Barack Obama got it done. It has been reported that he was the one who ordered the surgical strike that took down three pirates and freed that captured Captain.
Those who are desperate to see Obama fail must not be too happy. My guess is that they’re spinning it every which way they can, from declaring that, “Yeah, but he waited three days to do it” to “The liberal press is blowing Obama’s involvement out of proportion.”
The difference between liberals and conservatives is that in a time of crisis, liberals lined up behind Bush as much as conservatives did. The approval of the initial military actions was across the board. It took serious ineptitude by Bush and company to fritter away such universal support. My guess is that you will never, ever see that sort of reciprocity from conservatives at such times. In their world, if you didn’t support Bush against terrorists, you were unpatriotic. But if you do support Obama against terrorists, you’re an idiot. Funny how that works.
PAD
• 
Job well done indeed.
But I’m wondering. With piracy apparently on the rise, maybe it’s time to consider resurrecting the WW I/II concept of the ‘commerce raider’? Innocent-looking freighter sailing along peacefully until a pirate comes up to grab it, whereupon fake deck fixtures fall away, revealing heavy weapons and … “Good night Gracie!” Ka-boom.
Using Q-ships is a very tempting, though possibly pricey solution. I’d have mild reservations about giving corporations a legal excuse to arm and carry out law enforcement/combat operations though…
–
Cheers.
So liberals act liberally and conservatives act conservatively? I’d go with “ironic” over “funny”, and raise a non-partisan glass to a good guy rescued and three bad guys slotted…
–
Cheers.
I’m a big fan of the old “sauce for the goose…” way of life so I have to ask.
Sean, Bill, Rush, Why do you hate America?
That’s what dissent really means, right?
The utter lack of self-awareness of the Hannitys, OReillys and Limbaugh of the word should never be underestimated. While I’m sure there are some on the right who are consciously playing a double standard game, I’m convinced that far more simply cannot see their own hypocrisy.
I don’t think the Conservatives care about the rescue any more they’re too busy having Tax Tea Parties all over the country protesting the Tax cuts, Tax hikes, the Stimulus, the Budget, and the Bailouts (which they started BTW). Complaining that Obama will take their guns away, turn the USA into a Muslim country, and the rest of the various Ultra Right Wing Conservative crap.
Peter, are we talking about conservative PUNDITS or–you know–actual conservative voters? Because I for one applauded Obama’s decision to use good ol’-fashioned ášš-kickery on a group that wasn’t making much of an effort to adhere to any rules of law in the first place.
I remember a pundit that applauded the President for the ášš-kickery.
The fact that I assumed the worse regarding National Command Authority’s specific involvement has absolutely nothing to do with partisanship and I almost resent the implication.
The fact is… my differences with the President are personal and individualistic….
So I asked the Goth chick standing in a crowd of Goth chicks, “Why do you dress that way?” “Because I am expressing my individuality,” says she.
The first thing I thought when I saw this post title? Par for the course. The Religious Right is a movement that thrives on anger, and not just any kind of anger, but good old-fashioned wrath. And I am talking about deadly sin kind.
Seriously, for a movement that is supposedly inspired by good Christian values, the level of hatred, venom, and downright rabid rage is not something I, as a Christian, am attracted to. In fact, it reminds me a lot of the Red Lanterns (comic book reference bonus!).
My conservative Christian in-laws were griping about the pirate situation on Easter, and the conversation quickly turned to Obama and what a pity it was that Bush was gone, and moreover, that Barry Goldwater was gone (grandma remembers him fondly). Since my wife would kill me if I ever said this to them in real life, I have to say to all the haters out there, “In your face!”
Man, that felt good!
Actually as one who is on the right, I have to say that the situation was well handled by Obama. I haven’t read or heard any commentary which has criticized his handling of this particular situation.
On another note, please don’t make such broad statements about the opposing party or people who have differing opinions. This is something that both sides do, and really does not help the conversation go forward.
Peace PJ
I had heard on the radio that their is actually one right wing blogger out there who is thanking G.W.B. for saving the captain as it was his navy that did it because if Barack had his way our navy would be nothing but tugboats and garbage scows.
I think they’ve given up the right-wing Kool-aid and have dipped seriously into the bag of magic mushrooms!
Flavor-Ade. Not Kool-Ade.
Apart from that, right on, Jambohemie.
Well this is one conservative who is happy to say “Job well done!”
Though I suspect that were Bush in charge there would be more than a few liberals rolling their eyes and sniping about how he was taking credit for what the marine snipers did. But maybe not, one can’t truly know what would happen in some alternate reality.
It may be true that the same or greater percentage of right wingers are as crazy as the not insignificant 36% of the public that said they believed that 9/11 was an inside job (from a Scripps poll) but I haven’t seen evidence of it. My own observation would be that partisan insanity cuts across both political divides, though liberals are less likely to think it applies to them, even when they are espousing ideas so nutty that even a John Bircher would be embarrassed.
(Back to the pirates–the only part I didn’t like was how the military felt they had to claim that at the moment of the shooting the bad guys had the captain in their sights and were pretty much about to shoot him, forcing their hand. I suspect that what actually happened was they finally got a clear shot at all 3 pirates and took it. Good. More of the same, please.)
(also, StarWolf, I think you have the exact right idea. Send in some big fat cargo ships, the SS EZPickins, with huge wooden boxes labeled GOLD BULLION, PLAYSTATION 3, ATTRACTIVE PROSTITUTES, whatever. Have it sail erratically, like one of those birds who pretends to have a broken wing to draw it away from its young. Have the captain, Jean Luc Capituler, send out drunkenly slurred calls for help. Then, when the pirates board the ship–Shazamm! The entire hold of the ship is stuffed with marines armed with experimental magnetic pulse rifles and flying guillotines! Jean Luc pulls off his mask–it’s General Petraeus! Every time a pirate gets killed an electronic voice calls out “Head shot!”
They leave one guy alive on a dingy to tell the others what happened. On the way back he finds the bomb right before it blows up. Because we can.
“Well this is one conservative who is happy to say “Job well done!””
I too have seen conservatives who generally dislike Obama on principle praising this action.
And while I also approve of it, and want to see every one of these pirates blown to kingdom come, we (the world as a whole) do have a serious problem on our hands because these pirates have several hundred hostages from a variety of nations. Not to mention, the response to our rescuing that captain was to seize four more boats (from Greece, Lebanon, and two fishing boats from Egypt), as well as a failed 5th attempt on another US boat.
I’m thinking that any boat sailing these waters is going to have to arm themselves and be prepared to open fire on any suspicious vessel approaching them, even at the risk that said vessels could be carrying hostages as human shields.
I think you’re correct. Frankly, I’m amazed any ship going through that area can still get a crew. I’d only go if I had a flak-cannon and a Redeemer.
And while I also approve of it, and want to see every one of these pirates blown to kingdom come, we (the world as a whole) do have a serious problem on our hands because these pirates have several hundred hostages from a variety of nations.
Indeed, job well done all around. Particularly by the crew of the USS Bainbridge and the snipers who couldn’t possibly have done better.
But would I be showing my liberal bleeding heart too much if I said that in addition to using deadly force against any pirates in the act of piracy that the serious problem we have on our hands won’t be solved by just protecting ships, cargo and crews? There are problems in Somalia that make piracy the logical career choice for far too many. In addition to making it clear that that choice is a bad one alternative options need to be available.
Though I suspect that were Bush in charge there would be more than a few liberals rolling their eyes and sniping about how he was taking credit for what the marine snipers did.
Well, I can’t speak for others, but I would not be among them.
PAD
No, I would not expect you to.
I agree about the continous spewing of hate being a huge turn off for me and an embarrassment to those that are truly trying to live a Christian lifestyle. It’s just too toxic.
For me there are two types of loyalty – the blindly loyal and the fiercely loyal. For the blind there is simply no wrong act committed by the person they are loyal to, for the fiercely loyal they admit some mistakes (albeit still begrudgingly) but at the end of the day stay loyal.
The clearest example of a divide of loyalties within the Republican Party (I can easily recall) was the Harriet Myers debacle when former President Bush named her as a possible candidate to the Supreme Court. She isn’t qualified was the cry:There are better qualified! The Bush loyalists broke ranks, eventhough an prior history examination of the SC appointments showed that he wasn’t doing something that hadn’t been done before.
But the vitrol thrown by many from the GOP (and their ‘defacto’ leaders) at our current president who is (for me) showing that he’s a public servant in the best sense of the word and working for us as best as he can… is just sad. From outright wishing for him to fail – to trying to ignore his achievements, it’s too much and unbecoming of a society that prides itself in being a world leader. One would expect this kind of conduct from a 3rd world nation.
If one differs from a position, articulate it and leave it at that. Isn’t that what the president referred to during his inaugural speech – time to stop childish things?
A radio talk show host on a right wing station in St. Louis, (Jamie Allman on 97.1 Talk if anyone reading this is in this area), gave props to President Obama for the pirate outcome and encouraged his listeners to do the same. This is not something I am presuming. This is what was said unlike PAD string of presumptive verbiage: “The Conservative Right MUST Be Pretty Pìššëd; Those who are desperate to see Obama fail MUST not be too happy; My GUESS is…
C’mon Peter don’t assume facts not in evidence. Not everyone is the strawman you seem to think.
Okay, George. Fair enough. Here’s some facts in evidence: Commentary from Rush Limbaugh–
.
They were kids. The story is out, I don’t know if it’s true or not, but apparently the hijackers, these kids, the merchant marine organizers, Muslim kids, were upset, they wanted to just give the captain back and head home because they were running out of food, they were running out of fuel, they were surrounded by all these U.S. Navy ships, big ships, and they just wanted out of there. That’s the story, but then when one of them put a gun to the back of the captain, Mr. Phillips, then bam, bam, bam. There you have it, and three teenagers shot on the high seas at the order of President Obama.
.
The coverage goes on to say:
Limbaugh went on to say he believes Obama wouldn’t have given the order had he known the boys were Muslim: “If only President Obama had known that the three Somali community organizers were actually young black Muslim teenagers, I’m sure he wouldn’t have given the order to shoot. That’s the correct way to look at it. If only Obama had known.”
.
PAD
Okay, but please, Rush Limbaugh? He built a career on setting up strawmen to knock down. I don’t expect that from you. My point was that not all right wing pundits were upset that Obama succeeded. And apparently, as Mr. Butler points out below, Limbaugh was editorializing about how this would be reported if it had been during Bush’s administration. Speculation? Yes, but not outlandish fantasy.
And then there’s the New York Post. The day before the Captain was rescued, the Post said in an editorial:
.
The White House, to be sure, appears in no rush to empower its navy. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton this week said only that “the world must come together” to stop piracy — a sure sign that more irresolution lies ahead.
.
But the day after the rescue, after the Post had been condemning the White House for being irresolute, their editorial simply congratulated “all concerned” for the rescue without making any mention of Obama or the White House that they had just been criticizing.
.
PAD
Want a few more?
.
From Red State:
.
As a legislator, President Obama had the luxury of taking both sides of an issue to position himself politically. But as president, especially in matters of national security, the president does not have that luxury, and he cannot seek it. Perhaps with more experience, President Obama will be able to chart a course and be willing to accept the consequences of his decisions, good and bad. But in the events of the last week off the coast of Africa, President Obama showed himself to be not yet ready to act decisively before knowing how the political winds will blow.
.
and
.
In the end, Captain Phillips wasn’t saved by the president, but by his own courageous plunge and the deadly professionalism of our men with guns. The president, you see, was saved by the captain.
.
From Pajamas Media:
.
Despite the Obama administration’s (and its sycophants’) attempt to spin Sunday’s success as a result of bold, decisive leadership by the inexperienced president, the reality is nothing of the sort. What should have been a standoff lasting only hours — as long as it took the USS Bainbridge and its team of NSWC operators to steam to the location — became an embarrassing four-day-and-counting standoff between a rag-tag handful of criminals with rifles and a U.S. Navy warship.
.
Another, perhaps? This from Atlantic:
.
Perhaps I’m reading this wrong, but I’m fairly certain that the pirate drama and its resolution says absolutely nothing about President Obama. You could make the case that the White House wants to show that Obama is deliberate and cautious when it comes to authorizing military force — fine — but this was a hostage rescue mission, the U.S. has specially-trained counterterrorist forces for precisely this sort of thing, and military action was almost inevitable.
.
And then there’s US News and World Report…
.
I think we are all grateful that Capt. Richard Phillips of the Maersk Line has been rescued after being held for five days by a group of pirates in a lifeboat off the coast of Africa. But I think the praise being heaped on President Obama for his handling of the situation is approaching excessive.
.
I am quite certain that there are right wing pundits and genuine Conservatives who support Obama’s actions. But I very much suspect that, in many cases, it’s burning their biscuits to do so, and even here there are those who feel quick to dámņ with faint praise.
.
PAD
From the Atlantic : You could make the case that the White House wants to show that Obama is deliberate and cautious when it comes to authorizing military force — fine — but this was a hostage rescue mission, the U.S. has specially-trained counterterrorist forces for precisely this sort of thing, and military action was almost inevitable.
And all the hostages were rescued, safe and unharmed. So what’s the complaint? That it wasn’t done fast enough? This is nit-picking and Monday quarterbacking at it’s finest. “I can’t argue with the results, so I complain that it wasn’t done fast enough.” Sheesh.
“Okay, but please, Rush Limbaugh? He built a career on setting up strawmen to knock down. I don’t expect that from you. My point was that not all right wing pundits were upset that Obama succeeded. And apparently, as Mr. Butler points out below, Limbaugh was editorializing about how this would be reported if it had been during Bush’s administration. Speculation? Yes, but not outlandish fantasy.”
Since I can’t reply to that specific comment i quoted it.
whatever you think of Rush he is one of the most powerful names in the Republican party. Don’t buy that then why is it everytime a Republican politician tries to denounce Rush he ends up apologising.
You may dismiss him if you want, but you can’t discount his influence.
It’s become pretty clear that Obama could find Osama Bin Laden and Rush would find some way to find fault with it.
He’s not a member of my party… but every politician that takes a shot at him ends up apologizing because they fear their rightist constituents and radio-listening voters.
“It’s become pretty clear that Obama could find Osama Bin Laden and Rush would find some way to find fault with it.”
Certainly! So could I! Because Osama is supposed to be “Free” in the Pentagon basement hooked up to Truth Serum dispensers 24/7
President Obama didn’t “order” the strike against the pirates as much as he “authorized” it. The Navy would have come up with the plan, then presented it to the President. As for authorizing the plan, I say to the President “Good Job!”.
Just like how I hold the president accountable when things go wrong, I hold him accountable when things go right. As commander in chief, the attaboys start with the rescuers and climb all the way to the top.
BTW, is it true that they are reporting that Obama “ordered the surgical strike that took down three pirates and freed that captured Captain”? I had heard the account mentioned earlier, that they felt they had to take deadly action because they felt the Captain’s life was in danger.
.
Which is rather curious since, as I understand it, the captain of the rescue ship would have had the right to order that action at any time he though the hostage was about to be harmed. Or did the fact that the event was now an international incident suddenly remove the Captain’s authority and transfer it to the Commander in Chief?
.
At any rate, while we celebrate this great rescue let’s think about what the next step will be. The pirates certainly haven’t learned the right lessons, judging from the way they have continued to take ships and hostages. Since this is Obama and not Bush we will hopefully not have too many people claiming that our actions are creating 10 pirates for every one we kill (stop the cycle of violence!).
Well, at least one conservative rallied around him (didn’t do an exhaustive search, but Ed Rollins is a well known conservative commentator).
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/14/rollins.rescue/?iref=mpstoryview
Don’t be so quick to judge a huge swath of people who think differently than you, or think that because they have different solutions, they will not stand behind our president in times of crisis.
JD
I am glad Obama gave the go ahead. Certainly if it had gone badly, some people would have never let it go. As it is, he has his first military victory, even if it was a minor one…and one that is completely and totally justified. I’ve been waiting for one of those for a while!
try not to foam mouth to much PAD. As a member of the right I think Obama did everything right with these pirates and he has gone along way in showing that he might let the military do its job. But that doesn’t mean I now am required to support all of this ideas both foreign and domestic.
Spoken like someone with the specific mentality I was mentioning. Condemn a straightforward commentary as “frothing at the mouth,” and then find a reason to criticize Obama even in the face of his getting the job done.
.
PAD
“in a time of crisis, liberals lined up behind Bush “
“in a time of crisis, liberals lined up behind Bush “
(Ðámņ “submit” button…)
They didn’t line up behind him for terribly long. The partisan politics got back underway pretty quickly as people started coming up with explanations as to why they voted for all those things Bush wanted, and only after the fact they they “realize” how bad they all were.
Obama is doing things, and progress is being made. That alone is enough to infuriate his detractors.
BOTH sides eternally wish for the other side to “fail”, in the hopes that it will make them look better come the next election. It’s petty and dangerous and I don’t expect it to change. There are just as many examples of Democrats lambasting Republicans, declaring their plans failed (and the war lost) before they’re even started.
It’s like two guys in a boat, and one laughing as he watches the other guy’s half of the boat sinking.
They didn’t line up behind him for terribly long.
That’s because Bush didn’t waste any time after invading Afghanistan (an action I support to this day) before he started his Axis of Evil rhetoric and wanting to go after Iraq.
Craig, not all of them supported the war in Afghanistan–remember how some floated the idea that the afghan campaign was in large part to get some oil pipeline or some such nonsense?
.
Admittedly, there hasn’t been as much criticism on that front lately but I don’t know if it’s because the anti-war folks don’t care as long as it’s a democrat in charge or, as I think is more likely, they just aren’t getting the attention they did before.
Well, there’s always going to be an anti-war faction, no matter what. Those people I dismiss from the discussion, same as those who consider war as the 1st and only option.
.
And yeah, I remember talk about the oil. Supposedly Afghanistan has huge oil reserves underground. But that theory never made a ton of sense; now, Iraq, on the other hand…
.
To be honest, after 9/11 I figured Bush would shoot first and ask questions later, and was pleasantly surprised that he didn’t rush into going to Afghanistan. I’ve also always argued for more troops to be sent to Afghanistan so we can finish off the Taliban, and I’ve seen some (not much, but some) criticism of Obama’s plan to do just that.
.
In the end, quite a few on the right have spent just about every day since 9/11 questioning the patriotism and so on of those on the left, saying we don’t have the balls for military action. And now the shoe is on the other foot in terms of who’s calling the shots, yet they still bring out the same tired rhetoric.
Rush’s IN CONTEXT commentary can be found here – http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_041409/content/01125110.guest.html
Most here probably would not agree with it, but it does not provide the evidence that PAD claims that it does. In essence, Rush is treating Obama the way that he believes the press would have treated Bush if he had been President when this happened. It would have been spun as our war mongering President gunning down three helpless teenagers who were desperate and needed help, not violence.
While I haven’t been listening to the coverage of this too intently, the only conservative voices that I have heard have been positive about Obama’s actions. My favorite local conservative commentator was very positive in his comments that Obama had handled the crisis in the absolutely correct way.
“Well, I can’t speak for others, but I would not be among them.”
OH COME ON! Putting words in other people’s mouths is what this whole topic is about. Go and re-read your original posting. Does this sound familiar –
“My guess is that they’re spinning it every which way they can, from declaring that, ‘Yeah, but he waited three days to do it’ to ‘The liberal press is blowing Obama’s involvement out of proportion.'”
This entire conversation began as one huge assumption about what conservatives are thinking, feeling, and saying.
I read the in context link. First the webpage is titled President Obama ordered the killing of 3 black muslim kids.
And the first thing he talks about is a completely unsubstantiated rumour that the pirates are ready to surrender but Obama killed them anyway.
There’s no difference to what PAD posted and the link
I think the thing Tim was pointing out is that Limbaugh was speculating how this action would have been reported if it happened under Bush’s administration.
Here is the telling line:
“Now, just imagine the hue and cry had a Republican president ordered the shooting of black teenagers on the high seas.”
The comments after that are not so much an indictment of Obama but of the slanted news reporting that Limbaugh calls the “‘drive-by media”.
Action by Bush = bad.
Same action by Obama = good.
Action by Bush = bad.
.
True. Everything he touched turned to manure.
“The difference between liberals and conservatives is that in a time of crisis, liberals lined up behind Bush as much as conservatives did.”
Why is that in any way a praise to liberals? I mean, sistematically opposing the other party is dumb and unpatriotic, but precisely in times of crisis, cool headed criticism is worth gold, even if it gets you vilified by the media.
Frankly, I was dissapointed when american “liberals” backed Bush obviously moronic “war on terror” strategy. And I think most of them knew how stupid it was from the very beggining, but felt it was more risky to oppose it than to simply go along with the herd, career-wise.
And regarding the whole pirate issue… while I cant object to the SEALs offing those kids (thats basically what they were, in the words of the rescued captain), I feel the whole issue is beign turned into downright gloating for some media. As necesary as those deaths might have been (wich I dont deny, I wasnt there), cheering the death of a teen without even stopping to contemplate the origins of the situation is abject.
The whole piracy phenomenom in the horn of Africa is the consequence of more than a decade of Somalia´s power vacuum. Western ships have been poisoning those waters, from engine cleaning to good old toxic barrel dropping. Deep fishing areas have been plundered by modern foreign fleets. UN aknowledges thousands of deaths from the poisoning of the near waters, and hundreds of thousands deprived of their means of living by the plunder.
The first “pirates” where simply fishermen demanding compensation when there wasnt a goverment speaking for them and the situation escalated from there. Right now, it is the only way to prosper in that coast. They are criminals, but their impact on local economy is the best thing that have happened for those towns in ages. 70% of coastal somali people think those pirates are like Robin Hood. If you contribute to a situation where going criminal is the only way to prosper, you cant really complain when they, well…go criminal.
Am I saying we should let this go unchecked? Stop using those sea lanes? No, not at all. But today Ive heard the Pentagon is talking about bombing “pirate havens”. Well, Ive seen photos of pirate havens. Most people would call them villages, towns. Places where people live.
Ive been reading a “that will teach them” attitude all over the internet, yet I dont really see how. Piracy is a crime. A violent crime yet an economically driven one. these guys dont usually murder crews, they just want the money and leave as soon as they can, to spend the loot. I dont see the police bombing an apartment building to kill a bank robber. People in these villages actually love the pirates, but then, no one ever did anything for them but the Jolly Roger bunch.
I don’t think anyone would deny that there are problems with the way things are in Somalia, and those problems have led to the piracy problem. (Hëll, that whole continent has problems of one kind or another, and no one,internal or external, is likely to solve them easily, through brute force or sweet reason).
–
There should be a concerted international effort to assist the African Union countries to sort things out, but in the mean time a clear message that “If you threaten our citizens we will shoot you in the head” doesn’t seem too wildly disproportionate.
–
PAD; my observation would be that you are very liberal, in the same way that some conservatives are very conservative. I apply salt to comments from both ends of the spectrum as seems appropriate…
–
Cheers
–
(Hmmm.. should probably change gravatar image before someone shoots me!)
I didnt object to the outcome of this last operation. It saddens me but I dont find it objectable since, as far as we know, innocent life was in danger.
What I object is the gloatin in some media, the whole gun toting macho attitude from so many in blogs and news site comments. If the situation demands for teens to be killed, so be it. But the next thing a sane, decent person would do is to insure they dont have to do that again, not looking up where the dead teens came from to kill some more.
Add my name to the list of people who think we should be sending some heavily armed decoy ships into the area. Just let them start to board in order to establish intent and take them out. If the big shipping companies, as countless news stories have recently pointed out, are willing to pay millions as a cost of doing business in the area, they should be willing to pay a much smaller percentage to rid themselves of the problem. Granted, as long as Somali piracy is seen as a growth industry, it ain’t gonna go away any time soon, but I should think some of these enthusiastic young gunmen might think twice if they thought their easy prey was going to fight back.
Hëll, it worked for Russell Crowe and Co. in Master and Commander.
I’m a pretty conservative guy and as such I encounter a lot of conservative articles. My general sense is that the credible columnists are saying Obama did everything right. Krauthammer detailed early on the pitfalls of a hostage situation and at the crisis’ end stated that Obama did everything right. I agree.
He kept his public involvement to a minimum. This kept him, as Jimmy Carter was in the seventies, from being publicly held hostage. Instead, working with the Navy, he authorized force to be used in a reasonable circumstance.
I’m just bothered by the notion that because I’m a conservative I’m somehow less reasonable. No, I don’t agree with Obama on a lot of things. But I’m not blind and I think it’s improper to classify an entire group in the way you did in your final paragraph.
And yes, I know conservatives lobby the same criticism towards the left. In similar words to the ones you used. But one attack doesn’t justify another.
If conservatives never back Obama then what’s an “Obamacon”?
Sounds like a Transformer.
I think they hold that every year in Chicago. The dance is okay, but the panels are pretty dull.
One problem people are dancing around here is that these miscreants are grabbing hostages/human shields and we’re letting this affect our thinking. The problem with this is that, the moment you worry about the hostages, the bad guys own you. Yeah, cold-hearted, inhuman, go on, name it. But the Israelis have, I believe, a simple system they used effectively in the Entebbe airport raid. Hostages are (were?) automatically declared to be officially *dead*. Then they send in the commandos who exterminate the bad guys. Any hostages still alive, well, it’s gravy. Rough on the hostages, but then when was the last time an Israeli airliner was successfully hijacked? Maybe they’re on to something. Unlike terrorists who just like to blow stuff up, pirates usually are in it for the money. Or some other material reward. If they either get killed off, or are forced to walk away empty-handed, at some point they’re going to decide it’s time to get into some other line of work.
Actually, pirates are in it also to stop the misuse of the Sea before Somalia. They had to change their line of work (fishing) because foreign ships ruined that. So far, piracy has proven the most effective alternative to idly sit to watch as your mother lungs come out of her mouth for eating a fish that ate who-knows-what from a who-knows-where ship spillage. And that gotta stop.
But dont be fooled. There is no other “line of work” left. So either we fix the problem we allowed to happen (and we did, since we allow our companies to do whatever they want abroad without making them pay at home, a slong as that get us affordable goods) or we will simply be getting more and more desperate people throwing low tec at us at the sea. Because the alternative right now is to roll over and die.
They had to change their line of work (fishing) because foreign ships ruined that.
International waters begin after what, 5 miles? These pirates are ranging far out into international waters to conduct these hijackings – as far as 400 miles from the Somali coast. They’re heading into the Indian Ocean hoping to find ships outside of the usual patrols.
This is not about Somalia’s territorial waters. It’s simply about ransoms to pay for their never-ending war.
I believe international waters beguin at 12 miles, tho many countries extend theirs to 200 miles unilatery. But thats not the point. The point is not territorial pride. If I sail to the coast before, say, Maine, and drop toxic or nuclear waste 13 (or 201) miles off the shore…
-Doesnt that affect the life of the coast inhabitants? Specially those who live from fishing? Wouldnt they have the right to feel even a bit angry about it?
-Wouldnt the goverment of Maine and the USA do something about it? I am pretty sure they would. Possibly even extend their authority well over the 12 (or 200) miles. I kind of remember when boats loaded with much less toxic shipments (like Haitian refugees) where stoped in international waters and delivered to camps in Guantanamo, so its not just an hypothesis.
Why you think European and american ships dont drop their waste closer to home? They do it in places like Somalia or Africa’s west coast because no one is going to complain where it matters.
There is no working goverment in Somalia. There hasnt been for a time, so there is no one to even do something as feeble as issuing a protest about it on the UN. Piracy started as an attempt to drive spillers away and compensate for the damage done to their means of livehood. It has evolved from that into a profitable bussines and that has to be stopped, but without adressing the root causes, history and common sense say that you wont stop it.
Misery is like that. Every year thousands of sub-saharian africans drown trying to get to Europe, yet they keep trying. You think a bullet in the head is more scary than a very wet grave and beign eaten by fish?
I believe international waters beguin at 12 miles, tho many countries extend theirs to 200 miles unilatery.
You are right: territorial waters are 12 miles, economic is 200.
The point is not territorial pride.
And the point isn’t whether ships are illegally dumping waste and such in Somali waters, either.
The point is that these pirates are using protecting their waters as an excuse to extort ransoms out of other nations, whether those nations had boats passing through Somali waters or not.
Your example about Maine is not a good one. If somebody were dumping off Maine, we would stop them from doing so. We would not start capturing ships near, say, Iceland, and holding the sailors hostage in response.
“If somebody were dumping off Maine, we would stop them from doing so. We would not start capturing ships near, say, Iceland, and holding the sailors hostage in response.”
Actually, many countries are known for going wherever they want and do whatever they want to whoever they want if that serve their national interest. “Fight them There so We dont have to fight them here…”. And killing innoc… creating some collateral damage while at it. So yes, You would go after ships near Iceland. You have gone after ships near Iceland.
Dont take me wrong… I dont justify piracy, I just pointed out factors that are key to understand how the situation came to this. I actually think a multinational naval taskforce is a good idea. I am not against killing someone who is about to kill an imnocent. But I live in a country that is just a few miles from Africa and we’ve seen how misery and lack of options can make people risk their life for far less than the millions these pirates can get. So force is not enough. The western world, specially Europe, should adress its responsability in the situation and make it better.
Or we could simply watch from our nifty ships and gun down any suspicious boat loaded with locals while the lanes are kept open and safe.
By the way… as far as I know, piracy is a crime but not punished by death in any of the NATO countries, so…how is it justified in any way to even consider bombing a “pirate haven” aka somali coastal village to prevent a non-capital crime?
This is where the essential disagreement is. Did “Liberals” stand behind Bush during times of crisis?
Well 9/11 cannot be compared to this hostage taking. From where I stand, “Liberals” and the media went towrds the following
Create doubt. Question his judgment. Support his opponents. Ridicule his errors. Mitigate his successes with suggestion of unintended consequences. Refuse to praise his work. Challenge his advocates when they advocate; don’t let them own the conversation.
Personally, I think you’re describing political processes in general.
As such, this isn’t a very useful observation.
Indeed. Almost the exact same description could be applied to “conservatives”.
Except I’d add blatantly lie.
Considering that well over ninety percent of Americans supported the invasion of Afghanistan and the so-called liberal media toed the line drawn by the Bush Administration, I obviously disagree.
PAD
I think the big question should be not what credit Obama does or doesn’t observe, but what happens next. Apparently this sort of piracy has been thriving for decades and is almost accepted — one businessman said it’s cheaper to pay the ransoms than to sail around the area — so what will the United States do to stop it? Can we put pressure on the African governments to curtail this piracy? Will we increase the military presence of warships to protect cargo vessels? Or do we just tell the world that the U.S. will act when its citizens are threatened but look the other way when it’s not our people that are in danger?
Trust a businessman to be pragmatic. (I worked for a while for a multi-national doing business in Russia shortly after things went to pot over there, the biggest problem was not having to pay off gangsters, it was figuring out which gangsters to pay off to actually get some protection!)
–
Cheers.
Y’know, I used to be a brainwashed right-winger because I believed what you believe: that the other side is reasonable and my side wasn’t. Now, I respect you as a writer and as a person, but this whole thing is the kind of thing that used to send me over the edge.
“Those who are desperate to see Obama fail must not be too happy. My guess is that they’re spinning it every which way they can, from declaring that, “Yeah, but he waited three days to do it” to “The liberal press is blowing Obama’s involvement out of proportion.””
First, only the most unreasonable right-wingers want Obama to fail. Just like only the most unreasonable left-wingers wanted Bush to fail in Iraq (which he did) and in the economy (which he did, though there were periods which were better than others)
Second, if you feel that strongly that “oh, those horrid right-wingers always try to discredit him,” why not use some ACTUAL quotes. I mean, you can actually go to sites that are dedicated to right-wing opinion–again, some more reasonable than others–where you can find QUOTES to support this.
“The difference between liberals and conservatives is that in a time of crisis, liberals lined up behind Bush as much as conservatives did. The approval of the initial military actions was across the board. ”
This is NOT the difference between “liberals and conservatives” (god, when will this paradigm be exposed as the lie that it is?) but reasonable and unreasonable. I do remember some on the left–as anecdotal as I admit this is–who were saying things about him. By the time he actually declared war on Iraq, people were comparing him to Hitler or bin Laden himself.
“It took serious ineptitude by Bush and company to fritter away such universal support. ”
Yes. From the reasonable left. It took a lot less than that for the unreasonable to trounce him.
“My guess is that you will never, ever see that sort of reciprocity from conservatives at such times.”
Did you notice how George W Bush vowed not to criticize Obama at all and how throughout much of his campaign, McCain silenced rowdy people at his rallies by saying Obama was a “good man?” That in his acceptance speech McCain said to Obama and his supporters, “you have my respect” and so forth? Your guess is wrong. There are extremists on the right who will refuse–people like Coulter and Limbaugh seem to make it their business to live up to these stereotypes–but not all “conservatives.”
“In their world, if you didn’t support Bush against terrorists, you were unpatriotic.”
Classic strawman argument. It’s true that many right-wingers felt that people on the left had a resentment toward America–namely the two I just mentioned (ugh) but also people who should know better–but I think others were talking squarely about people who were blatantly being unfair; and were questioning their patriotism not in the context of saying, “you’re not patriotic,” but in that of saying, “your putting idealism above patriotism.”
“But if you do support Obama against terrorists, you’re an idiot. Funny how that works.”
Funny how you don’t cite one example. Let’s pretend Ann Coulter said exactly that for a moment (if I felt like it, I could see if she did). Then, I could say, “look, not all right-wingers are necessarily like her, and I like to think most aren’t. When you paint with this broad brush, you’re taking her art course.” But instead, you just blanketly condemn “conservatives,” just like certain pundits condemn all “liberals.”
I cited half a dozen examples from various blogs and publications over the past two days. It’s not my fault that you can’t be bothered to read them (or for that matter learn how to spell “anonymous.” We should put you together with the guy who can’t spell “Barack.”)
.
PAD
McCain silenced rowdy people at his rallies by saying Obama was a “good man?”
.
This was only done after *several* events for *both* McCain and Palin were various things were being shouted by the crowd toward Obama.
.
I’m sure McCain is genuine in his saying that about Obama, but his response came far too late, as his campaign had already encouraged the crowd to become rabid.
Maybe the Conservative pundits are angry because Obama dealt with the real culprits in a quick and straightforward manner, instead of going to war with a country that had nothing to do with the pirates in the first place?
Seriously, everybody knows that most people that are into politics just treat it like sports. They root for their team, they hate the other team, no matter what happens. Don’t expect rationality from people locked in a Us vs. Them mentality.
“Us vs Them” is pretty much hardwired into the way humans look at the world, with an infinite number of values for those two variables, but you are right.. um, make that you are correct.. 😛
–
As a species we really do need to get the Hëll over that crap and start working together on solving a few things.
–
Cheers.
Sorry, PD but as mentioned previously 9/11 and the Pirate incident were massively different scales.
And how soon did we get the “BUSH KNEW” headlines….and were there protesters already against the Afghan war, yup.
Of course there were protesters from the onset. Nobody’s saying there weren’t. But you didn’t have major mainstream reporters and pundits going out and criticizing him for Afghanistan.
As for the “he knew” headlines. Well, he did. Reporting that is simply reporting.
Anthony,
Do you think it’s fair to criticize liberals for not supporting Bush enough, when Bush himself never wanted or courted liberal support?
Love him or hate him, Bush never seriously tried to be an “uniter”. He and his advisors used a calculated strategy of antagonizing the opposition and energizing the more radical elements among their own base.
My only real quibble is with this entry’s header. Coming from a professional wordsmith, “conservative right” seems to be a pretty redundant thing to write.
Where, exactly, is the “liberal right” or the “conservative left”? (And would someone care to associate some names with those particular positions?)
In the UK, they’re hiding behind “silent majority”. Over there, who knows? 🙂
–
Curiosity; is your country as polarised as it seems, or is there a seething mass caught betwixt and between two noisy book-ends?
–
Numbers, anyone?
–
Cheers.
Looks like another cultural difference, over here being a full, “card-carrying” member of a political party involves deliberately opting in and paying annual fees – typically around $50.
–
Population is 60 million, so guesstimating around 45 million eligible to vote, we have some 200,000 members of the Labour party (left wing) – down from 400,000 in 1997 when Tony Blair came to power – some 290,000 in the Conservative party (right wing) and 70,000 in the Liberal-Democrat party (why can’t we all just get along wing).
–
That means Tories outnumber Labour and Liberals combined, which didn’t reflect in election results, so it’s a pretty crude yardstick, but does seem to indicate a small percentage of population who care enough to sign up to their party and a hëll of a lot of us in between who probably do class themselves as one or t’other but won’t pay for the privilege…
–
Cheers.
I think there are conservatives who would very much describe themselves as middle of the road. Or people who are conservative in some aspects of their thinking and liberal in others. I don’t think in many respects the McCain of earlier elections was a right wing conservative; how else would you explain the characterization that he “swung right” when it came to 2008?
PAD
McCain had managed to somehow create a fascade of being a moderate, largely based on some social issues. But in my opinion the fascade was stripped away by the election, he was largely a coservative in moderate clothing. He was part of the Keating 5. He helped deconstruct the major sections of the banking regulations from the New Deal that lead to the recent implossion in the economy. Voted agains MLK Day. And so on.
His fascade was a creation of a liberal stance on abortion which, in the election he flip flopped on. An ocassional had across the aisle which if you really analyze was mostly to those Dems he lean heavily to the conservative side of moderate. And election funding reform which he ignored part of for his race and complained about at other times.
Really after the Keating scandle the media created the moderate image for him, but it wasn’t real.
Glad to hear that Barak got one right. Of course that still doesn’t excuse his bowing before the ruler of Saudi Arabia, doing nothing about North Korea, and spending us all into poverty.
I am mystified why anyone would want to denegrate those at the tea parties yesterday. The government take over 1/2 of our pay through direct and indirect taxes and you want to make fun of people who have the gall to want to actually keep more of what they earn?
I just want the government to keep it’s eyes and ears out of my business and hands out of my pockets and quit telling me how to run my life and apparently that makes me a right-leaning loon.
No. The fact that you don’t even know how to spell the President’s first name while grudgingly saying that “he got one right” before spouting off a litany of complaints makes you a right-leaning loon.
PAD
Peter, I can’t leave it that.
Joel,
1) This crap about Barack Obama bowing before the head of Saudi Arabia is just crap.
Forget that our previous President not only bowed before the same leader, but also hugged and kissed him and held his hand.
The fact is that as long as we have had a President, that President has shown respect toward the leaders of other countries in the manner approved by their respected peoples. It’s called protocol. Meeting the Pope, even non-Catholic Presidents have kissed his ring (an act of obeisance). Meeting the Queen of England, the President shows as much respect toward her station as the Prime Minister does. He does not touch her or turn his back on her and, yes, he does bow toward her. He does NOT prostrate himself or bend his knee. The same is expected of foreign leaders meeting our President, though calling him “Mr. President” is about it, since we are democratically inclined and treat our Presidents as human beings when we are not treating them as punching bags.
Of course, the issue here is REALLY that if Barack Obama bowed hello to the President of Japan, as per the custom in that country, you would have no problem, any more than you would have a problem with him bowing politely to the Queen of England. You’re upset — as the right-wing blogosphere is upset — because he bowed, specifically, to the leader of Saudi Arabia. An Ay-rab. And you take that as somehow sinister, somehow proof of his Anti-Americanism, somehow evidence of his disloyalty.
When it’s pointed out that the Bush family has been business partners with the Saudi royal family for years, and does them favors both in and out of office, and in fact acted quickly on 9/12 to evacuate members of the Bin Laden family from American soil — an act that went virtually uncommented-upon, that would have had people like you screaming for “Barak” Obama’s head — you change the subject.
But then pointing out all of this is a waste of time, because pointing out inconsistency in the position of a wingnut is like playing Beethoven for a stone.
2) “Doing nothing about North Korea” — so your withering complaint is that Obama has not fixed in three months what six decades of Presidents could not do before him? What, exactly, did Bush do about North Korea?
3) “Spending us into oblivion”? And this is different, how, from fighting two wars while slashing taxes and thus turning a historic into a historic surplus? Three months in, handed a historic crisis on his first day, continuing the bailouts THAT BUSH STARTED — why is “Barak” the hate object?
4) “Quit telling me how to run my life” — okay, what, exactly, in YOUR LIFE, is Barack Obama telling you not to do?
The complaint seems to be that Barack Obama is actually requiring conditions of the companies he’s bailing out — and that giving Wall Street and the Auto Industry trillions somehow qualifies him as a “socialist.”
I don’t understand.
and in fact acted quickly on 9/12 to evacuate members of the Bin Laden family from American soil — an act that went virtually uncommented-upon,
.
Adam, I’m pretty sure that it WAS commented upon. It was certainly reported; check out the sources at the snopes page http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flights.asp
.
If it wasn’t commented upon at the time (which is what I assume you meant, since I recall it being a major talking point since then, in 9/11 conspiracy tapes and such) it might be because there is, so far as I know, no evidence that these members of the family had anything to do with Bin Laden’s activities. One might recall that after 9/11 there were those who predicted a great backlash against Arabs and other middle easterners. Such fears were largely unfounded but letting the family go back home seemed to be a wise thing to do at the time. I suspect Gore or Obama would have done the same.
.
(Incidentally, the Snopes page says that you are wrong about the flights–they did not take place on the 12th but on the 14th and 15th, after the airports were reopened and anyone, even Arabs with unfortunate relatives, were allowed to fly. It also states that the flights of the Bin Laden family were handled by Richard Clarke, not Bush. You may want to send them a letter correcting them, if you have information to the contrary).
And I want the goivernment to keep our bridges from collapsing (yes, I’m from MN), find out EXACTLY
And I want the government to keep bridges from collasping (yes, I’m from MN); let me know what tomatoes, peppers, or rotted meat may make me sick BEFORE it’s consumed; take care of our millitary me when they get back from war ESPECIALLY if they are injured (and NOT it moldly, rat infested rooms); take care of our National Parks and Forests and not let drug peddlers set up pot farms in romote places; have a modern radar set up at our airports and not the pre-Commorde 64 stuff they have now; stop giving money to coporations who will just elimiate or move jobs anyways; a powergrid that doesn’t create brownouts or rolling blackouts in the middle of summer; farm payouts that go to actual farmers (if any left) and not them same large corporations; and comic books to actually come out monthly. (yeah the last one is a pipe dream)
I’m not sure it was a facade. It’s just that McCain is a conservative in economic issues, but socially liberal (relatively speaking).
He tried to pose as more socially conservative in the last election, but I still feel it wasn’t natural or confortable for him.
“and quit telling me how to run my life ”
Couldn’t agree more, man!
Ops, you’re not refering to the religious right telling me who I am allowed to have sex with? Sorry, my mistake.
Well, that’s what I get for not proof-reading my posting I guess. B-A-R-A-C-K. See? I can spell.
Mr. David I was not just spouting off but responding to posting made specifically by people such as Christopher Back and others and trying to do it in a concise manner as no one really wants to read a 4-page dissertation on these kinds of boards.
And Rene, I am referring to those on the Right as well who want to put their nose into my (and your) business. What you do in your life and during your time is your business leave me out of it.
Neither side can claim the high-road at this point, if indeed they ever could. But I am dismayed that PAD is willing to give those he agrees with a pass with no critical investigation and would instead use the fact I did not spellcheck my post as part of his flawless logic in labeling me as a far-right loon.
If you have read these boards for any length of time you would know that PAD does not give a pass to those he “agrees” with. I think the word you meant was “support”, because he doesn’t always agree with those he supports. He talks about what he thinks is wrong, as well as the things he thinks are right.
If more people were like that and used critical thinking instead of agreeing with whatever their side says or does, this country would be in a lot better shape. And the neocons are very guilty of demanding loyalty to people above anything else. Most liberals are more loyal to their ideas than any person. In my opinion, anyway.
But I am dismayed that PAD is willing to give those he agrees with a pass with no critical investigation
.
You are wrong, again. I have criticized various Democrats when I felt they said or did something that was off base…most recently Obama over his stated stance on being opposed to gay marriage. I pointed out the irony of his saying during his inauguration that only a few decades ago, there were places in Washington DC where his father would not have been allowed to eat a meal, noting that a few decades ago, there were plenty of places where his father would not have been allowed to marry his mother. So here we are decades later, and we STILL have states that endeavor to forbid two consenting adults from following their hearts, and Obama says he’s okay with that.
.
PAD
I concur and wish to amend my previous statement to include the word “support”. Never thought I would be smacked around by PAD. cool.
“George Haberberger says:
April 16, 2009 at 1:59 pm
I think the thing Tim was pointing out is that Limbaugh was speculating how this action would have been reported if it happened under Bush’s administration.
Here is the telling line:
“Now, just imagine the hue and cry had a Republican president ordered the shooting of black teenagers on the high seas.”
The comments after that are not so much an indictment of Obama but of the slanted news reporting that Limbaugh calls the “‘drive-by media”.
Action by Bush = bad.
Same action by Obama = good.”
Now who’s taking it out of context? The webpage title was Obama ordered the killing of three black Muslim kids. (not teenagers, kids)
Basically because he can’t come right out and condemn him for what he did like he wants to, he’s drops a rumour that they were about to surrender, and then changes the argument.
OK Adam, since you went through all the hassel of writing a LONG response let me respond to a few of your points.
1. I don’t like seeing our President bowing before any head of state, I personally do not care who is President or who the Head of State is. The President represents all Americans when he abroad and the symbolism of what he did is monumental. All Obama has done is do in public what Bush did in private to the head of Saudi Arabia for his whole term. And the fact you want to change the spelling of Arab to Ay-rab like a hick would pronounce it is done specifically to marginalize those with who you disagree with (in this case me). We can have a civil discourse without personal attackes, at least I seem to be able to.
2. I didn’t like Bush either. In the past 10 years we got hit by terrorism same as the UK, Spain, and the Soviet Union. Unlike the European countries he did something about it. Was it the right thing to do? Not in my opinion.
3. Yes Obama did nothing about North Korea, no speeches, no strong declarations no ferocious condemnations. He’s leaving it up to the UN who will do exactly nothing, same as they did in Iraq, Iran, Darfur, and Somalia. North Korea has kicked out the inspectors they agreed to and still no word from our President but i’ll bet you that strongly worded statement from the UN will change Kim Jong’s mind.
4. Yes Barack (can still spell it right) is continuing Bush’s spending policies and they were wrong when Bush did it. There is no such thing as a company too big to fail. Let them fail, someone can buy the remnants and turn the companies into something usable. BUT even though Bush started it Obama still CHOSE to continue it so he doesn’t get a pass on that.
5. What is Obama making me do? Let’s start with his idea of a forced Brown-shirt force of mandatory volunteers for those between 18-25. He’s started a feasibility panel so he’s serious about this.
He wants to control when and where I get health coverage. You are telling me that a faceless, government peon should have the right to tell me that my procedure is not necessary at this time? Of that I should go on a waiting list to be looked at?
The car companies should never have been bailed out but having the government dectate to a private company who their lead was is the very definition of Socialism. And the fact that he did not force the removal of the head of the union, who is every bit as culpable in running the company into the ground is the very height of hypocracy. They are forcing the companies to make electric cars that will not sell to a population that doesn’t have the money right now.
Government is never the answer. When the government gets involved what do we get? A crap response to Katrina, a Postal Service that is going to require a bailout and is extremely slow and inefficient (still can’t have real-time tracking on a package even though FedEx and UPS have had it for years), awful public schools, and a completely unworkable tax code.
And the best case I can think of let’s look at the condition of the American Indian. The government has been in charge of virtually every aspect of life on reservations for years now and the amount of aocoholism and drug abuse is staggering, the illiteracy rate is through the roof, they have government housing stripped of anything that can be pawned and the prospects of jobs is gone.
When I am busting my ášš to provide for my family and $37,000.00 a year cannot support me, my wife, and child because the government takes half in some way, shape, or fashion and forcing me to accept food stamps and WIC and then people call me a right-wing loon for daring to want the government to let me keep a little more of my money? How much more do I have to give?
At $37,000 a year you qualify for food stamps? Tell me how you do that, as I could use some help in that area.
We declare only my wife’s meager $50.00 a week income and hope that they do not catch on. So far so good.
3. Exactly what do you want to do about it? Invade? How well did that work in the 50’s? Where did it get us in Iraq? Not a realistic option, period! Trade sanctions? Already exist, the public over there is dying on the streets. You can’t cut them off entirely, Il and his sycophants will always be able to get what they want because there will always be people who will risk taking it to them for the profit they will earn.
N. Korea is a soverign nation and frankly there isn’t much of anything we can do about it. As with any country it is ultimately up to the people of that country to decide what THEY WANT. Il and his successors will remain in power until 20% of the people get fed up with them and decide to do something about it. Evidently 100% of them presently don’t mind falling down in the street and dying of starvation.
4. Wrong! You think it’s bad now? Just let them fail and allow the unemployeement percentage to reach the same 20% that it was during the Great Depression. You’ll be wishing they hadn’t been allowed to fail. We already know the results of failure, it’s called the Great Depression part II.
What needs done is these institutions need to be stabelized and then the safe guards of the New Deal need to be put back into place. Which means the companies will then be hacked into “failable” pieces. Obama is obviously trying to stabelize them but the real question will be, does he have the guts to fight the Republicans and put the New Deal back in place. His people are making noises that they want to, but the fight hasn’t begun. Republicans love their deregulation.
5 Oh please. Congress researches oxymoron stuff all the time and nothing comes of it. Just as nothing will come of this. But then again, we already force students to attend school whether they want to or not. And if they don’t attend to a certain age we go after their parents to make sure they do.
As for health coverage. What is the difference between a government peon dictating your health care coverage and the idiot peon we now deal with employeed by rich SOBs who has only been told to say, “no, no, no, no”. Our present system is working so well now… NOT.
Waiting list? Why do the wingnuts always bring up waiting lists or better yet, the wait times in doctors office? Do you people live in reality. The last time I went to my doctor I waited 2 hours in the lobby! The last time I had to have a medical proccedure scheduled I couldn’t get in for a month! My father had to wait 3 months to see an MS specialist. My insurance company labeled the medicine I need for severe acid reflux as unneeded! I pay more to a supposedly non-profit insurance company which is a subsidary of a FOR PROFIT insurance company, than paying taxes for a nationalized system ever would. You people who object to nationalized medecine with these excuses are in my opinion idiots!
I had a friend recently who’s insurance company (like me he is self employeed so the companies really rape us) forced him to wait to have surgery till AFTER his deductiable reset after the first of the year! Most small businesses have high deductiables combined with medical savings accounts. He had just paid off his deductiable when the company put a kabosh on having the surgery. So when they finally approve it he has to pay out several thousand from his medical account, which is his own hard earned money, to meet his deductiable. Where as last year, his insurance would have been required to cover everything. Only an idiot can’t figure out why he was forced to wait.
Nationalizing health care and turning it from a for profit venture into a non profit venture is an excellent idea! It will reduce costs, remove most of the greed and cover everyone. Oh and by the way, countries that have nationalized health care also have the private insurance policies that you are quite capable of buying to cover expenses that the nationalized system refuses.
Car companies: You claim you aren’t a republican yet yo obviously drink at their trough of information.
First of all, the car companies are not to blame for the majority of the mess they find themselves in. That blame goes strictly back to the banks and wall street who gambled with our money and bankrupted us as they lined their wallets with whatever they cold take from the gamble. Most cars are purchased on credit and banks are approving credit because they have no money to give because they gambled it away!
However because they are an easy target and the Republicans love them some union busting they have managed to direct a large chnk of anger at the car companies. And Obama has played along. If this was a normal recession and money was available the car companies would not be in this shape, they wouldn’t be making money but they wouldn’t be burning through their reserves like they are either.
I have friends who sell cars or I should say did till their dealer went out of business. They could have sold cars, but they couldn’t get loans for even the best of credit. The dealership could have survived if they could have gotten loans for people with spotless or nearly spotless credit like in a normal recession but they couldn’t. If you couldn’t pay cash up front they couldn’t sell you a car and there weren’t nearly enough people who could pay cash. Multiply this country wide and you have the car companies where they are now.
Are the car companies entirely blameless no. They got fat and they got lazy, on the gas guzzeling SUVs and ignored all the wraning sings coming at them. And dámņ straight when a company comes begging for money from us the people their Presidents and CEOs need removed! Same with the banks and securities firms. They should pay the price for their laziness or incopentance. But not the bottom line worker who has no input into what the company does or where it is going. The unions are for the workers and aren’t at fault. Was it the workers’ choice for the firm not to stash more money away and instead pay out millions to the president, vps etc? Did the workers decide that instead of investing in and designing economical and more fuel efficient cars like the Japanese were making money with, that GM would instead just come out with another model of the gas guzzeling Hummer SUV? NO! The people who made such stpid decisions got millions and the workers and their representatives are getting the shaft and blame.
>Government is never the answer. When the government gets involved what do we get? A crap response to Katrina
And you insist you aren’t a republican. Well see thank god for the government in WWII or how about WWI! Thank god for the government and a well managed FEMA when San Francisco was struck with that big earth quake. Or Hurrican Andrew leveled a large chunk of Florida. Or when that other hurrican 12 years ago flattened the coast of SC. Or how about that small town 2 years ago flattened by a tornado or any number of natural and man made disasters that haven’t gone the way of Katrina. Frankly, Joel, stuff your Katrina excuse. Katrina was the direct result of idiot George Bush who had driven out the majority of people with a brain at FEMA, assigned a guy, whose most noticable qualification was being fired from a horse club, as FEMA director and assigned that idiot as head of HS. FEMA and the government has stepped up and hit it out of the park many, many times then along came George Bush, deaf, dumb and blind and drove from the government those who had a clue in so many branches and replaced them with his cronies who were also deaf, dumb and blind. Katrina was a perfect storm of the idiocy of George Bush.
If the govenment is taking half of your income, then you need to find a new tax preparer because you are severly over paying your taxes! And no one can help you in that but yourself.
Joel says:
April 16, 2009 at 7:24 pm
“2. I didn’t like Bush either. In the past 10 years we got hit by terrorism same as the UK, Spain, and the Soviet Union. Unlike the European countries he did something about it. Was it the right thing to do? Not in my opinion.”
–
Trivial point, but UK troops have been in the thick of it in Iraq and Afghanistan. (They only were in one instance because of the supine and compulsive arselickery of Tony “the anti-Christ” Blair, but that’s a seperate post). Today’s moral is don’t tick off the bystanders with stray rounds when you’re in one argument already… 😛
–
For the record, I do partially agree with many of your concerns, and that’s after living and working as a self-employed IT consultant in a left wing “ruled” country for the last 12 years. The problem is that politics and social affairs are not exact sciences with precisely right and wrong solutions, so neither left nor right has all the answers.
–
High taxation? There is a moral element to taxation and those who earn more should pay more. The problem here is the super-rich who manage to avoid that.
–
(You can also add in a general reluctance to accept TANSTAAFL. The only good thing coming out of the current financial swamp is that generations of the young and affluent are going to have to relearn that one)
–
Government spending? There are some problems that can only be tackled at national levels by government. This includes green issues and the dependencies on fossil fuels. The problem here is that most public sector organisations are so mind-bûggërìņglÿ inefficient that you might as well just flush the money down the pan for all the good it does anyone.
–
International relations. You will still always catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, bending the knee and kissing a bit of butt is sometimes the cost of doing business and there is a huge difference between a man bowing in polite respect and a man bowing in surrender or submission. (Also, pragmatically, after you’ve sucked up to someone you can still kick ’em in the ‘nads if need be. Doing that in reverse order is much harder)
–
Cheers
Joel:
You may not PERSONALLY use the phrase ay-rab — and I will cede that point — but you are parroting a talking point that finds something especially sinister in Barack Obama showing a moment of deference to the Saudi leader. Again, the issue is that nobody makes a big deal of the President bowing to, for instance, the President of Japan. Nobody. Nobody says that he’s beholden to the President of Japan. Nobody says he’s showing he’s in bed with the President of Japan. Nobody. But when Barack Obama makes a brief and ambiguous bow toward the King of Saudi Arabia, the moment is blown out of all proportion by the very same people who didn’t mind the previous President being IN BUSINESS WITH the King of Saudi Arabia. Seriously: you can go back through the various administrations, and I think you’ll find that the only President who NEVER made such a bowing gesture was the one stuck in a wheelchair. Using it against Obama now is flinging šhìŧ at the wall in the hopes that something will stick. And it IS receiving the publicity it is, even from people who don’t say “ay-rab” themselves, because it’s a piece of propaganda aimed at a constituency that does, and will find it horrifically sinister. The “news” organizations that are trumpeting the moment as a talking point get up in the morning determined, NOT TO REPORT WHAT HAPPENED THAT DAY, but to find whatever stick they can beat Obama with. And the bow is one of the stupidest.
I don’t have the time to address every other item in your long list of unexamined talking points, but I will address a couple. First, the government is not deciding who gets your health procedures. It is in fact because we don’t have universal government-provided health care that somebody gets to decide, for instance, that my wife’s constant pain does not require a bone scan. Is it better that decisions on what health care you require are made by actuaries paid to turn down as many claims as possible? Are attempts to get more people insured examples of Obama’s tyranny?
I agree with you that the bailout of the big corporations is debatable, but IF we’re to have such a thing, it makes PERFECT sense for any bailout to have conditions.
Oh? And the “Government never works” line? Absolute insanity. Total insanity, total nonsense, based on the neocon dream of a United States where everything is driven by profit. The truth is that public schools work just fine in areas where taxes pay for them. By and large (a phrase I use because I know there are exceptions) wealthy communities with a strong tax base have good schools, poor communities with a bad tax base have deficient schools. Their increasing failure in places like California are entirely based on cash shortages left over from Reagan-era revolutions by property owners who put permanent caps on how much they could be taxed. As a result? Services are cut, teachers are fired, schools get worse. California is now in a pit that will ONLY be solved if taxes can ever again be raised to the point necessary to pay for the services that once supported the state. Period.
My friend, I know a very intelligent and wealthy writer who has become very conservative in his old age, and who has said that he knows the country’s going to šhìŧ because of deficits, but prefers the tax cuts people in his tax bracket get from Republicans. (As opposed to the tax cuts 95% of America, and YOU, got under Obama.) He actually says that as long as he lives in a fancy home he doesn’t give a šhìŧ about what happens to anybody else. This is his argument. Mine is that if I happen to take a vacation in some city where I get to say in a luxury hotel room, it is not a luxury hotel room if I look out the window and see slums, or if I can’t leave the lobby without smelling garbage. It is not a mansion if the country around it is wrecked.
“As for health coverage. What is the difference between a government peon dictating your health care coverage and the idiot peon we now deal with employeed by rich SOBs who has only been told to say, “no, no, no, no”. ”
Well, if there’s no difference, why change?
Luckily, there are numerous differences. You have the option of moving to another company if you are dissatisfied with one’s service. If the government is running the system, where is your second choice? You can appeal the choices of a provate company, possibly go to the media, and in a last resort, sue them. Will the same options be possible against the government?
Also, you can choose not to have health insurance – a lot of young people don’t, by their own choice, preferring to have more money in their pockets for a few years, and pick it up when they get older. Not the safest choice in the world (tho not entirely outlandish), but a valid one for them. You’ll not be able to opt out of the US plan, because if everyone isn’t paying into it, there won’t be enough money for it to work. Or like in Medicare, you’ll pay a MASSIVE penalty if you join late.
“My insurance company labeled the medicine I need for severe acid reflux as unneeded!”
And you could have, if you chose, looked into another company who would cover your medicine. If the government ran it, you’d have no other option, short of paying for it yourself, either out of pocket or with supplemental plan.
“I pay more to a supposedly non-profit insurance company which is a subsidary of a FOR PROFIT insurance company, than paying taxes for a nationalized system ever would. ”
How do you know this? You can assume it, but you have no numbers for the US plan to compare to. However, considering that nearly everything the government (regardless of party) has ever done has ended up being more expensive than they said/thought it would be, it’s also safe to assume that their estimates on the cost of a health care system are lowballed as well.
“I had a friend recently who’s insurance company forced him to wait to have surgery till AFTER his deductiable reset after the first of the year! Only an idiot can’t figure out why he was forced to wait. ”
I don’t grasp why you think that things like this wouldn’t/couldn’t/won’t happen with a nationalized plan. Medicare has limits and limitatons on payments, what can get approved, etc. I worked in senior life insurance, and I heard plenty of stories about things people couldn’t get, had to wait for, etc. I don’t expect a national system for all to work any differently, or better.
“Nationalizing health care and turning it from a for profit venture into a non profit venture is an excellent idea! It will reduce costs, remove most of the greed and cover everyone.”
Explain how it will lower costs. This is the same government that pays wildly inflated proces for construction and other bid projects, the famous ten-thousand dollar hammers and the like. Why wold they suddenly become penny-pichers in this case?
And I REALLY want to know how it will remove the greed. If the government tells a doctor “we will only pay X dollars for a patient visit”, and the doctor has until now been getting x+y for that visit, I don’t see every doctor in the country happily accepting that. They’ll start adding fees to the visit, separate from the actual cost of the visit, and get the same amount of money again. Tell a person that they’re only allowed to charge XX% more than their costs, and watch their costs magicallly rise, so too the amount that 20% totals. That’s over and above the ones who won’t just pack up and retire, or only take private patients who pay cash or use their own insurance plan, thus further decreasing the number of doctors. And how many people will choose not to become a doctor in the future as a result? Not all, but some will choose other fields, further reducing the number.
“Oh and by the way, countries that have nationalized health care also have the private insurance policies that you are quite capable of buying to cover expenses that the nationalized system refuses.”
Just a bit further up you railed against things that private systems were refusing, implying that this wouldn’t happen in a nationalized one. So again, if the national system will refuse things, why switch to it?
This basically means you’d need two medical care plans, one you’re paying for with your taxes that promises to cover everything (or so many people believe), and one you’d pay for out of your own pocket that would cover the parts of “everything” the national plan doesn’t. This matches Medicare exactly, which covers only a portion of your medical needs, and a secondary plan is needed to pick up the slack. So private insurance companies will still be involved, so exactly how much has the system been improved? All that’s happened is you’ve allowed the government to be in charge of a facet of your life it wasn’t in charge of before, and odds are (based on past performance) it will cost you more than your current plan is costing you now.
The mindset that they like to push is that this will be “free”. No, it won’t be free, it will be paid for by taxes (fees, surcharges, what have you), or deficit spending, which will eventually mean MORE taxes. It will SEEM free, since you won’t be writing a check, but it’s not like you’ll end up with more in your paycheck because you won’t have to pay medical insurance deductions. That money will just to to the government as tax. Unless the government has another source of income (some provinces in canada make money off of oil sales, for example), that money will ultimately come from the people.
Plus, as the population ages, there will be more elderly people not working or otherwise paying into the system. The young people will be paying for the old ones, in a model very similar to Social Secuity. It will be very difficult to support the system solely from paycheck deductions, and additional taxes and fees will surely be needed.
Bear in mind, I am all for making sure that people have access to medical care in this country. We have medicaid now, and people can always go to emergency rooms or clinics. I do believe that we are a wealthy and prosperous enough (even now) nation that there are ways to provide basic goods and services for the poorest among us. I also think we should be working on ways to help the poorest among us no longer BE the poorest among us, by getting them education, training and jobs, so those who can, and wish to, can better themselves.
I just don’t see why moving everyone (including the people who don’t need or want to since they have their own)to a national health system will be inherently better. The only reason I can accept is that only if everyone pays into it could it even possibly work.
Hey Brian, you made my point for me about Katrina. You think that Bush is the only President to appoint someone unqualified for a position and appoints only his cronies? Every President does that. It wasn’t just Bush’s fault, the Governor and Mayor also have some blame to spread around.
As far as the government taking 50% of my pay through taxes you did not read my whole statement. The government takes 29% of my paycheck right off the bat. The other 21% comes from sales taxes, gas taxes, property tax, and car registration among others. And then there are the hidden taxes. Let me fill you in on a secret Brian, companies do not pay taxes. Any tax they pay is funded by their sales so the cost is passed along to all of us that way. Keep track of how much sales tax you pay in a month and see how big of a jump you get.
The government takes 29% of my paycheck right off the bat.
.
Considering I make about the same as you and have no exemptions (where you have a wife and kid), all my taxes – state, fed – taken out of my paycheck are like 20%.
.
Do you end up getting all the taxes you paid back in a refund or something, because this isn’t adding up.
#37,000 less $10,900 standard deduction less $7000 leaves a taxable income of $19,100. From the tax charts, the federal tax would be $2066. That is about 5.6%. I don’t know what state you live in, but it seems incredible that it totals 29%. Perhaps you have mis-figured.
“Craig, does the 20% include the amount taken out for social security?
.
Bill, he said 29% “right off the bat”, I assumed this referred to Fed & State income taxes, along with Medicare and SS. He then talked about other taxes on everything else.
.
And yes, that 20% includes SS. Regardless, if he’s having 29% taken out by these four deductions with what he should have in exemptions, something is seriously wrong.
“2. I didn’t like Bush either. In the past 10 years we got hit by terrorism same as the UK, Spain, and the Soviet Union. Unlike the European countries he did something about it”
Actually, all of the countries you mention have done something about it. In Spain, the police found the terrorists. We found them, tried them and got them in jail. We went even further and created a joined police taskforce with morocco and anothe rone with algeria, and have been foiling attempts to recruit, finance and train more terrorists ever since. Because, you see…we kind of believe terrorists are criminals and police should deal with them. Not the Army. There’s kind of a consensus among civilized countries about that.
We got our troops out of Irak because that has nothing to do with terrorism, but our troops hace been fighting in Afganistan non stop well before we were attacked. Plus we have been in Lebanon for two years so far. We got out of Irak but then… we shouldnt have gone there in the first place, you already conceded that.
“Government is never the answer”
Except when it is. The adamant belief in goverment ineptitude some of you guys have is funny. Specially since its usually the republican administrations the ones that cripple public services to be able to say “see? I told you that wouldnt work”.
If a goverment run service doesnt work you can hand it to private contractors (and assume their main concern will be to make as big of a buck out of your necesities) or… make goverment run it better. I’ve lived under a public health care system all my life and in that time our life expectancy have surpassed that of your country. You can also get private insurance, but its way cheaper than in the USA, since they actually have to compete with a rather good universal service.
So Government is sometimes the answer, but you have to make it work for you and not for the big pharma.
Craig, does the 20% include the amount taken out for social security? Of course, one could argue that you will get that back.
If I added up federal income tax, federal FICA, state income tax, state sales tax, local income tax, local sales tax, local/county property taxes, gas tax, toll roads, airfare taxes, etc etc, I think it would be more than 20%. How much more I don’t know.
Why is it the replies vanish on some of the posts. Can anything be done about this?
Vinnie Bartilucci says:
>Well, if there’s no difference, why change?
Did I say there was no difference? I was answering hyperbol with hyperbol. The spiraling cost of health care is unsustainable for much longer. Hëll it’s already at that point for most people. I’d much rather deal with a peon who’s working for the government with the order to do the best possible they can for the public at large, than a peon who’s overly greedy boss wants to do nothing but screw everyone and everything they can out of their money and their life. Healthcare is broken and captialitic greed is the core.
>You have the option of moving to another company if you are dissatisfied with one’s service. If the government is running the system, where is your second choice?
Let me guess, you’re like John McCain or Evan Bayh and have never had to face the realities of what the health industry really is. It’s really amazing that the same people who live off of socialized health care, paid for by the taxpayers, for life are the first ones to condem it for everyone else. But I digress.
Here is a little reality for your fantasy world. Six month pre existing problems are NOT covered. And if you aren’t aware of the problem but they can prove it was pre-existing befor you sign up then they don’t have to pay it. In other words I have no choice but to stay where I am, I have yet to find a policy that doesn’t include this. So there is no shopping around for someone like me because the next company won’t pay for a preexisting condition the previous one won’t pay for! That is the realities for someone trying to cover his family running a small business.
>You can appeal the choices of a provate company, possibly go to the media, and in a last resort, sue them.
Oh please, what planet do you live on? Do you not listen to the news? You got the money to give me to fund an endless lawsuit, I’m trying to provide for my family not blow even more money on lawyers for the next 5, 10, 15, 20 years.
>Will the same options be possible against the government?
The system works fine in Canada, England, Sweeden… The government would be providing basic health care to the populace, unlike today’s health care system which is based on how much money can be made to line the fat cat pockets. Medicine that my father takes for his MS costs a $1000 a month in the US… In Canada $50. Oh and here he has to pay $200 out of pocket here. So take your shop around bullcrap and shove it where the sun don’t shine!
>Also, you can choose not to have health insurance – a lot of young people don’t, by their own choice, preferring to have more money in their pockets for a few years, and pick it up when they get older.
You’re a moron.
>You’ll not be able to opt out of the US plan, because if everyone isn’t paying into it, there won’t be enough money for it to work.
Guess what the government takes over and drug companies won’t be able to charge the outlandish prices they like shoving down our throats today. A $1000 dose of medecine that sells in the rest of the world for US equivlent $50. You tell me who’s taking the saft in that deal! There is a reason the insurance and drug and hospital companies spend billions convincing people like you what
Or like in Medicare, you’ll pay a MASSIVE penalty if you join late.
“My insurance company labeled the medicine I need for severe acid reflux as unneeded!”
And you could have, if you chose, looked into another company who would cover your medicine. If the government ran it, you’d have no other option, short of paying for it yourself, either out of pocket or with supplemental plan.
“I pay more to a supposedly non-profit insurance company which is a subsidary of a FOR PROFIT insurance company, than paying taxes for a nationalized system ever would. ”
How do you know this? You can assume it, but you have no numbers for the US plan to compare to. However, considering that nearly everything the government (regardless of party) has ever done has ended up being more expensive than they said/thought it would be, it’s also safe to assume that their estimates on the cost of a health care system are lowballed as well.
“I had a friend recently who’s insurance company forced him to wait to have surgery till AFTER his deductiable reset after the first of the year! Only an idiot can’t figure out why he was forced to wait. ”
I don’t grasp why you think that things like this wouldn’t/couldn’t/won’t happen with a nationalized plan. Medicare has limits and limitatons on payments, what can get approved, etc. I worked in senior life insurance, and I heard plenty of stories about things people couldn’t get, had to wait for, etc. I don’t expect a national system for all to work any differently, or better.
“Nationalizing health care and turning it from a for profit venture into a non profit venture is an excellent idea! It will reduce costs, remove most of the greed and cover everyone.”
Explain how it will lower costs. This is the same government that pays wildly inflated proces for construction and other bid projects, the famous ten-thousand dollar hammers and the like. Why wold they suddenly become penny-pichers in this case?
And I REALLY want to know how it will remove the greed. If the government tells a doctor “we will only pay X dollars for a patient visit”, and the doctor has until now been getting x+y for that visit, I don’t see every doctor in the country happily accepting that. They’ll start adding fees to the visit, separate from the actual cost of the visit, and get the same amount of money again. Tell a person that they’re only allowed to charge XX% more than their costs, and watch their costs magicallly rise, so too the amount that 20% totals. That’s over and above the ones who won’t just pack up and retire, or only take private patients who pay cash or use their own insurance plan, thus further decreasing the number of doctors. And how many people will choose not to become a doctor in the future as a result? Not all, but some will choose other fields, further reducing the number.
“Oh and by the way, countries that have nationalized health care also have the private insurance policies that you are quite capable of buying to cover expenses that the nationalized system refuses.”
Just a bit further up you railed against things that private systems were refusing, implying that this wouldn’t happen in a nationalized one. So again, if the national system will refuse things, why switch to it?
This basically means you’d need two medical care plans, one you’re paying for with your taxes that promises to cover everything (or so many people believe), and one you’d pay for out of your own pocket that would cover the parts of “everything” the national plan doesn’t. This matches Medicare exactly, which covers only a portion of your medical needs, and a secondary plan is needed to pick up the slack. So private insurance companies will still be involved, so exactly how much has the system been improved? All that’s happened is you’ve allowed the government to be in charge of a facet of your life it wasn’t in charge of before, and odds are (based on past performance) it will cost you more than your current plan is costing you now.
The mindset that they like to push is that this will be “free”. No, it won’t be free, it will be paid for by taxes (fees, surcharges, what have you), or deficit spending, which will eventually mean MORE taxes. It will SEEM free, since you won’t be writing a check, but it’s not like you’ll end up with more in your paycheck because you won’t have to pay medical insurance deductions. That money will just to to the government as tax. Unless the government has another source of income (some provinces in canada make money off of oil sales, for example), that money will ultimately come from the people.
Plus, as the population ages, there will be more elderly people not working or otherwise paying into the system. The young people will be paying for the old ones, in a model very similar to Social Secuity. It will be very difficult to support the system solely from paycheck deductions, and additional taxes and fees will surely be needed.
Bear in mind, I am all for making sure that people have access to medical care in this country. We have medicaid now, and people can always go to emergency rooms or clinics. I do believe that we are a wealthy and prosperous enough (even now) nation that there are ways to provide basic goods and services for the poorest among us. I also think we should be working on ways to help the poorest among us no longer BE the poorest among us, by getting them education, training and jobs, so those who can, and wish to, can better themselves.
I just don’t see why moving everyone (including the people who don’t need or want to since they have their own)to a national health system will be inherently better. The only reason I can accept is that only if everyone pays into it could it even possibly work.
I’m probably going to cover some territory already covered by others, but in a thread like this it’s hard to remember who said what.
There is no such thing as a company too big to fail. Let them fail, someone can buy the remnants and turn the companies into something usable.
The collapse of Lehman proves otherwise. The government tried to line up a buyer, but there were no takers. Lehman imploded and had to be liquidated, and the effects on our economy were devastating. Our financial system had taken a body blow, and many other giants in that industry were as a result teetering on the brink of collapse. Had the government allowed that to happen, our entire financial system might have collapsed along with them.
Without credit, not only is our economy unable to grow, it’s unable to sustain itself. Businesses require lines of credit for such routine things as meeting payroll. So, yes, there is such a thing as a company too big or too important to fail.
Government is never the answer.
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act proves otherwise. That law repealed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which prohibited banks from owning brokerages and/or insurance companies.
Glass-Steagall was passed in response to the financial shenannigans that resulted in the Great Depression of the 1930’s. For more than six decades, that law kept our financial system relatively sound. Its repeal was in large part responsible for the morass we’re in today.
It wasn’t simply bad mortgages that drove our economy into the çráppër, you see. The demand for those mortgages was fueled in part by the ability of banks to package them up into asset-backed securities that they sold to investors. That wouldn’t have been so easy had so many banks not been in the brokerage business.
Worse still, Gramm-Leach-Bliley didn’t provide for any changes to the regulatory bodies that oversaw banks, brokerages, and insurance companies. Each of those industries is different and requires a different sort of oversight. The FDIC could regulate a bank, but when that bank also included brokerage and insurance divisions, the FDIC really didn’t know what the hëll it was looking at.
Also, better regulations with respect to banks’ capital reserves could have averted this current crisis. It’s not just the bad mortgages that were the problem — it’s that the banks had inadequate reserves to cover their losses.
The private sector, left to its own devices, eventually destroys itself due to the short-sighted greed that is prevalent in human nature. Capitalism owes it survival in part to the ability of capitalist systems to accept a certain degree of regulation. Government is sometimes the answer.
I don’t think it’ll come as a shock to anyone that knows me that I’m not a big fan of President Obama.
Having said that, I am quite pleased with the way the situation turned out.
Was it quick enough? Doesn’t matter. What matters most is that the good guy comes home, and the bad guys.. don’t.
As far as I’m concerned, if the story ends like that every time, then the time it took was perfect.
RLR
Am I pìššëd øff? Not at all. I am glad the situation was resolved in a way that rescued the captain.
Am I impressed. Not so much. Your premise is flawed. This crisis was not on the level of what happened on and after September 11. While there are obvious broader implications to the piracy issue, we are talking here about one hostage versus the unprecedented slaughter of thousands of innocent people. To expect conservatives to line up behind Obama is ridiculous.
I, for one, do not want Obama to fail to protect us. But I do want him to fail at things that I feel would put us in danger. There is a difference. For example, Obama does seem to have the right idea and plan in Afghanistan and I hope he succeeds in a way far better than Bush did. If Obama had chosen to suddenly and totally withdraw from Afghanistan, I would have hoped he would “fail” in his attempt, not for political gain for Republicans, but because it would hurt both us and Afghanistan.
Regarding Bush, it is inaccurate to only say Bush frittered away his support. It was actively chiseled away by Democrats and the liberal wing of the media. They initially supported Bush because there was a tidal wave of public opinion supporting him. The change of opinion had a lot to do with the way much of the media chose to spin things (using Democrat talking points) long before he frittered things away.
Regarding Obama, the pirate issue was merely a pop quiz. It was important, but the real test is yet to come (either another major event or the cumulative total of his foreign policy over the next 4 to 8 years).
Iowa Jim
Regarding Bush, it is inaccurate to only say Bush frittered away his support. It was actively chiseled away by Democrats and the liberal wing of the media.
.
Oh my God. Oh my freaking God. Just how tasty is that Kool-Aid you’re drinking? Which active Democrats chiseled it away? The ones who rolled over and signed off on the rights-infringing Patriot Act without reading it? Which liberal wing of the media? The one that blindingly accepted all the administrations parameters for covering the war(s)?
.
If you can accept anything in this world, accept the fact that Bush did it to himself. He did it through bad choices in flunkies. He did it through following bad advice. He did it through intellectual disinterest and dishonesty. He did it through misplaced and inept photo ops. He did it by one day saying, “We find bin Laden dead or alive” and months later declaring how he “doesn’t think about bin Laden much anymore.” He did it through flip-flopping, through misspeaking, through ineptitude, through cluelessness. He did it to himself, and I have no doubt that he and his handful of diehards still firmly believe that it was everyone else’s fault. But it was his.
.
PAD
PAD is exactly right. The legacy of George W. Bush is entirely what HE made it. I am a moderate conservative, and people who blindly support Bush and blame everything on the liberal media and Democrats are either ignoring the actions of the man during his presidency or too focused on defending the party at all costs to make reasoned decisions. Bush was NOT a good president, and he really was not a good CONSERVATIVE president. People blindly supporting the man without objective study of his actions have put our party in a poor position for the future.
>You’ll not be able to opt out of the US plan, because if everyone isn’t paying into it, there won’t be enough money for it to work.
Guess what the government takes over and drug companies won’t be able to charge the outlandish prices they like shoving down our throats today. A $1000 dose of medecine that sells in the rest of the world for US equivlent $50. You tell me who’s taking the saft in that deal! There is a reason the insurance and drug and hospital companies spend billions convincing people like you what a bad idea national health care is, they like picking the pockets of the gullible.
>And you could have, if you chose, looked into another company who would cover your medicine.
No I couldn’t you idiot! Preexisting conditions are excluded. The way the policies are worded is that if I get sick in the first 6 months and need them to pay out, they won’t! I am not some massive company where they wave these clauses because they are covering 50, 100 or more people and will make money even with pre existing conditions I am one family and for that I am stuck!
>If the government ran it, you’d have no other option, short of paying for it yourself, either out of pocket or with supplemental plan.
If the government ran it I wouldn’t have to worry about pre existing conditions. I would get the same care everyone else did and COSTS WOULD DROP TREMENDOUSLY, because corporate greed would be reigned in.
> it’s also safe to assume that their estimates on the cost of a health care system are lowballed as well.
You seriously think the government would pay $1000 for medecine they can pick up for $50 from Canada? I know how other systems work and work very well. And the companies know this very well, it’s why they spend millions advertising to fools who can’t see the forest for the trees and more on lobbyests to bribe elected officials. They don’t want the grave train to end!
>If the government tells a doctor “we will only pay X dollars for a patient visit”, and the doctor has until now been getting x+y for that visit, I don’t see every doctor in the country happily accepting that.
You supposedly worked around senior health care and you so obviously don’t know how it works. I’m ending this conversation obviously you’ve been drinking at the industry’s kookaid stand and haven’t a clue.
Here is a clue for you, doctors sign agreements with insurance companies stating they will charge xxx for these procedures and no more. They agree not to add in additional fees or charge the patient more than they agreed to accept based on the contract. If health care goes national then the doctors won’t have much choice will they? Accept the fees or hope there are enough people willing to opt out that they can stay in business.
I’m done, since you have not a clue how much of anything works there isn’t much use continuing this debate.
The change of opinion had a lot to do with the way much of the media chose to spin things (using Democrat talking points) long before he frittered things away.
You know, just because someone disagrees with you doesn’t mean they can’t think for themselves, or that they’ve been led astray by the “liberal media.”
The “liberal media” meme isn’t supported by any facts, by the way. While there are studies suggesting that journalists lean more left than the general population, those studies have often had flawed methodologies. For example, syndicated columnists like George Will aren’t employed by a particular newspaper and yet their columns influence opinions. Nor does George Will work for ABC news, yet on a weekly basis he has a forum there.
>You think that Bush is the only President to appoint someone unqualified for a position and appoints only his cronies?
The trouble with Bush is he went way beyond the normal cronieism. The stories of Chaney pouring over governmental orgaization charts looking for ways to politicize positions and branches that other presidents have left alone are will documented. People who were lifers and had not a blemish on their performance reviews were suddenly finding themselves fired for inferior performance only to see cronies appointed. Bush went way beyond the norm in politicizing positions that were until then considered politically neutral. Repubs serving under Democratic presidents and Dems serving under Republican presidents. As I said it was a perfect Bush storm.
>Let me fill you in on a secret Brian, companies do not pay taxes.
Yet remove the taxes and prices will not come down in most instances. One of the reasons the tax holiday on gas McCain touted was so stupid.
> Keep track of how much sales tax you pay in a month and see how big of a jump you get.
I collect sales tax from customers so I am fully aware of it’s expense, but at the same time it does not add all up to 50% of my income. But whatever.
Here’s a clue for you, Brian – paragraphs and punctuation are your friends. I’m quite the avid reader (been known to go through the ingredients on a shampoo bottle when stuck in the restroom for prolonged periods), and I couldn’t make it through the wall of text you posted there.
You may in fact have a valid point, I couldn’t say – but if you want anyone to read it, [i]you have to make it readable.[/i]
Jonathan, punctuation and paragraphs are intact. You however seem to have some hanging brackets that aren’t part of spelling. Might want to make yours mor readable.
Brian, I used to be a professional journalist and as such had to write for a living. While I’m not as good as I could be, I do know my way around the English language. Your “punctuation and paragraphs” are far from “intact,” if by “intact” you mean “correct.” Your sentence structure, grammar, spelling, and punctuation could all use significant improvement.
While Jonathan (the other one) could have phrased it in a nicer way, I have to agree with him. You’d have an easier time making your point if you wrote in a more coherent fashion.
Quoted from Iowa Jim: Regarding Bush, it is inaccurate to only say Bush frittered away his support. It was actively chiseled away by Democrats and the liberal wing of the media. They initially supported Bush because there was a tidal wave of public opinion supporting him. The change of opinion had a lot to do with the way much of the media chose to spin things (using Democrat talking points) long before he frittered things away. End Quote.
Wow. Talk about seeing things from two opposite sides of the spectrum. That’s not how I saw it.
In fact, honestly, when the WMD weren’t found I first felt sorry for Colin Powell (especially after that convincing job he did presenting his argument at the UN) but then foolishly thought “Oh, he’ll (Bush) do the right thing and get us out of there quickly.”
Wow. I’m still stunned by that statement from IowaJim and from those that still believe that. To say I respectfully disagree is a huge, huge understatment.
Corrected version:
Quoted from Iowa Jim:
Regarding Bush, it is inaccurate to only say Bush frittered away his support. It was actively chiseled away by Democrats and the liberal wing of the media. They initially supported Bush because there was a tidal wave of public opinion supporting him. The change of opinion had a lot to do with the way much of the media chose to spin things (using Democrat talking points) long before he frittered things away.
End Quote.
Wow. Talk about seeing things from two opposite sides of the spectrum. That’s not how I saw it.
In fact, honestly, when the WMD weren’t found I first felt sorry for Colin Powell (especially after that convincing job he did presenting his argument at the UN) but then foolishly thought “Oh, he’ll (Bush) do the right thing and get us out of there quickly.”
Wow. I’m still stunned by that statement from IowaJim and from those that still believe that. To say I respectfully disagree is a huge, huge understatement.
Well, arcee, some people are just too happy to support torture, lying, illegal invasion of a sovereign nation, oppression of the weak, and the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocents. There is no hope for those people, either in this life or any supposed afterlife.
Man Alan, I dont think Iowa Jim was talking about Iran
Ya know, the fact that there are enough similarities for that gag to kind of work is probably not the best of realities… 🙁
–
Which is more depressing, that there is no moral high ground, or just that we’re not on it?
–
Cheers.
Correct me if I get something wrong and please give info on the places where I typed a question mark for I’m not sure: One of the mantras of former Pres. Bush’s campaign was to bring ‘honesty and integrity’ back to the White House, this after former Pres. Clinton tarnished his legacy for not simply admitting to a BJ from Lewinsky. The option of a trip to ‘rehab’ as a defense was still years away. Pres. Clinton’s only option was to be counseled by Rev. J. Jackson (who later was discovered to have a love child.)
Change of government (thanks to a close election and the Supreme Court.) Pres. Bush take office with an overage. Meanwhile, a memo from a female FBI field agent is ignored by her superiors noting something suspicious about Arab nationals taking flying lessons. Then 9/11. No department heads rolled for not following through on the agent’s fears.
The ids of the terrorist are Saudi Nationals. Osama Bin-Ladin is the main culprit (the Taliban), but family members (right after the attack on NY) are whisked away to their homes by the government (?) We attack. Several months into the war (Osama still at large) a Saudi company was going to take charge of running the ports of NY a contract approved by the government or state (?)
Osama remains at large and Iraq becomes a threat that must be taken down due to WMD that might be used against us.
And this was in or around former Pres. Bush’s first year in office and current Pres. Obama, in comparison, take office with a huge deficit, is only 90 plus days into his presidency and already there are protests and scrutiny like never before.
What did I get wrong?
Anyone else note the ridiculous state of affairs regarding those pirates? Recent events saw some actually get captured. And what happened? They were disarmed, then released. We’re told in the media that between jurisdictional problems, not to mention the difficulty of getting witnesses to the country of the capturing vessel, the “legal complications” make taking them too court too problematic.
So, we’re letting them loose to put innocents in harm’s way again?
I’m thinking a simple way to deal with those “legal complications” would be to have one of those warning shots come ‘accidentally’ too close and, well, it’ll be the crew’s word against that of a pile of floating debris. I can live with that. And I doubt any of the rescued hostages would have filed a complaint.
I just heard on the radio that the one pirate that was captured is to appear in court either today or tomorrow. Im not sure what court that would be, or which rules (Laws) the US is using to prosecute this guy but it should be interesting to see how this plays out
If true (we haven’t heard of it up here), then that partly good news. At least that’s one less free to pursue their nefarious trade. On the other paw, with appeal and counter appeal and legal wrangling, it could drag on for months or years and that’s not going to be much of a deterrent to others joining the business.
As a conservative, I don’t have any problem giving Obama props for giving the order to snipe the Somali pirates. He was obviously intimately involved in every aspect of the operation and applied himself expertly.
Darin
Would make you feel better if he flew to the site in a fighter jet and wore a military jumpsuit? Heck, they could put up a big banner and everything.