September 22, 2005 by lonbud
Lovely Rita
Like many Americans, I’m sure, I sat riveted this evening to the news of Hurricane Rita, another Category 4 weather event bearing 145 MPH winds and possible 20 foot storm surges, churning through the Gulf of Mexico, taking aim on the beleagured Gulf Coast.
Millions of people from Panama City, Florida to Brownsville, Texas beat a retreat from the possible death and destruction augured by yet another natural disaster-in-the-making.
As I watched live footage of hundreds of thousands of cars streaming north out of Houston and listened to reports of the Bush administration touting a newfound readiness for dealing with possible response issues in the wake of Rita’s landfall, it was all too clear to me the people in charge still lack fundamental skills for managing even an orderly evacuation with advance notice of possible chaos and devastation.
Helicopter footage of the daylight evacuation under clear skies and dry conditions showed vast numbers of cars jampacked in the northbound lanes of Interstate 45, while all four lanes of the nominally southbound lanes of the freeway stood virtually empty.
“This is the worst planning I’ve ever seen,” said Judie Anderson, who covered just 45 miles in 12 hours after setting out from her home in the Houston suburb of LaPorte. “They say we’ve learned a lot from Hurricane Katrina. Well, you couldn’t prove it by me.”
Indeed.
A friend of mine with a background in the telecommunications industry put it well, saying, “This is just a switching issue.”
How could the best and brightest minds in the government –federal, state, local, you name it– not see that fully half of the resources at hand were being ignored, wasted, to the detriment of every single one of us?
300,00 troops at the ready? Water trucks and helicopters and extra band aids? We can’t even get out of our own way!
Look at us, and be afraid. Be very, very afraid.
Stu - September 22, 2005 @ 11:31 pm
Amazing. GW now says that the disastrous hurricane has shown him the disparities of class and race in this country. The president tog the United States did not realize this until after watching the evening news! What will it take for Americans to realize the blunder of having this short sighted, unintelligent man at the helm of this nation? Any honorable person in GW’s position would resign; any reasonable populace would force him to.
Tam O’Tellico - September 23, 2005 @ 5:23 am
Stu and others:
Back ’em up, Buckwheat. You may be as short-sighted as Bush.
Consider for a moment what would happen if Bush resigned or was impeached. We would be left to suffer under Dick the Anti-Christ Cheney and his sneering snarl. With Cheney in command, Washington D.C. would become corporate headquarters for Halliburton, and he wouldn’t even bother with a show of concern for ordinary citizens.
I hope and pray that George is at least somewhat interested in his legacy and at least tries to do something to keep from going down as the worst President in U.S. history. That is a very faint hope, of course. What is far more likely is that the “rebuilding” of the Gulf coast will become another feeding frenzy for fat-cat Republican corporations.
The sad truth is that representative Democracy has failed precisely because our leaders now represent the real us rather than what we hope to be. Once we elected Jefferson and Lincoln; now we elect Clinton and Bush. Ironically, it was a Swamper, Pogo, who summed it up simply and eloquently long ago– we have met the enemy and they are us.
Tam O’Tellico
Lore Cailor - September 23, 2005 @ 5:53 am
Those are the truest words ever spoken. We certainly are our own worst enemy. I also agree that being under Cheney would be a hell of a lot worse than GW. So to my way of thinking there is very little we can at this point do except “grin and bear it” we did it to ourselves. And I am willing to bet that if there were such a thing as running for a third term America would Still re-elect Bush. We just don’t seem to learn from our mistakes. So we are doomed to repeat them otherwise GW would not be in power now. I’m not too sure how much better Kerry would have been but that’s a moot point now.
Paul Burke - September 23, 2005 @ 9:00 am
George W. does what Cheney tells him to do and what Karl Rove tells him to do – remember the attack on McCain’s war record – and from a guy that bailed on National Guard Duty? These are not honorable people. They think they know everything, that the citizens are chumps and too lazy to pay attention and well as we all know pride goeth before the fall.
W. got a free ride because of 9/11 – as you can see as everyone can see plainly now he is horrible as a manager and places his incompetent cronies in position of authority. If it weren’t for 9/11 and the free pass and scare tactics he used to his advantage he would have never been reelected. His ineptness would have come to the fore under regular press scrutiny. That’s his home state, a red state that he couldn’t get evacuated properly. Those people are sitting ducks. Even the surfers know about opening up the opposite lanes. They even have a fancy word for it – contraflow – or something like that. It’s impossible to imagine W. didn’t say – have you opened up all the lanes – to the governor of his state.
After 9/11 it became a crime to publicly criticize W. But time has moved on and his free pass is over. Lo and behold as the flood waters breach (at this very moment) the levees in New Orleans once again George W. Bush will be hearing for the next several years all the criticism that has been held in check. The American people do eventually get it. W. is so blatantly painted by the following words – thank you Moby for articulating what we all have been excusing up until now –
“George Bush is the worst president in the history of the United States. He was a wealthy child, not very bright, and had everything handed to him. When he invaded Iraq he thought it would be as easy as ordering a pizza at Domino’s.”
Pretty strong and accurate words (remember the mission complete banner as he rode onto a carrier in a flight suit?) W. is pathetic, blatant incompetence wrapped up in an overabundance of arrogance. He is completely out of his element. But the citizens elected him and the representatives in congress. The fault lies with them. Until the elections become less about right versus left and more about hey who the heck are these guys really we’ll always have this problem. Until people stop electing candidates because they hate gays or fear women and think rather hmmm what does it take to be a real leader, a solid manager, a clear thinker, a successful executive and what the heck is this guys track record, until we ignore the advertising, the smear tactics (thank you Karl Rove for taking that to new heights) until people take a measured look at each individual and vote their pocket books – imagine not voting for Daschle a senior senator and electing the republican (because of rhetoric) and then you have a freshman senator trying to save your military bases to no avail – I mean come on how dumb is that. They deserve what they get in South Dakota for voting ideology instead of practicality. The difference between honorable men and corrupt individuals can not be summed up by their stand on abortion or gay marriage. We need a return to practicality and out with all the mumbo jumbo consternation about personal predilections and religious beliefs. Otherwise we are going to end up with a Hitler ourselves. Vote for the guy whose resume you like – looks like W. can add another bankruptcy to his!
http://members.cox.net/journeyhome/index.htm
Michael Herdegen - September 23, 2005 @ 12:08 pm
I dunno what highway you’re looking at, because since 9AM Central yesterday, I45 has been open to northbound traffic in ALL lanes.
Michael Herdegen - September 23, 2005 @ 1:48 pm
I hope and pray that George […] at least tries to do something to keep from going down as the worst President in U.S. history. That is a very faint hope, of course.
It never fails to bring a rueful smile to my face when someone accuses Bush of being The Worst President Ever.
How very sad that the average American is so ignorant of history that she’s forgotten (or was never taught about) John Tyler, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Ulysses S. Grant, Richard M. Nixon, or Jimmy E. Carter, all of whom are well in front of W. in the running for that shameful title.
George W. does what Cheney tells him to do and what Karl Rove tells him to do – remember the attack on McCain’s war record – and from a guy that bailed on National Guard Duty? These are not honorable people.
Bush completed all of his required service for the Texas Air National Guard, and was honorably discharged, all of which is PUBLIC RECORD, and well-disseminated.
Is it “honorable” to libel someone, and distort his record of military service, in an attempt to score cheap rhetorical points ?
Perhaps you’re simply lazy, Mr. Burke, and therefore failed to look up the easily accessable information about service in the Guard and Reserves which would have informed you that their policy is such that members are ALLOWED to skip drills, as long as they make up their time later – which Bush did.
That policy is still in force today for non-deployed units.
Were Dick Cheney and Karl Rove controlling Bush when he was the popular and successful two-time Governor of the nation’s 2nd most populous state ?
That’s where these vapid conspiracy theories fall apart.
(Wait, maybe Karen Hughes was Bush’s “handler” during that time !! Yeah, that’s it…)
What will it take for Americans to realize the blunder of having this short sighted, unintelligent man at the helm of this nation?
Bush is exactly as shortsighted as JFK, and is more intelligent than 90% of Americans.
lonbud - September 23, 2005 @ 1:24 pm
Since there’s no date on your posted link, Michael, and since I sat and watched the LIVE footage of the evacuation yesterday, and since every major newspaper in the country this morning reported the clusterf*ck Houstonians went through trying to get the hell outta Dodge yesterday, I feel very confident in saying Governor Goodhair was, like most of the rest of his self-absorbed cronies in government, a day late, and a dollar short. Your cited story undoubtedly refers to 9AM Central on 9/23.
Here’s a link to a story in the Houston Chronicle, posted at 11:34PM Central on 9/22:
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/topstory/3364562
Tam, Lore, Paul: absolutely. Cheney is and has always been Dubya’s hole card. And Tam, thanks for reminding us that Garry Trudeau is just the most current in a line of excellent political comic strip artists to reveal essential truths for an unwitting world:
http://www.bpib.com/kelly.htm
Michael Herdegen - September 23, 2005 @ 3:15 pm
Perhaps you’ll like this link better:
“Traffic flows northbound out of Houston on Interstate 45 in both directions as people evacuate the Houston area before Hurricane Rita hits, Thursday, Sept. 22, 2005…
From Houston, the main roads out of town – Interstate 10 to San Antonio, I-45 to Dallas, and U.S. Highway 290 to Austin – were turned into one-way thoroughfares [on] Thursday…”
This is the FIRST TIME that Texas has used a contraflow plan on I45.
As to the incredibly ignorant comments that somehow the local, state, and Federal governments have failed Texas:
(From the above link) “Houston is a landlocked city, an hour’s drive from the Gulf of Mexico. Besides Houston’s 4 million people fleeing, as many as 2 million were trying to get out through Houston from the coastal side.”
SIX MILLION people using the same roads within 48 hours ?
How could it NOT be backed up, with multiple problems encountered ?
When was the last time that SIX MILLION people evacuated any given area ?
Demanding that the near-impossible and never-done be executed perfectly the first time and at the spur of the moment is juvenile.
Michael Herdegen - September 23, 2005 @ 3:23 pm
Maybe try this link instead, the above requires registration.
lonbud - September 23, 2005 @ 2:15 pm
If Carly Fiorina does for the space program what she did for Hewlet-Packard it’ll be a long time before anyone bounces around the moon again and we may never get to Mars.
Arguments about Bush’s IQ are pointless; comparing his with Kerry’s or Clinton’s or anyone else’s for that matter, is apropos of exactly nothing. He got into Ivy Leage schools on a legacy exemption, and while there distinguished himself as a thoroughly mediocre student and a major-league f*ck-off. He also led two businesses into bankruptcy, much as he is leading this nation toward a similar destiny.
Presidents Tyler, Pierce, Buchanan, and Grant may well have been as incompetent and harmful to the interests of the United States, or even moreso, than Dubya, though why you would expect any but a handful of Americans to know about it (given the lack of priority given to education in our society) is beyond me.
Nixon and Carter, who many of the people reading this blog may be old enough to know about from having lived during their terms, are more complex cases.
Nixon clearly operated from a similar place of paranoia, and relied in many ways on the same dirty tricks and penchant for secrecy driving the Bush administration’s pursuit of its agenda. I would certainly not hesitate to mention Dubya and Tricky Dick in the same breath during a conversation about the Worst Presidents Ever.
Carter lacked the force of personality to reform the corruption and decadence of Inside-the Beltway politics and institutional bureaucracy, in addition to which he served the nation during the most challenging economic period since the Great Depression. But his heart, unlike that of Mr. Bush, was in the right place.
lonbud - September 23, 2005 @ 4:27 pm
From the article you cite, Michael:
From Houston, the main roads out of town – Interstate 10 to San Antonio, I-45 to Dallas, and U.S. Highway 290 to Austin – were turned into one-way thoroughfares only Thursday, and even then the one-way flow began well outside Houston.
What was clear from the television news yesterday, the same television news which somehow failed to apprise Michael Chertoff about the many thousands of people in distress at the New Orleans Convention Center in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, was that government officials spent hours before understanding that the admittedly gargantuan task of evacuating such a large number of people could have been made less chaotic and less difficult by opening up the southbound lanes of the freeways to northbound traffic.
The point my post was attempting to make, given that it took me about thirty seconds of watching the news to understand that half the freeway was going unused, and equally as long for my friend Sherman to recognize the issue as being essentially the same as a circuit switching problem in telecommunications, is that the people in charge are not the swiftest feet on the track.
Why hasn’t it ever been done before, Michael? Is this the first time a hurricane has ever threatened the Texas coast? Is this the first time large numbers of people have been ordered (or decided on their own) to evacuate ahead of a potentially devastating storm? Why wasn’t it part of the plan? For four lanes of freeway to sit empty for hours while millions of people needed to go in one direction only –that’s evidence of leaders who are very challenged in the creative thinking department.
I don’t demand perfection or an absence of problems, but I do think it’s reasonable to demand creative thinking of those who deign to lead. Demanding that we refrain from criticizing leaders who fail on that score, now that’s juvenile, if not downright suicidal.
Michael Herdegen - September 23, 2005 @ 4:36 pm
Arguments about Bush’s IQ serve to remind those who disparage it that they are merely indulging in ad hominem attacks, to make themselves feel better.
Absent such reminders, many of those making such attacks begin to believe their own propaganda.
lonbud, are you claiming that Harvard granted Bush an MBA simply to make G.H.W. Bush happy, and that they’re a diploma mill ?
You may wish to rethink your assertion.
Carter meant well, so his incompetency at executing the highest office in the land gets a pass ?
If that’s so, then why all of the hysterical posting about Bush’s supposed failures vis-a-vis Katrina ?
Unless, of course, you think that Bush wanted 1,000 people to die, and to make 400,000 homeless.
Bush and Carter both talk a lot about their religious beliefs, so how do you know that Carter is more pure of heart ?
Why hasn’t it ever been done before, Michael?
Beats me.
I am not now, nor have I ever been, in a position of authority in the Texas state gov’t.
I had the same thought – it’s not like this is the first time that a hurricane has hit Texas.
I suspect that MANY more people are leaving now than normally do, because they’ve been scared by Katrina.
That’s also why so many people were covered by evacuation advisories; everyone in authority is playing CYA after the Katrina problems.
even then the one-way flow began well outside Houston.
Of course.
I45 is Houston’s main north-south artery, bisecting the city. Look at a map.
If they made I45 one-way THROUGH Houston, then instead of there being gridlock north of Houston, there’d be gridlock INSIDE the beltway.
How would it help Houstonians, to prevent them from getting around the city ?
lonbud - September 23, 2005 @ 9:25 pm
Michael, methinks thou doth protest too much:
I can’t speak for anyone else, but my attacks on Dubya are far from ad hominem. If I’ve ever questioned his intelligence or his judgment, it’s always been in the context of decisions he’s made or outcomes for which he’s been responsible.
With respect to his curriculum vitiae, I’ve only ever pointed out that he gained admission to Yale and Harvard as a member of the Lucky Sperm Club.
Without the happy coincidence of his birth Mr. Bush would have never gotten into either school. In both, he failed to distinguish himself as a student, though he did manage to graduate. I’ve never questioned the validity of his degrees nor impugned the integrity of either institution — his performance as both a businessman and as a public official have done a fine enough job of that on their own.
It’s easy enough to judge the purity of Jimmy Carter’s faith against that professed by George W. Bush simply by reference to their respective attitudes — as expressed by their public policy decisions — toward the poorest and most needy among mankind.
Texas officials created the very inside-the-beltway gridlock that you decry by failing to open up southbound freeways to northbound traffic; it’s the whole point of my post.
charles rachlis - September 24, 2005 @ 7:55 am
Lets not beat around the Bush. If we take Michael at his word we must attribute to the President a deep religious consciousness based on the dogma extracted from the distilled teaching of one fiery Jewish spiritual teacher some 2000 years ago. Michael and other supporters of the President must believe that the present admistration’s practices are consistant with the teachings of Jesus. This is where I need a little assistance from Michael and his co-thinker’s superior intelligence.
If I read the present mythology correctly Jesus would approve the invasion of Iraq based on faulty and manufactured “intelligence”. That Jesus would have supported tax cuts to the richest in society is clear from his often qoated “Render unto Cesar what is Cesar’s” bit. That Jesus would have been ignorant of the presence of poverty and in his midst as the President has demonstrated himself to be is one of my quandries. At least Jesus could wave his hand and three loves and three little fishes could feed the multitudes. The President waves his hands and the feeding of the multiudes is halted by the FDA burning MRE’s sent from the UK. The President waves his hand and refused aid from Cuban medics who are trained and ready to aid Huricanne victems. Jesus chased the money lenders out of the Temple presumably so they could set up a stock market at a more reasonable site. The President waves his hand and abolished the Davis-Bacon wage guarrentees (laborers in New Orleans get about $9.50 per hour prevailing wage) so as he passes out No Bid contracts to Halliburton and Bechtel to profit off the the disaster and ethnically cleanse New Orleans…
Yes I said it New Orleans is about to be ethnically cleaned. Watch what happens to the predominantly black parishes as they are bulldozed and the urban planners use the new court ruling on eminant domain to turn New Orleans into what devlopers prefer.
George Bush and Jesus Christ please Michael educate me.
charles rachlis - September 24, 2005 @ 8:19 am
Please do not think I give the Democrats and Clinton a free pass. Madaline Albrights admission that the 500,000 deaths of children caused by the sanctions against Iraq (sancitions are considered an act of war) were “worth it” put Clinton in the same group of world class criminals as the Bush cabal…This is timely as Amy Goodman on “Democracy Now” (see http://www.democracynow.com) interviewed Govenor Richardson of New Mexico yesterday. Richardson, who served in the Clinton administration, supported the sanctions and ultimatly the resultant deaths of 500,000 children.
Both Democrats and Republicans shroud their crimes against humanity in pious platitudes one would prefer honesty from both parties..
It might sound like this. We don’t give a shit about the poor, worker’s rights, child labor (consider our imports from China, our hand woven rugs from Pakistan, our GAP/Banan Republic et al clothing manufactured in Honduras and El Salvador) , brown, black or yellow people. We only care about making profit for our supporter’s and their corporations. Every now and again we with throw the poor a bone just so the howling dogs won’t nip at our heels. I would appriciate such honesty but such honesty is far from the lips of the mystifiers of the public perception.
One recalls the final encounter between Dorathy and the Wizard of OZ a little doggie lifted the veils of mystification. Maybe we should rename Katrina Todo.
Michael Herdegen - September 24, 2005 @ 11:57 am
lonbud:
Michael, methinks thou doth protest too much:
Since I only protest AFTER someone else attacks Bush, and never raise the topic myself, are you saying that responding to scurrilous attacks by posting the objective truth is “too much” ?
I can’t speak for anyone else, but my attacks on Dubya are far from ad hominem. If I’ve ever questioned his intelligence or his judgment, it’s always been in the context of decisions he’s made or outcomes for which he’s been responsible.
I will grant that you may believe the above, but no objective observer would agree.
I don’t have time today, but I could look over your postings for the last ninety days and pull out AT LEAST a dozen examples of wildly unsupported accusations you’ve made about Bush.
Of course, you might retreat to your “hyperbole” refuge, and claim that you were overstating the case for rhetorical effect…
Fine.
How you want to present your case against the President is your own business.
However, you cannot claim both to be dramatizing for effect, AND that you’re making an objective case, free of ad hominem.
Part of the problem is that you ascribe to Bush responsibility for outcomes for which he is NOT wholely responsible, such as the 9/11 attack, or criticize decisions that he’s made without waiting for the outcomes of the decisions – you simply ASSUME that things will turn out badly. SS reform is an example of the latter.
Also, some have criticized Bush for pork in the recent Transportation bill, but CONGRESS is responsible for that.
All Bush does is decide whether to sign bills as is, or send them back. With regards to the Transportation bill, Bush DID send it back, demanding that there be LESS SPENDING, i.e, less pork.
There was a little trimming, and Bush signed the reformed bill into law.
Now, one might have legitimate complaints about the amounts spent, or where they’re going, but Bush can’t control all of that. Bush is NOT THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY in domestic affairs; Congress is.
As some of you may have learned in Civics class, Congress can OVERRIDE a Presidential veto. Clinton won a line-item veto, but the SCOTUS stripped it away from the office of the POTUS, saying that it was un-Constitutional, and affirming that CONGRESS gets to decide what gets spent where.
Now, some might believe that the GOP is monolithic, but that’s only true in some cases. The President cannot count on enough Congressional Republican support to strip out 100% of the pork in ANY bill.
He’d get overriden for sure, since the Congressional Dems would unite to oppose him, and when it comes to bringing home Federal dollars to their districts, enough GOPers would join in.
I’ve never questioned the validity of his degrees nor impugned the integrity of either institution — his performance as both a businessman and as a public official have done a fine enough job of that on their own.
Yeah, because almost EVERY graduate of Harvard or Yale becomes a two-time Governor, and a two-time President of the United States.
Bush is quite the underperformer.
I accept that you have some irrational and preconceived prejudice against Dubya, that will not be swayed regardless of what he’s actually done or failed to do.
What I ask is that you simply RECOGNIZE THE REALITY of Bush.
You don’t have to like him to admit that he’s been spectacularly successful.
I think that both Gore and Kerry were fools, but I don’t believe that they are stupid, or failures.
You also ascribe all of Bush’s success to “lucky sperm”, but there are many, MANY people with famous last names who don’t get showered with goodies.
Like athletic talent, belonging to a powerful family only gets you so far – the rest is up to the individual.
If the “Bush” name were truly magic, then why did Dubya LOSE his first political race, and why did Jeb Bush LOSE in his first attempt to win a Florida gubernatorial race, and why isn’t Neil Bush in any position of power and influence ?
It’s easy enough to judge the purity of Jimmy Carter’s faith against that professed by George W. Bush simply by reference to their respective attitudes — as expressed by their public policy decisions — toward the poorest and most needy among mankind.
Yeah ?
Did Carter fight to get $ 15 billion in aid to Africa approved ?
Did Carter work to stop a civil war, such as the one in Sudan that the Bush admin was able to broker a peace deal for ?
Carter DID help a ruthless dictator stay in power, by fecklessly endorsing the outcome of the last Venezuelan referendum.
I’m not saying that Carter’s a bad guy; I’m pleased by his promotion of the work of Habitat for Humanity.
What I’m saying is that you wrongly assume that Bush is evil because you don’t like the WAY in which Bush seeks to help the poor.
BTW, under Bush, fewer low-income families than ever before pay Federal income taxes – is that because Bush is simply incompetent in squeezing the poor to pay for goodies for his fat-cat pals ?
Or, could it be that Bush REALLY DOES have some compassion, which he expresses differently than you would, if you were President ?
Texas officials created the very inside-the-beltway gridlock that you decry by failing to open up southbound freeways to northbound traffic; it’s the whole point of my post.
Yes, and I’m saying that you’re wrong.
Making the main north-south artery one-way within Houston would have resulted in gridlock on the surface streets within Houston.
Helping fleeing people was the main priority, but not the ONLY priority – there was still a city with four million residents to run.
Michael Herdegen - September 24, 2005 @ 12:27 pm
Good golly, Mr. Rachlis, how old are you ?
I ask because adults typically recognize that the world is filled with shades of gray, that there often ISN’T a solution that harms none, and that sometimes one must go with the lesser evil.
Jesus probably wouldn’t have approved of the Iraqi invasion, but that’s because he wasn’t a political guy. He didn’t even care that Judea was occupied by the Romans. He wouldn’t care about the political and social oppression of the Iraqis by Saddam, as long as the Iraqis could hear about the Jewish God, as opposed to Allah.
Jesus would see precious little poverty in present-day America, by his standards.
Sure, there are those without cars, or air conditioning, but only the insane starve in America.
When many poor people are fat, and almost all have adequate medical care, it’s an absurd ignorance of history and the rest of the current world that would lead anyone to believe that less-well-off Americans are uniquely mistreated.
As to the UN sanctions, yes, hundreds of thousands of people died because of them, mostly children, but that was SADDAM’S fault, not Bush or Clinton’s.
The alternatives were to ignore Saddam’s constant regional aggression, or to re-invade.
Since you didn’t support the sanctions, and you don’t support the current Iraqi war, I can only assume that you support allowing Saddam to start more wars like the 1980 – 1988 Iran/Iraq war, which killed 1.5 million people.
As you can see, there IS NO HARMLESS OPTION, only the least harmful option – which we eventually took.
We don’t [care about] child labor (consider our imports from China, our hand woven rugs from Pakistan, our GAP/Banan Republic et al clothing manufactured in Honduras and El Salvador) , brown, black or yellow people.
You forgot about Afghanistan, where U.S. companies are the largest employers.
Considering that working for a dollar a day allows children and other poor people in Afghanistan, China, Pakistan, and Central America to EAT, and therefore SURVIVE, are you advocating that America ban imports from such countries, and allow ten million people to die ?
Or are you personally going to rescue them ?
As it turns out, EVERY choice has consequences, and you obviously haven’t given much thought to the inevitable results of your preferred policies.
As to people of color, Bush wants to give TEN MILLION illegal Mexicans a legal status in the U.S.
Are you claiming that Mexicans aren’t black or brown, or that being legal would be harmful to them ?
Bubbles - September 24, 2005 @ 2:26 pm
Michael, you’re history of the Carter years is so distorted I don’t even know where to begin. So much of the good work Carter began was undone by Reagan for no other reason than to distance itself from Carter because he promised to do so for pure political gain.
The Camp David Accords laid down a true roadmap for middle east peace and Reagan just let the whole process atrophy and die. Which lead directly to the fuckfest in Lebanon, and truly the rest is history. That alone was perhaps the greatest missed opportunity in the last 25 years to avoid the mess we find ourselves in today. If Reagan had tried to keep all of the players feet to the fire we could have a very different looking world, but no there was danger in Carter getting the credit instead of the irrepressible political opportunity to discredit him. That was perhaps the greatest strategic blunder of our time and NO ONE calls out the Reagan Administration for it.
In a much smaller but equally culpable way your good buddy Bush had to distance himself from where Clinton left off in pursuing Bin Laden/al Qaeda to ‘re-evaluate’ that policy. As the 9/11 commission points out in its report this tendency to sever the policies perused by the opposite/previous party’s Administration can have devastating consequences to security policy.
Carter also pushed for the ‘Rapid Deployment Military’ 20 years before Rummy. Carter’s mobile MX missile strategy was a hell of a lot cheaper, more effective and less dangerous/destabilizing than ‘Star War’s’ and the deployment of the Pershing II’s in West Germany. Reagan built a 600 ship Navy that was prompty mothballed. Carter’s energy policy too doesn’t look so far fetched today now does it? I can go on…
So ease up pal, we’re still waiting for even ONE of the Bush’s long-range plans to make even an iota of sense.
Michael Herdegen - September 24, 2005 @ 3:52 pm
So, you’re claiming that Carter’s peace-making was more effective than Clinton’s, and that the Camp David Accords would have worked if Reagan had simply been behind them, even though the Oslo agreement failed, despite having much more support ?
Wishful thinking.
The biggest obstacle to peace for Palestine was always Arafat, not any U.S. President.
Carter’s MX missile strategy was a hell of a lot cheaper, more effective and less dangerous/destabilizing than ‘Star Wars’…
Uh-huh.
Imagine, for a moment, that I had written that, and not you.
You’d be saying to yourself “What is this guy thinking !!”
MX was LESS destabilizing than the SDI ?
MX was MORE EFFECTIVE ? Now you’re endorsing MAD ?
Does this sound CHEAPER ?:
“In September 1979, President Jimmy Carter approved the shell-game concept. His plan called for 200 MX missiles, each flitting back and forth among 23 silos. The idea was that the Soviets would have to fire 23 warheads to ensure hitting a single MX – 4,600 warheads to get them all – a task so onerous they wouldn’t bother.” – Fred Kaplan
Besides, Reagan was for the MX too:
Ronald Reagan, a weapons buff, renamed the MX “Peacekeeper” and asked for 100 more. With the help of New Democrats like Al Gore, he got [ultimately only] 50.
Here’s some backround:
[W]e’re still waiting for even ONE of the Bush’s long-range plans to make even an iota of sense.
You don’t see the sense in having free-trade agreements with Australia, Chile, Singapore, and Central America ?
Or are those not “long-range” ?
Maybe you don’t believe that there were part of Bush’s plans, even though he ordered them to be negotiated, and lobbied Congress to get them passed.
Similarly, Bush’s long-range plans on education, the SDI, SS, and space exploration make perfect sense – you just disagree with the GOALS of those plans.
Michael Herdegen - September 24, 2005 @ 4:16 pm
Hey, how about that.
On the very day that we discuss the Camp David Accords, the Palestinians show us that peace will be achieved over their dead bodies:
Hamas militants in Gaza fire 35 rockets at Israeli towns :
[All emph. add.] Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz told security chiefs in a meeting that “the ground of Gaza should shake” and that he wanted to exact a high price from Palestinians everywhere, not just Hamas. He promised a “crushing” response, including airstrikes, targeted killings and arrest raids, participants said afterward. […]
The heightened violence followed a chain of events starting Friday with an explosion at a Hamas rally in Gaza’s Jebaliya refugee camp. At least 15 Palestinians were killed and dozens wounded.
Hamas blamed Israel, claiming it fired missiles into the crowd, and said its rocket attacks were in retaliation. Israel denied involvement, and the Palestinian Authority said Islamic militants apparently caused the blast themselves by mishandling explosives.
A senior Palestinian security official confirmed Saturday that friction caused a rocket-propelled grenade in a truck to explode, which then ignited about 10 other grenades. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation. […]
On Saturday afternoon, Israeli aircraft fired five missiles at two cars carrying Hamas militants in Gaza City, killing at least two militants and wounding nine people, officials said. Other officials put the death toll at four. […]
Hamas identified two of the dead as Nafez Abu Hussein and Rwad Farhad, local field commanders. Several hundred gunmen, some firing into the air, joined a funeral procession for Farhad, who was 17.
Farhad’s mother, known as Um Nidal, said all three of her sons have been killed in fighting with the Israelis. “I am so proud,” she said. “I wish I had more sons to offer.” […]
On the other side of the border, Eli Moyal, the mayor of Sderot, the Israeli town hit by most of the rockets, criticized the Israeli response as “minimal and insulting.”
– By IBRAHIM BARZAK, Associated Press Writer
lonbud - September 24, 2005 @ 9:18 pm
Why confine your ire at my criticism of President Bush to the past ninety days, Michael? I have posts here that go back four years, and while the rhetorical license with which I’ve written them is broad in scope, I stand behind their essential validity.
I agree with you that Congress bears responsibility for much of the disparity with which our resources are allocated, and for the corruption and cronyism that are hallmarks of their dispensation. Let it be noted that Congress has been largely under the control of the Republican party for the past decade, and also that I have never been shy about criticizing the Democrats for failing to mount anything resembling a true opposition.
Many things, however — some of the most important — are beyond partisan politics.
At the very fundamental foundations of Life, Liberty, and the Pusuit of Happiness, Mr. Bush is personally responsible for a host of actions and policies that have done, are doing, and will continue to do irreparable harm to the people of this nation and to the fabric of our society.
Knowingly, willfully, purposefully lying to the American public — notwithstanding the purported or actual pretexts for his doing so — in order to launch a war of choice in which billions of dollars have been spent and countless thousands of lives have been wasted and destroyed, is just the beginning.
He is also personally responsible for an unprecedented attack on the environment, having by presidential appointment and executive order placed the earth, the air, the water, and every resource therein under the stewardship and control of the nation’s largest polluters.
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. has done yeoman’s work documenting much for which Mr. Bush is personally responsible, and which makes Mr. Bush a very bad man.
In a different way than Saddam, but no less bad himself .
Michael Herdegen - September 24, 2005 @ 10:42 pm
Oh yeah, RFK Jr. and t r u t h o u t, those are PRIME sources – kinda like the anonymous guy at Kinko’s who provided the “smoking gun” docs that ended Dan Rather’s career.
From t r u t h o u t :
Address by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. –
President Bush […] put in charge of public lands a mining industry lobbyist, Steven Griles, who believes that public lands are unconstitutional.
Have you ever considered that public Federal lands might just be unconstitutional ?
State public lands would pass muster, of course.
Then RFK Jr. says something quite stupid:
The problem is most Americans don’t know about it, they don’t see the connection and the reason for that is because we have a negligent and indolent media and press in this country which has absolutely let down American democracy [applause]. […] [Y]ou know and I know there is no such thing as a liberal media in the United States of America.
Really ?
A survey released in May 2004 by the Pew Research Center for People and the Press :
Journalists at the local and national level consider themselves to be more liberal than the public overall, and less conservative.
“Journalists at national and local news organizations are notably different from the general public in their ideology and attitudes toward political and social issues,” the survey’s summary notes. “Most national and local journalists, as well as a plurality of Americans (41%), describe themselves as political moderates. But news people ­– especially national journalists -­are more liberal, and far less conservative, than the general public.”
The survey found that 20 percent of general public calls itself liberal, as do 34 percent of the national journalists and 23 percent of local journalists. Forty-one percent of the public calls itself moderate while 54 percent of the national and 61 percent of the local journalists do so.
That compares with the 33 percent of the American public that calls itself conservative, compared with 7 percent of the national and 12 percent of local journalists.
According to Fred Barnes in the conservative Weekly Standard:
“The argument over whether the national press is dominated by liberals is over. Since 1962, there have been 11 surveys of the media that sought the political views of hundreds of journalists. In 1971, they were 53 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In a 1976 survey of the Washington press corps, it was 59 percent liberal, 18 percent conservative. A 1985 poll of 3,200 reporters found them to be self-identified as 55 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In 1996, another survey of Washington journalists pegged the breakdown as 61 percent liberal, 9 percent conservative.”
A war of choice in which billions of dollars have been spent and countless thousands of lives have been wasted and destroyed…
This is what I mean by “you have some irrational and preconceived prejudice against Dubya, that will not be swayed regardless of what he’s actually done”.
Here you count the cost, in treasure and blood, of the Iraqi pacification, but DON’T balance that against the benefits accrued, such as 25 million people freed from tyranny, the end to Libya’s WMD programmes, the Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon, and the free and mostly fair elections in Iraq, Lebanon, and Egypt.
Sure, the U.S. could have saved three or four hundred billion dollars by not re-invading Iraq, but how can you possibly imagine that FEWER lives would have been wasted and destroyed if Saddam had remained in power, ESPECIALLY if the UN sactions had been lifted ?
Again, Saddam started a war in 1980 that killed 1.5 million people, and TWO YEARS after that war ended, he STARTED ANOTHER ONE !!
THAT is who you invest with your hopes for keeping peace in the region ?
Get real. Seriously.
Mr. Bush [is] very bad man. In a different way than Saddam, but no less bad himself.
Yeah, yeah, I get it, Bush = Hitler.
Why not Bush = Pol Pot ?
Gracious me, why not Bush = Satan ?
To iterate:
“Discomfort and humiliation are quite tame compared to being fed into a plastic shredder, dunked into a vat of acid, or forced to watch the rape and beating of your wife and kids, as happened under Saddam, or having your fingernails be removed with pliers while being whipped with barbed wire, as happened under Pol Pot.
Only one doctor and two lawyers, out of the entire population of doctors and lawyers in Cambodia, survived the Killing Fields.”
“When people call being forced to stand for twelve hours, listen to loud and unpleasant music, or wear panties on one’s head “torture”, it’s another boot to the face of those who have ACTUALLY BEEN tortured.”
Similarly, when you compare Bush to Saddam, you both make yourself look ridiculous, and vastly diminish the very real ruthlessness of Saddam’s rule.
I doubt highly that you would downplay the European Holocaust in some bizarre effort to cast Bush in a bad light, but you think NOTHING of ignoring that Saddam killed literally millions, while bad-mouthing Bush.
For shame.
Michael Herdegen - September 24, 2005 @ 10:49 pm
Sorry, that Pew link won’t work, try this: http://usconservatives.about.com/od/mediawatchdogs/a/liberalmedia.htm
lonbud - September 25, 2005 @ 9:09 am
The onslaught of statistics gets to be mind-numbing, Michael. For, in reality, it doesn’t matter what percentage of journalists or politicians or first responders or first graders, for that matter, self-identifies as liberal or conservative.
The fact is that almost every single source of news and information in this country is controlled by a small handful of powerful corporate interests dedicated to nothing more than driving revenue to their bottom lines.
Some, like Fox, Sinclair, and Clearchannel are obvious propagandists for a reactionary, punitive, moralist agenda sympathetic to that of the current administration. Others, like CNN and the NY Times slant toward a marginally more humanist, though no less narrow focus on support for a status quo that ignores massive disparities in the distribution and protection of our public resourses.
The abandonment of the Fairness Doctrine and failure to apply anti-trust provisions to the media underly much of what is wrong, diseased, and in need of critical attention in our culture.
Additionally, RFK, Jr. and truthout are nothing like “the anonymous guy at kinko’s.” Both sources are well-researched, documented, verifiable, and open to inquiry. As you are so fond of saying, you may disagree with their goals and conclusions, but you can’t with a wave of your hand write them off as inconsequential.
It’s amusing to me how you and your fellow acolytes of the ruling junta are the ones always comparing Bush, Saddam, Pol Pot, Hitler, Chamberlain, Churchill… I’ve only ever said Bush and his fulfillment of his office are damnable of their own accord. I’ve also always admitted that Saddam was a despicable tyrant and never, ever, tried to justify or excuse any of his deplorable acts.
How does one intellignetly parse an equation in which the values include the wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians?
My position is simple. Though my understanding of it comes more from an appreciation of buddhist teachings and practices, Jesus Christ held it as an essential truth as well: you reap what you sow.
Bubbles - September 25, 2005 @ 11:11 am
Michael,
You exhibit laser like blindness. Your contempt for the Camp David Accords leaves out that little bit about 27 years of Peace between Egypt and Israel. Hmmm…. Sure I agree many Palestinians and others who claim to represent their interests are savages. History is filled with savagery and it’s also filled with truces and balances of power that have squelched savagery. Amazing isn’t how the chicken hawks see no path to peace but the battle hardened warriors do. Incongruous no? Perhaps not, The UN and League of Nations were the community of nations coming together in response to World Wars. Their purpose is the prevention of War. Is it really so abhorrent that they don’t declare War often enough for the ‘Chicken Hawks’?
Is it really so abhorrent that the purpose of the Environmental Protection Agency should be to protect the environment, or is it your contention that it should error on the side of protecting the polluters? Can I please have one large order of smelling salts here? Again you take no time to defend the documented examples that Kennedy cites in his speech or that he refers to at the http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/ you just with a wave of the hand attack the ‘liberal media’ and Bobby Kennedy as a source. In our previous discussion I could have sworn you agreed with a quote I posted about needing to account for environmental impact and the use of natural resources within market economics. Isn’t that exactly what he’s saying is not being done? What changed is it because it’s Bobby Kennedy Jr. saying it that it’s no longer sensible?
Thus, its so hard to take you seriously, it seems you’ll just defend the indefensible no matter what just because you take to be a demerit on your side of the ledger. Are you critical of anything any Republican has ever done or do they all rise above the rest of humanity and walk on water? I really don’t hear that from the rest of us regarding Democrats. Perhaps that explains a lot. As I believe Will Rodgers said it best, “I belong to no organized political party”, “I’m a Democrat”.
lonbud - September 25, 2005 @ 11:56 am
or, as RFK, Jr. put it, 80% of Republicans are just Democrats who don’t know what’s going on.
Michael Herdegen - September 26, 2005 @ 4:11 pm
lonbud:
[There is] much for which Mr. Bush is personally responsible, and which makes Mr. Bush a very bad man.
In a different way than Saddam, but no less bad himself .
It’s amusing to me how you and your fellow acolytes of the ruling junta are the ones always comparing Bush, Saddam, Pol Pot, Hitler, Chamberlain, Churchill… I’ve only ever said Bush and his fulfillment of his office are damnable of their own accord.
Do you believe that those two statements are compatible ?
RFK, Jr. and truthout […] are well-researched, documented, verifiable, and open to inquiry. As you are so fond of saying, you may disagree with their goals and conclusions, but you can’t with a wave of your hand write them off as inconsequential.
True enough.
However, their approach and delivery is such that they appeal to people who ALREADY AGREE with them.
Their confrontational attitude does not convince me to listen to and explore their claims, despite the fact that SOME of their assertions are undoubtably correct.
The fact that the one claim that I did research revealed that they were WRONG also does not cause me to desire to investigate further.
How does one intelligently parse an equation in which the values include the wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians?
When both sides of the equation involve innocent people dying, you have to choose the lesser evil.
Bubbles:
Again you take no time to defend the documented examples that Kennedy cites in his speech or that he refers to at the http://www.nrdc.org/bushrecord/ …
That’s correct, I don’t have the time to refute RFK, Jr. or t r u t h o u t point by point.
If you like, I’ll refute one claim per week, but unlike RFK, Jr. or t r u t h o u t staffers, I don’t get paid to talk about this stuff.
…you just with a wave of the hand attack the ‘liberal media’ and Bobby Kennedy as a source.
A “wave of the hand” that includes conclusive research proving that the media IS liberal.
Thus, its so hard to take you seriously, it seems you’ll just defend the indefensible no matter what just because you take to be a demerit on your side of the ledger.
The “indefensible” ?
“Hard to take me seriously” ?
I just proved that I was correct, and they were incorrect, using third-party data, so how much more “serious” and “defensible” do you want me to be ?
Are you critical of anything any Republican has ever done…
Yes.
…or do they all rise above the rest of humanity and walk on water?
No.
lonbud - September 26, 2005 @ 5:45 pm
Michael:
I’m sorry, I missed where you researched a truthout claim and found it wrong. Are you referring to that blizzard of statistics from Pew where a bunch of individual journalists self-identified as being left of draconian?
That’s supposed to prove we do in fact have a liberal media in this country?
Please.
The only way to research the political leanings of the media is to study the stories the media publishes or produces on air. Fortunately for all of us, Al Franken and his staff did just that and published the results in his phenomenally hilarious, yet meticulously documented book, Lies, And The Lying Liars Who Tell Them, which debunks the myth of a liberal media in America. I don’t have my copy handy but I’ll be happy to provide citations later in the thread.
There clearly are liberal people who work in the media, but from an institutional standpoint, our media here are far from liberal. And all the proof one needs for the validity of that statement lies in the fact that GWB remains in office.
Michael Herdegen - September 26, 2005 @ 8:07 pm
I prefer objective truth, a “blizzard of statistics”, and you prefer subjective truth, i.e., as long as Bush hasn’t been chased from office, it “proves” that the media are conservative.
We are therefore engaged in a theological debate, and I will never prove to your satisfaction that your God is false – because reality rarely trumps faith.
lonbud - September 26, 2005 @ 8:53 pm
Au contraire, mon frere!
Faith is but the fervent hope, belief, prayer, delusion, that somehow, someday the objective reality of life will conform to one’s subjective dreams and aspirations. And do not take that, please, as any condemnation of the value or necessity of cultivating and practicing faith in this life. I am a man of great, unshakable faith (in certain things) myself.
In fact, however, at any given moment in time, reality always trumps faith. As my friend Tom Dorsey is constantly reminding me, what is, is.
Where you and I differ in this little tete a tete viz a viz a liberal media in the US comes down merely to a disagreement on definitions. What do we mean by media? By what standard are we to brand their fulminations liberal or conservative?
As Franken points out in his book, pp.38-39, your very own beloved Pew Charitable Trusts for Excellence in Journalism, in a study based on 1,149 stories reported by seventeen leading news sources during the 2000 presidential campaign, found positive stories about Bush outstripped those about Gore by a 24% to 13% margin. Likewise, negative stories about Gore were more prevalent than negative portraits of Bush by 56% to 49%.
Perhaps the one characterization of the media we might agree on is its tone of negativity.
In closing, can you name one organ among, say, Fox, the WSJ, the Washington Times, or the National Review that doesn’t appeal to people who ALREADY AGREE with them?
Bubbles - September 26, 2005 @ 10:03 pm
Lets just call it what it is:
The very existence of the notion of ‘The Liberal Media’ is in and of itself proof of the role the mass media’s talking heads play in what is nothing short of a fascistic propaganda machine. It is a canonical example of Goebbels’ “Big Lie”. The purposeful corruption of language for political ends. Where ‘Liberal,’ like ‘Jew,’ -used enough times in a pejorative context- creates an evil enemy out of thin air. Goebbels’ technique, also known as argumentum ad nauseam, is the name given to the policy of repeating a lie until it is taken to be the truth.
The more I think about how to combat this technique the more I’m reminded of Lenny Bruce’s monologue where he shouts nigger so many times to becomes funny. Thats it… its the old Liberal Media joke BWAAHHHAHAHAH 😉
Michael Herdegen - September 27, 2005 @ 3:51 pm
In fact, however, at any given moment in time, reality always trumps faith. […] [W]hat is, is.
I believe that YOU believe that, but you couldn’t prove it by your blog postings.
Your entire worldview is a triumph of faith over reality.
If what is, is, why do you so love conspiracy theories ?
Why not live by Ockham’s Razor ?
You see malice and planning where I see run of the mill incompetence and inattention – which is a more likely scenario, in any given situation ?
In closing, can you name one organ among, say, Fox, the WSJ, the Washington Times, or the National Review that doesn’t appeal to people who ALREADY AGREE with them?
No.
However, the difference between the above and t r u t h o u t is that the above seek to make money by supplying to people something that they already desire. If t r u t h o u t is to make any difference in the world, (which is, after all, their reason for existing), they must CONVINCE people to desire what they’re offering.
That is where they’re failing.
Not that they’re alone. MOST advocacy groups end up preaching to the choir – it’s so much easier.
Pro-life, anti-drug, and anti-smoking groups are the most egregious examples of bad PR and sales technique, that I’ve noticed.
Here is a prime example of a popular conspiracy theory:
The very existence of the notion of ‘The Liberal Media’ is in and of itself proof of the role the mass media’s talking heads play in what is nothing short of a fascistic propaganda machine. It is a canonical example of Goebbels’ “Big Lie”. The purposeful corruption of language for political ends. – Bubbles
While the news releases from political figures and advocacy groups do fall into that category, being usually composed of propaganda or spin, the mass media that chooses whether or not to air or publish that information exists SOLELY to sell copy. There’s no conspiracy to aid one group or another in the media as a whole, although such occasionally happens within one media organization, such as the fraudulent Bush TANG memoes that some people at CBS knowingly propagated.
Mostly what it is, is that people like to report on ideas that they believe in, or agree with, and since the people who make up news organizations skew leftward, that’s what gets aired.
That anyone could look at the whole of American media and see a fascist propagana machine is…
Incredible, in the truest sense of the word.
Hilarious, in a dark way.
Delusional, faith trumping reality once again.
Tam O’Tellico - September 27, 2005 @ 7:57 pm
To Mike H.
You wrote: “It never fails to bring a rueful smile to my face when someone accuses Bush of being The Worst President Ever. How very sad that the average American is so ignorant of history that she’s forgotten (or was never taught about) John Tyler, Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan, Ulysses S. Grant, Richard M. Nixon, or Jimmy E. Carter, all of whom are well in front of W. in the running for that shameful title.”
Mike, how could you have left Harding and Hoover off your list? Before I begin to beat around the Bush, I must take exception to your response.
For starters — not that it really matters — I am not a she — curious, though, that you make such a presumption, and equate “she” and ignorance so blithely. I’ll skip a diatribe about chauvinism, and assume instead that you are simply ignorant of literature and don’t appreciate the allusion to Tam O’Shanter. Look it up, you’ll find it chillingly informative about the price one pays for speaking out against the powers that be.
As for my being as ignorant of history as the average American, I presume you mean an average American like George W. Bush. Had he taken advantage of the many opportunities he had to receive a first-class education instead of frittering it all away in frat-boy indulgences, he would have understood that the battle for “Eden” has been raging for thousands of years. Furthermore, he would have understood that crusades remain a very sore subject in that part of the world. Only a pathetic ignorance of history could lead someone to believe we had some secret solution to these centuries-old entanglements. And were the consequences not so tragic, it would be laughable that anyone would seriously hold the notion that we would be greeted with flowers.
For the record, I supported W in his Adventures in Afghanistan — right up to the point Osama was allowed to escape while the politicos pondered. Iraq, however, was folly from the beginning. Maybe things would have gone better had Rumsfled listened to the advice of his generals and decided to not wage war on the cheap, but even that is probably wishful thinking.
As for wishful thinking, I bet George wishes he had listened to Daddy and Colin Powell instead of the Zion-Cons. Had young George gone to war instead of ducking when it was his turn, he might have been more reluctant to get us into another Viet Nam. But we are in it now, and in this case, declaring victory and running will have far worse consequences than Viet Nam.
Bush began a war for suspect reasons with suspect assumptions and suspect strategy, and with no exit strategy. It now appears he has no strategy at all except to depend on Divine Providence to pull his arse from the fire. Good luck. As I told my pastor before the war began “What if you’re right about it all being in God’s hands, Preacher, and God thinks the war was a bad idea?” Maybe Bush should have asked that question.
And while he was at it, maybe he should have asked God to help him find some real experts instead of appointing his inept cronies to head FEMA and other critical posts at a time when we “are engaged in a war with terrorism that may last the rest of this century” at least according to Rumsfeld. The FEMA post should have been filled with someone with disaster experience rather than with someone who was a disaster waiting to happen. Better that Bush had paid his debt to Mike Brown by giving him some funky post like that given Katherine “there’s a conspiracy to make me look ugly” Harris. Ah, Katherine, no conspiracy is necessary, you’re doing fine all by yourself.
But, alas, Bush passes off political payoffs as loyalty and fires advisers like Paul O’Neill for daring to suggest that starting a war while giving massive tax cuts for the wealthy is not only bad politics, but bad economics.
Speaking of bad economics, Bush’s disastrous “don’t tax and spend” Texas-style pork-barrel politics has turned us into the biggest debtor nation in history. We are well on our way to becoming a pauper nation.
I could go on and on and on, but it’s probably no use. Those who can’t see that this two-bit emperor is stark naked are not going to be convinced by mere logical argument or facts. It will take a voice from the Burning Bush, and even that may not be enough. They’ll probably attribute that to the work of Satan.
I dunno, Mike, maybe I am ignorant of history, but I can tell you one thing — I learn from a bad experience. I was wise enough not to vote for Clinton a second time – I only wish to hell a few more voters had sense enough to have done the same after Bush’s disastrous first four years in office. He would be a glaring example of the Peter Principle at work save for the fact that he has never risen above disinterested, incompetent and just plain lazy in any position.
Of course, that’s just my opinion, and I could be wrong — not! In truth, Mike, neither you nor I can offer much more than opinion about a sitting President. But history will judge, and history will not be kind to this one.
Tam O’Tellico
Michael Herdegen - September 28, 2005 @ 1:39 am
I left Hoover off of my list because I don’t believe that he was a bad President.
However, I now see that I forgot to include Woodrow Wilson on my list of
Worst American Presidents Ever.
I’ll skip a diatribe about chauvinism…
That would be wise, since you are apparently a person who believes that it’s inappropriate for the feminine form to be used as a universal pronoun, to refer to a person whose gender is unspecified or unknown, and thus a diatribe from you about chauvanism would carry as much weight as would a lecture about civil rights from David Duke.
Only a pathetic ignorance of history could lead someone to believe we had some secret solution to these centuries-old entanglements.
Not secret, but indeed a solution, one that’s working even now – witness the fairly free and somewhat fair democratic elections in Iraq, Lebanon, Arabia, Kuwait, and Egypt.
Those were all a RESPONSE to America’s actions in the region.
(Or possibly the result of CIA mind-control rays, you make the call).
I bet George wishes he had listened to Daddy and Colin Powell instead of the Zion-Cons.
Careful, Master Tam O’Tellico, some might mistake you for a misogynist AND an antisemite.
BTW, since some of the time Powell was FOR the war, maybe Bush DID listen to him:
Had young George gone to war […], he might have been more reluctant to get us into another Viet Nam.
Perhaps you have as firm a grasp of history as you accuse Bush of having.
The bulk of the Vietnam War lasted
eight full years, ’65 – ’72, with a handful of advisors there before and after that period.
At the height of the American military deployment, in ’69, there were 500,000+ troops and assorted other personnel in the Vietnam theatre of operations, out of a total American population of ~203,000,000, so that roughly 1 out of every 400 Americans was in harm’s way.
Troop withdrawals began in mid-’69, 4 1/2 years after the start of the massive military buildup.
If Operation Iraqi Freedom really were “another Vietnam”, then there would be around 700,000 members of the U.S. military and other American gov’t organizations in the Iraqi theater of operations, roughly FIVE TIMES the number that are actually present.
Further, a mere 30 months after the Iraqi pacification began on March 20th, ’03, the Pentagon is planning to draw down troop levels:
So, why do you feel that the current Iraqi war is “like the Vietnam War”, other than that you apparently don’t support either ?
Bush began a war […] with no exit strategy.
Except, of course, the strategy of holding elections, putting a civilian Iraqi gov’t in charge, and leaving, which is exactly what’s happening.
Bush’s disastrous […] pork-barrel politics has turned us into the biggest debtor nation in history. We are well on our way to becoming a pauper nation.
Puh-leaze.
As a ratio of national debt/GNP, Italy and France, Germany, and the Eurozone as a whole are ALREADY more indebted than the U.S., and Japan is MORE THAN TWICE as indebted, almost THREE TIMES as indebted, as is the U.S.
Further, since all of the above-mentioned nations will have a MUCH higher ratio of retired Boomers to active workers in coming decades, than will America, there is NO CHANCE WHATSOEVER of the U.S. overtaking any of them to become the world’s most indebted nation, relative to the size of national economies.
As for “pauper nation”:
U.S. households saw their total net worth rise 1.9% to a record $49.83 trillion the Federal Reserve said on Sep. 21st, ’05.
Did you mean to write “We are well on our way to becoming a nation of millionaires” ?
Those who can’t see that this two-bit emperor is stark naked are not going to be convinced by mere logical argument or facts.
That’s probably true, but it would nonetheless be nice if you were to offer any of either, since both were noticeably lacking in your last post.
lonbud - September 28, 2005 @ 8:17 am
Disingenuousness at it’s finest, Michael!
I don’t pretend to know whether or not you assumed Tam to be a woman when you first addressed his post, nor whether you routinely use the feminine pronoun when referring to a speaker of unknown gender — though I could hazard an odds-on guess to either of those if the payoff were high enough.
The reference to Colin Powell’s presentation of the Iraqi Threat to the U.N. as evidence of his having once believed it, well, now, that’s been thoroughly discredited, has it not? I mean, we now know there were no electronic intercepts, satellite photographs and other intelligence sources [to prove] that Iraq is actively working to deceive U.N. weapons inspectors, were there?
My personal feeling is that Freedom and Fairness are like Pregnancy; there is no such thing as fairly free or somewhat fair. What is happening in Iraq, and what the U.S. has been responsible for there, is a disaster of a magnitude presently unimaginable, but which, in time will become painfully clear to every American.
We are not, sir, on our way to becoming a nation of millionaires by any stretch of the imagination. Any rise in total net worth is evidence of an increase in the net worth of households at the top of the spectrum alone. In fact, in real terms the number of American households living in poverty has increased under the current junta’s policies.
On top of that, the decline in the value of the dollar offsets by a significant margin any increase in household total net worth. When it takes a wheelbarrow full of cash to buy a quart of milk, one’s grain silo stuffed with fiat currency is not exactly evidence of nobility.
Tam O’Tellico - September 28, 2005 @ 11:33 am
Short and sweet for the moment:
Mike, I skipped my diatribe, but obviously you prefer a semantic hazing to a discussion of issues. Would you also like to debate about whether Kerry getting shot in the ass constituted a war wound?
By the way, have you read Tam O’Shanter yet?
Lonbud, Mike is right — we are well on our way to becoming a nation of millionaires — and paupers and nothing between. What jobs major U.S. corporations haven’t downsized or exported, they’ve eliminated or cut wages and benefits to the bone. Listen to a true Conservative like Lou Dobbs if you want the truth about the rape of the middle class.
Take a look at what’s happening with the Pension Guaranty fiasco, Mike, if you really want facts. Better yet, ask retirees from Eastern and Pan Am. And now George wants to turn over Social Security to the boys who brought us the busted dot.com bubble. What an utterly idiotic idea.
As for the Iraq War, at least Colin Powell had the guts to stand up and say he was wrong. And while we may not have 700,000 soldiers in Iraq, we will have to have that many unless we cut and run — which is the most likely outcome — as soon as Bush figures out how to spin his unmitigated disaster as a success.
Truth is, I hope the hell Bush succeeds with his ill-gotten war because if he doesn’t, my seventeen year-old son will be reaping the harvest. But please don’t expect me to put my faith in the policies of a man and an administration than can’t get a helicopter into New Orleans, let alone bring sanity to Tikrit.
Mike, I suggest you talk to a few soldiers who’ve come back from Iraq. Yes, they are mostly wonderful young folks doing their best to show the good side of America. But the disillusion they express to me is exactly the same as the disillusion I saw forty years ago.
As for my anti-semitism, I have nothing against anyone of any faith, color or creed — with the possible exception of greedy, supply-side Republican millionaire capitalists who think it’s morally acceptable to bribe their way to prosperity and call it “lobbying”. But anyone who espouses a foreign policy that favors Israel at the expense of their own country is someone I have no use for (prepostional ending permitted per W. Churchill).
Tam O’Tellico
Michael Herdegen - September 28, 2005 @ 5:09 pm
I don’t pretend to know whether or not you assumed Tam to be a woman when you first addressed his post, nor whether you routinely use the feminine pronoun when referring to a speaker of unknown gender — though I could hazard an odds-on guess to either of those if the payoff were high enough.
Why don’t you record your guess ?
Of course, you’d have to take my word about whether or not you’re correct.
Or, you could comb through the thousands of posts and comments that I’ve made over the years, and see which assumptions are supported.
MY guess, based on this, Disingenuousness at it’s finest, Michael!, is that you assume that I do not routinely use feminine universal pronouns.
I mean, we now know there were no electronic intercepts, satellite photographs and other intelligence sources [to prove] that Iraq is actively working to deceive U.N. weapons inspectors, were there?
Ah…
Yes, there were. Hans Blix said as much.
You’re confusing our bad intel about WMDs with the Iraqi effort to subvert the UN inspections.
As it turns out, BOTH “we were wrong about knowing where Iraq’s WMDs are”, and “Iraq attempted to deceive the weapons inspectors” are TRUE statements.
BTW, since we KNOW, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that Iraq used to have WMD, aren’t you even the least bit curious about where they are now ?
On top of that, the decline in the value of the dollar offsets by a significant margin any increase in household total net worth.
Yes, we’ve covered that before, and you agreed that the decline of the value of the U.S. dollar against the Euro, yen, and other nations’ currencies DOES NOT SIGNIFICANTLY affect the cost of goods and services produced domestically – which is 90% of the American economy.
Why have you reverted to your previous ignorant stance ?
Michael Herdegen - September 28, 2005 @ 6:40 pm
Listen to a true Conservative like Lou Dobbs if you want the truth about the rape of the middle class.
ROFL.
Lou Dobbs has been telling us that the sky is falling for years – but somehow it never has.
Dobbs is a pessimist first and foremost, regardless of whether or not he pretends to conservatism.
As for the Iraq War, […] while we may not have 700,000 soldiers in Iraq, we will have to have that many unless we cut and run — which is the most likely outcome — as soon as Bush figures out how to spin his unmitigated disaster as a success.
Since I just gave you a quote and link to a story about how we’re planning to withdraw, why do you believe that we’re going to either boost troop levels, or “cut and run” ?
Or do you simply decline to believe anything the Pentagon and Bush admin say ?
Also, WHY do you believe that the Iraqi pacification has been an “unmitigated disaster” ?
We went in, deposed an oppressive monster, established a democratically elected gov’t, and are now leaving.
Where in there do you find “failure” ?
Further, that’s exactly what we did in Germany and Japan, so do you also consider those nations, or WW II, to be “failures” ?
lonbud - September 28, 2005 @ 9:55 pm
Michael, you have a very selective understanding of our dialogue these past few months. I take offense to the extent you distort my willingness to find elements of truth and reason in your perspective and recast it as some sort of wholesale agreement with your position.
For instance, where I have previously agreed that the declining international exchange rate for the Greenback does not — in and of itself — make domestically produced goods more expensive, I have consistently maintained that we are in a period of significant, and growing, inflation.
I may be proved ignorant in this regard, but I understand the diminishing value of the world’s reserve currency on international monetary exchanges, coupled with our Federal Reserve’s massive inflation of the money supply (up some 36% since 2001, 15% since 2003, 5% in the first nine months of this year), and a growing reluctance by foreign banks and investors to purchase the unending debt we float to finance the highest standard of living on the planet — these are not the ingredients of a stable, prosperous economy, nor do they portend longevity for whatever advantages we may enjoy presently.
The dead giveaway, for me, of course, is the guy at the top of the flow chart, whose propensity to run things into bankruptcy is well established.
BTW: my comment on your disingenuity was intended as more than a rumination on your linguistic propensities.
WHY do you believe that the Iraqi pacification has been an “unmitigated disaster” ?
How about: because there has been no pacification, as you put it.
That’s a rather colonial depiction, wouldn’t you say? But let’s not digress… Iraq is a veritable frying pan of explosive unrest, and not one — despite protestations to the contrary from Cheney and Rummy — in its final throes.
We went in, deposed an oppressive monster, established a democratically elected gov’t, and are now leaving.
I guess that would be one way to put it.
We went in, put the shock and awe on the most heinous ruler controlling vast oceans of crude oil on earth, ignited new and unprecedented waves of anti-American AND anti-humanitarian (not to mention anti-ecological) violence in the Middle East, destroyed the infrastucture and a large portion of the civic tableaux of two nations, while assisting in the hasty cobbling together of mistrustful, unstable, murderous oligharchies to hopefully lead those countries now and, one day, the entire Arab world, to a halcyon promised land of freedom, prosperity, and democracy. And we may or may not be leaving any time soon — would be another way to put it.
Where in there do you find “failure” ?
On its face.
Further, that’s exactly what we did in Germany and Japan, so do you also consider those nations, or WW II, to be “failures” ?
My copy of the program notes for WWII fails to make mention of the thousands of members of German and Japanese towns and villages (aided and abetted — or not — by foreign mercenaries) who blew up police stations and bus stops, government ministries, utility stations, pipelines, and American troops and contractors, and each other because they weren’t interested in our “help.”
Michael Herdegen - September 28, 2005 @ 11:12 pm
lonbud:
Let’s revisit the topic of the success or failure of the American intervention in Iraq a year from now.
Right now, either of us could ultimately be proven right.
If U.S. troop levels haven’t declined by at least 50,000 by then, then my position will be in trouble.
However, I would still consider American objectives to have been met if there were a civil war ongoing a year from now, as long as U.S. troops weren’t being killed in large numbers.
I take offense to the extent you distort my willingness to find elements of truth and reason in your perspective and recast it as some sort of wholesale agreement with your position.
My apologies.
However, since we do agree about this: I have previously agreed that the declining international exchange rate for the Greenback does not — in and of itself — make domestically produced goods more expensive… , it irritates me that you would post this: On top of that, the decline in the value of the dollar offsets by a significant margin any increase in household total net worth, which is NOT THE SAME as saying: we are in a period of significant, and growing, inflation.
Can you provide a cite for the last ?
The CPI doesn’t yet support that position.
The dead giveaway, for me, of course, is the guy at the top of the flow chart, whose propensity to run things into bankruptcy is well established.
This is what I mean when I say that you often indulge in ad hominem attacks.
Bush has nothing whatsoever to do with the size of the money supply, or interest rates, or inflation targets.
So, there’s no point at all in mentioning him. Further, when you DO mention him, you refer to his failures from twenty and thirty years ago, WITHOUT mentioning that since then, Bush has enjoyed five major successes, which put him among the 100 MOST SUCCESSFUL AMERICANS alive today.
Paul Burke - September 29, 2005 @ 9:35 am
I like how Michael picks one thing out of your comments, and reshapes the argument to a topic he can win shifting the dialogue and focus to the time honored “well my set of quotes and statistics say this.” People have been lying with statistics forever think opposing experts at trial. My advise would be to remember two things; one thanks Michael for being around as a one sided dialogue isn’t quite so lively, and two if Michael isn’t commenting on parts or themes of a particular post he must agree with them since he is such an ardent contributor – thanks for the “Mr. Burke” it’s so very respectful and disingenuous at the same time – how cute – especially coupled with the “lazy” tag which is a personal attack meant to insight and another argumentative technique meant to get us off topic.
For fun I reiterate my main points:
These are not honorable people (Bush, Cheney)
W. got a free ride because of 9/11
He is horrible as a manager
Places his incompetent cronies in position of authority.
W. is pathetic, blatant incompetence wrapped up in an overabundance of arrogance.
But the citizens elected him and the…fault lies with them.
Ignore the advertising, the smear tactics
The difference between honorable men and corrupt individuals can not be summed up by their purported stand on abortion or gay marriage.
Vote for the guy whose resume you like – looks like W. can add another bankruptcy to his!
Michael didn’t argue with any of those points – how could he it’s the truth.
Instead he went after the all time number one worst president is Grant or Taft – whatever Michael – not even close to being the point, but well done in trying to get everyone off topic. Thanks for playing.
Tam O’Tellico - September 29, 2005 @ 3:30 pm
Once more into the breech….
Is George W. Bush the worst President in U.S. History? The jury is still out on that Dubya-ous distinction, but one thing is incontestable — Bush pales in comparison to the first Republican President. One wonders if George was ever acquainted with Lincoln’s Second Inaugural. If so, he would have been wise to have heeded Lincoln’s words rather declaring his “mandate” to undo seventy years of social progress.
“At this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.”
Bush instead chose to see the sharp divisions in America as approaching universal approval of his perfromance and policies. So much for his powers of perception. And while Mike may be reasonably satisfied and encouraged by the results in Iraq, a growing number of Americans are not.
What I have the hardest time understanding is why anyone who purports to be a Conservative could possibly support Bush, a pro-war big-spender in the worst Democratic tradition. Like the old-fashioned Yellow-Dog Democrats, these supporters seem determined to vote Republican – even if it kills them — or at least as the old joke goes, until they need glasses. But with Bush, they’re beyond myopia; they’ve gone stone blind.
Such blindness explains why they cavalierly dismiss a true Conservative like Lou Dobbs, as though accusing him of being a pessimist excuses them from addressing the issues he raises such as the rape of the American middle-class. I suppose they must apply the same perfunctory dismissal to other Conservatives like Pat Buchanan, William F. Buckley and Paul O’Neill. But these and many other true Conservatives are sickened by this administration and embarrassed to even have it considered Conservative. In the 25 years I lived in Orlando, the Orlando Sentinel never supported a Democratic candidate until Kerry. Ditto for hundreds of other papers including the paper in Crawford, Texas, where W is know for what he really is – a man with aspirations far beyond his abilities.
So if the Bushites are not true Conservative Republicans, what are they? They are the present-day incarnation of the American Independent Party. They are the illogical outcome of the abandonment of the Democratic Party by Southern Democrats en masse following LBJ’s Great Society. In my view, that may have been a loss politically, but it was no great loss morally. They are the spawn of the sorriest aspects of America history. My explanation may seem a diversion, but believe me, it is not.
No one on either side of the political divide wants to discuss this subject, but the truth is I can tell you exactly when the Democrats lost the election – and it had little to do with Karl Rove, despite his obvious talents as a Redneck Machiavelli. No, the Democrats lost the election when Al Sharpton delivered one of the most entertaining speeches at either party’s convention. (Zealot Miller came close for the Republicans, but vitriol can never trump real wit.)
But the Democrats lost at that moment because Sharpton embodied the fear, the cancer that has divided this country since its creation, the cancer that even the Founding Fathers for all their high-sounding principles (and undeniable brilliance and courage) would not touch with a ten-foot pole. The Founding Fathers didn’t even discuss the subject of slavery because they knew there would be no United States if the subject was raised. Better, they thought, to hope and pray that America once established would be able to deal with that evil peaceably somewhere down the road. How wrong they were, as America would discover in a few generations.
The tragedy of slavery and the Civil War was compounded by the assassination of Lincoln, for he was the only man who could have brought about reconstruction and reconciliation of the sort that came with the Marshall Plan for Germany and Japan.
(Mike rightly alluded to this previously and suggested Bush was following a similar plan in Iraq. Where I come from, that is beyond wishful thinking; it falls into the category of self-deception. And yes I know, the jury is still out on the Iraq War. It’s just that unlike Mike, I don’t expect such miracles out of misanthropes.)
And now, back to the other Civil War.
But alas, there was no Marshall and no Truman after our Civil War, and Reconstruction became only a unique sort of guerilla politics where the official rulers of the conquered South were only there for display while an unseen government of the disenfranchised controlled the real power. If you can’t imagine what it was like back then, look at Iraq today.
This wound has festered ever since, and today it presents itself as the closet racism that permeates every aspect of American life today. Don’t believe it? Look again at the results of the last election. The Great Divide was called Blue State – Red State this time around, but the dividing lines were as they were in the Civil War. Don’t believe it? Come to the mountains of East Tennessee where I now live. Believe me, racism is not hiding in the closet here. Don’t believe it? Look at the Bush response to the Katrina disaster.
Of course, one could chalk that up to incompetence, but that would require incompetence of monumentally tragic proportions. Then again, maybe Mike is willing to offer that as a preferable excuse for failure.
And please don’t talk to me about the failure of state and local governments. Yes, they failed miserably, but everyone knows Louisiana is one of the most corrupt states in the country and New Orleans one of the most corrupt cities. Perhaps the Bush apologists want us to conclude that this is now one of the most corrupt countries on the planet. Well, I certainly couldn’t argue with that conclusion.
But despite Bush’s no-blame game, according to his own federal government pre-disaster “planning”, neither the state nor local government should have been expected to handle a disaster of such monumental proportions. And now, obviously, we know our present Federal government can’t handle it either.
Perhaps I have ventured too far for this thread, but let me close by offering some advice from a true Conservative, the Conservative’s Conservative, Thomas Hobbes. Long ago, Hobbes understood that the Libertarian notion of every man for himself which undergirds the rank philosophy of the Bushites has a fatal flaw. In arguing for cooperation and the commonweal, Hobbes made this simple but telling point: The reason for government is that eventually every man must sleep.
True Conservatives, like True Christians understand the nature and the necessity of the Commonweal. So-called Libertarians and American Independent Partiers want to call themselves Christian while promoting the politics of greed and unenlightened self-interest. But at long last, they have been caught sleeping on the job.
Michael Herdegen - September 29, 2005 @ 4:05 pm
[I]f Michael isn’t commenting on parts or themes of a particular post he must agree with them since he is such an ardent contributor…
There are three and a half reasons why I might not address a particular point.
1) As you note, I might agree with the point, or close enough.
2) I might recognize that there’s no point in arguing over a certain interpretation of an event or fact, since there are people posting here with basically opposite paradigms of reality, opposite worldview filters.
It’s like religionists and atheists arguing about theology – sometimes fun, but largely without any possible resolution.
3) It would take more time than I’m willing to invest to research and establish my position, especially if I know that my conclusion will likely be rejected without consideration anyway. An example of that would be Bubbles’ desire to have me refute RFK Jr. point by point. I could do that, but I’m not willing to spend a month of my time on a fool’s errand.
3b) Commenters here like to bring up bushel of points in every post, and again, I don’t have time to refute everything that I disagree with, especially since most of those points fall into Category 2.
These are not honorable people (Bush, Cheney)
As I point out above, neither are you.
[Bush] is horrible as a manager
Rather the opposite – his talent at management is why he’s a self-made millionaire, why he was elected four times to positions of high authority, why his White House is a well-oiled machine, and why it’s as silent as a tomb when it comes to leaks.
W. is pathetic, blatant incompetence wrapped up in an overabundance of arrogance.
More unsupported ad hominem, which is a neon admission of inability to refute Bush’s achievements, and an article of faith rather than fact.
Vote for the guy whose resume you like…
Good advice, and followed to a T by those who elected and re-elected Bush – Kerry’s resume was extremely thin for a guy who’d just spent two decades in the U.S. Senate.
…looks like W. can add another bankruptcy to his!
Bankruptcy of what ?
If you mean of America, not only are you as wrong as it’s possible for a human to be about America’s future, but Bush does not control America’s finances, Congress controls them, as any high school student knows.
[T]he all time number one worst president is Grant or Taft – whatever Michael – not even close to being the point…
So are you saying that the point of your screed is NOT that Bush is a bad President ?
What is the point then ?
Michael Herdegen - September 29, 2005 @ 4:17 pm
Tam O’Tellico:
Holy Cow !
What a great post !!
While I disagree with some of your interpretations and assertions, I will simply note that Bush has appointed more minorities and females to positions of higher authority than ANY previous U.S. President, including our “first Black President”, as some were willing to call Clinton.
lonbud - September 29, 2005 @ 7:14 pm
I’ll second Michael’s kudos, Tam; that was probably the best post this blog has seen in it’s short public existence. I hope you’ll continue to join us here often.
Michael, again, superficially, Bush may look good with respect to his minority and female appointments, but from a qualitative standpoint he clearly values loyalty above talent.
Witness just his appointments to the position of Inspectors General: These are the people who are supposed to act as the heads of Administrative Internal Affairs Offices for any number of executive departments and branches of the executive arm of the government. Over 60% of Bush’s appointments to IG positions have direct ties to the Bush campaign or to his former gubenatorial administrations; only 25% of his appointments to IG positions have any kind of professional audit experience, which is near the top of the list of quallifications for the position in the official job description.
Tam O’Tellico - September 29, 2005 @ 7:20 pm
Thank you for the kind words, Michael, and I have to agree on your last point about Bush’s minority appointees save that it’s hard to count Condi Rice as “black”. Of course, the very fact that we keep track of such things makes the major point of my previous post methinks.
In scientific circles at least, the whole notion of “race” is now considered suspect. But in many ways, we remain locked in the Darkie Ages, witness the 20th Century Virginia law that specified that one drop of negroid blood (whatever that means) classified a person as a negro — which basically meant without a vote. So much for Jeffersonian democracy and the rights of his darker descendants.
On a personal note, as someone of Cherokee heritage (I have no idea what per cent, thank you) I am more than a little familiar with “race” in this country, particularly as it applies to the notion of “blood quantum”. While on its face that policy might seem a generous indulgence granted by a conquering nation, it was in reality an insidious plan to rob Indians of their rights under treaties. It was believed that after only a few generations there would be no “Indians” left with a “blood quantum” sufficient to hold the government to its treaty obligations. In any case, little did it matter since the government ignored those treaties.
Parenthetically, it was General Sherman who coined the phrase “Final Solution” as the way to resolve the “Indian problem”, and Adolph Hitler acknowledged that he patterned his extermination of the Jews after America’s ethnic cleansing of its “savages”. Sad, but true.
And lest anyone think this is all so such much ancient history, one of the Senate’s lesser lights, Slade Gorton, not long ago proposed abrogating all treaties with Amerinds. Also, the Department of Interior may still be in contempt of Federal Court for failing to provide an accounting of Indian trust funds the Department controls. So much for the full faith and credit of the U.S.
As for Clinton, I have already admitted voting for him once because I believed he had the intellect, drive and personality to succeed at the world’s hardest job. I still think he did. But he lost my vote the second time around not for his adolescent sexual escapades, but for his stupidity for thinking he wouldn’t get caught and for lying like a school boy when he did.
To Bill: It wasn’t just the economy, Stupid!
If Bill had reared back like a real man and said “It’s none of your damn business who I get a blow-job from”, he’d have gotten my vote again. But instead, he weaseled.
That same sort of weasel behavior is what moves George W from merely incompetent to awful in my book. While we have had many Presidents who weren’t up to the task, this one is the first to engage so blatantly in doublespeak. Witness the Clear Skies Initiative to benefit oil companies, the Faith Based Initiative with the primary aim to gain access to church membership rolls (if you doubt that, see John DeIllio (sp), and the worst of the worst, the No Child Left Behind Act which is in fact the No Child Left Unrecruited Act.
This diabolical legislation was mostly unfunded except for military recruitment. I urge you to study up on this outrage if you want to see the real nature of the Bush beast.
And please don’t ask me to cite statistics on this one — I need none, I have a teenage son at home. The vile recruiters had the audacity to call my son at home twice when he was only sixteen — and never once asked to speak to his parents. I told him the next time they called to tell them he would be in line right behind Bush’s daughters.
When I confronted the staunch conservative, Religious Right, principal of my son’s high school over giving these bastards our phone number, he said that he was required to do so or the school would lose Federal funds. But he freely admitted that the NCLBA was more than even someone as conservative as he could stomach.
Remember, that was the response from a principal here in the buckle of the Bible Belt. And if you doubt this story, I urge you to ask anyone in any administration at any high school in the U.S. what they think of the NCLBA.
Mike, I know he’s your guy, and I’m sure you have your reasons for continuing to support him in spite of a mountain of reasons not to do so. But there comes a point where loyalty must meet reality. That point was long ago for me, and when it comes to Bush and his minions, I can only repeat the words that finally brought down Joe McCarthy:
“Mr. Bush, have you at long last no shame?”
Michael Herdegen - September 29, 2005 @ 8:48 pm
If Bill had reared back like a real man and said “It’s none of your damn business who I get a blow-job from”, he’d have gotten my vote again.
That is exactly what he should have done, and if he’d been able to do so, he would’ve endured a couple of months of criticism, instead of losing a precious year of his limited time as POTUS.
Also, he wouldn’t have been impeached.
[I]t’s hard to count Condi Rice as “black”.
That attitude is also part of the problem.
Being of a certain ethnic descent means that there must be 100% complience with the most common ideas and dysfunctions of that group ?
Not only is that concept just as prejudiced and discriminatory as the KKK ever was, it has the added distinction of being a betrayal, a knife in the back from those who should be most supportive.
Tam O’Tellico - September 30, 2005 @ 6:03 am
My crack about Condi Rice was intended to be humorous, but alas, political correctness precludes such humor as I should know only too well by now.
When I was a boy, I met the only “white” person I’ve ever met in my life. Pinky Schirtenlieb was an albino, and as his nickname suggests, even he wasn’t quite white.
This is the point I thought I was making in my previous post. The point is that such distinctions are not really about color at all — they are about culture. And if that is the true, Condi Rice being designated black is about as useful a distinction as me being designated Cherokee.
Still, in my book, Bush gets credit for making “minority” appointees. (His father, however, gets none for Clarence “I got mine, to hell with the rest of you darkies” Thomas.) But that is hardly enough to offset W’s gutting of social welfare for the disadvantaged, many of whom are truly “black”.
You may well argue that falls on Congress, but if that’s your argument, it’s still the Republicans who must take the blame for attempting to reverse seventy years of social progress — which I suspect you would not be willing to concede either.
In any case, Bush’s social agenda is all too apparent beneath his Christian, family values rhetoric.
Tam O’Tellico - September 30, 2005 @ 12:04 pm
Thanks, for the kudos, Lonbud. You and I have met before in Virtual World and it’s good to hear from you again. Feel free to email personally if you wish.
As for this forum, it’s one of the sanest and more intelligent I’ve found. Unfortunately, the press of business prevents me from joining as often as I would like. And I must admit that in my view, millions of words have already been written and wasted in this perpetual debate about a man who has no use for the written word. Ironic isn’t it?
But if those words can in any way help us find the common ground that America so desperately needs at this moment, it’s worth the effort. One way we might do so is to discuss the potential successors to Dubya on either side.
Any takers?
Tam O’Tellico - September 30, 2005 @ 4:02 pm
P.S.
I have referred several times to the rape of the American middle-class without being at all specific. Let me elaborate.
In the socio-economic wars that have marked the last thirty years in America, we have come to understand that ours is not the classless society we were taught in Civics class. The poor and blue-collar workers have known this for some time, and it came as no surprise to them when they were left to die by their corporate masters.
But the wholesale abandonment of white-collar, middle-class workers has changed the whole work-place dynamic. No more lifetime jobs, no more benefits, and no more pensions. Now everyone is only a hired-gun who can be displaced at the slightest corporate whim. In pursuit of profit at any price, corporations have destroyed the last vestiges of worker loyalty and the grand illusion of upward mobility, of fairness and opportunity, that once drove American workers to be the most productive in the world.
Few of today’s vampiric capitalists know or likely care that Henry Ford’s success was not due to the invention of the assembly-line — it was because he paid twice the prevailing wage of the day in order to attract the best workers. When his robber baron friends protested that he was destroying America, he responded “If I don’t pay them well, who the hell do you think is going to buy my cars?”
From Ross Perot to Lou Dobbs, keen observers of voodoo economics have detected the symptoms of a new social disease. If you’re looking for a diagnosis and prognosis, follow the giant sucking sound here:
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050929/the_global_labor_threat.php