A Game Of Inches

Comments

1. Michael Herdegen - June 28, 2006 @ 2:35 am

   The Congress recently refused to increase the Federal minimum wage…
   If the minimum wage from 1968 had been merely adjusted for inflation, it would stand today at $9.09.

   Which tells us that the Federal minimum wage was too high in ’68.

   States and cities are free to set their own, higher, minimum wages, and many have done so. It’s simply not a national issue – if many people cared, it would already have been raised. It’s a local issue.

   The Bush administration and the Republican controlled House and Senate sold America sham Medicare reform legislation [that] guarantees unconscionable enrichment of the already obscenely wealthy pharmeceutical industry for decades to come.

   No, a massive population of rapidly-aging Boomers does the guaranteeing.
   The Medicare drug benefit merely changes from whom the obscenely wealthy pharmaceutical industry will receive their unconscionable enrichment.

   If the government didn’t pay, then insurance companies would, and we’d pay higher premiums instead of higher taxes.

   But, since higher insurance premiums would lead to more uninsured people, it surprises me that you champion insurance companies over Medicare. I agree with you on this one.

   The Bush administration and the Republican controlled House and Senate have presided over a 200% rise in the price of unleaded gasoline, a 120% rise in the price of heating oil, and an over 300% rise in the price of crude oil since 2001.

   What exactly was the President and Congress supposed to have done ?
   Price caps? Nationalize the oil companies?

   Please note that the price of crude oil is not set in America, nor by politicians, but by oil producing nations and businesses, in a global market.
   The price of oil and gasoline also rose substantially in China and Europe, and nearly everywhere else – was that too the fault of Bush the Godlike ?

   The President proposed, and the Congress awarded, in energy legislation passed last year, over $2 Billion in tax breaks and incentives to the nation’s major oil companies.

   Could that be because America needs more oil, and the nation’s major oil companies are the ones that explore for, and develop, new sources of oil ?
   Please note that every American industry that produces something vital and scarce gets tax breaks and incentives.

   The Bush administration and the Republican controlled House and Senate have engineered an economy [that pays] the vast majority of its participants less [than it used to].

   That’s completely wrong and untrue, as we’ve discussed many times.

   You can take my word for it, or I can give you the “blizzard of statistics” that you so love.
   Bottom line: Adjusted for inflation, every cohort of workers in America, from the lowest fifth to the highest, makes more than they did in ’72.

   Now, the top three cohorts have improved much more dramatically than have the bottom two, so if you want a legitimate gripe, that’s something that you can complain about – although there is an explanation for the disparity, one that’s both simple and complex, individual and structural, and it boils down to: “human nature”.
   Good luck changing that.

2. Butler Crittenden - June 28, 2006 @ 9:57 am

   Lonnie, as usual you are both articulate and gentle. The RumpUglies are a gang of liars and cheats who will never state the facts correctly, nor stop pandering to their “base,” one of whom loves to torture you with baloney like that above, which is mere argument by assertion of false statments. I fear that we’re doomed, as reason, logic, facts, and human values have ZERO meaning for these cretins.

3. Michael Herdegen - June 28, 2006 @ 10:51 am

   …mere argument by assertion of false statments.

   False statements like old people use more drugs, and we’re going to have more old people in the coming decades ?
   Like oil prices aren’t set in America ?
   Like states and cities are free to set their own minimum wages ?
   Like few people care about the national minimum wage ?
   Like every American industry that produces something vital and scarce gets tax breaks and incentives ?
   Like adjusted for inflation, every cohort of workers in America, from the lowest fifth to the highest, makes more than they did in ‘72 ?
   Like the top three cohorts have improved much more dramatically than have the bottom two ?

   Oh, wait, those statements are the opposite of false, and have reams of supporting documentation.
   My bad.

   …reason, logic, facts, and human values have ZERO meaning for these cretins.

   We cretins certainly appreciate examples of reason, logic, or facts, but unfortunately you didn’t supply any…
   Leaving your post with ZERO meaning.

   But, you did give us multiple examples of ad hominem, and that’s the highest form of reasoned argument, and promotes human values and enlightenment, no ?
   Good job !!

   Here is where I did go wrong:

   What exactly was the President and Congress supposed to have done ?

   It occurred to me, just now, that Congress actually has raised the global price of oil somewhat, by restricting the supply.
   My earlier assertion that there’s not much that they could have done wasn’t completely accurate: Congress could easily have allowed drilling in ANWR, and thereby added ten billion barrels of premium crude to the world’s supply, lowering global prices slightly.

   So, to the extent that lonbud was suggesting that the Republican-controlled Congress was to blame for high oil prices, by not allowing drilling in ANWR, and by arbitrarily restricting oil production in America, I agree with him.

4. Tam O’Tellico - June 29, 2006 @ 6:38 am

   As usual, Michael tries to disguise the ugly truth behind a gross generalization. Well, let’s look at the facts.

   It is not true that few people care about the minimum wage. According to the Christian Science Monitor, more than 8,000,000 people in America earn less than $7.25 an hour. That is not “a few people”, and I’m sure each and every one of them cares about the minimum wage. What is true in the political calculation of Michael and those whose religion is “Free-Market Capitalism” is that people who work for low wages tend not to vote. And who can blame them since they tend not to be represented regardless of who wins?

   And even more important to their lack of political power in what is increasingly becoming an Unrepresentative Democracy is that they don’t make large campaign contributions or offer bribes thru dummy “charitable” organizations like the Committee for Republican Environmental Action. As the lawyers will tell you, if you want to catch a crook, follow the money.

   But that doesn’t begin to describe the reality of the situation, since there are millions of undocumented workers in our country who toil for substandard wages under pitiful conditions while our “representatives” take bribes to look the other way. How is it possible that only five companies were fined last year for employing illegals?

   The plain truth is the same people who are downsizing and outsourcing some of are best-paying jobs are painfully aware that most of the worst jobs in this country can’t be outsourced. Thus they bribe their bought-boys to turn a blind-eye to illegal immigration and deplorable working conditions. Check out the Marrianna Islands fiasco for one grievous example of how all this works.

   What is most curious to me is that Michael can’t seem to draw the proper conclusion from his own citations. If there is, as he admits, a growing disparity in the “cohorts” isn’t it self-evident that the benefits derived from the economic engine of our “free-market economy” are becoming less and less fairly divided?

   I can only assume that Michael feels he has already answered that question with this lame excuse:

   M: “there is an explanation for the disparity, one that’s both simple and complex, individual and structural, and it boils down to “human nature”. Good luck changing that.”

   That’s a specious argument, and Michael damn well knows it. The very purpose of government is to act as a mitigating force against the greedy and violent aspects of human nature. I’ve quoted a true Conservative, Thomas Hobbes, here many times. The reason for government is that every man must eventually sleep.

   I’m afraid Michael’s gross generalization about human nature says more about him than about human nature. Yes, humans engage in all manner of destructive and greedy, self-serving behavior. But we also know that some humans routinely engage in behavior that is generous and self-sacrificing. Do I need to mention Gandhi and Mother Theresa and Martin Luther King and the millions of young men who have died so that robber barons could profit from war? And to be fair, do I need to mention two men I’m sure are Michael’s heroes – Bill Gates and Warren Buffet?

   Would that more “capitalists” were so enlightened. Instead, most have crowded up to the trough and bribed their way to huge tax cuts, while those who grant such largess spout nonsense about “doing everything in our power to win the battle in this Post 9-11 World”. Please explain tax cuts for the rich in light of inadequate body armor for our troops. Please explain why these stalwart defenders and spreaders of democracy decided to try and do so on the cheap? (For the gruesome consequences of this criminality, see PFC John Hart and tens of thousands of others killed and maimed).

   Fact is, Donald Rumsfeld is even worse at war than Robert McNamara. Fact is, what this administration means to say is that we will win this war at all costs – as long as those costs don’t fall on rich folks or their sons and daughters.

   We are witnessing a perversion of all we claim to hold dear. Instead of protecting our soldiers, and those in our country who are least among us – as by the way, Christ would have us do – we have a government that believes its bounden duty is to grease the tracks so the engine of the military-industrial complex can roll over all who dare to get in its way.

   Good government is supposed to act in precisely the opposite way; it is there to protect the rights of those who don’t own the railroad. I say it’s way past time we changed engineers.

5. Michael Herdegen - June 29, 2006 @ 10:37 pm

   Hey, some facts, and analyses !
   Very nice to see.

   …more than 8,000,000 people in America earn less than $7.25 an hour. That is not “a few people”, and I’m sure each and every one of them cares about the minimum wage.

   The American labor force numbers around 150MM, and therefore 8MM is only about 5% of the labor force. I assert that one out of twenty is relatively “few”.

   According to The Christian Science Monitor, 52% of those earning $ 7.25 or less are under the age of 25. In other words, although they would no doubt enjoy getting a raise, most of those earning less than $ 7.25 are just starting their careers, and expect to be earning more in the future.
   Those people aren’t going to change their votes based on whether Congress raises the minimum wage or not, or go attend rallies and write their Congresspeople to demand that the Federal minimum wage be raised, and therefore we can say that they “don’t care” about the issue.

   To clarify my position, I don’t care if Congress raises the Federal minimum wage to $ 10/hr – I merely point out that they won’t, and not enough people care about this issue to force them to do so.
   It’s rather moot anyhow, since we’re facing a labor shortage in America, and in twenty years only 2% – 3% of the labor force will be earning the minimum, whatever it will be.

   …people who work for low wages tend not to vote.

   People who don’t vote aren’t entitled to complain about politics or policy.
   Ya gotta pay to play, and the cost of political participation is casting a vote.

   …there are millions of undocumented workers in our country who toil for substandard wages under pitiful conditions…

   And yet, they don’t go back to wherever they came from, and millions more like them come to the U.S. every year.
   Obviously, what middle-class America considers “substandard” and “pitiful”, they find to be better than whatever they left.

   That’s been true for as long as people have been emigrating to North America.
   Does anyone think that 19th century immigrants had it any easier than do today’s immigrants ?

   Please explain tax cuts for the rich in light of inadequate body armor for our troops.

   Because the supply of body armor wasn’t an issue of money, but of production capacity, so there is no link between those two issues.

   Before the war, we were only spending X amount on procuring body armor, so the few companies that produce such only built facilities to build the amount that X purchased.
   Once the war produced a huge spike in demand for body armor, the companies that build body armor immediately began to expand their production facilities, and other companies got into the business of building body armor.
   Same thing happened with vehicle armor.

   However, expanding production facilities to build body armor proved to be difficult, and there were delays. These were technical problems, not lack of funding.
   One can’t just wave a magic wand, and “bibbity-bobbety-bo” armor into existence.

   Now all production lines are humming, and deployed forces have all of the armor that they need, and next-gen stuff too.

   If there is, as he admits, a growing disparity in the “cohorts” isn’t it self-evident that the benefits derived from the economic engine of our “free-market economy” are becoming less and less fairly divided?

   Not at all.
   What it does mean is that those who work are making more than ever, and those who do not work are getting only a little more than they used to.

   In other words, productive people are being richly rewarded, and unproductive people still receive subsistence levels of support. The growing disparity is proof that things are better than ever – the incomes of workers are growing faster than is the cost of living.

   According to the U.S. Census Bureau, among households headed by people who worked full-time for 27 weeks or more per year, 87% had incomes between $ 18,500 and $ 157,000, a disparity of only 8.5:1.
   Only 6% of such households had incomes that were below $ 18,500 per year, and fully a third of those were headed by a person aged 24 or less – in other words, exactly what we might expect, young people just starting their careers earn less than middle-aged people who have been in the work force for decades.

   M: “there is an explanation for the disparity… “human nature”. Good luck changing that.”
   That’s a specious argument, and Michael damn well knows it.

   Indeed ?
   You yourself say that : [H]umans engage in all manner of destructive and greedy, self-serving behavior.

   If one will not or cannot get an education, and if one will not or cannot work full-time, if one is addicted to something, then one will receive subsistence support – enough to keep body and soul together, but not enough to live a middle class lifestyle.

   If the cost of a subsistence lifestyle doesn’t much change, and meanwhile people with education or job training are getting paid more and more to work full-time, then it will certainly appear that the unproductive are “falling behind” – but in truth, they’re merely failing to advance.

   The very purpose of government is to act as a mitigating force against the greedy and violent aspects of human nature.

   Are you then advocating that we force people into rehab, that we force them to become educated, that we force them to work full-time ??

   If not, then how exactly do you propose to stop people from making self-destructive choices ?

   The bottom line is that anyone who works full-time, even for the Federal minimum wage, (and very few people who work full-time earn the minimum wage; more than half of those 8MM people earning $ 7.25/hr or less are working part-time, see the Census Bureau link), anyone in America who works full-time can get by, and have a reasonable chance of advancing to higher pay – even illegals work their way up.

6. Tam O’Tellico - July 1, 2006 @ 4:22 pm

   http://filmstripinternational.com/filmstrips.php?filmstrip=election

7. Tam O’Tellico - July 3, 2006 @ 8:37 pm

   Once again, Michael, you conveniently ignore the argument and concentrate on what you choose to believe: that all human beings are greedy bastards period. Perhaps you do so because it provides you with cover, with justification for your own behavior.

   No, I don’t know you or know anything in particular about your behavior for a fact. But given your tooth and claw vision of the world, and your continual defense of the worst inclinations of humankind, you leave a body little alternative but to assume the worst about you as well.

   Furthermore, you ducked the argument that a primary purpose of government is to mitigate against greedy behavior. Instead, you turned my words into an attack on the weakest among us – the ignorant and the addicted – continuing your fantastical argument that the poor are poor only because they choose to be. Simple arithmetic ought to make it plain that not everyone can be a Lee Raymond, no matter how hard they may try.

   Where is your outrage at the hogs at the trough, the prevaricators in the
   White House, and the K-Street Kriminals. Do you truly believe that Tom DeLay and Duke Cunningham and Jack Abramoff have done no wrong? Can you not see that they and their kind have harmed this nation at least as much as the terrorists? Could you at least admit that they have caused greater monetary damages to the country? Proably not, because it appears that you don’t understand that the unfettered pursuit of power and possessions is every bit as addictive as crack cocaine.

   Once again, your perverse perception of people and goverment leads one to the logical conclusion that what you really desire is an excuse for self-indulgence. I hear in your arguments the same off-key, off-color whine of many in govt and big business:

   “I don’t make the rules; I just take advantage of them” and “Everybody’s doing it – after all, its’ human nature.”

   Well, I’ll give you Hobbes again: “Every man must sleep.” I wonder if you and your ilk sleep as well as you eat.

8. Michael Herdegen - July 4, 2006 @ 5:35 am

   Furthermore, you ducked the argument that a primary purpose of government is to mitigate against greedy behavior.

   Perhaps you should explain what you believe can and should be done, instead of simply writing homilies.

   …continuing your fantastical argument that the poor are poor only because they choose to be.

   You said that yourself: “humans engage in all manner of destructive […] behavior.”
   If one is self-destructive, one will be poor.

   I wrote that if “one will not or cannot get an education, and if one will not or cannot work full-time, if one is addicted to something, then one will receive subsistence support – enough to keep body and soul together, but not enough to live a middle class lifestyle.”

   Do you dispute it ?
   Or do you believe that working and getting an education are not within the control of individuals ?

   In any case, I’m glad to see that we settled the minimum wage, exploitation of illegals, armor for the Army, and disparity of income disputes.

9. lonbud - July 4, 2006 @ 8:43 am

   It’s hard to argue with Michael’s bottom-line assertion: compared with just about any place on earth you’d care to mention, life is good in America.

   The opportunities are virtually boundless here for anyone willing to work hard, get an education, make good lifestyle choices, and who can “go along to get along.” In America almost anyone one can join the consumption-based economy, and enjoy a relatively comfortable, secure, well-fed, reasonably entertaining and amusing life.

   The rub lies in the domination of capital over labor, and in the corruption of government at all levels — from local to federal — that serves monied interests over the public’s interest in the environment and in the equal distribution of and access to resources to which all are entitled in equal measure.

   Leaving aside the thousands of instances where local governments fail to safeguard the health and well-being of (often) their least influential (read: wealthy) constituents, instead allowing wealthy corporations (and the people who run them) to profit from the labor of the very citizens whose consumption habits they exploit and whose air and water they befoul (see this for a very basic introduction to the thousands of toxic waste issues faced by communities nationwide), the federal government — in particular as it has been run by BushCo — has failed at every turn to mitigate against greedy behavior, and has continued the practice popularized by Ronald Reagan of selling off national assets to private interests for pennies on the dollar.

   Those who come at these issues the way Michael does have a deficiency in the genes for compassion and a sense of the interconnectedness of things.

   Unfortunately, in another of Michael’s meta-arguments here he is also correct: until those of us with active compassionate impulses organize well enough to have our views and candidates who can represent them prevail at the ballot box, the greedheads and me-firsters will continue to enjoy the perquisites of power.

10. Tam O’Tellico - July 4, 2006 @ 1:40 pm

    Sorry, Lon, but I have no intention of letting Michael off the hook quite so easily.

    It seems the statistical fact that “only” 8 million workers toil at the bottom of the food chain toil for subsistence wages holds about as much concern for Michael as the stastical fact that “only” 6 millions Jews were exterminated by the Nazis. Since it appears that both the Jews and the poor will always be with us, we need not concern ourselves with such trivialities – besides we are far too busy exploiting these societal lepers – and even more to the point, we can import Mexicans to do the dirty work they won’t.

    You think this is polemical? Polemical is a contributor so base he dare not even open his brain to address the wretched excesses of his idols like Dick Cheney, Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay, ad infinitum in the Republican heirarchy.

11. Tam O’Tellico - July 4, 2006 @ 1:54 pm

    Want some more? Read all of this, if you still have a conscience. If not, don’t bore me with your prattle or your statistics.

    We are not talking about numbers here, we are talking about people’s lives. We are not talking about high-blown philo-economic theory, we are talking about the destruction of civilization, not by Islamo-terrorists, but by the same capitalist extremists who are promising to protect us by taking away our jobs and our freedoms.

    Michael claims I’m not addressing the issues. Well, here, Mikey, someone else is doing so quite succinctly and laying the blame for inadequate body armor and other material for our troops exactly where it belongs.

    From the Drudge Retort:

    I think you are missing the point here. The numbers, training and equipment of the US military forces that went into Iraq in March 2003 were deemed sufficient for the task at hand, defined as:

    1. A short victorious conventional war
    2. A brief occupation until Iraq’s Government was set up.
    3. The costs of the war would be low and reconstruction would pay for itself

    These parameters were set not by the uniformed military. They were set by the political appointees of the Bush-Cheney Administration, who knew that in order to “sell” the invasion to an uneasy American public, it had to be portrayed in this way. It bears mention that the Bush-Cheney rosy scenarios, we know now, were disputed at every level by experienced US mid-level military, diplomatic and intelligence analysts, who felt an insurgency was a real possibility.

    What followed was predictable. US forces, equipped and organized for conventional war, found themselves in an insurgency. Front lines disappeared, and thousands of service and supply troops, equipped and sent forward in the expectation of planners that they would not see real combat, found themselves running missions like the one in this article.

    So why do you absolve Bush-Cheney of any responsibility for their failures in war planning? The lack of proper equipment for our troops is directly traceable to the Bush-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz “rosy scenarios,” based on “intelligence” from thieves like Chalabi and sources like “Curveball” that the war would be easy and quick.

    Just like Katrina, the right wing rallies behind Bush-Cheney regardless of facts. Regardless of the lives that are lost. Regardless of how letting failures like Rumsfeld continue as Defense Secretary send a message that loyalty to Bush trumps American lives and national security.

    For shame.

    The person who posted this has it exactly right – as far as he or she goes.
    But this is worse than a case of poor planning; once that failure was made public, our CPA SOD offered the same sort of lame excuses Michael continually offers: “You go to war with the army you have.” Yup, and then you do everything in you power to support them; you don’t nickel and dime away people’s lives.

    But this isn’t just a case of poor planning and poor follow-up. Like everything else about this administration of crooks and cronies, if you want to know the truth, don’t follow the lame rhetoric – follow the money.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/14/AR2006061401928.html

    http://www.newtimesbpb.com/issues/2005-09-29/news/feature_1.html

    Since you probably won’t bother reading the truth, let me make it easy for you. One reason it took so long to get the much-needed body armor was that the govt chose to give the contract for armored vests to a single-supplier, Point Blank Body Armor, due to what has been described as “very effective lobbying”. I don’t need Jack Abramoff to tell me what that means.

    Not by the way, David Brooks, the CEO of PBBA certainly has certainly benefited from that contthis war. His compensation in 2001 was $525,000 – in 2004, it was $70 million. I guess he can’t get by on $525,000 a year, let alone $10,000.

    At the time, there were roughly 20 companies qualified to make these armored vests. If The Rummy really wanted to do something about young men needlessly dying, he wouldn’t have stuck with a single supplier who bought and paid his way into a contract. He’d have done anything and everything to get the needed material – let the bastard sue if he’s got the nuts to handle that kind of publicity.

    Instead Rummy and friends continued to believe their own shit about us being greeted as liberators. Any chance of that happening ended with his decision to go to war on the cheap and give the streets of Iraq’s cities over to hoodlums and looters. Can you say Donald Ray Rumsfeld Nagin?

    What I’d like to see is the families of servicemen like PFC John Hart sue the bastards. Let Rumsfeld and Halliburton and Cheney and David Brooks cough up not some, but ALL of their ill-gotten gain. Let them try to wash the blood from their hands in public. Support our troops, indeed, you cheap, rotten, inhuman bastards!

12. lonbud - July 5, 2006 @ 6:19 am

    Even by Micahel’s own terms, on the issue of body armor alone, the entire BushCo cohort could (and should) be impeached and imprisoned.

    If, as he claims, the issue of body armor was one of production capacity and not one of funding, then the administration is ipso facto guilty of going to war with inadequate preparation and capability.

    Given the manner in which they also managed the contracting for body armor, they are guilty of negligence, greed, and hubris.

13. Michael Herdegen - July 5, 2006 @ 2:31 pm

    It seems the statistical fact that “only” 8 million workers toil at the bottom of the food chain toil for subsistence wages holds about as much concern for Michael as the stastical fact that “only” 6 millions Jews were exterminated by the Nazis.

    Yes, working in America for the minimum wage is exactly like being slave labor in a Nazi concentration camp.

    I fear that you have gone insane.

    …don’t bore me with […] your statistics.

    ‘Cause who needs facts ?

    …we are talking about the destruction of civilization […] by the same capitalist extremists who are promising to protect us by taking away our jobs…

    In America today, more people are working than have ever worked in America before. Therefore, no net jobs have been “taken away”.

    But you’d already know that if you believed in reading “statistics”.

    US forces, equipped and organized for conventional war, found themselves in an insurgency.

    Perhaps one would have to have served one’s nation to know that there’s no difference between equipping U.S. forces for a conventional war, or for an insurgency. In the latter case, we just use the tanks less, and foot patrols more.

    I guess he can’t get by on $525,000 a year, let alone $10,000.

    This is what, about the ninth time that you’ve introduced a reference to the ten grand in a completely unrelated conversation ?
    I can see that it’s sticking in your craw, what I don’t get is why you don’t just do as lonbud did, and attempt to work out a budget which would prove to the world that I’m wrong.

    Well, actually, I do know why you won’t post a budget, so I guess that what I don’t get is why you keep thinking about it, and bringing it up.
    You don’t have to admit to error, just… Let it go.

    …the administration is ipso facto guilty of going to war with inadequate preparation and capability.

    …they are guilty of negligence, greed, and hubris.

    Well, I certainly wouldn’t claim that any Presidential administration is free of negligence, greed, or hubris, but to believe that the sole reason there were delays in the production of body armor is due to a military contractor bribing officials, is to also believe that the Bush administration felt that a few hundred extra deaths wouldn’t affect them politically – since if they did think that higher numbers of fatalities would harm their chances of re-election, they’d have had every composite material factory in America churning out armor.

    Given that, predictably enough, the war in Iraq was the #1 issue in the ’04 election, I rather doubt that the Bush team looked the other way while one bribe-paying military contractor failed to deliver, as nineteen other capable companies sat on the sidelines.

    And speaking of the ’04 election, if the shortage of body armor was such a slam-dunk case against the Bush admin., why didn’t Kerry/Edwards make such a case, and drive it home ?
    Prolly ’cause it isn’t an open-and-shut case of graft, corruption, and incompetence.

    As for “inadequate preparation and capability”…
    You should recall what happened to U.S. forces at the beginning of our WWII involvement, in North Africa; what happened to U.S. forces at the beginning of our involvement in the Korean conflict; what happened to U.S. forces after we increased troop levels in the Vietnam conflict…

    We never equip the entire armed forces with the latest and best stuff all at once, because that would cost enormous amounts of money. We give the best stuff to the elite divisions, such as the 82d Airborne, that routinely deploy to the world’s hotspots.
    Then we gradually roll out the gear to the rest of the military, over years or even decades.

    For instance, when I got to the 1st Infantry Division in the spring of ’90, we still had Chevy SUVs and pick-ups from the late 70s and early 80s, we didn’t have any HMMWVs (Hummers), although many other divisions had already gotten issued some.

    So, while we always go to large wars with less-than-optimal preparation and capability, that’s not the same as “inadequate”.
    The U.S. military is designed to fight and win, but not to be comprised wholly of elite units.

    I do have to admit that I get a chuckle out of seeing you two making the case that we should have a LARGER military-industrial complex, one capable of equipping the entire armed forces with the latest gear on a moment’s notice. Forget about how much money annually that it would cost the taxpayers to support such a behemoth – as Tam points out, “We are not talking about numbers here, we are talking about people’s lives.”

14. Michael Herdegen - July 5, 2006 @ 3:47 pm

    What I’d like to see is the families of servicemen like PFC John Hart sue the bastards.

    Tam, did you even bother to read the WaPo article before you posted the link ?!?

    According to the Washington Post article that you linked to, Private Hart was issued body armor, and died of a wound to the neck – an unprotected area, in this or any past war.

    Further, while you claim that twenty firms were capable of making body armor, the article quotes a person who specifically states that twenty firms were capable of making PART of the armor, the easiest part, not that they were capable of making body armor in toto.

    Also, the article states that the Pentagon got firms other than Point Blank Body Armor involved in producing armor as soon as the war started.

    I fail to see how the article supports any of your positions – unless you’d now like to claim that your only points are that war is hell, and that logistics for large wars is complex and difficult.

    But thanks for posting a link that bolsters my arguments.

15. Tam O’Tellico - July 5, 2006 @ 10:02 pm

    M:I fail to see how the article supports any of your positions

    I don’t think you need to point out to anyone on this blog your inability to see, Michael. As for my bolstering you arguments, I can’t take too much credit, since anything I say you twist to suit your suspect purposes.

    As a matter of fact, I did read the article about the Hart family. If you did, your response IS exactly the same as Rumsfelds – and just as cold and heartless. If this article didn’t upset you, make you angry about the gross incompetence of this administration, you are even worse off than I thought.

    So how about it — since you are the great military expert and I clearly am not, please educate me. Shouldn’t I (and you) be offended and angry about NeoCon gross miscalculation about the war, Cheney’Halliburton no-bid contracts, Rumsfeld incompetence, and the criminal behavior of Cunningham/DeLay/Abramoff? Can’t you even admit that people like Cunningham and his fellow travelers are a big part of why we can’t afford to equip foot soldiers?

    That you would duck these questions and continue to be an apologist for crooks and cronies says far more about your opinions than all the statistics you can muster. If you want anyone on this side of the political spectrum to give any weight to your arguments, you are going to have to learn to admit when those on your side are grievously in error.

    C’mon, Michael, if Pat Buchanan can do it, I’m sure you can! And if your pride won’t allow you to say it here, at least look in the mirror and say what you know is true: I was wrong, Bush sucks. That mantra just might bring you back from insanity.

16. lonbud - July 5, 2006 @ 10:40 pm

    Michael you do your own argument a grave disservice when you close it with pap like:

    I do have to admit that I get a chuckle out of seeing you two making the case that we should have a LARGER military-industrial complex, one capable of equipping the entire armed forces with the latest gear on a moment’s notice.

    Who said anything about the entire armed forces? Is that what we have in Iraq and Afghanistan — the entire armed forces?

    You also misread my — and I believe Tam’s — criticism of BushCo’s WOT as a call for a larger military industrial complex. You may believe the U.S. Military is designed to fight and win, but it fact it’s designed to not fight as often as possible and, given an amorphous, inexaustible enemy, can never win.

    Continued comparisons of Iraq to WWII are laughable at this point. In Korea, Vietnam, and now in Afghanistan and Iraq, the enemy is (was) conceptual; and the human beings and deadly ordnance required to keep the U.S. Military busy forever knows no end.

17. Michael Herdegen - July 6, 2006 @ 1:58 am

    …anything I say you twist to suit your suspect purposes.

    Quoting the article that YOU linked to is “twisting your words” ???

    Your claims about what the article said were antifactual – lies or gross mistakes. When all I need to do to refute you is to read back to you your own source material, twisting would be overkill.

    If this article didn’t upset you, make you angry about the gross incompetence of this administration…

    Please detail any gross incompetence by the Bush admin. that the WaPo article would support.
    As usual, you’re long on bile and short on specifics.

    That you would duck these questions…

    I’ve answered those questions many, many times.
    You just don’t like my answers.

    You also misread my — and I believe Tam’s — criticism of BushCo’s WOT as a call for a larger military industrial complex.

    No, that was just a bit of teasing on my part.
    I understand that what you really want is for the U.S. military never to be used. My guess is that you think that calling for the military to be equipped to a standard that Congress will never fund would mean that we’d never deploy them, because they won’t be “adequately equipped”.

    I was pointing out that the flip side is that maybe Congress would fund the enormous undertaking of giving every soldier every piece of cutting-edge gear that’s available – and then we’d end up with the uber-powerful military-industrial complex that some mistakenly think exists now.

    The bottom line is that America will keep deploying soldiers to foreign lands, to kill and die for American goals, and I’ll be very surprised if next time everyone who deploys has all of the latest gear – most of ’em will have the gear that’s common issue when this war winds down.

    Continued comparisons of Iraq to WWII are laughable at this point.

    Yes ?
    WW II started badly for U.S. forces, but we got a lot better as time wore on.

    The Iraqi insurgents caught us off guard in Iraq, but we got a lot better as time wore on.

    Tam was complaining about a lack of body armor in ’03, i.e., a historical event – in ’06, the troops have what they need, and more than they actually use.

18. Michael Herdegen - July 6, 2006 @ 2:05 am

    Oh, and btw Tam, please note that you completely failed to show in any way whatsoever how the WaPo article supports any of your positions.

    Maybe you were too busy ranting to take the time to list the no doubt many ways that it does so – I invite you to try again.

19. lonbud - July 6, 2006 @ 4:16 pm

    Every discussion with Michael turns out to be a jaunt into the weeds, I swear. One needs rhetorical hip-waders just to hang out on this blog.

    Michael speaks as if the adventure in Iraq is a fait accompli, when Americans contiue to die there (and in Afghanistan) daily, new instances of our servicemembers’ failures and abuses come to light regularly, and the region as a whole is in greater turmoil by orders of magnitude compared to its pre-liberation state.

    He’s right about the fact that what I really want is for the U.S. military never to be used.

    While he’s never been shy about describing the U.S. military as the most powerful and overwhelming fighting force ever known, I guess it falls somehow short of the uber-powerful standard. Which is really no matter, because, in the hands of skilled and diplomatic statespersons, such a deterrent ought never need to be used.

    If I had to ascribe to a general theory of diplomacy myself, I guess it would be of the walk softly and carry a big stick variety. The BushCo boys stomp around aimlessly and can’t quite figure out how to carry the stick they have without regularly dropping it on their own toes.

20. Tam O’Tellico - July 6, 2006 @ 9:54 pm

    Lon: “He’s right about the fact that what I really want is for the U.S. military never to be used.”

    I wish our armed forces never had to be used, too, but I know better. My argument, which the miltaristic bitter braggart on this blog cavalierly dismisses, is that they should never be used except as an absolute last resort – and not on the whim of a drugstore cowboy, a warrior wannabe who is in reality a cowardly draft dodger.

    Furthermore, if you are going to send young men and women to fight and die, you at least owe it to them to have a reasonable plan for success – not pie-in-the-sky scenarios about being treated as saviors in a Muslim country, a scenario which even a fool like me predicted was idiocy. Hmm – who is really the fool here?

    You also owe it to our soldiers to shoulder some of their financial burden and at least try to spread the burden among all citizens – especially those who actually profit from the supreme sacrifice of those not so fortunate. As Paul O’Neill correctly pointed out, only a fool would cut taxes while trying to fight an open-ebded war half-way around the world.

    You also owe the American people the truth – you tell them in advance the probable cost of the war instead of playing either the liar of the fool and saying the war would be paid for out of Iraq’s oil profits. Michael can claim these fools were fooled; I say the fact that they shit-canned the guy for coming up with a fairly accurate argues that they’re liars.

    But hey, what’s a few hundred billion off to number’s guys like Bush and Michael. It is perverse though that Michael’s fascination with statistics keeps him from viewing any of this as failure. I read the article I cited and view the facts presented as tragic, Michael views them as “business as usual”, let the chips – and the bodies fall where they may. Michael sees the Point Blank Border Armor travesty and views David Brooks $70 million blood-money bonus as his just desserts for “risking” his investment – while others risk only their lives. If Brooks were half a man, and Michael was half-right about the “value” of our system, Brooks would donate at least half of his windfall profits to the families of dead and wounded servicemen. Don’t hold your breath waiting for that to happen, Michael.

    Their really is nothing more I can say to someone who over and over again in this forum demonstrates his disdain for the “lower classes” and repeats his view that human suffering is irrelevant and just collateral damage necessary to keep the economic engine operating at full speed.

    Well, full-speed ahead, Michael, but in the end, I can only pity you and your blind obedience to a dolt and his den of thieves. Fools, fools and more fools – well, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but apparently this administration can fool Michael all of the time.

21. lonbud - July 6, 2006 @ 11:23 pm

    I wonder what must drive a person to become President. As a child, I often thought I would, and should become the President of the United States. My dream was to be elected at 42, a year younger than JFK, and to live longer and do better than he did.

    Ahh, but the dreams of a child.

    Who knows what kept me from realizing my dream in this land where anyone’s dream can come true?

    Was it the fact of my having been taken from a teenage mother and sold into adoption? It couldn’t have been that my adoptive parents were smart, and beautiful, and wealthy, and kind.

    My own smarts, good looks, and kindness possibly hampered my ascendance to Commander in Chief, though the world traveling and the law degree should have helped.

    Wine, women, and song have been the downfall of many a would-be leader, and I’ve tasted, loved, and sung to my share of them all.

    Then, again, I’ve wanted to be a Fireman, an Astronaut, an NFL quarterback, a Rock Star, Movie Star, Literary Lion, Olympic Champion, Circus Clown and Rodeo Rider, too.

    I weep to consider the magnitude of my failure in this, the land of freedom and opportunity.

    Perhaps one day, a person better, stronger, more beautiful, and more wealthy than I will come from as humble a background to rise and lead America to the glory to which it was born.

    More likely, the same old soup will continue being warmed over.

22. Michael Herdegen - July 7, 2006 @ 12:23 am

    I guess [the U.S. military] falls somehow short of the uber-powerful standard.

    “…then we’d end up with the uber-powerful military-industrial complex that some mistakenly think exists now.”

    I see the military-industrial complex as existing apart from the U.S. military – related, but not the same.
    Do you see the military as part of the complex, or did you just misread my comment ?

    In any case, the U.S. military isn’t uber-powerful, in the sense that it’s not nearly as powerful as it could be – it’s just the most powerful military force in the world, consisting of roughly half of all the military power on the planet.
    Note that I did not write that the U.S. military has half of the world’s forces, but that it has half of the power. Our military is vastly more effective, both in human ways and through advanced equipment, than are most militaries. Our Non-Commissioned Officers are the equivalent of most forces’ officers, the M-1 Abrams tank, the F/A 22 Raptor fighter, the B 2 bomber, the F 117 fighter, our recon and attack drones, etc.

    …in the hands of skilled and diplomatic statespersons, such a deterrent ought never need to be used.

    Once again, I ask you what you would do about persons and states that are not willing to compromise, or who cannot be trusted to keep an agreement, such as Saddam, North Korea, or Palestine, all of whom have had a history of making agreements, and breaking them.

    Effective negotiations require that ALL PARTIES be sincere in their willingness to reach an accord that all will abide by. Not every situation is amenable to compromise.

    For instance, most European nations’ foreign relations policies are much more similar to your philosophy than are the U.S.’ They pride themselves on their “soft power”, or ability to diplomatically get results.

    Yet, that approach ultimately failed when Slobodan Milosevic refused to stop killing in the former Yugoslavia, and NATO had to bomb him into submission. England, France, and Germany have been negotiating with Iran over Iran’s nuclear weapons programme for over two years, with zero results. In fact, diplomacy has failed so utterly that France’s Foreign Minister has stated publicly that it might be necessary to bomb Iran.

    You yourself say that your general theory of diplomacy is walk softly and carry a big stick. What do you think that “a big stick” consists of ?

    This is a crucial point, so I will be persistent in asking.
    What would you do with the Saddams, Slobo’s, Kim Jung Ils, Arafats, and Irans of the world, once diplomacy has failed ?

    As Tam says, there are situations in which militaries need to be used.

    I read the article I cited and view the facts presented as tragic…

    They are tragic.
    However, you followed that up by claiming that “tragic” = “Bush admin. corruption and incompetence”, which you could not back up, and in fact the article that you provided refuted that very premise.

    …only a fool would cut taxes while trying to fight an open-ended war half-way around the world.

    Fiscal year 2003 Federal budget deficit: $ 375 billion.
    Fiscal year 2004 Federal budget deficit: $ 413 billion.
    Fiscal year 2005 Federal budget deficit: $ 350 billion – 2.7% of GNP.

    Foolish or not, it doesn’t seem to be harmful.

    …someone who over and over again in this forum demonstrates his disdain for the “lower classes”…

    Examples, please – if there are any.

    …and repeats his view that human suffering is irrelevant…

    Not irrelevant, but inevitable, which you yourself have said.
    Would you like for me to repeat back to you, for the third time in this thread, what you wrote above about that very thing ?

23. Michael Herdegen - July 7, 2006 @ 12:28 am

    Well, lonnie, it takes a lot of luck to become POTUS, aside from any drive or qualifications.

    After all only maybe 30 men have ever held the office, since 1787.

24. lonbud - July 7, 2006 @ 12:59 am

    Precisely, Michael. And wherein lies that luck? And if it’s the luck that counts, what deference is it owed?

25. Michael Herdegen - July 7, 2006 @ 2:08 am

    My bad, exactly 43 have held the office.

    Well, it’s luck in addition to drive and nominal qualification. Luck is necessary but not sufficient.
    It’s like being a sports champion – luck alone might get you to the playoffs, but it won’t get you a ring.

    Many, many politicians and others are owed deference, most of whom will never be POTUS.

26. Tam O’Tellico - July 7, 2006 @ 10:19 am

    Michael, you have touched on exactly the point I have tried to make countless times here about our military. The lesson of history is no nation and no army is uber-powerful, the Romans being the one possible exception. The lesson Bush Junior should have learned from his Daddy AND Bill Clinton is that the chance of achieving you political and military aims increases dramatically when you have broad support – and funds – of your traditional allies.

    Junior’s go it alone folly only proves the point. When most other players said no, including your own father and his well-seasoned advisers, he should have been overly cautious about saying yes. In fact, Bush should have heeded the advice of Colin Powell: “You break it, you bought it.”

    Only the hubris brought on by inexperience and perversely by feelings of inadequacy drives a man to believe he can easily succeed where so many others have failed for so many centuries. Those feeling of inadequacy would have engendered in a more thoughtful man the fundamental questions: What did Bush and the NeoCons know that others didn’t about running Iraq? As it turns out, nothing good and almost everything bad.

    By every measure, Bush has worked against his own interests — and the country’s. Want to win a war? Put Don Rumsfeld in charge and keep him in charge in spite of his continued miscalculations and abrasive treatment of those who offer reasoned advice. Want to enlist the cooperation of others through the only international forum available (yes it’s got monumental faults) – put John Bolton in charge. Want to protect national treasures that have taken more than a century to acquire? Put Gale Norton in charge.
    Want to be prepared for a natural disaster? Put Mike Brown in charge — and then hamstring him. Want to improve the acknowledged problems at the CIA? Put Porter Goss and his gang of goons in charge. Want sound fiscal policy? Fire Paul O’Neill.

    This pattern of incompetence comes as no surprise to those of us who see Bush as a lifelong loser. But why is it so difficult for his supporters to see or at least admit that by so many measures, he has failed as President.

    So I must offer Lon my condolences for not having risen to the highest office in the land. He could have done it, because we now know any fool can become President — as long as he has the right connections and lots of money.

27. Michael Herdegen - July 7, 2006 @ 10:39 am

    Only the hubris brought on by inexperience and perversely by feelings of inadequacy drives a man to believe he can easily succeed where so many others have failed for so many centuries.

    That’s what they said about Afghanistan, too: “Remember what happened to the English and the Russians in the high mountains and harsh winters…”
    Yet we whipped the Taliban in less than six weeks.

    You and lonbud are willing to say that Iraq is a failure; I maintain that it’s mostly a success, albeit one bought at a dearer price than anticipated.
    History shall record who was more clear-eyed.

    Want to win a war? Put Don Rumsfeld in charge…
    Want to enlist the cooperation of others through the only international forum available (yes it’s got monumental faults) – put John Bolton in charge.

    Rumsfeld’s main job isn’t to win in Iraq, and Bolton’s main job isn’t to enlist international support.
    They’re both there to reform, Rumsfeld the military, and Bolton the UN. So far, they’ve both had success, although Bolton’s has been more limited.

    The reason that the Pentagon Generals are upset with Rumsfeld has to do with his permanently shifting money and power to air assets and special forces, not due to anything going on in Iraq. The current crop of top military leaders came up during the Cold War; they like tanks and ballistic missile subs, which are exactly what’s needed to fight and win the last war, not the next one.

    This pattern of incompetence comes as no surprise to those of us who see Bush as a lifelong loser.

    Rather, because you don’t like Bush, you see him as a lifelong loser, with a pattern of incompetence. You’re putting the cart before the horse.
    But why is it so difficult for his detractors to see, or at least to admit, that by so many measures he has succeeded as President ?

    …we now know any fool can become President — as long as he has the right connections and lots of money.

    Fools occasionally make it to the Oval Office, but not any fools, regardless of money or connections. It’s a super-hard gig to score – ask any U.S. Senator.
    They all see themselves as potential Presidents, but relatively few actually run, ’cause they know how much sweat it takes, and what the odds are.

28. Michael Herdegen - July 7, 2006 @ 12:05 pm

    Hey, another 120,000 jobs added in June, and over the last 12 months, average wages have gone up by 3.9 percent.
    Sweet.

29. Tam O’Tellico - July 7, 2006 @ 9:02 pm

    Lies, damned lies and statistics – here’s the real story you neglected to give us. Please note all the minus signs in terms of constant dollars.

    http://www.bls.gov/news.release/realer.t01.htm

30. Tam O’Tellico - July 7, 2006 @ 9:15 pm

    M: “Rumsfeld’s main job isn’t to win in Iraq, and Bolton’s main job isn’t to enlist international support.”

    Ah – no wonder you think they’re so successful. I suspect a lot of people don’t share your opinion. To many of us, it appears the main “accomplishment” of both men is to reform their institutions to the point they don’t work. As for your laughable assertion that Pentagon Generals aren’t upset about Iraq, you obviously haven’t been reading the papers. And the only thing that keeps a lot more of these guys from speaking out is that they’re not quite ready to retire. They saw the “reform” Rumsfeld whipped on Shinseki for daring to question the fairy-tales of the Village Idiots.

    But I’m sure that as far as you’re concerned, the point is moot since by you’re reckoning our adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq have been so successful that this administration still doesn’t have to be bothered with the opinions of those who disagree. It’s the tautology of the Perfect Fool.

31. lonbud - July 8, 2006 @ 8:43 am

    Anytime you see the word “average” in a statistical proclamation, beware. The conclusion most readliy apparent from the statistical evidence is likely to be quite different from the reality of the universe from which the numbers are drawn.

    In the case of Michael’s bustling wages number above, the “average” wage in the U.S. has increased due to gains booked at the higher ends of the pay scale and not by any prosperity trickling onto the middle and lower ranks of those who toil for their corporate paymasters.

    In addition, as Tam points out, even the “average” gains have not kept pace with inflation.

    On the jobs question, virtually all of the job creation — anemic as it has been during BushCo’s reign — has been due to government spending, financed (primarily) by loans from China.

    The whole private sector revitalization touted to stem from BushCo tax cuts for the uber-wealthy is a fiction; George W. Bush has accomplished whatever it is he has accomplished by using the very kinds of policies decried by his neo-con benefactors.

    Drown it in a bathtub, my ass.

32. Michael Herdegen - July 9, 2006 @ 1:59 am

    On the jobs question, virtually all of the job creation — anemic as it has been during BushCo’s reign…

    And yet, a record number of Americans have jobs, and unemployment is under 5%. “Anemic” = “awesome” ?

    — has been due to government spending…

    No, it’s been due to the boom in housing, which unfortunately is about to collapse.
    Or maybe it’s fortunate, and the GOP planned it this way – the hurt won’t be so bad by this November that it’ll lead to protest votes against GOP candidates, and by Nov. ’08 some other sector will have picked up the job creation slack.

33. Michael Herdegen - July 9, 2006 @ 2:48 am

    Here’s another real story. Please note all of the gains in terms of constant dollars. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/h01ar.html.

    In 1968, in 2004 dollars, the second from the bottom fifth of American households had incomes ranging from $ 15,300 to $ 29,000.
    In 2004 the same cohort had incomes of between $ 18,500 and $ 34,700 – a 20% gain after inflation.

    In 1968, in 2004 dollars, the bottom fifth of American households had incomes of no more than $ 15,300; in 2004, they had incomes of up to $ 18, 500 – again, a 20% gain after inflation.

    As lonbud has told us, in 1968 the Federal minimum wage was over $ 9/hr, in 2005 dollars, and in 2004 the minimum wage was only $ 5.15/hr.
    The fact that the lowest fifth of American households had their incomes rise by 20% between 1968 and 2004, despite the minimum wage dropping by a relative 40% over the same time period, shows how marginal is the issue of minimum wage levels. (Which also means that raising the minimum wage back to $ 9/hr is unlikely to be very harmful, either – except to those workers who lose their jobs because of it).

34. Tam O’Tellico - July 9, 2006 @ 6:12 am

    Let me say for the record, I am not by nature a doom-and-gloom, chicken-little kinda guy. However, I can do simple arithmetic, and I (and the vast majority of economists not on this administration’s payroll) see dark days ahead.

    The only reason our economy hasn’t collapsed already is the ‘generosity’ of Saudi Arabia, China and Japan. But no business borrows heavily from its chief competitors and expects to survive, let alone prosper. What we have with this administration and this Congress is conservatism on “moral” issues like gay marriage, but extreme radicalism on foreign and fiscal policy.

    Ironically, this Congress hasn’t always acted so irresponsibly. This is virtually the same Republican Congress that acted as a brake against the possible excesses of Bill Clinton, proposed health-care reform being the primary example. And it didn’t hurt their cause that Clinton was the most business-friendly Democrat to occupy the White House since – well, since ever.

    So what’s the difference now? In a word – Bush. No President I am aware of has ever cut taxes and fought a war. Pointing out that simple fact cost Paul O’Neill his job, and that’s the price every traditional Conservative has paid with this administration. No President I’m aware of has ever gone a single term without vetoing a single spending bill – let alone six years. Because Congress and the President are both of the same party, there is no buffer against profligate spending.

    The closest comparison I can think of is the Sixties heyday of the Democrats, when LBJ cowed a too-compliant Democrat Congress into the worst excesses of The Great Society, while at the same time spending like a drunken sailor on an ill-advised foreign war half-way around the world. Guns and Butter economics has always been a no-no, a fact even the mighty Romans eventually discovered.

    If this administration and this Congress has a business model, it’s Enron. And just as it was with Enron, there is only so long you can carry losses off the books before the chickens come home to roost. You simply can’t turn a country’s economic system into a vast Ponzi scheme without dire consequences.

    No country has ever been able to sustain such massive deficits without massive inflation or a severe depression. What anyone with half-a- brain, open eyes and an open mind knows is that we are all aboard a train roaring down a rickety track without an engineer and without brakes. Back in the dining car, the fat cats are enjoying a feast. But when the train wrecks, which the numbers say it must, the fat cats will be going over the cliff right along with the folks bumming a ride in the box cars.

    I remind you, it wasn’t poor folk jumping from the ledges in ’29.

35. Tam O’Tellico - July 10, 2006 @ 6:21 am

    As should be evident to anyone who is forced to deal with them, statistics can be used to prove either side of an argument. If we accept Michael’s Census numbers for the period between 1968-2004, things do look rosy. But in light of that statistical “fact”, the Bureau of Labor statistics I cited make the current situation even more troubling since most all of the numbers for the previous 12 months are in the negative in terms of constant 1982 dollars.

    I am willing to concede that only a few million people in America are in abject poverty. I am willing to concede that fewer still live in such condition due to circumstances beyond their control. But we ought not to measure our success by Third World standards – that is the kind of comparison only a Bushite would make.

    Rather than such an apples to oranges comparison, how do we stack up against nations in our league? Well, here’s a few telling statistics from the American Public Health Association:

    “The U.S. infant mortality rate is about double the rate found in Hong Kong (3.1) and Japan (3.4), according to “America’s Health.” Those numbers were drawn from a 1999 report from the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In that NCHS survey, the U.S. ranked 28th among 37 nations.”

    Want more?

    “These unsettling statistics emerge against a backdrop in which improvements to the overall health of the nation have slowed dramatically since 2000. During the 1990s, health in the United States advanced by an annual rate of 1.5 percent each year, according to the report. However, during the 2000s, health improvement in the country slowed to an annual rate of only 0.2 percent each year–1/8th the rate of the 1990s.”

    While there are many things Americans can be rightly proud of, our very economic success puts to lie our posturing as a great nation. Why?

    Because the only real measure of the success of a civilized nation is how well it treats the least among its citizens. And that is especially true for a nation that prides itself on being at least a de facto Christian nation, one in which the vast majority of its citizens mouth the platitudes of the Christian faith.

    When the richest nation on Earth ranks 28th out of 37 industrialized nations in infant mortality, something is very wrong with that nation. When that nation’s murder and violent crime statistics are also an embarassment, something is very wrong with that nation. When that nation claims to be exporting democracy to other countries while discouraging and denying its own citizens their voting rights (and quite possibly defrauding them as well), something is very wrong with that nation.

    We may argue endlessly about the statistics, but there ought to be no doubt that by many critical measures such as quality health care and equitable income distribution, the trend is clearly down. While such problems are indeed complicated, I can assure you the solution does not begin with granting massive tax cuts to those who benefit most from such inequality.

36. Michael Herdegen - July 10, 2006 @ 1:25 pm

    …the Bureau of Labor statistics I cited make the current situation even more troubling since most all of the numbers for the previous 12 months are in the negative in terms of constant 1982 dollars.

    As lonbud-the-gold-speculator can tell you, the direction and slope of trend lines depends almost entirely on choice of starting points, and the length of time analyzed.

    In this case, let’s see how incomes did over a complete employment cycle, from unemployment peak to employment peak.

    The second to last peak in unemployment was in ’92, when it hit 7.5%. It took six years, until ’98, before it fell to around today’s rate of 4.6%.
    The last peak in unemployment was in ’03, when it hit 6%, about the same rate that it was in ’94. So, during the second-to-last employment cycle, it took four years of job growth to reduce unemployment at the same pace that we’ve done in three years this time around.

    The latest household income figures that we have are from ’04. If we look at what the unemployment rate was in ’04, (5.5%), and then look back to see when the unemployment rate was last around that figure, we see that it was around the same in ’95/’96.
    In ’95, the lowest fifth of American households had incomes of up to $ 17,725, in 2004 dollars, and the second from the bottom fifth had incomes of between $ 17,725 – $ 33,128, in 2004 dollars. This compares to 2004 figures of up to $ 18,500, and between $ 18,500 – $ 34,738.

    In other words, the lowest cohort gained 4.4% in income, over inflation, and the second to lowest cohort’s incomes increased by 4.9% over inflation. This is against an economic backdrop wherein employment continued to increase from ’95 until ’00, then unemployment began to rise, peaked, and now employment has been increasing again for a number of years.

    The U.S. infant mortality rate is about double the rate found in Hong Kong (3.1) and Japan (3.4)…

    Comparing infant mortality rates between nations is comparing apples to oranges. (Or can be).

    The United States contains a very diverse assortment of people, drawn from almost all cultures on Earth. A significant number of them are first or second generation immigrants, and we also have a very large minority population, (blacks), whose overall general health is less than that of the majority, for cultural reasons. They both receive less care, and they don’t do as much to maintain their own health, compared to the dominant culture.

    Japan, on the other hand, is an insular society, known to be xenophobic, homogeneous, and hostile to immigrants.

    To compare apples to apples, we would need to compare Japan’s infant mortality rate to that of a state like Utah or Idaho.
    Further, if we were to compare the infant mortality rates between states, say Utah, New York, and California, we’d also find large differences.

    So, while America may well need to work on improving infant mortality, a large part of the difference between America and the other 36 industrialized nations is structural, and cannot be changed without changing society substantially.
    Even if we were the best that we could be in preventing infant mortality, America could never rank higher than in the middle of the pack.

37. Michael Herdegen - July 10, 2006 @ 1:43 pm

    The only reason our economy hasn’t collapsed already is the ‘generosity’ of Saudi Arabia, China and Japan.

    Rather, the only reason that the Chinese and Japanese economies haven’t collapsed yet is because of American consumers. That is why China and Japan have found it to be in their best interests to “prime the pump” of the American economy.

    In Arabia’s case, they get paid for oil in U.S. dollars, so they naturally look first to America when seeking to put those dollars to productive use. This has also lead to the “OPEC switching to Euro pricing” conspiracy theory of the genesis of the war in Iraq.

    But, let us suppose that China and Japan decided to dump all of their U.S. Treasury notes, to stop investing in America, and to get rid of their excess U.S. dollar currency reserves.
    What would happen ?

    The obvious things would be that U.S. interest rates would rise, to attract other-than-Asian investment, American employment would eventually rise, as the weaker dollar stimulated American manufacturing, and the Chinese government would fall, as tens of millions of Chinese workers become unemployed due to a dramatic decrease in custom from their largest trading partner, severly stressing their already shaky system.

    What else ?

38. Tam O’Tellico - July 10, 2006 @ 8:05 pm

    What else? Absolutely nothing save that you and I will continue to disagree about what the numbers really mean. I say the glass is not only half-empty, it has such a gaping hole in the bottom that even the shit floating on top will hit the bottom this time.

    You and I, just like this administration, will also continue to choose the numbers that support our point of view and bury those that don’t. For example, in case you’ve forgotten, the administration used a fairy-tale estimate for the cost of this war: $0. That’s right – zero. Hell, we were even going to make money by investing $60-72 billion in a quick turn-around that would be more than returned from the “oil dividend”.

    Bush, the Chairman of the Ouiji Board, essentially fired Lawrence Lindsey for daring to place the estimate at $200 billion. It now appears the real cost of the war will exceed that by five times or more, so I suppose you could argue Lindsey deserved to be fired for such a gross “misunderestimation”. But then what would you recommend we do with the brilliant strategists who missed the mark by 10-20 times?

    Yeah, yeah, I know, these estimates aren’t “real’ numbers like the statistics you’re so fond of, but the dollars involved in this preposterous miscalculation are very real. Tell me, since you are a corporate apologist, what would happen to anyone in the corporate world who so grossly missed their budget?

    Actually, I take that back. In today’s corporate world, a chief executive who screwed up so badly would probably retire on a fat pension – just like Roger Smith at GM – and just as Bush will soon do. So much for your praises of this President and platitudes about “Free Market” economics.

    For those of us who’ve followed the President’s drug-addled adventures in capitalism over the years, this sort of pie-in-the sky, sleight-of-hand, Ponzi scheme operation is nothing new. It’s been his modus operandi from the git-go – use your connections to start a shaky venture, promise the world, bankrupt the company through ignorance, indifference and incompetence, get out just ahead of the collapse, and use your political connections to escape your just desserts.

    The only difference is that this time we could well be the company Bush bankrupts.

39. lonbud - July 10, 2006 @ 10:02 pm

    I keep forgetting that out here in the weeds we inevitably find Michael has ALL the answers and everything is FINE. In fact, no reasonable person could expect ANYTHING better.

    If one only looks to the examples of Utah and Idaho, sees beyond the structural anomalies besmirching this nation’s pure, and white, and wealthy soul, the surperiority of the status quo is unmistakable!

    This, despite the fact that the long term unemployment rate is quite high by recent historical standards.

    The funny — or not so — funny thing, is Michael’s own statistical justifications disprove the contention there is anything, fine, or right, or fair about the way business is conducted in America.

    There’s a reason Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama, South Carolina, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia have the worst infant mortaility rates in the nation.

    And it ain’t because black folks like Popeye’s Chicken and malt liquor.

    Tam is exactly right about w’s m.o.; I’d like to think the only difference is this time an angry mob may sweep down on his ass and flay him alive when the house of cards collapses.

    Or rape his daughters in ront of him and take ’em all out back in the brush (forever in need of “clearing”), and gun ’em down like good marines, and then torch the joint.

    oops. that wasn’t very buddhist thinking, now, was it?

40. Tam O’Tellico - July 11, 2006 @ 5:47 am

    Now, now, Lon, musn’t cast aspersions on our sainted military – you obviously are a traitor who doesn’t support our troops or our President.

    No, we are to believe that our soldiers – other than a few misfits (which the military is now forced to recruit in increasing numbers since the word “draft” daren’t be uttered) – are not affected by the horrors of war. No, our soldiers behave just like all the good guys in John Wayne movies, just like boy scouts helping little old ladies across the street.

    Now it may well be argued that we are the good guys – or at least better than most buys. Trouble is, the horrors of war affect good guys even more than bad guys. I just had a visit on the Fourth from my 85 year-old neighbor across the road. He is still troubled by what he had to do in the war, troubled that now that he is about to look his Maker in the eye, he may be found wanting for those acts. He is far from the only old veteran I’ve met who is so troubled. And they fought in a “good” war.

    Now neither my neighbor or I are suggesting that war is always only evil, but in even the best war the best men are often forced by necessity or desperation to do the worst things.

    That is exactly why wars should be fought only as an utterly last resort – a truth and standard the Iraq War cannot begin to approach. As for me and my house, my son has strict orders to tell the recruiters he will be in line right behind the Bush twins.

    See this.

41. Michael Herdegen - July 11, 2006 @ 8:42 am

    …the long term unemployment rate is quite high by recent historical standards.

    LOL
    lonbud, you’re quite the pip.

    Going to the linked page, and looking at the chart at the top of the page, we instantly see that, going back to 1975, the current long term unemployment rate trend after recession was the LOWEST spike, out of the past four unemployment spikes. Further, as I showed earlier, employment gains after the last recession have been faster than they were after the ’90s recession.

    In other words, the material that YOU provided, in an attempt to support your contention that it’s the worst of times, instead clearly supports my position. Good job.

    However, I don’t much credit Bush for the robust state of the economy, (although he does deserve some credit for deft economic moves after 9/11), just as I won’t blame him for the coming slowdown.

    If one only looks to the examples of Utah and Idaho, sees beyond the structural anomalies besmirching this nation…

    They don’t besmirch the nation, just some statistical analyses of the nation.
    Robust immigration brings with it far more benefits than drawbacks; high infant mortality rates just happen to be one of the drawbacks.

    that wasn’t very buddhist thinking, now, was it?

    Nope.

    Which is why it’s so funny that you claim to be a pacifist, and you say that you don’t ever want to see the U.S. killing machines unleashed, and yet at a personal level, there are plenty of people that you fantasize about sticking a knife into, and you’re even willing to admit to depraved thoughts about raping and killing the innocent, such as the Bush girls.

    I don’t condemn the thoughts of execution, as there are many people that ought to be killed, and many of them won’t get the justice that they so richly deserve. That you would think that raping an innocent woman is a good way to punish a relative of the woman is intensely misogynist, and purely evil, from a Western standpoint.

    I just don’t see why you persist in clinging to the idea of pacifism, when you obviously see that it’s a flawed philosophy, an ideal condition that cannot exist in the rough-and-tumble of the real world.

    So much for your praises of this President and platitudes about “Free Market” economics.

    The President holds the position because most people want him to, or don’t care if he does.

    Similarly, the corporate abuses that you refer to are permitted by the shareholders of the companies. They have the power to stop such abuses; they mostly choose not to be roused to action.

    That’s what “free” means. One can choose how to act, and also can choose to not act.

42. lonbud - July 11, 2006 @ 10:56 am

    Again, out here in the weeds, all is well.

    George Bush has caused not a whit of harm to anyone nor any thing on earth or under the heavens, nor will he be to blame should such harm be revealed anon. We, the American people either wish him to be our dear leader or don’t care enough to prevent him from leading.

    Corporate malfeasance such as that wrought by the dearly departed Kenneth Lay is either permitted by those in the investing class, or investors are simply not interested enough to prevent it or to punish its malefactors.

    Michael, you might want to spend some time contemplating the difference between the fleeting thoughts that are products of the wonder that is the human mind, and the volitional actions that are the products of human beings.

    If you were able to conjur for the actual actions of a George W. Bush or a Steven Green a fraction of the horror and dismay produced in you by my mind’s fleeting thoughts, our world would be a far better place.

    There is nothing flawed about pacifism, for it is the only philosophy with a shred of hope to bring peace to your rough and tumble “real” world. So long as you persist in excusing actual rape and murder and fail to banish it to the dark recesses of fantasy it will forever recur in your “reality.”

43. Michael Herdegen - July 11, 2006 @ 11:38 am

    There is nothing flawed about pacifism, for it is the only philosophy with a shred of hope to bring peace to your rough and tumble “real” world.

    How ?

    Exactly how is it going to “bring” peace to the world ?

    If the question seems familiar, it’s because I’ve asked it at least a half-dozen times before; this is the second time in this thread alone.
    I understand why you don’t want to answer the question, but until you can do so, your assertion has no credibility.

    At the very least, you would personally benefit from privately coming to a conclusion about the question, even if you don’t care to publicly address it.

    If you were able to conjur for the actual actions of a George W. Bush […] a fraction of the horror and dismay produced in you by my mind’s fleeting thoughts…

    In the first place, why would you want to harbor evil thoughts ?
    “Be – know – do”; what we practice, what we aspire to, what we allow to reside within us, all affect who we are, and what we do.

    But secondly, Bush didn’t send the Marines to Iraq to rape and kill innocents.
    Intent matters, both morally, and as a matter of law. Manslaughter is different from murder.

    Further, results matter. If we are to hold Bush personally responsible for crimes committed by the troops that he sent, then he must receive credit for the good done by those troops, as well.
    25 million people liberated, thousands of schools refurbished or built, rights for women explicitly spelled out in the new Iraqi constitution…

    Corporate malfeasance such as that wrought by the dearly departed Kenneth Lay is either permitted by those in the investing class, or investors are simply not interested enough to prevent it or to punish its malefactors.

    Exactly so, except, of course, that Ken Lay was punished.

    Nobody is forced to own shares in any particular company, and those that do own shares have both the right and the responsibility to oversee the company’s employees, including the management.
    If they choose not to do so, then they’re making their own beds. I weep not when the investors are forced to lie in them.

    But many executives do get punished by investors. Michael Eisner of Disney, Steve Jobs of Apple, and Patrick Byrne, CEO and Founder of Overstock.com, come immediately to mind; there are many more.

    Eisner and Jobs were forced out of their jobs as CEOs by stockholders, although Jobs came back a decade later to reclaim the title; Byrne’s company’s stock price is under tremendous pressure from speculators who think that he’s going to run the company into the ground. Actually, that happened to Dick Simon Transportation Inc. too, and in fact the family of the founder was forced to step down from leading the company, and they sold it.

44. lonbud - July 12, 2006 @ 8:17 am

    Exactly how would pacifism bring peace to the world, Michael?

    Non-violence begins with a person. When one person chooses non-violence as a personal philosophy, “peace” begins to emanate into the universe in unending waves as long as that person is alive.

    As that person is joined in her philosophy by others, the waves of peace emanating into the universe grow larger, their effects reaching ever wider shores and spheres of influence.

    You are a great statistician, a reknowned expository thinker; do the math.

    Pacifism is the only philosophy with a shred of hope to bring peace to the world. And it begins with an individual’s free choice. Try it yourself and be amazed by its effects.

    Now you will undoubtedly complain that pacifism is not aligned with human nature. But I will disagree. Pacifism does not come naturally to children. Any normal human being past the age of eight or ten can be made to understand the power and the benefits of pacifism, and can find completely adequate and entertaining avenues for venting the powerful emotions that lead inadequately enlightened human adults to engage in violent behavior.

    But it takes the strength and the courage of a fully-grown human to make such a choice, and to take the responsibility for teaching children the benefits of a non-violent life.

    As for results and responsibility, you are completely deluded about the state of affairs in Iraq. Thousands of schools refurbished or built? Michael, huge portions of Iraq remain without basic services three years after their “liberation” by American forces. Iraq’s oil production — which was supposed to pay for the country’s “reconstruction” — remains below pre-war levels. And while rights for women may be written into the Iraqi constitution, we may rest assured those rights will be respected and protected to an extent no greater than that given to the privacy rights written into the American constitution.

    George W. Bush, in a world with adequate justice, would be prosecuted for war crimes and violation of the human rights of the Iraqi people.

    And speaking of adequate justice, Kenneth Lay was not punished in this lifetime, though he’ll certainly be in the next. As will Mr. Bush.

45. Tam O’Tellico - July 12, 2006 @ 9:53 am

    Well, we may never know if pacifism works, but we certainly know that the sword has only ever brought temporary relief. And it is equally certain there will be no peace as long as men make war too hastily.

    As for rape and rampage, Michael, you are still missing the point. No one is saying Bush is directly guilty of the crimes committed by a despicable young savage, but he sure as hell is guilty of starting an ill-planned, ill-financed and very likely unnecessary war that sent that young savage over to Iraq to “liberate” its people.

    But Bush’s guilt doesn’t end there. He and his henchmen chose to believe ridiculous assumptions about the aftermath of the war, and chiefly in the person of the penurious Rumsfeld adopted penny-wise and pound-foolish policies that contributed significantly to the chaos and lawless conditions that followed our “victory”. Thus, their actions, by any reasonable standard, contributed to the atrocities that predictably followed the absence of authority.

    There is no question a primae facie case can be made that by ignoring hazards that reasonable and prudent men should have expected, Bush and the Deciders are guilty of negligence at least, and possibly of being an accessory to these crimes. It is these very principles by which many were tried at Nuremburg. Could the case against Bush et al be won? Probably not, but in the court of world opinion, it has already been decided – and Bush and the Boys are guilty as sin.

    The official who is most guilty and ought to be most vulnerable to prosecution is not Bush nor Rumsfeld, but Dick Cheney. The no-bid contracts awarded his former employer have created a national disgrace. Now, after four long years of plunder and looting unequaled in our history, of robbery that has left our national treasury all but empty, the DOD has finally announced competitive bidding. Talk about locking the barn door after the cows get out….

    Cheney and Halliburton are all the proof anyone should need that your argument that the Free Market will “sort these things out” is just plain foolishness. There was no Free-Market in Iraq, just a den of thieves.

    Furthermore, the Free Market certainly didn’t “sort out” Roger Smith’s unearned golden parachute retirement. But it will “sort out” the retirement benefits of those who worked the assembly lines that provided Roger and his buddies with unearned salaries and benefits. Do you really think it is to the benefit of this country that GM goes under while those responsible for its demise go to their penthouse condos?

    Nor did the Free Market “sort out” Ken Lay; God did – we can all only wish God had done so sooner.

    Yes, the Free-Market much too late “sorted out” the den of thieves that was Enron. But did that do anything to bring solace or equity to the grandmother whose life savings were destroyed while Ken Lay’s minions giggled and mocked her misfortune? How does your Free Market address her grievances? How will her nest egg be restored?

    No, the only thing your Free Market sorts out is who profits and who suffers for it. The very notion of this godless, heartless, entity that exists only to maximize profits creates a beast, a Leviathan, that is inherently evil. Let me make it simple enough so that maybe, just maybe you can understand:

    “The love of money is the root of all evil.”

46. Michael Herdegen - July 12, 2006 @ 1:44 pm

    Thank you, lonbud, for your response.

    You are a great statistician, a reknowned expository thinker; do the math.

    When I do the math, I find that ONE non-pacifistic person can control hundreds of pacifists through intimidation alone, and ONE non-pacifist with powerful weapons can control entire pacifistic societies.

    Which is the root of my disagreement with you on this issue; it seems to me that a pacifist philosophy requires that everyone be committed to such before it can be a viable reality.
    The Quakers and Amish are peaceful cultures, but they can exist only because they’re surrounded and protected by societies that are willing to use violence.

    Any normal human being past the age of eight or ten can be made to understand the power and the benefits of pacifism, and can find completely adequate and entertaining avenues for venting the powerful emotions that lead inadequately enlightened human adults to engage in violent behavior.

    Sure, but not all humans are “normal”. Some have physiologies that lead them to be aggressive and unable to fully consider consequences, and some have psychological or emotional problems that cause them to be driven to antisocial or simply completely-self-centered behavior.

    What would you do with the Saddams, Slobodan Milosevics, Kim Jung Ils, Arafats, and Irans of the world ?
    We could have a mostly pacifistic world, but we’d always have to retain the threat and capability of violence.

    Which brings us back to Iraq; while you may disagree with the way that it’s been handled, the Iraqi invasion was carried out with the long-term goal of reducing the culture of aggression and violence in the Middle East.
    The Iraqi war is a step that brings the world closer to your pacifist ideal, just as the aftermath of WW I, WW II, and the Cold War has been sixty years of international peace in Western Europe.

    To get peace, one must beat down and intimidate those who would seek to gain advantage through strife; “peace through superior firepower”.

    Michael, huge portions of Iraq remain without basic services three years after their “liberation” by American forces.

    LOL
    More hyperbole, lonbud ?

    I’ll send you $ 100 if you can prove that statement. I’m quite willing to believe that some small towns or insurgent strongholds remain without “basic services”, but “huge portions” ???
    No province is without basic services.

    Further, how do you suppose that people have remained alive in these “huge” areas if they don’t have access to food and water ?
    Or is access to food and water not a “basic service” ?
    They mostly don’t have internet access outside of the larger towns, if that’s what you mean.

    Iraq’s oil production — which was supposed to pay for the country’s “reconstruction” — remains below pre-war levels.

    Iraq daily oil production at 2.5m barrels
    Posted: Wednesday, June 28, 2006

    Iraq’s new oil minister offered an optimistic forecast for the country’s oil industry, saying daily production has reached 2.5 million barrels a day and that Iraq hoped to rival top oil exporter Saudi Arabia within a decade.

    Iraq expects its daily oil production to reach 2.6 million to 2.7 million barrels per day (bpd) by the end of the year, rising to about 4 million bpd by 2010, and six million bpd by 2012, Hussain Al Shahristani said in an interview on CNN’s “Late Edition.” […]

    That compares to pre-war output of just under three million bpd and exports of around two million. […]

    The highest daily oil production in Iraq’s history was 3.5 million bpd, he said, but the current production level is the most since the US-led invasion in 2003.

    So, while you are correct, the trend is favorable.
    They’re pumping at 70% of their all-time high, at 85% of their 90s norm, and they’ll be matching their 90s norm by the end of ’06.

    [The Free Market] will “sort out” the retirement benefits of those who worked the assembly lines that provided Roger and his buddies with unearned salaries and benefits.

    Yeah, it’s exactly the retirement benefits for those who worked the assembly lines, benefits negotiated by the unions that supposedly “represented” the workers, that are helping to kill GM.
    GM blue-collar retirees get such luxurious medical benefits that GM has become the largest health-care provider in America.

    The blue-collar workers were just as short-sighted as the management.
    Past workers were favored at the expense of current workers.

    But here’s where the “free” comes in – if, as an assembly-line worker, you feel that the management is running the company into the ground, and you feel as though your benefits aren’t sufficient, then DON’T WORK THERE.
    It’s as simple as that.

    Nor did the Free Market “sort out” Ken Lay…

    Yes, the Free-Market […] “sorted out” the den of thieves that was Enron.

    ‘Nuff said.

    But did that do anything to bring solace or equity to the grandmother whose life savings were destroyed […]? How does your Free Market address her grievances? How will her nest egg be restored?

    It won’t.
    The point is that the grandmother who invested in Enron was being foolish, and didn’t do her homework.

    As I said above, investors have responsibilities. If they choose to ignore them, they’re at the mercy of strangers.

    No one is forced to invest, in Enron or any other company.
    T-bills are 100% risk-free, and pretty much foolproof.

    The very notion of this godless, heartless, entity that exists only to maximize profits creates a beast, a Leviathan, that is inherently evil.

    The Free Market isn’t an “entity”, it’s an association. Saying that it’s evil is like saying that chatting down at the pub is evil, or that flirting with your sex of choice is evil.
    All the free market is, is a web of consensual transactions and interchanges. It’s not directed, nor does it have a goal or purpose.

    People can use a market to productive ends, such as finding education or manufacturing equipment, or for silly ends, such as photos of celebrities or cell-phone ringtones.
    The market doesn’t care.

    “The love of money is the root of all evil.”

    Would you then say that working for a wage is “evil” ?
    After all, most people do work that they don’t love, work that they wouldn’t do if they weren’t getting paid. They must “love” the money, no ?

    Profit-seeking behavior is not, in and of itself, proof of an obsessive love of wealth. Most normal humans seek to better their conditions.

47. lonbud - July 12, 2006 @ 8:09 pm

    You have it exactly wrong, Michael.

    One non-pacifist cannot “control” even a single pacifist, let alone an entire society of pacifists. The Amish and Quakers do not survive by benefit of being surrounded and “protected” by societies that are willing to use violence, they survive because they are surrounded by societies that leave them in peace.

    The end game — if existence at all is a component thereof — is peace, and peace can never be achieved through violence. If non-existence is the endgame, it matters little whether one gets there as a pacifist killed by a violent person or as a violent person killed by another violent person.

    Food and water are bare necessities of survival, not “basic services,” and yes, it would appear that food and water are readily available, if not equitably distributed in post-Saddam Iraq.

    Basic services, on the other hand, things like electricity, running water, fuel for motor vehicles and large appliances, sewage treatment, and the like are not consistently available in even the largest cities and are completely unavailable in more remote areas. Much of Iraq would qualify on the very low end of the Third World scale with respect to the availability and reliability of the basic services taken for granted on a daily basis by the citizens of its liberating armies.

    Keep your hundred bucks.

    I’ll repeat: oil production in Iraq remains below pre-invasion levels. Donald Rumsfeld sold the war to the U.S. Congress and the American public on the strength of the idea that oil production would completely cover the cost of the war and the country’s reconstruction.

    We’ll see if production hits 4m bpd by 2010 and 6m by 2012. And we’ll see just how “long-term” the long-term goal of reducing the culture of aggression and violence in the Middle East takes to be acheived.

    Personally, I’d be far more interested in spending 200 or 300 billion dollars to reduce the culture of agression and violence right here in the good ol’ USA.

48. Michael Herdegen - July 12, 2006 @ 9:50 pm

    Thank you, but I’d still like to know what you would do with the Saddams, Slobodan Milosevics, Kim Jung Ils, Arafats, and Irans of the world ?

    They seem ill-inclined to leave pacifists in peace.

49. Tam O’Tellico - July 12, 2006 @ 9:52 pm

    You’ll notice I didn’t offer the quote as it’s usually offered, that is “money is the root of all evil.” That is obviously not so. But “the love of money is the root of all evil”? Now there’s some food for thought.

    I’m fairly certain that quote did not imean the altruistic, agape love form of love, but rather the animalistic, thoughtless need to prove oneself by the conquest of another. This is the sort of difference one might suggest that money holds for someone like Warren Buffet as opposed to someone like Lee Raymond.

    In this context, money is not a way of providing for one’s sustenance – it’s a way of measuring one’s worth. And that, I submit, is what leads a man like Cheney to do evil with Halliburton, or a man like Tom DeLay or Ralph Reed to spout platitudes while taking bribes from Jack Abramoff – and see no evil in their deeds.

    As for your cavalier dismissal of grandmother’s, I suppose she got what was coming to her for speculating in such fly-by-night operator as Enron and for believing that the President’s good buddy Kenny Boy was not a crook, or for trusting the watch-dog accounting practices of a back-street firm like Arthur Anderson.

    This another shining example of why you and our beloved leader are so utterly wrong about privatizing Social Security – do you really believe that all grandmothers have the time or the expertise to compete in the market with Warren Buffet? That’s absurd and you know it.

    And as a matter of fact, many Enron employees were forced to hold onto stock they wanted to get rid of. That oughta teach ’em to trust the Free Market.

    Now you may have the time and expertise to swim with the sharks, but you really must understand that the attitude you and the sharks display about these things guarantees that ordinary people will never willingly submit to having their retirement funds controlled by such people.

50. lonbud - July 12, 2006 @ 10:59 pm

    Well, that’s the great thing about non-violence, Michael. All you have to do is adopt the practice for yourself, teach its benefits to your children, and encourage those around you to practice it as well.

    In time, the Saddams, Milosovics, Arafats, and Ills of the world will end up taking care of themselves.

    I notice you are lumping “Irans” into a list of well-known individual megalomaniacs and I wonder why? Is this the kind of buttering up the nation as a whole can expect in the run-up to our unprovoked attack on that country?

    I’m also curious whether you view Pakistan as friend or foe.

    And finally, I’d submit that a small group of Iraqi pacifists orchestrating a program of non-violent civil disobedience during the Saddam regime would have done a better job of bringing down the Butcher of Baghdad and reforming the culture of aggression and violence in the Middle East than anything America’s military might will produce there in the next 25 years.