are not based on human nature. Socialism and communism only work if universal altruism can be achieved. We all know that's impossible. Despite Lois and Clark, Utopia simply doesn't exist. That's why communism failed. Socialism will eventually fail as more and more people stop working and the overburdened welfare state collapses under its own weight. The US suffers from this somewhat, too. The debt bomb we have facing us is based on two very socialistic programs, Social Security and Medicare. Unless those programs are made more capitalistic, they will implode and take us down with them.

You also talk about people staying poor and transferring money to the rich. It's more static thinking. For instance studies in the 1980's showed that Reaganism benefitted many in the lower rungs. While statistics showed a consistent count of people in the lower income ranges, the studies showed they weren't all the same people. One of the groups that benefitted the most were minorities, who started their businesses and owned their first homes. The great thing about a capitalist society is the ability to move from dirt poor to fabulously wealthy. Even if you don't make it to the top 1%, many do make a very comfortable living. Additionally, an economy is not a zero-sum game. For some reason leftist politicians always seem to think that the rich making money somehow takes away from those earning less. I'm glad to see you didn't fall for that with that study you mentioned about people given the option of getting richer at the expense of falling behind those who got even richer than they did. You at least acknowledge it isn't a zero-sum game, which most on the left can't seem to bring themselves to admit. I have to say, despite that study, making everyone a bit wealthier can't be a bad thing. Most leftist politicians, instead, seem to favor class envy, always pitting the rich against the poor for their own political benefit.

I find it interesting that that study says people would rather lose money and stay equal with others than to be better off, yet losing ground. It does show how psychology plays into socialism and communism. People would rather that everyone be equally poor than have everyone better off at the risk of having a class of rich. That it's essentially like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Where and when was this survey taken? Was it taken in a country with socialist propensities anyway? If it was, i could understand the mindset. I would doubt that that opinion is universal.

As for the part about money flowing out of the country, the capitalistic system also takes that into account. When money flows out, the value of the currency does tend to depreciate. And if money flows in, it appreciates. That becomes an equalizer. Given a system that is efficient, eventually those imbalances work themselves out. I put in China as a great unequalizer. They artificially hold their currency low in order to make everything cheaper than they ordinarily would be. The true course of supply and demand would eventually strengthen the Chinese yuan, smoothing out any trade surpluses they might have with other countries. But since they do not place their currency as a free floating entity, they have the effect of disrupting the normal flow of capitalism. That is why the trade balances continue to worsen because supply and demand cannot be made to be equal.

As Pam pointed out, there are benefits to having this trade with China, even at the cost of a weaker dollar. People are able to buy a lot of things they may not have been able to afford if they had been made in the US with it's higher wages and higher cost of manufacturing. While it's damaging to the dollar, it's not all bad.

On Bjorn Borg, I recall reading an article about that Swedish 103% top marginal tax rate Sweden used to have where he was one of the people who declared his residency to be elsewhere to avoid paying the tax even though he still lived in Sweden. He also made almost all of his money outside of Sweden.

On George W. Bush, it's hard to say what would happen. He did okay for himself in business. He made his money himself. It wasn't inherited. Whether he got his opportunities through his father's name, I couldn't say. But once he did get in the door, he made the most of it. He's reasonably bright. Remember he had better grades than John Kerry, the genius, at Yale.

On the business of him being in Vietnam, one of the things brought out by yet another Democratic October surprise was the falsified documents that cost Dan Rather his job opening up the door to finding out just what happened in the days of Vietnam. What few in the press reported, because it didn't jive with Bush the draft dodger was that he volunteered for a regiment in the Texas Air National Guard that was in Vietnam at the time he signed up. By the time he got in after a waiting period and basic training, the unit had rotated out. On that whole issue of his using dad's name to get in, the commander of his unit mentioned that it was easy to get in as an officer. There were waiting lines for enlisted personnel but none for officers, so anyone could have gotten in who had qualified with a college education. Once he did get in, he volunteered for Palace Alert three times, a program that would have sent him directly to Vietnam and into active combat. He was denied all three times with the reason being that he did not have enough hours in the type of jet he flew to qualify. So a man who was vilified for dodging the draft in reality had volunteered for a unit already in Vietnam and then tried to get there three times, only to be turned down. Didn't hear that much in the mainstream press, did you?

I should say that I am not advocating pure capitalism by any means. Capitalism has its own problems. It's here that government can actually play a role by leveling the playing field. There are excellent reasons why monopolies are generally illegal and why collusion is a bad thing and why insiders are scrutinized for illegal stock trades that can make them rich based on insider information.

Government's job is to ensure fair competition. It's still competition, though. It's when fair competition exists that capitalism blooms.

Roger, you claim that a tax cut of $3,000 for a person who makes $30,000 is for all intents and purposes the same as a tax cut of $30,000 for one that makes $300,000. Well, here is where I disagree. Because I'll insist that the person who got $30,000 got ten times more than the one who got $3,000.

That's what I mean by funneling off or siphoning off more and more of society's wealth to those who are already rich. Because I think that is exactly what you are doing when you give ten times more to the person who already has ten times more than the other.

Sorry about not answering that question, at least not directly. Instead, I want to call into question why we talk about percentages at all, and what we mean by "targeted" tax cuts. Let me start by the targeted tax cuts. If I get you correctly, you use that term to describe tax cuts that go primarily to the poor and median families. A targeted tax cut directed at them would mean, I guess, that people who earn below a certain income get a higher percentage of their taxes cut. That is, if you are poor, you only need to pay 5% tax, but if you are rich, you have to pay 10%. That sounds unfair, yes. But do you know how you could make the problem go away?

It's easy. Don't target anyone. Don't talk percentages. Don't make the tax cuts a percentage of the taxes people pay already. Make the tax cut a fixed amount, and give the same fixed amount to everybody. Say that everybody gets a tax cut of exactly $10,000. So some people don't make enough money to pay that much in tax? Well, good for them! They don't have to pay any tax at all. Others are so rich that they pay millions in tax. Well, they get a tax rebate of exactly $10,000, just like everybody else. What an easy system!

This is an interesting statement, and it is correct, up to a point. As long as the rich have to pay taxes, it is true that money is taken from them. It could be argued that very many didn't deserve the money they earned in the first place, that they came by it by tricking or fooling others or by playing the money market or the IT market or some other kind of market in such a way that they ended up earning huge amounts of money that others lost. Or they got the money by inheriting it. On the other hand, it is certainly also possible that they made it fair and square, by working hard and doing things that benefitted all of society. Whatever the case, when they had to pay taxes, money was taken from them.

That's true. But if you are going to have a society at all, it is going to cost money to run it. That money has to come from somewhere. Different societies come by the money they need by different means. In medieval Europe, the nobility didn't pay any taxes at all, so the money was taken from the peasants, who already had so little. Ah, but there were many of them, and their total income and property, and their total work capacity, wasn't so bad. The peasants could be made to give half of what little they had to the king, the nobility and the church. Besides, they could also be made to work without pay for the upper classes, almost as if they were slaves.

Another kind of "society" is the mob. It finances itself by extortion, by forcing ordinary people to pay for "protection". This, of course, is also a kind of "tax".

There are also clans, which finance themselves by treating their own members as human assets, particularly women and children, who can be married off or sold on various terms. The clans' young men can be used as work horses, as drug couriers etcetera.

Personally, I think it is a splendid idea to make the rich pay most of a taxes that a society is going to need. I actually think that that is probably the only really humane way of getting a society the income it needs.

For all of that, Roger, yes, it is true that the tax system is taking money from the rich, rather than giving it to them. What is the alternative?

But I insist that the system does give money to the rich, all the same. The system is stacked in favor of those who are already rich.

Remember the IT bubble? I remember that you, Roger, harshly criticized Clinton for his handling of that. And I have no doubt that he could have done better. For all of that, who did most of the "blowing up" of that bubble? Was it the little people who, at most, had a few hundred dollars to invest? I don't believe it. I believe that the biggest players, the most important "inflaters" of that bubble, were people who had a lot of money to invest. Rich people.

More interestingly, when that bubble burst, very many people lost a lot of money. Many rich people made huge losses, but poor people too, who had never even played the market, lost out too. An not inconsiderate part of the money needed to keep society going had been speculated away on a capitalist wheel of fortune.



When the wheel stopped turning, so many people found themselves broke. Even many of those who had never staked any money at all suffered.

But the money invested in that wheel of fortune didn't disappear. Somebody made off with it. Somebody made a fortune on it. Much of society took a beating, but somebody got filthy, filthy rich.



If that person had stolen the same amount of money from a bank, I guess he (or she) would have gone to prison for life. But if you play the capitalist wheel of fortune, you can bring all of society to its knees financially and make off with an unbelievable fortune, and the law can't touch you for it.

Let me give you another example. This is Lars-Eric Petersson, who was executive officer at Sweden's largest insurance company, Skandia.



Skandia insures maybe half of all Swedes. We in Sweden are dependent on Skandia when we need insurance. You see those figures on the right of Peterson? The first figure, 185 Mkr, stands for 185 million Swedish krona, about $30,000,000, which Peterson was accused of simply taking from Skandia - from the money which was meant to cover costs for the Skandia policy holders - and giving it to members of the boards. (The members of the boards were, excuse me for using the expression, Petersson's buddies.)

The other figure, 37 Mkr, about $6,000,000, is the amount that Petersson was accused of taking from the Skandia policy holders and giving to himself as an added pension.

I said that the members of the boards of directors of Skandia were Petersson's buddies, while he himself was the executive officer. Well, there's more. Peterson himself was a member of the boards of many other important Swedish companies. Guess what? It was one or other of his buddies who was the executive officers of those other companies. They showed their loyalty to Petersson by giving him a huge salary as well as extremely hefty fringe benefits of literally all kinds. No wonder he had to pay them back by taking 185 million Swedish krona from the policy holders of Skandia and giving them to his rich pals.

There is still more. Executive officers of big companies in Sweden routinely get big, big extra bonuses every year. Why do they get them? Well, maybe because they have fired a lot of workers or closed down a production unit or two, so that they have cut the company's costs and helped it make a bigger profit. Sometimes, though, the company makes a loss, sometimes even a big loss, but the executive officer (and usually quite a few members of the boards) still get a handsome bonus. Why do they get it? Because the company is doing so well? Uh... because they themselves are such big and important people and it wouldn't be right if they didn't get a couple of extra millions just because they hold such an important position in society?



This is a mug shot of Bill Gates from 1977. Isn't it adorable? I have no problem with people like Bill Gates being rich. I don't begrudge geniuses their success. But I have a big, big problem with the idea of society stratifying into classes, where those who belong to the rich get richer just because they were rich in the first place.

I hate when people talk about raises as percentages of incomes or tax cuts as percentages of the tax people pay. Because it is when you talk about percentages that you can make a poor person's raise of a hundred dollars sound just the same as a rich person's raise of a million dollars. But those two raises are not the same! They are not! One of them is ten thousand times greater than the other!

But raises are also a cumulative thing. If you are going to give the same income hike percentage to a rich and to a poor person for a number of years, the income gap between these two people will grow. Imagine that one person earns $100.000 a year and another person earns $10,000 a year. That means that the rich person earns $90.000 more than the poor person.

Now give both of them an annual raise of 10%, and keep doing that for ten years. After ten years, the rich person will have a yearly income of $235,795. The poor person will have an income of $23,579. Not bad! The poor person has more than doubled his income. You could even argue that he isn't poor any more. Yet the income difference between these two persons has grown. The difference used to be $90,000 in the richer person's favour. Now it is $212,215, more than twice as large as it used to be.

However, poor people rarely get an income hike of 10% per year. Rich people, however, frequently do. So while it is quite realistic to assume that a fairly average rich person will get a yearly raise of 10%, it is very unrealistic to assume that a poor person will get even the same percentage as a rich person. When it comes to real money, to actual dollars, the rich person leaves the poor person in the dust. And the stratified society gets cemented.

Ann

I do indeed. In the US, a person making $30,000 a year would be in a 15% tax bracket. A person making $300,000 would be in the 33% tax bracket. $3,000 would be roughly 2/3 of the first person's taxes while $3,000 would be 3% of the other guy's taxes. The second guy may barely notice he got a tax cut and wouldn't change his behavior while the first guy would consider that $3,000 to be a huge windfall. The whole idea behind tax cuts is to get somebody to change their behavior. The rich guy isn't going to be doing much differently and certainly isn't going to end up hiring anyone as a result. That's not much different than a "targeted" tax cut and ends up being mostly demand-side as a result. In other words, ineffective, if your goal is to promote economic activity. The tax system isn't meant to do social engineering. It's meant to stimulate economic activity. At least that's what it ought to be. The left always considers the tax code to be a method of redistributing income, not gaining money to run the government. Isn't that the whole goal, btw, to raise money to operate the government, as you said? To do that, wouldn't you want the most effective method of raising money?

In reality, even supply-side tax cuts always benefit the lower income levels disproportionately. Thousands of families always get removed from the tax rolls entirely while the burden on the rich gets bigger as a result. So many on the lower income levels get a 100% tax cut while the rich usually get something considerably smaller as a percentage. So where's the complaint?

It's highly unfair to say that the rich are all a bunch of criminals. I see pictures of Bill Gates in prison or claims that so many people are stealing or running protection rackets. Those who are actually stealing go to jail. Many white collar criminals do end up in jail. But to claim their income is the result of ill-gotten gains is an unfair thing to say. You can complain about bonuses all you want but the Boards of Directors who hand out bonuses are all subject to stock holders and can be voted out and fired if they do something considered egregious.

We also don't have a medieval tax system anymore when only the poor paid any taxes. The rich pay enormous taxes. Your wish is that they pay all the taxes. But there aren't enough rich people to do that and run a government. And if you take too much money, your economy will start to slide and you end up losing tax revenue as a result. But hey, as long as the rich suffer, who cares, right, according to your study that you wrote about?

Let me tell you about the Alternative Minimum Tax. It was an idea, of course by a liberal, to make sure that all rich people paid taxes even if they qualified for lots of different tax deductions. Basically, you fill out two different tax forms, the regular one and an AMT one. Whichever amount of tax is bigger is the one you end up paying.

It was intended to hit only a few thousand tax payers, total, those uber-rich who use tax deductions to end up paying nothing as a result. Well, those behaviors often include what many people do today. It's hard to find someone who isn't invested in the stock market today, whether it's through a 401K or in mutual funds or directly in their own company's stock. That thing that's intended to hit only a few thousand ultra-rich is projected to hit 23.4 MILLION taxpayers this year. In 2010, AMT is projected to hit 33 MILLION taxpayers. Again you have the law of unintended consequences.

That dot com bust didn't affect just the rich. It affected many lower and middle class families as well as they saw their stocks, mutual funds, IRA's, or 401K's vanish into thin air. Many lost their retirement savings who even a left-wing politician wouldn't classify as rich. Is that what you call only the rich participating in the bust?

I'm not defending the rich, btw. They don't need defending. You can soak them with taxes all you want and they'll come out on their feet, whether it's through hiding their income or reducing their economic activity. The goal through taxes is to gain money to run the government or to stimulate economic activity. If you want to accomplish those goals, then the people who are the job producers must be involved. If your goal is to redistribute income or social engineering, that's completely different. But it won't help you get money for paying for all those welfare state programs that will eventually drive socialist economies to their knees.

It's a common phrase but it's true. "You don't get a job from a poor person."

I see now that it was very unfortunate that I chose that mug shot of Bill Gates. Because my intention was absolutely not to show him as a criminal. I thought it was obvious that the mug shot was a joke. Let me repeat: I don't begrudge Bill Gates his money. I don't regard him as a criminal, but as a benefactor of society. And the same goes for other rich people who have made remarkable inventions or created a lot of jobs in their home countries.

I do, however, regard Lars-Eric Petersson and his ilk as criminals. I think that they are much bigger criminals than some of those people who are actually sent to jail by society. Petersson was prosecuted, by the way. However, just a few days ago he was found not guilty by an appeals court. The court ruled that it was not clear that Petersson had overstepped the bounds that were given to him as an executive officer, that it was not clear that he had had any criminal intent, and that it was not clear who was actually responsible for making so many million dollars disappear from Skandia. According to what market magazine Privata Affärer reported in 2003 about Skandia, the board of directors had for years channeled hundreds of millions of Swedish krona from the policy holders to the stock holders of Skandia, costing the stock holders billions and resulting in less money that could be paid to to the policy holders when they needed it in a case of emergency. But no one will ever be prosecuted for that.

That could be true, Roger. But an unfortunate truth in Sweden has been that people have literally had their jobs taken away from them by rich persons, who themselves got richer by costing others their jobs. Like I said, rich persons have been given extra money, extra benefits and bonuses for closing down production units, for selling their companies abroad and for taking jobs from Sweden. Sometimes, yes, the production units didn't make a profit, but very often they did. It was just that the CEOs and others felt that they could make an even bigger profit by closing their Swedish production units down and opening other units up in Lithuania or somewhere where the work force could be paid a fraction of what the workers would be paid in Sweden. These CEOs live in Sweden, operate in Sweden, and make money by taking jobs away from Sweden, making Swedes unemployed.

Ann

This is shifting the focus, but I've been reading about the Jeremiah Wright issue today. I had no idea. Have to say, it really changes my thoughts about Obama. I'm wondering how others have reacted to this?

c.

About the same way I reacted to the Geraldine Ferraro fiasco.

alcyone

Yeah. There are times when you can blame an underling for pulling tricks that the actual candidate couldn't get away with, doing the dirty work so the candidate can keep his/her hands relatively clean. But, more often, there are times when you can't blame the candidate for being associated with someone who mouths off or has nutty views or whatever.

Obama has said he's gone to this guy for spiritual advice, not political, and that he had no idea he harbored such offensive views. The comments in question weren't made in Obama's presence. I don't think you can blame him for it, and I'd apply the same standard to any other candidate in the same situation.

But, Paul, Obama was close to this guy for 17 years - how could he not be aware? It's that which left me really wondering. My first reaction was what Alcyone said. But the more I read, the less it seemed so.

c.

I'm going to stay on the same focus as before, sorry.

Why would you take money away from the common coffer of society and give it to a rich person who barely notices that he got an extra $30,000 that year? If he doesn't notice that he got more money, why give it to him in the first place? Why not take his extra $30,000 and give it to ten poor people instead? They, after all, will surely notice the extra money they got!

Anyway, I'm unimpressed with your tax rates. So if you make $30,000 a year you are in the 15% tax bracket, and if you make $300,000 a year you are in the 33% tax bracket? Well, I nominally make about $48,000 a year, but I only ever see about $30,000 of it, because I pay 40% tax. So what? I make do on my $30,000 a year, and I trust that the government will put my $18,000 to moderately good use.

Really? That system is meant to stop people from making all sorts of tax deductions? And it's going to hit 23.4 million taxpayers this year? And 33 million taxpayers in 2010? Well, wow. You know what tax deductions I make per year, Roger? I usually get a $150 rebate because I commute. Okay, I also get a $600 rebate because I save for my pension.

Don't you have any faith at all in your government's ability to put its tax revenue to good use? Let's talk about Medicare. Clearly the system doesn't work very well for America, since a lot of people are either completely uninsured or else insufficiently insured. What can you do to give medical care to those who are uninsured? You can give them care through charity. However, charity is given on a completely voluntary basis, and as far as I can understand, nothing stops the charity givers from making special requirements of those they may consider giving their money to. What if it is a religious charity? I am a non-religious person. Would a religious charity give money to me to pay for my medical costs, and expect nothing in return?

I am a non-religious, leftist person. Suppose my taxes were slashed in half, at the same time as the government stopped paying for medical care for Swedes. We would either have to pay for it ourselves or we we would have to rely on charity.

Now suppose that I am willing to give a part of the money I got from my tax cut to charity. And suppose that those in charge of the charity ask me who I want to give my money to. There are two persons who need it. One is a religious conservative, one is a non-religious person with leftist sympathies. Who do I give my money to? Really, there is no contest. I will give my money to the non-religious, leftist person, and if no one pitches in for the religious conservative, he will indeed be left to die.

But do I want such a system? Would I prefer it over the system we have now? NO!!!! I don't want people to be left to die because I don't share their views. I don't want people to be given care in proportion to how "desirable" or politically correct I find them. I want people to be given care irrespective of who they are and what views they hold! I don't want medical care to be allocated to people in accordance to how well-liked they are by charity-givers!

I just don't believe that the only way to stimulate the economy is to give people tax cuts, particularly in such ways that the richest people are the ones that get the most dollars from the tax cut. I don't see why the government can't use the money itself to do good things and make good investments in a society. Remember FDR? If I'm not totally mistaken, he took tax revenues and used them to hire people to build infrastructure in America. Roads, bridges, maybe railways, that sort of things. That was good for America. It was good for America to get infrastructure built, and it was good for the people who got hired to get jobs.

These days, much infrastructure in America is old and in need of repair. I remember that a bridge fell down a few months ago, probably in Minnesota. And a gas main blew in New York, making some people think that the city was under attack again. Instead of cutting taxes and just trusting rich people to put that money to good use, why doesn't the American administration take some of its tax revenue and use it to hire people to repair infrastructure all over the United States?

In Sweden, the government has been running many successful companies. For example, for the longest time it was the government which supplied all electricity to all Swedes. The government used tax money to meet the costs of producing electricity, but it was also absolutely obliged to keep prices reasonably low and to make the supply of electricity very dependable. And it worked very well.

Then some years ago, the government - then a Social Democratic government, but an unusually right-wing Social Democratic government - decided to sell and privatize the production of electricity in Sweden. Since then the price of electricity has skyrocketed. There is a bewildering array of suppliers of electricity that the consumers can choose between, but one thing is certain - even the cheapest of these suppliers is much more expensive than the government-supplied electricity ever was. Also, they are more undependable. A much-publicized case deals with a community in northern Sweden, where the electricity company has cut electricity for the street lights, leaving the community in pitch blackness during the long dark winter of the north.

Don't you believe that the government can use its tax revenue wisely at all? Don't you think it can do better with that money than just give it back to the rich?

I believe that a government can and should do better than that. That is why I define myself as leftist.

Ann

We never know each other completely. How much do you know about your priest/minister/whatever's political views? Or your accountant's? And how much does either one really reflect on you?

It's something to take into account, perhaps, but I personally wouldn't give it too much weight.

I wouldn't if it were my accountant.

But my minister is a different thing. There's a community involved there and the minister is the spiritual leader of that community. When his or her sermons include matters that are political then you know. I really find it hard to believe that Obama had no idea about what this man had been preaching. It just doesn't make sense.

c.

Ann,

Not so much, no. For instance, not long ago, here in San Diego County, there was a tax hike put in to pay for repairs to the roads, which are in a horrid state. Did the roads get fixed? No. The roads are still in a horrible condition. What happened was the money went in to a general fund and was siphoned off for other projects, most of which do not benefit a majority of the people in the county.

And remember Hurricane Katrina and how the dikes failed and New Orleans flooded? Those were supposed to have been maintained and upgraded and the local government didn't because they were so corrupt and used the money for other things.

So, no. I don't trust our government to spend my hard earned money.

Tara

Does this article make you feel any differently about it, Carol?

Here is another interesting link from another perspective, not likely found in most news articles.

A snippet:

alcyone

I'll return to my own main topic later, but it may be a few days. It's going to be a post that I need to compose carefully, and I have very little time this week.

Meanwhile, though, regarding Reverend Jeremiah Wright. I find it hard to take offense.

There are two ways of looking at blacks (and for that matter, women) in the American society. Both groups have had some of their rights taken away from them (blacks have arguably have pretty much all their rights taken away from them in the past). Both groups have made strides toward equality, but both groups still suffer from, well, being-treated-less-than-equal. There are, as I said, two main lines of attitude you can take to that, if you yourself are either black or a woman (or both). You can say to everyone that, yes, this is me, I'm black, or I'm a woman, but that's no big deal, since we've all agreed that all people are equal and have the same value. Or you can still rant and rave about unfairness and inequality. Me, I would recommend a combination of these two approaches, where, however, the "we-have-the-same-value" approach would dominate. It's better to talk about the future, to be sure, than to hang on to old wounds. Nevertheless, if you see people that still want to beat you up because of your race or gender, you have the right to speak up about old grievances.

It seems to me that Barack Obama is all for talking about what unites Americans, not what separates them. That's fine with me. Reverend Wright, however, still wants to focus on the bitter legacy of the past and the inequality that still makes blacks suffer. I don't blame him.

I don't quite believe Barack Obama when he says that he wasn't aware what views Reverend Wright holds. I think he knew. I think that a part of him agrees with Reverend Wright. Surely Obama must be aware of the injustice that is still there at least in parts of the American society. But for all of that, I believe that Senator Obama himself does not believe that confrontation is going to be the best way to further either the interests of the blacks in the United States, or the interests of the United States as a nation.

In other words, I think that what Reverend Wright may have said is, honestly, no big deal, and it does not reflect Barack Obama's own approach to himself and other blacks in the American society.

Last year, or maybe two years ago, the woman who was director of the shelters for battered women in Sweden put her foot in her mouth so badly that women's organisations in Sweden are still reeling. This woman, Ireen von Wachenfeldt, said in front of TV cameras that men are animals. Ahhhh gaaaahhhh!!!! Of course, because she spent all her time working with battered women, she had heard so many horror stories about brutal men. Nevertheless, everybody was totally outraged and horrified, and her incredible faux pas meant that her organisation got less money from the government the next year, would you believe it, even though the number of battered women in need of shelter has definitely not gone down.

People sometimes say things that horrify others. We can choose to focus on their incredibly unfortunate choice of words. Or we can try to understand what they really meant and why they said what they said. Last but not least, we can ask ourselves if these statements should be allowed to smear and call into doubt a much wider issue, such as if the shelters for battered women in Sweden still need as much financial support as before, or if Senator Obama is still reasonably trustworthy (at least as trustworthy as other politicians). I answer both questions in the affirmative.

Ann

You misread what I said in response to why everybody shouldn't get the same amount, not percentage. I said he probably wouldn't notice a $3,000 tax cut since his tax bill is large enough that he wouldn't notice such a small variation. He'd certainly notice a $30,000 tax cut considering that would be about a third of his total tax bill.

Wouldn't it be better to have the money go to use and create new jobs rather than just transferring it from one person who earned it to someone who didn't? It's amazing how much better people feel when they've earned what they have instead of having someone give them something that someone else earned for nothing. That isn't a tax cut. It's confiscation. In government-speak, that's called a transfer payment. If individuals do it, they'd be put in jail. I'm talking about giving back to everyone part of what they've earned and paid in taxes.

Frankly, government sucks at what they do and they waste billions every single year. I trust the people more than I do the government. People on the left trust government and not the people since they can't be counted on to do what's right with their money. Only leftist, elitist politicians know what's best for us. It's incredibly ironic. I trust a system where you don't need to rely on people's altruism, yet I trust the people. Whereas socialists believe in a system that completely relies on altruism, yet don't trust the people. Hmm.

As an aside, the Congress under Republican control did pass a $400 billion bill for rebuilding roads and bridges. I'll be surprised if half of it actually gets used for roads and bridges.

If you give a good tax cut to everyone, the whole economy benefits, the government gets MORE tax revenue due to higher economic activity and a broader tax base, and lots of people get jobs. If money is confiscated from the job creators, no new jobs are created. It's actually a good bet that jobs are lost. Government is applying tax policy to redistribute income as opposed to getting money for funding itself.

What is your goal of tax policy? From everything you've said, your goal is to redistribute income no matter the consequences to the economy just like in that study you cited. You sound like a believer in that "cut off your nose to spite your face" way of thinking where it's bad that rich people benefit even though everybody else does as well. My goal is to create an environment that helps the most people and makes everyone better, not just those at the bottom or at the top, and as a side benefit, broadens the tax base and raises tax revenues.

I'll start with the disclaimer that I don't support Obama and that I'd think he'd be terrible as president because he's a liberal and has never held a chief executive's job and has barely more than a year in his Senate job.

Having said that, I don't hold him accountable for what others have said. Without evidence that he believes what the preacher said, I have to give him the benefit of the doubt. Unless he gives me a good reason to doubt him, I consider him to be an honorable man. I've never cared for when the press does this whole guilt-by-association with a politician. Should we all be held accountable for what a good friend says, even a close spiritual advisor?

I'm at 1000 posts! Whee! Top Banana, here I come!

Thanks for the links. I'd checked the NY Times, as well as the Washington Post and LATimes, Slate and Salon before I posted my question.

The 2 links above focus on the overall theology that is being expounded by that Church and also by Wright. But they omit the political comments Wright has made and it's some of those that are troubling, (like "God Damn America") not because he doesn't have the right to say those things (he does!) , but because Obama regarded him as a "close personal/ spiritual confidant". He's used both terms, as well as referring to Wright as a mentor.

Would you regard someone as a close personal confidant if you did not approve of some of the things he said and advocated? The close, personal nature of that relationship is what is significant on this case. How do you chose a spiritual advisor?

I would not be concerned if Obama had been just a casual churchhgoer - not giving much thought to what's being said or usually not going, but that's not the case.

The other aspect of this relates to Obama's platform - he stresses harmony and condemns "divisiveness" yet Wright's rhetoric is divisive within the context of the larger American community.

Mr. Obama says now that he was not aware of those things, but that now that he is , he disavows them. But how could he not be aware, given the circumstances?

As well, since Clinton is blamed by most in the media for things her supporters say, I'm trying to understand why Obama isn't. Why the imbalance? They used to call Reagan the Teflon Man because nothing stuck to him. It's beginning to look like Obama has picked up that label

Roger said:
I mostly agree with this. (I can always think of an exception say if candidate X was hanging out with Adolf Hitler every Saturday night ) I do think the press gets carried away with it. Even worse, they take so much out of context and don't use consistent standards when reporting this sort of thing.

I agree with Alcyone's implication that Wright and Ferraro are of similar significance but the difference is the attention the media pays.

c.

But Wright isn't talking to the larger American community. That makes a world of a difference. A President needs to talk to the larger American public. A community leader building up a specific community working with a specific history does not and should not. Context means everything.

If Obama were to espouse that rhetoric, then it'd be something different and wholly inappropriate for his political position.

How many presidents have been friendly with Evangelical churches (even to the degree that Obama is to Wright)? The content of their messages is different, but the inflammatory rhetoric is the same, because its fundamentally directed at a specific (very narrow) audience. Unless a candidate runs on that message, I don't see why it has anything to do with the larger public. We like to think that churches have nothing to do with politics, but this is simply not true. The shock here is that instead of Wright's remarks being right-wing politically inflected, they are left-wing. This is clearly not something we're used to, add to that the race element (to which America is doubly sensitive) and it puts people on edge.

Plus, that this man was close to Obama, does not necessarily mean that all their conversations and activities were along the lines (or limited to) of his incendiary messages or that Obama just nodded his head.

Interesting, because I got the sense that the media went crazy over the Obama thing precisely because of his previous position as the darling. The clip of the Reverend has been playing on the news (Fox, CNN)non-stop since it came out.

Not to mention that most articles I've read definitely go for a similar angle and even a couple of liberal blogs I frequent are highly critical. I found around two or three in a mess of ten or fifteen that tried to look at the other side.

I don't think this is something the media is overlooking or going to overlook any time soon. I don't get a sense Obama is getting any special treatment because of it--I see no imbalance in this specific incident. The only thing I would weigh in on is that Clinton's side should have put a lid on the Ferraro thing immediately. Had they done so, that would have been more minor than it turned out. Lucky for them, this takes the cake. I wouldn't be surprised if it crushed Obama's chances myself.

So I would argue that because it happened right after the Ferraro thing, the glare might be a few notches up on Obama and certain pundits and especially conservatives are loving it. They've been waiting for a long time to pin something on him. I imagine it must feel like Christmas.

alcyone

Yes. Not quite the same, but one of my old best friends, a close personal confidant, is... get this... a republican! And I didn't even know it for years. We talked about a lot of things, but, keeping to that handy rule of friendship, avoided getting too much into politics. Of course, once I found out... we were still friends. She advocates stuff I don't agree with, but she's still a good friend. ... Actually, that happened with more than one good friend. It's weird, I know.

Both Clinton and Obama have had supporters/staffers say things that got them in trouble. And those people have left the campaign. There was a whole trail of them for a while. But, like I said... I don't think it's entirely fair to hold them accountable for what their supporters say.

I haven't had a chance to check the papers since early this morning, so it sounds like there's been a lot of coverage of the Wright thing since then. I was dismayed by the shoddy journalism involved in the coverage of the Ferarro business, and it sounds like I'll find the same thing in this case, too, based on Alcyone's comment. (btw, this was true in the Canadian papers as well) This weekend and this morning, however, most media were giving it a pass, although some did include Obama's press release on the issue.

Paul wrote:
I agree, but imo when those individuals are part of your official campaign team, as Wright was, it's a different matter.

We all have personal confidants who disagree with us, and our lives are richer for that. (for example, my husband and I are more likely to vote differently than not ). But this is different. Obama has said that Wright was his mentor and spiritual advisor, so that makes the relationship a lot more significant - Wright was substantially more than just a supporter, even a very public one like Ben Affleck.

Btw, i do think that Obama will win the Dem nom.

c.

Alcyone said:
Excuse me, but *inflammatory rhetoric*? Like what, exactly?

I've spent my entire life in evangelical churches. Can't remember ever having been encouraged to go do anything violent, or to hate anyone, for that matter.

And if directing a message to a "specific (very narrow) audience" is inherently awful, we'd better all stop posting to these boards. FOLCs are a very very narrow audience, indeed!

Ann asked: Yep. If it's a Christian charity, it would. Our mandate is to love our neighbors, and even our enemies. Love means giving freely.

I find these paragraphs vaguely offensive. They also show a profound misunderstanding of charities -- American charities, anyway. I'd be very offended at a charity asking me which class of person I was willing to help. One thing I don't think is well-known in Europe is that Americans, in general, are very generous in giving to charities. Ordinary Americans raised millions for the tsunami victims -- people who were overwhelmingly Muslim.

Within 24 hours of the levies' breaking in N'Awlins, just through Amazon, people had donated 5 million to the Salvation Army. Which, yes, helped everyone without asking to see their religious ID first.

Catholic Charities are huge, and help millions of people, no matter what they believe.

My own local church (not denomination, mind you, but our one singular church) has raised over a million dollars in one year to help fund an outreach (teaching English & computer skills, a women's center) in Khartoum, Sudan -- a predominantly Muslim area.

Now -- would we like to see these people become Christians? Yeah. We believe that Jesus died for everyone on the planet, and without Him people are doomed, so we want to share that news. But it's not a pre-condition.

PJ

Disclaimer: Evangelical churches are not a monolithic entity so I don't presume to speak about ALL of them. But that comment you quoted was meant as an example, not the general criticism you took it to be. "Inflammatory rhetoric" is implicitly in the eyes of the beholder.

But to illustrate with a more specific example, I've heard a lot against gay rights in Evangelical churches in language I find apalling. Parting from that, *I* find many of the conservative stances against gay rights buttressed by inflammatory rhetoric and homophobia, but my central point is that regardless of how I feel they are not talking to me or for me unless they, the people spouting these views, run for something. Pastor X is talking to a certain group of people and under the free speech banner, he can say whatever he wants. Free speech cuts both ways.

So have I.

Remind me again, when I said this? I don't even know what this is refering to.

It's not awful--its inconsequential in the larger sphere precisely because it's a targeted message. You completely misread my post.

To clarify further, what I was suggesting is that people like John Hagee (whose program is actually watched by people I know and care about--how's that for the whole question of what those close to us believe?) and Jerry Falwell can say things that are inflammatory to those that are not their congregation/sympathizers and we shrug, but Wright says his own version of inflammatory statements (again considered so by those that he's not adressing) and it turns into a big hoopla. When in fact it's the same thing, the only difference is that the group being talked to is another.

Plus, didn't Paul point to Bush's own dalliance with religion? I'm sure at one point one of those people he relies on have participated in "inflammatory rhetoric" to someone or other (Part of the trade in religion, I'm afraid--you can't please everyone). Which is the far scarier scenario because as my president, Bush does speak for me and the church/state boundary is getting a little blurred. (And the fact that Republicans do tend to have chummier relationship with religious groups in general is another to consider in this panic attack over Obama).

Returning to the incident, it doesn't seem to be like the above at all. Wright has been dismissed and Obama has denounced the statements and tried to distance himself. Not to mention the constant footnote of the church/state separation.

So really, it's all moot.

alcyone

But the hoopla is not that Wright's statements are inflammatory, but the closeness of his relationship with a candidate for the Presidency of the United States.

Not sure that 'because Bush did it' is a rationalisation for such a relationship.

c.

But the closeness is scary only because the statements are taken as inflammatory, instead of being taken as remarks directed at a specific audience. Like I said context means everything. If he'd been preaching something like Obama's message this issue wouldn't be in the news. No one would care about the Reverend. It wasn't an issue until this blew up and people began to think that because Wright's statements were racist and anti-American that Obama too, was covertly racist and anti-American.

Do I agree with Wright's remarks? No, not all of them, some are downright ill informed and paranoid at best. Nevertheless, I wouldn't call the logic in them anti-American or racist any more than I call what is being taught in Ethnic Studies departments across the US as anti-American or racist. (Though some might want to Oh no, social critique!). And he is working within a specific tradition, which also matters in how strongly he couches his statements. Personally, I'm not into the hellfire oratory myself.

And for the record I have the same issue with Ferraro's statement--what Ann mentioned above. I know what Ferraro meant to say and it's perfectly valid. The problem is that it came out sounding ill informed and repeating the afirmative action trope that has belittled achievements of minorites all over the place. Then she kept digging the hole further. But that too got taken care of.

It's not a rationalization, I mean to point out the contrasts (and the fact that perhaps the fact that this happens in the Dem party is a big deal for its 'novelty' among other things). The dismissal. The denouncement. And even before all that the constant focus on church/state separation.

alcyone

I understand what you're getting at, Alcyone. Identity politics are pertinent with respect to Wright, and depending on your point of view, identity politics are okay, a logical consequence of the environment in which you were raised etc.

But the point is that Obama has made as the center part of his platform that he is someone who will bring Harmony and that he is against anything that is Divisive. So he must walk the walk (to use a old cliche). He must be Caesar's wife, not play both sides of the road. (and now I'm mixing my metaphors )

At any rate, it's not going to affect the outcome of the Dem.nom race.

c.

Eh, I don't know. It depends how much alienation sets in from this. The platform of Harmony is so ingenious because it neutralizes difference (which is always something that is feared and pushed away), but its always very, very fragile because of it. I mean if just the silly rumor that he was Muslim was panic-inducing in some circles, I can't help but think this is going to snowball. From what I've seen, there is some real alienation going on here.

So the honeymoon seems to be over. I think this will definitely deal a pretty big blow to the campaign. Maybe fatal in the long run, provided Hillary's people don't royally mess up somehow.

alcyone

You know, I'm beginning to think it's impossible to overestimate the Clinton people's knack for the screw up.

but honestly, shouldn't this campaign be about the economy???

c.

It's, like, so much more, like, fun to talk about, like, you know Hilary being a girl and Barack being black, y'know? *smacks gum and goes earnest*

Like it really matters, y'know?



*sigh*
Oh, media.

alcyone

And isn't that such a sad indictment? Yes, a few members of the Muslim faith are extremists. Just like, in Ireland, a few Catholics, a few Protestants at one time were involved in terrorism.

And yet a whole religion and culture gets tarred with the same brush in certain circles? Isn't that so very, very sad and depressing?

I meet many Muslims in the course of my job. Many of them are among the most peace-loving, gentle and ethical people you could ever meet. One of them opens up his home to members of all faiths, and is well-known in the community for strenuous efforts to promote understanding between Muslims, Jews, Christians and many more. He does it, not through preaching, but through warmth and friendship and love of dialogue and peaceable existence.

And so if Barack Obama really had been a Muslim he would never have come even close to being elected - purely on the basis of a stereotype and not from any examination of his credentials. That's every bit as bad as saying that Hillary shouldn't be president because she's a woman - worse, probably, because of the reason: that Muslims are considered the enemy


Wendy

Well, you said "inflammatory." That's generally associated with violent crowds Glad to hear I misunderstood.

I don't really want to get into this, Wendy, other than to say, there's more logic there than you'd like to admit. No, not all Muslims are terrorists. The majority of them aren't. But some days it sure seems like all terrorists are Muslims. And then there are the public opinion surveys among Muslims, who say they don't think terror tactics are all that wrong. Moderate Muslims really need to stand up and take a firm stand against terrorism, and for some reason they've been very hesitant to do so.

Exactly. Again, this isn't a casual friend or a business acquaintance. Obama's described him as a mentor. And that "Oh, I must have missed the time he said that" excuse seems thin to me, since it was apparently not rare, and in my experience, church members generally agree with their pastor. At any rate, they didn't strenuously object, or Rev Wright wouldn't have been there so long. And Obama surely would have heard about a church-wide controversy. Add to that certain remarks made by his wife -- "for the first time in my life, I'm proud to be an American" -- and one has to wonder.

I'd just like to know if a presidential candidate hates America or not. I think that's a legitimate subject for discussion.

Not that anyone's asking me right at the moment since I don't vote in Democratic primaries. But he's got a good shot at being the nominee.

Have people said that? I've heard any number of reasons why Hillary shouldn't be president <g> but so far none of them have been because she's a girl.

Would you prefer "civilizational competitors"?

PJ

But this is a grossly oversimplified view of these statements. Like I said Wright's statements are considered "racist" and "anti-American" because they are taken largely out of context. He's not talking to white America and more importantly it's not HIM that anyone would be voting for.

Can you say that his remarks are awkwardly phrased? Definitely. Paranoid? Yeah. Alienating to non-minorities? Sure, but no more alienating than the reality that minorities live with every day to which the rest of the population is largely ignorant of (otherwise we'd be talking about his phrasing not his "anti-Americanism"). The fact that their realities give more room to critique doesn't mean they "hate" America. That's some paranoid, rightist b.s. meant to silence criticism that more often than not hits the mark.

And about the mentor thing--it's unrealistic to ask that Obama's message be the message of everyone around him regardless of where or who they're speaking to. That works by the assumption that all communities have the same needs, which is again, a largely misguided view. That Wright should deliver a Afro-centric sermon to HIS church, is not the business of anyone but his audience. Could he not have been a mentor in helping Chicago's African American community? Does the phrasing of his sermon diminish all the good his church has done to a community that needs it? Please. This is media frenzy plain and simple. Ever heard of "safe spaces"?

The Obama campaign had positioned itself to "transcend" race and I agree that this is where the issue hits hard. His platform does in some way depend on pushing off anything that would mark him as different (and what has appeared as difference has been demonized--like the Somalian garb, the whole Muslim thing). Of course it increases his generic appeal, but it ignores the fact that race does matter and that communities often have different realities. His platform works on the old colorblindness myth that hides the privilege of the majority. We'll see what happens to that myth as we move further and see if the larger public realizes that it's okay to be different. Based on what I've seen thus far, I'm not entirely hopeful.

Wow. And judging from remarks like this. I'm even less hopeful.

alcyone

You don't run for president without a healthy sense of patriotism. But just because you love your country doesn't mean you have to be proud of everything it does, or blind to its faults.

Instead, you're going to give in to the smear campaigns and jump to the conclusion that he hates America? That's... pretty strong.

I don't feel that I know enough to really comment further on Wright. I haven't listened to his sermons. I'm not privy to the details of his relationship with Obama. What kind of advice was asked and given.

I do know that Obama has publicly spoken out against the remarks in question. Which takes a lot when you're talking about your pastor and friend/adviser.

And, as I've said, you don't have to agree with your friends and advisers about everything. They can be good people, give good advice on some subjects, but say things you really don't agree with on others.

As for terrorists... Come now. It hasn't been that long since the IRA disbanded. And there are plenty of examples in Latin America. And Africa. And... I'm sorry. Were you only talking about people who attack us? They do tend to get in the news more. Like the Oklahoma City bomber, or the Unibomber, or the Beltway Sniper. Or how about those devout Christians who bomb abortion clinics and attack doctors?

Or that guy... what's his name? Sang a cheerful little song about bombing Iran? Well, I guess that's not actually terrorism, per se. But imagine if it'd been an Iranian talking about another country...

And you do realize that Muslims make up about 1/5 of the world population, right? There are well over a billion of them. How many of those do you think are terrorists? Or at least support terrorism? And how many do you think are ordinary peaceful people, mostly just trying to get on with their own lives?

And... opinion polls? Really. You're going to base your views on opinion polls. I mean, they can tell you some useful information, but isn't that kind of like using Wikipedia as a primary source?

What about the fact that a good portion of those chanting mobs you see on TV are kids paid to be there to fill out the crowd, like Hollywood extras? When your most visible supporters are actors, that's got to say something about the actual strength of your cause...

Respectfully, Paul, I don't think anyone in this thread has argued that anyone in this campaign doesn't love his or her country. Also, all candidates have been very critical of some aspect of America - I don't think any is blind to its faults. I think you run because you hope that you can improve your country in some way. The ultimate patriotism.

Have to say I'm finding this a bit of an insult, Paul, although I do understand your deep commitment to Obama. I hope that I have presented rational arguments about my concern with respect to what Obama's connection signifies.

As I implied above, in themselves Wright's beliefs and rhetoric are part of the diverse culture of America. And Obama wouldn't be the first politician in history to play identity politics. Just look at the old ward bosses in new York City or Chicago or wherever.

But here's the issue - Obama is basing his campaign on the idea of being for Change in the way politics are done and against Divisiveness. Wright doesn't represent those ideals - he's old style identity politics.

Now that wouldn't matter if Wright were not part of the campaign, but just another supporter of Obama. But he *is* member of the campaign team (until this weekend). As such his views bear scrutiny. (as have the views of campaign team members of the other candidates)

As well Obama has said that he had no idea about some of the things which Wright had said. This perhaps is a tad difficult to believe given that such information has been far from private.

Obama is an attractive candidate in may ways, so was Edwards and so is Clinton. None are perfect.

Please give us some credit for being able to distinguish between a smear and a vaild concern. A candidate who engages in the rhetoric of inclusiveness cannot afford advisors who are not themselves inconclusive.

Obama has argued that words and rhetoric matter. Yes, they do.

c. (who still thinks it's the economy, guys!)

Carol, I was specifically responding to something from Pam's post:

I may be misunderstanding, but it looks to me like she is, in fact, questioning Obama's patriotism and wondering if he "hates America."

My remarks were not meant to imply that anyone else necessarily shared that view or that questioning his ties to a controversial pastor and his inflammatory remarks meant that you were questioning Obama's patriotism.

Sorry I didn't make that clearer. I apologize for any unintentional insult.

Exactly. You see what's wrong, and you work to make it better. Because you care. That, to me, is the mark of true patriotism.

And I do agree that Obama isn't perfect and that the ties to his pastor raise legitimate questions. I do think, though, that a lot of what's being said on the issue is one-sided and being blown out of proportion. It's an issue/concern, but I don't think it's as big a one as some (here and in general) are making it out to be.

Meantime, I forgot to mention...

Not necessarily. I don't know how things work in his church, but I do know the rabbi from the temple I used to go to. He's... very political. Has been involved in some very shady doings, including misappropriating funds from the attached elementary school. But he's made powerful friends and built up a close base amongst key people. Managed to get the board to give him an ironclad lifetime contract. And then ousted the cantor who'd tried to blow the whistle on him. And he's still got a large congregation. It's an isolated case, with different circumstances, but I think it's a good example of how internal politics, community inertia, and other factors can take precedence over actual words and deeds when it comes to the ousting (or not) of a religious (or other organization's) leader.

Posting again because I just came across this article , which seems quite relevant. A few excerpts:

Thank you so much for posting that, Paul.

The fact that Obama had this advisor does not necessarily mean he's playing identity politics. If he were running as a "black" president then I would agree. But he is not (at least no more than any of the other candidates). Sure the sermons display identity politics but they are the Rev's not Obama's. I would trust Obama to display more judgement than to use them (and he does), but that doesn't mean he needs to repudiate where they come from--which is the cross that most people want to nail him on (oh no Rev Wright is Divisive, Obama too must be Divisive! Let's forget the points where they agree about helping the black community!).

This call for him to cut off any indication of roots (aka Divisive talk) just because it leads to a more complicated take of what's happening is not right. Race shouldn't be the issue that it is, I agree, it'd be better to learn about policy--that said, to deny it's there only makes it worse.

It continues to be unfair to take the words of someone in a specific space out of context to judge someone else, even if there is a personal connection. Especially, if the offensive content of the words has been repudiated and dismissed.

Oh and I wanted to add:

Right. That's the logic of "because women score less in science, that means they're just not as smart as men."

Beware of "facts."

alcyone

Alcyone wrote:
I don't thing anyone here has called for Obama "to cut off any indication of roots". Let alone to imply that such a call is caused by a fear of complexity. Why would you say that?

Alcyone, as I see it, the issue is *not* what Wright believes (I keep saying this!) but that Obama had placed the man in an *advisory* position on his campaign team. That appointment suggests that Obama was not uncomfortable with the arguments and ideas that Wright has. Were Wright on the team as a poll taker or a local organizer or the web guy, say, his politics would be irrelevant. But he was not.

Please, don't suggest that to question Obama's choices is racist or shows a failure to grasp the historical and cultural experiences of African-Americans. It does not. Obama should be no more immune from scrutiny than any other candidate and he should be just as vulnerable to being evaluated in terms of the platform principles which he advocates as any other candidate.

I agree with what you said about the importance of context, however. That failure to place comments in context has been common in this campaign, from both the Obama and Clinton camp. And by the press, too.

Obama has now said that he does not support all of Wright's statements and that he does find some of them to be divisive (see Paul's post). That should be the end of it -he's acknowledged the inconsistency.

As Paul says, there are now more important issues to be dealt with.

c.

I'm not going to get into the debate that's developed after this post; I just want to note that this kind of thing has been said many times since September 11 2001, and Muslim groups have responded each time saying that they have stood up and condemned terrorism, in all sorts of environments and in all sorts of ways: in their mosques, in community meetings, in public fora, on television and in newspapers and so many different ways - see here and here and here , here , and this page on a website dedicated to the understanding of world religions (including Christianity); also this page , which is produced through the cooperation of over 50 professors of Islamic Studies and Middle Eastern Studies from the US and Canada; and finally, one example of condemnation picked up by the media - in this case, the BBC - for many examples. There are plenty of them out there. They just have rarely found their way into the media.

After all, what makes a better story? Muslim extremist calls for jihad on president, or moderate Muslim leader says terrorism is wrong? Seems to me that, for the most part, the media concludes the latter isn't all that newsworthy.

Oh, and ETA: Pam, you also questioned my observation that holding religion against a candidate would be - I actually meant that as a hypothetical comparison. I have no idea whether her gender's being used against her or not, and I'm inclined to agree with you that it isn't.


Wendy

First of all, I was responding to your post as much as I was to the whole media barrage about it. I could go into details about it, but there's no indication that you really want me to tackle this question, nor do I think it would do us any good.

When I wrote that I was not basing my reading on anything but the modes that people use to talk about race (at the level of discourse), particularly here in the US (which this election exhibits far and wide). I see some of that language in your post, certainly, and that's what I'm responding to as it echoes some of the language in a lot of the articles I've read.

Your interpretation of what I'm getting at, seems rather reductive ("suggesting racism in questioning Obama's choices"), which leads me to conclude that more than disagreeing, we're not understanding each other.

At these moments, it's good to stop.

alcyone

You've made a very serious allegation here, Alcyone. I would call this worse than a flame, in fact. What you've implied about me is pretty awful and hurtful.

c.

What, specifically, do you think is being alleged, Carol?

She's said that she doesn't feel she's being properly understood. It's a claim that's perhaps supported by the fact that I don't, myself, entirely understand what she means by "the modes that people use to talk about race."

It's better to make sure that we understand what she did mean before making accusations against her.

Or, as she said, perhaps it's better to drop it and move on. As you may have seen, I've had recent experience in another thread where fundamentally different interpretations of the same words led to cascading misunderstandings. Accusations (apparantly) being read by both parties where none were (apparantly) intended... It gets messy. And once you take offense, there can be a tendency to continue to get into that mindset... to read things that way even when the author meant no such thing.

Alcyone, if you could clarify your statement, that would be great. Give it another try, and we'll see where it gets us.

Otherwise... maybe it's better just to leave it be. Give people the benefit of the doubt. Chalk it up to a misunderstanding and move on.

Guilty as charged. And it's totally my fault, which is why its best to duck out.

Honestly, the problem with getting into these discussions is the defensiveness with which these issues are tackled. Ideas are reduced to "is X racist or not?"

To clarify, I was talking about certain assumptions that are reflected in language especially in what is taken as 'natural' (that's what I mean by discourse) specifically the colorblindness myth. This is not the same as personal criticism, but since not everyone sees that distinction (critique of ideas/personal criticism), it's simply better to put a lid on it now.

Believe me, I'm not implying or suggesting that anyone is a racist.

*sigh*
alcyone

But you did, Alcyone. As well, the second last paragraph in your post above again makes that implication.

c.

No. She said something which wasn't clear and which could be read that way, but then, when asked, specifically stated that she hadn't intended it as such. There's a difference, Carol. The statement was poorly phrased, but it doesn't mean the intent was there.

It was a mistake. It happens. A few posts back, I made a mistake in not quoting the text I was replying to. And then you made a mistake by not seeing the text I was replying to and assuming that I was making false and hyperbolic accusations. And then Alcyone made a mistake using vague wording which could be interpreted to imply things she didn't mean. We're only human. Mistakes and misunderstandings happen.

I'm sorry you were offended, but if she said she didn't mean it that way, I think we should accept that and move on.

posting very quickly and flippantly 'cause it's past my bedtime; I hope to come up with something more serious tomorrow sometime...

Oh, come *on*, Paul. That is *so* 1980s.

What sort of context would make "G-d damn America" into a positive thing? Or the bit about "Israel" being a dirty word? And as you may know, most of the sermon clips that are in the media came from a DVD of the best of Reverend Wright. If that's the best, I'm ... morbidly curious about what they'd consider the worst

Alcyone, I agree with you completely that he's got the right to say stuff like that, and people have the right to support him. But stuff that doesn't get much noticed on a lower level hits a higher amount of scrutiny when it gets up near a higher level of publicity. It's worthy of being looked at, is my main point.

Thought experiement: If John McCain had claimed Jerry Falwell as his close advisor and friend, and had associated with him for 20 years, and had tithed at least $20,000 to Jerry's ministries... you think the media would give McCain a pass on that whole "9/11 was God's punishment for gays" thing? Or might that, too, be worthy of being looked at? I'm just sayin'.

PJ

lol, sorry. I guess I'm a little out of touch. I've got CDs and/or MP3s of Springsteen, Madonna, U2, and Blondie, and I do miss actual music being on MTV...

(Though, really, I was always more into VH1...)

Bitterness and bad feelings seem to have crept into this thread, which was perhaps inevitable. But it is sad, all the same.

Let me comment, just a tiny bit, on a few things that Reverend Wright said. He said, as far as I can remember, that the United States killed more people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki than Al Qeada or Osama bin Laden or whoever it was killed Americans on 9/11. And, well, that's true. You can argue that circumstances were very different (they were), or that one attack was a reasonable and measured response to a war situation that was already in progress while the other was an unprovoked attack, and... well. Maybe that's a fair comparison of these respective attacks, but maybe it isn't. Anyway, as long as you are comparing two actual events that actually happened in real life, you are at least discussing reality. History. Also, when you base your discussion on actual events, there is at least a chance that you may take each other seriously.

So... uh.... how serious is it going to be if you, you know, start cursing each other?

Please! I did not say that any of you were cursing any of the others. This was a hypothetical question. I just mean... if anyone, hypothetically, starts saying "damn you", or "you're stupid", or, say, "you are a racist", how likely is it that this person will help himself, herself or anyone else to understand the real world or the actual situation better? How much clarity or respect will such statements bring to a discussion?

But, yes, Reverend Wright said something like that. Yes, he did say, "Damn you, America", or something like that. How smart was that? How much understanding and respect can he ask for if he says something like that? Ugh. If he wanted to compare the United States and its morals with those of other countries, how well-considered was it to bring down a general curse on the United States as a whole?

But... that's one of those things that people so easily do, isn't it? It's easy to lose one's temper and accuse others when things go wrong. Instead of being reasonable you are just angry.

But did you know that Jesus did that kind of thing himself? Pretty much? This is what we can read in Matthew 21:18-20:

In a parallel passage in Mark, we learn that it is not the season for figs, when Jesus curses the poor tree for not bearing fruit (Mark 11:12):

And then there is this in Mark 11:20:

This happened when things were building to a climax in the gospels, when Jesus had come to Jerusalem and tensions had started building. Whether or not Jesus believed that he was indeed going to be crucified, or if he thought, maybe, that God might grant him some sort of worldly victory over the Pharisees and the High Prists and the Romans in Jerusalem, we can't blame Jesus for being tense and short-tempered himself. And then he takes it out on a poor fig tree, which didn't bear fruit because it was not the season for figs! And Jesus cursed it and killed it!

I have always thought that this is Jesus' weirdest and most cruel miracle. But at the same time, I have always liked this little passage, because it is such a wonderful tribute to the sheer flawed humanity of Jesus. He was like the rest of us, occasionally scared and impatient, and in need of taking his frustrations out on somebody else.

Anyway. Reverend Wright is, yes, a Reverend. It is his job to read the Bible, which contains so many curses and damnations and inflammatory statements. So Reverend Wright spoke like the Bible and called down damnation on his country. And I seem to remember that Jesus cursed Jerusalem... and all in all, I think that this is another good reason to keep church and state well separated.

Yesterday I read somewhere that the bitterness between Obama and Clinton and the brouhaha surrounding Obama because of Reverend Wright is really hurting the Democratic party. So maybe the next President will be John McCain. Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. Yes, maybe bombing Iran is better than being friends with a Reverend who says "damn America". But then again, maybe it is not.

Ann

The fact that some think America should repent for racism because if not it will be damned?

1. For a community who has seen racism be pardoned and sactioned for most of their lives, I would assume hearing that God is in fact taking that into account and not letting it slide would be uplifting. "Someone will right my wrongs," is how I would have phrased it, but I'm not a fiery Reverend.

2. I believe Roger and Paul pointed to the complexities of the Israel/Palestine issue, which addresses why "Israel" might be a dirty word to some and who would find their views validated by that statement.

But again the confrontational phrasing IS problematic and I can see why it would offend some. I agree it has no place in the race, aka to the larger American public 100%. Because of that, it's good that Wright was dismissed from the campaign. But these issues are, to me, issues of phrasing--I don't think they matter unless they are brought to the door of the mass public, where they alienate the majority. And well, here you have it.

Phrasing issues aside, I'm not so sure that these statements have _no_ valid views behind them and are simply about racism (against whites) and hate. And by extension that anyone that believes these should be guilty of racism and hate.

Which is why questioning *Obama's* views due to this seems a bit much, because honestly there's a lot of crap people close to us say and that does not make them racist or hateful. And most importantly whatever horridly phrased remarks they say do not make _us_ racist or hateful.

Again, I take as much issue with the phrasing of Wright's statements as I take issue with Ferraro's phrasing of her own take on the presidential race (adding that Wright's hellfire oratory is something not exactly unheard of in many churches so there's the context for hyperbole). And if Ferraro had been that close to Clinton and said that afirmative action quip, honestly, I would feel that the panic was equally unwarranted. *Hillary's* credibility and judgement really wouldn't be an issue unless she didn't recognize the damage of these statements and didn't act quickly.

Definitely, and the public deserves Obama's take on this. The public deserves that these statements be denounced and that the Rev be asked to get away from the campaign. However, hysteria over Obama's "separatist politics" is a bit much.

I mentioned the whole Republican issue before as another angle to why this generated such controversy (my take being that this is more shocking on the Dem side). I don't think anyone is surprised when a Republican candidate has some preacher with inflammatory rhetoric behind him. In fact, I'm shocked at McCain's secularism And actually, I'm cynical enough not to care that he welcome support from John Hagee. I can't stress enough how much I really don't care. Maybe that makes me an irresponsible voter, but there are only so many hours in a day.

I pointed to Bush as an example before, since he ran on religiously inflected moral values and got elected and got religious advisors playing a part in government. Is it possible that all his religious advisors are people who've never said remarks as offensive as those Wright has said? Against Muslims, gays, what have you? If I wanted to, I could probably dig something up. But is it THAT important to focus on who said what, really?

What I've mantained all along is that it's an issue of phrasing that has been blown out of proportion. And in fact it was ultimately dealt with in a pretty good way.

alcyone

Alcyone still has not acknowledged that in none of my posts did I dispute Wright's right to believe or say what he wants.

Nor has she, in any of her posts that replied to mine, indicated that she is aware that what my my argument was:
that a person who runs for the Presidency of the United States on a platform of inclusiveness is vulnerable when an important person on his campaign team does not reflect that same inclusiveness.

Regardless of what Paul has written, (and Paul you are so good to to try to mend these fences but, sadly, you can not speak for Alcyone), the wording of Alcyone's post remains contradictory with respect to her implication about what I wrote.

c.

This post *is* about Wright.

Ann, Wright goes a bit further than what you have indicated. His views are easily found on the Web.

Most of what he says is what you would expect from a Christian pastor. As well, he's done a lot to instill community pride in his parish. Also some interesting glimpses into the workings of ward politics (which are, howver, totally irrelevant to this discussion).

But it's the inflammatory hate speech that sometimes veers into his sermons that's at issue here.

Obama himself now disavows those extremist views that Wright has promulgated.

c.

Well, I can read her posts, the latest of which on the subject is pretty clear to me. And, since I took the time to contact her privately for clarification of her statements, I can go by that, too. I may not be a moderator of this forum, but I am part of the team, and I take things like this seriously.

And you still have not acknowledged that you falsely accused me of making wild and insulting accusations against you. Or, more to the point, that you falsely accused her of calling you a racist. Those are, as you say, very serious allegations.

But I understand that those accusations were based on a misunderstanding. It happens. Sometimes we don't understand each other properly. We read things into each other's words that weren't intended. When that happens, the best thing to do is to accept that mistakes were made and move on.

Nor have you indicated in any of your posts that you understand what she was actually saying. It's not necessary to do so.

She's said that she was misunderstood. She's said, point blank, that she didn't call you or anyone else a racist. She's also said that it was her fault for using unclear language and that, given that she's not making herself properly understood, she feels that the best thing she can do is acknowledge her mistake and move on.

I've been in this position myself, and I know from experience that at times like this further attempts at clarification are only likely to prolong the misunderstanding and brew more bad feelings.

Mistakes were made. Mistakes were acknowledged. There were misunderstandings and misinterpretations.

Once again, the best thing to do is accept that and move on.

Back to the topic at hand...

Obama himself already responded to this one, as I posted on the previous page:

Paul, I sent you a PM thanking you and expressing my appreciation - I thought that was acknoweledging what you had said. You sent a nice note in reply and so I thought that was that. (well not quite because I wanted to reply to your reference to "interesting times" ) btw, I never did accuse you of "wild accusations".

Honestly, I'm not sure what you're referring to here. I did respond to Alcyone's arguments, disgreeing with some of them, but agreeing with others. If you read back through my posts, I think you'll see that.

I did not falsely accuse her of calling me a rascist. Alcyone has not contacted me privately nor has she posted anything further here to clarify. Her last reference to her allegation was contradictory.

You'll note above that I did mention that Ann would find a lot of positive things about Wright on the web. It's true, though, that if you limit yourself to one source (on any subject) you might wind up with just YouTube. But I think Ann wouldn't be that lazy.

c.

Yes, you sent me a nice PM thanking me for my apology. It was not necessary but it was appreciated. However, you have yet to actually admit that you made a mistake, too. It's one thing to accept an apology, another to make one of your own. But yes, I was perfectly happy to say that was that. We had a misunderstanding, it was cleared up, we moved on.

That's the way to do it, and that's why I brought it up. Pressing the issue only makes it worse. Which is why I'm not going to rehash the details here. I'm only pointing to it as an example, and to remind you that there are two sides to every issue.

You said:

I was responding to that, saying that I don't see why it's necessary for her to do so.

Again, I was pointing to a similar situation in which you were on the other side. You responded to Alcyone, but she pointed out that you hadn't understood her properly. You haven't acknowledged that you understand what she actually meant. But there's no reason to do so. As I keep saying, the best thing to do when something like this happens is to acknowledge that there was a misunderstanding (which, technically, you also have yet to do) and let that be the end of it.

But I see you've edited your post while I was writing mine:

In fact, you did accuse her of calling you a racist. And, in fact, she has specifically stated that you misinterpreted her words, and that she did not call you a racist. You read her as saying something she didn't mean. You made a mistake. It happens. But that mistake led you to accuse her of something which she did not actually do.

If you want to demand a further apology from her, then it's only fair to ask that you apologize for your part.

But again... Pressing the issue isn't going to get us anywhere good. The best thing to do is acknowledge the mistakes and move on.

Which is exactly what Alcyone has said she wants to do. Which is why she's not posting further about it. She said she made a mistake. She accepted responsibility for it. She specifically said that she did not intend the implications that you read in her (admittedly poorly phrased) words. And then she withdrew from the subject. I don't see that anything further is necessary, and, as I've said, it's my repeated experience that dragging it out further, even with the best of intentions, will only make things worse.

Now, I think we've prolonged this quite enough, letting this thread get mired in mistakes and bad feelings. If you'd like to continue this discussion, we can do it privately.

For what it's worth, a bit of personal advice... This isn't the first time you've taken offense where none was intended. I think you'll find that if you give people the benefit of the doubt rather than assuming the worst possible interpretation of their words, life will be much better for you and everyone else. And when someone tells you that you misinterpreted them and the offensive implication was not in any way intended, I find it's best to take them at their word and move on.

Paul, this is from back in the thread:

I don't think what I concluded was wrong based on what was there, but I did see that once you'd explained, Paul, that you had not meant that I was buying in to smears or questioning O's patriotism. So, yes, the wording matters quite a lot. You then said that you hadn't meant to insult me with your comment. I'm not sure how I made a mistake in pointing out that I was insulted in the first place, though. (It's happened every once in a while on these boards that people have pointed out that they have felt insulted by what someone has written. usually it was a consequence of misunderstanding) But I would appreciate a private note explaining this because I've missed something.
Anyway , then our private exchange followed.

with respect to Alcyone's accusation:
Alcyone wrote:
to which I replied:
Alcyone then posted this:
Which I found contradictory. this was Alcyone's last post directed at me.

Right now I'm not sure what to make of Alcyone's comments, given what you have written. What she, herself, has posted here with respect to my comments remains contradictory, however.

With respect to your personal advice :
In fact, that is what I had thought I had done with you personally, Paul But since Alcyone has yet to tell me that, I can't follow the rest of your advice. I will , howver, should she do so.

A bit of personal advice from me too - please be careful with how you characterise statements when you dismiss people's views that disagree with yours.

You are very right to mention the importance of how we phrase things. And it is always right to acknowledge mistakes and to apologise to those affected by our mistakes.

I'm sorry, but I had to reply - had your last post not hammered me so, I would not have done so. I plead self-defense

this is my last post. I promise

c.

I've responded in private, as agreed.

We now take you back to your regularly scheduled socio-political/religious debate.

Me, personally. I think all of them are a sad example of what America can produce as leaders. Clinton is a flaming liberal, I wouldn't vote for her if you had a gun to my head. Obama isn't much better, the only upside that I can think of is that he doesn't have the political experience to do as much damage if he does manage to get into office. Typically, I vote republican. however, Mcain has a long glorious history of throwing other republicans under the bus in the name of "bipartisanship" which as far as Mcain goes is anything but. He doesn't just reach across the eisle, he moves over and sits down. As far as I'm concerned, we're pretty much doomed no matter who we pick, unless Mcain picks a decent VP and then has a heart attack. Just the same, I'd rather not hang the next four years of mysery on the republicans...

I think I'll write in a vote for David Copperfield

Airlik said:

That's interesting in light of the current new subject for the talking heads. So the talking heads are all a-buzz from the how Clinton published her schedule. Critics say that it doesn't illustrate "experience," but I heard several people argue that it's what is NOT in the schedule that matters (I admit I'm not sure what this means, perhaps the fact that maybe meeting with White House staff doesn't make it in the schedule?).

Given that--what I'd like to know is how you people watching the election stand on the experience issue (I know Roger echoed the opposite of Airlik, if I'm recalling correctly--that Obama's lack of experience was a big negative). There are those that say it matters and those that say that nothing can prepare you for the Presidency. And there are those that say that the less experience the better, because of the current state of Washington.

What do you think? Has your opinion changed through time?

alcyone

My opinion on experience is that you do need some to be a strong leader in Washington. If you don't have the experience, you can't navigate through the shark-infested waters and won't have the leverage to push through your agenda. Congress will eat you alive as it did Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford, and a country cannot be successfully led by a committee of 535. While Carter did have experience as Georgia governor it apparently did him no good as even the Democrat-controlled House and Senate pretty much ignored him and ran roughshod over him. Strong chief executives can pass their agenda even through a hostile Congress.

Agree with a president's agenda or not, the country needs a strong leader, especially in times of danger and turmoil. The Founding Fathers recognized that and placed great powers in the hands of the presidency where parliamentary systems tend to dilute the powers of the chief executive.

In general, having some executive experience tends to be a great positive. Senators looking for the White House have tended to have poor records. And here all three front runners are Senators. Sigh.

At least McCain knows how to get things done even if you may disagree with what he wants. Both Clinton and Obama have relatively no record, Clinton's biggest successes being the naming of a few federal buildings. Obama doesn't even have that. And none of the three has any executive experience at all.

I voted for Steven Colbert

Actually, I'm surprised to hear lack of experience cited as a negative for current candidates. Back when Bush was first elected, I seem to recall many news reports about how his lack of experience was a concern, but that it would be okay because he'd have plenty of advisors who were experienced who could tell him what to do. So, according to the expert thought of the time, experience wasn't really that much of a requirement in a President. Nice to have, but not really a deal-breaker.

So...has very much changed in the interim? If it wasn't a hindrance back then, why would it be now? Wouldn't Obama have advisors?

Course, there are some who would say that Bush's resultant Presidency proves that lack of experience definitely is a negative...

LabRat

Actually, one of the best pools from which to pick a President is considered to be a governorship. A great many of our recent Presidents have previously been governors of states, which, if you think about it, is a sort of lesser presidency, and gives the candidate some experience in the field. Bush had been Governor of Texas, which gave him that particular pre-requisite. Unfortunately, I personally disagree with some of his other ideas. I'd list them, but it would lead to a fight, which I am not up for today.

Obama, Clinton and McCain are all US Senators, which really doesn't give any of them governing experience. Personally, the thought of the next four years under any one of them scares me to death.

Nan

Harry S. Truman had been a senator and vice-president. Dwight D. Eisenhower had never been elected to political office before his presidency (his experience was entirely in the military). Every single president from Kennedy to Ford served first in Congress and then the Senate. Going back even further, Lincoln served only in Congress.

You can't always tell from their "experience" how they're going to make decisions. Unless, of course, you were <*insert adjective of your choice*> enough to vote them into office a second time.

Bush had been knocked about a lack of foreign policy experience, which definitely showed during the debates. Ironically, he had trouble coming up with the name of the President of Pakistan, Perez Musharraf, a person who would later play a huge role in the fight against al Qaeda. His advisors that were talked about would have been Condoleeza Rice, a Russian expert, Dick Cheney, and Colin Powell. At the time, foreign policy wasn't very high on the list of priorities since it was pre-9/11 and Russia and missile defense looked like the biggest topics of foreign policy. Terrorism wasn't on anyone's radar, so even the "experts" had a lot of catching up to do. Even the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Richard Myers, was chosen at the time for his experience with missile defense.

Note that Bill Clinton had no foreign policy experience either, but he did have twelve years in the governor's mansion in Little Rock. Nobody in the press cared since foreign policy was on nobody's mind during the 90's.

In the campaign, Bush emphasized how well he worked with a Democratically-controlled Texas legislature with the press essentially calling Texas state Democrats "Republicans in Democrat clothing," especially with Bush being best friends with the Democratic Speaker, Bob Bullock. So the press didn't think he was battle tested against "real" Democrats. Bush also emphasized his relationships with Mexico being that he was governor of a border state to bolster his foreign policy credentials.

As for executive experience, he had already been easily re-elected by a huge margin with lots of Democratic support as governor when he started running for president and had six years as a chief executive by the time he made it to the Oval Office.

Today, foreign policy is a huge issue. With hot spots all over the world with North Korea and Iran, plus the continuing Iraq deployment, we need someone with foreign policy experience. Obama and Clinton have none. McCain has a lot, but he's never been a governor.

On some previous presidents, Harry Truman was considered a terrible president at the time and won re-election by a miracle. Remember "Dewey Beats Truman?" President Eisenhower's lack of experience really showed. While he was popular with the people, his relationships with Congress were terrible and he could do very little. It was during his sixth year that Republicans took one of their biggest bloodbaths in the 1958 midterm elections in the party's history, losing 48 House seats and 13 Senate seats (though gaining one seat in the brand new state of Hawaii, though Democrats picked up three in the two new states of Alaska and Hawaii, so the GOP was -12 and the Dems +16 net).

While John Kennedy is lionized today, he was actually losing his re-election effort at the time. His trip to Dallas was because he was afraid of losing Texas despite having a Texan as his vice president. Lyndon Johnson didn't even bother to run for re-election, knowing he wouldn't win. Nixon had long resume, including a stint as Eisenhower's VP, but a stupid decision to cover up a break-in that he had not had anything to do with ended up with him resigning in disgrace. Gerald Ford had never been elected and ended up losing to dark horse Jimmy Carter in one of the closest elections in this nation's history. Carter's now considered one of the worst presidents we've ever had.

That led up to Ronald Reagan, a successful two term governor of California and a successful two term presidency. George H.W. Bush had never been governor either but had been a Senator. He was a one-termer. And H.W. Bush had been coined the man with "the longest resume in the west," having been Director of the CIA, congressman, senator, UN Representative, vice president, etc. It didn't help his campaign against Bill Clinton.

So our recent history of presidencies has been pretty thin with only Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton having served two full terms since Roosevelt. Bill Clinton's the first and only president to ever win two terms without ever having a majority of the vote (43% and 49%). Assuming nothing unusual happens, Bush will be the third.

Yes, I'm sure that Sen. Joseph McCarthy and his Communist witch hunt had very little do with the unpopularity of the Republicans in 1958. And, so far as getting very little done in his term goes, well, I'm pretty sure it was Eisenhower who pushed through our interstate highway system, ended the Korean War, and made nuclear weapons research a top priority.

My point in the post above was that we never know what a person is likely to do in the White House until they get there. No matter what they say in their campaigns, all bets are off when they actually take office. Surely you remember "Read my lips. No. New. Taxes."

I agree with you that you never know until the person actually reaches the White House. And I definitely agree with you that raising taxes sank the elder Bush. He essentially betrayed his Republican supporters who are very unforgiving on the subject of taxes.

McCarthy was dead by 1957. I suspect the economy held more sway over voters than McCarthy ever did.

Okay, I'm back. And leaving the brouhaha surrounding Barack Obama and Reverend Wright behind, I'll return to something you said, Roger, and which needs to be addressed:

Very good question. Yes, you are right, I do want to redistribute income. Do I want to do it no matter what the consequences to the economy might be? Am I willing to bankrupt society and throw society into a depression, or at the very least a recession, just so I can take money from the rich and give it to the poor? No. But unlike you, Roger, I don't think it is a prerequisite to a healthy growth of the economy that the rich get to pay lower taxes. Yes, I think that you are right in your belief that tax cuts for the rich may indeed prove to be a fairly efficient economic stimulus. But for one thing, I believe that there are other ways to stimulate the economy. And for another, if the boom resulting from a tax cut for the rich ultimately ends up shifting more of society's wealth from the average and median income earners to those who are already rich, then I do think that this is both harmful and unfortunate, certainly in the long run.

I believe that such a shift has indeed happened in the United States lately. Roger, you mentioned the IT bubble. I replied that I think that the IT bubble ended up benefiting a few rich people enormously, while very many low-income people suffered from the almost-recession that followed. To stimulate the economy and prevent a recession from happening, George W. Bush gave tax cuts to the rich. (And as I have said already, a tax cut for a rich person will bring in many more dollars to that person than a &#8220;same percentage tax cut&#8221; for a median income person.) So in order to fix the problems that happened as a few rich people made off with enormous IT loots and created huge problems for low-income people in America, George Bush gave tax cuts to the rich, including, presumably, those rich people who had created and benefited from the IT bubble in the first place. To help the poor, Bush gave economic breaks to the rich.

It is clear that the rich in America have grown so much richer during the Bush years, both in absolute and relative terms. But I have said, quoting New York Times, that the median income earners have actually become poorer, when you take inflation into account. Roger, you have replied that median income is up, but you have not said anything about inflation. I take this to mean that the median income earners do make more dollars now than seven or eight years ago, but because of the fall of the dollar, the median income earner can't buy as much for his salary today as he could at the end of the Clinton Presidency.

In other words, I am going to assume that I was right. Median income in America is indeed down, while the top incomes are up enormously. And in my opinion, a country whose median income is down has not had a good economic development, no matter how much its gross national product is up.

It could be the fact that I'm so interested in astronomy that makes me think that the problem of the rich becoming richer can't be solved just by making the poor richer, too. Okay, let me amend that. Yes, I do believe that it is possible to make the poor richer while the rich become richer, too. But I believe that this is a development that can go on for only so long. I am very strongly aware that all the riches and all the wealth that humanity owns put together all emanates from the Earth. Ultimately, it is our planet Earth that gives us all our riches. And as humanity grows larger in numbers and as we grow hungrier for resources and riches, the Earth, the source of all our prosperity, does not grow larger.

[img]http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=65046&rendTypeId=4[/img]

Because I don't believe in unlimited growth, distribution becomes very important to me. The idea that more and more of our limited resources should be deliberately shifted over to already rich people seems downright immoral to me.

One thing that worries me is that this trend of shifting over money from low- and median-income earners to rich people has been going on for almost three decades now, since Ronald Reagan became President. While this has happened, people's way of thinking of the distribution of money between rich and poor people has changed. I strongly believe that more and more of us have begun taking for granted that rich people generally deserve the money they get, while we often question the welfare and subsidies that go to the poor.

It frightens me, too, how short our memories are. I have been questioned before for using a sort of all-inclusive &#8220;we&#8221; and seemingly speaking for members of these boards, so here and now I will only speak for the people I meet in real life here in Sweden, and for myself. It is frightening how short our memories are.

A couple of years ago I found a copy of my local newspaper, Sydsvenskan, in the attic.


This particular copy of Sydsvenskan was from 1987. I started leafing through it and came upon a short news item about unemployment statistics in Sweden in 1987. Unemployment in those days was &#8211; what??? It was 1.2% of the workforce?


Unemployment figures, though not from Sweden or from 1987.

I was flabbergasted. These days we in Sweden are used to the idea that unemployment is around 5% if we are lucky, and more like 8% if we are unlucky. How could it be 1.2% in 1987? How could our society have changed so much since then? And why didn't I remember what things had been like in the eighties? Since when had I started taking the new unemployment figures for granted?

I started to try to remember. And, yes, thinking back, I remembered that the Social Democratic government that we had back then used quite a bit of its tax money to employ people who couldn't really compete with other people for ordinary jobs. The Social Democratic government created its own &#8220;protected&#8221; job market for people who were physically and mentally disabled, people who were sick, or tired, or recovering from drug abuse or alcoholism, etcetera. People who couldn't find a job elsewhere, and who weren't strong enough to keep a job on the open market, these people had jobs created for them by the Social Democratic government. These people went to work every day, or as often as they were able to, and they got their pay checks like everyone else. I don't remember that we ever spoke ill of them or of the jobs they had. And Sweden had an unemployment rate of 1.2%.

Then Ronald Reagan was not only elected but re-elected in the United States. This created a political shift to the right in Sweden, too. In 1988, Sweden got a right-wing government. This government quickly lowered taxes, especially for the rich, but it didn't cut spending. This resulted in a terrible economic imbalance and a huge budget deficit for Sweden. The right-wing government lost the next election and the Social Democrats returned, but now the Social Democratic agenda had changed. &#8220;We have to cut spending to get our national finances back in order,&#8221; our Prime Minister told us, grimly. And cut spending they did. Suddenly there was no more money for the special protected jobs for the people who could not get or keep an ordinary job. Suddenly they all became unemployed. And then Sweden joined the European Union, whose statues say that people in Europe have the right to compete for jobs everywhere in Europe. Suddenly the special protected jobs that had existed for disabled people became illegal. These days it is illegal in Sweden to give a handicapped Swede a job that could have gone to a healthy Pole instead.

These days so many more people are denied access to the job market. They are dependent on welfare instead. Their lives are probably worse, and the welfare money they get is probably lower than the pay they got from their special jobs. Other people resent them more and mutter about lazy people who live off welfare. And everyone takes the present situation for granted. When I asked my colleagues at school and other well-educated people that I know, not a single one of them really remembered what things had been like in 1987.

We forget so quickly. We adjust to new situations so quickly.

I said that these days people in Sweden mutter about unemployed people who live off welfare. We have a right-wing government in Sweden again, because when George W. Bush was re-elected in America, this caused another political shift to the right in Sweden. The new government has begun cutting down on welfare for poor, sick and unemployed people. Have you been on sick leave for more than six months? Then you are not eligible for more of it, buddy. Have you got cancer? Can't you work? That's not our problem. Go get yourself a job.

What happens to a society where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer? Well, there are interesting examples of what happened in such societies in Europe in the past. In the late 1980s I bought an illustrated book describing life in the medieval English village of Gerneham, in the early fourteenth century. This village was owned, lock, stock and barrel, by a rich nobleman, Geoffrey Luttrell. Sir Geoffrey's ownership of the village was so complete that the author of the book, Sheila Sancha, called Gerneham &#8220;the Luttrell village&#8221;.


Sir Geoffrey Luttrell and his retinue.

What about the people who lived in Gerneham, in the Luttrell village? Judging from Sancha's book, the largest group of people who lived in the village were called &#8211; no, I'll not tell you what they were called just yet. But this is how Sancha describes them:

This is how Sheila Sancha describes this group of people in her glossary:

The people I have described were a kind of serfs, who can almost be compared with slaves. This is how Wikipedia describes the reasons and ceremonies that turned medieval European people into serfs:

According to Wikipedia, people were sometimes intimidated into becoming serfs by a threatening baron. &#8220;Be my serf, or else&#8230;!!&#8221; Or people might be forced to become serfs because of poverty. If they could not support themselves any other way, they had to, well, sell themselves as laborers to a lord in exchange for the right to grow a bit of food for themselves on his land. And not only did the serfs sell themselves to their lord, but they sold their children and grandchildren and all their future descendants as well.



Medieval serfs.

So what were these special serfs called, then? Okay, I'll not keep you waiting any longer. They were called villeins. I guess the name has something to do that they always had to live in the village. But I suppose that the name, villeins, reminds you of something else. Villains. So how did the poor rural serfs in medieval Europe give a collective name to lawbreakers and criminals and people of ill intent everywhere? This is Wikipedia's explanation:

So villeins could escape their bondage by running away from the village where they were kept &#8220;prisoners&#8221; and escape to a city and live there for more than a year. But since the villeins were dirt poor and had almost no means of supporting themselves, they were sometimes forced to take to crime for survival. And the city people apparently strongly disapproved of them. Instead of asking themselves if they could help the villeins support themselves by honest means, and without forcing them into serfdom, the city people reinterpreted the designation of villein so that it came to mean criminal people of bad character and ill will.



Villain.

Speaking of crimes, and who was defined as a criminal, it is interesting to ponder the question of crime and punishment in medieval Europe. What punishments were meted out for what crimes? And did it matter if you were rich or poor?


A page from Äldre Västgötalagen, the oldest known Swedish law.

This is one page of the oldest Swedish written law in existence, Äldre Västgötalagen, laying down the law in the Swedish province of Västergötland in the thirteenth century. Äldre Västgötalagen states that if a person commits murder, he will have to pay a fixed fine for this. However, if a person commits theft, he will not only be tortured and executed, but he will also mangled and cut into pieces after death, and he will not be buried in consecrated earth. Moreover, he will be damned forever, and the priests will not pray for his soul. Any earthly property that he owned could not be inherited by his children or relatives.

If you think of this a bit, you can easily see that this law was made specifically to meet the needs of rich people. The law was frankly written so that rich people could get away with murder. And the richer they were, the less the fixed fine would hurt them, and the more people they could afford to kill. A really rich person could therefore become a mass murderer and still remain totally respectable. A murderer was not condemned by the church, was buried in consecrated earth and could leave all his property to his heirs.

Why, then, were thieves punished so cruelly? I'd say that this was because thieves threatened the foundation of rich people's power &#8211; the thieves threatened the rich people's wealth. Rich people were so incredibly powerful because they were so rich. They could buy themselves splendid property, they could buy themselves protection, they could buy themselves hit men, they could buy themselves suitable wives, and they could buy themselves spokesmen, soldiers, workers and priests. But take away their wealth and they can buy themselves nothing. Suddenly, they are nothing. And nothing could be worse than robbing a rich man of his wealth and power. Therefore thieves (and their families) were punished so cruelly, while rich murderers got away with a slap on their fingers, if that.




There are thieves in the manor.

But let us stop and think for a while. Are these examples from the Middle Ages the least bit relevant for us? Do they have anything to teach us today? Back then, democracies did not exist, and there were no such things as legal human rights. We have democracies and human rights here in the West. Our laws forbid us to turn people into slaves. And surely we will never sentence people to harsher punishments just because they are poor?

I believe &#8211; yes, I do &#8211; that the very existence of democratic constitutions and laws that recognize human rights constitute a very strong and important protection for people who are poor and powerless. Our modern Western societies are not comparable with those of medieval Europe. What happened back then, in those societies, can't happen here. Not for now, and not in the same way.

But I said earlier that people's memories are short. Unless we make an effort to remind ourselves of our history and the lessons it has taught us, I don't trust us to just remember. I don't trust us to, well, just naturally fight for the idea that all people have the same value. I fear that if some people keep getting poorer and more powerless in our own countries, here in the west, many others may start assuming that these bums don't have the same worth as the rest of us, and they can't really ask for the same treatment.

In some ways, de facto slavery already exists in the West. Some years ago I saw an episode of 60 Minutes, which described the lives of some illegal immigrants who worked at an orange plantation in Florida. If I remember correctly, the workers were not paid cash, but instead they were given some sort of tokens that could be exchanged for food, clothes and other things in the store that was owned by the plantation manager. After labouring for a season, picking fruits, the plantation manager announced that his workers were in debt! They owed him money! Well, because they had bought too much in his store, or so the manager said anyway. And the only way laborers could pay back their debts was to stay on for the next season and pick fruits for nothing. In effect, these illegal immigrants had become serfs.

Okay. There people were illegal immigrants. If they don't even have the right to be in the country, it is not so strange if they aren't protected by the same laws as those people who are citizens. On the other hand&#8230; we are not talking about a handful of illegal immigrants, but of huge numbers of them. Many industries and producers in the West are totally dependent on these &#8220;paper-less&#8221; workers who are treated almost like slaves. The oranges we buy wouldn't be so cheap if they had been picked by American citizens who were paid at least minimum wages.



One interesting thing that happens all over the West, and particularly in countries where the poorest people are relatively well paid, is that rich people who own companies move those companies to countries where wages are lower. One such country that has attracted many Western investors is China.

Several years ago, maybe fifteen years ago, I remember that there was a horrible fire in a toy factory in China. About two hundred workers, almost all of them young girls, died in the fire. They died because the doors of the factory were locked, so that the girls could not get out. The fire called attention to the fact that the workers at toy factories were normally and regularly locked up inside the factories, and not only during working hours, either. They were locked up in the factories day and night, because that way their employers could squeeze a maximum amount of work out of them. It goes without saying that a country that treats its workers like that doesn't worry too much about human rights.



Workers in a Chinese toy factory, perhaps mostly young men in this case.

Only a few years ago, probably two or three years ago, Chinese authorities decided that employers in China would have to clean up their act. Chinese workers would be granted at least minimal human rights by law. But guess what? According to New York Times, this provoked sharp protests from many American investors in China. Why, said these Americans, would they want to build factories in China if the workers there could ask for at least minimum pay, and if they could refuse to work more than a maximum number of hours per week? In other words, if the (rich) Americans were not allowed to treat Chinese workers as slaves, why would they want to employ them?

Rich Americans are already moving their factories abroad, where they can treat their workers more or less like slaves. If poor people keep getting poorer here in the West, can we be sure that our democratic constitutions and jurisdictions will protect them from being treated like slaves in our own countries? Do democracy and human rights really work in a situation where the poorest people of a society just keep getting poorer? Do they work in a situation where people forget, as they tend to do, that there used to be a time when society was different?

Let me end this post by addressing those of you who call yourself Christians. Do you take the words of Jesus seriously? Remember that Jesus spoke out quite sharply against rich people many times. No, I really don't think that he described worldly wealth as something that will necessarily make a person evil, but yes, I do think that Jesus describes the collective of rich people as a negative force in society. Judging from what Jesus says in the Bible, I think it is out of the question that he would support the idea that rich people should be given extra millions of dollars because of tax cuts that are based on a percentage of their taxes. Those of you who are Christians, do you think that the warnings that Jesus directed to rich people are irrelevant? Those of you who might describe yourselves as belonging to the religious right, do you think that Jesus would share your political views?

Ann

I realize that posting(or even reading) on this thread is bad for my blood pressure and my acid reflux, but seeing the direction the topic is going I just felt compelled to submit this article from IMAO about
Liberal Churches that was pretty freaking succinct per this quote.

Also everyone has been asking about why Barak Hussein Obama's relationship with "Reverend" Wright is such a big deal. Frankj at www.IMAO.us also explains that pretty well in this article:

Relationships and the Fourth Dimension

Thank God for writers like Frankj, even if his wife is a snarky brat.


TEEEEEEEEJ

Jesus also preached things like "Love thy neighbor as thyself," "Turn the other cheek," "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," "Thou shalt not kill," "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," and so on.

It can be hard to mesh such teachings with the pro-war, pro-torture, anti-gun control, pro-death penalty, etc etc views often associated with the "Christian Right." Not to mention the more extreme leaders McCain referred to as "agents of intolerance."

If you think a liberal church is contradictory, consider how easy it is to paint Jesus as exactly the sort of long-haired, sandal-wearing, forgive and forget, peace and love, almost hippie-like liberal that the "Christian Right" leaders so... disagree with.

But there are so many different brands of the religion. So many different ways you can look at things, or choose to look at them. So many different teachings and revisions and reinterpretations.

Ultimately, you have to find the views and angles that suit you, I think. (And remember that other points of view can also be valid. That one is easy to forget.) And, as many preachers, Left and Right, are saying... maybe it's best for preachers and congregants to check Earthly politics at the church door.

I think what a lot of liberals forget when they try to make this comparision is that Jesus is... God.

The same God who blessed folks like David, Deborah, Gideon, Joshua, and Moses, all Warriors and leaders of warriors.

The same God who inspired David to write "Blessed be the Lord, my Rock, Who trains my hands for war and my fingers for battle."

The same God who took out Sodom and Gamorrah in a rain of fire because it was full of deviants who'd rather screw the new guys in town than Lot's daughters.

The same God Jesus who said in Matthew chapter 10 verse 34 "Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword."

The same God who is going to destroy the earth with fire and condemn all who denied Him and His forgiveness to Hell for all eternity.

I don't ever recall reading anything about how long Jesus' hair was, though I realize a bunch of medieval painters who favored that hair style liked to depict Him that way, and as far as sandals go, I'm sure that was about the best, most practical type of shoe He could afford for the climate He lived in, but I'll bet His clothes weren't tie-dye, since dyed clothing was probably another expense He didn't care to engage in. The point is Jesus is God, and God is a strict disciplinarian. I realize Jesus did say "Blessed are the peacemakers." He meant that, and I submit that the guys who dropped bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were peacemakers who ended WWII; I believe the men and women who are stationed in Iraq are trying to bring democracy and PEACE to that region. They should be blessed, God bless 'em.

As far as Ann's question about what Jesus would think of rich folks, let me point out that one of Jesus's most famous parables is of a master who gives money to his servants and the servant who uses that money to make MORE is the one the master rewards the MOST, which to me seems that Jesus is comparing the spread of the word of Salvation with *HELLO* Prosperity!

That's right, God encourages prosperity, check this out.

In 1 Chronicles 4:10 Jabez says "Oh, that you would bless me and enlarge my territory! Let your hand be with me, and keep me from harm so that I will be free from pain." And God granted his request.

In Malachi 3:10 God says, "Bring all the tithes into the storehouse,
That there may be food in My house,
And try Me now in this,”
Says the LORD of hosts,

“If I will not open for you the windows of heaven And pour out for you such blessing That there will not be room enough to receive it."

I see that as God encouraging prosperity so long as a portion (a tithe) is given to His works and believe me, I can do that tithe thing without the help of my nanny state government, thank you very much.

I don't mind leaving religion out of politics at all, but unfortunately I've noted that these earthly politics somehow try to involve religion anyway and as long as they do that, then they're going to have to deal with my right thinking point of view on that as well.


TEEEEEEEJ

It may be stupid of me to post more here, but TEEEJ, I couldn't resist the link you posted about liberal churches. You quoted this from that site:

When I looked up that link, I'm afraid I only found short opinion-posts, not any in-depth analysis of what Jesus actually said in the Bible. When I read the Gospels myself, I found extremely little there which made Jesus resemble a right-wing Christian. I really found a lot more that would make him look quite liberal. Therefore, if people think that he really was like a right-wing Christian, I would very much appreciate it if they could point me to the chapters and verses in the Bible where Jesus expressed those right-wing views. After the right-wing Christians tell me where in the Gospels they find the justification for their beliefs, I will be happy to look up those particular Bible passages myself and discuss them with the conservative Christians. But if the conservatives just claim Jesus for themselves and then don't show me any Biblical evidence to support their belief in a right-wing Jesus, how can I have any sort of rational discussion with them?

What pastor is what liberal church has said this about Jesus?

I myself will keep sticking to my belief that Jesus was very liberal in many ways. After all, what sort of people did Jesus most often defend? I'd say it was the poor people in general, plus the "sexually questionable" or "fallen" women, plus the tax collectors. Imagine that.

Ann

EDIT: In all fairness, I don't think Jesus was completely liberal in all his views. Although he never mentioned or alluded to abortions, I agree with those who believe that he would have been strongly against them. More troubling, in my opinion, is that Jesus sometimes seemed to hold questionable and uncompassionate views about slaves.

D'ja even read my post above, the one about Jesus bein' God? About God being the strict disciplinarian? The one with Matt 34:10? All that up there, or is it just too harshfully truthful to deal with right now?

I get your point about Him hanging with the prostitutes and sinners too. Do you remember why He said He was hanging out with them? Because He wanted to HEAL them, FIX them, MAKE them stop sinning, by His example.

Yes, Jesus commanded us to live in peace with our neighbors. This is the same Jesus(GOD) who DECREED back in Genesis that the children of Ishmael would NEVER get along with their neighbors; the same Jesus (GOD) who punished Israel time and again for doing stupid stuff like worshiping false idols and taking advantage of widows and orphans(Hello Al Gore!) and the same Jesus(GOD) who assisted them when they were fighting their enemies and kicking people out of Canaan.

The reason He commands us to live in peace is because that's what He wants; it would make His job so much easier, life better on earth and all that, but human nature, being the sinful nature that it is, will never ever ever allow the Earth to be at peace, not until Jesus comes back anyway, and He knows this or He wouldn't have made any provision to come back, and I promise, when He does arrive, He won't be singing "kumbya". There's war, death and pestilance left in His wake.

I get that this line of reasoning is hard to grasp and again it's wearying on me to continue to go over the same points while someone's got their fingers in their ears and screaming "not listening". I suppose Jesus felt the same sort of frustration with the Pharisees and the scribes of His day, so I guess I should follow His example there and go kick the dust off my sandals.

TEEEEEJ

I didn't read it, sorry. You hadn't posted it when I started to write my reply, and after I posted it I didn't check if you had posted another reply in between. I have read it now.

This is an interesting and valid point, but it is also one that I don't agree with. I realize that it has to do with faith. I know that Jesus says this in John 10:30:

That would seem to clinch it. However, it is only in the Gospel of John that Jesus actually claims to be God. He doesn't say that in any of the other three gospels. If that had been an important part of Jesus' actual teachings, I think it would have been mentioned in Matthew, Mark and Luke as well. Since it isn't, I believe that this is the interpretation of John the Evangelist rather than any actual words of Jesus himself.

Well, if Jesus is indeed the same person as God, then it was Jesus who rained fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah. It was Jesus who drowned almost the whole world under the Flood. It was Jesus who tortured and killed little children in Egypt because Pharaoh wouldn't release the Israelites. It was Jesus who accepted that the warrior Jephthah killed his own daughter and sacrificed her to God - that is, to Jesus - as a burnt offering. It was Jesus who stood by and watched how the Israelites slaughtered all the women and children of the the city of Gibeah because men in Gibeah had raped a Levite's concubine. And it was Jesus who spoke through the Prophet Samuel and ordered King Saul to kill every last living being of the Amalekites in 1 Samuel 15:3:

Yes, we can choose to believe that Jesus is identical with God, so that whatever God did, Jesus did in equal measure. But I think there is scarce Biblical evidence for this idea, apart from John 10:30. Nevertheless, it certainly is possible to interpret that passage as proof that Jesus is a deity who kills women and children and who is very warlike. (As for that passage from Matthew, Matthew 10:34, I have always believed that Jesus talked about the role he thought he would play as the Messiah, the King of the Jews, who was certainly supposed to attack the Roman occupiers. Another interpretation, equally probable, is that Jesus meant that his own teachings would bring strife to humanity, as some people would believe in him, and others would not.)

This is one of parables of Jesus' that I myself find the most troubling, because here we really see Jesus' lack of compassion with the slaves. This is how the parable goes (Matthew 25:13-30):

Jesus talks here of the punishing of an "evil and lazy slave". It is, of course, a parable meant to describe how God will deal with sinners at the coming of the Kingdom of Heaven.

It is interesting that some prophets in the Old Testament describe how men punish sinful women, and the prophets turn this woman-beating into a parable of how God's righteous wrath will strike all sinners. In other words, some of the Old Testament prophets turn men's punishment of women into a metaphor for God's punishment of sinners, and this comparison actually justifies men's punishment and ill-treatment of women. Jesus never talks about God's wrath as something that is directed at women (with the possible exception of the parable of the wise and the foolish bridesmaids in Matthew 25:1-12). Therefore Jesus never justifies men's punishment of women in any way. Instead, Jesus uses the slave-owner's punishment of his slaves as a methaphor for God's punishment of sinners, and thereby Jesus sort of justifies the slave-owners' bad treatment of their slaves. I wish that Jesus hadn't done that, even though I am extremely grateful to him for not putting women in the position as "whipping-boys" or "whipping-girls".

But indeed, TEEEJ, you have located one of the passages from the Gospels that trouble me most, and which can be seen as showing Jesus as a man who approves of the oppression of slaves, and who is a supporter of the idea of giving ever more riches to those who are already rich, while making the poor ones ever poorer.

One very definite possibility is that the rich man in Jesus' parable should not be regarded as any rich person here on Earth, but rather as God himself, who will punish those of his servants that he is dissatisfied with. In that case, this parable wouldn't be a general defence of prosperity. But it might be just that, of course.

Anyway, while I won't try to argue that Jesus absolutely did not hold the views that seems to be inherent in this parable, I still maintain that most of the time, he spoke out sharply against the rich and defended the poor.

Jesus is rarely seen lecturing the fallen women. He usually defends them instead, like in this passage (Matthew 21:31-32):

When I talk about what Jesus did and said, all I read is the Gospels. I realize that you may choose to regard everything that God did as Jesus' handiwork, too. But if you read the Bible that way, then it seems to me that you very much play down what Jesus actually said and did while he lived and walked on this Earth. Nothing about Jesus becomes more uninteresting than the (compassionate) human being that he actually was. The focal point of Christianity becomes so "diluted" that the opinions of Paul, King David, Isaiah, Ezekiel, Malachi etcetera all matter more than the words of Jesus himself. But what would Jesus have been if he hadn't come to the Earth as a human being? If he had stayed up in Heaven forever and only spoken through the Prophets? And what would Christianity have been without Jesus, the man who came from Nazareth and who lived here on Earth?

Ann

John 8:10-11
10 When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?”
11 She said, “No one, Lord.”
And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.”

maybe He didn't need to lecture her, because *she* figured it out after the FIRST telling. :rolleyes:

TEEEEEJ

I guess she figured out for herself that committing adultery again would be a bad idea, because next time she would surely be stoned for real. Considering the perceived severity of the crime she had committed, Jesus certainly didn't lecture her very harshly. Compare Jesus' words to the woman accused of adultery with the words of Ezekiel, as he condemns two women he calls Aholah and Aholibah (Ezekiel 23:43-49):

I never said that Jesus never lectures "fallen" women at all, but compared with what the rest of the Bible says about "sinful" women, Jesus' admonitions are mild indeed.

Ann

I hadn't even peeped in this thread for awhile (not much into politics) but Jesus and Christianity is something I definitely like talking about so...

I didn't read way up into the thread so I just wanted to comment on a couple of things I read in one of Ann's recent posts.

Not at all surprising, I agree with Teej. I believe that Jesus is God, God is Jesus, and the Holy Spirit is also both. I've heard this explained fairly well with this analogy. An apple has seeds, it has a core, it has the part you eat; all different parts but still one apple. I realize that I probably can't change your mind on this but just thought I'd throw that in there.

The Holy Trinity is one of the reasons that Muslims hate Christians. Because they see Christians as Polytheists. But when I pray to God, I am also praying to Jesus and the Holy Spirit, but He's all the same person to me.

I believe the entire Bible is God breathed, God speaking to us. I hold the Old Testament in as high esteem as I do the Gospels. I think it's awesome that you think so highly of Jesus. But it's important to remember, that God the Father, sent Jesus here to Earth to do all the things he did. God sent Jesus to die on the cross for us, to be the ultimate sacrificial lamb. That is why after Jesus' death, the Rabbis did not have to sacrifice animals anymore to atone for the people's sins; Jesus had done that with his death for all people, for all time. To me, God sending Jesus for us shows what a loving God He is. To quote one of my favorite verses: John 3:16

For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son. That whosoever believes in Him, shall not perish but have everlasting life.

And this does not have to do with the discussion so much but just want to share my favorite favorite verse in the entire Bible. 1Peter 1:8-9

8Though you have not seen Him, you love Him; and even though you do not see Him now, you believe in Him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy, 9for you are receiving the goal of your faith, the salvation of your souls.

TJ, I'm glad that you've felt able to join in the debate again. It's good to see different views aired and explored.

Can I just ask, though, that you avoid comments like this:

I know you believe very firmly in the views that you hold. People who don't agree with you also believe very firmly in the views that they hold, and they might respond by saying that they are listening, but they disagree. They might well also feel that people who disagree with them are also "not listening", but throwing this kind of comment around really doesn't help the atmosphere of civil debate.

Thanks!


Wendy
Boards Admin Team

This comment on supply-side economics and tax cuts for the rich is from today's New York Times (March 26, 2008; the article is by LOUIS UCHITELLE). This is a quote from the article:

According to New York Times, supply side economics either doesn't work, or else it doesn't work very well. Again according to New York Times, supply side economcs does not work better than the kind of economics that rises taxes for the rich.

Ann

I'm back! At least for a short time. I'll address this last post quickly as my schedule doesn't allow me much leisure time since I'm out of town this entire week.

Don't ever believe the New York Times on anything. They specialize in looking for statistics that make Republicans look bad, always ignoring statistics that make them look good. The Enquirer is a better source than the Times these days with far leftists Pinchy Sulzberger and Bill Keller in charge. Remember when the Times blew the lid off of a terrorist financial tracking program that was wildly successful? Even major Democrats tried to keep the Times from publishing. The main reason Bill Keller said what finally made him decide to do so was because Bush had ticked him off. National security was not even considered. Wow, what great journalism! Not.

What the Times always wants to ignore is that Republican presidents are usually left with an economic mess left over by the Democratic president. The first three years of the Reagan presidency were essentially the price we had to pay to get out from under Carter's misery index where inflation was over 21% and unemployment at 10.7%. The Reagan tax cuts plus the tight money policy by Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker essentially saved the economy. Remember the term, stagflation? It was made just for Carter's presidency. If you discounted that part, the latter part of the Reagan presidency blew away anything that happened in the 1990's. Clinton's economy never exceeded 6% growth while Reagan's did in two consecutive years. With a much smaller population and over a smaller period of time (about 5 years), the 1980's created over 20 million jobs while the 1990's generated 22 million jobs. Reagan's 20 million also included the 2 million lost during the deep recession of 1980-83 so he had a deep hole to dig out of in less time. Reagan didn't have the benefit of being handed a nicely growing economy like Bill Clinton did.

Bush was left with the economic mess of the dot com bust. Clinton rode the 1990's by essentially doing nothing. He came close to killing the economy with his tax hike back in 1993 as he was handed an economy growing at 4.6% by the former President Bush. After his tax hike, the economy nearly dipped into recession, growing by a measly 0.7%. The next year had near zero growth. It was pure luck that the dot com boom began early in his watch, saving the economy from recession, the beginning of which strangely coincided with the Republican takeover of Congress in 1995. You probably forgot that the first two years of the Clinton administration had nearly zero economic growth, most likely due to this tax hikes. But then the dot coms started up. With that kind of "irrational exuberance" of the dot com boom where stocks routinely went to $200 or more without having any revenue or profits (I know because I even bought two of them, ugh), even Carter would have looked like an economic genius with what Bill Clinton had to work with.

Then when things started to go sour in 2000 when people finally figured out the New Economy was a mirage and that revenue and profits actually mattered, Clinton didn't lift a finger and left it to his successor to dig us out of an economic hole. If Gore had won, he would have had to dig out of the same economic bust that his boss would have left him.

The Times likely didn't factor in Jimmy Carter's incompetence, the dot com boom, and the bust plus the economic factors of 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina. Nothing similar to those happened in the 1990's. Clinton had everything going his way including the peace dividend, hard earned by the Reagan and Bush administrations, and the dot com boom. Daffy Duck would have been a "great" president then. The Times also didn't bother to mention that the gap between the rich and poor widened greatly during the 1990's as it always does in periods of economic prosperity. The growth of high tech in the 1990's further widened the gap. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that as long as everybody's benefitting. I don't blame Clinton for that at all despite his populist talk that he would narrow the gap. He didn't. Only the far left seems to care that somebody else is getting rich too.

Historically the times when the gap narrows is during the time of economic recession and depression where everybody suffers but even then, only rarely as the rich are able to weather recessions better. From those people in the study you cited, it seems the respondents would prefer recession as long as the rich didn't get richer.

I will have to blame Ronald Reagan for one thing. He underestimated the impact of tax changes and the power of tax incentives during the Tax Simplification Act of 1986, essentially negotiated between Democrat Dan Rostenkowski and Republican Bob Packwood and heavily pushed by President Reagan. This was the bill that eliminated most deductions but brought the top tax rate down from 50% to 28%, also bringing down all other rates as well.

The cost of this "revenue neutral" tax simplification was the savings and loan (S&L) crisis of the early Bush presidency. It was tax simplification that created the recession of 1990. S&L's had made bad investments in real estate because of tax incentives, leading to lots of unoccupied commercial real estate being built without any accompanying need. With the tax simplification eliminating tax incentives, the market essentially collapsed, leading to many bankruptcies of the S&L's and the fall of the FSLIC (Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corp). That was eventually merged into the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corp).

Well, Roger, if you tell me that I am wrong whenever I quote the New York Times because the New York Times is invariably wrong, then I suppose it is going to be hard for me to keep this discussion going.

I wouldn't say that the Enquirer is very reliable. I remember from the 1980s that the Enquirer reported that when the king of Sweden, Carl XVI Gustaf, was courting his wife-to-be, Silvia, in the early seventies, he sometimes didn't attend his official duties. So instead of being present at an opening or other he would send a stand-in instead. The stand-in in question was a well-known Swedish TV reporter, Sven Lindahl, who just pretended to be the king... and not a single one of all the loyal royalists who had gathered to catch a glimpse of the king (and who had invariably seen Sven Lindahl on TV, too) ever noticed any difference!


A young king Carl XVI Gustaf.



Yes, they looked similar, but surely not identical. Would you Americans have noticed a difference if a man who resembled George W. Bush, but who clearly wasn't him, had made an official appearance and claimed to be the President?

So if you dismiss me out of hand because you think I quote a source which you describe as per definition unreliable, more so that the National Enquirer, I guess it is not meaningful for me to continue this discussion. Because, after all, if everything I quote from the New York Times is wrong per definition, then you don't ever have to ask yourself if anything that I believe in because I have read it in the New York Times could be right.

Ann

The Times isn't what it used to be. Their standards have slipped. I think because modern communications have really hurt print media.

But still, at least they're better than Fox News. I mean, those guys have had to claim that actual facts are biased in order to support their right wing agenda. In a way, I feel sorry for them. It's gotta be tough trying to be fair and balanced when reality itself is biased against you.

I haven't posted in this thread for a number of reasons, but I've found it interesting to read (or at least skim) many of the posts, so thanks to everyone who participated so far for the interesting discussion

Now that I do post, however, I have to do it completely off-topic.

Paul, you just killed me with the quote above. It's positively Daily Show-esque, I'd say (and on a good day, too). Great line

Eva

Roger, I don't expect you to agree with the New York Times. Why should you? You are a conservative and they are liberal. Why on earth would you agree with them?

But - I expect you to tell me why and how you think the New York Times is wrong. I expect you to dissect their arguments and explain to me why you think that those arguments don't hold up under close scrutiny.

But of course they do that. Specialize in looking for statistics that make Republicans look bad, and ignoring statistics that make Republicans look good, I mean. I expect the New York Times to do that. They are liberal, after all, so I expect them to show me the statistics that support their view. I don't expect them to eagerly serve up the statistics that support the Republicans.

Are you telling me that Republicans don't do the same thing, Roger? Do you seriously think that conservative media always give "equal time" to liberals? Don't conservative media ever present the kind of statistics that make them look right, while at the same time ignoring statistics that support the liberals?

If you think that conservative media never do that, think again. And if you think that you never do that, think again. You and I have had a discussion about median income in America. You have said that median income is up in terms of dollars, and I have said that median income is down in terms of purchasing power. I don't doubt that you are right when you say that the median American family earns more dollars now than during the Clinton years, but I also believe that this same family can't buy as much for their income now as they could during the Clinton years. This is an example of when conservatives and liberals present a bit of statistics - in this case, statistics about median income - and paint radically different pictures of reality with the help of it. Yet both pictures are right. However, I will insist that in this case, the liberals are "more right" than the conservatives, because what really matters about median income is not how many dollars you get but how much you can buy for them.

I expect liberals to show me the statistics that support their point of view. I also expect conservatives to show me the statistics that support their point of view. And then, when both sides have presented their evidence to me, I want to try to decide which side has got the strongest case.

Let me return to something else you said:

It seems to me that you make two points here: one, that the economic boom that happened during the Clinton years happened because of the IT boom and was not Clinton's doing at all; and two, that the bust that followed was all Clinton's fault. So the boom was not his doing, but the bust was all his fault. I don't know, but this line of reasoning just seems unfair to me.

I agree, however, that the general economic boom in the mid and late nineties had a lot to do with the enormous IT boom. It is easy to forget, now, how totally revolutionary the new IT technology seemed to be. I remember that it seemed like we were entering a new era altogether. That is certainly how the new technology was described in most Swedish media. I knew a lot of guys who suddenly got very well-paid IT jobs during the nineties. Computers seemed like a cornucopia of job generators: more and more and more IT people were wanted everywhere.

I agree that Clinton had nothing to do with this fantastic boom. Was it his fault that the bubble eventually burst, then? I think there are really mitigating circumstances here. Because the IT technology seemed so revolutionary and so completely new, it was easy to think that old economic rules did not necessarily apply to it. Compare it with the present bubble, the housing bubble and the banking crisis. What is new or revolutionary about housing and banking? Why would anyone truly believe that house loans could suddenly generate enormous wealth? It seems obvious to me that there was no reason to believe that people's homes would suddenly turn start laying golden eggs. Bush had no good reason to believe that houses could generate unlimited growth all by themselves. Clinton had a so much better reason to believe that the new, amazing IT technology could just keep generating more and more and more jobs.

As to whether the Clinton tax hikes really hurt the American economy, I guess that the only way we could really know that is if we could turn back time and "play history" all over again, this time making it unfold without the Clinton tax hikes. Would the American economy have been stronger during the Clinton years if he had not raised taxes for the rich? Only such an actual experiment could really tell us.

I agree. Yes, the American economy was on its way down when Clinton left office. I clearly remember that. Gore would have had to try to deal with the economic problems, one way or another.

I also firmly believe that American history would have unfolded very differently if Gore had become President. For one thing, I'm absolutely convinced that Gore would never have attacked Iraq. The reason why I'm so sure of that is that I remember so clearly how flabbergasted everyone was when Bush announced that he planned to attack Iraq. My own right-wing local newspaper had, up till then, never breathed a syllable about Saddam being any sort of global threat. But once it was clear that Bush was definitely going to attack, my newspaper started rooting for Bush to remove this horrible international menace. My point is that the attack on Iraq was all Bush's own idea (and probably the idea of a few of his cronies, like Cheney), and if Gore had been President, he just wouldn't have thought of attacking Iraq in the first place. So the war wouldn't have happened, and the huge cost of fighting the war wouldn't have happened either.

Gore probably wouldn't have lowered taxes for the rich. If anything, he might have raised some "green" taxes. What overall and long-term effects this would have had on the American economy is something we can only speculate about. One thing is clear, however. The last time Swedish media were so full of economic worries as it is today was in the late eighties, after there had been a 16% Dow Jones plunge (or something like that), and the right-wing government in Sweden had given us Swedes our own housing and banking bubble. Do you still think that the present economic woes in America are all Clinton's (and Carter's) doing, Roger?

Ann

Actually, Eva... credit where it's due. I think Jon did say something along those lines a couple of years back.

Glad you appreciated it (and the thread in general), anyway.

[img]http://lh6.google.com/shimauma42/R-vbDhOs6tI/AAAAAAAAAUg/Fwi_NMjRe0g/deanforpres2.jpg?imgmax=576[/img]
[img]http://lh3.google.com/shimauma42/R-ve0xOs6uI/AAAAAAAAAVA/UMCzYeFMvv0/deanforpres4.jpg?imgmax=576[/img]

He's got my vote!!

Teej, you should post those in the motivational poster thread too (if you haven't already).

I already did what you asked. I mentioned all the things they didn't bother to mention. Their premise is that supply side is bad, Clinton is good, but don't bother to explain all the circumstances surrounding their statistics. Given a good economy to start with, imagine what Reagan and Bush could have done. Now give Clinton a bad economy to start with and see what those tax hikes would have done to a faltering economy. Instead of zero growth, we'd have probably gone into recession. We'll never know for sure, but the Times did not present a level playing field. By mentioning the economic circumstances at the time, they would weaken their argument.

You've also acknowledged a bias in their reporting. So why bother using evidence presented by people you've even admitted are liberal and have an agenda against conservatives? Seems like a no-brainer.

At least Fox News has a ton of liberals on staff. I can't name more than one conservative on any of the "main stream" TV media like CNN or MSNBC. I even gave an example of how conservative Carl Cameron nearly sunk Bush's chances of election by reporting on the DUI arrest three days before the 2000 election. Roger Ailes, once Rush Limbaugh's boss, even crowed about that scoop that nearly put Al Gore in the White House. A network, biased only toward conservatives, would have sat on the story or published it after the election. I'm still waiting for any of the major news networks to report on the finding of 500 WMD warheads in Iraq. Somehow I doubt I'll ever see it. The motto of the rest of the media is "We won't report so you can't decide."

Fox doesn't pretend to be unbiased. They claim to have both viewpoints. The major media don't even admit there are viewpoints. They admit they have a lot of conservatives like Sean Hannity or Brit Hume. They also have a number of prominent liberals like Alan Colmes, Greta van Susteran, Neil Cavuto, or Susan Estrich, who managed Michael Dukakis's ill-fated 1988 campaign. Nobody can figure out exactly what Bill O'Reilly is. They report both sides of the story including the liberal viewpoint, not just one like the other networks. Because liberals are only used to seeing their viewpoint on the major news networks, they suddenly see a conservative viewpoint and believe that Fox is exclusively a right wing bastion.

Back to tax cuts, the supply side tax cuts were intended to fix bad economies. Clinton nearly killed a growing economy with his first two years of near zero growth following a healthy 4.6% growing economy before the tax hikes. The retroactivity of his tax hikes even made things worse since it didn't allow people to react to the tax hike. Furthermore, Clinton had campaigned on a middle class tax cut, but immediately broke that promise by raising taxes on everyone, including the poor, the most egregious being the increasing of Social Security income subject to taxation. Before the tax hike, only 50% of Social Security income was subject to income taxes. After, it was 85%. I'm sure you were all for that, right?

I don't blame Clinton at all for the dot com bust. I don't blame Bush for the sub-prime lending mess now. Neither situation was in their control. What I do blame Clinton for is doing nothing afterwards. Once the dot com bubble bust, Clinton essentially kept saying everything was good but didn't lift a finger as he watched trillions of dollars of wealth vanish.

Bush, on the other hand, even if I don't agree with his methods, proposed the tax rebates which won't work. Given a Democratic Congress, that's probably all he could get. It's a band-aid on a potentially gaping wound. But at least he's trying. Clinton didn't bother, preferring to leave the mess to his successor. Remember, I'm the one who gave Bush a D for his handling of the economy late in his administration with an A for early in the administration. Clinton got an F for early in his administration for nearly killing the economy, a B in the middle when he signed the capital gains tax cut the Republicans passed, and an F for late when he didn't bother to do anything when the dot coms went bust.

BTW, after Clinton signed that capital gains tax cut, the Treasury got a windfall of capital gains revenue after forecasting a fall in revenue because of the lower rate.

And since I suppose that you usually watch Fox News, since they will give you both viewpoints, I also have to assume that you are well acquainted with the liberal charge that median income in the United States is down in terms of purchasing power. Then you have presumably also heard how the conservatives refute the claim that the median American has become poorer. So, Roger, what does Fox News say about that?

If these 500 WMD warheads were a major find, if they were more than what you could expect to find in, oh, Pakistan, Egypt or Saudi Arabia, then it is in the interest of conservatives to insist on the importance of this find. If they don't keep insisting that George W. Bush was right about the presence of WMDs in Iraq, how can you expect less conservative media to try to drive home this point? Roger, I have a suggestion. There are, if nothing else, several talk radio hosts who are very popular, and who have millions of listeners. Swedish radio recently broadcast a sample of such a talk radio show, where a man was trying to explain his liberal views and the hostess responded by laughing derisively while the man was talking. I'd say that that talk radio hostess was making her conservative viewpoint clear very forcefully, but in a completely unintellectual way. Instead of listening to the liberal person, she was, metaphorically, spitting in his face.

I think this woman should be very glad to promote the view that 500 WMD warheads were found in Iraq. And if she doesn't want to say it, there are other talk radio hosts around. What about Rush Limbaugh, for example?

If none of these conservatives want to insist that Bush was right about the presence of WMDs in Iraq, then I am certainly not going to believe that whatever was found in Iraq was any sort of major find. Indeed, I'm not going to believe that these supposed WMD warheads were any kind of WMDs at all, most certainly not the kinds that Bush made the world believe in when he justified the Iraq war. Of course it goes without saying that Saddam had extremely dangerous poison gas in the past, since such gas was demonstrably used against Iraqi Kurds in 1988. Saddam had the capability to commit genocide with gas in the 1980s, which he proved to us beyond all doubt. We don't even have to discuss that. The question is, did he have the capability to commit genocide with gas in 2002, or in 2003? As long as Fox News and others won't demonstrate to us that he did, why should I believe it, seeing that all other media deny it? Seriously, Roger. This is exactly the kind of point that it is up to the conservatives to prove. They do not lack the platform they need to broadcast their proof, assuming they have it in the first place. If for some reason they choose not to press their point, don't ask me to believe it!

I know that you have replied to this before. You said that the conservatives didn't want to call too much attention to Iraq in the first place, since the war is unpopular among many Americans. Well, tough luck. Only a few days ago it was five years since the war started. Swedish media were full of the claim that no WMDs had been found in Iraq and that the war had therefore essentially been for nothing. It must be in the interest of the conservatives to use their big influential media like Fox News to insist that WMDs were indeed found and that the war was justified. If Fox and others won't make such a claim, and make it loudly and clearly, don't blame the liberal media, which are against the war, for not making this claim on their own.

Ann

I found this article in Today's New York Times. It is by Paul Krugman, and in it he compares what the three presidential candidates, McCain, Clinton and Obama, have said about domestic issues. According to what Krugman says, McCain wants to save the economy by lowering taxes for the rich and leave struggling homeowners to fend for themselves, whether or not they are able to do so:

According to Krugman, Clinton instead stresses the need to aid individual homeowners in trouble:

Obama strikes Krugman as a lot more cautious than Clinton, and a lot more unwilling to commit himself to the idea of helping individuals in dire financial straits:

This is how Krugman sums up the three candidates, how they are portrayed in the media versus what they stand for in reality:

You may or may not agree with Paul Krugman's assessment, and you may or may not take offence at his choice of words (McCain "panders shamelessly to right-wing ideologues", for example).

But I thought this comparison between the three candidates was interesting, all the same.

Ann

Michelle Malkins catalog of "The Self Delusion" of the New York Times

Ann, believe the WMD's or not but the report comes straight out of the Iraq Survey Group's report regardless of whether Fox News or CNN reports it or not. Or do you not believe the ISG report? That is the original source of the report on 500 WMD's found. Fact is fact, regardless of the reporting. My original point anyway is that the news media cannot be relied upon for any facts. The New York Times definitely cannot be relied upon for facts or truth. You even admit that yourself.

I also emphasize the ISG report said that Saddam was poised to resume full production just as soon as they could get bribed France and Russia to kill the UN sanctions, which according to that UK Telegraph article I mentioned earlier said was nearly about to happen. There was a reason for that oil-for-food program scandal that reached all the way up to Kofi Annan's son. The UN was about to capitulate. So even if there were only 500 found now, many more were on the way. Even Democrats will admit that, though they won't advertise it.

BTW, many conservative talk show hosts (I mean real conservatives, not the left of Democrats conservatives in Sweden) in America were touting the report of WMD's, especially Rush Limbaugh. If you didn't hear it when it was news about 18 months ago, then there's not much I can do about it.

Even if some people believe it was a waste, there have been many benefits of the American invasion. Lebanon and the Palestinians saw the example of democracy and took it themselves. Freedom was starting its sweep through the Middle East and even in the Russian republics that remained in bondage. Remember the Orange, Rose, and Cedar Revolutions? Even Walid Jumblat of the Druze in Lebanon directly attributed the American invasion as the reason for the Cedar Revolution. Jumblat is no friend of America.

It was only when Democrats kept insisting we had lost the war and the mainstream media started to parrot that line that the democratic movements stopped in their tracks. Even now while we're winning, having swept al Qaeda out of Anbar and other provinces and Sunni groups turning against al Qaeda and allying with America, Democrats still say we're losing and want to get out now, throwing away all the lives that have already been lost. I find it odd that people continue to object to a war where the main opponent is al Qaeda, regardless of the venue. Would they rather al Qaeda come to our shores to fight them or would they rather have us kill them by the thousands there? The left's logic completely escapes me here. We've got the perfect killing fields to kill al Qaeda and people would rather we leave? Huh? What better position can we be in to destroy al Qaeda as they desperately are trying to prevent the spread of democracy, knowing it is their death knell if it takes hold. If Iraq is really a diversion from the War on Terror as so many on the left insist, then why is al Qaeda fighting so hard and committing so many resources to stopping us? If it were a diversion, they'd leave Iraq to us and move ahead with plans to attack America and her allies instead. So why is it al Qaeda understands what our own left does not?

When we do finally destroy al Qaeda (isn't that the whole point of this war anyway? Does anybody actually object to our destroying al Qaeda even if it happens to be in Iraq?), the advance of democracy will resume and the threat of terrorism will subside greatly. That was the whole point of the War on Terror. Destroy the supporters of terrorism and foster an environment where the breeding grounds of terrorism dry up. Rather, the left would rather play defense, leaving al Qaeda to continue recruiting and plotting without hindrance and letting them strike before we do anything in return. Now that kind of mindset will only get us all killed.

BTW, I have not watched Fox News in about eight months, nor any other televised news so I haven't got a clue what they're saying now. I basically watch maybe two or three TV shows a week and that's it. I don't really have the time for it.

Paul Krugman is a die-hard liberal. I would be surprised if he said otherwise about a Republican. Keep in mind I am not a big McCain fan either, but he's a lot better than Obama or Clinton. Nobody else stands a snowball's chance of winning but those three.

All right, Roger. I stand corrected.

I agree with you that the media can't always be relied on. Not infrequently, they simply get their facts wrong. Sometimes they just don't bother to check their sources, sometimes they are just sloppy so that they accidentally misquote their sources, and sometimes, they get their facts wrong because they only search for the facts that would support their own point of view. It is even possible that they occasionally misquote their sources deliberately because they cheat deliberately.

But are you telling me that whatever the media writes is wrong? Are you telling me, in particular, that whatever the liberal media writes is wrong? Are you really saying that? That is an extremely serious charge, Roger. What would you say if I claimed that conservative media lie about whatever they report?

This is a very, very serious charge, Roger. You say that I admit that the New York times can't be relied on. And yet you see that I quote the NYT relatively frequently. Are you saying that I know or strongly suspect that the facts that I quote from the NYT are wrong?

For your information, Roger. I don't quote anything that doesn't strike me as reliable.

As for those 500 WMDs that the Iraq Survey Group found in Iraq. I have already pointed out that Iraq most certainly did have WMDs in the eighties, since Saddam used such weapons to commit genocide on Iraqi Kurds. But a few years after that Bush Sr. attacked Iraq over its invasion of Kuwait. I believe that Bush Sr. also imposed sanctions on Iraq and sent inspectors to Iraq to make sure that old WMDs were destroyed and that no new ones were built. I certainly know that Bill Clinton upheld those sanctions and sent more inspectors there. Because of that, the question is not so much if parts of WMDs were found in Iraq, but whether or not they were functional, or could easily be made fully functional. Could Saddam use those 500 WMDs to attack someone?

Tell me this, Roger. I subscribe to a daily newspaper which I would describe as rather right-wing. You might very well describe it as bleeding-heart leftist. Well, take it from me: I read that paper every day, and believe me, my newspaper defended the Iraq war as long as it possibly could. First it told us that Iraq really was a terrible threat to the world because of its WMDs. Then it rather stopped talking about the WMDs, as if it didn't believe in them anymore, and instead it talked about how important it was to bring democracy and liberty to Iraq and the Middle East. Nowadays my newspaper sounds a bit embarrassed when it talks about the Iraq war. Its message these days is that the war was justified, because it was right to try to bring democracy and liberty to the Middle East, but unfortunately Bush botched the war because he conducted it so badly.

To summarize, however, my newspaper has been a rather staunch defender of the Iraq war. And yet it has never claimed that any WMDs were found in Iraq. Why hasn't it, Roger? It must be in the interest of my newspaper to prove itself right. If functional WMDs had indeed been found in Iraq, the war would have been pretty much justified right there and then. If functional WMDs had been found in Iraq, why would my newspaper keep that information from me? As a newspaper, it has pledged itself to bring me important news about the world. And as a newspaper which supported the Iraq war, it should be very interested in proving to its readers that it made the right assessment about Iraq from the start.

This is why I don't believe that those 500 WMDs in Iraq were functional when they were found, Roger. Because if they had been, my newspaper would have jumped at the chance to tell me so.

This is one method I use to try to assess the trustworthiness of news. In whose interest is it that this news becomes well known? If I come across something that seems well-researched, and which gives me sources and statistics to prove its point, but which presents facts that are completely new to me, I start by asking myself if it is reasonable that this could be true and yet widely unknown. If the facts that are presented are embarrassing to powerful interests, to governments, to important players on the world market, to wealthy institutions and established ideologies, then I might suspect that those mighty players may have helped suppress these facts, because it is not in their interest that the facts become known. Of course, I have no right to suppose that anything that would be embarrassing to those who are in power must be true just because of that. But if the facts are true and if they are embarrassing to those who are in power, then it makes sense that those powerful people would at least not use their own TV channels and radio stations and newspapers and magazines to spread and broadcast these embarrassing facts. And that goes a long way to explain why these facts are mostly unknown.

Let me give you an example. A few years ago a left-wing newspaper in Sweden claimed that poverty has increased in India in recent years, even though Indian authorities claim that poverty is down. The Swedish article said that this is because Indian authorites have changed its definition of poverty. Previously, a poor person was defined as someone who couldn't buy enough food to get himself or herself a certain amount of calories every day. Poverty was defined as the inability to give oneself a sufficient daily amount of calories to stay healthy. However, in recent years, Indian authorities changed its definition of poverty so that it now means making less than a fixed amount of money, of rupees, every day. But, according to the article, the new definition of poverty does not take purchasing power into account at all. Indeed, according to the article, food has generally become more expensive in India, and hundreds of millions of people who are defined as "not poor" because of the number of rupees they make, can't afford to buy a reasonable amount of food for their money. By the old definition, they were poor. By the new definition, they are not. So we have a situation where, according to the article, the Indian authorities define more people as "not poor", while in reality a growing number of people aren't able to feed themselves.

Poverty in India, as it was defined before. What the definition of poverty in India means today. (Yes, I agree that the pictures are exaggerated.)

In whose interest would it be that these facts become known? Clearly, it would be in the interest of the poor people of India. Well, what platforms do the poor people of India own from which they can make their needs and concerns widely known? Do they onw TV channels? Radio stations? Big newspapers and magazines? I severely doubt it. Those who do own big important media, do they want to make it known that poverty is growing worse in India (assuming that it is, of course)?

No. They don't. There is a large and growing and increasingly affluent middle class in India. They must be happy about the economic situation and development in India. Why would they want to call attention to increasing poverty among the lower classes in India? So if it is indeed true that poverty is increasing in India, then there is a good reason for why this fact is not widely known at all. It is not in the interest of those who control the media to call attention to it.

But just as it is not in the interest of those who control the media in India to call attention to the growing poverty there, so it is indeed in the interest of all those who supported the Iraq war to insist that functioning WMDs were found in Iraq, if indeed they were. Therefore, if my own pro-war newspaper won't tell me that there were functioning WMDs found in Iraq, I am most definitely going to assume that there weren't any.

Roger, you said this:

Well, I frankly don't believe that France and Russia would have killed the sanctions against Iraq, most certainly not after Bush and Blair started claiming that Iraq could launch nuclear missiles at European capitals within fifteen minutes.

I didn't hear it because my pro-war newspaper didn't tell me about it. And if my newspaper didn't repeat what Rush Limbaugh said, I guess that must be because they didn't find his claims at all convincing. I certainly don't mean to imply that my local newspaper would have disbelieved the Iraq Survey Group, only that my newspaper didn't find the ISG's finds significant.

Lebanon is a special case, because there are large groups of Christians there who aren't even oppressed. To the Christian Lebanese, the Iraq war was an inspiration. All in all though, things have certainly been much worse in Lebanon than they are now, but they have also been better. And Palestine? People in Gaza voted for Hamas. Is that a shining example of the blessings of the Iraq war?

Wow. Imagine that democratic movements in other countries have so little faith in themselves that they will just lie down and die the moment they can read in the New York Times that the United States is losing in Iraq.

Is it possible that other things about the United States may have influenced democratic movements in other countries negatively and made the United States look less like an inspiration? Could Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo have something to do with it, or the killing of civilians in Iraq? What about Bush's veto against prohibiting torture against prisoners of war? Oh, sorry, I remember - they aren't prisoners of war, are they, they are just illegal combatants?

(Right now they said on my radio that another American soldier who had been charged with the killing of Iraqi civilians in Haditha in 2005 had been acquitted by an American court. The message to the world seems to be that if Americans kill people of other nationalities, they will not be punished for it.)

The way that you use the expression "the killing fields" makes me think of a raging American military sweeping the countryside of another country, killing every living thing they come across.



You say that America needs to do this because America needs to defeat Al Qaeda. But the problem is that Al Qaeda isn't cut off from the rest of the world. It isn't separate from the rest of the world. Yes, Al Qaeda is really pretty much separate from the rest of Iraq, because this terror organisation has no roots there: they were never in Iraq before the United States lured them there by attacking that country. But Al Qaeda has roots in other countries. It has roots in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Algeria and Morocco, among other countries. What makes you think that the families and brothers of those Al Qaeda terrorists that you kill in Iraq will not take up the fight themselves and take it elsewhere?

The situation in Iraq is not good at all. What we have seen is not so much the growth of a democratic society as a society fracturing under the the stress of ethnic cleansing. Sunnis, Shias and Kurds are increasingly unable to live together. Also, while Iraq used to be a relatively secular society, it is now a society where Islam and Islamism plays an ever more important role.

The situation has become particularly precarious for women. Recently a Swedish reporter returned from Iraq and reported on Swedish television that more and more Iraqi parents keep their daughters home from school, more and more Iraqi women are bullied into leaving their jobs, and more and more women are murdered for breaking Sharia rules. Recently New York Times reported that two female principals of important Iraqi schools had been murdered. Yes, I read it in the New York Times. Is it untrue because I read it in the New York Times? No, Roger. It is still true, even though it was the New York Times that reported it.

It's not as if all the world is peaceful except Iraq. There is a lot of bad stuff going on in countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan, for example.

You are telling me that as long as America does not give up in Iraq, its war on terror is going to be very successful. What can I reply to that, Roger? Maybe it will, maybe it won't. But I remind you that many years ago when I debated with a Communist, he insisted that Communism would succeed wonderfully in the future. All I can say about that is that when somebody's chief argument is that the future will prove him gloriously right, he makes it impossible for his opponent to have a rational discussion with him.

Ann

Just a thought, but...

When you get to the point in an argument that you're both quoting sources that the other side is expressly not prepared to trust, maybe you've gotten as far as you're going to get? Maybe it's best to call it a day before things get too personal? Agree to disagree, and move on?

Ann, I'm sure Roger did not intend to imply that you were lying or deliberately quoting untrustworthy sources.

Roger, a blanket dismissal of anything that comes from as old and prestigious a source as the NYT is a little extreme, don't you think? They've had more than their share of recent troubles, and their viewpoint doesn't agree with yours, but that's no reason for the level of contempt you've been showing for the entire institution and anything that comes out of it.

And I apologize for my similar dismissal of Fox News. My primary exposure to it has been either people I agree with mocking and dismissing it or people I disagree with using it to uphold their views. I don't watch it myself, for various reasons, so I've let my judgment be colored by such secondary opinions.

And this thing with the WMDs? Here's the deal, as far as I know: There was a cache of weapons (and scattered weapons components) left over from the first Gulf War (when it looked like we might invade, but... maybe I shouldn't get into that). No evidence that there was any intention to use them, or even that they'd been touched in over a decade. (Including when we actually did invade.) Fox News made a big deal of it, no one else seemed to care.

You can argue that some people should have made a bigger deal of it (while making too big a deal of other things), you can argue that others made too big a deal of it (and maybe not enough of a deal of other things). But whichever side you want to argue for, the other side has already made up their minds about it. So, again... Maybe it's time to agree to disagree?

Is there anything productive to add, or have we said enough for now?

Paul, thanks for calling a brief timeout. I agree that I spoke harshly, maybe too harshly, in my last post.

I wholeheartedly agree. Roger, I don't think that you have ever spoken to me less than respectfully. I don't for a moment think that you meant to imply that I was deliberately lying. I think, rather, that you were telling me that I should know better than to quote the New York Times, because the NYT is always lying. I don't consider that an insult of me, but I do consider it a more or less blanket dismissal of everyone else who thinks that the NYT is a good source of information. That in itself is very troubling to me.

Personally I have changed both my political and my religious views radically during my lifetime, and I know what a dizzying mental landslide that is. But having changed my own views like this has told me that there is more than one way of looking at things. Admittedly, it is very easy, when you have changed your views, to contemptuously dismiss everything else you have believed in before. I have definitely been guilty of of this kind of personal rigidity and condemnation of others myself. If some of you think that I am radical now, you should have heard me twenty years ago.

One thing that I think that I have learnt is that even though I firmly believe that I am right about the things that I believe in, others may be right about other things. I am not willing to back down from the positions I hold. Those of you who have watched me bitterly attack "death-of-Lois" fics must know what I mean. I do believe in the things I believe in. I know why I think the way I do, and I know what my reasons are. I believe in my own beliefs. I believe in them so strongly that I am depressed every time a death-of-Lois fic or video is even posted on these boards. But much as it pains me, I have to admit that those FoLCs who post them and who read them and watch them - most of them females, too, which pains me even more - these FoLCs have their own reasons for liking to see Lois dead, at least in some fics and some videos. Their reasons for liking those fics and videos are different from my reasons for hating them. My reasons are still right. But the other FoLCs' reasons are right, too, at least for them.

This is my point. We all have our own reasons. We all have our own points. I believe strongly in my reasons and my points, and I would dearly love to convert others so that they believe in the things I believe in, too. But I have to admit, nevertheless, that others have seen things about life and the world that I haven't seen myself. My reasons are right, and I have the right to believe that my reasons are the best. I have the right to believe in what I believe. But I shouldn't allow myself to think that people who disagree with me are wrong by definition. I shouldn't allow myself to believe that they don't have a point. Because they do. Everyone does, except the stark raving lunatics. And I'm not so sure about them.

So, Roger, if you want to take to heart just one of the things I said during our discussion, then please believe in this. Don't tell yourself that liberals are wrong about everything that they believe in. Because frankly, they are not.

Ann

Ann, you're right that I don't intend any disrespect on your part. You're right that I fully distrust anything the New York Times says. Even their own ombudsman says they are far too left wing and have too much of a leftist agenda. It's his job to try to steer the Times to a non-partisan mode. He's failed miserably at it. The Gray Lady has lost her luster and I think it requires the removal of Bill Keller and Arthur Sulzberger (granted, it's hard to get rid of the owner) to restore that luster.

The Times is the worst of the bunch with MSNBC being a close second and CBS third in the list of most untrustworthy sources. I usually respect what other sources say, such as ABC, CNN, the Washington Post, or the Chicago Sun-Times for example, though I know they are heavily biased and still look at what they say with a jaundiced eye, but the Times has proven to me that they cannot be trusted when they so cavalierly disrespect national secrets and inject politics into even their most non-political reporting. When the front page is tough to discern from their opinion section, then it's time to move on. You'll find most conservatives do not have a shred of respect for the NYT.

Conscious or not, most of the members of the mainstream media are solidly liberal. It's hard to divorce your own opinions from your news reporting and it's nearly impossible not to make the journalistic mistake of including all the evidence supporting your opinions or leaving out all the ones that don't. I would not say these reporters are deliberately lying. I would accuse them of having their political opinions heavily coloring their reporting, though.

The National Journal, a non-partisan organization, did a survey of people in the media. The discovery they had was rather shocking. A full 93% supported Democratic candidates while only 7% supported Republican candidates over the last several elections while the general public has been close to 50-50. While only a third were registered Democrats and fewer than 3% were registered Republicans, the vast majority were registered as Independents, I'm guessing because reporters are supposed to be "objective" and therefore should not have a partisan voter registration. Hey, Sean Hannity was a registered Independent and we all know where he stands. When more than 9 out of 10 people you hear or read about have opinions on the left, it's hard not to expect bias.

I've been watching the media for decades now, always listening to the slant on the news that is presented and more often than not wanting to throw something at the television wondering why they never tell both sides of the story. My own research goes through a number of liberal sources including the far, far left in the Democratic Underground (now that's fun to read!) so I usually know what both sides are saying. Simple observation over the years is what leads to the cynicism of so many on the right that the media is not to be trusted.

I do have to say it's entertaining sometimes to watch reporters such as Aaron Brown or Judy Woodruff. Every time they announce that a Republican has won an election, you can see the annoyance in their expressions. That's one of the reasons I used to watch CNN on election day. Too bad Judy Woodruff retired. She was very entertaining.

The issue of WMD's is a perfect example of media bias. The presence of WMD's would naturally make people on the right want to express them forcefully while those on the left are quick to dismiss the discovery as "not news" since they aren't considered large stockpiles. Why your Swedish source didn't report it, I don't know. I'm guessing because they didn't bother to read the ISG report. Most reporters are too lazy to actually check sources and just go with the popular reporting, whether it's because of the 24/7 news cycle or something else.

The American news media focused entirely on the first part of the ISG report saying that Saddam had no active WMD programs as justification that the war was a mistake. That becomes the template for all reporting. Anything disagreeing with that template has to go through a higher threshold before it can be used. Hence the complete disregard of the second part of the ISG report that clearly stated Saddam had used diverted proceeds from the oil-for-food program to covertly continue low-level research on his WMD programs and secretly stockpiling the base components for chemical weapons while waiting for the day when the sanctions would be removed whereupon he would resume full production. The media ignored it because it didn't fit their template of "No WMD, war mistake."

Paul, I don't believe things have become heated or disrespectful. Ann has never shown anything other than respect and she expresses her opinions well. Just because I disrespect the New York Times and openly mock them is no reflection on my opinion towards Ann. I hope nothing I've said reflects anything but my high regard towards her. I don't bother to debate people otherwise.

On my use of sources, I rarely use sources the left feel are untrustworthy such as Fox News unless they are the only major source of reporting. In all the cases I've used them, I've only put them up as an example of how something is reported by Fox News but not by other major news sources or how even a "right-wing" source will do things counter-productive to a right-wing agenda, such as Carl Cameron's near upset of the 2000 elections. I'm not about to use sources such as the Washington Times or Newsmax.com or the Free Republic because I know the left will dismiss those sources out of hand. I try to steer towards more objective sources like the National Journal or the Annenburg Institute. The New York Times, CBS, and MSNBC fall in the same category for people on the right as completely untrustworthy sources. Dan Rather, anyone? Anyone trust a thing he has to say these days?

Things in general have not become heated or disrespectful, but they were starting to head that way. Ann's comments in the post above mine indicated to me that she was starting to take things (in particular, your comments about the NYT, which is clearly an important source to her) personally.

I still think you've been a little extreme in your dismissal of them, but I'm not in the mood to fight over it. (Or, really, to keep fighting over anything in this thread.)

But that's me. If the two of you are enjoying the discussion, and if things are on a civil track, then do continue.

Ann wanted to know why I'm asserting she admits the New York Times is biased against Republicans. This is the direct quote from her. So when a source is admitted to be biased, I'm not sure why I should accept what the source says.

Right wing sources also try to bias things in their direction. That's why I go out of my way to avoid using them as sources. I know which sources the left feel are untrustworthy so I don't bother to quote them with the exceptions I outlined above: when I'm using them as an example of media bias. I've not asserted Fox News as a source of fact since I know no one on the left will believe them, only that they will report what leftist sources will not. On the issue of the 500 WMD, my example was not to use Fox News to say that people should take their word for it. My use of Fox News was that they reported that portion of the ISG report while the mainstream media would not. It is a significant difference.

The very first thing I do when I hear something interesting on a right wing source is to immediately search left wing sources for their take on things. More often than not, I won't even find a mention. When the left makes up over 90% of the media, it's very difficult for the right to get their viewpoint across without being drowned out by the liberal media. It's no mystery to me why WMD or the second half of the ISG report has not been successfully advertised and why the Bush Administration basically didn't bother. They knew it would be futile since the mainstream press had already made up their minds. The Administration basically admitted defeat by saying they'd already fought that battle and lost. Two outraged Republicans in Congress tried to get the news out but were effectively muzzled by the media by being given the cold shoulder.

It seems each time Fox News is mentioned here, it gets ridiculed for being wholly unreliable and biased towards conservatives and therefore to be discounted entirely. Granted you regretted it later, Paul, but even you ridiculed Fox News for having a right wing agenda with "reality biased against them." And I know Ann doesn't believe they are "fair and balanced." I don't take any offense at that but merely note it to not use a source like that when debating liberals. Why bother using a source that is immediately discounted?

Yet a double standard exists that says the New York Times must be accepted as a valid source when most conservatives consider the Times as no better than a rag lining the bottom of a bird cage. Many conservatives even consider them to be traitorous. I've heard jokes about why bin Laden has the cheapest intelligence service in the world. All he has to do is go out and spend a dollar on a copy of the New York Times every day to read about all the detailed steps and secret programs the Bush Administration is using against him. I'm sure you've heard those jokes.

And no, I don't use the National Enquirer as a source. It's a joke to make a point. I'm not sure if I've even ever read it outside the occasional glance at the front page headline while in line at the supermarket.

I agree that the New York Times is generally biased against Republicans. Not always and in every article, because I have read Op-Ed Columnists in NYT who have argued that McCain would be a better President than Obama or Clinton. But generally, yes, the NYT is biased against Republicans.

But is the Republican point of view the only one that is worth considering? Aren't there other, legitimate points of view as well?

How many Republican Americans are there in the first place? Right now, my impression is that those who are ready to vote for the Republicans make up less than 50% of the American people. Of course, I may be wrong about that. So for the sake of the argument, let's say that 60% of the American people are ready to vote for the Republicans. Ah, but now you must remember that dozens of millions of Americans don't vote at all, even though they would have the right to. Usually, only about 60% of Americans vote. Disregarding the fact that millions of Americans haven't got the right to vote - because they are too young, for example - let's say that all the 300 million Americans would be allowed to vote, but only 60% choose to do so. That means that only 180 million Americans vote. Of those, let's say that 60% vote for the Republicans. That would mean that only 108 million Americans are really and truly Republicans, and almost 200 million Americans are not (or at least, they choose not to prove that they are). If almost 200 million Americans may be "not Republicans", doesn't that mean it is legitimate to consider all these people's points of view, without necessarily always comparing their views with Republican beliefs and the Republican agenda?

I said that maybe a little more than a hundred million Americans can be considered true Republicans. How many people are there in the world? Six billion? Seven billion? If there are a hundred million Republican Americans and six billion human beings altogether, then Republicans make up about 2% of the world's population. All these other 98% of the people will have their own points of view, their own reasons. Must everything these 98% say and believe in always be compared with what 2% hold to be true?

Roger, you are a conservative Republican. Not only that, but you are a very knowledgeable, articulate person. Of course you know why you believe in the things you believe in. Of course you believe in your own point of view. How can I ask you give up your beliefs? I am no more likely to convert you than you are to convert me. You and I both know why we believe in the things we believe in. Both of us have the right to believe that we are right.

But if you ask me, both of us should acknowledge that there are people out there who are not like us. The world is full of people who are not like us. They have their reasons and their points of view, too. None of us should say that any media that disagrees with you or with me is hopelessly biased and should be dismissed out of hand. In fact, I would say that every media in this world is biased. Because if it wasn't, it would give a fair and balanced view of all the concerns of all of humanity. What media does that? Not a single one does. How could it?

We all have our favorite media. We have found the media which reflect our views. There is nothing wrong about the fact that we want to hear our own ideas spelled out to us more articulate than we could do ourselves. There is absolutely nothing wrong about having a conviction! And there is nothing wrong about wishing to have one's own conviction strengthened. But indeed, yes, I do think it is wrong to conclude that everyone who disagrees with one's own conviction must be wrong by definition.

I'm not trying to push the idea that any political idea is as good as any other. Believe me, I'm not! I think that my own beliefs are by far the best, remember? But I am saying that if we are not prepared to listen to other people at all, and hear what they say, and try to understand why they are saying it, then we make ourselves narrow-minded, even close-minded.

I have nothing more to add. Roger, it has been very instructive to debate with you. It has been interesting and fun, and I have learnt much. So thank you very much for this debate!

Ann

So, let me see if I've got this straight...

Journalism, on the whole, is a career which requires people to be reasonably intelligent, educated, and articulate. And, more than just about any other profession, it's one that requires people to be in touch and well-informed about what's really going on in the world, preferably with some historical perspective. (Some more/better than others, but on the whole...)

It's composed of people from different races, backgrounds, and locations, who get salaries ranging from lowly obit-writing interns to nationally-recognized on-air talent.

And you say an overwhelming majority of these people vote liberal? Huh. Go figure.

He said the National Journal has a survey that 93% of the journalist(media) surveyed swing liberal. They donate to liberal causes, they promote liberal agenda.

And this doesn't surprise me one bit. When there are elitest thinking goobs like olberman and matthews acting like they know better how to run the world than us smallfolk peons, you can bet common sense conservatives don't trust a gorram thing that comes out of their BDS spewing mouths.

I saw on Drudge recently that newspapers suffer the biggest ad revenue drop than they'd ever had in the last 50 years. I say that's just chickens tired of leftist propaganda coming home to roost.

Nothing makes my day more than getting a call from the New York Times asking would I like to get a subscription, and me getting to tell them their paper isn't worth lining a bird cage.

TEEEEEEEJ