A lot of people seem to find Kerry’s manner of speaking to be tremendously amusing. The way he pauses before speaking a phrase in an almost Shatner-esque way. Al Gore did much the same thing.
After three years of Bush, it may be confusing, but…that’s how intelligent people talk. Carol Kalish spoke much the same way.
See, many people just say whatever’s running through their mind, and the phrases often don’t parse as sentences. Just ask anyone who’s ever had to transcribe an interview. In such case, more often than not, a sentence begins in one place but doesn’t end where it should because the speaker has gone off track.
Notice that when Kerry speaks, he usually does so in complete sentences. When he’s pausing, he’s mentally constructing what he’s going to say so that it will track from beginning to end. He considers his words and then uses them. By contrast, Bush just flails. He starts sentences without a clue where he’s going with them, and oftentimes trails off into confusion or dead ends. What saves Bush is that people have come to understand he’s inarticulate and it doesn’t bother them, because many of them aren’t much better, have only a vague grasp of the English language, don’t read much, and get annoyed or intimidated by people who are smarter than they.
Mark this period of time well, folks. Thirty years from now, future generations will look back at what went on in these days with a sense of revulsion and they will ask you, their parents and/or grandparents, how in the world the activities of George W. Bush and his Administration could have been allowed to happen. Bush supporters, be sure to save hardcopy of all your postings because, when you feel embarrassment thirty years hence, at least you can present some sort of explanation as to what the hëll was going through your mind.
PAD
• 
Tim,
Where would you go? Seriously?
Others,
While I wouldn’t classify “liberalism” as a sickness, I can’t agree with much of it. As I understand “conservativism” it puts responsibility in the hands of the people, not the hands of the government. It isn’t the government’s job to feed the poor, it is the poor’s job to feed themselves. To take responsibility for their own choices. To evaluate their life and figure out that bad choices have bad consequences. That people in general should have the responsibility of caring for their family and giving to the poor and downtrodden with money or opportunities.
It is the government’s job to protect people from outside harm and leave them to the harm they inflict upon themselves without enabling self-inflicted harm. It’s a real plus that the government has the world’s best institution – public libraries – so that anyone can educate themselves.
Someone explain to me why the rich should HAVE to pay taxes to help the poor? Why should we penalize people for success and reward those unwilling to work for their own success?
Bush spends too much, absolutely. I should think that would please liberals. I have no problem at all with faith-based initiatives. If the government HAS to have entitlement programs, help fund those groups that are already doing something to help. Better to leave people to themselves, though.
Tax cuts ARE working and working well. Didn’t most of us spend our tax refunds?
Why tax companies at all? Stop taxing companies, since they pass the cost on to consumers anyway. If we didn’t tax companies, outsourcing would end overnight. Tax the consumer as a sales tax. Then rich and poor pay on what they consume and nothing more. Pay 23% sales tax. We do anyway, whether we know it or not.
*sigh* rant ended.
Tim, I’d miss you (though you could post from any country, so I guess I wouldn’t miss you… if you’re a teacher, THANK YOU, by the way. We homeschool, ourselves, but the neighbors need people such as yourself.)
“I still don’t understand people’s blinding hatred for the French. It makes no sense if one considers that we would likely not be a nation today without their support.”
True enough but A- I wouldn’t call it blind hatred–more like bemused contempt. and B- By that logic shouldn’t the hatred that some French have toward America make no sense since they would likely be under German control today without OUR support?
Me (to PAD)
If he gets reelected and things go great are you going to feel badly about yourself?
Tim (to me)
I’m not Peter, but I’ll answer this.
The only way in which that scenario would make me feel badly about myself is that I’d wonder how I could have misjudged Bush’s presidency so badly.
Fair enough but realistically, if there’s one thing I know about politics it’s that a person can rationalize any event into meaning what they want it to mean. Already the economy is showing impressive growth and 1.1 million jobs have been created since August (with the last 2 months having the largest growth in 4 years). Good news! Not at all! at least, if you’re a Kerry fan.
Why, those jobs are mostly SERVICE jobs. We want manufacturing jobs!
No I don’t recall any of them asking Clinton about the quality of the jobs created during his run but I’ll guess that more than a few republicans did. The point is, if you can’t take something as complex as the economy and make it look good, bad or indifferent, depending on your preference, you just aren’t trying.
So I suspect that the real hard core Bush ahters will nver admit he’s done a good job just because they will play Calvinball with the definition of what a “good job” is. And ditto for the kerry haters, should he win.
But when even a part of you looks forward to the country being thrown into turmoil just so you can say that you were right…it’s time to take a sip of a cool drink, kick back, ignore politics for a bit and, I don’t know, review Angel or something.
“So Bush is horrible because he “can’t speak English?””
No, he can’t speak English because he’s horrible. There’s a difference.
PAD
“P.D: Where in this forums could I talk about PAD’s comics and all? Make questions and that stuff…I would feel weird asking things like that here.”
The place to discuss them is on individual threads set up to discuss various titles. I’ll be setting one up for the new “Spyboy” limited series shortly, and there’s also one up for the recent “Captain Marvel” and “Fallen Angel.”
PAD
PAD wrote: “And by the way, just for the record…I don’t think of myself as especially smart. I think of myself as having average intelligence at best, and believe me, I’ve got the grades to back that up.”
Whoa, there, PAD — it’s fine to be humble, but don’t start beating yourself up intellectually. If I didn’t think your writing was smart, sensitive and insightful, I wouldn’t have invested as much of my time over the years reading it.
By the way, in my opinion, grades can be highly overrated — especially if a student lacks motivation during the period of time he or she is being graded. For example, my five-year GPA during high school was 1.05, I believe, even though I always scored in the upper 90s percentile for aptitude/standardized tests. Seven years after finally graduating high school, I started taking college courses after work. Eleven years after that, I graduated with a BS in technical management (and a secondary in computer science) with a GPA of about 3.25. It’s all about motivation and focus, and I try to never forget that whenever I’m training/teaching someone.
Russ Maheras
Tax cuts ARE working and working well. Didn’t most of us spend our tax refunds?
Speaking for myself and my wife: No. We’d have to have gotten a refund first in order to spend it.
Bush may done given some nice tax breaks to the Ken Lays of America, but self-employed people like my wife still continue to get shafted.
Hey, I make all of 29k a year, and I got one. I don’t think i’m quite in the same financial ballpark as Ken Lay.
EClark:
Amazing. I post something that’s obviously no more than a sarcastic rant, and the Lynch “brothers” think I’m serious.
Except, of course, that said “sarcastic rant” was being used to disparage the idea that Bush should apologize about anything.
As such, the sarcastic rant had a serious point, which both James and I addressed in the course of responding to the rant.
Be as amused as you like, but it’s not helping your case.
TWL
Except, of course, that said “sarcastic rant” was being used to disparage the idea that Bush should apologize about anything.
As such, the sarcastic rant had a serious point, which both James and I addressed in the course of responding to the rant.
Be as amused as you like, but it’s not helping your case.
Except you didn’t address the POINT. Both you and James go off about why doesn’t he just apologize for this, this and this?
My POINT is that you and others that want him to apologize don’t really give a ÐÃMN about the actual apology. You just want to see him placed in a certain position, one of contrition, regardless of whether he’s actually guilty or not.
I’m sorry that Bush finally broke down and said it. Now I’m going to just sit back and observe whether it actually matters or not to anyone, or whether the heat is actually turned up to get him to apologize for something else.
Rob Thornton said:
“Hey, I make all of 29k a year, and I got one. I don’t think i’m quite in the same financial ballpark as Ken Lay.”
Rob, you’re over-simplifying something as complex as the Internal Revenue Code. As an accountant I can tell you…that way lies madness.
More seriously, A) I notice that you did not include the Magic Words that Den did that explained his point to me: “Self Employed.” Self-Employment tax is a bear that can eat you alive if you’re not careful. B) The whole arguement is actually meaningless absent further information. You getting a tax refund just means that you paid more to Uncle Sam over the year than you owed. I’m happy that you were able to get by while giving the IRS an interest-free loan, but you simply can’t compare your situation to someone else’s on that little info (and I wouldn’t be rude enough to pry into Den’s actual finances with personal questions).
On the French– While yes they as well might not be a nation without our help as well… the french have come to our aid far more often than we to theirs. So as it comes down to it, both wouldn’t exist without the support of the other. But to suggest that we should hate the french for their lack of support for our “war in Iraq” and not worshipping our feet for saving their country in WWI and II (I know you didn’t say this exactly… I’m speaking more of the whole “Freedom Fries” stupidity) is a farce. They were extremely grateful to us for years and years after we rescued their nation from the germans. Most of the French do not hate us, the strongly dislike many of our leaders. They steroetype us for comedic purposes just as we use to do… but now the stereotype has begun to be seen as a reality by quite a few people. So much so we have the whole “Freedom Fries” Fiasco.
As for the prison torture… not all of the prisoners were just stripped naked and paraded around. According to the news reports from all sides…(and this is what i was referring to) a couple were beaten to death with blunt blows (fists clubs ect…) there were reports of sodomization (with a light fixture as well as a broom handle) and the rape of at least 1 female detainee. All this is what we do know about, which looking at it suggests torture was going on. Beatings, rapings, sodomy… All this is considered torture. And this was just the softening up of the prisoners. The getting them ready for the interogation room and the private citizens who don’t have to disclose their meathods, but did ask for this kind of softening up. And Fred Chamberlain’s point about being sexually humilaited in Muslim culture is correct. (No i myself am not a muslim, nor an expert on Islamic culture, but i have taken classes dealing with the area and their customs)It is definately on an equal level to torture in their society.
Yes, in fact, I did address the point. I said that most of the things you mentioned had nothing to do with him, but that Abu Ghraib happened specifically on his watch and that his policies and actions created the environment in which it occurred.
“The buck stops here” used to mean something. Bush now has enough sycophants that apparently nothing that ever happens is his fault. Ditto any higher-ups in his administration: the only people who actually have consequences attached to their actions are the ones who criticize the policy du jour (cf. Richard Clarke, Paul O’Neill, etc.). Conflicts of interest are redefined out of existence, obvious policy mistakes are retconned, and Congress and the press let them go right on doing it.
The fact that they finally woke the f*ck up this time makes me take heart at least a little.
So yes, I did address your point. I simply didn’t give the answer you wanted.
TWL
On the issue of tax refunds:
Yes, we got one. It was a pittance. We probably spent it.
If we get one this year, it’s going right to someplace like MoveOn. I like the idea of Bush funding ads that’ll send him home. Anybody else care to hop on that particular bandwagon?
TWL
Okay, I know that this is a little behind for a quote, but I just couldn’t help it when I saw this:
“If Bush is given another four years in office, that’s a long time to pack the Federal benches and (god forbid) the Supreme Court with anti-choice and anti-privacy advocates. That’s a price that we will pay for years and decades to come.
As both of us are fathers with daughters, the possibility of back alley abortions scares the hëll out of me.”
Steve Miller
Well, as another fellow liberal I do agree that four more years of Bush would be a nightmare, but I draw the line at the abortion thing. The idea of back alley abortions aren’t a welcoming thought at all, but the idea of a life or death decision being determined solely by one’s financial status is just as sickening as Dubya’s last war.
Think about it. You said that you’re a father, so I would imagine that when you first heard that you were going to have a baby, you were overcome with joy. Now imagine that your wife (girlfriend, etc.) or yourself decided that you simply couldn’t afford to have a kid, and so she simply aborted it. That means that that little bundle of joy, a person, would never have existed solely due to lack of money (a very Republican outcome if I ever heard one). And abortions do occur over money — you’re only kidding yourself if you doubt that.
PAD, feel free to chime in on this one. I’m curious to see how a father can justify something like this.
To me, I feel that first of all money should be taken out of the equation. Fully federalize the funding for prenatal care all the way up to childbirth. That would help to eliminate those “back alley abortions” and bring this country one step closer to resolving this abortion “issue” in something approaching a rational manner. And if conservatives feel half as strongly about this as they say they do, then they should embrace this idea with open arms.
And getting back to the Bush bashing, I feel that this idea would take far more imagination that Bush would ever be capable of. he would just outlaw abortion and pat himself on the back for a job well done — even as those back alley abortions start piling up. So even with this issue, I still want him out.
-Alonzo
Tax cut? I guess you could consider owing the feds $2K in 2002 and only $1.5K in 2003 is a tax cut, but I also spent the last two months of 2003 out of work…
Alonzo: “To me, I feel that first of all money should be taken out of the equation. Fully federalize the funding for prenatal care all the way up to childbirth. That would help to eliminate those “back alley abortions” and bring this country one step closer to resolving this abortion “issue” in something approaching a rational manner.”
Uh, kids cost a lot more AFTER they’re born. Your solution would have no effect on abortion.
Besides, if you aren’t one of the genetic donors (sperm-shooter or the child-bearer) you really have no right to tell a woman whether or not she can have an abortion, it’s none of yours or anyone else’s gøddámņ business.
“If we get one (a tax refund) this year, it’s going right to someplace like MoveOn.”
Better to send it to AirAmerica. Apparently they are having trouble meeting their payroll.
Just think of all the good that the 30 million dropped into THAT money pit might have accomplished.
“”…I suppose when you’ve got an Evangelical president who believes in the Rapture, none of it matters anyway; ‘I’ll just be taken up with the rest of the devout ones, so it doesn’t matter about the world left behind.””
So now come the attack the man’s religion. No, let me take it back, now we start to attack him because he is Christian. Out of everything that can be brought up, people seem to always bring up Bush’s christianity as a show of his weakness. Whatever happened to freedom of religion or is that only for other religions except christianity.
I don’t like where this is going. attack a person’s character is one thing, attack a person’s belief is dangerous.
Find me a perfect leader anywhere in the world. Find me a perfect person, period. other then PAD (read all his posts on all the different threads & you’ll see he has all the answers) there are none. Humans fail. And it’s in those failures that people seem to be most interested in, but what about the success a person had? who cares right. None hope for the best, just this “i can’t wait to see him crash & burn” attitude. All i see is hatred & venom spewing out of your mouths.You attack his intelligence, his character, his religion. You attack those that support him. ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK. That’s the name of the game i guess. The economy is is doing better (240,000 new jobs last month, Unemployment is down to 5% i believe) but who cares, he can’t speak in correct sentences. Why such negativity? Why hope for the worst? Why the hate? It’s more then just disagreeing. People have disagreed for milleniums. I don’t have a problem w/ disagreements, but this hatred is just so bad.
Hey PAD, why don’t you run for president. Throw your name out there, since it’s obvious you would do so well, after all, you know what a great leader should be from all the criticism you’ve exerted on Bush. I’m quite sure you would always be eloquent and you will make us a greater nation. You wouldn’t make mistakes in office, but if you did, oh i’m sure you would be a greater man & everytime you made an error you’d tell us, right. I see you take criticism well, when you ask people what they think of of a particular piece of your work & they disagree with you, you don’t get defensive, right.
“”Pictures of U.S. soldiers torturing and humiliating Iraqi prisoners? He’s abhorred — but no apologies.””
Why should he apologize for this, it’s not like he gave the order for those women to torture them. It’s not like he tortured them himself. & by the way, Do you forget these are the same people that mutilated 5 of our people & dragged their corpses through the streets & mutilated their bodies. And you think that what these women did was torture. Good God what is wrong with you people!
Oh and as to why people don’t read anymore. It’s called TV, video games, movies. The illitarate rate has grown to epic proportions world wide. not just the US.Everyone just wants to look @ the preety pictures. Most people stop reading newspapers because they can get their news on CNN or FOX News.
As far as abortion goes, for those of you afraid that another 4 yr term under GWB will mean the end of abortion, think again. It DOESN’T matter who is in power, abortion will NOT be made illegal so let’s get off that subject.
Joe
Blade old buddy… your point is????
Abortions because of money is heinous reasoning. Every city – EVERY city – has crisis pregnancy available. Lines of people are waiting to adopt. Anyone willing to bring their child to term and adopt it out can do so without financial fear (other than lost time at work… and even that is most often compensated for).
John Kerry, over the previous three years, believes the lies of George W. Bush, believes Colin Powell, believes the people who sold him and the rest of the country a bill of goods – PAD
No, John Kerry believed what the FBI, CIA, and other intelligence sources told him. He, and numerous other members of congress, were presented the same information that George W. Bush was faced with. Funny thing is they all walked away from those meetings with the same conclusion; Iraq is a threat to our national security.
However, forget the WMDs because John Kerry has. When he talks about the war on terror he says that Iraq should NEVER have been considerd. He makes it sound like he was never for it at all. Nevermind the long list of quotes one can find with Kerry saying how evil Hussein is and how he needs to be taken down. Nevermind that he said, “Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror, and therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward”.
The whole Democratic party is trying to pass the buck and put the load squarly on the Bush adminstration. They must feel he is the most uber-powerful man ever in that he was able to coax the CIA, FBI, British intelligence, and numerous other sources into lying to congress just so he could invade Iraq. Hëll, how he got the intelligence agencies to lie to Clinton for eight years so that Hillary would stand up in 2001 and say that Hussein had WMDs is anyone’s guess.
Joe V. wrote:
… & by the way, Do you forget these are the same people that mutilated 5 of our people & dragged their corpses through the streets & mutilated their bodies. And you think that what these women did was torture. Good God what is wrong with you people!…
No, Joe. No they
(I should probably point out for reasons of clarity that the person posting as Rob S and I are different people.)
Rob Staeger
“Besides, if you aren’t one of the genetic donors (sperm-shooter or the child-bearer) you really have no right to tell a woman whether or not she can have an abortion, it’s none of yours or anyone else’s gøddámņ business.”
Bladestar
Don’t you just live that sense of unity and oneness that everyone keeps talking about?
I know how this sounds (so very conservative) but I share the same concern over that as I would over someone committing infanticide. Or to put it another way, it’s the same part of me that feels for the plight that the Iraqi people are facing right now.
And I said that it would be a start, not a long term solution. But I think you’d be surprised by the impact that The Short Term has on people (“A three hundred dollar tax check in the mail? I can finally buy those prescription drugs now! Thanks Bush!”). I’m betting that funding for prenatal care would have a stronger impact than you would think.
-Alonzo
No, John Kerry believed what the FBI, CIA, and other intelligence sources told him. He, and numerous other members of congress, were presented the same information that George W. Bush was faced with. Funny thing is they all walked away from those meetings with the same conclusion; Iraq is a threat to our national security.
So why isn’t George Tenet being sacked? That’s about as incompetent a job of intelligence as I can think of.
Bladestar,
I believe you missed the point in your prior post.
Prenatal care would help many moms, especially the young ones who are afraid if their baby is even going to be healthy. Isn’t that a good thing?
Also, many “safe and legal” abortions are NOT the former. Abortion, especially later in term, is always a risky procedure.
Oh, and the way it stands now, the “sperm-shooter” (the term “father” is obsolete I guess)has absolutely no say or rights in the matter. Until the child is born, and he is nailed for child support.
But back to the main point, which is if we helped provide better prenatal care and birth control, abortions would become extremely rare. Babies would be healthier. Women would only have babies they really want and they would be spared the risk of a surgical procedure like abortion.
Wouldn’t they all be good things?
Joe V.,
I have never seen Mr. David claim that he has all the answers and have seen him explicitly admit that he DOESN’T have them at times. His frank admission of a lack of an idea how to stop the cycle of killing over Israel comes to mind.
Also, the quote about President Bush and his belief in the Rapture that you use to launch a rant against PAD is not something that he said.
Finally, I don’t think that most of the people here want to belittle President Bush’s religous beliefs. I think a fair number are concerned that he thinks very little of any religous beliefs but his own and would make his own the Law of the Land if he could. It concerns me, even though I belong to a Christian faith.
This is man who wants to amend the U.S. Constitution to outlaw flag-burning, to outlaw gay marriage (thus taking the right to decide such matters out the hands of individual states). I’ve heard of one other way that he wants to amend the Constitution that I can’t remember right now. However, EVERY change I heard him propose is to let the government place MORE restrictions on what the people can do, places MORE restrictions on our civil liberties. That doesn’t sound like the “Conservative” view that govenment should let us run our own lives. And I think it’s because he doesn’t respect the views of anyone other than himself or someone giving huge amounts of money to his election fund.
David Hunt – Fair enough, I didn’t pay attention to the self-employed part and consider the differences in taxes that relate. My fault. I will argue, though, that a great number of people did receive a tax refund, who don’t fall into the “rich” category – which I believe was half of Den’s argument.
David Hunt,
I know pad ddnt say anything about Bush & his christianity, I was sort of comenting on several different things.
As far as the rapture goes, that is a belief of millions of christians (not all, but a lot)so that Bush believes it is really not a big deal.
As far as PAD stating he doesn’t have all the answers, I was ranting, because he does seem to lean so hard on GWB, i figure it’s because he feels he can do it better.
As far as restrictions on Gay Marriage goes, if he doesn’t make a stand on that, it would be political suicide for him not to as most republicans do oppose Gay Marriage. I’m not saying it’s right or left… I mean wrong (that was a joke)but if he doesn’t do that then all conservatives & republicans start to jump on him. The man is really in a famn if you do, dámņ if you don’t situation.
Joe
Hey, I make all of 29k a year, and I got one. I don’t think i’m quite in the same financial ballpark as Ken Lay.
Good for you, Rob. Now, are you self-employed? Do you understand the complexities of self-employment tax?
I will argue, though, that a great number of people did receive a tax refund, who don’t fall into the “rich” category – which I believe was half of Den’s argument.
Obviously, you missed the part where I said I was speaking just for myself and my wife. My point is, my wife did everything that republicans are supposed to love: She became an entrepeneur and started her own business. Does she get any tax breaks? No.
BTW, a tax refund is not the result of George cutting your taxes. A tax refund is just an acknowledgement that your employer overwithheld from your payroll over th past year. At 29k, you’re in a tax brackett that makes it likely that you would get a refund, even with no deductions. You’ve gotten that refund even if Bush hadn’t pushed his tax cuts through because very little, if any, cuts were made in your bracket.
So my point stands: Ken Lay gets a tax break from George. My family didn’t. Neither did you.
For everyone who was ragging on Rumsfeld (and Bush, for that matter) for not taking direct responsibility for the abuse of Iraqi prisoners, here’s Rumsfeld’s quote from his testimony today on the Hill: “These events occurred on my watch. As secretary of defense, I am accountable for them and I take full responsibility.”
That seems pretty direct and blunt to me. No waffling. No splitting hairs about the definition of what “is” is. Admit you screwed up and take the consequences.
Russ, that was only after he was publically taken to task for attempting to draw a distinction between “abuse” and “torture” in the case, claiming that since the prisoners were just “abused”, it wasn’t really that big a deal.
Den said:
“BTW, a tax refund is not the result of George cutting your taxes. A tax refund is just an acknowledgement that your employer overwithheld from your payroll over th past year. At 29k, you’re in a tax brackett that makes it likely that you would get a refund, even with no deductions. You’ve gotten that refund even if Bush hadn’t pushed his tax cuts through because very little, if any, cuts were made in your bracket.
So my point stands: Ken Lay gets a tax break from George. My family didn’t. Neither did you.”
Den you referred to both tax refunds and tax breaks in your argument. I’m not a corporation, neither am I a self-employer. I’m just a semi-poor state gov’t employee. You bring up the tax refunds as inconsequential, then bemoan the fact that Bush provides tax breaks, an entirely different area of tax law, as far as I know, to corporations. Pardon me if I didn’t get a little confused by your original post.
To get back to my original point: A lot of people were provided a refund check from the government, enough that it was a statistically reportable percent of the population. We liked that, and we were by and large not filthy rich individuals, but got served by the gov’t nonetheless.
Russ,
Saying “admit you screwed up and take the consequences” sounds like a perfectly good taking of responsibility, yes … assuming there are any consequences to speak of. I’ll wait and see.
(As Jonathan pointed out, it also seems a lot more helpful if the people in question act before they’re being pilloried for not doing so. I had a roommate in college once who did something most of us considered way out of life, and it was obvious that the only reason he apologized is that it was the only way to get the rest of us to speak to him. As apologies go, that’s not a great one.)
But yes, it’s a good start. I’d like to see what comes next.
TWL
Jonathan wrote: “Russ, that was only after he was publically taken to task for attempting to draw a distinction between “abuse” and “torture” in the case, claiming that since the prisoners were just “abused”, it wasn’t really that big a deal.”
I think you are selling Rumsfeld short. He was just as shocked as everyone else that such activities were going on. I spent 20 years in the military, and I know I was sure shocked! This sort of thing is not at all “OK” by ANY military standards I’ve ever seen.
Rumsfeld’s initial defensive reactions reminded me of the denial you see from the close relatives of killers or rapists when the crime suspects are first arrested. “Billy was a sweet boy. Everybody liked him. He’d never do something like that.” But as the rock-solid proof mounts, and the details of the horror begin to grow, the denial turns to sadness and inner blame. “What did I do wrong? Why did I not see this coming?” But the sad fact of the matter is, sometimes you just CAN’T. In the case of Rumsfeld, he is dealing with, and delegating to, hundreds of thousands of people. And sometimes — regardless of how much of a taskmaster or micromanager you may be — people disappoint, and even shock you. And the sad part of it is, all of Rumsfeld’s decades of past work as a hard-charging public servant will be overshadowed by the recent and indefensible actions of a very few people.
Russ Maheras
Rumsfeld’s initial defensive reactions reminded me of the denial you see from the close relatives of killers or rapists when the crime suspects are first arrested. “Billy was a sweet boy. Everybody liked him. He’d never do something like that.” But as the rock-solid proof mounts, and the details of the horror begin to grow, the denial turns to sadness and inner blame. “What did I do wrong? Why did I not see this coming?” But the sad fact of the matter is, sometimes you just CAN’T.
Problem was….this sort of thing was entirely predictable.
And I don’t mean in that ideologically driven type thing; I mean in that empirically driven, studies done, classics-in-behavioral-psychology-type thing….folks have known about the effects that occur if you put poorly trained personnel out there, with little outside contact, and with ggreat pressure to get results. [See the Zimbardo study on simulated prison behavior…where the same sort of guard behavior resulted]. Rumseld should have known what would happen…because the techniques he was using for interrogation came from the same general field of studies as Zimbardo’s studies].
In my mind, it’s part of the general pattern of incompetence and ineptness. Letting the Irqui army and police go away, the lack of preparedness for civil unrest, the failure to anticipate the guerilla war that is now occuring in Iraq, the dismissal of military personnel who had warned of these potential stumbling blocks, the agonizing slowness of getting basic services back on line…these are all signs of basic incompetence that cannot be defended or rewarded.
Bladestar cussed, “Besides, if you aren’t one of the genetic donors (sperm-shooter or the child-bearer) you really have no right to tell a woman whether or not she can have an abortion, it’s none of yours or anyone else’s gøddámņ business.”
Actually, the “sperm-shooter” has no grounds to tell a woman whether or not she can have an abortion either. It’s entirely the woman’s choice under the law. And I’m curious to know why you think one has to be personally involved in a problem to have an opinion about it. Under your logic, if someone were walking down the street and saw an assault taking place, that person should keep walking because it doesn’t concern anyone but the two people involved.
I am not one of them, but there are a large number of people who believe that there is little, if any, difference between abortion and infanticide. Why can we not take their opinions seriously? They are derided as simpletons, or people not minding their “gøddámņ business,” but hardly anyone (exception: http://web.mit.edu/philos/www/thomson.html Judith Jarvis Thomson) addresses their opinion on the issues. It’s rather like pacifism; the opinion that all war (not just Iraq) is inherently wrong is a coherent viewpoint that I dispute but that I have to take seriously as a philosophy. You, Bladestar, would do well to rise above verbal abuse as a method of discourse, if you are capable of doing so.
THe Point David, is that no one other than the potential parents has the right to tell someone they can’t have an abortion.
Idiots like the president and fools like him want to FORCE their superstitious ignorant religious beliefs on the entire country by making abortion illegal. Go ahead and have an opinion, I don’t care what your opinion is, but when you try to enforce it by changing the law, then there’s going to be trouble…
“Whenever I read somebody criticizing someone else as an idiot, my immediate reaction is that an educated intelligent person would not make that kind of comment.”
“PAD: Then your immediate reaction is misplaced. I would recommend you pick up a copy of “Fighting Words,” a collection edited by James Charlton that consists of nothing but the greatest writers and thinkers in history, back to Aristotle, trashing-talking others of the greatest writers and thinkers in history.”
Good point PAD. But then I’ve been wrong before and will be wrong again. Thank for the reference to the Charlton book. It looks interesting and I ordered a copy today.
Dennis
You bring up the tax refunds as inconsequential, then bemoan the fact that Bush provides tax breaks, an entirely different area of tax law, as far as I know, to corporations. Pardon me if I didn’t get a little confused by your original post.
Please, read your own post. I wasn’t the one who equated tax refunds with tax cuts.
You did.
Joe V.,
Given that every other president in anybody’s lifetime here has also been one stripe of Christian or another, saying that we’re attacking Bush for his Christianity seems entirely off base. Sure, every president I’ve disliked has been Christian … but so has every one I’ve liked. They’re the only ones who get elected.
Now, if you want to say that some are attacking him for being a fundamentalist who has no understanding of the scientific method or the meaning of evidence, and who clearly believes that if his God says it, everyone else should fall in line regardless of belief … well, then, I can only plead guilty as charged. I think knee-jerk aggressive fundamentalism of ANY faith is dangerous, and would oppose anyone that dogmatic in office regardless of the faith in question.
(Well, okay … maybe not every single faith. It’s hard to think of how a fundamentalist Zen Buddhist would be threatening…)
TWL
Roger wrote: “I mean in that empirically driven, studies done, classics-in-behavioral-psychology-type thing….folks have known about the effects that occur if you put poorly trained personnel out there, with little outside contact, and with ggreat pressure to get results.”
You’re making quite a few assumptions here. Poorly trained? Very, very doubtful. Besides, poor training does not account for such behavior.
Yeah, I can see it now. “OK, recruits, during this human relations training session, I want you all to understand that in the Army, you are not allowed to sodomize, beat and torture people like you did back home.”
To be sure, there was a serious leadership problem somewhere, and based on my experience, it was probably at the unit level in Iraq. But ultimately, like any CEO or senior organization leader, the buck stops at Rumsfeld’s desk. All I’m saying, however, is he’s really about as responsible for what happened as are you or I.
I could use your exact armchair general argument about Clinton’s debacle in Somalia; Reagan’s disasterous foray into Beirut; Carter’s embarrassing failed hostage rescue in Iran; Kennedy/Johnson/Nixon’s bloody, never-ending war in Vietnam; Roosevelt’s blindness about the vulnerability of Pearl Harbor, etc. You see, it’s EASY to say stuff was “obvious” after the fact.
May I suggest that any of the folks out there who feel they are that much more intelligent and perceptive than so many of our country’s current leaders, perhaps they might do us all a favor and run for president, or some other important elected office. Judging by the level of stupidity in Washington I keep hearing about, such a feat should be quite easy.
Russ Maheras
May I suggest that any of the folks out there who feel they are that much more intelligent and perceptive than so many of our country’s current leaders, perhaps they might do us all a favor and run for president, or some other important elected office. Judging by the level of stupidity in Washington I keep hearing about, such a feat should be quite easy.
Not without a buttload of money, an independent already-made power base, or a commitment from one of the two major parties to bankroll you, it isn’t. Given how frequently you claim you’re an independent voter, I’m surprised you didn’t raise this issue yourself. (And yes, I realize you were mostly being sarcastic. I’m pointing out that it’s just not that easy.)
Electoral politics in this country are screwed up beyond belief. Not beyond repair (instant-runoff voting, where are you?), but beyond belief.
TWL
“Think about it. You said that you’re a father, so I would imagine that when you first heard that you were going to have a baby, you were overcome with joy. Now imagine that your wife (girlfriend, etc.) or yourself decided that you simply couldn’t afford to have a kid, and so she simply aborted it. That means that that little bundle of joy, a person, would never have existed solely due to lack of money (a very Republican outcome if I ever heard one). And abortions do occur over money — you’re only kidding yourself if you doubt that.
“PAD, feel free to chime in on this one. I’m curious to see how a father can justify something like this.”
My justification lies in disagreeing with a single word of your description above: “And so she simply aborted it.”
There’s nothing simple about it.
You make it sound as if women look at their check book, decide whether it fits in their budget, and opt out of having a child on that basis. Are there women that cavalier? Quite probably.
But I know women who have had abortions, and there was nothing “simple” in their decision. It was gut-wrenching, agonizing, soul searching. And it’s one that the government has absolutely no place in.
Then again, I’ve also come to the logical realizaton that if one supports a woman’s right to choose, one must also support legalizing prostitution. You can’t say, “I support her right to do what she wants with her own body when it comes to pregnancy, but not what she wants to do with her own body insofar as the act that leads to pregnancy.” So what do I know?
PAD
“My justification lies in disagreeing with a single word of your description above: “And so she simply aborted it.”
There’s nothing simple about it.”
Or, to quote feminist author Frederica Matthews:
“A woman doesn’t want an abortion the way she wants an ice-cream cone or a Porsche. A woman wants an abortion the way an animal caught in a trap wants to gnaw off its own leg.”
Bladestar: Idiots like the president and fools like him want to FORCE their superstitious ignorant religious beliefs on the entire country by making abortion illegal. Go ahead and have an opinion, I don’t care what your opinion is, but when you try to enforce it by changing the law, then there’s going to be trouble…
Blade, laws are enacted on beliefs every day in this country. Zoning ordinances are passed that prevent a sex club from opening up right next to a school. Tax codes are modified so that the elderly and handicapped don’t see a huge spike in their property taxes. There are arguments for and against it all. Why shouldn’t a sex club open next to a school as long as they are not soliciting the business? Why shouldn’t a retiree pay as much as a worker in property taxes?
Your belief is that abortion should be legal. That’s fine. However, having the opposite belief doesn’t make one ignorant/superstitious. I see the merit in both sides, really, as I think most people do. I find it horrifying that a woman with no medical need to do so would choose to end a pregnancy, but I find it equally appalling to have government involved in preventing it.
Idiots like the president and fools like him want to FORCE their superstitious ignorant religious beliefs on the entire country by making abortion illegal. Go ahead and have an opinion, I don’t care what your opinion is, but when you try to enforce it by changing the law, then there’s going to be trouble…
Oh, I didn’t realize that a philisophical viewpoint held by millions of people was a superstitious ignorant religious belief, but if YOU say it, then it must be true. MY point was that it’s better to address viewpoints you dispute through debate, but I suppose it’s also possible to just bypass deliberative democracy and make thinly-veiled threats of violence. That seems to be the path you’ve chosen.
I notice that you also have an opinion. Will there not be trouble when you try to enforce it?
And for what it’s worth, I essentially agree with Mark L on the underlying morality of the issue.
TWL wrote: “Not without a buttload of money, an independent already-made power base, or a commitment from one of the two major parties to bankroll you, it isn’t. Given how frequently you claim you’re an independent voter, I’m surprised you didn’t raise this issue yourself. (And yes, I realize you were mostly being sarcastic. I’m pointing out that it’s just not that easy.)”
Yes, I was being sarcastic, but really only up to a point. The process of getting oneself elected to a high office like senator, representative or president IS a very difficult process, and can literally take decades. Yet, all these “idiots” and “morons” I keep hearing about in Washington figured out how to fill all the squares and do it. Why can’t all the intellectuals out there do the same and come to our rescue? Why, indeed? Over the years, I’ve wondered the same thing during several elections where I was faced with NO candidates I wanted to vote for. More than once, I’ve found myself saying as I stood over a ballot, “Geez, is this the best we’ve got?!”
The fact is, intellectuals often excel at criticizing, but rarely put themselves at risk by taking charge and subjecting themselves to the scrutiny, abuse and criticism inherent in public service work. Too bad. Their fear of failure just could be our loss — but we’ll never know now, will we?
Russ Maheras
Tim,
Electoral politics in this country are screwed up beyond belief?
I would argue, that even if your statement is true – and I’m not conceding it is, mainly because it’s pretty broad – that the ELECTORATE is even more screwed up.
The average person talks about “politics” like it’s a dirty word. I was discussing 9/11 – not the politics of it, the event itself – with a friend of mine in a hometown bar recently – and he asked the bartender who we both know personally – her opinion. She said she doesn’t talk about “politics”. Politics? We were talking about 9/11! How can anyone not have an opinion or feelings on that?
There is a lot more I can say, Tim. But the fact remains that an alarmingly high number of people DON’T GIVE A ÐÃMN about anything that goes on. It’s not because they’re “disenfranchised” or any of the elitist codewords people use to explain why people are apathetic. They just are, and it’s been that way since the Revolution itself. It takes people who are knowledgeable, like yourself, to put themselves on the line and work hard to make change happen.
Which is why I respect anyone who actively seeks public office to some degree, whether that be John McCain, Ted Kennedy, the Greens and Libertarians who have convictions and are trying to get their ideas and voices heard, or your local school board members.
Everyone bìŧçhëš about “politicians”, but few people want to work with them to solve problems, and even fewer want to become them.