That’s not me asking, actually. That’s the cover story in the current “Rolling Stone,” issue 999. (It’s dated May 4, so i don’t know how much longer it’ll be on the stands.) It’s a detailed, scholarly overview of the Bush administration as provided by one of the country’s leading historians. As much as Bush supporters will cry foul, it is difficult–if not impossible–to argue with the thorough, reasoned and historical comparisons of Bush with other presidents…those deemed both the greatest successes and the greatest failures. Recommended reading.
PAD
• 
As a subscriber to Rolling Stone, I would comment on the article… but I haven’t gotten to that issue yet. (I usually read them on my breaks at work, and I’m still reading the previous issue.) (This issue in question, #999, is the newest issue, by the way, so I think it should still be on the stands for several days.)
I will note that Rolling Stone is unabashedly, completely anti-Bush, and that even I – pretty anti-Derbya myself – try to read with a grain of salt. Generally, though, some good, seemingly unassailable points are made in most of their articles.
About three years ago, a friend that’s a devoted Bush supporter said to me (after I had said that Bush would be lucky to escape his term of office without getting charged for commiting crimes against humanity for launching an unwarranted war and allowing the torture of prisoners under his care) that Bush was going to be seen as one of our best Presidents ever. I was thinking then, and I continue to think today, that he’s our worst. What gets me is that, even if you support the things he’s done, the way he’s done them makes him a terrible president. I like to think that people are above a win at all costs mentality, but I have to keep reminding myself that far too many people ascribe to the ends justified by the means. Especially when their side controls the government.
I read the article last week. Sure, it’s biased. Sure, Rolling Stone as a rule is anti-Bush. But neither point is really an indication as to whether or not the author made any valid points.
With that said, I agree with the contention that it’s too early to determine whether or not Bush is the worst president ever. At this moment in time, however, I would hold the opinion that he is the worst president in my lifetime. Maybe with 20 years of hindsight behind us, history will be kinder to him in the way that it has been kinder to Truman.
Iraq is a mess right now and, for good or ill, Iraq is going to be Bush’s primary legacy. Three years in, and I still don’t see much to be optimistic about the situation. If anything, I think the long term result of this invasion will be more instability and the liklihood that another regime (probably Shi’ite fundamentalists) will eventually take power and run things much the way that Saddam did with just a slightly different ideology.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Bush’s domestic agenda is basically in a shambles at this point. Privatizing social security is dead. FEMA has been so decimated that people are now calling for dismantling the agency altogether. And now his administration is fumbling around trying to show that he can do something, anything about the high price of gas. Unfortunately, most experts agree that there is little he can actually do to get prices down in the short term.
What makes me think Bush is a terrible president, though, is not so much his policies, but his personal failings. And I’m not talking about the many jokes about his supposed stupidity. In all honesty, I don’t think he’s a stupid man. But I do think he is a incurious man; a man who lacks the desire to expose himself to any challenges to his preconceived notions.
I do believe that in 2003, he honestly did think that Saddam had huge stockpiles of WMDs because that’s what he wanted to believe. So he ignored, marginalized and punished any dissenting opinions.
This stiff-necked approach to life also comes through in his general disdain and dismissal of science and scientists. After all, science is ideally about drawing logical conclusions about the world through observation and experimentation free of preexisting bias. But the possibility that global climate change is real or that Plan B may be a safe drug are inconvenient to his worldview, so any report that supports this positions are ignored and expunged from his world, regardless of the opinions of people who have spent far more time studying these matters than he has. If a lawyer or an accountant can craft an argument that favors his pre-existing opinion, then, in his mind, that argument must be correct. It doesn’t matter that said lawyer has no expertise in atmospheric science or medicine, his opinion is what Bush would like it to be, therefore, it must be true.
Bush is truthiness, to use Stephen Colbert’s term, personified. And that’s what makes him him a terrible president.
I like to think that people are above a win at all costs mentality, but I have to keep reminding myself that far too many people ascribe to the ends justified by the means. Especially when their side controls the government.
The Rolling Stone article touches on this by pointing out that nearly every other wartime president has at least tried to reach across the aisle to the opposition. Bush’s governing philosophy has been since day one, “you are either with us, or against us.” Those few ex-administration officials who have dared to criticize Bush after leaving office have found themselves vilified by Rovian horde (Paul O’Neil, the six retired generals).
In 2000, Bush campaigned during a time when Americans were sharply divided by party and he promised to be a “uniter, not a divider.” Once he was elected, though, he immediately crossed over into a bizarro world and became the biggest divider and the political polarization of this country got even worse. Even the mildest criticism of Bush was greeted with howling accusations of “hating freedom” and “wanting America to fail.”
Maybe Bush is more of a symptom of the problem than a cause, certainly the other side hasn’t done much to heal this rift. But I have yet to see any effort on his administration’s part to close the gap either. After the 2004 election, Bush swaggered back into DC bragging about his “political capital” that he was going to spend on getting his agenda through. Several political misteps which resulted in his approval ratings plunging to Nixonian levels later, and maybe the swagger has been muted some. But the polarization is still there.
Bush’s primary domestic legacy may be leaving a country that his angrier and more split than when he came into office. And no matter what side of the divide you sit on, that’s nothing to be proud of.
Den: good points.
Although it’s likely that anyone who won the 2000 election under such controversial circumstances would have had a very difficult time ever uniting the opposition. From the day he took office some of his crazier opponents have been talking about coups and stolen elections; Ghandi would have had a hard time winning those folks over. But it’s fair to say that Bush hasn’t made it much of a priority.
Bill Mulligan –
Craig, the Village Voice is a New York based paper so far to the left it makes Eric Alterman look like Michelle Malkin.
Well, that might explain why Murdoch no longer owns it then. 🙂
Den –
Bush is truthiness, to use Stephen Colbert’s term, personified.
Speaking of Colbert, here’s the video from his appearance at the White House Correspondents Dinner the other night.
At least he had the balls to do what he did, unlike the rest of our vaunted ‘liberal’ media.
4.8% growth in the last quarter
Most, if not all, of which is war spending. The only ones who benefit from that are the defense contractors.
Low unemployment
This one is deceiving. It only counts those who are receiving unemployment payments. If your unemployment runs out, statistically you’re not unemployed because this number is the number of people receiving unemployment benefits,
good job growth
Where?
Bush’s primary domestic legacy may be leaving a country that his angrier and more split than when he came into office. And no matter what side of the divide you sit on, that’s nothing to be proud of.
Reminds me of the greatest ONION headline ever:
“Poll: Nation Split On Whether Bush Is A Uniter Or A Divider”
Uproariously (or depressingly, your choice), this was actually a headline that appeared on CNN.
Posted by: Den at May 1, 2006 11:33 AM
After the 2004 election, Bush swaggered back into DC bragging about his “political capital” that he was going to spend on getting his agenda through.
I have had an incredibly hectic two weeks, so I haven’t had the chance to read the two Rolling Stone articles, nor many posts in this thread (although I will do just that over the next couple of days). But, I wanted to amplify one of Den’s points while it’s still “fresh” conversation fodder. If my failure to have done my homework causes me to put my foot in my mouth, I apologize in advance.
On a recent edition of “Meet the Press,” Ron Brownstein of the Los Angeles times said it best when he pointed out that at the height of his re-election, Bush was essentially speaking to only about half the country when things were going relatively well for him. That gave him little margin for error when his political fortunes began turning sour in 2005.
That’s why I always laughed whenever I heard anyone trumpeting Bush’s “mandate” in 2004. He won a slim majority from an electorate deeply divided in no small part due to Bush’s divisiveness. He’s now hoist on his own petard. The problem with W. is he seems to have no capacity to reflect, and feels no obligation towards or accountability to anyone but himself and his inner circle of neo-cons. He’s paying the price for his hubris, but I’m not sure his worldview even allows him to conceive of such a thing.
OK, now I’ll go back and read everything and hope I haven’t made a fool of myself by talking first and gathering information later. 🙂
Although it’s likely that anyone who won the 2000 election under such controversial circumstances would have had a very difficult time ever uniting the opposition.
It’s true that Bush came into office with a serious rift to meld, but it’s also true that he was handed an event that he could used to bridge that gap: 9/11. After 9/11, he had the country solidly as whole solidly behind him with approval ratings in the 90s. An analogous situation would be FDR after Pearl Harbor. Prior to the attack, FDR was despised by the republican party, many of whom refused to even utter his name, calling him “that man in the White House”. The GOP was aligned with the America First movement and held a strong isolationist position. After Pearl Harbor, the America First movement was dead and the country was unified in a way that had never been seen before or since. The GOP still didn’t like FDR that much and still criticized him domestically, but he managed to bring them on board for the war effort.
A president that was a more skilled communicator and a leader more open to working with Americans of all political persuasions could have sustained the high approval ratings that Bush was handed. As it was, he managed to go as far as parlay the overwhelming support for going after Al Qaida in Afghanistan into support from a majority of the congressional democrats (much to their later regret) for the use of force in Iraq.
But that was as far as the “uniter” went. Anyone who dared question his policies got the Max Cleland treatment: opposition to or even questioning of the war in Iraq was equated to wanting “America to fail.”
Now again to be fair, there were many of opportunities that the democrats could have used to bridge the gap as well, but when the GOP trots Zell Miller to all but say that even running a candidate against Bush during a war (even though Bush had already declared that “major combat operations” were over) was tantamount to treason, it’s hard to think of a way the other side could’ve united with him.
Bush was essentially speaking to only about half the country when things were going relatively well for him.
Which is why he has never been a uniter. Now granted, Bush has had the advantage of total GOP control over the government for most of his presidency, so he’s never had to actually negotiate with the democrats, but he’s never given them any reason to believe he negotiate in good faith with him if they had the opportunity either.
While I’m on this diviseness kick, I suggest checking out Ðìçk Polman’s blog from this Saturday.
Basically, he lists a large number of conservative bloggers and commentators who are decrying the vast number of “libs” who are panning the movie United 93. According to these commentators, there are numerous “libs” who are urging Americans to boycott the movie.
Except that no one seems to be able to name even one “lib” who is organizing any such boycott.
4.8% growth in the last quarter
Most, if not all, of which is war spending. The only ones who benefit from that are the defense contractors.
Is there any way to verify this? The reports I see, like today’s Associated Press report that the maufacturing Index rose from 55.2 to 57.3, totasl construction spending rose to a new high, consumer spending jumped up .6%, and incomes rose .8%….none of them indicate that this bounty is limited to Daddy Warbucks Inc. But if there is reason to belive that is so, please let me know.
Low unemployment
This one is deceiving. It only counts those who are receiving unemployment payments. If your unemployment runs out, statistically you’re not unemployed because this number is the number of people receiving unemployment benefits,
True enough but hasn’t that always been the case? We’ve always used the unemployment numbers as one way to judge the state of the economy, imperfections and all. The numbers during Clinton’s administration may not have told the whole story eithert but it would be unfair to claim that they were secretly higher than they seemed.
good job growth
Where?
Do you mean geographically or in what sector? Not that I know either, but the last report for March had 211,000 jobs created and about 2 million over the last 12 months. Which is better than the “jobless recovery” Bush was branded with during his first term.
The economy isn’t perfect by any means but I’ll bet that if Kerry had won there are many who would look at these numbers and be praising him for doing such a great job of turning the economy around! That’s how the game is played. But it’s still just a game.
And here’s the dirty little secret to the game: There’s actually very little that any president can do to alter the course of the economy, especially the in short. It’s too big and has too many factors that are outside of his control. Sure, there are few things he can do, like not run up a multi-trillion dollar debt by borrowing from the world’s largest dictatorship, that will improve the long health of the economy. But turning the employment rate or rate of economic growth around is more the result of being lucky enough to be president during the right business cycle than anything else.
But both sides play the game. If your guy is in power, then you spin the numbers so they make you look good. If the other side is in the White House, then you spin them to make them look bad. And if you’re in power and you can’t realistically spin them to make you look good, then you go in front of a bunch of factory workers and say, “Message: I care.”
And here’s the dirty little secret to the game: There’s actually very little that any president can do to alter the course of the economy, especially the in short.
Bingo.
I never said the economy hasn’t bounced back somewhat, just that it’s not because of Bush’s tax cuts.
Please note the “?” at the end of the worst president in history. Yes, the Stone has a Lib-left slant, however the basic facts still stand:
-inneffective use of intel before 9/11
-trusting cherry picked intel to push for the attack on Iraq
-a sloppy, ineffective response to Katrina. perhaps the White house didn’t know the dikes would collapse. NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, The Weather Network all knew or at least suggested the possibility
-loyalty to and dependence on friends and cronies, even after they prove incompetant at their jobs. (“You’re doing a heck of a job, Brownie”)
-using “controversy” e.g. gay marriage or stem cell research, to distract people from the increasing s*&tpile in Iraq.
-see above regarding the fact that Osama bin Laden (remember him) is still loose.
“The worst” is still open to debate. He’s still got 2 1/2 years. However, a few of his statements may make him the most out of touch president in history:
-“The jury is still out on evolution”
-“Mission accomplished”
-“You’re doing a heck of a job, Brownie” (That one still cracks me up)
The man refuses to accept the fact that Rummy may-just may, mid you-have screwed the pooch in Iraq. He has surrounded himself with yesmen and obediant lackies who know to never present any option not in line with the choices Shrub has already made.
He is not out of touch by ignorance, but rather by choice.
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at April 30, 2006 01:46 PM
Chris –
A man who admits academia, specifically history departments, are made mostly of liberals.
So? It’s precisely this kind of thinking that’s hurting this country so badly – just because most academics or writers in the media are liberals doesn’t mean they’re wrong.
Chris: Sure. Doesn’t mean they’re right, either. What it does mean is that they’re no doubt going to have biases. They’re going to see George Bushes tenure through left leaning goggles… and that’s probably going to lead them to some faulty conclusions. I’d like to believe history profs, and journalists, and anyone else in a job like that can be fair and balanced about their jobs… that they can just disassociate their idealogy from their science (
What I’d rather see on this subject is a he said/she said thing. Get 20 liberal history professors, and 20 conservative professors, and put them in room with baseball bats and bike chains… barring that fantasy, dueling opinion papers.
Also, I don’t see how this kind of thinking hurts our country. Not even a little. I don’t automatically discount what liberals say simply for the fact they’re liberal… I do it because what they say is usually silly and wrong headed. But I still read what they say.
Posted by: Manny at May 1, 2006 05:17 PM
Please note the “?” at the end of the worst president in history.
Chris: Oh please. “Does this man want to cook your children in a thick stew?”
Even with the question mark, the title still leads.
The article is a hatchet job from the outset. Frankly, I don’t know why the editors bothered to use a question mark on the title at all – the cartoon cover makes it pretty clear up front what they think.
But what about the article’s author, Sean Wilentz – a “leading historian”? Perhaps his views are more objective.
Well, don’t count on it. After all, this ain’t Fairy Tale Land.
According to Wilentz, 81 percent of 415 historians queried in a 2004 informal poll by the non-Partisan History News Network found that the Bush Administration was “a failure.”
“Wow,” one would think at first glance, “These people are historians and the polling organization is non-partisan – that is some serious findings!”
Nahhhhh. They really aren’t
First of all, most historians I know of are (or have been) teachers. I’d even hazard to guess that those with master’s degrees or doctorates, and have been published, teach (or have taught) at the university level.
Assuming that is correct, then another factor comes into play for this “non-partisan” poll: Political bias. You see, according to a different poll cited by the Washington Post last year, between 72 and 87 percent of those teaching at universities and colleges consider themselves to be liberal. What’s the average between those two numbers? Well, golly! It’s about 81 percent! (The higher percentage, by the way, is for those teaching at the nation’s elite universities — you know, like Princeton, where Mr. Wilentz teaches).
So the dámņìņg poll, which Mr. Wilentz uses as a foundation to prop up the rest of the points of his opinion piece, is probably fundamentally flawed. The only way to know for sure is to know the political persuasion of those “415 historians.” If 81 percent of them are, in fact, liberals, the conclusion of the poll is nothing more than a political façade.
Frankly, I’m tired of these propaganda battles between the conservatives and liberals. It is a constant distraction to Washington and the hinterlands, and, as a result, little of import seems to get accomplished by either the Republicans OR Democrats.
Reference: Washington Post article URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html
-“Mission accomplished”
Remenber, today is the third anniversary of the “end of major combat operations in Iraq”.
===================
Is there any way to verify this?
Probably, but I don’t have any studies on hand at this time. But my observations on this are:
maufacturing Index rose from 55.2 to 57.3
Look at all the manufacturing jobs being offshored. What’s left to increase? Defence manufacturing.
consumer spending jumped up .6%
Really a small amount, especially considering how much skyrocketing gas & home heating costs probably account for.
incomes rose .8
Large CEO salaries & golden parachutes. IE the Exxon chairman gets a $400 million pension while workers pensions are being done away with. Unions accepting lower salaries for their workers while those same companies top management give themselves pay raises big bonuses for ‘saving the company’ (see Delta Airlines for a perefect example of this).
but the last report for March had 211,000 jobs created and about 2 million over the last 12 months
Keep in mind that
1) The jobs being created don’t match up to the ones being eliminated, either in quantity of jobs, quality of jobs, pay, benefits, etc.
2) These numbers are being supplied by the same administration that couts golf courses as “wetlands” so they can claim that they are protecting more land than previous administrations; That supplies false costs of medicare ‘reform’ & perscription ‘reform’ so they can get what they want, etc.
Transcript of the Colbert monologue at the White House Correspondents Dinner here:
http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/30/1441/59811?q=mx
Look at all the manufacturing jobs being offshored. What’s left to increase? Defence manufacturing.
So you are making the assumption that because much manufacturing has gone overseas, all has, save defense manufacturing.
To point out one obvious flaw in this reasoning, the housing market is booming and new home construction has been on a tear. Safe to say that the houses I see going up like weeds around me are not being made overseas.
Really a small amount, especially considering how much skyrocketing gas & home heating costs probably account for.
I believe the article I was reading mentioned that this was before the jump in oil prices and I also belive that this >6% jump was for spending on durable goods, not essential cost of living items. At any rate, consumer confidence is also up, hardly the mark of gloom and doom.
Large CEO salaries & golden parachutes.
Again, any statistics taht can back up the idea that the growth of incomes is entirely due to a few fatcats getting a big slice of the pie? It would not be hard to look at the median instead of the average. yes, we jnow there are some outrageous slaeries out theer but it doesn’t automatically follow that the rise in consumer income is an illusion.
Keep in mind that
1) The jobs being created don’t match up to the ones being eliminated, either in quantity of jobs, quality of jobs, pay, benefits, etc.
Evidence that isn’t just anecdotal?
2) These numbers are being supplied by the same administration that couts golf courses as “wetlands” so they can claim that they are protecting more land than previous administrations; That supplies false costs of medicare ‘reform’ & perscription ‘reform’ so they can get what they want, etc.
Actually these numbers are not under the control of the White House. If you don’t believe me then believe the strength of your own logic–if they could so easily come up with any numbers they want why did they risk Bush losing re-election with the dismal jobs growth that marked his first few years?
It’s far more effective to simply deny that the good economy is Bush’s doing.
To point out one obvious flaw in this reasoning, the housing market is booming and new home construction has been on a tear. Safe to say that the houses I see going up like weeds around me are not being made overseas.
Home construstion isn’t included in manufacturing, it’s a seperate statistic. Manufacturing refers to factory built goods.
Evidence that isn’t just anecdotal?
Manufacturing jobs are being lost, jobs being created are part time, service & temp.
On a similar note, if so many jobs are being created, why is the help wanted section no larger than before?
Actually these numbers are not under the control of the White House
I didn’t say White House, I said administration. The administration isn’t confined only to the White House. But the W.H. can still exert pressure to cook the numbers.
why did they risk Bush losing re-election
What risk? Between having an opponent who wouldn’t put a real fight & crooked electronic voting there was no danger of bush losing his “re-election”.
I doubt there is any evidence or argument I could bring that could persuade you to question your beliefs.
Ok, I’m gonna try to bring two seperate claims by mostly the same people that don’t seem to go together… I’m pretty sure I’m stealing this idea from someone a lot smarter than me…
1. All the new jobs created aren’t the right kind of jobs – therefore, despite the evidence, the economy sucks.
2. We need illegal immigrants to do the jobs real Americans won’t do.
So if the illegals are doing the jobs we won’t do, no doubt because the jobs we will do are so much better, then just what jobs are being created at such a rapid clip? And just who are these jobless people?
I’m pretty sure the jobless rate doesn’t include illegals… I mean, how would they go about counting them in the first place?
Posted by: Chris at May 1, 2006 06:02 PM
Also, I don’t see how this kind of thinking hurts our country. Not even a little. I don’t automatically discount what liberals say simply for the fact they’re liberal… I do it because what they say is usually silly and wrong headed. But I still read what they say.
No, you’re wrong. Because I’m a liberal and liberals are correct and conservatives aren’t. After all, the government largesse we’ve thrown at problems like racism, poverty, disease, etc. has solved all of those problems and created no problems of its own.
Oh, wait, that’s not true. My girlfriend works for the department of social services in the county where we live, and she’s seen the reality that many liberals haven’t seen. She’s witnessed the mentality of dependency that our welfare system has created. Children now grow up in never having witnessed anyone exhibiting a work ethic, and therefore see dependence on a government handout as the only way to live. And the welfare system really isn’t equipped to do anything to change their minds.
Huh. So I guess liberals like me are just plain wrong. Conservatives must be the ones who are right, always. Because the free market system will always provide the greatest good for the greatest number.
Oh, wait. I remember when Reagan pushed through de-regulation of the savings and loan industry. As a result, many S&L executives got involved in all sorts of greedy hijinks and caused a big mess. The government had to bail out the S&L industry and it cost taxpayers a lot of money. A lot more money, I believe, than regulation was costing them.
Hmmm. Who’s right, then?
I’m a liberal who’s been adopting more and more conservative views as I get older. Because it’s clear to me that liberals and conservatives are neither completely right nor completely wrong. Instead, each side has some of the pieces of this complex, multi-faceted puzzle that we call life. Together, they don’t have all of the pieces, but what they have together is a dámņ sight better than what they have separately.
And in a democracy, the push-and-pull between the different sides can produce useful compromises. Oh, sometimes it’s messy, and often the government just clunks along and screws up a lot. But, y’know, anyone who thinks we’ve truly become a dictatorship should read about some actual dictatorships. They’re ugly. Far uglier than our system.
Or to paraphrase Winston Churchill, democracy is the suckiest system of governance, except for all of the other systems.
Anyway, Chris, I’m sorry if I’m being harsh, but there is a problem with your way of thinking. Casually dismissing most liberals as “wrong-headed” and “silly,” without bothering to say why is the sloppiest form of arguing. Pick an issue, and tell me why libs like me are wrong. Use evidence and logic to support your claim. Show me how you arrived at your conclusion.
See, I’m still mostly a lib. But I can be persuaded to think along conservative lines. I try to determine what I think is right, regardless of what “side” I’m supposed to be on. If that means I end up agreeing with conservatives, so be it.
Can you say the same? I mean, I don’t know you. A single post in a blog is far too little for me to form any judgments about you. But, I can say this — you certainly have given me reason to doubt that you’re equally open to persuasion by a superior argument.
And please don’t tell me that libs rarely come up with a superior argument. I used to say that about cons until I realized that anyone on either side of the ideological divide who says that is full of horseshit.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at May 1, 2006 09:57 PM
I doubt there is any evidence or argument I could bring that could persuade you to question your beliefs.
Yes, but you can potentially persuade those of us who are willing to evaluate your arguments on their merits. And even though I don’t always agree with you, I have yet to see you make a meritless argument.
In other words, keep on truckin’, Mulligan. What you’ve been writing is well worth reading.
And it’s funny, the more we exchange ideas, I disagree with you more and more infrequently. Odd how that can work.
Oh, šhìŧ, my post to Chris said it was wrong to judge him by a single post when he’s written many posts in this thread. I mean, I read most of them!
Sigh… would anyone be willing to cut me some slack because it’s been a long couple of weeks and I’m tired and prone to make more dumb-ášš mistakes than usual?
Anyone?
Hello?
(SFX: Crickets chirping in the background. The wind whistling through barren streets.)
Maybe I’m becoming more liberal as you become more conservative. At some point we’ll cross paths, agree on everything for a brief moment, and then, a few years from now, I’ll be raving about how President Obama is a fascist tool of the military industrial complex and you’ll be saying “Hey, cool down, Trotsky.”
So anyway, how was the big boycott in YOUR section of the woods? I was missing about half my latino kids, along with a few others who thought it would end up being an excused absence (um…no). It was a relatively quiet day, with fewer kids and quieter classrooms. As someone who is more sympathetic to immigrants than most here in NC, I have to think taht this may not have been a terribly effective idea, at least from a public school standpoint.
I doubt there is any evidence or argument I could bring that could persuade you to question your beliefs.
Ditto.
================
Okay, let me put it this way, if the economy is so good, and so many great jobs are being created, Where & what are they?
My brother has a Master’s Degree in Social Work. He’s pumping gas. A Friend of mine majored as a graphic artist, he’s working security (And this is in New York City, home of many of the world’s top advertising & design companies).
After shutting down my business (due in part to the wonderful economy bush has brought us), I renewed & updated my computer skills (graduating with a 4.0 grade & 100% attendance), and it took me 5 months just to get a temp job.
All 3 of us have solid work histories, and are not only willing to work, but also WANT to work, and this is the best we can do.
Bill, I honestly didn’t see any impact from today’s protests. Then again, I went to work this morning, did what I was paid to do for eight hours and then went straight home. I don’t think we had an inordinate number of absences.
Since I don’t work downtown, where the protests took place, I didn’t see any impact from them, either.
My girlfriend now works for a secure detention facility for juveniles. They’re not in there voluntarily, and the facilities doors are locked. So they couldn’t walk out if they wanted to (and I think most of them do want to!). As far as the staff goes, well, I think they were aware of what a bad idea it would be to leave a secure detention facility understaffed in order to make a political point.
You know, the illegal immigration problem is a complex one. But something did irk me today: a newscaster said people were protesting the “criminalization” of illegal immigrants.
Hello? If it’s illegal, then they are, by definition, criminals. I’m not sayin’ that necessarily makes them bad people. I’m just sayin’ something is what it is.
I don’t think we’ll be able to wrap our minds around this problem without first getting our terminology straight. Words are tools of thought, after all. Sloppy word usage leads to sloppy thinking.
And ground beef and sauce leads to sloppy joes. MMMMM… sloppy joes…
Posted by: Michael Brunner at May 1, 2006 10:41 PM
All 3 of us have solid work histories, and are not only willing to work, but also WANT to work, and this is the best we can do.
Anecdotal evidence is just that: anecdotal. You can keep piling it on, but volume won’t make it more effective, any more than pouring gallons of water on a stain.
I mean, I don’t know you, your brother, or your friend. So I can’t say for sure that there aren’t aspects of your individual lives that are mitigating the impact of a recovering economy.
And mind you: I’m not telling you you’re definitely wrong, or that you, your brother, or your friend are in some way deficient. I’m just pointing out the limitations of anecdotal evidence.
Thus far, Bill Mulligan has provided a more compelling argument than you have. If you have any facts or logical arguments to bring to bear, now’s the time to do it, because that’s the only way you can counter a well-constructed argument.
Bill Mulligan –
Maybe I’m becoming more liberal as you become more conservative.
Anymore I’d like to think that I’m not really liberal or conservative, because aside from a handful of ‘traditional’ issues, I don’t fit into one side or the other.
Of course, most people judge others on those ‘traditional’ issues, regardless of any other numerous stances you may have.
Bill Myers –
But something did irk me today: a newscaster said people were protesting the “criminalization” of illegal immigrants.
And this highlights yet another problem with today’s ‘liberal’ media: they don’t have the balls to call a situation for what it is.
This is a protest made up of illegal immigrants and kids who just want an excuse to skip class, and supported by groups who want amnesty for illegals.
But the media refuses to call them what they are: law breakers.
No wonder we’re not getting anywhere on the issue.
The big lie in american politics is the corporate media describing itself as the liberal media. There are Ben Urichs and Robbie Robertsons out there but JJJ owns the thing and the headline is always ‘Threat Or Menace?’.
Michael, I don’t doubt for a minute that you are telling the truth. I know of more than a few highly qualified people who have had a terrible time getting jobs the deserve.
My own wife had a bad time twice in the last 5 years. Both times she ended up with really good jobs. It can go from famine to feast amazingly quickly (and visa versa–she left one job because she had a verbal agreement to take a new one, only to have the offer vaporize for no good reason).
Location can be a huge part. As a science teacher there are regions of the country, I’m told, where I could get a job in a heartbeat. There are other places where I’d be pumping gas.
You’re right that New York is a great place for a graphic designer but that probably also means that LOTS of graphic designers flock there. Your friend might have a much much easier time getting a job here–one of my best friends, the director of the zombie movie I’m woking on, just got a new job as a graphic designer at a local maufacturing place. Of course, having a job in Sanford North Carolina might be less preferable to being unemployed in New York City if you truly love the NYC life.
Anyway, I wish you the best. Keep plugging away, eventually you’ll find someone who needs and appreciates a worker of quality.
It does kind of remind me of Ronald Reagan’s old joke- “Recession is when your neighbor loses his job. Depression is when you lose your job.” (“And recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his.” was the punchline)
To Bill Myers…
Chris: Yeah, I was being mostly facetious when I said “silly and wrong headed”. My bad for not clarifying that.
Really though, I can’t think of one liberal stance on any issue I agree with. Not a one. I’m a staunch conservative, and I don’t make any bones about it. The problem is that most non-conservatives don’t really understand just how broad an ideology conservatism is. There are very few single stance issues in conservatism… though there are, I think, some foundation building blocks. We are constantly arguing amongst ourselves over what is the one true conservative approach to any given issue… and we love it. You got the social conservatives arguing with the libertarians. The free market conservatives arguing with them new fangled crunchy-cons. Pro-life v. pro abortion, and then countless other vareities arguing amongst ourselves.
So yeah, I disagree with liberalism in all it’s many forms… that doesn’t mean individual liberals don’t occasionally have good idea’s. But then of course good idea’s are inherently conservative, so that puts an end to that liberals liberal credentials – thus making him okay to listen to. (that facetious thing again)
To point out one obvious flaw in this reasoning, the housing market is booming and new home construction has been on a tear. Safe to say that the houses I see going up like weeds around me are not being made overseas.
Might be surprised.
A big trend in homebuilding is prefabrication — not like the older pre-fabs, that tended to be flimsy and not very durable, but solid hjouses built in sections in factories and assembled on the spot. With computerisation, they can be almost infinitely customised, as to layout and trim.
And a lot of them arrive on ships from Sweden.
To Michael Brunner:
I think my response to you may have come off as unduly harsh. I stand by what I said about the limitations of anecdotal evidence. But on a personal level, I understand what it’s like to struggle to find a good job.
I actually had the misfortune of being a residential telemarketer for a few months. I wasn’t proud of it, but I couldn’t find anything else at the time that would pay the equivalent of what the telemarketing gig offered (sad but true).
I also spent two years working part-time as a telefundraiser. Again, I was not proud of it; in fact, I was ashamed of it. But I needed the extra income and try as I might, I couldn’t find another part-time job that paid nearly as much.
Those crappy jobs, however, were instrumental in helping me land a job as a telemarketer for a large technology company. I started out cold-calling executives at large businesses to get appointments for the salespeople. Since then I’ve gotten a crack at some supervisory tasks, and am now in a position where I not only cold-call for the salespeople, but I research accounts, help contribute to account penetration strategies and will now on occasion get to fly out-of-state on the company’s dime.
So there’s often a light at the end of the tunnel. I don’t call people in their homes, anymore. I call executives at large companies and they take me seriously (because they don’t know me, naturally!).
Actually, my real dream is to work as a writer and an artist. I’m making some progress there, too. I’ve offered my graphic design services to a couple of people for free to get the ball rolling, and am building up a portfolio as a result.
I hope you don’t think I was criticizing you, your brother, or your friend, or implying that the three of you are in some way deficient because you’re having difficulty finding a job that matches your skill levels. Because I’ve been there.
Nevertheless, it’s still anecdotal evidence, and it’s not enough to counter the argument that the economy is getting stronger. If you want to convince me of that, you’ll need to provide a logical argument based on statistical evidence.
By the way, when it comes to the economy, I think the president is like a football quarterback: they get too much of the credit and too much of the blame.
The problem with statistics, of course, is that in skilled hands, the same set of numbers can be used to support multiple, mutually exclusive assertions. You know the old saying about lies, dámņ lies, etc…
Besides, it’s hardly a comfort to people who can’t find jobs, despite their best efforts, when somebody declares, “But I’ve got numbers that say the economy is good!”
I’d say there’s more to a healthy economy, and a healthy society overall, than cold, uncaring mathematics.
-Rex Hondo-
Rex, sure, that’s true, but we have to have some standard to measure these things. If statistics are essentially meaningless and there’s no way to measure the economy then we can’t really blame politicians for not paying attention to it.
Chris, while I obviously appreciate much of what you say, how can you say that “I can’t think of one liberal stance on any issue I agree with. Not a one.” when you also aknowledge that “are constantly arguing amongst ourselves over what is the one true conservative approach to any given issue… and we love it.” (And you’re quite correct about that, btw.)
Here’s the thing–with few exceptions, you can find conservatives who have taken “liberal” positions, albeit for possibly different reasons. So you could be pro-chice and still consider yourself conservative, even though it’s generally considered the liberal position.
(I don’t know if any of that made sense. The coffee better start kicking in dámņ quick.)
Mike– yep, you’re correct about the Swedish pre-fab house thing, but I’ve got a surprizing amount of friends and family in the business, both as builders and as suppliers and from my experience there is a lot of American in the average American home.
As a non American I find it difficult to understand the political differences when what is given is just labels: liberal, conservative. Many times it is difficult to distinguish between real arguments about real questions (abortion, yes, no); arguments about data (state of the economy); and arguments that are mostly about rhetoric (Bush, stupid or smart).
When I was politically active in my own country I often sat with people who shared many basic assumptions but what caught up in different rhetoric, or were blind to different aspects of the data. However, in Israel, up until recently, it was pretty easy to distinguish between Left and Right based on one basic issue — the occupation of the west bank. recently it has become more blurry. But it seems to me that it is best to get to the basic issues and not labels. I once saw a person trying to convince a woman to sign a petition concerning peace. She was considering signing it, but than she asked: is it leftist?
I think one of the advantages of the democratic system is that whenever one political point of view reaches an absurd level — which most do if carried too far or too long — it is replaced.
I’ve come to believe that terms like “liberal” or “conservative” in the US have lost virtually all meaning except to use in order to justify negating someone else’s opinion without actually giving it a fair consideration.
Bill Mulligan –
To point out one obvious flaw in this reasoning, the housing market is booming and new home construction has been on a tear.
I missed this comment.
I actually find it to be a very interesting comment, because it really flies in the face of everything that’s been said about the housing market the last few months.
At one point, some wondered whether the market would slow down to the point as to cause a recession for the country.
That didn’t happen, but the market has indeed slowed down.
Housing sales are expected to be down big this year – like 7%, with the plateau in sales possibly having already been reached last month when sales rose for the first time in 5 months, but sales overall are still down from last year.
Home construction was down almost 8% last month, the 4th decline in 6 months.
I hope you don’t think I was criticizing you, your brother, or your friend, or implying that the three of you are in some way deficient because you’re having difficulty finding a job that matches your skill levels
Didn’t think that at all.
=============
As for ancendotal evidence, I know it isn’t ‘real’ evidence, but more personal observation. I’d have more real evidence, but I lost nearly all my bookmarks (where I had this evidence) when I had to re-install my computer’s operating system.
Unfortunately, my current job doesn’t allow me time to research the information (I can only sneak online for maybe 2-3 minutes at a time when the supervisors aren’t looking), and by the time I get home I have too little time & not enough energy to do it then.
Rex, sure, that’s true, but we have to have some standard to measure these things. If statistics are essentially meaningless and there’s no way to measure the economy then we can’t really blame politicians for not paying attention to it.
Oh, absolutely. We can and should, however, hold our elected officials (on both sides of the aisle) and their supporters in the media accountable when they throw some numbers up on a screen with little or no context, then proceed to either crow about their victory or eviscerate the opposition, often with the SAME set of data.
*sigh* Where’s an Arthur Penn-esque common-sense candidate when we need one?
-Rex Hondo-
Chris, I stand partially corrected. The evidence, however, still bears up. Your example of children in thick stew (more garlic, please) is a question designed to elicit an emotional response. The question mark behind the worst American president invites consideration of the evidence.
As for the Burning Bushies who hold up evidence to the contrary, I will use their boy’s tactic of preemption.
No Child Left Behind. Maybe no one child, but lots of children in droves. The program is a vast mandate from above that puts financial responsibility on the states, counties and cities. Many Religious Right groups have tried to use No Child to put faith issues into the cirriculum.
Mission Accomplished. Nuff Zed.
Democracy in the Middle East. Lll very good, except for the fact that the “successes” touted by Condi are questionable at best, bulls&%t at worst. Hosni Mubarak wins again! Elections in Iraq and Afghanistan monitored by tanks, and the results greeted with violence. And when, may I ask, will Pres. Musharref be holding elections in Pakistan? This whole program is based in the rather specious assumption that everyone wants democracy. Everyone wants to be free, this is true. Just don’t confuse that with democracy.
The politicization of Gay Marriage, Stem Cell Research, turning FEMA into a political perk.
If W isn’t the Worst President in American History,he’s right up there.
To Bill Myers–anecdotal evidence is still evidence, and how much anecdotal evidence does it take before something is seen as a pattern? My brother’s ALSO a graphic designer, went to a good school for it, his animations are quite good, and he’s working for the sewer department. Just because something is “anecdotal” doesn’t make it less valid.
Um…graphic design is pretty specialized…so I don’t know if that is all that good of a standard to judge the overall job market by.