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
• 
Craig wrote regarding Mark’s the charge that the author of the article gave money to the DNC in 2004: “And for all we know, he gave to the RNC in 2000.”
Actually, the author, Sean Wilentz, didn’t give anything to the RNC — at least since 1990.
Here’s a handy Web site that uses a database from the Federal Election Commission so one can query who contributed to what campaign. The author, Sean Wilentz donated only to the DNC in October 2004 (two donations at $250 a pop), according to FEC records.
The Web site is located at: http://www.opensecrets.org/
Being an independent, I don’t donate to anyone. I do check off the $3 box on my tax return to donate to the Presidential Election Campaign, however.
Posted by: Rat at May 3, 2006 12:14 PM
To Bill Myers–anecdotal evidence is still evidence, and how much anecdotal evidence does it take before something is seen as a pattern? My brother’s ALSO a graphic designer, went to a good school for it, his animations are quite good, and he’s working for the sewer department. Just because something is “anecdotal” doesn’t make it less valid.
No, I’m afraid you’re wrong. In the context of a discussion such as this, anecdotal evidence is indeed less valid. It is illogical to look at one’s own experience, the experiences of those people you know directly, or even the experiences of individual people you don’t know, and arrive at a generalization about larger patterns. In fact, it’s absolutely ášš-backwards.
There is no amount of anecdotal evidence that will ever establish a pattern worth discussing in this context. Human perceptions are imperfect; we are prone to remember evidence that supports our pre-conceived biases, and to forget or ignore evidence that contradicts what we are pre-disposed to believe.
Moreover, it is human nature to gravitate towards like-minded people. If you’re only getting information from people similar to you, you’re only getting part of the picture.
The only logical way to understand what’s going on at a national level is to find a source of nationwide data collected using an objective methodology, and read and understand that data. Data-gathering methodologies, while imperfect, at the very least give us a tool to mitigate the damage our biases can do to the data-gathering process.
So asking how much anecdotal evidence it takes to arrive at a pattern is indeed like asking how much water it takes to remove a deeply set stubborn stain. The answer is the same in both instances: no amount will help.
Posted by: Michael Brunner at May 2, 2006 11:06 AM
Unfortunately, my current job doesn’t allow me time to research the information (I can only sneak online for maybe 2-3 minutes at a time when the supervisors aren’t looking), and by the time I get home I have too little time & not enough energy to do it then.
I’ve been there. I used to work 8 hours pounding the phones (making 100+ calls per day) on my day job, only to then go to my part-time job four nights a week and make another 40+ calls in the course of four hours. And when you’re calling people in their homes, they’re not always nice. When you have a conscience, as I like to think that I do, you don’t feel very good about doing what you’re doing.
My life has since totally turned around. I have a job I like, I’m continually being given more responsibility and think I’ll have a good shot at promotions as they come up. And I have time to spend on my writing and my artwork. I have the best of both worlds: a day job that can support me, and time to pursue my life’s dream: to be able to quit my day job and do my writing and art for a living.
So for what it’s worth: chin up, soldier. There is a light at the end of the tunnel. Believe in it, and yourself, and you can get where you want to go.
Trust me, I know. Because I’ve been there.
Gee, here I’m saying I want to make a living as a writer, yet in my last post I used two colons in a single sentence.
I sure as hëll better not quit my day job anytime soon.
Bill, what kind of writing do you do?
Bill, sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree. Even if your national data WERE collected, what would the data be? Or, put another way, precisely what would seperate anecdotal evidence from raw data? Just because I know these people doesn’t change the fact that the majority of people I know are not in fact working in the areas they went to school for. And of course I spend time with people similar to myself in regards to my job, since, well, I work with them and went to school with them. That’s kind of a circular arguement, when you think about it. Since I work in broadcasting, I tended to spend time with the people also in broadcasting while in school. And as far as your pre-conceived biases? MY pre-conceived bias, my friend, was that once I got out of school I would be able to get a job that would be able to support my family without worrying. And it’s NOT just people similar to me that are having the experience. My brother-in-law has had tremendous experience in jounalism. What is he doing? Driving a truck. Now, you could certainly argue that he falls into your original statement, but the only reason he’s around me is because, well, he married my sister. Two out of the last three faimilies in this neighborhood that moved out were also not involved in jobs that they were trained for. Perhaps the problem lies in the terminology being used. “Anecdotal evidence” implies a certain amount of human influence on the statement, but when someone gets a job different from what they are trained to do, then how much interpretation can there be? I’m not trying to be a smart ášš here, seriously.
And as far as having to make 100 calls a day, I remember those days from when I worked at the insurance company I used to as a marketing director. Although, I was just talking to insurance agents that the company had pìššëd øff and trying to make them happy, not regular people, so you have my sympathy.
Come to think of it, I took the insurance job because I couldn’t get one in TV. Never thought of that, at first.
There is a light at the end of the tunnel
Yeah, and it’s probably a truck’s headlights.
Rat wrote: “My brother-in-law has had tremendous experience in jounalism. What is he doing? Driving a truck.”
Don’t knock it. It pays a lot better than journalism, the hours are better, you get overtime, and in the overall scheme of things, it’s probably less stressful.
At one point after leaving the military, I was seriously considered getting a commercial Class A license.
Posted by: Micha at May 3, 2006 02:12 PM
Bill, what kind of writing do you do?
Bad writing.
(I couldn’t resist. I’m my favorite target for jokes.)
I am writing and drawing my own comic-book.
By the way, PAD, if I am in any way stepping on your toes by mentioning that in your blog, you have my sincerest apologies. I must confess that one of my ulterior motives in entering the blogosphere was to attract attention that I might be able to parlay into readers. I set out to avoid doing anything that smacked of inappropriate self-promotion, though. Nevertheless, I’m always wondering if my unconscious desire to get attention leads me to cross that line that my intellect tells me shouldn’t be crossed.
Bottom line, I really enjoy participating in this blog. I’ve made some friends here and I’d hate to jeopardize this by doing something stupid. So, if you tell me I’ve stepped on your toes, I’ll heed your words and won’t do it again.
On the other hand, if you tell me it’s cool… well, I’ll try not to abuse the privilege and keep the self-promotional stuff to a minimum.
Posted by: Rat at May 3, 2006 03:43 PM
Bill, sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree.
It’s odd that people like you who are indeed respectful feel the need to apologize, while trolls who really should apologize for their behavior are never sorry. Strange planet.
Even if your national data WERE collected, what would the data be? Or, put another way, precisely what would seperate anecdotal evidence from raw data?
Well, first of all, I don’t think we’re talking about “raw data” when it comes to economic reports from the federal government. They do some analysis as well.
The first thing that separates the government’s economic data from anecdotal evidence is the scope. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, for example, collects employment data from all 50 states. Anecdotal evidence is limited to your own experience; I’m betting you don’t know enough people to match the scope of the government’s data! The second thing that separates such data from anecdotes is the rigorous analysis applied. For instance, companies are classified using standard industry codes, and are also classified by size. That ensures “apples to apples” comparisons. After all, employment in some fields is seasonal, and therefore causes spikes and dips in the overall employment rate. By classifying employers properly, such seasonal effects can be isolated so that the data can be interpreted properly.
No methodology for gathering data is perfect. But any decent methodology is nevertheless far less imperfect than anecdotal evidence. Far, far less.
By the way, if anyone is wondering how I know this stuff, I used to work for a weekly business newspaper as their research director. Worst job I ever had. Even worse than telemarketing.
Just because I know these people doesn’t change the fact that the majority of people I know are not in fact working in the areas they went to school for. And of course I spend time with people similar to myself in regards to my job, since, well, I work with them and went to school with them. That’s kind of a circular arguement, when you think about it.
No, it’s not circular reasoning at all. In fact, you’re bolstering my point: anecdotal evidence is based on data that is too limited in scope to be useful in the context of this kind of discussion.
Since I work in broadcasting, I tended to spend time with the people also in broadcasting while in school. And as far as your pre-conceived biases? MY pre-conceived bias, my friend, was that once I got out of school I would be able to get a job that would be able to support my family without worrying. And it’s NOT just people similar to me that are having the experience. My brother-in-law has had tremendous experience in jounalism. What is he doing? Driving a truck. Now, you could certainly argue that he falls into your original statement, but the only reason he’s around me is because, well, he married my sister. Two out of the last three faimilies in this neighborhood that moved out were also not involved in jobs that they were trained for. Perhaps the problem lies in the terminology being used. “Anecdotal evidence” implies a certain amount of human influence on the statement, but when someone gets a job different from what they are trained to do, then how much interpretation can there be? I’m not trying to be a smart ášš here, seriously.
I didn’t perceive any smart-assedness on your part. But again, you’re basing your conclusions on observations of a relatively small number of people. The government’s data is much wider in scope.
Can such data be suspect? Absolutely! But the best way to counter suspect data is not to trot out anecdotal evidence, but to expose flaws in the data gathering process. I’m aware that our unemployment data excludes people who haven’t looked for work for a certain length of time. To me, that casts far more doubt on the data then any anecdotal evidence.
By the way, Mulligan, you did make a decent argument about why that shouldn’t affect the stats too much. Nevertheless, I disagree with you. By eliminating that segment of the labor force (i.e. people able to work, regardless of whether they’re willing) from the totals, we have no way of knowing what this variable looks like.
And as far as having to make 100 calls a day, I remember those days from when I worked at the insurance company I used to as a marketing director. Although, I was just talking to insurance agents that the company had pìššëd øff and trying to make them happy, not regular people, so you have my sympathy.
Thanks, but I don’t do that anymore. I like my job now. I don’t love it, mind you, but I do like it.
Posted by: Michael Brunner at May 3, 2006 03:51 PM
There is a light at the end of the tunnel
Yeah, and it’s probably a truck’s headlights.
I’ve felt that way too. I think my favorite rock band, Rush, said it best in the lyrics to the song How It Is:
Here’s a little trap that sometimes catches everyone, when today’s as far as we can see/Faith in bright tomorrows giving way to resignation — that’s how it is, how it’s going to be.
Michael, I swear, I’ve been there. So I can tell you with total confidence that even if there’s no sign of better days on the horizon, things can change for the better. Just keep your eyes and mind open so you don’t miss the opportunity when you stumble upon it.
The second thing that separates such data from anecdotes is the rigorous analysis applied.
I believe the term you’re looking for is “cooking the books.”
While numbers may be difficult to argue with, any argument in favor of the hard data in favor of anecdotal evidence presupposes that the people doing the “rigorous analysis” are not finding ways to make the numbers dance to their own tune.
So, when it boils down to it, all we can trust is our own observations. While I’m not trying to argue that this is unarguably the case, but statistics can very easily paint a gleaming financial picure at the national and corporate level, until you actually look beneath the surface and find that the whole system is rotting from the bottom up.
-Rex Hondo-
Worst president in history? Hum… A president that managed to get unemployement lower than it has ever been in the history of this country. A president that has over-thrown one known dictator, which even the HRC admitted as a disguisting criminal, and undid the Taliban. A president that has yet to have another terrorist attack, despite the fact that it’s been a constant threat. And a president who the news media has taken pot shots at every chance they possibly could including making up a story about leaking a “covert” agents name (meanwhile, they don’t want to talk about the lovely people in congress who are leaking out things), a news media that has taken every oppertunity to point out, gleefully, every single death in Iraq since the beginning, one that’s picked Cindy Sheehan, a nobody who had a clear agenda that had very little to do with respecting her son’s sacrifice, after all he went in for a 2nd term, yet she sat there and still said that Bush killed her son (like he pulled the trigger). Meanwhile, she’s over there talking about how we’re using nuclear weapons in Iraq and occuping New Orleans. Of course the best thing has to be this is the same news Media that has Louis Farrican (sp?) on and he talks about being picked up by the mothership, but they make sure to carry the story that he claims he’s got pictures of Bush blowing up the levies in New Orleans. Yup, worst president ever and even with all these attacks on him, he’s yet to once lodge a complaint and he’s yet once to do what all the liberals want him to do, listen to the polls and decide by consensus, like Billy Clinton did.
A president that managed to get unemployement lower than it has ever been in the history of this country.
Well, that would be the first I’ve heard of this.
I won’t even bother addressing the rest of the crap in that post.
Wow Malkie, you actually made my bûllšhìŧ detector explode. Not even x-ray did that. And it wasn’t a cheap Chinese-built Walmart-sold piece of junk either, but a good, solid example of good old-fashioned American built craftsmanship, too.
Hëll, Ari Fleisher didn’t even make a dent in it; Bill O’reilly can’t even make it smoke, but you blew it up like the Mythbusters blow up a cement truck!
Bill–first off, somewhere in either Heaven or Nirvana or Hoboken, my parents are smiling on you for calling me respectful. Thank you.
Second off, you have served your point well. But, alas, in the era of instanews, just add pundits, numbers may not lie, but what they mean MIGHT.
Third off, this is quite the best discussion that I’ve had in quite some time. Now, granted, most of my discussions lately have been with a 5 year old or people who act like they are, but still, I love a conversation that makes me think. Just wish it would stop setting off the smoke alarms, though.
Malkie–wow, the third coming of X-Ray. What color is the sky in your world? And face fun filled facts, chummer. Had the attacks on New York and Washington NOT happened, Schlub, er, Shrub would have gone into history as a pale reflection of his father. And as for the rule by concensus thing?? Gee, I thought that’s what majority rule WAS….And as for not having a terrorist attack since ’01, well, hey, I went through a pair of windshields once, but haven’t since, so they must be making windshields better. Same kinda logicless arguement. And which news are you watching? And as for Cindy Sheehan having a bias and an agenda, so did your boy Bush from the beginning. EVERYONE has a bias and an agenda. Some people just hide it behind righteousness. Seems Bush AND Sheehan are guilty of that one.
Gotta laugh at the unemployment line. SOrry, no pun intended. While Clinton was president, my wife had 1, count it, 1 job. Since Bush has been in, she’s worked in four different places, laid off every time.
Oh, Back to Bill–Fracture a femur on the book, trying to finish a screenplay meself.
Micheal Brunner–if the light IS an oncoming truck, well, ask him for a lift!
Posted by: Rex Hondo at May 3, 2006 10:20 PM
I believe the term you’re looking for is “cooking the books.”
No, not really. “Cooking the books” means you’re falsifying data. Analysis means you’re interpreting data. You can’t objectively “cook the books,” but you can make an objective analysis.
While numbers may be difficult to argue with, any argument in favor of the hard data in favor of anecdotal evidence presupposes that the people doing the “rigorous analysis” are not finding ways to make the numbers dance to their own tune.
Yes, that’s correct. But the nice thing about rigorously analyzed data is that it’s much easier to determine if someone is fooling around with it, because you have something of substance with which to discuss. By the way, I used to ring up the New York State Department of Labor for help with research in a former job. They’re quite good at what they do, and quite dedicated to being honest.
If you have evidence that the national economic figures are being cooked, let’s hear it. Otherwise, the mere fact that they may be cooking the data is in no way clear and convincing evidence that they are cooking the data.
By the way, I’ve mentioned one clear way the data is being distorted: omitting from the figures those people who have ceased looking for work after a period of time. That gives me pause. Other than that, though, I think their figures are solid.
So, when it boils down to it, all we can trust is our own observations.
I disagree. Our perceptions can be fooled.
Someone once pointed out whether we’re being chased by a bear, or someone in a really convincing bear costume, we’d go into “fight-or-flight” just the same. Our perceptions can be tricked.
Look, I’m not arguing that everything in life can be reduced to numbers. Lord, I only made it as far as pre-calculus in high school and barely passed with a “C!” Never took another math class after that. But when you’re talking about economic conditions, data trumps casual observation.
While I’m not trying to argue that this is unarguably the case, but statistics can very easily paint a gleaming financial picure at the national and corporate level, until you actually look beneath the surface and find that the whole system is rotting from the bottom up.
Or until you look beneath the surface and find that the numbers are in fact collected in an honest and meaningful manner. That happens too, you know. I know a CPA who’s honest as a day is long.
Again, if you have any evidence that the economic numbers are being cooked, let’s hear it. As I’ve said, the unemployment data omits a segment of the populace, which concerns me. But that’s not enough to convince me that the whole system of collecting those numbers is “rotting beneath the surface.”
Posted by: Rat at May 4, 2006 01:02 AM
Oh, Back to Bill–Fracture a femur on the book, trying to finish a screenplay meself.
Good for you! Writing’s a blast, isn’t it? And good luck with it.
I wonder if the fact that no other terrorist attacks have happened in the US after 9/11 (outside 24) can be attributed to Bush? I have to admit I expected bombs to be blowing off on a weekly basis like in Israel (at the time). But does Bush get the credit?
Taking down the Taliban was in consensus. There is nothing more reasonable than attacking the country that attacked you.
Iraq obviously is a more complicated story.
If we assume that Iraq was attacked for being a threat to the US or its interest, this was not true and the situation is worse now. If we assume that the attack was part of a policy to topple dictatorships (that at the time were not involved in great massacres) than we have to ask two questions: (1) Does America have the right to do something like that? (2) Can what she did be considered a success.
This reminds me of the joke about a boyscout that helps an old lady cross the road who doesn’t actually want to get to the other side. Except in this version it’s a highway, and the boyscout seems to have left the old lady in the middle of the road. We are yet to see if she is going to get to other side.
“Bill, what kind of writing do you do?
Bad writing.
(I couldn’t resist. I’m my favorite target for jokes.)
I am writing and drawing my own comic-book.”
Thanks. I’ll take a look.
Again, if you have any evidence that the economic numbers are being cooked, let’s hear it. As I’ve said, the unemployment data omits a segment of the populace, which concerns me. But that’s not enough to convince me that the whole system of collecting those numbers is “rotting beneath the surface.”
Sorry, I don’t think I was entirely clear what I was referring to. The system of data gathering and analysis wasn’t what I was referring to “rotting from the bottom up,” it was the very economy that is being represented by the numbers. Companies can be doing tremendously well on paper while the people who make up those companies are getting šhìŧ upon.
Also, upon further reflection, “cooking the books” may not have been the most accurate term to use. While the people collecting and analyzing the data can be doing so honestly dispassionately, I think it can be agreed on some level that the people interpreting and presenting the data to us, the public, don’t seem to feel any such need.
And believe me, I probably find it even more disturbing that only those actually receiving unemployment checks are being counted. It’s apparently inconvenient to count those who, for whatever reason, have been out of work for more than six months, if their unemployment even lasted that long.
As a final note, I think there’s a wee bit of a difference between being chased by a fake bear and being out of a job. Not getting a check is kind of a dead giveaway. Not a whole lot of perceptions being fooled there…
-Rex Hondo-
Somewhere Iowa Jim or somebody else compared Bush to Reagan, in connection with Reagan’s contribution to the fall of the USSR. However, although it seems that the fall of the USSR was partly the result of its attempt to keep up the arms race with the US, and Reagan did talk as much as Bush about the evil empire etc., he did not actually attack the USSR or any of its dependants. In fact, it seems that whenever Reagan did get involved militarily, directly or indirectly — Afganistan, Lebanon, South America — things didn’t turn out so well.
Posted by Rex Hondo at May 4, 2006 06:50 AM
As a final note, I think there’s a wee bit of a difference between being chased by a fake bear and being out of a job. Not getting a check is kind of a dead giveaway. Not a whole lot of perceptions being fooled there…
Sorry I didn’t respond sooner — I was being chased by a fake bear.
If the lack of a steady paycheck influences you to believe that the national economy is worse than it truly is, then your perceptions are indeed being fooled.
Given how… lackluster… our economy has been in recent years, it’s understandable if recent growth hasn’t yet benefited a lot of us yet. We’ll probably need to see a lot more growth to make up for lost ground. So it’s entirely possible for you to know lots of people who are having trouble finding work even though the economy is in the midst of a turnaround. In other words — it may be a fake bear chasing you after all.
By the way, I’m not saying our economy is definitely in the midst of a turnaround. The jury’s still out. Rising oil prices among other things could throw a monkey wrench into the machinery.
Posted by Micha at May 4, 2006 06:34 AM
Thanks. I’ll take a look.
Thank you! 🙂
Micha, I can agree with you except for one small detail. Afghanistan did NOT attack the US. They sheltered the top cadre of Al Quada.
The Taliban demanded evidence of their “guests” complicity in the 9?11 attacks. The evidence, however, was in videos released by Al Quada immediately after the attacks.
As for America following a policy of “toppling dictatorships”. That is a valid question. The first question has to be if the current US administration is going to have one definition for “dictatorship”, or if the word will be a term of convenience for going after any government that W and his cowboys find problematic.
As for spreading democracy, does that include any government not living up to the ideals of Jeffersonian democracy, or only those that are not “cooperative” to US interests?
It should be remembered that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.A lot of it depends on which end of the economic pile you’re on.
It should be remembered that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.
Yeah, if the other man is also a terrorist. What “freedom” does Bin Laden fight for, save the freedom to impose his intolerant brand of Islam on people who don’t want it?
“A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right.”
Thomas Paine
The first question has to be if the current US administration is going to have one definition for “dictatorship”, or if the word will be a term of convenience for going after any government that W and his cowboys find problematic.
Taking into consideration the Bush Administration’s ‘liberal’ definition of “terrorist”, I’d say it’s the latter when it comes to dictatorships as well, rather than the former.
Bill, what Bin Laden offered was terrorism to you and me, but to millions of people living in dictatorships tolerated by the world in exchange for keeping oil flowing, and to millions of Palestinians fed a steady diet of “Israel bad, America Israel’s friend and protector,therefore America bad”, he offered to punch the big bad west in the nose.
“The War on Terror” is a failure from get go. You can bomb the living šhìŧ out of every sponsor of terror around, but as long as the industrialised world continues to tolerate despots, dictators, and “reformers” people like Bin Laden and his reprehensible ilk will always have willing volunteers.
Sad but true.
“It should be remembered that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”
This is a common misconception. It would be useful if people are able to distinguish between method (terrorism) and purpose (to liberate to oppresse etc.) a terrorist is a person who deliberatly targets civilians in order to achieve a psychological effect — to terrorize the civilans into compliance with his desires, whatever they may be. A freedom fighter may use terror or not. People who believe that the ends justify the means, and support his bid for freedom, may also support his methods. Others, who dislike the method might wish to see the use of terrorisnm stoped even if they do not oppose the objectives of every organization that has used terror.
It isd necessary to distinguish between trying to stamp out the technique of terrorism, and the war against a specific ideology represented by Al-Quaida.
The popularity of Bin-Laden in the Islamic world has various reasons, some but not all of them are economic.
Muslim support for Bin Laden reflects not only there economic and cultural discontent, but also their belief that terrorism is an acceptable method.
“”The War on Terror” is a failure from get go. You can bomb the living šhìŧ out of every sponsor of terror around, but as long as the industrialised world continues to tolerate despots, dictators, and “reformers” people like Bin Laden and his reprehensible ilk will always have willing volunteers.”
Governments should try to make the world better, but it also has an immediate responsibilty to protect its citizens. The fact that the world has despots does not absolve governments from using force to protect themselves from the immediate threat. Military force is not a magical cure to the problems of terrorism, but it has its uses. Underestimating its role is as bad as overestimating it.
The problem of dealing with tyrany in the world is where we started. To attack all despots is impossible. To ignore all is equaly bad. Trying to remove them constitutes interference in the affairs of a different countries, to do business with constitutes support, sanctions cause more harm to the subjugated citizens. Both the left and the right have been guilty of ignoring tyranny if it waved the right flag — the left liked Castro, the right Pinosche, the left like the North Vietnamese, the right liked the South. The first stage should be being against tyranny as a matter of principle, and then deal with each case according to specific conditions.
Considering BIn Ladens involvement in Afganistan’s government it is reasonable to say that Afganistan attacked the US. Or you could say that the US did not attack Afganistan but helped forces in Afganistan fight the Taliban. It’s semantics. In any case, attacking a direct threat by an enemy, when a peaceful alternative is unavailable, is quite reasonable.
In short, being a freedopm fighter and being a terrorist are not mutally exclusive, but not every person fighting for freedom uses terrorism, and not all terrorists are freedom fighters. If fear is the enemy of freedom than perhaps none are.
Bib-Laden’s goals do not seem to directed towards freedom of any kind. The fact that some Muslims feeling downtrodden are cheered up by his deeds does not change that.
Bill, what Bin Laden offered was terrorism to you and me, but to millions of people living in dictatorships tolerated by the world in exchange for keeping oil flowing, and to millions of Palestinians fed a steady diet of “Israel bad, America Israel’s friend and protector,therefore America bad”, he offered to punch the big bad west in the nose.
And this makes him a “freedom fighter” exactly how?
The fact that people fed a steady diet of lies and hate may end up with ideas that have no basis in reality is…interesting, I guess but hardly relevant to the decisions we have to make.
But I have some sympathy with your greater point–my question to you is how exactly we stop “tolerating” the dictatorships. And would action against Iran, Syria, Cuba, etc really reduce hostility against the USA? Taking out Saddam didn’t exactly bring the love.
Micha, the freedom Bin Laden offers is, and I’m only ghuessing here, the freedom from what he sees as the “corrupting influence” of the west.
View Islam through the lens of history. As an organized religion, Islam is barely into it’s first millenium. Imagine Christian Europe of the first millenium AD with cable, internet, C4, and all the stuff that makes war such a thrill. And don’t forget the Inquisition (starring Torquemada and Simon Cowell).
Bill, people being fed a “steady diet od lies and hate” is absolutely relevant to their daily decisions. Lies and hate are, unfortunately, information. Information is the start of the decision process. If the process starts with bad info, either of the “Big Lie” type, an honest mistake, or somewhere in between, the ends will always be corrupt.
“Taking out Saddam” is a prime example. Whether the whole WMD line was intentional falsehood, or just bad intel, look at the outcome.
To stop tolerating dictatorships, let’s look at the various types. Start with the drug financed dictatorships. For “soft” drugs like grass, legalize it, tax it, reap the rewards by re-allocating resources to fighting meth, crack, and the other heavy hitters.
For the former colonial bully boys in Africa, stop the habit of sending money and aid to everyone fighting a Leftist/Rightist/Maoist/Al Quada/Whatever backed insurgency. Find out if the insurgency, regardless of political affiliation, has an actual, real live, justifiable grudge. Remember, for a short time, Fidel Castro was feted as a hero in the US.
As for the oil backed dictatorships, get the world of the oil monkey. Since the US is the single largest petroleum consumer in the world, explain to W how getting the US off oil is patriotic. Make it clear that he cannot drill his way out of this. Make development of alternate power an issue. Don’t get side tracked by Gay Marriage/Intelligent Design/Stem cell research or anything else. Use small words.
A caveat, however. DO NOT tie this into environmental issues. W is not an environmental president. For the Love of Zott, keep Kyoto out of it. That just gets Sureshot and the Halliburton boys riled up.
Micha — as always your perspective is well-informed, insightful and enlightening.
Mulligan — I was not familiar with the quote from Thomas Paine, but it’s dead on in this context. Thank you for sharing it.
According to an AP/Ipsos poll:
Forty-five percent of self-described conservatives now disapprove of the president … A whopping 65 percent of conservatives disapprove of Congress … Even 31 percent of conservatives want Republicans out of power.
Daaaym!
“To stop tolerating dictatorships, let’s look at the various types. Start with the drug financed dictatorships. For “soft” drugs like grass, legalize it, tax it, reap the rewards by re-allocating resources to fighting meth, crack, and the other heavy hitters.
For the former colonial bully boys in Africa, stop the habit of sending money and aid to everyone fighting a Leftist/Rightist/Maoist/Al Quada/Whatever backed insurgency. Find out if the insurgency, regardless of political affiliation, has an actual, real live, justifiable grudge. Remember, for a short time, Fidel Castro was feted as a hero in the US.
As for the oil backed dictatorships, get the world of the oil monkey. Since the US is the single largest petroleum consumer in the world, explain to W how getting the US off oil is patriotic. Make it clear that he cannot drill his way out of this. Make development of alternate power an issue. Don’t get side tracked by Gay Marriage/Intelligent Design/Stem cell research or anything else. Use small words.”
I completely agree.
“Micha, the freedom Bin Laden offers is, and I’m only ghuessing here, the freedom from what he sees as the “corrupting influence” of the west.
View Islam through the lens of history. As an organized religion, Islam is barely into it’s first millenium. Imagine Christian Europe of the first millenium AD with cable, internet, C4, and all the stuff that makes war such a thrill. And don’t forget the Inquisition (starring Torquemada and Simon Cowell).
Bill, people being fed a “steady diet od lies and hate” is absolutely relevant to their daily decisions. Lies and hate are, unfortunately, information. Information is the start of the decision process. If the process starts with bad info, either of the “Big Lie” type, an honest mistake, or somewhere in between, the ends will always be corrupt.”
Understanding different points of view and the way public perceptions and motivations are formed is very important. If you want to learn about the points of view of radical Islam I highly recommend a historian named Imanuel Sivan. However, this does not mean we have to subscribe to moral relativism, not concerning the methods used nor the objectives.
For example, I support the end of the occupation of the Paletinians in the West Bank, so, in a sense, you could say I agree with the goal of freedom for the Palestinians, which is also pursued by the Fatah. However, I believe killing innocent civilians for no other purpose than to terrorize should not be considered moral no matter the goal pursued. So the fatah may be considered freedom fighters (although I’m not a big fan of the term), but by the methods they used they have also made themselves terrorists. I do not believe there is anything relative or ambiguous about that.
I do not subscribe to the theory that the age of the religion some how causes it to behave in a certain way. The muslim world is in turmoil for various reasons. Understanding them is important, as underrstanding climatic changes is. But when a hurricane is coming the primary goal is to protect the people.
Radical Islamism perceives the secular Islamic world to have resulted to a pre-muslim idolatry as a result of western culture. They perceive the west to be invaders like the mongols in the 13th century.
Bill Myers, thanks.
Bill Mulligan, not all of the things said against the US are lies. It has been guilty of some atrocious behavior (more in South America than the middle east), in support of tyranny. However, this does not excuse 9/11 or the goals of radical Islamism, nor does it mean that the US should not protect itself the real threat posed by radical Islamism. Like I said to somebody else, the war against Nazism was waged by a communist dictator, a colonial power, and a country that still segregated blacks, but it was still a necessary war.
Mu suggestion about how to deal with tyranny in the world: take a map, stick pins in problem areas, an d next to each pin draw a table with the following rubics — military, diplomatic, economic, cultural, political. And then start filling in what needs to be done in aspect of the problem. Understand the complexity of the problems and apply complex solutions.
Man, this is one of the best discussions I’ve ever seen.
Micha, you raise some really great points, as has been said above. You also touch on a big part of the problem. Understanding is at the heart of the matter, especially different points of view. That’s something that most people in this country, Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative, whatever, need a LOT of practice in. Case in point, the Natalie Hollaway case. Granted, I’m a dad, so I can understand the anguish, but Aruba is NOT AMERICA. Expecting the Aruban authorities to act like NYPD Blue or the FBI isn’t just innapropriate, it’s ignorant and rude. So, when people in the Middle East want us out and eliminated, before the attacks of September 2001, (sorry, referring to it as simply “9-11” is a pet peave) a lot of Americans (myself SO included) thought the rest of the world wanted to be, well, like us. I personally think we got it pretty good, meself. But the rest of the world can think what it wants, ain’t much I can do about it. People say they understand the difference between people, but most people they know, as was pointed out by Bill Myers above, are usually pretty close to their own situation. Try understanding someone who’s views are diametrically opposed to your own before you calim to understand people. Case in point, a lot of Iraqis have it better than they did three years ago, but then THEY KNEW WHO THE BAD GUYS WERE, AND WHERE THEY WERE. Now, they’re hiding and coming out of every corner. Are the Iraqis REALLLY better off? Now, I was against the war in Iraq from the start, but now I support it. Not because I think it’s a good idea, but we started it, we dámņ well better finish it right.
“I do not subscribe to the theory that the age of the religion some how causes it to behave in a certain way.”
Micha, let’s view religions as living, breathing things that grow and mature with time. My analogy to first mellenium Christianity was in how seriously adherents to the religion took their faith, and the extreme acts that were undertaken in “defense” of the Faith.
A religion cannot behave in a certain way, but it’s followers can. Of the three major monotheistic faiths, Judaism is the oldest. Most Jewish people I have encountered are able to grasp the concept that their faith is not for everyone. Christians, next in line, are tolerant of other faiths, but the religion itself makes spreading the word part of religious duty. Islam is the youngest of the three. This leads to a tendancy of sensitivity to slight on the part of many followers. That Islam is the state religion in most of the oil dictatorships is just a bonus.
That is not a criticism of Islam as a path, but rather an obvservation. Historically, all three faiths went through their own periods of aggressive expansion, repression of older faiths, and/or zealous intolerance of even the slightest insult to “the One True Path”.
Intentional targetting and killing of civilians in order to inspire fear, I agree is unacceptable. However, to a person who may have tried every other peaceful means to solve the problem…well, desperate times lead to desperate measures, and unacceptable conditions may lead to…unacceptable measures.
I am not justifying terrorism, I am trying to put a perspective on things. I doubt any of us have lived our lives under repressive regimes where the type of debate we are enjoying would be allowed to carry on in the open.
For a tired peasant farmer/labourer/miner watching His Nibs the Chosen Son of God roll by in a Jag while his own children starve, all because, in his perception, the Big Bad (Place whatever industry/country/organization works for you here) is giving H.N.T.C.S.G billions to keep a lid on things, targetting discretion may be secondary to just Doing Something.
Bid Laden and his type tell our peasant that he will strike back for him. Then, says O.b.L, if you want an express packge deal to Paradise, well I can hook you up. All you gotta do is…For all we know, Osama may even believe it.
Moral relativism is exactly what we do. No matter how hard we try, we cannot wrap our heads around the concept of flying fully loaded planes into buildings, or of being so desperate, devout, or angry, that it’s even an option.We are viewing the debate from the standpoint of a wellfed, relatively tolerant, free population.
Islam is made up of individuals. The small minority subscribe to the radical Islam of Bin Laden et.al. It’s just that they’re the ones getting all the attention.
Wait, conservatives are more upset with Congress than Bush? Are those poll numbers correct?
Micha, would that the leaders of the world were as wise and well-reasoned as you.
Micha, would that all of the leaders of the world were as wise and well-reasoned as you.
I have no idea why my last post appeared twice — or why one version was slightly different from the other. Scary.
Still, it was worth saying twice, because I meant it.
Wait, conservatives are more upset with Congress than Bush? Are those poll numbers correct?
Why not? What have they done–other than comepletely blur the differences between the parties by spending money like they earned it. A Democratic takeover, while bad from our point of view in the short run, might wake up the GOP, which would be better in the long run. If both parties are going to be spending money like crazy we might as well let the Democrats do it–they have the experience.
Bill, thanks for the kind words.
Manny, here is a long reply.
The reasons for for the behavior of the three religions in given points in history has to do with a variety of specific historical factors and features of the religion, not the age. Judaism tolerates other religions because, unlike Christianity, Judaism assumes that its religion is a message given to a specific people who have a unique task in the world. The term “a nation of priests” is sometimes used, a people who convert to Judaism essenttially join a nation or a tribe (it happened sometimes). Add to this the difficult circumstances of Judaism for long periods of time to understand why Judaism seems more tolerant. Which does not mean that even today you cannot find intolerance of the worst kind among Jews.
The image of the missionary converting people by spreading the word has been a feature of christianity since its beginnings. Incidently, tIslam is roughly 1400 years old. The acquivalent time in Christiany was characterized by internal wars among Christians.
The sensativity of muslims has more to do with concepts of personal pride + the sense that the religion does not get the respect it should. About a year ago a riot ensued in an Israeli arab village when a rumor was spread that a Christian (arab) has nude pictures of Druze girls. The Druze religion has no converts. It has always been a small minority, and it is very enclosed. But they share some cultural features with otherr arabs. Later the Druzed and Christians of the village made peace with each other in the traditional way, which is not to say that there are no arab scientists, computer experts and academics in Israel.
Radical Islam is a reaction to the changes caused by the modern world to Islamic society.
“Moral relativism is exactly what we do. No matter how hard we try, we cannot wrap our heads around the concept of flying fully loaded planes into buildings, or of being so desperate, devout, or angry, that it’s even an option.We are viewing the debate from the standpoint of a wellfed, relatively tolerant, free population.”
Not really. The idea of sacrificing oneself in the service of tur nation, as well as the idea of using violence in its service, even against civilians, are not alien to us at all. Nor are emotions like anger. Americans have sent pilots on dangerous missions that involved bombing civilians not so long ago. However, if we are a society that believes in humanistic values, we should consider killing of civilians wrong.
“Intentional targetting and killing of civilians in order to inspire fear, I agree is unacceptable. However, to a person who may have tried every other peaceful means to solve the problem…well, desperate times lead to desperate measures, and unacceptable conditions may lead to…unacceptable measures.”
People who use terrorism seldom have gone through a list of other peaceful methods before hand. They use it because it is considered an acceptable and effective tool. Terrorism has been in vogue for a long time, especially in the Muslim world.
Nor is their feeling of rightousnes or desperation come from objective conditions such as staarvation and poverty. The Islamic terrorists are not starving peasants, they are educated people, often well to do economically, reacting to the feeling that their society/religion is humiliated. The best comparison would be the kids from Colombine. On the other hand starving people in Africa, and South Americans who were really downtrodden by Americans have not reacted in the same way as the Islamic world.
“I doubt any of us have lived our lives under repressive regimes where the type of debate we are enjoying would be allowed to carry on in the open.”
I live in a country that represses the Palestinians — Israel. Palestinian terrorists are not starving, nor is lack of freedom of speech an issue. Their use of violence has more to do with humiliation over treatment in roadblocks, indignation over the loss of land, desire for revenge over the loss of relatives, and despair with the conduct of the political systems, as well as their belief that terrorism is a legitimate tool. It is not difficult for them to convince themselves that (a) all Israelis are enemies (b) Israel is as creless of civilian life (c) their society has the concept of bloodfeud which involves killing civilians (d) they are angry (e) terrorism has worked in Algeria against the French and in Vietnam.
“Islam is made up of individuals. The small minority subscribe to the radical Islam of Bin Laden et.al. It’s just that they’re the ones getting all the attention.”
The actual radicals are a minority. The terrorists are an even smaller minority. But the important thing is that the message of radical Islam appeal to many Muslims, they touch on their religious, cultural, and political, preconceptions.
Another comparison to the state of mind that produces terrorism is the one of gang members.
Countries want to be like America in some senses while at the same time resenting the overwhelming power of American culture, economy and diplomacy. This sense of resentment can draw people to radical politics.
Similar resentment towards American culture has pushed American themselves to the extreme religious right or to the counterculture in the 60’s.
Micha, you’re still allowed to say you are being repressed. My image was one possibility.
At 1400 years of age, Christianity was divided by internal divisions, true, but I was talking about attitudes. In the 15th century, the church did not suffer any questioning of it’s authority quietly.
What one person sees as the way it is, another sees as a clarion call to battle. It doesn’t have to be starvation, it can be one’s religion “not getting the respect it should”. In the fifties Honduras and Guatemala went to war over a soccer game.
As for America sending pilots on missions targetting civilians. The pilots had a pretty good chance of coming back. These were not one way missions. Secondly, the civilians were (hopefully) not the intended targets.
I can agree that radical Islam is a reaction to a changing world. Whether or not having their own “homeland” will reduce tensions remains to be seen, but the current Israeli PM seems at kleast to want to try. Radical Islam, however finds the very existense of a Jewish state intolerable. This despite the Quran’s acknowledgement of the Jewish people as “people of the Book.” If the new Palestinian state makes peace with Israel, how do you think Al Quada will respond?
At the end of the day, I think, terrorists are driven by anger and fear. Just my lowly opinion.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at May 6, 2006 07:27 AM
If both parties are going to be spending money like crazy we might as well let the Democrats do it–they have the experience.
C’mon, Bill, be fair. Ronald Reagan, a Republican, spent like a drunken sailor and ran up a staggering deficit. Bill Clinton, a Democrat, managed to balance the budget.
To be fair, I understand that Reagan was trying to break the back of the Soviet Union (and I emphasize the word “trying,” because I think there is room for debate about whether or not Reagan was necessarily the primary force that led to the U.S.S.R.’s collapse), and Clinton had ášš-loads of tax revenue coming in from an overheated and overinflated stock market. Nevertheless, the idea that the GOP is the more fiscally responsible party is merely an afterimage from a time when that may have been true. The Elephants now have plenty of experience spending like there’s no tomorrow.
Don’t make me send Paul Begala and his army of Living Lawn Gnomes after you.
Manny wrote:
“As for America sending pilots on missions targetting civilians. The pilots had a pretty good chance of coming back. These were not one way missions. Secondly, the civilians were (hopefully) not the intended targets.”
Sadly both sides in WW2 tried to break the the “spirit” of the enemy with civilian bombing. On our side, Dresden springs to mind, and the A-bombs weren’t really targeting military capabilities.
“Whether or not having their own “homeland” will reduce tensions remains to be seen”
This addresses the problem between the Israelis and the Palestinians, not the global struggle between radical Islam and the west. Even the Hamas doesn’t want to be involved in the greater war of Al-Quida, but only in its own local conflict. However, if the Palestinians establish an indepenent state and stop fighting Israel, Al-Quida will have a harder time making it part of their propaganda.
Nevertheless, they will probably try to take on the slack and continue attacks against Israel, as well as cooperating with local Palestinian opposition groups in order to keep the issue alive. In a sense they are already doing it. Al-Quida is a parazite that attaches itself to local confllcts involving Muslims. At he moment the Hamas is not attacking Israel, but the Iranian backed Islamic Jihad does. I don’t know if they will oppose the Palestinian government the way they do other arab governments. They may attack targets in the Palestinian state the way they did in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Bali.
On the local front, the optimists believe that a Palestinian state wil reduce tensions and terrorism from the Palestinians against Israel. The pessimists who neverthelesss support withdrawl believe that tensions will continue, but that Israel should get out, have a big fence protecting us from Palestinian terrorism, and react with force to attacks if they come. I believe that tensions will be reduced but that some terrorism will continue.
“but the current Israeli PM seems at least to want to try.”
The current prime minister is a pessimist who believes that withdrawl is necessary but peace is not likely to be achieved. Although he is wiling to withdraw from some of the territories, and to accept the establishment of a Palestinian state, what he is willing to offer is less than even the nmoderate palestinians can accepts. It is unclear at the moment whether even the moderate Palestinians are wiling or able to make an offer even the moderate Israelis can accept (except those Israelis who themselves do not support the existence of Israel as a Jewish state). The frustrating thing about this conflict is that although the Palestinians and Israelis have come close to to offering terms mutually acceptable, they have not come close enough.
“Radical Islam, however finds the very existense of a Jewish state intolerable. This despite the Quran’s acknowledgement of the Jewish people as “people of the Book.”
The Islamists and Pan-arabists and Palestiniamn-nationalists and communists are wiling to accept Jews as a tolerated minority (which does not mean there is no prejudice against Jews). However, the idea of a Jewish state, especially on what it perceived to be Muslim/Arab/Palestinian land is something they cannot really accept. The moderates don’t accept its legitimacy, but reluctantly accept its existance. The extremists want to continue fighting until all the Muslim/Arab/Palestinian land is restored. So some of the Palestinian nationalists were wiling to consider peace with Israel. For the Islamists things are more difficult because, for religious reasons, they cannot give up the fight against non-believers (Jews or Christians). What they can do is make a temporary truce. Some Hamas leaders have spoken of a truce for complete Israeli withdrawl. Similarly, Bin Laden has spoken of a truce in exchange for withdrawl from Iraq, although as a matter of principle he cannot make peace until the whole woorld is Muslim. The difference is thathe Hamas is a local organisation represting a people and Al-Quida is an international organization representing nobody.
“As for America sending pilots on missions targetting civilians. The pilots had a pretty good chance of coming back. These were not one way missions. Secondly, the civilians were (hopefully) not the intended targets.
Sadly both sides in WW2 tried to break the the “spirit” of the enemy with civilian bombing. On our side, Dresden springs to mind, and the A-bombs weren’t really targeting military capabilities.”
I do not want to equate between Islamic terrorists and the Americans, just to show that the motivations are not ones alien to us. In WWII the allies made a conscious choice to attack civilians. Today the Americans don’t deliberatly attack civilians, but collateral damage occurs, perhaps all too often. This is also true of Israel. I suspect that the Muslims interpret these civilian casualties as deliberate targets, partially because they themselves do not make the distinction. I do think Israel should be more careful about Palestinian civilian life than it has.
Don’t make me send Paul Begala and his army of Living Lawn Gnomes after you.
I yield!
Micha wrote:
“Today the Americans don’t deliberatly attack civilians, but collateral damage occurs”
Collateral damage, my favorite euphemism.