That's not me asking, actually. That's the cover story in the current "Rolling Stone," issue 999. (It's dated May 4, so i don't know how much longer it'll be on the stands.) It's a detailed, scholarly overview of the Bush administration as provided by one of the country's leading historians. As much as Bush supporters will cry foul, it is difficult--if not impossible--to argue with the thorough, reasoned and historical comparisons of Bush with other presidents...those deemed both the greatest successes and the greatest failures. Recommended reading.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at April 29, 2006 06:51 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingWe have the magazine where I work and a conservative coworker of mine was flipping through it. He glanced at the article for about five seconds, and said, "This historian sucks!" He couldn't have read an entire paragraph. I think he read a couple of the captions.
See, that's probably going to be the reaction of any Bush supporters who try to read the article. Granted I don't KNOW any Bush supporters, but you get the idea. ;)
Yeah, I'm thinking most Bush supporters don't read Rolling Stone anyway, since every issue has a Bush-bashing article in it. My mother in law saw this issue and was so offended by the cartoon of Bush in a dunce cap that she turned it over so the back was showing instead.
The piece itself is at http://www.rollingstone.com/news/profile/story/9961300/the_worst_president_in_history
To back the stereotype of people clinging to their political opinions, I'll admit I _still_ see Bush as Warren G. Harding -- well-meaning but listening to the wrong people and just not up to the job.
On the other hand, the stiff-necked Hoover is also a good comparison.
Frankly, I think it's too soon to judge accurately.
Bush Jr has certainly been a BAD President, but all we have to judge him on is the stuff that's already known about.
How much evil, screwed-up stuff is there that this administration has gotten up to that has been left uncovered? Until someone other than the Republicans is in charge of at least one of the Houses and is willing and able to do some digging, we'll never know.
Thanks for the notice - I'm flying today, and always end up wanting a magazine or three for the flight. Looks like I'll grab this, Real Simple, and Glamour for the flight to Philly. Danke!
I hate it when the media does this. By saying "worst ever," they sound too radical. I despise Bush, but I don't know if I'd put him as worst ever. I'd certainly put him as worst of my lifetime, though.
Oddly enough, Maclean's Magazine in Canada (think of a Canadian Time and you get the idea) asked the question if he was the worst president in a 100 years about three weeks ago.
You can read the article here: http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/politics/article.jsp?content=20060417_125323_125323
I dislike Bush, but I'm always wary of carrying out historical judgement on a politician until his term in office is completed and there are a few years distance as well.
I never thought Canadian Prime Minster Brian Mulroney would be anything other than reviled (Think Bush's poll number are low? Mulroney's were at around 12% at one point. His party went from 160-odd seats to two in the 1993 election). And yet, his political rehabilation is ongoing. He was just acknowledged as Canada's "Greenest Prime Minster" (most environmentally friendly.
I don't see how Bush could be positively viewed once historians get their legitimate crack at him, many years from now. But I won't be surprised when a lot write good things about what he did.
Way back on 5 December last year, i reacted to articles already asking the same question with a blog post...
To those who are saying it's too early to judge Dubya, that's the reason the cover headline and article title read "The Worst President in History?" There is a question mark for a purpose. The historian, Sean Wilentz, is not stating an absolute fact, nor even offering an opinion; he's asking a question. He does offer some evidence which supports the question's being answered in the affirmative, but he doesn't categorically state that Dubya is the worst president ever.
In fact, he notes this near the end of the article:
No historian can responsibly predict the future with absolute certainty. There are too many imponderables still to come in the two and a half years left in Bush's presidency to know exactly how it will look in 2009, let alone in 2059. There have been presidents--Harry Truman was one--who left office in seeming disgrace, only to rebound in the estimates of later scholars.
"it is difficult--if not impossible--to argue with the thorough, reasoned and historical comparisons of Bush with other presidents"
It's almost sad commentary that you're not kidding about this part. The 'almost' being it's become nigh customary to start off arguments with a "of this, there can be no argument", so as to, right off the bat, discount any would be disputer as the ramblings of the mad. 'cause if there can be no argument, and someone is, in fact, arguing... then obviously he's a nutty-nutterson - and no attention needs be payed him or his contentions.
Granted, you did throw a "difficult" qualifier in there... but really, the insinuation is there.
I believe that the correct answer to the question is - No one knows for sure yet, but if he is remembered as the worst President in the history of the country, it won't be because of the left wing fantasy that this admittedly unabashed liberal has spun in the pages of that scholarly publication, Rolling Stone.
I mean really. This article could only appeal in its entirety to the most ardant Bush haters. Such people would be down on the President if he cured cancer, claiming that he only did it to help wealthy white people. (The article is peppered with little bits of propaganda that fall right in line with liberal dogma. Global warming - BUSH'S FAULT! Tax cuts - ONLY FOR THE RICH! War in Iraq - HORRIBLE FAILURE!!!)
I'm not sure how Bush will end up. He certainly is not batting a thousand. But unless things go markedly downhill, there have definitely been worse men in the office. In my lifetime. And I'm 42.
Time will reveal, but George W Bush is definitely the worst president of the last 40 years, and if you get past a little bump there you could even say 70 and not meet much opposition.
Of course, you have to brace yourself from the reaction from the partisan crowd, who will label such thinking as "Republican Hatin'". But that comes with the territory. The 'Pubs will always want to lable a Dem as the "worst president in X years".
But seriously, how can anyone defend Bush's moves. I heard him say yesterday that he staunchly believed that although gas companies claimed a $50B profit over the last three months, there was no evidence or reason to suspect price gouging. Yet, he's more than willing to investigate whether gas station owners are engaging in price gouging. What's wrong W, afraid to go after your friends who are fuel executives, so instead you'll go after the former grease monkeys who worked hard to buy their one gas station.
Or how about this one: Bush said this week that the answer to once-again-rising gas prices was to eliminate restrictions on drilling for oil in Alaska and other places. So, he won't accept the possibility of investigating his buddies, but it's okay to ruin a national wonder to make his buddies even richer? Sure thing, Commander in Chief.
Bush, he's the man. Sure
I believe that the correct answer to the question is - No one knows for sure yet, but if he is remembered as the worst President in the history of the country, it won't be because of the left wing fantasy that this admittedly unabashed liberal has spun in the pages of that scholarly publication, Rolling Stone.
I take it that you won't actually READ what the person has to say, then....
"Mulroney's were at around 12% at one point. His party went from 160-odd seats to two in the 1993 election"
9%. For about a year. He finally stepped down as Conservative Party leader after that. If only because he was pushed out by the party in fear of what his presence would do to them in the election. It didn't help.
And it was 177 seats down to 2.
"Or how about this one: Bush said this week that the answer to once-again-rising gas prices was to eliminate restrictions on drilling for oil in Alaska and other places. So, he won't accept the possibility of investigating his buddies, but it's okay to ruin a national wonder to make his buddies even richer?"
I believe it was on NRO (that's The National Review Online for you non con-blogophiles out there) the other day where someone made the excellent point that if all the oil companies colluded to limit the ammount of oil wells they could dig, and the ammount of oil refineries they could build to produce gasoline faster and cheaper, they would all be put in jail... or at least flee the country once word got out about their impending arrest (but c'mon, you'd do it too if you were a bazzilionare).
Instead, it's the government, at the behest of environmentalists and other groups, that does this colluding for them.
And if you wanna ask if I think limiting envoironmental, for lack of a better more spite filled term, 'safe-gaurds' would decrease oil profits... well that's exactly what I'm saying.
But this is a small quibble in the overall pseudo-debate of the day... so I'll let ya'll get back to it.
Bush has made some important mistakes, and his Taliban-esque pandering to the religious right is regrettable. But many of his problems--from the oil crisis to terrorism--have been building a long time and were exacerbated by others. For instance, Clinton recognized al Qaeda as a major threat, but couldn't bestir himself to do anything. WHen the economy was recovering under Bush 1, Clinton was nonetheless elected and took credit. When the economy starting crashing under Clinton, Bush was elected and given the blame for the recession. Not everything is Bush's fault. And we need to recognize that the next decades require a firm hand and resolute opposition to radical Islam lest we be hurled back into the middle ages.
It will come as no surprise to those who know me, but I think a good case can be made that when things are looked at with the perspective of 50 or 100 years, Bush will rank far higher than Clinton or Carter (to choose two examples). What lasting legacy did either of them leave? Yes, Clinton was popular. Yes, I think some good things happened under his 8 years. But tell me, what happened that will still resonate 50 years from now?
Don't get me wrong. I don't think Bush will be held as high as Lincoln, Roosevelt, or Reagan (yes, Reagan). I think he has squandered some opportunities (especially the chance to bring true financial balance to the government -- there is no excuse for the current deficit). But when you look at foreign policy, I think Bush did things that will matter, and that will turn out to make a positive difference.
Bush has not been a great president (when compared to some that have come before), but I obviously would argue he has been a good president. I can remember how many people reviled Reagan. Yet 20 years later, there is a begrudging respect from many that in the one area of the time that counted, the Cold War, he did something right. I believe the same will be true for Bush. In terms of the one thing that really mattered, terrorism, he did something right. Not perfect, but something that mattered and that made things better than when he took office.
Iowa Jim
"I can remember how many people reviled Reagan. Yet 20 years later, there is a begrudging respect from many that in the one area of the time that counted, the Cold War, he did something right."
You mean hurl us into debt over an imagined threat? Sorry, no begrudging respect here.
"In terms of the one thing that really mattered, terrorism, he did something right. Not perfect, but something that mattered and that made things better than when he took office."
What was that, exactly?
JLK
monsieurms wrote: >>>For instance, Clinton recognized al Qaeda as a major threat, but couldn't bestir himself to do anything.
Neither did Bush 2. Remember, the BushW administration was given the same inteligence and he also didn't do anything about it. To be fair, let's say that either Clinton or BushW had pre-emptively struck Al-queda before 9-11, there would be a tremendous amount of opposition.
History is going to look back on an administration that took us to a war based on bad inteligence. An administration that possibly commited treason in leaking the name of a CIA agent in retrebution to critisism of said inteligence report. Who failed to show any concern during the crisis in Catrina until he was preassured politically. Who illigaly wiretapped it's citizens even though there were legal ways to do it.
Please tell me how the above is anything but the current administration's fault?
"I mean really. This article could only appeal in its entirety to the most ardant Bush haters. Such people would be down on the President if he cured cancer, claiming that he only did it to help wealthy white people."
You know, I see snide comments like that all the time. And you know what they're based on?
Nothing. Nothing except pure bias and arrogance toward those with liberal views...you know, kind of like Bush has.
If Bush cured cancer, he would be cheered by everyone. Period. To assert anything else is just stupid.
Just as when Bush sent troops into Afghanistan, he had the support of...what? Ninety percent of the people? More? I know *I* supported it and stated it here repeatedly.
Unlike, say, conservatives who found any reason to trash Clinton for anything he did, ascribing the most venal or self-serving motives for any major action. Support Bush for war? Absolutely; he's doing it to protect the country. Support Clinton for war? Absolutely not; he's doing it to distract from Monica.
It would be nice if conservatives stopped thinking that liberals act like conservatives.
PAD
Iowa Jim: Clinton or Carter (to choose two examples). What lasting legacy did either of them leave?
P&P: Seriously? Clinton balanced the budget (and showed future presidents how to do it, if they cared to). Sure, it's not "lasting"—Bush, Jr. dismantled the gain. Like it or not, the "aspirin factory" turned out to be (at least) a dual-use facility. There was the speech at the UN marking Global Terrorism as the greatest threat the country would face. (You'll remember the Republicans ran some serious spin that day: they aired Clinton's deposition on "sexual relations." Serious governenace choice: fellatio or terrorism? Which is more important?) Oh, and there's the whole jailing Milosovich. Wait—brokering peace with the IRA. Oh, and the first real steps towards a peace accord w/Israel & Palestine (Bush dropped the ball on that, BTW). More real $$ for education. Unequalled prosperity for the whole of his term (and the recession started immediately after the election results were in—learn your dates).
Carter was all into this "peace" and "integrity" stuff. Now, while I realize that's not wholly supported by the "Moral Majority," it was resolutely Christian. Good guy, that Carter. Builds houses for poor people. Help me out here: how many houses has Bush funded? Even after Katrina? (I mean besides the mansions for his friends in Congress.)
How's this for a lasting legacy: at least my kids will respect Clinton and Carter on the merits of their jobs. Sure, Clinton had an affair with an intern, but Bush screwed the world. Well, I guess that's a legacy after all...
I'm a conservative Republican, and I'd really rather not be lumped in with the ardent Bush supporters. That's why I like the term neo-con, it allows me to say that a lot of the nut cases who are calling themselves conservatives today are different than me.
I didn't like Clinton, but I wasn't at all happy about the impeachment mess. I've come to like and respect Clinton more since he left office. No, that's not just in comparison to Bush.
I voted for Bush in the 2000 election, but not in the 2004 election. I'm not sure Bush is the worst President ever. That's the kind of thing that is best judged 50 years from now, when people can be dispassionate about it. However, I don't think the claim is invalid, either. I think a lot of the decisions that he's made have been really bad, and there's nothing wrong with the article.
I like Stephen Colbert's interviews, "George Bush.. Great President or the Greatest President?"
and then, "I just have Great or Greatest. I'll put you down for great."
PADguy says:
It would be nice if conservatives stopped thinking that liberals act like conservatives.
I try not to get into discussions about politics, because it's usually a matter of opinions instead of facts, no matter what one's political allegience is. But I will say that one thing I am very tired of is shows (radio, TV, whatever) devoted to some Left or Right celebrity/figurehead ranting his/her opinions at everybody. How useless is that? I much prefer forums like this one, where there is at least the chance of a discussion.
Unfortunately, my radio doesn't seem to get many stations, and most of the ones I do get are skewed to the Right. I think it is a bad sign when I hear certain Right-minded figureheads saying something, and the first thing that comes to mind is, "Prove it!" Of course, it's all opinions, so it doesn't have to be proved. But I prefer opinions based on facts, not convenient interpretations.
On the radio, I continuously hear the Right criticizing the Left of what amounts to "bad behavior." "Ooooh, those democrats, they were so rude! Why, I never! Can you believe they won't support the troops? They must hate America!" This is a complete and total denial of point of view. Heaven forbid that the Right admit, "It's not that they hate America. It's just that they have a different perspective of what is going on." Heaven forbid that politicians should be reasonable when it is not convenient for them politically.
It's not enough to know where one side stands on the hot issues. In order for real progress to be made, both sides need to acknowledge each other's perspectives and take them seriously. And then they need to take this attitude to the forums.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to hold my breath until that happens. If you don't hear from me again, please tell Jessica Alba that I love her and that I'm sorry about the misunderstanding.
"Unequalled prosperity for the whole of his term (and the recession started immediately after the election results were in—learn your dates)."
I would suggest YOU learn YOUR dates. I work in the financial services industry, and had a bird's eye view of the whole experience. The market had been showing signs of weakness for some time. Perhaps you remember Greenspan warning against the "irrational exuberance" of the average investor? The market hit it's high point in March/April of 2000, and headed down from there, LONG before the election. Nice try, but that comment just doesn't fly. In terms of the next few years, 9/11 definitely caused a commotion but the market had actually turned around and was showing a lot of positive growth before the twin scandals of Enron and Worldcom hit (both of which had been festering for some time and can't be laid at Bush's feet).
When reading the article, (and yes, I DID read the article), it is obviously biased. The opening line itself gives that away, with the historian taking as fact a multitude of liberal talking points that quite simply are nothing more than opinion. Reading through the rest of it gives nothing but empty comments backed up by nothing but air.
I worry about the way this nation is becoming more and more polarized, I really do. It seems like there is so much hate on both sides of the aisle that we no longer have much common ground. I blame both Republicans and Democrats for this. The way that my fellow Republican's acted during the Clinton presidency was embarrasing and infantile. The way that the Democrats have been acting since 2000 is even worse.
BenD, what have the Democrats done since 2000? One of their failings is their aversion towards attaking Bush.
-It took the Republicans for Bush to suddenly start shaking his cabinet.
-The Republicans were also the major factor in Bush cancelling the deal with Ubai.
-The Democrats had nothing to do with the way Bush handled Katrina.
-The Democrats had nothing to the with the way his Admisnitration leaked the identity of a CIA agent as retribution for pointing out, befor the war in Iraq, that the inteligence was faulty.
I think it's fair to question his administration, in light of the fact that even his own party is doing so.
Bush supposedly deserves credit for spreading democracy.
1) By toppling the Taliban in Afganistan
2) By toppling Saddam in Iraq
3) By helping create the political atmosphere that pressured the Syrians to leave Lebanon.
4)By creating the atmosphere for some limited democratic steps in Egypt and othe Arab countries.
5) By not allowing Israel to prevent the elections in the Palestinian territories. (Although I'm not sure Israel would have acted differently, nor was there need for the Americans to introduce democracy into Palestinian society)
But even if somehow democracy of some sort endures in Iraq or elsewhere in the middle east, I think this success will be tainted by all of the mistakes associated with the Iraqi war. WWI, resulted in the toppling of 3-4 empires, but it is still considered a misguided war.
I doubt if Bush can claim credit for any great successes in the war on terror, unless we assume that US intelligence has prevented a worst outbrake of Al-Quaida violence around the world. Attacking Afganistan was a justified step against terror but not a fantastic success, and Iraq had a negative effect on fighting Islamic terrorism. Bush also squandered the leaderhip position of the US built during the 90s by his father and Clinton.
The key point of the article is not that Bush is responsible for hurricanes or terrorism or global warmingor even economic recession, but that he hadn't dealt with these issues well when facing them. I think Clinton would have done a better job handling all these issues.
Clinton could not have attacked Afganistan based on what Al-Quaida was doing during his term. The events in Iraq and the attitudes toward the war show the risks of waging a war without proper justification.
BenD says...
"I worry about the way this nation is becoming more and more polarized, I really do. It seems like there is so much hate on both sides of the aisle that we no longer have much common ground."
The nation's always been polarized... it's just now we hear about it more. Since the federalists took aim at the anti-federalists (or vice-versa) we've had two to multiple groups of people duking it out over what is the right and wrongs ways to run this country. Often with harsh and occasionally obscene rhetoric.
This is not a big deal... and I think it speaks volumes about how great a country this is that we can fight like this without even the spector of physical conrontation looming over, like would in other countries.
Also, polarization is inherently a good thing. Granted, I'd rather it was right wing arguing with the righter wing over what to do... but that's just a little pipe dream of mine. If we didn't have polarization we'd have become a stagnate, autocratic, less interesting by far, and commie-esque nation. I never want my government walking in complete lock step... that's just not the way humanity works.
As for turning down the vitriol... now what fun would that be?
PAD says...
"Unlike, say, conservatives who found any reason to trash Clinton for anything he did, ascribing the most venal or self-serving motives for any major action. Support Bush for war? Absolutely; he's doing it to protect the country. Support Clinton for war? Absolutely not; he's doing it to distract from Monica."
I think, or at least hope, most conservatives take my position on this... that is, being able to hold two thoughts in your head at the same time:
1. Clinton was doing this, at least in part, to distract from Monica.
2. It was still the right thing to do, and deserved our full fledged support. His timing was suspect, his action was not.
Chris, I'd disagree with point number 1. The timing was too close. Something like that doesn't get started and arranged in that short an amount of time.
In Richard Clark's book he says that things were pretty far along when the scandal hit. The question at the time was actually whether or not to call it off because people would think it was a distraction.
2. It was still the right thing to do, and deserved our full fledged support. His timing was suspect, his action was not.
Then when would have been a good time? He's been out of office 5 years & some of the vocal right is still obsessed about the blowjob, a common defense of anything bush does is "But Clinton ...", and when things go wrong people are still pulling whatever they can out of their ass so they can blame Clinton for it.
==============
As for bush & gas prices, in 2000 when gas was less than half the price it is now, bush said the President should "pick up the phone, call OPEC, & tell them to open the taps". Now bush tells us that there's nothing that can be done about gas prices.
Sean Wilentz: No historian can responsibly predict the future with absolute certainty. There are too many imponderables still to come in the two and a half years left in Bush's presidency to know exactly how it will look in 2009, let alone in 2059. There have been presidents--Harry Truman was one--who left office in seeming disgrace, only to rebound in the estimates of later scholars.
Luigi Novi: But are the reasons for Truman’s low approval rating comparable? Was Truman believed to have violated the law, the Constitution, civil rights, and international law?
Overworm: Bush said this week that the answer to once-again-rising gas prices was to eliminate restrictions on drilling for oil in Alaska and other places. So, he won't accept the possibility of investigating his buddies, but it's okay to ruin a national wonder to make his buddies even richer?
Luigi Novi: How would drilling in Alaska ruin a national wonder? Wouldn’t 99.99% of the Arctic refuge be untouched? And aren’t there already drill rigs there now, co-existing with the wildlife? Don’t caribou, for example, co-exist with oil fields? According to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the caribou population in Alaksa’s biggest oil field has quintupled since drilling began there.
Posted by: Michael Brunner at April 30, 2006 12:34 AM
Then when would have been a good time? He's been out of office 5 years & some of the vocal right is still obsessed about the blowjob, a common defense of anything bush does is "But Clinton ...", and when things go wrong people are still pulling whatever they can out of their ass so they can blame Clinton for it.
Chris: Any time during his 8 years in office would have been a good time to bomb Iraq. Why he picked that particular moment, in that particular news cycle to do it, is the part that's suspect to me.
As for the Clinton blow job thing... I never cared a bit about it. I would prefer my presidents not getting their recreation in the Oval Office of all the many offices available to them - but otherwise it wasn't a big deal. Now then, the many other thing's he did while in office... travelgate always being one that irked me no end... and then using the blow job facade to cover for them (which was just a brilliant move on his part. Cause no matter what he was being attacked on, even when it was actually warranted, he just came out and defended the blow job. Brilliant.), that stuff gets to me.
==============
As for bush & gas prices, in 2000 when gas was less than half the price it is now, bush said the President should "pick up the phone, call OPEC, & tell them to open the taps". Now bush tells us that there's nothing that can be done about gas prices.
Chris: Bush was wrong. Politically it was the timely thing to say... but economically it ranks up there with 'steal underwear + ? = profits'.
This massive increase in gas and oil prices was really quite predictable - in addition to the Nigerian unrest, and the loss of production from the Iraqi oil fields, the market became extremely nervous as this whole Iran mess began ramping up. Compounding this has been Bush's refusal to utter one simple phrase, one that none of his predecessors has had a problem with since Vietnam - all he really has to do is confirm that the US will not be the first to deploy nukes. When, in a press conference, a reporter gave Dubya the opportunity to say just that, he declined - "I don't wanna take any of the options off the table."
See, this is one of the many things about Bush that frighten me - he sees pre-emptive attack with nuclear weapons, against an opponent he merely suspects of wrongdoing, as an option.
I have read the article, and I see the same bias others mention. It's still an opinion piece, though, so it's SUPPOSED to be biased. Just becuase he's a professor of history doesn't make his opinion unbiased. Where did the notion that when a person gets PhD after their name, that they weren't allowed to express an opinion?
BTW, for those who want to find "proof" of bias, you need only check the political contributions of the author. In 2004 he gave to the DNC.
A side note on oil profits. I did a little digging at the time to look for their profit margin - just to see how much money they were spending to get all this. For the quarter it sat at 8% - at around the same place it's been for 10 years. That's not out of bounds for any company, and shows that it's not the oil companies making the money here - it's the speculators in the market. I've only seen this little factoid reported in the media once, though, so it's not very widely discussed.
With all the outrage over the "high" price of gas (talk to a European about how badly we have it) I seem to recall that many environmentalists and even some politicians have proposed taxing gas at rates that would have brought prices considerably higher. Aren't we supposed to be trying to cut back on gasoline consumption and isn't the only way that will happen is by raising the price so high that SUV type gas guzzlers fall out of fashion?
If you believe that global warming is both a reality and caused in large part by auto emissions, this price spike should be cause for celebration.
One thing about the current politics--boy, if you're the kind who likes to say that both parties are run by fools, you were given plenty of ammunition. It's like a race to the bottom over who can say the most ignorant thing. Supply and demand? What dat?
>WWI, resulted in the toppling of 3-4 empires, but it is still considered a misguided war.
And it very effectively sewed the seeds for another, worse conflict twenty years later. One which, by its end, saw the toppled empires replaced in some places by the now ever-expanding Soviet Union. Not much of an improvement.
>Now bush tells us that there's nothing that can be done about gas prices.
No, there's nhot much HE wants to do about it. There's a difference.
Back around '41-42, the US realized they had a problem and gathered up their top physicists, chemists, engineers, threw lots of money at thyem and, a couple of years later had atomic energy and the atomic bomb.
So, what's the government waiting for to crank up a Project Manhattan style all-out quest for an alternative to oil? The 'energy crisis' first reared its ugly head THIRTY YEARS ago. Since then, the administration's answer to it has been simply to dig more holes. Whoppee ...
In 2004 he gave to the DNC.
And for all we know, he gave to the RNC in 2000.
Of course, the general rule of thumb here must apply as well: the media is completely biased in favor of liberals, even though most of the conglomerates that own the major media outlets regularly donate to the Republicans.
But keep believing the spin.
Of course, the general rule of thumb here must apply as well: the media is completely biased in favor of liberals, even though most of the conglomerates that own the major media outlets regularly donate to the Republicans.
So when Rupert Murdoch owned the Village Voice you considered it to be an example of conservative bias?
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at April 30, 2006 12:19 PM
"In 2004 he gave to the DNC.
And for all we know, he gave to the RNC in 2000.
Of course, the general rule of thumb here must apply as well: the media is completely biased in favor of liberals, even though most of the conglomerates that own the major media outlets regularly donate to the Republicans.
But keep believing the spin."
But this man isn't the media - he's an academic. A man who admits academia, specifically history departments, are made mostly of liberals.
He even says here,
“Historians do tend, as a group, to be far more liberal than the citizenry as a whole -- a fact the president's admirers have seized on to dismiss the poll results as transparently biased. One pro-Bush historian said the survey revealed more about ‘the current crop of history professors’ than about Bush or about Bush's eventual standing.”
Now just because he admits to it, and just because he says that the presidents admirers will use this fact to dismiss the results, doesn't mean they don't warrant dismissing for just these reasons.
Basically, the entire contention of this article is that a very specific area of the population, history professors, really don't like Bush. And that's why he's the worst president ever.
The media thing is a completely different argument.
Whether your Conserivative or Liberal, I don't see how anyone can say that Bush hasn't been a failure in just about everything he does:
-He failed to act on intelligence and prevent 9/11
-He failed to apprehend Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice
-He failed to stabilize post war Iraq
-He failed to bring aid in a timely manor to New Orleans in the wake of Katrina
And these are just the big ones, and don't include balancing the budget, rejuvinating the economy through tax cuts, Harriet Miers, No Child Left Behind, a revamp of Social Security, and more recently his guest worker program.
The only success he's had in office are the nominations of John Roberts and Sam Alito.
Brian, many of your points hold water but how can you say the economy isn't rejuvenated? 4.8% growth in the last quarter? Even with high energy prices? Low unemployment, low inflation, god job growth....
In the old days, when a Democrat was in office, the economy was pretty much judged just on those terms--inflation, growth, jobs, unemplyment. By those standards, Bush is doing great (we will ignore, for now, the fact that it's one of our cherished myths that presidents are the ones directly responsible for the nation's economy, an argument for another time).
One can legitimtely make the news grimmer by factoring in trade deficits, the budget imbalance and other factors but it weakens the Bush opponents arguments to ignore the good news.
> ...and capturing Sadaam.
Who, it turns out, wasn't really any threat to North America, and the resources diverted to getting him were taken away from getting bin Laden who we KNOW is. Great sense of priorities there.
Bill Mulligan -
So when Rupert Murdoch owned the Village Voice you considered it to be an example of conservative bias?
If I knew anything about the Village Voice, I could respond to your question.
Murdoch isn't an idiot, and he was pretty shrewd in how he built his business empire, but he's certainly not playing to liberals these days.
Chris -
A man who admits academia, specifically history departments, are made mostly of liberals.
So? It's precisely this kind of thinking that's hurting this country so badly - just because most academics or writers in the media are liberals doesn't mean they're wrong.
Yet, that's exactly the position conservatives have taken.
Bush will be viewed as one of the worst, if not the worst, president in our history.
Craig, the Village Voice is a New York based paper so far to the left it makes Eric Alterman look like Michelle Malkin. It has some great columnists and is always a good read, even if you don't buy into the politics (unless you are one of those who can't admit the "other side" has any ability to think or entertain). You should check it out, I think you'd enjoy it. At the very leats, the personal ads have moments of brilliance (my own fave-- "Female boy George look-alike seeks male, same. NO WEIRDOS PLEASE")
As a subscriber to Rolling Stone, I would comment on the article... but I haven't gotten to that issue yet. (I usually read them on my breaks at work, and I'm still reading the previous issue.) (This issue in question, #999, is the newest issue, by the way, so I think it should still be on the stands for several days.)
I will note that Rolling Stone is unabashedly, completely anti-Bush, and that even I - pretty anti-Derbya myself - try to read with a grain of salt. Generally, though, some good, seemingly unassailable points are made in most of their articles.
About three years ago, a friend that's a devoted Bush supporter said to me (after I had said that Bush would be lucky to escape his term of office without getting charged for commiting crimes against humanity for launching an unwarranted war and allowing the torture of prisoners under his care) that Bush was going to be seen as one of our best Presidents ever. I was thinking then, and I continue to think today, that he's our worst. What gets me is that, even if you support the things he's done, the way he's done them makes him a terrible president. I like to think that people are above a win at all costs mentality, but I have to keep reminding myself that far too many people ascribe to the ends justified by the means. Especially when their side controls the government.
I read the article last week. Sure, it's biased. Sure, Rolling Stone as a rule is anti-Bush. But neither point is really an indication as to whether or not the author made any valid points.
With that said, I agree with the contention that it's too early to determine whether or not Bush is the worst president ever. At this moment in time, however, I would hold the opinion that he is the worst president in my lifetime. Maybe with 20 years of hindsight behind us, history will be kinder to him in the way that it has been kinder to Truman.
Iraq is a mess right now and, for good or ill, Iraq is going to be Bush's primary legacy. Three years in, and I still don't see much to be optimistic about the situation. If anything, I think the long term result of this invasion will be more instability and the liklihood that another regime (probably Shi'ite fundamentalists) will eventually take power and run things much the way that Saddam did with just a slightly different ideology.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Bush's domestic agenda is basically in a shambles at this point. Privatizing social security is dead. FEMA has been so decimated that people are now calling for dismantling the agency altogether. And now his administration is fumbling around trying to show that he can do something, anything about the high price of gas. Unfortunately, most experts agree that there is little he can actually do to get prices down in the short term.
What makes me think Bush is a terrible president, though, is not so much his policies, but his personal failings. And I'm not talking about the many jokes about his supposed stupidity. In all honesty, I don't think he's a stupid man. But I do think he is a incurious man; a man who lacks the desire to expose himself to any challenges to his preconceived notions.
I do believe that in 2003, he honestly did think that Saddam had huge stockpiles of WMDs because that's what he wanted to believe. So he ignored, marginalized and punished any dissenting opinions.
This stiff-necked approach to life also comes through in his general disdain and dismissal of science and scientists. After all, science is ideally about drawing logical conclusions about the world through observation and experimentation free of preexisting bias. But the possibility that global climate change is real or that Plan B may be a safe drug are inconvenient to his worldview, so any report that supports this positions are ignored and expunged from his world, regardless of the opinions of people who have spent far more time studying these matters than he has. If a lawyer or an accountant can craft an argument that favors his pre-existing opinion, then, in his mind, that argument must be correct. It doesn't matter that said lawyer has no expertise in atmospheric science or medicine, his opinion is what Bush would like it to be, therefore, it must be true.
Bush is truthiness, to use Stephen Colbert's term, personified. And that's what makes him him a terrible president.
I like to think that people are above a win at all costs mentality, but I have to keep reminding myself that far too many people ascribe to the ends justified by the means. Especially when their side controls the government.
The Rolling Stone article touches on this by pointing out that nearly every other wartime president has at least tried to reach across the aisle to the opposition. Bush's governing philosophy has been since day one, "you are either with us, or against us." Those few ex-administration officials who have dared to criticize Bush after leaving office have found themselves vilified by Rovian horde (Paul O'Neil, the six retired generals).
In 2000, Bush campaigned during a time when Americans were sharply divided by party and he promised to be a "uniter, not a divider." Once he was elected, though, he immediately crossed over into a bizarro world and became the biggest divider and the political polarization of this country got even worse. Even the mildest criticism of Bush was greeted with howling accusations of "hating freedom" and "wanting America to fail."
Maybe Bush is more of a symptom of the problem than a cause, certainly the other side hasn't done much to heal this rift. But I have yet to see any effort on his administration's part to close the gap either. After the 2004 election, Bush swaggered back into DC bragging about his "political capital" that he was going to spend on getting his agenda through. Several political misteps which resulted in his approval ratings plunging to Nixonian levels later, and maybe the swagger has been muted some. But the polarization is still there.
Bush's primary domestic legacy may be leaving a country that his angrier and more split than when he came into office. And no matter what side of the divide you sit on, that's nothing to be proud of.
Although it's likely that anyone who won the 2000 election under such controversial circumstances would have had a very difficult time ever uniting the opposition. From the day he took office some of his crazier opponents have been talking about coups and stolen elections; Ghandi would have had a hard time winning those folks over. But it's fair to say that Bush hasn't made it much of a priority.
Bill Mulligan -
Craig, the Village Voice is a New York based paper so far to the left it makes Eric Alterman look like Michelle Malkin.
Well, that might explain why Murdoch no longer owns it then. :)
Den -
Bush is truthiness, to use Stephen Colbert's term, personified.
Speaking of Colbert, here's the video from his appearance at the White House Correspondents Dinner the other night.
At least he had the balls to do what he did, unlike the rest of our vaunted 'liberal' media.
4.8% growth in the last quarter
Most, if not all, of which is war spending. The only ones who benefit from that are the defense contractors.
Low unemployment
This one is deceiving. It only counts those who are receiving unemployment payments. If your unemployment runs out, statistically you're not unemployed because this number is the number of people receiving unemployment benefits,
good job growth
Where?
Bush's primary domestic legacy may be leaving a country that his angrier and more split than when he came into office. And no matter what side of the divide you sit on, that's nothing to be proud of.
Reminds me of the greatest ONION headline ever:
"Poll: Nation Split On Whether Bush Is A Uniter Or A Divider"
Uproariously (or depressingly, your choice), this was actually a headline that appeared on CNN.
Posted by: Den at May 1, 2006 11:33 AM
After the 2004 election, Bush swaggered back into DC bragging about his "political capital" that he was going to spend on getting his agenda through.
I have had an incredibly hectic two weeks, so I haven't had the chance to read the two Rolling Stone articles, nor many posts in this thread (although I will do just that over the next couple of days). But, I wanted to amplify one of Den's points while it's still "fresh" conversation fodder. If my failure to have done my homework causes me to put my foot in my mouth, I apologize in advance.
On a recent edition of "Meet the Press," Ron Brownstein of the Los Angeles times said it best when he pointed out that at the height of his re-election, Bush was essentially speaking to only about half the country when things were going relatively well for him. That gave him little margin for error when his political fortunes began turning sour in 2005.
That's why I always laughed whenever I heard anyone trumpeting Bush's "mandate" in 2004. He won a slim majority from an electorate deeply divided in no small part due to Bush's divisiveness. He's now hoist on his own petard. The problem with W. is he seems to have no capacity to reflect, and feels no obligation towards or accountability to anyone but himself and his inner circle of neo-cons. He's paying the price for his hubris, but I'm not sure his worldview even allows him to conceive of such a thing.
OK, now I'll go back and read everything and hope I haven't made a fool of myself by talking first and gathering information later. :)
Although it's likely that anyone who won the 2000 election under such controversial circumstances would have had a very difficult time ever uniting the opposition.
It's true that Bush came into office with a serious rift to meld, but it's also true that he was handed an event that he could used to bridge that gap: 9/11. After 9/11, he had the country solidly as whole solidly behind him with approval ratings in the 90s. An analogous situation would be FDR after Pearl Harbor. Prior to the attack, FDR was despised by the republican party, many of whom refused to even utter his name, calling him "that man in the White House". The GOP was aligned with the America First movement and held a strong isolationist position. After Pearl Harbor, the America First movement was dead and the country was unified in a way that had never been seen before or since. The GOP still didn't like FDR that much and still criticized him domestically, but he managed to bring them on board for the war effort.
A president that was a more skilled communicator and a leader more open to working with Americans of all political persuasions could have sustained the high approval ratings that Bush was handed. As it was, he managed to go as far as parlay the overwhelming support for going after Al Qaida in Afghanistan into support from a majority of the congressional democrats (much to their later regret) for the use of force in Iraq.
But that was as far as the "uniter" went. Anyone who dared question his policies got the Max Cleland treatment: opposition to or even questioning of the war in Iraq was equated to wanting "America to fail."
Now again to be fair, there were many of opportunities that the democrats could have used to bridge the gap as well, but when the GOP trots Zell Miller to all but say that even running a candidate against Bush during a war (even though Bush had already declared that "major combat operations" were over) was tantamount to treason, it's hard to think of a way the other side could've united with him.
Bush was essentially speaking to only about half the country when things were going relatively well for him.
Which is why he has never been a uniter. Now granted, Bush has had the advantage of total GOP control over the government for most of his presidency, so he's never had to actually negotiate with the democrats, but he's never given them any reason to believe he negotiate in good faith with him if they had the opportunity either.
While I'm on this diviseness kick, I suggest checking out Dick Polman's blog from this Saturday.
Basically, he lists a large number of conservative bloggers and commentators who are decrying the vast number of "libs" who are panning the movie United 93. According to these commentators, there are numerous "libs" who are urging Americans to boycott the movie.
Except that no one seems to be able to name even one "lib" who is organizing any such boycott.
4.8% growth in the last quarter
Most, if not all, of which is war spending. The only ones who benefit from that are the defense contractors.
Is there any way to verify this? The reports I see, like today's Associated Press report that the maufacturing Index rose from 55.2 to 57.3, totasl construction spending rose to a new high, consumer spending jumped up .6%, and incomes rose .8%....none of them indicate that this bounty is limited to Daddy Warbucks Inc. But if there is reason to belive that is so, please let me know.
Low unemployment
This one is deceiving. It only counts those who are receiving unemployment payments. If your unemployment runs out, statistically you're not unemployed because this number is the number of people receiving unemployment benefits,
True enough but hasn't that always been the case? We've always used the unemployment numbers as one way to judge the state of the economy, imperfections and all. The numbers during Clinton's administration may not have told the whole story eithert but it would be unfair to claim that they were secretly higher than they seemed.
good job growth
Where?
Do you mean geographically or in what sector? Not that I know either, but the last report for March had 211,000 jobs created and about 2 million over the last 12 months. Which is better than the "jobless recovery" Bush was branded with during his first term.
The economy isn't perfect by any means but I'll bet that if Kerry had won there are many who would look at these numbers and be praising him for doing such a great job of turning the economy around! That's how the game is played. But it's still just a game.
And here's the dirty little secret to the game: There's actually very little that any president can do to alter the course of the economy, especially the in short. It's too big and has too many factors that are outside of his control. Sure, there are few things he can do, like not run up a multi-trillion dollar debt by borrowing from the world's largest dictatorship, that will improve the long health of the economy. But turning the employment rate or rate of economic growth around is more the result of being lucky enough to be president during the right business cycle than anything else.
But both sides play the game. If your guy is in power, then you spin the numbers so they make you look good. If the other side is in the White House, then you spin them to make them look bad. And if you're in power and you can't realistically spin them to make you look good, then you go in front of a bunch of factory workers and say, "Message: I care."
And here's the dirty little secret to the game: There's actually very little that any president can do to alter the course of the economy, especially the in short.
Bingo.
I never said the economy hasn't bounced back somewhat, just that it's not because of Bush's tax cuts.
Please note the "?" at the end of the worst president in history. Yes, the Stone has a Lib-left slant, however the basic facts still stand:
-inneffective use of intel before 9/11
-trusting cherry picked intel to push for the attack on Iraq
-a sloppy, ineffective response to Katrina. perhaps the White house didn't know the dikes would collapse. NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, The Weather Network all knew or at least suggested the possibility
-loyalty to and dependence on friends and cronies, even after they prove incompetant at their jobs. ("You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie")
-using "controversy" e.g. gay marriage or stem cell research, to distract people from the increasing s*&tpile in Iraq.
-see above regarding the fact that Osama bin Laden (remember him) is still loose.
"The worst" is still open to debate. He's still got 2 1/2 years. However, a few of his statements may make him the most out of touch president in history:
-"The jury is still out on evolution"
-"Mission accomplished"
-"You're doing a heck of a job, Brownie" (That one still cracks me up)
The man refuses to accept the fact that Rummy may-just may, mid you-have screwed the pooch in Iraq. He has surrounded himself with yesmen and obediant lackies who know to never present any option not in line with the choices Shrub has already made.
He is not out of touch by ignorance, but rather by choice.
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at April 30, 2006 01:46 PM
Chris -
A man who admits academia, specifically history departments, are made mostly of liberals.
So? It's precisely this kind of thinking that's hurting this country so badly - just because most academics or writers in the media are liberals doesn't mean they're wrong.
Chris: Sure. Doesn't mean they're right, either. What it does mean is that they're no doubt going to have biases. They're going to see George Bushes tenure through left leaning goggles... and that's probably going to lead them to some faulty conclusions. I'd like to believe history profs, and journalists, and anyone else in a job like that can be fair and balanced about their jobs... that they can just disassociate their idealogy from their science ( What I'd rather see on this subject is a he said/she said thing. Get 20 liberal history professors, and 20 conservative professors, and put them in room with baseball bats and bike chains... barring that fantasy, dueling opinion papers.
Also, I don't see how this kind of thinking hurts our country. Not even a little. I don't automatically discount what liberals say simply for the fact they're liberal... I do it because what they say is usually silly and wrong headed. But I still read what they say.
Posted by: Manny at May 1, 2006 05:17 PM
Please note the "?" at the end of the worst president in history.
Chris: Oh please. "Does this man want to cook your children in a thick stew?"
Even with the question mark, the title still leads.
The article is a hatchet job from the outset. Frankly, I don’t know why the editors bothered to use a question mark on the title at all – the cartoon cover makes it pretty clear up front what they think.
But what about the article’s author, Sean Wilentz – a “leading historian”? Perhaps his views are more objective.
Well, don’t count on it. After all, this ain’t Fairy Tale Land.
According to Wilentz, 81 percent of 415 historians queried in a 2004 informal poll by the non-Partisan History News Network found that the Bush Administration was “a failure.”
“Wow,” one would think at first glance, “These people are historians and the polling organization is non-partisan – that is some serious findings!”
Nahhhhh. They really aren’t
First of all, most historians I know of are (or have been) teachers. I’d even hazard to guess that those with master’s degrees or doctorates, and have been published, teach (or have taught) at the university level.
Assuming that is correct, then another factor comes into play for this “non-partisan” poll: Political bias. You see, according to a different poll cited by the Washington Post last year, between 72 and 87 percent of those teaching at universities and colleges consider themselves to be liberal. What’s the average between those two numbers? Well, golly! It’s about 81 percent! (The higher percentage, by the way, is for those teaching at the nation’s elite universities -- you know, like Princeton, where Mr. Wilentz teaches).
So the damning poll, which Mr. Wilentz uses as a foundation to prop up the rest of the points of his opinion piece, is probably fundamentally flawed. The only way to know for sure is to know the political persuasion of those “415 historians.” If 81 percent of them are, in fact, liberals, the conclusion of the poll is nothing more than a political façade.
Frankly, I’m tired of these propaganda battles between the conservatives and liberals. It is a constant distraction to Washington and the hinterlands, and, as a result, little of import seems to get accomplished by either the Republicans OR Democrats.
Reference: Washington Post article URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html
-"Mission accomplished"
Remenber, today is the third anniversary of the "end of major combat operations in Iraq".
===================
Is there any way to verify this?
Probably, but I don't have any studies on hand at this time. But my observations on this are:
maufacturing Index rose from 55.2 to 57.3
Look at all the manufacturing jobs being offshored. What's left to increase? Defence manufacturing.
consumer spending jumped up .6%
Really a small amount, especially considering how much skyrocketing gas & home heating costs probably account for.
incomes rose .8
Large CEO salaries & golden parachutes. IE the Exxon chairman gets a $400 million pension while workers pensions are being done away with. Unions accepting lower salaries for their workers while those same companies top management give themselves pay raises big bonuses for 'saving the company' (see Delta Airlines for a perefect example of this).
but the last report for March had 211,000 jobs created and about 2 million over the last 12 months
Keep in mind that
1) The jobs being created don't match up to the ones being eliminated, either in quantity of jobs, quality of jobs, pay, benefits, etc.
2) These numbers are being supplied by the same administration that couts golf courses as "wetlands" so they can claim that they are protecting more land than previous administrations; That supplies false costs of medicare 'reform' & perscription 'reform' so they can get what they want, etc.
Transcript of the Colbert monologue at the White House Correspondents Dinner here:
Look at all the manufacturing jobs being offshored. What's left to increase? Defence manufacturing.
So you are making the assumption that because much manufacturing has gone overseas, all has, save defense manufacturing.
To point out one obvious flaw in this reasoning, the housing market is booming and new home construction has been on a tear. Safe to say that the houses I see going up like weeds around me are not being made overseas.
Really a small amount, especially considering how much skyrocketing gas & home heating costs probably account for.
I believe the article I was reading mentioned that this was before the jump in oil prices and I also belive that this >6% jump was for spending on durable goods, not essential cost of living items. At any rate, consumer confidence is also up, hardly the mark of gloom and doom.
Large CEO salaries & golden parachutes.
Again, any statistics taht can back up the idea that the growth of incomes is entirely due to a few fatcats getting a big slice of the pie? It would not be hard to look at the median instead of the average. yes, we jnow there are some outrageous slaeries out theer but it doesn't automatically follow that the rise in consumer income is an illusion.
Keep in mind that
1) The jobs being created don't match up to the ones being eliminated, either in quantity of jobs, quality of jobs, pay, benefits, etc.
Evidence that isn't just anecdotal?
2) These numbers are being supplied by the same administration that couts golf courses as "wetlands" so they can claim that they are protecting more land than previous administrations; That supplies false costs of medicare 'reform' & perscription 'reform' so they can get what they want, etc.
Actually these numbers are not under the control of the White House. If you don't believe me then believe the strength of your own logic--if they could so easily come up with any numbers they want why did they risk Bush losing re-election with the dismal jobs growth that marked his first few years?
It's far more effective to simply deny that the good economy is Bush's doing.
To point out one obvious flaw in this reasoning, the housing market is booming and new home construction has been on a tear. Safe to say that the houses I see going up like weeds around me are not being made overseas.
Home construstion isn't included in manufacturing, it's a seperate statistic. Manufacturing refers to factory built goods.
Evidence that isn't just anecdotal?
Manufacturing jobs are being lost, jobs being created are part time, service & temp.
On a similar note, if so many jobs are being created, why is the help wanted section no larger than before?
Actually these numbers are not under the control of the White House
I didn't say White House, I said administration. The administration isn't confined only to the White House. But the W.H. can still exert pressure to cook the numbers.
why did they risk Bush losing re-election
What risk? Between having an opponent who wouldn't put a real fight & crooked electronic voting there was no danger of bush losing his "re-election".
I doubt there is any evidence or argument I could bring that could persuade you to question your beliefs.
Ok, I'm gonna try to bring two seperate claims by mostly the same people that don't seem to go together... I'm pretty sure I'm stealing this idea from someone a lot smarter than me...
1. All the new jobs created aren't the right kind of jobs - therefore, despite the evidence, the economy sucks.
2. We need illegal immigrants to do the jobs real Americans won't do.
So if the illegals are doing the jobs we won't do, no doubt because the jobs we will do are so much better, then just what jobs are being created at such a rapid clip? And just who are these jobless people?
I'm pretty sure the jobless rate doesn't include illegals... I mean, how would they go about counting them in the first place?
Posted by: Chris at May 1, 2006 06:02 PM
Also, I don't see how this kind of thinking hurts our country. Not even a little. I don't automatically discount what liberals say simply for the fact they're liberal... I do it because what they say is usually silly and wrong headed. But I still read what they say.
No, you're wrong. Because I'm a liberal and liberals are correct and conservatives aren't. After all, the government largesse we've thrown at problems like racism, poverty, disease, etc. has solved all of those problems and created no problems of its own.
Oh, wait, that's not true. My girlfriend works for the department of social services in the county where we live, and she's seen the reality that many liberals haven't seen. She's witnessed the mentality of dependency that our welfare system has created. Children now grow up in never having witnessed anyone exhibiting a work ethic, and therefore see dependence on a government handout as the only way to live. And the welfare system really isn't equipped to do anything to change their minds.
Huh. So I guess liberals like me are just plain wrong. Conservatives must be the ones who are right, always. Because the free market system will always provide the greatest good for the greatest number.
Oh, wait. I remember when Reagan pushed through de-regulation of the savings and loan industry. As a result, many S&L executives got involved in all sorts of greedy hijinks and caused a big mess. The government had to bail out the S&L industry and it cost taxpayers a lot of money. A lot more money, I believe, than regulation was costing them.
Hmmm. Who's right, then?
I'm a liberal who's been adopting more and more conservative views as I get older. Because it's clear to me that liberals and conservatives are neither completely right nor completely wrong. Instead, each side has some of the pieces of this complex, multi-faceted puzzle that we call life. Together, they don't have all of the pieces, but what they have together is a damn sight better than what they have separately.
And in a democracy, the push-and-pull between the different sides can produce useful compromises. Oh, sometimes it's messy, and often the government just clunks along and screws up a lot. But, y'know, anyone who thinks we've truly become a dictatorship should read about some actual dictatorships. They're ugly. Far uglier than our system.
Or to paraphrase Winston Churchill, democracy is the suckiest system of governance, except for all of the other systems.
Anyway, Chris, I'm sorry if I'm being harsh, but there is a problem with your way of thinking. Casually dismissing most liberals as "wrong-headed" and "silly," without bothering to say why is the sloppiest form of arguing. Pick an issue, and tell me why libs like me are wrong. Use evidence and logic to support your claim. Show me how you arrived at your conclusion.
See, I'm still mostly a lib. But I can be persuaded to think along conservative lines. I try to determine what I think is right, regardless of what "side" I'm supposed to be on. If that means I end up agreeing with conservatives, so be it.
Can you say the same? I mean, I don't know you. A single post in a blog is far too little for me to form any judgments about you. But, I can say this -- you certainly have given me reason to doubt that you're equally open to persuasion by a superior argument.
And please don't tell me that libs rarely come up with a superior argument. I used to say that about cons until I realized that anyone on either side of the ideological divide who says that is full of horseshit.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at May 1, 2006 09:57 PM
I doubt there is any evidence or argument I could bring that could persuade you to question your beliefs.
Yes, but you can potentially persuade those of us who are willing to evaluate your arguments on their merits. And even though I don't always agree with you, I have yet to see you make a meritless argument.
In other words, keep on truckin', Mulligan. What you've been writing is well worth reading.
And it's funny, the more we exchange ideas, I disagree with you more and more infrequently. Odd how that can work.
Oh, shit, my post to Chris said it was wrong to judge him by a single post when he's written many posts in this thread. I mean, I read most of them!
Sigh... would anyone be willing to cut me some slack because it's been a long couple of weeks and I'm tired and prone to make more dumb-ass mistakes than usual?
Anyone?
Hello?
(SFX: Crickets chirping in the background. The wind whistling through barren streets.)
Maybe I'm becoming more liberal as you become more conservative. At some point we'll cross paths, agree on everything for a brief moment, and then, a few years from now, I'll be raving about how President Obama is a fascist tool of the military industrial complex and you'll be saying "Hey, cool down, Trotsky."
So anyway, how was the big boycott in YOUR section of the woods? I was missing about half my latino kids, along with a few others who thought it would end up being an excused absence (um...no). It was a relatively quiet day, with fewer kids and quieter classrooms. As someone who is more sympathetic to immigrants than most here in NC, I have to think taht this may not have been a terribly effective idea, at least from a public school standpoint.
I doubt there is any evidence or argument I could bring that could persuade you to question your beliefs.
Ditto.
================
Okay, let me put it this way, if the economy is so good, and so many great jobs are being created, Where & what are they?
My brother has a Master's Degree in Social Work. He's pumping gas. A Friend of mine majored as a graphic artist, he's working security (And this is in New York City, home of many of the world's top advertising & design companies).
After shutting down my business (due in part to the wonderful economy bush has brought us), I renewed & updated my computer skills (graduating with a 4.0 grade & 100% attendance), and it took me 5 months just to get a temp job.
All 3 of us have solid work histories, and are not only willing to work, but also WANT to work, and this is the best we can do.
Bill, I honestly didn't see any impact from today's protests. Then again, I went to work this morning, did what I was paid to do for eight hours and then went straight home. I don't think we had an inordinate number of absences.
Since I don't work downtown, where the protests took place, I didn't see any impact from them, either.
My girlfriend now works for a secure detention facility for juveniles. They're not in there voluntarily, and the facilities doors are locked. So they couldn't walk out if they wanted to (and I think most of them do want to!). As far as the staff goes, well, I think they were aware of what a bad idea it would be to leave a secure detention facility understaffed in order to make a political point.
You know, the illegal immigration problem is a complex one. But something did irk me today: a newscaster said people were protesting the "criminalization" of illegal immigrants.
Hello? If it's illegal, then they are, by definition, criminals. I'm not sayin' that necessarily makes them bad people. I'm just sayin' something is what it is.
I don't think we'll be able to wrap our minds around this problem without first getting our terminology straight. Words are tools of thought, after all. Sloppy word usage leads to sloppy thinking.
And ground beef and sauce leads to sloppy joes. MMMMM... sloppy joes...
Posted by: Michael Brunner at May 1, 2006 10:41 PM
All 3 of us have solid work histories, and are not only willing to work, but also WANT to work, and this is the best we can do.
Anecdotal evidence is just that: anecdotal. You can keep piling it on, but volume won't make it more effective, any more than pouring gallons of water on a stain.
I mean, I don't know you, your brother, or your friend. So I can't say for sure that there aren't aspects of your individual lives that are mitigating the impact of a recovering economy.
And mind you: I'm not telling you you're definitely wrong, or that you, your brother, or your friend are in some way deficient. I'm just pointing out the limitations of anecdotal evidence.
Thus far, Bill Mulligan has provided a more compelling argument than you have. If you have any facts or logical arguments to bring to bear, now's the time to do it, because that's the only way you can counter a well-constructed argument.
Bill Mulligan -
Maybe I'm becoming more liberal as you become more conservative.
Anymore I'd like to think that I'm not really liberal or conservative, because aside from a handful of 'traditional' issues, I don't fit into one side or the other.
Of course, most people judge others on those 'traditional' issues, regardless of any other numerous stances you may have.
Bill Myers -
But something did irk me today: a newscaster said people were protesting the "criminalization" of illegal immigrants.
And this highlights yet another problem with today's 'liberal' media: they don't have the balls to call a situation for what it is.
This is a protest made up of illegal immigrants and kids who just want an excuse to skip class, and supported by groups who want amnesty for illegals.
But the media refuses to call them what they are: law breakers.
No wonder we're not getting anywhere on the issue.
The big lie in american politics is the corporate media describing itself as the liberal media. There are Ben Urichs and Robbie Robertsons out there but JJJ owns the thing and the headline is always 'Threat Or Menace?'.
Michael, I don't doubt for a minute that you are telling the truth. I know of more than a few highly qualified people who have had a terrible time getting jobs the deserve.
My own wife had a bad time twice in the last 5 years. Both times she ended up with really good jobs. It can go from famine to feast amazingly quickly (and visa versa--she left one job because she had a verbal agreement to take a new one, only to have the offer vaporize for no good reason).
Location can be a huge part. As a science teacher there are regions of the country, I'm told, where I could get a job in a heartbeat. There are other places where I'd be pumping gas.
You're right that New York is a great place for a graphic designer but that probably also means that LOTS of graphic designers flock there. Your friend might have a much much easier time getting a job here--one of my best friends, the director of the zombie movie I'm woking on, just got a new job as a graphic designer at a local maufacturing place. Of course, having a job in Sanford North Carolina might be less preferable to being unemployed in New York City if you truly love the NYC life.
Anyway, I wish you the best. Keep plugging away, eventually you'll find someone who needs and appreciates a worker of quality.
It does kind of remind me of Ronald Reagan's old joke- "Recession is when your neighbor loses his job. Depression is when you lose your job." ("And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his." was the punchline)
To Bill Myers...
Chris: Yeah, I was being mostly facetious when I said "silly and wrong headed". My bad for not clarifying that.
Really though, I can't think of one liberal stance on any issue I agree with. Not a one. I'm a staunch conservative, and I don't make any bones about it. The problem is that most non-conservatives don't really understand just how broad an ideology conservatism is. There are very few single stance issues in conservatism... though there are, I think, some foundation building blocks. We are constantly arguing amongst ourselves over what is the one true conservative approach to any given issue... and we love it. You got the social conservatives arguing with the libertarians. The free market conservatives arguing with them new fangled crunchy-cons. Pro-life v. pro abortion, and then countless other vareities arguing amongst ourselves.
So yeah, I disagree with liberalism in all it's many forms... that doesn't mean individual liberals don't occasionally have good idea's. But then of course good idea's are inherently conservative, so that puts an end to that liberals liberal credentials - thus making him okay to listen to. (that facetious thing again)
To point out one obvious flaw in this reasoning, the housing market is booming and new home construction has been on a tear. Safe to say that the houses I see going up like weeds around me are not being made overseas.
Might be surprised.
A big trend in homebuilding is prefabrication -- not like the older pre-fabs, that tended to be flimsy and not very durable, but solid hjouses built in sections in factories and assembled on the spot. With computerisation, they can be almost infinitely customised, as to layout and trim.
And a lot of them arrive on ships from Sweden.
To Michael Brunner:
I think my response to you may have come off as unduly harsh. I stand by what I said about the limitations of anecdotal evidence. But on a personal level, I understand what it's like to struggle to find a good job.
I actually had the misfortune of being a residential telemarketer for a few months. I wasn't proud of it, but I couldn't find anything else at the time that would pay the equivalent of what the telemarketing gig offered (sad but true).
I also spent two years working part-time as a telefundraiser. Again, I was not proud of it; in fact, I was ashamed of it. But I needed the extra income and try as I might, I couldn't find another part-time job that paid nearly as much.
Those crappy jobs, however, were instrumental in helping me land a job as a telemarketer for a large technology company. I started out cold-calling executives at large businesses to get appointments for the salespeople. Since then I've gotten a crack at some supervisory tasks, and am now in a position where I not only cold-call for the salespeople, but I research accounts, help contribute to account penetration strategies and will now on occasion get to fly out-of-state on the company's dime.
So there's often a light at the end of the tunnel. I don't call people in their homes, anymore. I call executives at large companies and they take me seriously (because they don't know me, naturally!).
Actually, my real dream is to work as a writer and an artist. I'm making some progress there, too. I've offered my graphic design services to a couple of people for free to get the ball rolling, and am building up a portfolio as a result.
I hope you don't think I was criticizing you, your brother, or your friend, or implying that the three of you are in some way deficient because you're having difficulty finding a job that matches your skill levels. Because I've been there.
Nevertheless, it's still anecdotal evidence, and it's not enough to counter the argument that the economy is getting stronger. If you want to convince me of that, you'll need to provide a logical argument based on statistical evidence.
By the way, when it comes to the economy, I think the president is like a football quarterback: they get too much of the credit and too much of the blame.
The problem with statistics, of course, is that in skilled hands, the same set of numbers can be used to support multiple, mutually exclusive assertions. You know the old saying about lies, damn lies, etc...
Besides, it's hardly a comfort to people who can't find jobs, despite their best efforts, when somebody declares, "But I've got numbers that say the economy is good!"
I'd say there's more to a healthy economy, and a healthy society overall, than cold, uncaring mathematics.
-Rex Hondo-
Rex, sure, that's true, but we have to have some standard to measure these things. If statistics are essentially meaningless and there's no way to measure the economy then we can't really blame politicians for not paying attention to it.
Chris, while I obviously appreciate much of what you say, how can you say that "I can't think of one liberal stance on any issue I agree with. Not a one." when you also aknowledge that "are constantly arguing amongst ourselves over what is the one true conservative approach to any given issue... and we love it." (And you're quite correct about that, btw.)
Here's the thing--with few exceptions, you can find conservatives who have taken "liberal" positions, albeit for possibly different reasons. So you could be pro-chice and still consider yourself conservative, even though it's generally considered the liberal position.
(I don't know if any of that made sense. The coffee better start kicking in damn quick.)
Mike-- yep, you're correct about the Swedish pre-fab house thing, but I've got a surprizing amount of friends and family in the business, both as builders and as suppliers and from my experience there is a lot of American in the average American home.
As a non American I find it difficult to understand the political differences when what is given is just labels: liberal, conservative. Many times it is difficult to distinguish between real arguments about real questions (abortion, yes, no); arguments about data (state of the economy); and arguments that are mostly about rhetoric (Bush, stupid or smart).
When I was politically active in my own country I often sat with people who shared many basic assumptions but what caught up in different rhetoric, or were blind to different aspects of the data. However, in Israel, up until recently, it was pretty easy to distinguish between Left and Right based on one basic issue -- the occupation of the west bank. recently it has become more blurry. But it seems to me that it is best to get to the basic issues and not labels. I once saw a person trying to convince a woman to sign a petition concerning peace. She was considering signing it, but than she asked: is it leftist?
I think one of the advantages of the democratic system is that whenever one political point of view reaches an absurd level -- which most do if carried too far or too long -- it is replaced.
I've come to believe that terms like "liberal" or "conservative" in the US have lost virtually all meaning except to use in order to justify negating someone else's opinion without actually giving it a fair consideration.
Bill Mulligan -
To point out one obvious flaw in this reasoning, the housing market is booming and new home construction has been on a tear.
I missed this comment.
I actually find it to be a very interesting comment, because it really flies in the face of everything that's been said about the housing market the last few months.
At one point, some wondered whether the market would slow down to the point as to cause a recession for the country.
That didn't happen, but the market has indeed slowed down.
Housing sales are expected to be down big this year - like 7%, with the plateau in sales possibly having already been reached last month when sales rose for the first time in 5 months, but sales overall are still down from last year.
Home construction was down almost 8% last month, the 4th decline in 6 months.
I hope you don't think I was criticizing you, your brother, or your friend, or implying that the three of you are in some way deficient because you're having difficulty finding a job that matches your skill levels
Didn't think that at all.
=============
As for ancendotal evidence, I know it isn't 'real' evidence, but more personal observation. I'd have more real evidence, but I lost nearly all my bookmarks (where I had this evidence) when I had to re-install my computer's operating system.
Unfortunately, my current job doesn't allow me time to research the information (I can only sneak online for maybe 2-3 minutes at a time when the supervisors aren't looking), and by the time I get home I have too little time & not enough energy to do it then.
Rex, sure, that's true, but we have to have some standard to measure these things. If statistics are essentially meaningless and there's no way to measure the economy then we can't really blame politicians for not paying attention to it.
Oh, absolutely. We can and should, however, hold our elected officials (on both sides of the aisle) and their supporters in the media accountable when they throw some numbers up on a screen with little or no context, then proceed to either crow about their victory or eviscerate the opposition, often with the SAME set of data.
*sigh* Where's an Arthur Penn-esque common-sense candidate when we need one?
-Rex Hondo-
Chris, I stand partially corrected. The evidence, however, still bears up. Your example of children in thick stew (more garlic, please) is a question designed to elicit an emotional response. The question mark behind the worst American president invites consideration of the evidence.
As for the Burning Bushies who hold up evidence to the contrary, I will use their boy's tactic of preemption.
No Child Left Behind. Maybe no one child, but lots of children in droves. The program is a vast mandate from above that puts financial responsibility on the states, counties and cities. Many Religious Right groups have tried to use No Child to put faith issues into the cirriculum.
Mission Accomplished. Nuff Zed.
Democracy in the Middle East. Lll very good, except for the fact that the "successes" touted by Condi are questionable at best, bulls&%t at worst. Hosni Mubarak wins again! Elections in Iraq and Afghanistan monitored by tanks, and the results greeted with violence. And when, may I ask, will Pres. Musharref be holding elections in Pakistan? This whole program is based in the rather specious assumption that everyone wants democracy. Everyone wants to be free, this is true. Just don't confuse that with democracy.
The politicization of Gay Marriage, Stem Cell Research, turning FEMA into a political perk.
If W isn't the Worst President in American History,he's right up there.
To Bill Myers--anecdotal evidence is still evidence, and how much anecdotal evidence does it take before something is seen as a pattern? My brother's ALSO a graphic designer, went to a good school for it, his animations are quite good, and he's working for the sewer department. Just because something is "anecdotal" doesn't make it less valid.
Um...graphic design is pretty specialized...so I don't know if that is all that good of a standard to judge the overall job market by.
Craig wrote regarding Mark’s the charge that the author of the article gave money to the DNC in 2004: “And for all we know, he gave to the RNC in 2000.”
Actually, the author, Sean Wilentz, didn’t give anything to the RNC -- at least since 1990.
Here’s a handy Web site that uses a database from the Federal Election Commission so one can query who contributed to what campaign. The author, Sean Wilentz donated only to the DNC in October 2004 (two donations at $250 a pop), according to FEC records.
The Web site is located at: http://www.opensecrets.org/
Being an independent, I don’t donate to anyone. I do check off the $3 box on my tax return to donate to the Presidential Election Campaign, however.
Posted by: Rat at May 3, 2006 12:14 PM
To Bill Myers--anecdotal evidence is still evidence, and how much anecdotal evidence does it take before something is seen as a pattern? My brother's ALSO a graphic designer, went to a good school for it, his animations are quite good, and he's working for the sewer department. Just because something is "anecdotal" doesn't make it less valid.
No, I'm afraid you're wrong. In the context of a discussion such as this, anecdotal evidence is indeed less valid. It is illogical to look at one's own experience, the experiences of those people you know directly, or even the experiences of individual people you don't know, and arrive at a generalization about larger patterns. In fact, it's absolutely ass-backwards.
There is no amount of anecdotal evidence that will ever establish a pattern worth discussing in this context. Human perceptions are imperfect; we are prone to remember evidence that supports our pre-conceived biases, and to forget or ignore evidence that contradicts what we are pre-disposed to believe.
Moreover, it is human nature to gravitate towards like-minded people. If you're only getting information from people similar to you, you're only getting part of the picture.
The only logical way to understand what's going on at a national level is to find a source of nationwide data collected using an objective methodology, and read and understand that data. Data-gathering methodologies, while imperfect, at the very least give us a tool to mitigate the damage our biases can do to the data-gathering process.
So asking how much anecdotal evidence it takes to arrive at a pattern is indeed like asking how much water it takes to remove a deeply set stubborn stain. The answer is the same in both instances: no amount will help.
Posted by: Michael Brunner at May 2, 2006 11:06 AM
Unfortunately, my current job doesn't allow me time to research the information (I can only sneak online for maybe 2-3 minutes at a time when the supervisors aren't looking), and by the time I get home I have too little time & not enough energy to do it then.
I've been there. I used to work 8 hours pounding the phones (making 100+ calls per day) on my day job, only to then go to my part-time job four nights a week and make another 40+ calls in the course of four hours. And when you're calling people in their homes, they're not always nice. When you have a conscience, as I like to think that I do, you don't feel very good about doing what you're doing.
My life has since totally turned around. I have a job I like, I'm continually being given more responsibility and think I'll have a good shot at promotions as they come up. And I have time to spend on my writing and my artwork. I have the best of both worlds: a day job that can support me, and time to pursue my life's dream: to be able to quit my day job and do my writing and art for a living.
So for what it's worth: chin up, soldier. There is a light at the end of the tunnel. Believe in it, and yourself, and you can get where you want to go.
Trust me, I know. Because I've been there.
Gee, here I'm saying I want to make a living as a writer, yet in my last post I used two colons in a single sentence.
I sure as hell better not quit my day job anytime soon.
Bill, sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree. Even if your national data WERE collected, what would the data be? Or, put another way, precisely what would seperate anecdotal evidence from raw data? Just because I know these people doesn't change the fact that the majority of people I know are not in fact working in the areas they went to school for. And of course I spend time with people similar to myself in regards to my job, since, well, I work with them and went to school with them. That's kind of a circular arguement, when you think about it. Since I work in broadcasting, I tended to spend time with the people also in broadcasting while in school. And as far as your pre-conceived biases? MY pre-conceived bias, my friend, was that once I got out of school I would be able to get a job that would be able to support my family without worrying. And it's NOT just people similar to me that are having the experience. My brother-in-law has had tremendous experience in jounalism. What is he doing? Driving a truck. Now, you could certainly argue that he falls into your original statement, but the only reason he's around me is because, well, he married my sister. Two out of the last three faimilies in this neighborhood that moved out were also not involved in jobs that they were trained for. Perhaps the problem lies in the terminology being used. "Anecdotal evidence" implies a certain amount of human influence on the statement, but when someone gets a job different from what they are trained to do, then how much interpretation can there be? I'm not trying to be a smart ass here, seriously.
And as far as having to make 100 calls a day, I remember those days from when I worked at the insurance company I used to as a marketing director. Although, I was just talking to insurance agents that the company had pissed off and trying to make them happy, not regular people, so you have my sympathy.
Come to think of it, I took the insurance job because I couldn't get one in TV. Never thought of that, at first.
There is a light at the end of the tunnel
Yeah, and it's probably a truck's headlights.
Rat wrote: "My brother-in-law has had tremendous experience in jounalism. What is he doing? Driving a truck."
Don't knock it. It pays a lot better than journalism, the hours are better, you get overtime, and in the overall scheme of things, it's probably less stressful.
At one point after leaving the military, I was seriously considered getting a commercial Class A license.
Posted by: Micha at May 3, 2006 02:12 PM
Bill, what kind of writing do you do?
Bad writing.
(I couldn't resist. I'm my favorite target for jokes.)
I am writing and drawing my own comic-book.
By the way, PAD, if I am in any way stepping on your toes by mentioning that in your blog, you have my sincerest apologies. I must confess that one of my ulterior motives in entering the blogosphere was to attract attention that I might be able to parlay into readers. I set out to avoid doing anything that smacked of inappropriate self-promotion, though. Nevertheless, I'm always wondering if my unconscious desire to get attention leads me to cross that line that my intellect tells me shouldn't be crossed.
Bottom line, I really enjoy participating in this blog. I've made some friends here and I'd hate to jeopardize this by doing something stupid. So, if you tell me I've stepped on your toes, I'll heed your words and won't do it again.
On the other hand, if you tell me it's cool... well, I'll try not to abuse the privilege and keep the self-promotional stuff to a minimum.
Posted by: Rat at May 3, 2006 03:43 PM
Bill, sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree.
It's odd that people like you who are indeed respectful feel the need to apologize, while trolls who really should apologize for their behavior are never sorry. Strange planet.
Even if your national data WERE collected, what would the data be? Or, put another way, precisely what would seperate anecdotal evidence from raw data?
Well, first of all, I don't think we're talking about "raw data" when it comes to economic reports from the federal government. They do some analysis as well.
The first thing that separates the government's economic data from anecdotal evidence is the scope. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, for example, collects employment data from all 50 states. Anecdotal evidence is limited to your own experience; I'm betting you don't know enough people to match the scope of the government's data! The second thing that separates such data from anecdotes is the rigorous analysis applied. For instance, companies are classified using standard industry codes, and are also classified by size. That ensures "apples to apples" comparisons. After all, employment in some fields is seasonal, and therefore causes spikes and dips in the overall employment rate. By classifying employers properly, such seasonal effects can be isolated so that the data can be interpreted properly.
No methodology for gathering data is perfect. But any decent methodology is nevertheless far less imperfect than anecdotal evidence. Far, far less.
By the way, if anyone is wondering how I know this stuff, I used to work for a weekly business newspaper as their research director. Worst job I ever had. Even worse than telemarketing.
Just because I know these people doesn't change the fact that the majority of people I know are not in fact working in the areas they went to school for. And of course I spend time with people similar to myself in regards to my job, since, well, I work with them and went to school with them. That's kind of a circular arguement, when you think about it.
No, it's not circular reasoning at all. In fact, you're bolstering my point: anecdotal evidence is based on data that is too limited in scope to be useful in the context of this kind of discussion.
Since I work in broadcasting, I tended to spend time with the people also in broadcasting while in school. And as far as your pre-conceived biases? MY pre-conceived bias, my friend, was that once I got out of school I would be able to get a job that would be able to support my family without worrying. And it's NOT just people similar to me that are having the experience. My brother-in-law has had tremendous experience in jounalism. What is he doing? Driving a truck. Now, you could certainly argue that he falls into your original statement, but the only reason he's around me is because, well, he married my sister. Two out of the last three faimilies in this neighborhood that moved out were also not involved in jobs that they were trained for. Perhaps the problem lies in the terminology being used. "Anecdotal evidence" implies a certain amount of human influence on the statement, but when someone gets a job different from what they are trained to do, then how much interpretation can there be? I'm not trying to be a smart ass here, seriously.
I didn't perceive any smart-assedness on your part. But again, you're basing your conclusions on observations of a relatively small number of people. The government's data is much wider in scope.
Can such data be suspect? Absolutely! But the best way to counter suspect data is not to trot out anecdotal evidence, but to expose flaws in the data gathering process. I'm aware that our unemployment data excludes people who haven't looked for work for a certain length of time. To me, that casts far more doubt on the data then any anecdotal evidence.
By the way, Mulligan, you did make a decent argument about why that shouldn't affect the stats too much. Nevertheless, I disagree with you. By eliminating that segment of the labor force (i.e. people able to work, regardless of whether they're willing) from the totals, we have no way of knowing what this variable looks like.
And as far as having to make 100 calls a day, I remember those days from when I worked at the insurance company I used to as a marketing director. Although, I was just talking to insurance agents that the company had pissed off and trying to make them happy, not regular people, so you have my sympathy.
Thanks, but I don't do that anymore. I like my job now. I don't love it, mind you, but I do like it.
Posted by: Michael Brunner at May 3, 2006 03:51 PM
There is a light at the end of the tunnel
Yeah, and it's probably a truck's headlights.
I've felt that way too. I think my favorite rock band, Rush, said it best in the lyrics to the song How It Is:
Here's a little trap that sometimes catches everyone, when today's as far as we can see/Faith in bright tomorrows giving way to resignation -- that's how it is, how it's going to be.
Michael, I swear, I've been there. So I can tell you with total confidence that even if there's no sign of better days on the horizon, things can change for the better. Just keep your eyes and mind open so you don't miss the opportunity when you stumble upon it.
The second thing that separates such data from anecdotes is the rigorous analysis applied.
I believe the term you're looking for is "cooking the books."
While numbers may be difficult to argue with, any argument in favor of the hard data in favor of anecdotal evidence presupposes that the people doing the "rigorous analysis" are not finding ways to make the numbers dance to their own tune.
So, when it boils down to it, all we can trust is our own observations. While I'm not trying to argue that this is unarguably the case, but statistics can very easily paint a gleaming financial picure at the national and corporate level, until you actually look beneath the surface and find that the whole system is rotting from the bottom up.
-Rex Hondo-
Worst president in history? Hum... A president that managed to get unemployement lower than it has ever been in the history of this country. A president that has over-thrown one known dictator, which even the HRC admitted as a disguisting criminal, and undid the Taliban. A president that has yet to have another terrorist attack, despite the fact that it's been a constant threat. And a president who the news media has taken pot shots at every chance they possibly could including making up a story about leaking a "covert" agents name (meanwhile, they don't want to talk about the lovely people in congress who are leaking out things), a news media that has taken every oppertunity to point out, gleefully, every single death in Iraq since the beginning, one that's picked Cindy Sheehan, a nobody who had a clear agenda that had very little to do with respecting her son's sacrifice, after all he went in for a 2nd term, yet she sat there and still said that Bush killed her son (like he pulled the trigger). Meanwhile, she's over there talking about how we're using nuclear weapons in Iraq and occuping New Orleans. Of course the best thing has to be this is the same news Media that has Louis Farrican (sp?) on and he talks about being picked up by the mothership, but they make sure to carry the story that he claims he's got pictures of Bush blowing up the levies in New Orleans. Yup, worst president ever and even with all these attacks on him, he's yet to once lodge a complaint and he's yet once to do what all the liberals want him to do, listen to the polls and decide by consensus, like Billy Clinton did.
A president that managed to get unemployement lower than it has ever been in the history of this country.
Well, that would be the first I've heard of this.
I won't even bother addressing the rest of the crap in that post.
Wow Malkie, you actually made my bullshit detector explode. Not even x-ray did that. And it wasn't a cheap Chinese-built Walmart-sold piece of junk either, but a good, solid example of good old-fashioned American built craftsmanship, too.
Hell, Ari Fleisher didn't even make a dent in it; Bill O'reilly can't even make it smoke, but you blew it up like the Mythbusters blow up a cement truck!
Bill--first off, somewhere in either Heaven or Nirvana or Hoboken, my parents are smiling on you for calling me respectful. Thank you.
Second off, you have served your point well. But, alas, in the era of instanews, just add pundits, numbers may not lie, but what they mean MIGHT.
Third off, this is quite the best discussion that I've had in quite some time. Now, granted, most of my discussions lately have been with a 5 year old or people who act like they are, but still, I love a conversation that makes me think. Just wish it would stop setting off the smoke alarms, though.
Malkie--wow, the third coming of X-Ray. What color is the sky in your world? And face fun filled facts, chummer. Had the attacks on New York and Washington NOT happened, Schlub, er, Shrub would have gone into history as a pale reflection of his father. And as for the rule by concensus thing?? Gee, I thought that's what majority rule WAS....And as for not having a terrorist attack since '01, well, hey, I went through a pair of windshields once, but haven't since, so they must be making windshields better. Same kinda logicless arguement. And which news are you watching? And as for Cindy Sheehan having a bias and an agenda, so did your boy Bush from the beginning. EVERYONE has a bias and an agenda. Some people just hide it behind righteousness. Seems Bush AND Sheehan are guilty of that one.
Gotta laugh at the unemployment line. SOrry, no pun intended. While Clinton was president, my wife had 1, count it, 1 job. Since Bush has been in, she's worked in four different places, laid off every time.
Oh, Back to Bill--Fracture a femur on the book, trying to finish a screenplay meself.
Micheal Brunner--if the light IS an oncoming truck, well, ask him for a lift!
Posted by: Rex Hondo at May 3, 2006 10:20 PM
I believe the term you're looking for is "cooking the books."
No, not really. "Cooking the books" means you're falsifying data. Analysis means you're interpreting data. You can't objectively "cook the books," but you can make an objective analysis.
While numbers may be difficult to argue with, any argument in favor of the hard data in favor of anecdotal evidence presupposes that the people doing the "rigorous analysis" are not finding ways to make the numbers dance to their own tune.
Yes, that's correct. But the nice thing about rigorously analyzed data is that it's much easier to determine if someone is fooling around with it, because you have something of substance with which to discuss. By the way, I used to ring up the New York State Department of Labor for help with research in a former job. They're quite good at what they do, and quite dedicated to being honest.
If you have evidence that the national economic figures are being cooked, let's hear it. Otherwise, the mere fact that they may be cooking the data is in no way clear and convincing evidence that they are cooking the data.
By the way, I've mentioned one clear way the data is being distorted: omitting from the figures those people who have ceased looking for work after a period of time. That gives me pause. Other than that, though, I think their figures are solid.
So, when it boils down to it, all we can trust is our own observations.
I disagree. Our perceptions can be fooled.
Someone once pointed out whether we're being chased by a bear, or someone in a really convincing bear costume, we'd go into "fight-or-flight" just the same. Our perceptions can be tricked.
Look, I'm not arguing that everything in life can be reduced to numbers. Lord, I only made it as far as pre-calculus in high school and barely passed with a "C!" Never took another math class after that. But when you're talking about economic conditions, data trumps casual observation.
While I'm not trying to argue that this is unarguably the case, but statistics can very easily paint a gleaming financial picure at the national and corporate level, until you actually look beneath the surface and find that the whole system is rotting from the bottom up.
Or until you look beneath the surface and find that the numbers are in fact collected in an honest and meaningful manner. That happens too, you know. I know a CPA who's honest as a day is long.
Again, if you have any evidence that the economic numbers are being cooked, let's hear it. As I've said, the unemployment data omits a segment of the populace, which concerns me. But that's not enough to convince me that the whole system of collecting those numbers is "rotting beneath the surface."
Posted by: Rat at May 4, 2006 01:02 AM
Oh, Back to Bill--Fracture a femur on the book, trying to finish a screenplay meself.
Good for you! Writing's a blast, isn't it? And good luck with it.
I wonder if the fact that no other terrorist attacks have happened in the US after 9/11 (outside 24) can be attributed to Bush? I have to admit I expected bombs to be blowing off on a weekly basis like in Israel (at the time). But does Bush get the credit?
Taking down the Taliban was in consensus. There is nothing more reasonable than attacking the country that attacked you.
Iraq obviously is a more complicated story.
If we assume that Iraq was attacked for being a threat to the US or its interest, this was not true and the situation is worse now. If we assume that the attack was part of a policy to topple dictatorships (that at the time were not involved in great massacres) than we have to ask two questions: (1) Does America have the right to do something like that? (2) Can what she did be considered a success.
This reminds me of the joke about a boyscout that helps an old lady cross the road who doesn't actually want to get to the other side. Except in this version it's a highway, and the boyscout seems to have left the old lady in the middle of the road. We are yet to see if she is going to get to other side.
"Bill, what kind of writing do you do?
Bad writing.
(I couldn't resist. I'm my favorite target for jokes.)
I am writing and drawing my own comic-book."
Thanks. I'll take a look.
Again, if you have any evidence that the economic numbers are being cooked, let's hear it. As I've said, the unemployment data omits a segment of the populace, which concerns me. But that's not enough to convince me that the whole system of collecting those numbers is "rotting beneath the surface."
Sorry, I don't think I was entirely clear what I was referring to. The system of data gathering and analysis wasn't what I was referring to "rotting from the bottom up," it was the very economy that is being represented by the numbers. Companies can be doing tremendously well on paper while the people who make up those companies are getting shit upon.
Also, upon further reflection, "cooking the books" may not have been the most accurate term to use. While the people collecting and analyzing the data can be doing so honestly dispassionately, I think it can be agreed on some level that the people interpreting and presenting the data to us, the public, don't seem to feel any such need.
And believe me, I probably find it even more disturbing that only those actually receiving unemployment checks are being counted. It's apparently inconvenient to count those who, for whatever reason, have been out of work for more than six months, if their unemployment even lasted that long.
As a final note, I think there's a wee bit of a difference between being chased by a fake bear and being out of a job. Not getting a check is kind of a dead giveaway. Not a whole lot of perceptions being fooled there...
-Rex Hondo-
Somewhere Iowa Jim or somebody else compared Bush to Reagan, in connection with Reagan's contribution to the fall of the USSR. However, although it seems that the fall of the USSR was partly the result of its attempt to keep up the arms race with the US, and Reagan did talk as much as Bush about the evil empire etc., he did not actually attack the USSR or any of its dependants. In fact, it seems that whenever Reagan did get involved militarily, directly or indirectly -- Afganistan, Lebanon, South America -- things didn't turn out so well.
Posted by Rex Hondo at May 4, 2006 06:50 AM
As a final note, I think there's a wee bit of a difference between being chased by a fake bear and being out of a job. Not getting a check is kind of a dead giveaway. Not a whole lot of perceptions being fooled there...
Sorry I didn't respond sooner -- I was being chased by a fake bear.
If the lack of a steady paycheck influences you to believe that the national economy is worse than it truly is, then your perceptions are indeed being fooled.
Given how... lackluster... our economy has been in recent years, it's understandable if recent growth hasn't yet benefited a lot of us yet. We'll probably need to see a lot more growth to make up for lost ground. So it's entirely possible for you to know lots of people who are having trouble finding work even though the economy is in the midst of a turnaround. In other words -- it may be a fake bear chasing you after all.
By the way, I'm not saying our economy is definitely in the midst of a turnaround. The jury's still out. Rising oil prices among other things could throw a monkey wrench into the machinery.
Posted by Micha at May 4, 2006 06:34 AM
Thanks. I'll take a look.
Thank you! :)
Micha, I can agree with you except for one small detail. Afghanistan did NOT attack the US. They sheltered the top cadre of Al Quada.
The Taliban demanded evidence of their "guests" complicity in the 9?11 attacks. The evidence, however, was in videos released by Al Quada immediately after the attacks.
As for America following a policy of "toppling dictatorships". That is a valid question. The first question has to be if the current US administration is going to have one definition for "dictatorship", or if the word will be a term of convenience for going after any government that W and his cowboys find problematic.
As for spreading democracy, does that include any government not living up to the ideals of Jeffersonian democracy, or only those that are not "cooperative" to US interests?
It should be remembered that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.A lot of it depends on which end of the economic pile you're on.
It should be remembered that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
Yeah, if the other man is also a terrorist. What "freedom" does Bin Laden fight for, save the freedom to impose his intolerant brand of Islam on people who don't want it?
"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right."
Thomas Paine
The first question has to be if the current US administration is going to have one definition for "dictatorship", or if the word will be a term of convenience for going after any government that W and his cowboys find problematic.
Taking into consideration the Bush Administration's 'liberal' definition of "terrorist", I'd say it's the latter when it comes to dictatorships as well, rather than the former.
Bill, what Bin Laden offered was terrorism to you and me, but to millions of people living in dictatorships tolerated by the world in exchange for keeping oil flowing, and to millions of Palestinians fed a steady diet of "Israel bad, America Israel's friend and protector,therefore America bad", he offered to punch the big bad west in the nose.
"The War on Terror" is a failure from get go. You can bomb the living shit out of every sponsor of terror around, but as long as the industrialised world continues to tolerate despots, dictators, and "reformers" people like Bin Laden and his reprehensible ilk will always have willing volunteers.
Sad but true.
"It should be remembered that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
This is a common misconception. It would be useful if people are able to distinguish between method (terrorism) and purpose (to liberate to oppresse etc.) a terrorist is a person who deliberatly targets civilians in order to achieve a psychological effect -- to terrorize the civilans into compliance with his desires, whatever they may be. A freedom fighter may use terror or not. People who believe that the ends justify the means, and support his bid for freedom, may also support his methods. Others, who dislike the method might wish to see the use of terrorisnm stoped even if they do not oppose the objectives of every organization that has used terror.
It isd necessary to distinguish between trying to stamp out the technique of terrorism, and the war against a specific ideology represented by Al-Quaida.
The popularity of Bin-Laden in the Islamic world has various reasons, some but not all of them are economic.
Muslim support for Bin Laden reflects not only there economic and cultural discontent, but also their belief that terrorism is an acceptable method.
""The War on Terror" is a failure from get go. You can bomb the living shit out of every sponsor of terror around, but as long as the industrialised world continues to tolerate despots, dictators, and "reformers" people like Bin Laden and his reprehensible ilk will always have willing volunteers."
Governments should try to make the world better, but it also has an immediate responsibilty to protect its citizens. The fact that the world has despots does not absolve governments from using force to protect themselves from the immediate threat. Military force is not a magical cure to the problems of terrorism, but it has its uses. Underestimating its role is as bad as overestimating it.
The problem of dealing with tyrany in the world is where we started. To attack all despots is impossible. To ignore all is equaly bad. Trying to remove them constitutes interference in the affairs of a different countries, to do business with constitutes support, sanctions cause more harm to the subjugated citizens. Both the left and the right have been guilty of ignoring tyranny if it waved the right flag -- the left liked Castro, the right Pinosche, the left like the North Vietnamese, the right liked the South. The first stage should be being against tyranny as a matter of principle, and then deal with each case according to specific conditions.
Considering BIn Ladens involvement in Afganistan's government it is reasonable to say that Afganistan attacked the US. Or you could say that the US did not attack Afganistan but helped forces in Afganistan fight the Taliban. It's semantics. In any case, attacking a direct threat by an enemy, when a peaceful alternative is unavailable, is quite reasonable.
In short, being a freedopm fighter and being a terrorist are not mutally exclusive, but not every person fighting for freedom uses terrorism, and not all terrorists are freedom fighters. If fear is the enemy of freedom than perhaps none are.
Bib-Laden's goals do not seem to directed towards freedom of any kind. The fact that some Muslims feeling downtrodden are cheered up by his deeds does not change that.
Bill, what Bin Laden offered was terrorism to you and me, but to millions of people living in dictatorships tolerated by the world in exchange for keeping oil flowing, and to millions of Palestinians fed a steady diet of "Israel bad, America Israel's friend and protector,therefore America bad", he offered to punch the big bad west in the nose.
And this makes him a "freedom fighter" exactly how?
The fact that people fed a steady diet of lies and hate may end up with ideas that have no basis in reality is...interesting, I guess but hardly relevant to the decisions we have to make.
But I have some sympathy with your greater point--my question to you is how exactly we stop "tolerating" the dictatorships. And would action against Iran, Syria, Cuba, etc really reduce hostility against the USA? Taking out Saddam didn't exactly bring the love.
Micha, the freedom Bin Laden offers is, and I'm only ghuessing here, the freedom from what he sees as the "corrupting influence" of the west.
View Islam through the lens of history. As an organized religion, Islam is barely into it's first millenium. Imagine Christian Europe of the first millenium AD with cable, internet, C4, and all the stuff that makes war such a thrill. And don't forget the Inquisition (starring Torquemada and Simon Cowell).
Bill, people being fed a "steady diet od lies and hate" is absolutely relevant to their daily decisions. Lies and hate are, unfortunately, information. Information is the start of the decision process. If the process starts with bad info, either of the "Big Lie" type, an honest mistake, or somewhere in between, the ends will always be corrupt.
"Taking out Saddam" is a prime example. Whether the whole WMD line was intentional falsehood, or just bad intel, look at the outcome.
To stop tolerating dictatorships, let's look at the various types. Start with the drug financed dictatorships. For "soft" drugs like grass, legalize it, tax it, reap the rewards by re-allocating resources to fighting meth, crack, and the other heavy hitters.
For the former colonial bully boys in Africa, stop the habit of sending money and aid to everyone fighting a Leftist/Rightist/Maoist/Al Quada/Whatever backed insurgency. Find out if the insurgency, regardless of political affiliation, has an actual, real live, justifiable grudge. Remember, for a short time, Fidel Castro was feted as a hero in the US.
As for the oil backed dictatorships, get the world of the oil monkey. Since the US is the single largest petroleum consumer in the world, explain to W how getting the US off oil is patriotic. Make it clear that he cannot drill his way out of this. Make development of alternate power an issue. Don't get side tracked by Gay Marriage/Intelligent Design/Stem cell research or anything else. Use small words.
A caveat, however. DO NOT tie this into environmental issues. W is not an environmental president. For the Love of Zott, keep Kyoto out of it. That just gets Sureshot and the Halliburton boys riled up.
Micha -- as always your perspective is well-informed, insightful and enlightening.
Mulligan -- I was not familiar with the quote from Thomas Paine, but it's dead on in this context. Thank you for sharing it.
According to an AP/Ipsos poll:
Forty-five percent of self-described conservatives now disapprove of the president ... A whopping 65 percent of conservatives disapprove of Congress ... Even 31 percent of conservatives want Republicans out of power.
Daaaym!
"To stop tolerating dictatorships, let's look at the various types. Start with the drug financed dictatorships. For "soft" drugs like grass, legalize it, tax it, reap the rewards by re-allocating resources to fighting meth, crack, and the other heavy hitters.
For the former colonial bully boys in Africa, stop the habit of sending money and aid to everyone fighting a Leftist/Rightist/Maoist/Al Quada/Whatever backed insurgency. Find out if the insurgency, regardless of political affiliation, has an actual, real live, justifiable grudge. Remember, for a short time, Fidel Castro was feted as a hero in the US.
As for the oil backed dictatorships, get the world of the oil monkey. Since the US is the single largest petroleum consumer in the world, explain to W how getting the US off oil is patriotic. Make it clear that he cannot drill his way out of this. Make development of alternate power an issue. Don't get side tracked by Gay Marriage/Intelligent Design/Stem cell research or anything else. Use small words."
I completely agree.
"Micha, the freedom Bin Laden offers is, and I'm only ghuessing here, the freedom from what he sees as the "corrupting influence" of the west.
View Islam through the lens of history. As an organized religion, Islam is barely into it's first millenium. Imagine Christian Europe of the first millenium AD with cable, internet, C4, and all the stuff that makes war such a thrill. And don't forget the Inquisition (starring Torquemada and Simon Cowell).
Bill, people being fed a "steady diet od lies and hate" is absolutely relevant to their daily decisions. Lies and hate are, unfortunately, information. Information is the start of the decision process. If the process starts with bad info, either of the "Big Lie" type, an honest mistake, or somewhere in between, the ends will always be corrupt."
Understanding different points of view and the way public perceptions and motivations are formed is very important. If you want to learn about the points of view of radical Islam I highly recommend a historian named Imanuel Sivan. However, this does not mean we have to subscribe to moral relativism, not concerning the methods used nor the objectives.
For example, I support the end of the occupation of the Paletinians in the West Bank, so, in a sense, you could say I agree with the goal of freedom for the Palestinians, which is also pursued by the Fatah. However, I believe killing innocent civilians for no other purpose than to terrorize should not be considered moral no matter the goal pursued. So the fatah may be considered freedom fighters (although I'm not a big fan of the term), but by the methods they used they have also made themselves terrorists. I do not believe there is anything relative or ambiguous about that.
I do not subscribe to the theory that the age of the religion some how causes it to behave in a certain way. The muslim world is in turmoil for various reasons. Understanding them is important, as underrstanding climatic changes is. But when a hurricane is coming the primary goal is to protect the people.
Radical Islamism perceives the secular Islamic world to have resulted to a pre-muslim idolatry as a result of western culture. They perceive the west to be invaders like the mongols in the 13th century.
Bill Myers, thanks.
Bill Mulligan, not all of the things said against the US are lies. It has been guilty of some atrocious behavior (more in South America than the middle east), in support of tyranny. However, this does not excuse 9/11 or the goals of radical Islamism, nor does it mean that the US should not protect itself the real threat posed by radical Islamism. Like I said to somebody else, the war against Nazism was waged by a communist dictator, a colonial power, and a country that still segregated blacks, but it was still a necessary war.
Mu suggestion about how to deal with tyranny in the world: take a map, stick pins in problem areas, an d next to each pin draw a table with the following rubics -- military, diplomatic, economic, cultural, political. And then start filling in what needs to be done in aspect of the problem. Understand the complexity of the problems and apply complex solutions.
Man, this is one of the best discussions I've ever seen.
Micha, you raise some really great points, as has been said above. You also touch on a big part of the problem. Understanding is at the heart of the matter, especially different points of view. That's something that most people in this country, Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative, whatever, need a LOT of practice in. Case in point, the Natalie Hollaway case. Granted, I'm a dad, so I can understand the anguish, but Aruba is NOT AMERICA. Expecting the Aruban authorities to act like NYPD Blue or the FBI isn't just innapropriate, it's ignorant and rude. So, when people in the Middle East want us out and eliminated, before the attacks of September 2001, (sorry, referring to it as simply "9-11" is a pet peave) a lot of Americans (myself SO included) thought the rest of the world wanted to be, well, like us. I personally think we got it pretty good, meself. But the rest of the world can think what it wants, ain't much I can do about it. People say they understand the difference between people, but most people they know, as was pointed out by Bill Myers above, are usually pretty close to their own situation. Try understanding someone who's views are diametrically opposed to your own before you calim to understand people. Case in point, a lot of Iraqis have it better than they did three years ago, but then THEY KNEW WHO THE BAD GUYS WERE, AND WHERE THEY WERE. Now, they're hiding and coming out of every corner. Are the Iraqis REALLLY better off? Now, I was against the war in Iraq from the start, but now I support it. Not because I think it's a good idea, but we started it, we damn well better finish it right.
"I do not subscribe to the theory that the age of the religion some how causes it to behave in a certain way."
Micha, let's view religions as living, breathing things that grow and mature with time. My analogy to first mellenium Christianity was in how seriously adherents to the religion took their faith, and the extreme acts that were undertaken in "defense" of the Faith.
A religion cannot behave in a certain way, but it's followers can. Of the three major monotheistic faiths, Judaism is the oldest. Most Jewish people I have encountered are able to grasp the concept that their faith is not for everyone. Christians, next in line, are tolerant of other faiths, but the religion itself makes spreading the word part of religious duty. Islam is the youngest of the three. This leads to a tendancy of sensitivity to slight on the part of many followers. That Islam is the state religion in most of the oil dictatorships is just a bonus.
That is not a criticism of Islam as a path, but rather an obvservation. Historically, all three faiths went through their own periods of aggressive expansion, repression of older faiths, and/or zealous intolerance of even the slightest insult to "the One True Path".
Intentional targetting and killing of civilians in order to inspire fear, I agree is unacceptable. However, to a person who may have tried every other peaceful means to solve the problem...well, desperate times lead to desperate measures, and unacceptable conditions may lead to...unacceptable measures.
I am not justifying terrorism, I am trying to put a perspective on things. I doubt any of us have lived our lives under repressive regimes where the type of debate we are enjoying would be allowed to carry on in the open.
For a tired peasant farmer/labourer/miner watching His Nibs the Chosen Son of God roll by in a Jag while his own children starve, all because, in his perception, the Big Bad (Place whatever industry/country/organization works for you here) is giving H.N.T.C.S.G billions to keep a lid on things, targetting discretion may be secondary to just Doing Something.
Bid Laden and his type tell our peasant that he will strike back for him. Then, says O.b.L, if you want an express packge deal to Paradise, well I can hook you up. All you gotta do is...For all we know, Osama may even believe it.
Moral relativism is exactly what we do. No matter how hard we try, we cannot wrap our heads around the concept of flying fully loaded planes into buildings, or of being so desperate, devout, or angry, that it's even an option.We are viewing the debate from the standpoint of a wellfed, relatively tolerant, free population.
Islam is made up of individuals. The small minority subscribe to the radical Islam of Bin Laden et.al. It's just that they're the ones getting all the attention.
Wait, conservatives are more upset with Congress than Bush? Are those poll numbers correct?
Micha, would that the leaders of the world were as wise and well-reasoned as you.
Micha, would that all of the leaders of the world were as wise and well-reasoned as you.
I have no idea why my last post appeared twice -- or why one version was slightly different from the other. Scary.
Still, it was worth saying twice, because I meant it.
Wait, conservatives are more upset with Congress than Bush? Are those poll numbers correct?
Why not? What have they done--other than comepletely blur the differences between the parties by spending money like they earned it. A Democratic takeover, while bad from our point of view in the short run, might wake up the GOP, which would be better in the long run. If both parties are going to be spending money like crazy we might as well let the Democrats do it--they have the experience.
Bill, thanks for the kind words.
Manny, here is a long reply.
The reasons for for the behavior of the three religions in given points in history has to do with a variety of specific historical factors and features of the religion, not the age. Judaism tolerates other religions because, unlike Christianity, Judaism assumes that its religion is a message given to a specific people who have a unique task in the world. The term "a nation of priests" is sometimes used, a people who convert to Judaism essenttially join a nation or a tribe (it happened sometimes). Add to this the difficult circumstances of Judaism for long periods of time to understand why Judaism seems more tolerant. Which does not mean that even today you cannot find intolerance of the worst kind among Jews.
The image of the missionary converting people by spreading the word has been a feature of christianity since its beginnings. Incidently, tIslam is roughly 1400 years old. The acquivalent time in Christiany was characterized by internal wars among Christians.
The sensativity of muslims has more to do with concepts of personal pride + the sense that the religion does not get the respect it should. About a year ago a riot ensued in an Israeli arab village when a rumor was spread that a Christian (arab) has nude pictures of Druze girls. The Druze religion has no converts. It has always been a small minority, and it is very enclosed. But they share some cultural features with otherr arabs. Later the Druzed and Christians of the village made peace with each other in the traditional way, which is not to say that there are no arab scientists, computer experts and academics in Israel.
Radical Islam is a reaction to the changes caused by the modern world to Islamic society.
"Moral relativism is exactly what we do. No matter how hard we try, we cannot wrap our heads around the concept of flying fully loaded planes into buildings, or of being so desperate, devout, or angry, that it's even an option.We are viewing the debate from the standpoint of a wellfed, relatively tolerant, free population."
Not really. The idea of sacrificing oneself in the service of tur nation, as well as the idea of using violence in its service, even against civilians, are not alien to us at all. Nor are emotions like anger. Americans have sent pilots on dangerous missions that involved bombing civilians not so long ago. However, if we are a society that believes in humanistic values, we should consider killing of civilians wrong.
"Intentional targetting and killing of civilians in order to inspire fear, I agree is unacceptable. However, to a person who may have tried every other peaceful means to solve the problem...well, desperate times lead to desperate measures, and unacceptable conditions may lead to...unacceptable measures."
People who use terrorism seldom have gone through a list of other peaceful methods before hand. They use it because it is considered an acceptable and effective tool. Terrorism has been in vogue for a long time, especially in the Muslim world.
Nor is their feeling of rightousnes or desperation come from objective conditions such as staarvation and poverty. The Islamic terrorists are not starving peasants, they are educated people, often well to do economically, reacting to the feeling that their society/religion is humiliated. The best comparison would be the kids from Colombine. On the other hand starving people in Africa, and South Americans who were really downtrodden by Americans have not reacted in the same way as the Islamic world.
"I doubt any of us have lived our lives under repressive regimes where the type of debate we are enjoying would be allowed to carry on in the open."
I live in a country that represses the Palestinians -- Israel. Palestinian terrorists are not starving, nor is lack of freedom of speech an issue. Their use of violence has more to do with humiliation over treatment in roadblocks, indignation over the loss of land, desire for revenge over the loss of relatives, and despair with the conduct of the political systems, as well as their belief that terrorism is a legitimate tool. It is not difficult for them to convince themselves that (a) all Israelis are enemies (b) Israel is as creless of civilian life (c) their society has the concept of bloodfeud which involves killing civilians (d) they are angry (e) terrorism has worked in Algeria against the French and in Vietnam.
"Islam is made up of individuals. The small minority subscribe to the radical Islam of Bin Laden et.al. It's just that they're the ones getting all the attention."
The actual radicals are a minority. The terrorists are an even smaller minority. But the important thing is that the message of radical Islam appeal to many Muslims, they touch on their religious, cultural, and political, preconceptions.
Another comparison to the state of mind that produces terrorism is the one of gang members.
Countries want to be like America in some senses while at the same time resenting the overwhelming power of American culture, economy and diplomacy. This sense of resentment can draw people to radical politics.
Similar resentment towards American culture has pushed American themselves to the extreme religious right or to the counterculture in the 60's.
Micha, you're still allowed to say you are being repressed. My image was one possibility.
At 1400 years of age, Christianity was divided by internal divisions, true, but I was talking about attitudes. In the 15th century, the church did not suffer any questioning of it's authority quietly.
What one person sees as the way it is, another sees as a clarion call to battle. It doesn't have to be starvation, it can be one's religion "not getting the respect it should". In the fifties Honduras and Guatemala went to war over a soccer game.
As for America sending pilots on missions targetting civilians. The pilots had a pretty good chance of coming back. These were not one way missions. Secondly, the civilians were (hopefully) not the intended targets.
I can agree that radical Islam is a reaction to a changing world. Whether or not having their own "homeland" will reduce tensions remains to be seen, but the current Israeli PM seems at kleast to want to try. Radical Islam, however finds the very existense of a Jewish state intolerable. This despite the Quran's acknowledgement of the Jewish people as "people of the Book." If the new Palestinian state makes peace with Israel, how do you think Al Quada will respond?
At the end of the day, I think, terrorists are driven by anger and fear. Just my lowly opinion.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at May 6, 2006 07:27 AM
If both parties are going to be spending money like crazy we might as well let the Democrats do it--they have the experience.
C'mon, Bill, be fair. Ronald Reagan, a Republican, spent like a drunken sailor and ran up a staggering deficit. Bill Clinton, a Democrat, managed to balance the budget.
To be fair, I understand that Reagan was trying to break the back of the Soviet Union (and I emphasize the word "trying," because I think there is room for debate about whether or not Reagan was necessarily the primary force that led to the U.S.S.R.'s collapse), and Clinton had ass-loads of tax revenue coming in from an overheated and overinflated stock market. Nevertheless, the idea that the GOP is the more fiscally responsible party is merely an afterimage from a time when that may have been true. The Elephants now have plenty of experience spending like there's no tomorrow.
Don't make me send Paul Begala and his army of Living Lawn Gnomes after you.
Manny wrote:
"As for America sending pilots on missions targetting civilians. The pilots had a pretty good chance of coming back. These were not one way missions. Secondly, the civilians were (hopefully) not the intended targets."
Sadly both sides in WW2 tried to break the the "spirit" of the enemy with civilian bombing. On our side, Dresden springs to mind, and the A-bombs weren't really targeting military capabilities.
"Whether or not having their own "homeland" will reduce tensions remains to be seen"
This addresses the problem between the Israelis and the Palestinians, not the global struggle between radical Islam and the west. Even the Hamas doesn't want to be involved in the greater war of Al-Quida, but only in its own local conflict. However, if the Palestinians establish an indepenent state and stop fighting Israel, Al-Quida will have a harder time making it part of their propaganda.
Nevertheless, they will probably try to take on the slack and continue attacks against Israel, as well as cooperating with local Palestinian opposition groups in order to keep the issue alive. In a sense they are already doing it. Al-Quida is a parazite that attaches itself to local confllcts involving Muslims. At he moment the Hamas is not attacking Israel, but the Iranian backed Islamic Jihad does. I don't know if they will oppose the Palestinian government the way they do other arab governments. They may attack targets in the Palestinian state the way they did in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Bali.
On the local front, the optimists believe that a Palestinian state wil reduce tensions and terrorism from the Palestinians against Israel. The pessimists who neverthelesss support withdrawl believe that tensions will continue, but that Israel should get out, have a big fence protecting us from Palestinian terrorism, and react with force to attacks if they come. I believe that tensions will be reduced but that some terrorism will continue.
"but the current Israeli PM seems at least to want to try."
The current prime minister is a pessimist who believes that withdrawl is necessary but peace is not likely to be achieved. Although he is wiling to withdraw from some of the territories, and to accept the establishment of a Palestinian state, what he is willing to offer is less than even the nmoderate palestinians can accepts. It is unclear at the moment whether even the moderate Palestinians are wiling or able to make an offer even the moderate Israelis can accept (except those Israelis who themselves do not support the existence of Israel as a Jewish state). The frustrating thing about this conflict is that although the Palestinians and Israelis have come close to to offering terms mutually acceptable, they have not come close enough.
"Radical Islam, however finds the very existense of a Jewish state intolerable. This despite the Quran's acknowledgement of the Jewish people as "people of the Book."
The Islamists and Pan-arabists and Palestiniamn-nationalists and communists are wiling to accept Jews as a tolerated minority (which does not mean there is no prejudice against Jews). However, the idea of a Jewish state, especially on what it perceived to be Muslim/Arab/Palestinian land is something they cannot really accept. The moderates don't accept its legitimacy, but reluctantly accept its existance. The extremists want to continue fighting until all the Muslim/Arab/Palestinian land is restored. So some of the Palestinian nationalists were wiling to consider peace with Israel. For the Islamists things are more difficult because, for religious reasons, they cannot give up the fight against non-believers (Jews or Christians). What they can do is make a temporary truce. Some Hamas leaders have spoken of a truce for complete Israeli withdrawl. Similarly, Bin Laden has spoken of a truce in exchange for withdrawl from Iraq, although as a matter of principle he cannot make peace until the whole woorld is Muslim. The difference is thathe Hamas is a local organisation represting a people and Al-Quida is an international organization representing nobody.
"As for America sending pilots on missions targetting civilians. The pilots had a pretty good chance of coming back. These were not one way missions. Secondly, the civilians were (hopefully) not the intended targets.
Sadly both sides in WW2 tried to break the the "spirit" of the enemy with civilian bombing. On our side, Dresden springs to mind, and the A-bombs weren't really targeting military capabilities."
I do not want to equate between Islamic terrorists and the Americans, just to show that the motivations are not ones alien to us. In WWII the allies made a conscious choice to attack civilians. Today the Americans don't deliberatly attack civilians, but collateral damage occurs, perhaps all too often. This is also true of Israel. I suspect that the Muslims interpret these civilian casualties as deliberate targets, partially because they themselves do not make the distinction. I do think Israel should be more careful about Palestinian civilian life than it has.
Don't make me send Paul Begala and his army of Living Lawn Gnomes after you.
I yield!
Micha wrote:
"Today the Americans don't deliberatly attack civilians, but collateral damage occurs"
Collateral damage, my favorite euphemism.
"Collateral damage, my favorite euphemism."
Nevertheless, I would like to think there is a difference between killing a child accidently because he or she was in the wrongplace in the wrong time, while trying to hit a legitimate target, and targeting the child deliberatly.
Wars today often involve armed men in civilian clothing operating inside civilian polpulation. Even the most well meaning army will hurt some civilians. I think the American army was well meaning when it went to Iraq. The Israeli army was not. It is not well meaning enough. I don't know enogh about how the US is doing.
However, two things should realized. (1) That for people who lose someone, the fact that it wasn't deliberate doesn't make much diffirence. (2) Many Muslims consider collateral damage casualties to be deliberate targets. So as far as they are concerned the west is targeting civilians.
(Although Palestinian terrorists tend to be more vindictive in response to the death of one of their leaders or fighters than the death of innocents).
Today the Americans don't deliberatly attack civilians
I hate to say it, but Shock & Awe and Fallujah are 2 recent examples of civilian populations being targeted.
And if this absolutely insane administration goes ahesd with it's plans to use nukes in Iran, there is NO way to say civilians aren't being targeted.
From CNN:
When asked which man was more honest as president, poll respondents were more evenly divided, with the numbers -- 46 percent Clinton to 41 percent Bush -- falling within the poll's margin of error.
And this was the most favorable statistic for Bush.
I say again: Daaaaymn!
Unfortunately, collateral damage is an unavoidable symptom of urban warfare waged with more and more powerful (not to mention more and more concealable) firearms.
It was quite different in the old days. Warfare was conducted in the field, between two armies, and on the occasion when civilians were noticed at all, well, it doesn't do a whole lot of good to massacre peasants. Who's going to work the land you conquer then? Anybody who took up a sword did so with the understanding that they were becoming a combatant and would be treated as such.
Sadly, many of the "advances" in warfare make it a lot harder to tell civilians from combatants.
Just my two cents...
-Rex Hondo-
So... are we getting any closer to impeaching Bush?
Or is the government (with Bush's blessing) keeping a database of all of our phone calls, and possibly e-mails as well, not enough of a step toward Fascism that nobody will notice?
So... are we getting any closer to impeaching Bush?
Hopefully not. As has probably been mentioned here somewhere before, even if he gets removed from office, the Presidency first goes to...
# The Vice President Richard Cheney
Then...
# Speaker of the House John Dennis Hastert
Then...
# President pro tempore of the Senate1 Ted Stevens
Then...
# Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
We might as well wait it out, as the alternatives are no better.
Craig said Or is the government (with Bush's blessing) keeping a database of all of our phone calls, and possibly e-mails as well, ...
Be careful, your blog posts are being monitored too and reported back to Uncle Sam.
Just when did Uncle Sam become the creepy uncle that smells like Budweiser and Vaseline who we have to worry about trying to touch us wrong?
-Rex Hondo-
Just when did Uncle Sam become the creepy uncle that smells like Budweiser and Vaseline who we have to worry about trying to touch us wrong?
Jan. 5 2000 =(
Why can't we impeach this fucker yet?
"Federal Source to ABC News: We Know Who You're Calling" (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/federal_source_.html)
Every time the administration admits to something, it turns out to be at least one-hundred times worse.