February 28, 2006 by lonbud
Your Papers, Please.
Seven peace activists were arrested and charged with a federal misdemeanor for demonstrating without a permit in front of the White House yesterday.
Standing around, chanting maybe, handing out leaflets, carrying signs.
Lacking the requisite paperwork, they were summarily divested of their First Amendment rights by U.S. Park Police and remanded to police administration for processing. They were fined seventy-five dollars and released.
I wonder how many permitless demonstrators the Park Police would be willing to process at seventy-five bucks a head? To make it meaningful, however, demonstrators would eventually have to refuse to pay the fine, too.
We’ve seen what the gov’t does with the money.
Michael Herdegen - March 1, 2006 @ 2:31 am
They absolutely were NOT “summarily divested of their First Amendment rights”.
The First Amendment doesn’t protect anyone’s right to be heard wherever or whenever they’d like…
It simply prevents the government, and only the government, from regulating most content.
For instance, protestors don’t have any right to march and hand out leaflets on private property.
Similarly, the walkway in front of the White House, the park opposite the White House, and the Mall are highly desirable locations for protestors, and so access is regulated.
If they had been arrested while protesting in one of D.C.’s other fine parks, well away from the White House, or if they had applied for a permit and been denied, THEN they might have a case.
However, what they actually did was very similar to the militia nuts up in Montana who drive around without a license, because having to get a license is “oppression by the ZOG”. It’s a matter of public safety and order.
lonbud - March 1, 2006 @ 9:10 am
As the sainted Ronald Reagan said to Mickie G, “There you go again.” It’s just that parallel paradigm rearing its ugly head.
OF COURSE they were summarily divested of their First Amendment rights.
What the amendment says — and I thought you were with the strict constructionist crowd, Michael — is Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, … or the right of the people peaceably to assemble.
I say unless an individual person is, to use a standard you seem comfortable with, an actual threat to public safety and order, she ought to have every right to say what she wants to say on the walkway in front of the White House, and to gather there peaceably with likeminded people.
To deny that right based on the lack of having previously obtained a permit to do so smacks of a kind of totalitarianism against which this nation was formed.
To compare what happened Monday in front of the White House with regulation of drivers on the public thoroughfares of Montana is facile and irrelevant, but then those seem to be the well-worn tools in use over there on your paragidm.
Tam O’Tellico - March 1, 2006 @ 9:37 am
Once again we have another fine line to draw.
Michael’s argument is based on the notion that a primary purpose of government is providing order, and who can argue with that? Certainly not me since many times I have alluded here to Hobbes and granted his primary argument that it is necessary to surrender some measure of freedom in order to provide for the commonweal.
But it is equally obvious that “permitted protest” is an oxymoron. By its very nature, protest implies an unwillingness to surrender to authority, at least on the point under contention. If we are not free to choose who, what, where and when to protest, are we free at all?
Permitted protest is akin to prayer in school in that the very act of permitting or prescribing proscribes the essential act. If prayer is between God and me, it cannot be required, described, authorized nor otherwise limited by an earthly authority without diminishing my freedom. It may even be argued that such earthly intervention limits Divine Authority, a paradox upon a paradox.
In just the same way, the government’s power to limit protest inherently limits the power of the governed – from which the government derives its authority. Again, a paradox upon a paradox.
Lest anyone conclude this is only some sophistic exercise, let me assure it is not. Nothing could be more important than pursuing this fine point. And I would remind you, this issue has been addressed many times before.
John Wycliffe fathered the Protestant Reformation by insisting that the powers of the Church were derived from the grace of God and that such grace was not inherent in Church authority, but was dependent on Church authorities following God’s will.
As if that wasn’t enough to get him in trouble, Wycliffe went on to apply the same reasoning to the King, arguing against hereditary authority. In the end, his reasoning denied both papal and royal infallibility. Most are not familiar with Wycliffe, but are familiar with the words that followed from his lofty reasoning:
“When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
We take these powerful and extraordinary words for granted, just as we recite the Lord’s Prayer without giving it a second thought. Perhaps we should spend more time in contemplation of the obligations, rather than the blessings, that both impose.
So how do we remove ourselves from the horns of this dilemma? The Founding Fathers offered us a revolution, a revolution succeeded by the ballot box. But if we are not informed or concerned enough to use the ballot box wisely, we will end up with a government that no longer holds these truths to be self-evident. In that event, we will either surrender to tyranny or mount our own revolution.
Meantime, let the protests continue, but keep this in mind: The powerful never surrender power willingly, but we have seen that sometimes a flower can stop a war or a tank.
Paul Burke - March 1, 2006 @ 10:14 am
Wow – I have been away too long – it’s fair to say that if the rest of the public was this engaged we would have our clean air, water and food chain in tact and Exxon Mobil would be paying the bill – not the tax payers – has anybody realized how drunk Cheney was – I have friends who have worked Capital Hill and with lobbying organizations for a longggg time – it’s safe to say he was plastered because thats what they do – that’s how they act the white supremists of our government – the rich fat daddies riding the tax payers money into their own bank accounts – drunk, drunk, drunk and the secret service siezed the blood samples – they booze in the limos roll out and shoot off their guns – makes em feel like real men – because they have sold their souls to the highest bidder. Drunk, drunk, drunk poured back into taxis on K street helped into cars by hapless Hillers in their blue business dresses and pearls – so young – so virginal – so buttoned up oopss Clinton spurged on one of them. Drunk stumbling and it’s off to the hunt where they get driven to a ranch. Who heads out to hunt at 3pm – the hunters I know are up at the crack of dawn – wake up America your government is an exclusive members only Country Club. Drunk, smashed, and shooting each other in the face – reminds me of the “upper class twit of the year race” (Python) ohh pitty Nigel’s shot himself! Let’s hope when they self destruct completly they don’t take all of us with them.
Tam O’Tellico - March 1, 2006 @ 1:13 pm
Paul, I will remind you that when 58 million people choose “them”, they are no longer them, they are “us”. With this dreadful administration, we appear to have made H. L. Mencken’s long ago prediction a reality:
Baltimore Sun (26 July 1920)
“When a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental — men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or be lost… All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”
I have said it before, and I will repeat it until the brownshirts show up at my door and remove me to the gulag: Yes, these clever boys have proven themselves skilled at winning an election, but they have also proven themselves utterly incapable of governing.
Until the electorate admits to that all-too-obvious fact, until they overcome their “dread of what they cannot understand” and chance the future on someone who does understand and is therefore by definition unlike them, rather than chance the future on someone who has proven himself incapable of understanding simply because they sense that he is like them (or worse), until that day, we will continue our descent into hell, a descent made far more rapid by the failures of this administration.
Sad as it is to say, this is government of the people and by the people, even if it is not for the people. Let us all pray that one day America awakens from this awful nightmare and elects a leader who does not believe his first duty is to his friends.
Michael Herdegen - March 1, 2006 @ 11:50 pm
I will repeat it until the brownshirts show up at my door and remove me to the gulag…
That’s a lot of repetition, considering that you’ll go to your grave waiting on the brownshirts to show.
Until the electorate [chances] the future on someone who does understand…
So we aren’t speaking of JFK 2004, then.
What do you do when the choice is Bush or Kerry, a guy you despise or a guy who’s obviously clueless and well out of his depth ?
lonbud - March 2, 2006 @ 12:56 am
Q: What do you do when the choice is Bush or Kerry, a guy you despise or a guy who’s obviously clueless and well out of his depth ?
A: Given the choice, always, the guy you despise.
Tam O’Tellico - March 2, 2006 @ 9:25 am
Unparalleled
Michael, it appears your question is essentially this: How does one choose which is the lesser of two evils? Believe me, I understand the dilemma as I’m about to remind you.
What we have here, in the immortal words of Cool Hand Luke, is a failure to communicate. This communication breakdown is horribly exemplified by this administration’s apparent inability to understand why the public is so overwhelmingly opposed to the Dubai Port deal. This desperate deal may be the 2×4 that breaks the camel’s back.
Bush may not see the light, but the public has. Polls show his approval rating at 34% and Cheney’s at 18%. If present trends continue, Cheney could end up with a rating less than zero, taking into account the + or – 3% error rate typical for a poll.
But in a way, this may be good news. Just as all the lines appear to be wide open at NSA, so they are finally beginning to open up between the public, the press and Congress. Maybe we can finally begin to close the parallel connections that have left us so bitterly divided as to be unable to communicate the obvious. I’ll try to do my part with a rehash of some old news that draws a parallel or two that may help to reconnect our collective synapses.
As I’ve said before, I faced a difficult but different choice in 1996. The difference was that I was being asked to re-elect a gifted though glib politician who had proven himself relatively successful as a President in spite of the fact that his party had lost control of Congress. That is no small feat.
How was he able to accomplish that feat? Because he was born with the intellectual gifts necessary to the task – something for which he deserves no credit, and because he exercised those gifts and planned and ordered his entire life – something for which he deserves a great deal of credit – so as to prepare himself for the unlikely opportunity, given his background, that he might one day be President.
But that assessment was marred by the fact that he had also proven to have the sexual habits of an alley cat – though that should have surprised no one. I would have been willing to hold my nose and overlook his performance in the “bedroom”, given his performance in the “boardroom”.
But it wasn’t quite that simple. As I’ve said before, when confronted with the obvious, Clinton chose to lie like a ten-year-old schoolboy. That spelled trouble on way too many fronts: The inability to control his adolescent impulses, the inability to choose a discreet partner for his dalliances, the inability to discern that he would likely be discovered (just as he had in the past), the inability to assess the situation when he was caught, and the inability to confront the problem squarely once the outcome was obvious.
All that added up to a severe lack of judgment. Given that lack of judgment, I could not in good conscience vote for him a second time.
So how does that parallel your dilemma?
You were asked to make the same sort of difficult choice in 2004. The difference was you were being asked to re-elect a gifted though glib politician who had proven himself relatively unsuccessful as a President in spite of the fact that his party had control of Congress. How was such a failure possible?
Because he was born with the intellectual gifts necessary to the task – something for which he deserves no credit, but failed to exercise those gifts and so disordered his entire life – something for which he deserves a great deal of discredit – so as to leave himself unprepared for the very real possibility, given his background, that he might one day be President.
As I’ve said before, for me and millions of others, there was little or nothing in the resume of George W. Bush to recommend him for such a demanding position except his name and his connections. He had clearly managed to take advantage of both to slide by most of his life. That is no sin; many of us might do the same, given the temptation of such powerful advantages. But he clearly had not earned the right to the throne.
Bush’s shortcomings might have remained hidden in Texas, but not in the glare of the national spotlight. That intense scrutiny exposed what every clear-headed person should have been able to see: Bush was “obviously clueless and out of his depth”. Still, he was chosen, though we will probably never know if he was chosen fairly.
Having risen to this lofty position, Bush began to confirm the worst fears of those who opposed him. His one shining moment was the aftermath of WTC and the pursuit of OBL in Afghanistan. Had he continued on that path, we might all be cheering him today. But he got diverted by his big dreams, dreams he was utterly unprepared to execute.
Four years later, he had proven conclusively that he could not handle the job. His behavior had spelled trouble on way too many fronts: The inability to control his adolescent impulses to become a “better man than Dad”, the inability to choose a discreet partner for his dalliances and have intercourse withthe likes of DeLay and Abramoff , the inability to discern that such dalliances would likely be discovered (just as they had in the past), the inability to assess the situation when he was caught, and the inability to confront the problem squarely once the outcome was obvious.
Yet in spite of all this, 58 million people voted for him anyway. How could they?
It’s pretty simple really. Bush and his advisers tapped the one vein that could keep this ailing body politico alive – fear. The comatose patient remained firmly attached to an IV numbered 9-11. And just as it was with poor Terry Schiavo, the feeding-tube remained even though the patient was clinically dead.
Now the IV seems to have run out. Maybe it was emptied into New Orleans; certainly the replacement seems to have been diverted to Dubai. Bush and the people are polls apart.
And now the people are asking the questions they should have asked in the first place. Does it make sense to continue following someone who says he’s wandering in the right direction, but appears to be utterly lost? Would it be better to swallow our pride and our prejudice and follow someone in another direction, even if we don’t like him, because at least he appears to know how to read a map?
The lesson in all this? A vote should be based on a clear-headed objective analysis of who is more qualified. This isn’t a popularity contest – or at least it shouldn’t be.
Like Nixon, the man Bush resembles in far too many ways, this President has managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The difference: Nixon was tragedy; Bush is black comedy. And let us keep in mind that as long as Bush remains in office, the joke is still on us. At the moment, it seems far too much like gallows humor.
It could get worse. Like Nixon, Bush is intensely proud, proud to the point of hubris. Let’s hope and pray that hubris doesn’t lead Bush and his plotters to create a new punch line. God help us if they decide to incite the crowd to cheers again by wagging the dog.
Michael Herdegen - March 2, 2006 @ 11:02 am
Well, thanks for the thoughtful replies, but my question was intended to reflect the dilemma that someone on the Left would have faced in ’04.
At least, I hope that all here saw that Kerry wasn’t Presidential material, just someone at the right place and time to get his Party’s nomination. Given that it’s said that JFK had set his sights on the Oval Office while in prep school, and that he started making campaign commercials while still serving in Vietnam, to borrow Tam’s phrase it’s deeply to Kerry’s discredit that he didn’t use his two decades in Congress to make himself into an irresistable leader.
As it was, his two strong points were that he was a minor war hero, with a record showing him to be brave but somewhat reckless, and that he was not-Bush.
And he squandered the “war hero” bit by coming back from Vietnam to testify before Congress that Vietnam vets were war criminals, throwing someone else’s medals at the White House while claiming that they were his, then fabricating stories about going into Cambodia on clandestine missions, and telling them on the Senate floor.
What’s shameful is that Kerry almost won. A large segment of the population was willing to overlook the total lack of qualification, and the blatant self-serving lies – anything to regain power.
Dean or Lieberman would have been better choices, and Kucinich, while being a poor choice, would at least have been pure. That guy lives his convictions.
The crux of the problem is this: While Clinton is seen as flawed-but-with-successes, Bush is seen as a total failure. None of his successes are acknowledged.
This leaves you guys in the ridiculous position of claiming that a two-time Governor, who initially came from behind to beat a strong sitting Governor, and a two-time President, is a hack who only gained power due to his family name, and only keeps it due to his Vice President and his main political advisor.
You might wish to ask yourselves why you need to see Bush as a total loser, and not just a successful guy that you dislike.
The economy’s going gangbusters, there haven’t been any post-9/11 terror attacks in America, we’ve gotten some education reform, and CAFTA, not to mention similar free-trade agreements with Singapore, Chile, and Australia.
Those are the building blocks of legacy. After all, what is Clinton remembered for (on the positive side) ?
The dot.com boom, NAFTA, and welfare reform.
Tam O’Tellico - March 2, 2006 @ 1:57 pm
Michael, apparently a careful, thoughtful reasoned argument holds no sway with you. I gave you my reasons, explaining that given the ample evidence of Bush’s sorry performance, that for me and 52 million others it was enough that Kerry was not Bush.
Obviously, you didn’t see it that way. Fine, let’s examine your argument:
“As it was, his two strong points were that he was a minor war hero, with a record showing him to be brave but somewhat reckless, and that he was not-Bush.”
“it’s said that JFK had set his sights on the Oval Office while in prep school”
“he didn’t use his two decades in Congress to make himself into an irresistable leader”
You’re saying that rather than “a minor war hero”, we should have chosen a craven coward; you’re saying that rather than choosing someone who as a young man planned for the future, we should have chosen someone who as a young man frittered away his considerable advantages; you’re saying that rather than being satisfied with Kerry’s somewhat pedestrian performance in Congress, we should have chosen Bush’s lackluster performance in Texas; you’re saying that rather than being appalled at Bush’s disastrous first term, we should have chosen to grant him a second; and incredulity or all incredulities, you’re saying that Kerry would have been more reckless than Bush – where is the evidence for that?.
I’m saying that what you’re saying borders on the incomprehensible; I’m saying that this same kind of intransigence which dooms Bush and may yet doom are country; I’m saying it’s not just that you’re wrong — it’s not even that you can’t admit your wrong, it’s that you can’t even see that you’re
wrong which leads me to doubt our future.
“On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”
Let us hope that day has come and gone and that America has learned a lesson some Americans seem incapable of learning.
lonbud - March 2, 2006 @ 7:35 pm
Well, I’m not sure that humans, much less Americans are especially capable of learning lessons, given the prevailing state of affairs. However, I will allow these thoughts:
Tam: ‘Twas Strother Martin who spoke the immortal words about failing to communicate, not Paul Newman. Cool Hand Luke is one of Hollywood’s all-time great productions.
Michael: If jfk was “not Presidential material” in 2004, what on God’s grey earth did that make w? There was no dilemma for anyone on the Left in 2004, as there should not have been one for anyone self-identifying as a member of the middle, and, truth be told, anyone on the Right either. George W Bush was so clearly “out of his element,” as any of the debates brought into stark relief, it’s incomprehensible to me that a vast majority of Americans didn’t hold their collective nose and vote for the guy they despised.
52 million of us did it, what happened to the rest of y’all?
Michael Herdegen - March 2, 2006 @ 7:50 pm
…you’re saying that Kerry would have been more reckless than Bush…
No, I said that his military record reflects that he was a reckless young officer.
I made no statement about what he might have done as President, nor implied anything. Any inference that you drew was mistaken.
In fact, judging by his Senate record, if anything Kerry would have been too passive a President.
While there might be disagreement about the wisdom of his gambles, it cannot be denied that Bush is a risk-taker, always swinging for the fences.
I’m saying that what you’re saying borders on the incomprehensible;
…it’s that you can’t even see that you’re wrong…
Yeah, that’s my point as well.
I see that Kerry has positive attributes, as well as overriding negative ones, and we both see that Clinton has positive characteristics, and has done good things, along with the bad.
But, assuming that you really believe these things – that Bush is a craven coward, has frittered away his considerable advantages, was a lackluster Governor of Texas, and that Bush’s first term was disastrous – those are just delusional, and cannot be supported by any rational reading of reality.
That’s why I say that your and lonbud’s assessment of Bush is really a reflection of your own mindset and emotional state – is Bush really a man who can do no right, evil incarnate, as lonbud is willing to call him ?
Bush did not go to Vietnam. However, instead of fleeing the country, as did Clinton, he joined the Air National Guard and flew jets, hardly the act of a craven coward.
Since he was going to go into the Guard anyhow, wouldn’t a coward have been a supply officer in some safe depot somewhere ?
Can we really say that a two-term POTUS has “frittered away his advantages” ?!?
C’mon, that just makes the person asserting it seem crazy. What could Bush have done to be more successful ?
Cure cancer ?
Bush’s first term as Governor of Texas was so successful that the DEMOCRATIC Speaker of the Texas Legislature endorsed him for re-election.
If Bush’s first term was “disastrous”, then why was he re-elected President, while INCREASING the Republican majorities in both Houses of Congress ?
That’s not the hallmark of a failed Presidency, and we have a recent example to show us what that looks like: James Earl Carter.
By the way, you’ve claimed that you’ve given an explanation of “the ample evidence of Bush’s sorry performance”, but all you’ve done is make some unsupported assertions. An actual explanation would include, at the very least, some examples that show behavior that you feel supports your claims.
For instance, I claim that Clinton was craven, and I point to his fleeing the country until the draft ended as proof.
Michael Herdegen - March 2, 2006 @ 8:01 pm
lonbud:
George W Bush was so clearly “out of his element,” as any of the debates brought into stark relief, it’s incomprehensible to me that a vast majority of Americans didn’t hold their collective nose and vote for the guy they despised.
Funny, while I wouldn’t say that Bush won any of the debates going away, I saw a guy holding his own. Kerry couldn’t just be as good as Bush and expect to win, he had to be better than Bush, which he clearly failed to do.
I’m not surprised that you’re befuddled by Bush’s continual electoral, diplomatic, and legislative successes; that incomprehension of the wide-spread appeal of the Right is why we view with separate paradigms, and not just from opposite ends of a spectrum.
It’s just like the nuts in ‘ 96 who thought that Dole could beat Clinton, just because they hated Slick Willy.
lonbud - March 2, 2006 @ 8:26 pm
Actually, it’s NOT just like the Republicanuts who thought Dole could beat Clinton. At the time, that was a much closer call than Bush/Kerry was.
The pudding now is obviously beginning to set. Bush’s approval rating is 34%. Iraq is on the verge of imploding. A year ago 10 people a day were getting blown up there; today it’s 40. There’s tape circulating around the internet showing Bush was fully apprised of Katrina’s devastating potential before it hit and he still went off to raise funds and play golf. The impeachment movement against him is gaining steam.
While the press conspired to keep the most obvious evidence of the man’s incompetence hidden from the public prior to the election, the fact of the matter is dawning on more people every day. George W Bush will be written into the history books for what he’s always been: a privileged, incurious, conniving, mendacious, incompetent failure.
Michael Herdegen - March 2, 2006 @ 8:31 pm
The impeachment movement against him is gaining steam.
And the press is conspiring to PROP UP Bush ?!?
I don’t wish to give offense, so I will merely note that neither seems likely.
Tam O’Tellico - March 2, 2006 @ 11:38 pm
Michael, you are entitled to maintain your erroneous opinion about the accomplishments of this President until you are the last thinking person in America who holds such an opinion. Don’t worry – it won’t be much longer.
Diving poll numbers indicate that you are already in a minority. That is true despite the fact that little more than a year ago, 58 million people agreed with you. The difference is that a substantial number of them now realize and regret the error of their ways.
As I said, maybe they can’t be blamed, having been driven temporarily insane by irrational fears aggravated by the relentless pounding of the Bush propaganda machine. But at least they’ve recovered their senses. Or maybe you think their opinion doesn’t count since they don’t agree with you, and anyway, polls don’t mean anything since they only reflect the views of the fickle, uninformed public.
Believe what you will about polls and the “hoi polloi”, but it ought not be so easy for you to dismiss the growing number of informed people of your political persuasion who are publicly disassociating themselves from this President. One can only imagine what they are saying privately.
Maybe you can dismiss conservative and lifelong Republican Paul O’Neill’s scathing expose of ignorance and incompetence as senility or disloyalty. But when George Will editorializes about this administration’s utter failures, when Bruce Bartlett titles his Bush-bash “Imposter”, when William F. Buckley titles his examination of the Iraq War “It Didn’t Work”, when Duncan Hunter and Trent Lott and Lindsey Graham – well, you get the idea – or at least I hope you get the idea.
When those you would reasonably expect to agree with you are screaming “Danger!”, maybe you should take a second look. Had Bush been smart enough to listen when most of his usual allies were advising caution, we might not be in the mess we’re in in Iraq. And guys like me might be reluctantly admitting that we misunderestimated the Texas playboy.
But that ain’t what happened, and that ain’t just my opinion. The fact that so many people disagree with you – including so many people who voted with you and so many experts on the Right – well, that should lead you to question whether you are the one whose grip on reality may be slipping.
Loyalty may be a virtue, but blind faith is not.
Michael Herdegen - March 3, 2006 @ 1:17 am
[I]t ought not be so easy for you to dismiss the growing number of informed people of your political persuasion…
What is my political persuasion ?
Tam O’Tellico - March 3, 2006 @ 7:10 am
Since it is difficult to quantify my own political persuasion, I am reluctant to put a name on yours. But if it waddles like a Conservative duck and quacks like a Conservative duck, it might reasonably be assumed that the duck is a Conservative.
What is a Conservative? Conventional wisdom would have it that all the men I mentioned in my previous post are Conservatives and that I am a Liberal — though in some quarters I am viewed as worse.
I think I may have mentioned this before, but one of George Will’s columns about the incompetence of this administration prompted me to suggest to a Conservative friend at my church that I agreed totally with Will on the subject. I added that if my friend could not fit his views somewhere between Will’s and mine, perhaps he should stop imagining he was in the middle of the political spectrum.
You know better than I where you fit on that spectrum, but I offer you the same advice I offered my other friend: If you can’t squeeze in between Will and me, you ain’t in the middle.
Tam O’Tellico - March 3, 2006 @ 7:46 am
“For all sad words of tongue and pen
The saddest are these, ‘It might have been’.”
John Greenleaf Whittier
Michael, as to your assertion that all I’ve done is “make some unsupported assertions”, I have stated here many times my reluctance to put my faith simply in statistics. But if it will help you to a clearer understanding of why so many feel so disappointed by this President and so uncertain about the future, here are some numbers for you:
“Bush talked up the nation’s wealth last week during a speech in Milwaukee. Economic growth had clocked a respectable 3.5 percent, unemployment had been held down to 4.7 percent with more than four million new jobs created in the past 30 months, and after-tax income had risen eight percent since 2001, he said.”
Sounds pretty good, eh? Very Michaelesque. Now for the rest of the story:
“Within days, however, the Federal Reserve reported that average incomes after adjusting for inflation actually had fallen between 2001 and 2004. Inflation helped eat away at the average American family’s income, reducing the total to $70,700 in 2004–a loss of 2.3 percent from 2001. That followed a 17.3 percent gain in average incomes between 1998 and 2001 and 12.3 percent in 1995-98, the Fed said.”
While you and I can toss numbers at each other endlessly, they ultimately prove nothing without taking into account the attitude that accompanies the numbers. The simple fact remains that a majority of Americans do not feel good about the direction we’re heading.
You may dismiss that as mere perception, but perception matters, too. One of the primary functions of any leader is to inspire. That was the greatest gift of men like Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Lincoln, Reagan, and on his better days, even Clinton.
For a brief moment on the rubble of the WTC, George W. Bush demonstrated that gift. It has been sadly lacking ever since.
lonbud - March 3, 2006 @ 3:26 pm
Funny, when I saw w up there with his bullhorn, I didn’t feel inspired in the least. I felt I was looking at a befuddled yahoo basking in the reflected glory of real heroes searching vainly for survivors. Giuliani seemed far more the guy in charge in those heady moments. w has never been anything more than a cheerleader, a pom pom boy, a guy along for the ride.
Tam O’Tellico - March 3, 2006 @ 10:11 pm
Lon, you are quite right that the real heroes of the day were the ordinary men who went about their grim and dangerous business without the benefit of the cameras.
But I stand by my previous post and remind you that the word I used was inspired. Despite being AWOL for the worst of that terrible time, Bush neveretheless inspired the vast majority of Americans with his words.
Most Americans conitnued to be inspired by the President’s resolve in pursuing the perpetrators to Afghanistan, even those like me who were not fans of the man. Most of us were very glad to see the Taliban removed from the reins of power in Afghanistan as well.
But then Bush went terribly wrong, and got aught up in his own duplicity or rhetoric or in pursuing some personal objective in Iraq. I for one have not been inspired by him since.
Michael Herdegen - March 3, 2006 @ 11:41 pm
In 2004 the average American family’s income was $70,700 ?
That’s pretty good, no ?
So good, in fact, that I don’t believe that it’s true.
I’ll look up that Fed study over the weekend, and see what’s going on.
Also, what does it matter if gross incomes fell by over 2%, if net incomes were up 8% ?
I’ll take bottom line growth over top line any day.
But, as I said, I’ll have to examine the study to see why those numbers seem funny.
Tam O’Tellico - March 4, 2006 @ 6:11 am
While you’re at, see if you can discover why so many seem so disenchanted with this President. And just for the record, I don’t hate Bush, I just think he’s ingnorant an incompetent. Cheney is another matter.
lonbud - March 4, 2006 @ 10:13 am
As long as we’re on the subject of numbers, smoke, and mirrors, the Congressional Budget Office is out with analysis of the Bush administration’s budget.
The New York Times reports this morning (my apologies if the article requires a log-in to read) that
This is the type of news I imagine has Michael feeling smug and justified in dismissing complaints about w’s handling of the economy or about the difficulties brought on average Americans by administration policy.
The article goes on to note, however, the President’s budget
As I’ve noted in this space before, Mr. Bush seems unable to divest himself of the accounting practices that have landed his one-time pal “Kenny Boy” Lay into such hot water.
One can only hope to see w squirming in a similar dock some day.
Tam O’Tellico - March 4, 2006 @ 5:40 pm
BTW, Lon, your are techincally correct. Strother Martin, a good-old Kentucky redneck and a heck of a villain in the movies, was indeed the first to utter that memorable line “What we have heah is a failure ta commun’cate.” But unless I am sadly mistaken, good ol’ Luke, in an ironic denouement, repeated the phrase just before dying. Besides, if I was to say “the immortal words of Strother Martin” hardly anyone would catch the reference.
Wanna hard-biled agg?
Michael Herdegen - March 4, 2006 @ 6:06 pm
This is the type of news I imagine has Michael feeling smug and justified in dismissing complaints about w’s handling of the economy or about the difficulties brought on average Americans by administration policy.
I rarely feel smug.
No President “handles” the American economy, although they can make it better or worse at the margins. (The exception to that being the Great Depression, where the President, Congress, and the Central Bank each made bad decisions which combined to make things MUCH worse than they could have been).
EVERY administration’s policies bring difficulties on average Americans – it’s just a question of what kind of difficulties, and for whom.
Tam O’Tellico:
What will you say if Bush’s approval ratings are in the high-40s by Nov. ?
Will that mean that many are re-enchanted by Bush ?
Tam O’Tellico - March 4, 2006 @ 9:49 pm
Are you saying that Roosevelt, Congress and the Central Bank made the Depression worse? Worse by what measure – a revolution? Worse than where – Germany? Are you among those who think the New Deal and the seventy years of social progress it ushered in should be reversed? Do you seriously believe the trickle-down theory represents the best that America can do by all its citizens?
Tam O’Tellico - March 4, 2006 @ 9:51 pm
As for Bush and his free-fall in the polls, many experts believe the public has finally had enough and soured permanently on Bush because of Iraq, Katrina, etc, etc, etc, etc. The continuing Plame, Abramoff and PortOLet affairs are not likely to improve the situation.
Yes, polls are volatile, but it is hard to imagine any scenario which would catapult Bush back to the high-40s short of a real victory in Iraq (not likely) or another 9-11 (quite possible). Even so, the high 40s would hardly indicate a majority in favor of his policies, let alone the “mandate” he ridiculously claimed after the last election.
What that election would have indicated to a wiser man is that 52 million Americans voiced their displeasure at his Presidency by voting for a not particularly attractive alternative. That fact should have argued for caution and conciliation.
But that’s not the message that got thru, and instead we got more of the same pigheaded, wrong-footed bullying. Thus it always is with hubris.
Tam O’Tellico - March 4, 2006 @ 9:59 pm
Furthermore ….
If you want the real measure of affection of any President, pay attention to the political cartoonists. The clown (or the fool) is always able to say what others only wish they could. Over the last five years, Bush has gone from being viewed as bumbling but well-meaning to being the butt of more and more biting jokes to finally being a joke himself. It is all but impossible for any public figure to recover from that fall. Ask Michael Jackson.
Bush has become the Alfred E. Newman of Presidents.
bubbles - March 4, 2006 @ 11:36 pm
Iran’s Best Friend
Published: March 5, 2006
At the rate that President Bush is going, Iran will be a global superpower before too long. For all of the axis-of-evil rhetoric that has come out of the White House, the reality is that the Bush administration has done more to empower Iran than its most ambitious ayatollah could have dared to imagine. Tehran will be able to look back at the Bush years as a golden era full of boosts from America, its unlikely ally.
During the period before the Iraq invasion, the president gave lip service to the idea that Iran and Iraq were both threats to American security. But his advisers, intent on carrying out their long-deferred dream of toppling Saddam Hussein, gave scant thought to what might happen if their plans did not lead to the unified, peaceful, pro-Western democracy of their imaginings. The answer, though, is now rather apparent: a squabbling, divided country in which the Shiite majority in the oil-rich south finds much more in common with its fellow Shiites in Iran than with the Sunni Muslims with whom it needs to form an Iraqi government.
Washington has now become dangerously dependent on the good will and constructive behavior of Shiite fundamentalist parties that Iran sheltered, aided and armed during the years that Saddam Hussein ruled Iraq. In recent weeks, neither good will nor constructive behavior has been particularly evident, and if Iran chooses to stir up further trouble to deflect diplomatic pressures on its nuclear program, it could easily do so.
There is now a real risk that Iraq, instead of being turned into an outpost of secular democracy challenging the fanatical rulers of the Islamic republic to its east, could become an Iranian-aligned fundamentalist theocracy, challenging the secular Arab regimes to its west.
Fast-forward to Thursday’s nuclear deal with India, in which President Bush agreed to share civilian nuclear technology with India despite its nuclear weapons programs and its refusal to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
This would be a bad idea at any time, rewarding India for flouting the basic international understanding that has successfully discouraged other countries from South Korea to Saudi Arabia from embarking on their own efforts to build nuclear weapons. But it also undermines attempts to rein in Iran, whose nuclear program is progressing fast and unnerving both its neighbors and the West.
The India deal is exactly the wrong message to send right now, just days before Washington and its European allies will be asking the International Atomic Energy Agency to refer Iran’s case to the United Nations Security Council for further action. Iran’s hopes of preventing this depend on convincing the rest of the world that the West is guilty of a double standard on nuclear issues. Mr. Bush might as well have tied a pretty red bow around his India nuclear deal and mailed it as a gift to Tehran.
Michael Herdegen - March 5, 2006 @ 3:01 am
Tam O’Tellico:
Yes, about the Great Depression.
We erected barriers to free trade, and tightened money policy, when we should have kept our trade policies liberal and loosened money policy.
Also, we should have propped up the banks, rather than let them fail.
Those are all lessons well-learned since the Depression, mostly due to the hugely negative effects of NOT doing so.
The “seventy years of social progress” blather has little to do with the actual Depression itself, only its aftermath.
Yes, polls are volatile, but it is hard to imagine any scenario which would catapult Bush back to the high-40s…
Even so, the high 40s would hardly indicate…
In other words, high poll numbers wouldn’t change your basic perception of Bush, so why do you believe that low poll numbers mean anything either ?
In any case, I predict that the mean poll numbers on Bush’s approval, NOT the outliers but the mean, will be 46%+ in Nov. ’06.
What that election would have indicated to a wiser man [etc].
But that’s not the message that got thru, and instead we got more of the same pigheaded, wrong-footed bullying. Thus it always is with hubris.
Yeah, hubris and a winner-take-all system – which is how the American political system operates. All any President needs is 50%+1.
Note that Bush LOST the popular vote in 2000, and yet was very successful in getting his agenda through Congress between then and the ’04 elections. A landslide victory is NOT required to govern freely in America, only victory itself.
In the U.S., winning ugly is still winning, unlike in Germany, say. Angela Merkel was forced to put a lot of people that she’d rather not have had to, into her admin. Not so with Bush.
bubbles:
Iran will NEVER be a “global superpower”, so put your mind at ease on that score.
They’re already a regional power, so nukes would give them parity with Pakistan, but otherwise wouldn’t do much for Iran – especially since Pakistan has no intention of nuking Iran anyhow.
[The NPT] has successfully discouraged other countries from South Korea to Saudi Arabia from embarking on their own efforts to build nuclear weapons.
What idiot wrote this ?
What has discouraged South Korea and Arabia from building nuclear weapons is that nukes are VERY expensive, and totally unnecessary for them. Those two countries are specifically protected by the U.S. and their huge arsenal of hydrogen warheads.
The author couldn’t have picked two worse examples if she’d thought about it for days.
The India deal is exactly the wrong message to send right now…
The International Atomic Energy Agency will refer Iran’s case to the United Nations Security Council for further action.
Robert Duquette - March 5, 2006 @ 7:58 am
Bush did not go to Vietnam. However, instead of fleeing the country, as did Clinton, he joined the Air National Guard and flew jets, hardly the act of a craven coward. Since he was going to go into the Guard anyhow, wouldn’t a coward have been a supply officer in some safe depot somewhere ?
Ok Michael, now you’ve gone too far when you insult supply officers. I was a supply officer in the Marines, and if you had any military sense you would know that the supply lines are always a prime target for the enemy. Supplies have to go where the troops are.
Seriously, the point of electing a president isn’t to evaluate his performance as a young man, but what he brings to the table now. In 2000 I didn’t think that Bush brought much, and I reluctantly voted for Gore. In 2004 he had his record from the first term, specifically the WOT, so the election was really a referendum on that. The National Guard stuff and everything that came prior to 2000 was moot. The election was about his handling of the WOT and whether you think we should follow an aggressive, unapologetic line against our enemies, or the Kerry’esque/European/Democrat line of self-blaming and appeasement. It was a very clear choice, and Bush was the right choice.
Robert Duquette - March 5, 2006 @ 8:25 am
The India deal is exactly the wrong message to send right now, just days before Washington and its European allies will be asking the International Atomic Energy Agency to refer Iran’s case to the United Nations Security Council for further action. Iran’s hopes of preventing this depend on convincing the rest of the world that the West is guilty of a double standard on nuclear issues. Mr. Bush might as well have tied a pretty red bow around his India nuclear deal and mailed it as a gift to Tehran.
The IAEA and the UN have never been credible authorities to those nations wishing to pursue nuclear ambitions. The only reason that Iraq is not a nuclear nation is because a) Israel destroyed their Osirak reactor in the early 80s, and b) the US and its allies overthrew Iraq. The UN inspections regime would never have prevented Saddam from developing a nuclear weapon. It was only to head off US action that the UN reinstated the inspections regime in the first place.
So the idea that Iran will benefit from the double standard of the US vis a vis India into pushing for leniency by the UN suggests that Iran feels constrained to act in accordance with the IAEA and the UN, which is laughable. The India deal gives notice to Iran that the US strongly supports India, a nuclear power on Iran’s doorstep. US pressure is the only threat that Iran takes seriously.
Michael Herdegen - March 5, 2006 @ 6:22 pm
Robert:
While what is outweighs what was, if one cannot see a change between now & then, one must assume that both are the same.
For instance, Clinton never did anything to show that he was fundamentally different from the young man who fled America for England and Moscow during the Vietnam war; Bush, by getting religion and quitting alcohol, showed that he was different from the hard-partying young man that he was.
Kerry, because he wasted our time and his opportunities during twenty years of service as a U.S. Senator, was mainly judged by his youthful activities – a brave but rash Naval officer, his slanderous testimony before Congress…
lonbud - March 5, 2006 @ 11:31 pm
Tam O: It’s precisely because only those who know the movie Cool Hand Luke would get, and thus truly appreciate, a reference to Strother Martin that you must reference him in talking about “a failure to communicate.”
That movie’s incredibly deep treatment of the conflict between the spirit of freedom and evil, sadistic, naked authority demands truth-telling and education — not more pandering to America’s fascination with celebrity.
By attributing the quote to Mr. Martin instead of Paul Newman you give the unknowing but curious among us an opportunity to seek knowlege and understanding. Fear not going over people’s heads, embrace your ability to inspire learning.
Michael: EVERY administration’s policies bring difficulties on average Americans – it’s just a question of what kind of difficulties, and for whom. That you can write those words and brook no criticism of the current administration’s economic policies marks you as either ignorant (which the weight of evidence on this blog would indicate is clearly not the case) or unfeeling.
In any case, I predict that the mean poll numbers on Bush’s approval, NOT the outliers but the mean, will be 46%+ in Nov. ‘06.
I’ll bet you a bottle of ’98 Barolo Bush is closer to getting impeached by November than he is to an approval rating of 46% or more.
I also have to say that I disagree strongly with yours and Robert’s criticism of Bubbles’ post re: the effect of Bush policy on Iran’s standing in the global chess match.
How can we go before the world with a straight face and say “India (a country with a history of political instablility and factions of violent, wild-eyed religious extremists) are FINE to have nuclear programs despite their refusal to adhere to non-proliferation treaties, but Iran is somehow a different story”?
That’s like saying, we must control the breeeding and keeping of pit-bulls, except MY pit-bull.
And Robert, I’ll agree that Israel dealt the fatal blow to Iraq’s nuclear ambitions with the destruction of the Osirak reactor; there is no evidence, however, that Saddam would have had any any offensive nuclear capability absent the visitation of U.S. shock and awe in 2003.
In the end, Bush’s policies and strategies — so quaintly referred to as U.S. pressure — have the effect of heightening tension among nations and of increasing hatred for America among poor, desperate, and fanatical elements of the global community.
But then, in the immortal words of Elwood Blues, “we’re on a mission from God.”
Tam O’Tellico - March 6, 2006 @ 6:58 am
M: “In other words, high poll numbers wouldn’t change your basic perception of Bush, so why do you believe that low poll numbers mean anything either?”
Nice try, but what I said was numbers in the high 40s would not indicate approval of Bush’s policies. You, on the other hand, say that numbers in the low 30s don’t indicate disatisfaction. Hey, you’re the numbers guy, if you can’t understand these, it’s obvious which of us has a problem dealing with reality.
I’m sure it is comforting, however, to know that at least one other person on this blog apparently shares your fantasies. Welcome to the real world, Robert.
Tam O’Tellico - March 6, 2006 @ 7:54 am
Nuclear weapons are the Strangelovean nightmare that won’t go away. It is ironic in the extreme that the U.S., a willing and ardent participant in the MAD-ness (Mutually Assured Destruction) policy that governed world politics for half-a-century, should insist to other nations that such a policy “will not be tolerated”.
No nation that possesses nuclear weapons has any moral standing when it comes to telling any other nation they can’t own them as well – particularly not the only nation that has actually used such weapons. Anyone truly interested in morality would argue that no nation should have, let alone use such weapons.
The only “morality” here is our xenophobic notion that we are always the “good guys”. This is the functional equivalent of the President declaring himself above the law.
While I happily concede that it is far better that we possess WMD than Iraq, that is not the real question. If morality is no excuse, there remains only the question of practicality.
Imagine for one moment a role reversal. Imagine America without nukes, bordered by a hostile Canada and Mexico. Would we be exerting all our energies to acquire such weapons? Of course we would.
Little wonder then, that Iraq, a nuclear breath away from Israel, India, Pakistan, and mortal enemy Iraq should want such weapons. As for Iraq, we can’t have it both ways – we shouted from the rooftops that Iraq had such weapons and went to war over them; we can hardly deny that Iran should feel even more threatened by its neighbors. As a practical matter, Iran is more justified in possessing such weapons than we are.
The sad truth is that there is no way short of planetary cataclysm to put the nuclear genie back in the bottle. Which leaves us two alternatives: We can “LeMay” our enemies and strike while the advantage is ours, we can obliterate half the nations on Earth. That would include Iran, Iraq, India, China, Pakistan, and Russia at least. Keep in mind, Israel would be lost in the backdraft. That would still leave Britain and France to resist our absolute power, but we know France wouldn’t put up much of a fight, and Tony Blair is no Winston Chuchill.
But given the nuclear winter that would set in under such a scenario, it doesn’t seem a wise choice. So what’s the other alternative? The only practical one.
We need to judiciously employ the carrot and the stick while leaving other nations and leaders at least the appearance of sovereignity. If we expect other nations to behave like good citizens, it will hardly do to behave like a bully ourselves.
Tam O’Tellico - March 6, 2006 @ 9:07 am
Michael and Robert, you may dismiss my words as the whimpering of a leftitst, but you ignore the words of your comrades in Conservatism at your peril. I will repeat my mantra until one day it hopefully gets through: If you cannot find yourself on the political spectrum somewhere between me and George Will, you are on the lunatic fringe.
This is from Will’s latest op-ed:
It’s ttime for Bush to tell it like it is on Iraq
March 2, 2006
“Last week, in the latest iteration of a familiar speech (the enemy is ”brutal,” ”we’re on the offensive,” ”freedom is on the march”) that should be retired, the president said, ”This is a moment of choosing for the Iraqi people.” Meaning what? Who is to choose, and by what mechanism? Most Iraqis already ”chose” — meaning prefer — peace. But in 1917 there were only a few thousand Bolsheviks among 150 million Russians — and the Bolsheviks succeeded in hijacking the country for seven decades.
Today, with all three components of the ”axis of evil” — Iraq, Iran, North Korea — more dangerous than they were when that phrase was coined in 2002, the country would welcome, and Iraq’s political class needs to hear, as a glimpse into the abyss, presidential words as realistic as those Britain heard on June 4, 1940.”
http://www.suntimes.com/output/will/cst-edt-geo021.html#
Robert Duquette - March 6, 2006 @ 9:37 am
In the end, Bush’s policies and strategies — so quaintly referred to as U.S. pressure — have the effect of heightening tension among nations and of increasing hatred for America among poor, desperate, and fanatical elements of the global community.
If you think tensions are high now, wait until Iran gets a nuke. Do you think any of the countries in the region want that? The only way to prevent that is to make the tension so unbearable on the ruling coalition in Iran that they abandon the insane path that they are on, and hopefully the nutjob who is their current president. I’d hate to break the realities of the world to you, but disputes between nations are not settled by reasonable men holding rational discussions. They are settled by brinkmanship, or war if brinkmanship doesn’t work. If we let Iran win this game of chicken, then we will be facing them in another game of chicken in three or four years, for much higher stakes.
Tam, we are the stick. The UN can play the carrot, they are good at that, certainly they have no credibility as a stick. Sovereignty is a two way street. Iran has threatened to wipe out Israel, so they have already rejected the rules that well behaved, sovereign nations live by.
And actually the best way to get the other nations to behave is to be the bully. We’re a special kind of bully in that we bully other bullies. We bully governments, not peoples. The best thing we can do for the Iranian people is to corral their Islamofascist government. Whether they see it that way or not isn’t the point. We have great power as a nation, and we have a great respoinsibility to use that power to do the right thing, not the thing that will make us loved.
Paul Burke - March 6, 2006 @ 11:03 am
Tam is the man!
What scare tactics will the republicans use to hang onto congress and the white house this time around? Are the red states still scared of gay people living their own lives, minding their own business, creating fine dinning, renovating historic districts, antique shopping, creating, music, theater, art and opening quirky gift stores? Those scary gays are going to destroy America – not the insider dealing and misappropriation of our tax dollars – no, no just the gays. Not the raping of the American Treasury Department and our national parks and wetlands. It’s wall mart nation for all and for all a goodnight. Anything different is bad, anything different causes one to think and question the hook line and sinker they have bought into – oh no it’s gay people getting married and wanting to comfort each other and live their lives, working and paying taxes. It’s those horrible elitist and their enjoyment of impressionism and a walk in the woods. Tree huggers jobs versus the environment – and whatever phony argument they can muster – don’t clean the water we’ll loose jobs, don’t clean the air we’ll loose jobs ahhhhhh – gays, gays, gays, gay marriage, a woman’s right to choose – “planning parenthood” freedom of choice, separation of church and state – how dare they live in cohesion with the constitution – oh my god what horror the end of America – people planning parenthood and being responsible in acknowledging children require forethought, planning, income awareness, discipline and love – ohh my god the horror – America will surely die with those gays parading in New Orleans – they’re not in church propping up organized religion. Hmmmm – maybe organized religion is to blame – and their lust for power and obedience and control – no, no, no it’s the gays, the gays, gays and the women who don’t want to bring children into the world until they are ready to be parents – it’s them who will ruin this world – and their museum openings and jazz clubs, bad evil elitist who want pesticide free food and horror of horrors love a French Bordeaux. Vegetarian, peace nicks will ruin this country. “We are the only ones who can protect you,” spoke Cheney – and then he went out got plastered and shot his friend in the face – where are the blood samples the doctors didn’t want to talk about? Deceit, lying and ego – pride goeth before the fall.
Tam O’Tellico - March 6, 2006 @ 3:50 pm
It amazes me that Conservatives consider Liberals dreamers. Robert, you must be dreaming if you really think we can win this war with our big stick. Are you seriously proposing we attack Iran next? Shouldn’t we try to get things under control in Afghanistan and Iraq first? Or do you really want to LeMay ’em all?
You and Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and Woflowitz, et al, have it exactly wrong. As everyone from Congressmen Murtha to George Will has finally figured out, wielding the big stick in Iraq has exposed our Achilles heel and rendered our bully pulpit mute. This was the danger a lot of us warned about before Bush lobbed one into the Big Sandtrap.
It was obvious we could defeat the Iraqi Army, but it should have been equally obvious that holding that fractious nation together would be much more difficult. But unfortunately, our foreign policy was and is run by men like Rumsfeld and Cheney who are still trying to re-fight the Viet Nam War. They still believe our defeat was due to liberal opposition in America rather than rabid nationalism and sectarianism in Viet Nam.
Even if that were true, which it is not, what possessed them to think that the same thing wouldn’t happen again? Did they suppose that all liberals were truly brain dead or cowering in the corner and gone mute? Did they believe that Rupert Murdoch and his buddies had acquired or co-opted all the liberal media? Well, on that one they were close, but not quite.
And what do they say now that even diehard Conservatives like Will and Buckley are speaking out against the war? They say “stay the course”. What the mean is “stay the intercourse” because obviously we’re getting screwed. But as I said before, pride goeth before a fool, and Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are singularly proud men who still can’t admit to error.
It truly amazes me that men learn nothing from history, wiser men might also have taken a clue from the Soviet experience in Afghanistan. But if ever there was an example of history repeating itself, it is Pax Romana and Pax Americana.
The parallels couldn’t be more obvious. and while the unlearned ascribe Rome’s fall to moral decline, there was a far more mundane reason: economics.
For starters, Rome wasn’t built in a day, but it was built by slave labor, just like many American cities like New York. But Romans learned that it’s not cheap to keep such “livestock” healthy, just as Southern planters in America would learn centuries later. Slavery also led to a lot of social unrest because poor Roman citizens had to compete with this dirt cheap imported labor. Sound familiar? You might think of this as the beta version of NAFTA.
Rome fell in spite of being the world’s greatest economic power, it fell because it’s far flung wars bankrupted the treasury, it fell because its imports far exceeded its exports, it fell because its impoverished soldiers often returned from battle only to find that their homes had been taken away by greedy profiteers, it fell because ordinary citizens could not be kept contented forever with bread and circus, and in the end it fell because its citizens concluded that the grotesque economic inequities in the system made it no longer worth defending. A word to the wise is sufficient; for others it requires a depression.
Now you may argue with Michael that Rome did just fine, after all, it had its way in the world for 500 years. But given that our modern world operates at such an accelerated pace, I expect our Decline and Fall will be a lot more precipitous.
lonbud - March 6, 2006 @ 10:36 pm
Robert: ‘Tis the thinking and (lack of) feeling of men like you that has defined most all of mankind’s history. In the end it will define the end of that history as well, unless new kinds of thinking and feeling are wrought to forestall our collective demise. The time is nigh to chart a new course or go down with the ship.
Paul & Tam O: bravura selections, both. Thanks for sharing.
Michael Herdegen - March 6, 2006 @ 11:48 pm
…unless new kinds of thinking and feeling are wrought to forestall our collective demise. The time is nigh to chart a new course or go down with the ship.
Bold words, but the problem is that we cannot unilaterally impose a new paradigm on the world, unless we do so through the oldest means extant, i.e., kill everyone who disagrees.
Take the latest war in Iraq, for example.
If Saddam had behaved like a reasonable person, the Ba’athist Party would still control Iraq, and the U.S. wouldn’t have attacked. It was because the West couldn’t force Saddam to behave like a New World Man that we had to play by his rules, removing him by force.
What, again, was your plan to remove Saddam peacefully ?
If I recall correctly, the last time I asked that question, just a few threads down, the answer was “nothing”, that it’s not America’s business if 25 million Iraqis are oppressed by a maniacal sadist.
Some “new course” of “new kinds of thinking and feeling”.
That’s simple self-centeredness.
Further, to say that if America has nukes then any nation should be able to have nukes is crazy.
That’s exactly analogous to saying that because Ms Stable Lawabiding is allowed to possess firearms, we have no basis for denying firearms to Mr. Insane Troublemaker.
Recall, Iran is the entire world’s LEADING source for terror funding.
Which is also why it’s troubling that you can’t distinguish between Iran and India. They are nothing alike.
One minor but telling point is that India has had nuclear weapons for over thirty years, but hasn’t used them. They are trustworthy.
How will this “new thinking” help us to deal with the likes of Castro and Chavez ?
There are two more thuggish old-time dictators; they respond only to force or the threats of force.
What if Iran gets nukes and threatens to use them unless everyone else fulfills their demands ?
Will wishful thinking stop them, or will it take actual violence ?
No nation that possesses nuclear weapons has any moral standing when it comes to telling any other nation they can’t own them as well – particularly not the only nation that has actually used such weapons.
Dresden and Tokyo suffered more casualties from the firebombings than Hiroshima or Nagasaki did from being nuked.
Why would you single out the nuclear attacks as being particularly immoral ?
Anyone truly interested in morality would argue that no nation should have, let alone use such weapons.
There are MANY weapons that no nation should have.
Given that such weapons exist, and that the nations least restrained by morality or notions about the value of human life will possess such weapons, it behooves the good guys to do so too.
The only “morality” here is [America’s] xenophobic notion that we are always the “good guys”.
Yeah ?
Who were/are the real “good guys” ?
Germany? Italy? The Ottoman Empire? Japan? North Korea? China? The late & unlamented USSR? The Vietcong?
In the XXth century, the U.S. were the goodest guys around. While there were other good guys, they were usually allied with America, and, (and this is no small point), they weren’t guaranteeing the security of the globe. It’s really easy to be an armchair quarterback, much less easy to actually run the plays.
If some other nation, say France, had been in America’s position, they too would have done some questionable things. As it was, in Algeria and other places, they DID do some black things in the name of peace.
What XXth century “good guy” is or was opposed to the USA in practice, and not just in rhetoric ?
Michael Herdegen - March 7, 2006 @ 6:02 am
[Cool Hand Luke’s] incredibly deep treatment of the conflict between the spirit of freedom and evil, sadistic, naked authority demands truth-telling and education…
The first truth that Cool Hand Luke should educate us about is that freedom without responsibility or organization is both destructive and short-lived. Recall, “Luke” is first seen pointlessly destroying public property while intoxicated. He’s not even robbing the parking meters, it’s just thoughtless vandalism. Later, after escaping for the first time, he doesn’t run to Mexico or Canada, he aimlessly wanders around, working odd jobs, until he gets picked up again.
Further, Strother Martin’s character isn’t particularly sadistic, and clearly NOT evil. The prison camp doesn’t use the strap for discipline, and leg irons are only used on known flight risks. For a Southern prison of an earlier era, it was downright pleasant.
For instance, I’ve read that in the 30s, one out of three inmates at Southern prisons died before their release date.
That you can write those words and brook no criticism of the current administration’s economic policies [etc.]
Yeah, I must be unfeeling. Thanks for noticing.
At least you were kind enough to rule out the possibility that I’m a moron.
Tam O’Tellico - March 7, 2006 @ 6:37 am
M: What XXth century “good guy” is or was opposed to the USA in practice, and not just in rhetoric?
First of all, you’re asking the wrong question. The question is: What right do we have to decide who are the “good guys” – aren’t other nations entitled to the same right by which we established this nation, that is, the right to choose their own leaders and to revolt against leaders they disapprove of? It’s just possible people in those countries are making distinctions we are incapable of.
Secondly, by “opposed to the USA”, do you mean opposed to the interest of the American people or opposed to the interests of Corporate America? They’re not necessarily the same, you know. We have a long history of interfering in other people’s business in order to protect American businesses. Here’s a partial list of suspected or confirmed American or American sponsored hits/attempts:
1949 – Kim Koo, Korean opposition leader
1950s – CIA/Neo-Nazi hit list of more than 200 political figures in West Germany
1950s – Chou En-lai, Prime minister of China, several attempts
1950s, 1962 – Sukarno, President of Indonesia
1951 – Kim Il Sung, Premier of North Korea
1953 – Mohammed Mossadegh, Prime Minister of Iran
1950s – Claro M. Recto, Philippines opposition leader
1955 – Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India
1957 – Gamal Abdul Nasser, President of Egypt
1959, 1963, 1969 – Norodom Sihanouk, leader of Cambodia
1960 – Brig. Gen. Abdul Karim Kassem, leader of Iraq
1950s-70s – José Figueres, President of Costa Rica, two attempts
1961 – Francois “Papa Doc” Duvalier, leader of Haiti
1961 – Patrice Lumumba, Prime Minister of the Congo (Zaire)
1961 – Gen. Rafael Trujillo, leader of Dominican Republic
1963 – Ngo Dinh Diem, President of South Vietnam
1960s-70s – Fidel Castro, President of Cuba, many attempts
1960s – Ra√∫l Castro, high official in government of Cuba
1965 – Francisco Caamaño, Dominican Republic opposition leader
1965-6 – Charles de Gaulle, President of France
1967 – Che Guevara, Cuban leader
1970 – Salvador Allende, President of Chile
1970 – Gen. Rene Schneider, Commander-in-Chief of Army, Chile
1970s, 1981 – General Omar Torrijos, leader of Panama
1972 – General Manuel Noriega, Chief of Panama Intelligence
1975 – Mobutu Sese Seko, President of Zaire
1976 – Michael Manley, Prime Minister of Jamaica
1980-1986 – Muammar Qaddafi, leader of Libya, several attempts
1982 – Ayatollah Khomeini, leader of Iran
1983 – Gen. Ahmed Dlimi, Moroccan Army commander
1983 – Miguel d’Escoto, Foreign Minister of Nicaragua
1984 – The nine comandantes of the Sandinista National Directorate
1985 – Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, Lebanese Shiite leader (80 people killed)
1991 – Saddam Hussein, leader of Iraq
1993 – Mohamed Farah Aideed, prominent clan leader of Somalia
1998, 2001-2 – Osama bin Laden, leading Islamic militant
1999 – Slobodan Milosevic, President of Yugoslavia
2002 – Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Afghan Islamic leader and warlord
2003 – Saddam Hussein and his two sons
Now I certainly don’t intend to be a character witness for a lot of these guys, but things aren’t quite as black and white as you Big Stick boys insist. It is exactly this inability to make distinctions that too often dooms our foreign policy to bellicose belligerence.
A duly elected Marxist leader like Salvador Allende may have done a lot of good for ordinary citizens in Chile, but we’ll never know will we? Companies like Ford and Anaconda couldn’t afford to have a Commie running a country in which they were so heavily invested.
Castro is a perfect example of a Commie we might have reasoned with, but we chose to be bullies instead. A majority of Cubans are measurably better off under Castro than they were under our boy Batista. Certainly literacy and healthcare have improved. Cubans would likely be doing even better save for decades of American sanctions. But in any case, we have no business demanding that Cuba once again become a sugar cane plantation dotted with a few Mafia casinos. Now I know a lot of upper-class Cuban exiles in Miami don’t agree with this assessment, but they are free to use their considerable wealth to try and take back their country any time they are willing to make that sacrifice. But they are not free to use our CIA and our military to do the job for them.
Like Castro, Ho Chi Minh was a Nationalist first and Communist out of necessity. But we couldn’t see the trees for the forest and the fog of war. The same Dulles Domino ideology is alive and not well today, as typified by John-Boy “a nuke in every nook” Bolton. I’m certainly not going to hold up today’s Viet Nam as a democracy, but neither was South Viet Nam. Speaking of which, wasn’t Diem our boy? What happened there?
Mohammed Mossadegh, the duly elected prime minister of Iran signed his death warrant by insisting that Iran’s oil belonged to Iran. So he was eliminated in favor of our boy, the Shah. It’s been all downhill for us in Iran ever since. The evidence is pretty plain that we hired a hit man by the name of Saddam Hussein to protect American oil interests. Do you think Saddam has forgotten all that or the decades of support and financing given him by the CIA? And given the involvement of Daddy Bush, is it any wonder Saddam laughs at Junior’s moralistic posturing?
We seem to have an affinity for propping up Rightist dictators and killing off leftist populists. Is it surprising our govt is not welcomed in other people’s politics?
Michael Herdegen - March 7, 2006 @ 7:34 am
Tam O’Tellico:
If you cannot find yourself on the political spectrum somewhere between me and George Will, you are on the lunatic fringe.
Please. To the right of Will is “lunatic”? It’s like Lou Dobbs, who you keep trying to hold up as the model conservative: Both Will and Dobbs are on the right side of the spectrum, but not far.
The last time you wrote your “mantra”, it was phrased as “being to the right of Will was ‘out of the mainstream’.”
That I can accept. I am clearly not representative of the average American in many, many ways, of which political philosophy is only one.
Indeed, the fact that I have a coherent and deeply-considered political philosophy, instead of some vague thoughts and dislikes, puts me well out of the mainstream.
As for Will’s latest op-ed, surely you don’t agree that Today, [all] three components of the ‘’axis of evil’’ — Iraq, Iran, North Korea — [are] more dangerous than they were when that phrase was coined in 2002… ?
That’s plain crazy.
Iraq is MORE dangerous to the U.S. with Saddam gone, and possibly locked in a civil war ?
North Korea is MORE dangerous now that their only benefactor, China, considers them a liability ?
Iran is MORE dangerous now that the entire Western world, including the big dogs of Europe, and most Middle Eastern nations, including Arabia’s House of Sa’ud and Egypt, know that they’re trying to build nukes and are condemning their programme, calling for sanctions or worse ?
As you can see, Will was probably high on flu medication when he wrote that tripe.
Are you seriously proposing we attack Iran next?
Yes. But only bombing, no invasion.
Shouldn’t we try to get things under control in Afghanistan and Iraq first?
No.
Afghanistan is already stable, and stabilizing Iraq is unnecessary to end Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
It truly amazes me that men learn nothing from history, wiser men might also have taken a clue from the Soviet experience in Afghanistan.
It truly amazes me that some learn nothing from current events.
Please compare the Soviet experience in Afghanistan to the current situation: Even a cursory look would show that they are NOTHING ALIKE. And I mean nothing.
The only thing that the two events have in common is Afghanistan itself.
But if ever there was an example of history repeating itself, it is Pax Romana and Pax Americana. The parallels couldn’t be more obvious.
Really? America, like Rome, is an oligarchic Republic with an Emperor? America, like Rome, keeps slaves?
While I agree that there are parallels, the obvious ones are the least relevant. We must always keep context in mind when deciding if common characteristics mean anything; Rome and the Romans were of a different time, technology, government, society, and culture.
For instance: Rome fell in spite of being the world’s greatest economic power, […] it fell because its imports far exceeded its exports, it fell because its impoverished soldiers often returned from battle only to find that their homes had been taken away by greedy profiteers, […] and in the end it fell because its citizens concluded that the grotesque economic inequities in the system made it no longer worth defending.
American imports exceed exports for a simple reason: They’re practically giving a lot of the stuff away, and they’re willing to finance on E-Z terms. We’d need our heads examined if we didn’t take advantage.
If developing nations ever stop with the cheap goodies for no money down, we’ll start buying domestic again – it’s as simple as that.
Further, a lot of trade is with Canada, our #1 oil supplier in ’04, and a good friend. Why should we begrudge them getting rich off of selling stuff to us ?
In America, not only are our soldiers not impoverished, most of ’em are decidedly middle class. We don’t confiscate their homes, we give them subsidized loans to buy homes with.
In America, there are no widespread “grotesque economic inequities”. 2/3 of all households own their own home, Americans buy 17 million new cars per year, and there are a million millionaire households in America.
Those aren’t the signs of an impoverished peoples.
Sure, the CEOs at America’s 500 largest corporations make 500 times what the average American does, but let’s not forget that we’re talking about 500 people out of 300,000,000.
Besides, plenty of sports stars, actors, musicians, and media folk make 100 to 500 times what the average American does.
The Rolling Stones grossed $ 175,000,000 in ’05, and U2 brought in $ 150,000,000 in revenues – should we string them up ?
Fewer than 10% of Americans live in what we ludicrously define as “poverty”, which most of the rest of the world calls “middle class”. Fewer than 20% of Americans are “rich”.
Therefore, the average American is neither rich nor poor, but simply very comfortable. They own their own home, and two or more cars. Nothing “grotesque” there.
Over four billion people would consider the average American to be rich beyond imagining, compared to their own circumstances and prospects.
But given that our modern world operates at such an accelerated pace, I expect our Decline and Fall will be a lot more precipitous.
I expect it to be much like that of the British Empire, rather slow and leaving us intact and still rich, just not dominant anymore.
In any case, it won’t happen for at least 65 years, and probably not during the 21st century.
Paul Burke:
While the Republican Party as a whole is somewhat opposed to the gay lifestyle, it should be noted that Vice President Cheney is publicly and explicitly anti-anti-gay, and President Bush is not anti-gay; when speaking privately, unaware that he was being recorded, he’s said that he doesn’t care about gays, and that as far as he’s concerned, it’s “live and let live”.
Michael Herdegen - March 7, 2006 @ 9:34 am
Tam O’Tellico:
In the first place, if that list were accurate, its main lesson would be that America is an extremely incompetent assassin.
However, the list is surely incorrect.
Most of those folks had MANY domestic enemies, and a good reason to blame the U.S. for any attempts on their lives, whether we had anything to do with it or not.
If we look over the past 25 years on your list, what do we see ?
Muammar Qaddafi, an admitted sponsor of anti-Western terrorism, now slightly reformed.
The Ayatollah Khomeini, leader of Iran, a nation that committed acts of war against America in ’79 – ’80.
Saddam Hussein, mass murderer and anti-Israeli terrorist sponsor.
Mohamed Farah Aideed, prominent clan leader of Somalia, who stole food aid meant for starving people and committed acts of war against U.S. troops
Osama bin Laden, ’nuff said.
Slobodan Milosevic, President of Yugoslavia, architect of genocide.
You’re right, you don’t want to stick up for those guys.
As it turns out, things are more black and white than those “with the ability to make distinctions” insist that it is.
Speaking of an “inability to make distinctions”, what are we to make of those who cannot see a difference between India and Iran ?
Cubans would likely be doing even better save for decades of American sanctions.
Really ?
Are you then saying that being free to do business with Canada and Europe is worthless, that every nation needs to do business with the U.S. if they are to have any hope of prospering ?
The bottom line is that Castro is just as good at running an economy as I am at playing Major League ball.
[W]e have no business demanding that Cuba once again become a sugar cane plantation dotted with a few Mafia casinos.
You’re right, we should leave them as they are, as fifty years of enlightened Communist rule have left them: A sugar cane plantation dotted with a few tourist hotels where Europeans and Canadians come to enjoy a cheap, sunny vacation, waited on by natives too poor to be able to afford to eat the kinds of foods that they cook and serve their betters – i.e., meats.
A place where women from all social ranks become cheap prostitutes to foreign men, because the few bits of hard currency that they earn from foreigners is more valuable than weeks’ worth of toil for Cuban pesos.
Speaking of Cuban pesos, that’s EXACTLY why the Cuban health care system is nearly worthless – a Cuban can see a doctor any time that they like, but they can’t get any drugs for pesos. They must have FOREIGN CURRENCY to buy any drugs, even aspirin.
Under Cuba’s golden universal health care system, people beg in the streets for tourists to pay for medication that they or their family needs.
It’s usually not expensive, but it can’t be had for the official currency of their nation.
Tam O’Tellico - March 7, 2006 @ 10:35 am
A fairy tale for Michael and Robert, who obviously believe in fairy tales.
The Decline and Fall of Enronia
Enronia is a mythical nation undergoing a dramatic reversal. In 2000, the country changed accounting practices and converted from Trickle-Down Economics to Voodoo Economics. Ever since, things have gone from bad to worse in Enronia.
The former Secretary of Treasury, Paul O’Neill, warned that this would happen, but his warnings were ignored by the giddy believers in a New World Order. It is tempting to ask why a nation on top of the world order would want to rearrange things, but the people of Enronia were all asked to trust that their leaders are privy to information that defies conventional wisdom.
It is especially troubling that so many Enronian conservatives swallowed the notion Voodoo Economics is good for the country. That T-Bill-Strainer might have held more water if massive tax cuts weren’t accompanied by massive spending, a massive deficit and a massive trade imbalance. And in the obtuse financial practices that typify Voodoo Economics, the cost of a long, drawn-out, increasingly difficult war isn’t even included in the budget.
Now we’re only talking billions and trillions here, but even in Enronia such numbers started to add up. In fact, they added up to a disaster in the making.
Now, Enronia is in a deep financial fix, and this time it looks as though the country won’t be able to spend its way out of trouble. Her ports are being peddled to suspect allies, and foreign nations now hold not only Enronia’ IOUs, but hold her foreign policy hostage as well.
Sadly, things have gotten so desperate the government is reduced to selling off the country piece by piece. The first step is to sell off 300,000 acres of national lands to the highest bidder. But that’s just for starters. Soon we will see the Grand Canyon of the Toyota River and the Yangtze National Park.
And soon everyone will own a Piece of Enronia except the citizens of Enronia.
True conservatives ought to be screaming their lungs out. But maybe they’re too busy ridding themselves of Enronian dollars and preparing to line their pockets from the basement sale prices that are looming in wake of the Decline and Fall of Enronia.
“Last year Berkshire Hathaway, [Warren] Buffett’s holding company, reported it had placed some $12 billion in foreign currencies. Now Forbes reports that Buffett continues to exit dollar investments, and Berkshire Hathaway holds some $20 billion in foreign currencies.
“In 2002, we entered the foreign currency market for the first time in my life, and in 2003 we enlarged our position as I became increasingly bearish on the dollar,” Buffett told investors in a letter in last year’s annual report. For one thing Buffett fears the $10 trillion of the U.S. economy owned by foreigners.”
I’m sure Mr. Buffet intended to say the Enronian economy; after all such a thing couldn’t happen in America – could it?
Jeff Guinn - March 7, 2006 @ 3:15 pm
Tam:
A duly elected Marxist leader like Salvador Allende may have done a lot of good for ordinary citizens in Chile,
Just when, precisely, has Marxism been good for anybody, duly elected or otherwise?
Additionally, and this goes for Ionbud, Paul, et al: The sure sign of a bankrupt argument is ad hominem attack.
lonbud - March 7, 2006 @ 9:44 pm
Thanks, Jeff, for gracing us with a little latin in your debut post.
I intend, certainly, to speak far more to illogical policies and their deleterious effects on individuals and society, and hopefully, to the disservice done to all of mankind by the hominae who have the power to do things diffferently — and don’t.
If I’ve called any particular person’s character or ability into question I believe I’ve done so in recitation of facts more than in renderings of opinion, and I invite your citations to the contrary.
Michael:
…the problem is that we cannot unilaterally impose a new paradigm on the world, unless we do so through the oldest means extant, i.e., kill everyone who disagrees.
A new paradigm is not imposed, it’s accepted. And when it’s rooted in the notion of not-killing you are excused from killing everyone who disagrees. Try it, it’s quite amazing.
…there are a million millionaire households in America.
…[not] the sign of an impoverished people.
Just a sign of the decline in the value of the dollar.
The shameful thing is NOT that 500 CEOs make 500 times more than the average wage among 300 million Americans, though that is shameful enough in itself. The disparity between what those CEOs – and many more – make, and that made by those who work for them runs much closer to the nut. The U.S. is very top heavy, though, as you say, seemingly quite comfortable with herself.
I’m inclined to believe there aren’t as many as sixty-five laps around the sun left for the U.S. to bend geopolitics to our corporate will, but I remain hopeful we can inspire the rest of the world to accept a new paradigm before the old-school paranoid bullys take us all down.