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 8, 2006 @ 3:13 am
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.
Yes, I’m all for spreading the gospel of a new paradigm, but what happens when the new not-killers run up against someone who is willing to kill ?
I’ve already brought up the example of Saddam Hussein, a guy who believed in killing, and didn’t believe in diplomacy or “soft power”.
He would not leave to spare his people horrible suffering under the UN sanctions, and he would not leave under threat of violence.
Only violence itself sufficed.
So, while I would very much like to live in a world that had no human-on-human violence, there’s no chance whatsoever that I will live long enough to see such. The more people that convert to non-violence, the more that the twisted few who don’t convert can take advantage.
Besides, the West has far less cuturally and socially accepted violence than does the Arab world; you should be happy that we’re teaching the most violent among us the error of their heathen ways, leading to less overall violence in the future.
In fact, it’s ironically funny that you are exhorting the least senselessly violent cultures on Earth to turn over a new leaf – but I understand it.
Since the most senselessly violent cultures on Earth wouldn’t give you the time of day, if in fact they refrained from killing you, to whom else can you preach ?
It’s kinda like the old joke about looking for your lost keys under the streetlight.
Jeff Guinn - March 8, 2006 @ 5:21 am
Ionbud:
Apologies to you and everyone else. When I re-read the thread, I didn’t find the ad hominems my memory told me were there.
Several years ago Steven den Beste wrote an essay on Pacifism, which is effectively what you are preaching. If there was ever a moral stance doomed to failure, Pacifism is it, and Saddam the perfect example of why it is doomed to failure.
Just a sign of the decline in the value of the dollar.
How old are you? I can’t believe anyone older than, say, 30, can avoid the conclusion that the US is objectively far richer now than even fifteen years ago. Further, when you say “decline in the value of the dollar,” to what are you comparing it?
Robert Duquette - March 8, 2006 @ 8:20 am
Here is the ad-hominem that Jeff was searching for:
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.
lonbud, you really don’t know me to be making that sort of judgment. It seems to be a reflexive thing to accuse those who promote American values abroad as being without compassion, whereas the opposite is true. All you focus on in Iraq are the people who have died, while completely discounting the terrible state that the Iraqi people were in under Saddam. Our intervention will be a long run benefit for Iraqiis, and American servicemen are gladly putting their own lives at risk to bring a better future to these people. They are the opposite of the caricature you paint of them.
Neither I or Michael have promoted nuclear carpet-bombing if Iran. If we have to take military action to stop their nuclear development, it will involve targeted strikes on their development facilities. If we want to avoid World War in the future, then we have to maintain the military supremacy that we have now over the Irans and the North Koreas of the world. You envision some kind of egalitarian state of parity between nations, based on “fairness”, where everyone has nukes because it would’nt be fair for only a few to have them. That kind of situation is much more likely to lead to world war than the one superpower scenario. World War 1 was possible because there was not one supreme power in Europe, but several powers at rough parity. It is an inherently unstable situation.
I guess your problem is that you can’t get over the fairness issue. But you can’t treat nations or governments as people. It is not important to be fair to nations or governments, it is much more important to be fair to the peoples of those countries. Being fair to the government of North Korea isn’t very fair to its people, who suffer under some of the most inhumane conditions in the world. If it wasn’t for China we would have overthrown that sadistic regime long ago and all the Korean people would have been better off for it.
lonbud - March 8, 2006 @ 8:22 am
Michael:
When you are not afraid to die, those who are willing to kill suddenly lose much of their power to influence your behavior. And, if your objective is to teach the most violent among us the benefits of non-violence, killing them is not the way to go about it. What the U.S. has done in Iraq, and appears ready to reprise in Iran, only ensures a continuation of the cycle of violence and death and wil not soon result in peace and security for her citizens at home or abroad.
Jeff:
I disagree that a commitment to non-violence is doomed to failure, especially insofar as no leading power of any period has adopted one — we have no empirical evidence of its efficacy. I would also say that a commitment to meeting violence with greater violence is doomed to failure given the proliferation of nuclear technology among the violent.
I’m older than 30. By what objective measure to you deem the US far richer than even fifteen years ago? Because we have more cool stuff? More cars? More houses? Fuller landfills? Cleaner air, water, and cropland? Healthier people? Greater savings? Fewer personal and commercial bankruptcies? Help me out here. I compare the value of the dollar to itself. A million of ’em ain’t what they used to be.
Robert:
As ad hominems go, my criticism of your rationale as lacking in compassion seems rather tame, but I apologize if you’ve been thereby offended. Unfortunately, your vast store of concern for the plight of the Iraqi people and for those on the northern half of the Korean peninsula rings rather hollow.
Where was that great concern when the U.S. was putting Saddam into power and propping him up with many millions of dollars in ordnance and aid? Why did we choose the Iraqi people to liberate from their unbearable suffering, yet let the Rwandans and the Darfurians (to name just two recent examples) stew in theirs? Perhaps you don’t recall BushCo’s vehement denials of mounting a nation building exercise during the run-up to war in Iraq.
I’m sorry, but characterizing the U.S. as some benign, avuncular superpower who’s just trying to keep the rowdy nephews in line is a bunch of hooey.
Michael Herdegen - March 8, 2006 @ 9:05 am
When you are not afraid to die, those who are willing to kill suddenly lose much of their power to influence your behavior.
Quite true, but why should I let some thug decide when I go to my reward ?
Further, most of the fear that mature people have surrounding death isn’t fear for their own lives, but for those of their loved ones.
While many humans might not respond well to having a gun put to their heads, almost all will do as a thug wishes, if the gun is put to their mate’s or child’s head.
Your argument is essentially that we should allow the most evil among us to inherit the Earth, and while that’s a pure mainlining of spirituality, I for one am enjoying it here, and won’t passively allow others to tell me that I have to go Home now.
Jeff Guinn - March 8, 2006 @ 10:46 am
Ionbud:
Human nature is real, tangible, and immutable over anything even remotely approaching human time scales.
Human nature is not some tabla rosa to be written upon at will by the latest political theory.
Evil people exist, and enjoy doing evil things.
If you can answer the question “Why are trees so tall?” you will also be able to answer why Pacifism is utterly doomed to failure. What is worse, Pacifism is supremely hypocritical, because it only exists under the aegis of force.
What the U.S. has done in Iraq, and appears ready to reprise in Iran, only ensures a continuation of the cycle of violence and death and wil not soon result in peace and security for her citizens at home or abroad.
Germany. Japan. South Korea. Each completely contradicts your assertion.
Taiwan only enjoys freedom and security because China fears our retribution more than she desires to subjugate the Taiwanese.
The notion that apocalyptic ayatollahs, overtly committed to absolutely destroying Isreal, should be allowed nuclear weapons is a complete abdication of responsibility. Hitler has amply taught that lesson. Why learn it again?
By what objective measure to you deem the US far richer than even fifteen years ago?
All of them. We are wealthier. We have more cooler stuff. We live longer, healthier lives. Our air is cleaner (NB — as an extreme example, compare LA air quality of 1965 with that of today, despite the massive increase in population and cars over the period). Our water is cleaner. Inflation is nil, if not negative.
Savings are also far greater. See this for a discussion of just how far off base published savings rates are.
When you mentioned bankruptcies, you referred to quantity. The only valid measurement is rate.
Comparing the value of the dollar to itself is verges on tautology. The only possible comparison is over time. But once invoking time, the comparison becomes almost meaningless.
Take cars as an example. An average new car in 1975 cost about $5500. Today, that same average car is roughly $17,000.
So the dollar is worth a third in 2006 that it was in 1975, right?
Before you answer that question, you need to determine how much it would cost in 1975 to buy an average 2006 model year car.
And that amount would be?
Tam O’Tellico - March 8, 2006 @ 3:27 pm
Jeff, in these parts, we like our ad hominem with a little red-eye gravy. And speaking of good cooking, if you can’t take the heat, you probably ought to stay out of this kitchen.
Tam O’Tellico - March 8, 2006 @ 3:33 pm
M: “surely you don’t agree [with Will] 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… ?”
Surely, I do.
Tam O’Tellico - March 8, 2006 @ 5:06 pm
Jeff: “Just when, precisely, has Marxism been good for anybody, duly elected or otherwise?”
Obviously, you didn’t read my post. So here we go again:
By measures like literacy and healthcare, ordinary citizens in Russia and Cuba were certainly better off under the Commies than they were under the Czar or Batista. In fact, back then literacy rates were better in Russia than in the U.S.
Now that “glasnost” has turned Chechnya into a killing ground and Russia into a Mafia state, some Russians might now believe they were better off in good old days of Nikita Khrushchev.
I know we would have been better off without our paranoid delusions about Communism. Sure, Khrushchev said “we will bury you” and Marx said it was inevitable. But those were only words. Nukes and drones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.
Ideology, on the other hand, can get us all killed. Do you remember the Cuban Missile Crisis? In the Fog of War, Robert McNamara chillingly recites some little-known details of those awful days. Hard as it was for McNamara to admit, the coolest head during the crisis may have belonged to Khrushchev.
McNamara also had some reluctant admissions to make about Ho Chi Minh. Many intelligent, well-informed people believed then, and a lot more believe now, that Ho would have been happy to take advantage of our influence peddling. But he wore the scarlet letter C, so we turned our back on him, leaving him no choice but to turn to China, a nation he feared far more than the U.S. Call it the Proximity Effect. And whatever else you may think of him, Ho was no fool.
But the diehards will have none of this, because that would require admitting to error. As I said in my previous post, our foreign policy is being conducted by these diehards, men who are choosing to re-fight the Viet Nam War. Too bad, they didn’t have the guts to fight during the first one, they might be less inclined to have stumbled into Iraq.
Which bring us to the Middle East and dictators.
No one likes to admit it, but even a cruel bastard like Saddam Hussein may be preferable to anarchy – which is what Iraqis are now experiencing – even with our 140,000 man army “protecting” their country. The way things are going in Iraq these days, even the Shia might be inclined to spring him from prison if they thought he could restore order – the Sunnis certainly would.
The U.S. may care for the Ayatollahs about as much as I care for Pat Robertson, but many Iranians seem to find even the Imams preferable to the Shah. It’s for sure the Palestinians prefer Hammas to any alternative. We don’t know how Saudi citizens feel about our President’s close friends who rule that country, since Saudis aren’t allowed to vote. Do you see the bind that puts us in?
The reality is that these strong men offer one thing – at least they keep the peace. We should be able to understand; after all, a majority of Americans – at least up until Katrina and Port-O-Let – seemed to prefer a President who runs roughshod over civil liberties, Congress and the Geneva Conventions, as long as he keeps the wolf from our door.
Now I’m certainly not advocating dictatorship for any country – most especially ours – even though 58 million of my fellow citizens don’t seem to mind. But it is a mistake to imagine that other countries can suddenly become “just like us”, or that they even want to be “just like us”. That is xenophobia.
But the measure of these societies is not what we wish they were or what we insist they become, but whether they have made some social progress from the awful places from whence they came. The truth is, we can afford to value freedom so highly because we don’t have to worry about our daily bread – and we can walk our city streets in relative safety – at least in the daytime.
And the even crueler truth is this: this President and his advisers are doing everything in their power to realize the Goldwater Agenda and reverse 70 years of social progress in this country. Should they succeed, how will future generations judge our complicity and our cowardly acquiescence?
If you can’t see things from that perspective, you may want to trade in you rose-colored glasses for some night-vision goggles since it appears you may be in the dark.
Michael Herdegen - March 8, 2006 @ 10:34 pm
Tam O’Tellico:
If you agree with Will, then please explain why Iran is more dangerous now than in ’02. Why enduring the full scrutiny of literally all of the world’s powers is less constraining than operating under the radar.
The fact that you think that Cubans are getting better healthcare now than they were in the 50s is a very clear indication that you know NOTHING about the Cuban health care system.
Read my post in this thread timestamped March 7th, 2006 at 9:34 am.
The bottom line is that any Cuban can see a doctor at any time – but they can’t get any drugs. Some healthcare system: Willing to tell you what you’re dying of, but unwilling to ameliorate the condition.
But, hey, I’m willing to pretend that such is top of the line, if the masses will accept it; it’d certainly save America from spending trillions of tax dollars on healthcare over the next decades.
Tam O’Tellico - March 8, 2006 @ 10:59 pm
Michael, how much longer will you dismiss the growing list of right-wing Bush critics as “moderates”? I know you guys hate liberals, but when did moderate get to be a dirty word? Anyway, if these guys are moderates, I’m Noam Chomsky. If present trends continue and conservatives continue to jump this sinking ship, you’re going to end up in a leaky lifeboat with W, Dick, Karl, Rummy and Pat Robertson. I wonder who’ll be the first to be thrown overboard?
At Conservative Forum on Bush, Everybody’s a Critic
By Dana Milbank
The Washington Post
Wednesday 08 March 2006
If the ancient political wisdom is correct that a charge unanswered is a charge agreed to, the Bush White House pleaded guilty yesterday at the Cato Institute to some extraordinary allegations.
“We did ask a few members of the Bush economic team to come,” explained David Boaz, the think tank’s executive vice president, as he moderated a discussion between two prominent conservatives about President Bush. “We didn’t get that.”
Now why would the administration pass up such an invitation? Well, it could have been because of the first speaker, former Reagan aide Bruce Bartlett, author of the new book “Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy,” Bartlett called the administration “unconscionable,” “irresponsible,” “vindictive” and “inept.”
[Couldn’t have said it better myself.]
It might also have had something to do with speaker No. 2, conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan. Author of the forthcoming “The Conservative Soul: How We Lost It; How to Get It Back,” Sullivan called Bush “reckless” and “a socialist,” and accused him of betraying “almost every principle conservatism has ever stood for.”
Nor was moderator Boaz a voice of moderation. He blamed Bush for “a 48 percent increase in spending in just six years,” a “federalization of public schools” and “the biggest entitlement since LBJ.”
True, the small-government libertarians represented by Cato have always been the odd men out of the Bush coalition. But the standing-room-only forum yesterday, where just a single questioner offered even a tepid defense of the president, underscored some deep disillusionment among conservatives over Bush’s big-spending answer to Medicare and Hurricane Katrina, his vast claims of executive power, and his handling of postwar Iraq.
Bartlett, who lost his job at the free-market National Center for Policy Analysis because of his book, said that if conservatives were honest, more would join his complaint. [Is anyone on here listening?]
“They’re reticent to address the issues that I’ve raised for fear that they might have to agree with them,” he told the group. “And a lot of Washington think tanks and groups of that sort, they know that this White House is very vindictive.”
Waiting for the talk to start, some in the audience expressed their ambivalence.
“It’s gonna hit the [bestseller] lists, I’m sure,” said Cato’s legal expert, Roger Pilon. “Typical Bruce,” replied John Taylor of the Virginia Institute for Public Policy. Admitted Pilon: “He’s got a lot of material to work with.”
Bartlett certainly thought so. He began by predicting a big tax increase “to finance the inevitable growth of government that is in the pipeline that President Bush is largely responsible for.” He also said many fellow conservatives don’t know about the “quite dreadful” traits of the administration, such as the absence of “anybody who does any serious analysis” on policy issues.
Boaz assured the audience that he told the White House that “if there’s a rebuttal to what Bruce has said, please come and provide it.”
Instead, Sullivan was on hand to second the critique. “This is a big-government agenda,” he said. “It is fueled by a new ideology, the ideology of Christian fundamentalism.” The bearded pundit offered his own indictment of Bush: “complete contempt” for democratic processes, torture of detainees, ignoring habeas corpus and a “vast expansion of the federal government.” The notion, he said, that the “Thatcher-Reagan legacy that many of us grew up to love and support would end this way is an astonishing paradox and a great tragedy.”
The question period gave the two a chance to come up with new insults.
“If Bush were running today against Bill Clinton, I’d vote for Clinton,” Bartlett served.
“You have to understand the people in this administration have no principles,” Sullivan volleyed. “Any principles that get in the way of the electoral map have to be dispensed with. The entire intellectual game has been given away by the Republican president. He’s a socialist in so many respects, a Christian socialist.”
Bartlett argued that Richard Nixon “is the model for everything Bush is doing.” Sullivan said Karl Rove’s political strategy is “pathetic.” Bartlett said that “the administration lies about budget numbers.”
“He is not a responsible human being; he is a phenomenally reckless human being,” Sullivan proclaimed. “There is a level of recklessness involved that is beyond any ideology.”
bubbles - March 8, 2006 @ 11:51 pm
Network – excerpts
by Paddy Chayevsky
This is one of the better (and darker) writings I’ve seen on the subject of the decline of America and the role of business and television in it. It was written for the screen by Paddy Chayevsky in 1974 and was just one of many wonderful things he wrote. It rings more true today than ever…
EXCERPT 1
You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale, and I won’t have it! Is that clear? You think you’ve merely stopped a business deal. That is not the case. The Arabs have taken billions of dollars out of this country and now they must put it back. It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity. It is ecological balance. You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples. There are no Russians, no east, no west, no Communists, no Third Worlds. There is only one holistic system of systems. One vast and immane, interwoven, interactive, multi-variant, multi-national dominion of dollars; Petrol-dollars, electro-dollars, Yens, Pounds, Rubles and sheckles. It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the stucture of the world today. That is the atomic, and sub-atomic, and galactic structure of things today. And you have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale, and you will atone. Am I getting through to you, Mr. Beale?
You get up on your twenty-one inch screen and howl about America and democracy. There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only I.B.M. and I.T.T. and A.T.&T and Dupont, Dow, Union Carbide and Exxon. Those are the nations of the world today. What do you think the Russians talk about in their Council of States? Karl Marx? They sit down with their statistical decision theories, lineal programming charts, and their Mini-Mac solutions and compute the cost-price probabilities of their stocks and transactions, just like we do. We no longer live in a world of nations and ideologies, Mr. Beale. The world is a college of corporations, all inexorably determined by the immutable by-laws of business. The world is a business, Mr. Beale, and it has been ever since Man crawled out of the slime.
Our children, Mr. Beale, will live to see that perfect world in which there is no war or famine, oppression or brutality. One vast and ecumenical holding company for whom all men will work to serve a common profit; in which all will hold a share of stock; all necessities provided for, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused.
EXCERPT 2
At the bottom of all our terrified souls we know that democracy is a dying giant; a sick, dying, decaying political concept writhing in its final pain. I don’t mean the United States is finished as a world power. The U.S. is the richest, the most powerful, the most advanced nation on earth, light years ahead of any other country. And I don’t mean the communists are going to take over the world because the communists are deader than we are. What is finished is the idea that this great country is dedicated to the freedom and flourishing of every individual in it. It is the individual that’s finished. It’s the single, solitary human being that’s finished. It’s every one of you out there that’s finished, because this is no longer a nation of independent individuals. It’s a nation of some 250 odd million transistorized, deodorized, whiter-than-white, steel-belted bodies, totally unnecessary as human beings and as replaceable as piston rods.
The time has come to say, “is dehumanization such a bad word?” because good or bad, that’s what is so. The whole world is becoming humanoid; creatures that look human but aren’t. The whole world, not just us. We’re just the most advanced country so we’re getting there first. The whole world’s people are becoming mass produced, programmed, numbered, insensate things.
Jeff Guinn - March 9, 2006 @ 5:39 am
Tam:
By measures like literacy and healthcare, ordinary citizens in Russia and Cuba were certainly better off under the Commies than they were under the Czar or Batista. In fact, back then literacy rates were better in Russia than in the U.S.
That is a classic example of a false dichotomy. You compare what is now with what was then, as if they are the only two alternatives.
If you wish to be in the business of making such comparisons, then there are far better examples out there.
How about the People’s Republic of Germany, and the Federal German Republic in, oh, 1989? Same culture, same history. Biggest significant difference is Marxism on one side, and the lack thereof on the other.
Have you ever been to a Marxist country?
I wish I could remember who said it, but the quote goes something like this: Wherever you find the boot of Communism on the people’s throat, you will also find a Western leftist extolling the virtues of the health care system.
Tam O’Tellico - March 9, 2006 @ 7:38 am
Bubbles, you forgot “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore.”
For more on this subject read The Global Class War by Jeff Faux.
Capsule Reviews:
“Globalization is a cover for American imperialism, but the beneficiaries are not the American people at the expense of foreigners but corporate executives at the expense of working and poor people wherever they may be. Jeff Faux offers a comprehensive and devastating analysis.”
–Chalmers Johnson, author of The Sorrows of Empire
“You will never think about ‘free trade’ the same way after reading Jeff Faux’s superb book. This book should transform public discourse in America.”
–Robert Kuttner, author of Everything for Sale
Tam O’Tellico - March 9, 2006 @ 8:43 am
No, Jeff, the false dichotomy is yours – you favor the classic Us or Them dichotomy – just like your President. Reread my post – I didn’t say Castro’s Cuba was an exemplar, I said it was better by many real measures than what preceded it – a statement of fact you chose to dismiss as “Western leftist” nonsense – an ideological response if ever I heard one.
Facts often get in the way of ideology because ideology never has to deal with the real world. This dilemma is what so frequently confuses this President, a man who lives in an utterly dichotomous world. But the real world is never that simple.
Do I think the privileged classes got screwed in the Cuban Revolution? You betcha – that’s usually the point of a revolution. Do I wish that after their revolution Cubans had adopted a Democratic system instead of a dictatorship? Of course. But were the mostly illiterate citizens of Cuba ready for Democracy? Not likely.
Given the result of our last two Presidential elections, a wag might observe that the citizens of the U.S. are not prepared for democracy either. But I digress.
Since you prefer this to be a discussion of ideology, let’s descend into that pit. I call my political philosophy Pragamatism. Yes, I know, Pragmatism smacks of Moral Relativity, and we all know where that leads: Secular Humanism. I’m still trying to figure out how pragmatism, liberalism and humanism got to be dirty words to those on the Right, but I’m sure you can explain it to me.
That explanation will probably end up extolling the virtues of Free Market Capitalism and Libertarianism. Well, you are more than welcome to that political philosophy. As a practical matter, Libertarianism is no more viable than Communism, and its purest form, it may be worse. In essence, Libertarianism is no more than a return to the Darwinian jungle of tooth and nail. (I would observe that even lions run in packs, a pack pompously called a pride that resembles nothing so much as the executive officers of Enron.)
Now, you and Ayn Rand may choose to live in that jungle, but most of us prefer the relative safety of numbers. I’m sure you’d call that Socialism. Fine, I have no problem with the word; after all, I am a member of a society. If a little Socialism is necessary as a pragmatic solution to the myriad monumental problems facing modern society, so be it.
So call me a Liberal or a Socialist or even a Communist, if you must. But it does grow rather tiresome to hear people of your persuasion call people like me called idealistic dreamers. Nothing is more idealistic than the wild-eyed notion of pure Libertarianism.
Despite all the high-sounding celebration of individualism, the Libertarian ideal reeks more of a paranoid distrust of other human beings. Maybe that’s why, stripped of all its platitudes, it is little more than human greed quantified. Or to put it more simply; “I got mine, to hell with you.”
Tam O’Tellico - March 9, 2006 @ 8:43 pm
The light is finally beginning to dawn in the dark corner of geo-politics occupied by the once-haughty NeoCons. One of their most brilliant intellectuals, Francis Fukuyama, is about to offer up a mea culpa in his forthcoming book “America at the Crossroads – Democracy, Power and the Neo-Conservative Legacy”.
I give Fukuyama credit for that confession, and for having the courage to show up on CSPAN. The callers flayed him mercilessly, but I must say, he took his well-deserved beating like a man. He had the guts to say the three little words none of the hawks on this blog or in this administration can say: I was wrong.
In a critique of Fukuyama’s book and the NeoCons, Rupert Cornwell had this to say:
“This is no ordinary thesis, but apostasy on a grand scale. Mr Fukuyama, after all, was the most prominent intellectual who signed the 1997 “Project for the New American Century”, the founding manifesto of neo-conservatism drawn up by William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, the house journal of the neo-conservative movement.
The PNAC aimed to cement for all time America’s triumph in the Cold War, by increasing defence spending, challenging regimes that were hostile to US interests, and promoting freedom and democracy around the world. Its goal was “an international order friendly to our security, prosperity and values”.
The war on Iraq, spuriously justified by the supposed threat posed by Saddam’s WMD, was the test run of this theory. It was touted as a panacea for every ill of the Middle East. The road to Jerusalem, the neo-cons argued, led through Baghdad. And after Iraq, why not Syria, Iran and anyone else that stood in Washington’s way? All that, Mr Fukuyama now acknowledges, has been a tragic conceit.
Like the Leninists of old, he writes, the neo-conservatives reckoned they could drive history forward with the right mixture of power and will. However, “Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practiced by the United States.”
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article350104.ece
In a recent post, I mentioned Marx’s boastful prediction of the inevitable triumph of Communism. Fukuyama apparently now shares the same fate for having predicted the inevitable triumph of Pax Americana.
It is troubling in the extreme that intellects as powerful as Fukuyama and Buckley could not see what was all-too-obvious to a Tennessee Hillbilly, but I daren’t go too far down that road lest I fall prey to the same sort of hubris. Still this intellectual glaucoma is troubling.
But there is something far more troubling to me. The great tragedy in all this is not America’s failure to win the war in Iraq. It is that we have lost the moral high ground and the bully pulpit. What effect will our stong words have now that we’ve proven we can’t back them up?
That was the very danger many of us warned about, a lesson this country paid dearly to learn in Viet Nam. That was the lesson the British learned in the colonies, and it was the beginning of the end of that empire. That was the lesson the Russians learned in Afghanistan, and it was the beginning of the end of that empire.
Now that is our lesson to learn – again. Let us hope it is not the end of our empire, for in spite of my cautionary words in this space, I do believe that we are the last best hope of the world. The again, maybe that is hubris.
lonbud - March 9, 2006 @ 9:44 pm
Jeff:
Best let up on the accelerator with your Latin, friend. I believe tabula rasa is the term you were looking to use, but even so, I have no idea what you are trying to say with human nature is not some tabla rosa [sic] to be written upon at will by the latest political theory.
I’m no economist, either, or any kind of a finance whiz, but if one era’s average new model car costs $5500 and another’s costs $17000, with respect to the value of the currency being used to make each purchase, the dollars of the $5500 era have greater value. And that doesn’t even take into account the fact that the average new model car built in 1975 — while lacking the bells, whistles, and technological gimmickery of the present era — was destined to last far longer than the cars built today will.
As to your theories re: the saving rate, I won’t even go into the dichotomy raised by your citation of a critique of government statistical reporting linked to Mr. Herdegen. He may devalue offical statistics on other blogs, but here he has only ever been a champion of their validity as proofs of his political and world views.
One thing completely ignored in all the quasi-erudite analysis of the savings rate by the denizens of the Daily Duck is Americans’ household debt. No discussion whatsoever about the effect on what we call “savings” of record-breaking levels of personal debt and obscene profits raked in by usurious lending institutions like MBNA and Citigroup.
This country’s entire well-being rests on a mountain of fiat currency and worthless paper, and when Foreign Central Banks lose their taste for the purchase of US corporate and government debt instruments, things are going to look like that town they just unearthed in Indonesia buried in about 15 minutes under Tambora. Then you’ll get a little lesson in the nature of wealth.
Say goodnight, John-Boy.
Michael Herdegen - March 10, 2006 @ 2:10 am
Tam O’Tellico:
The war on Iraq, spuriously justified by the supposed threat posed by Saddam’s WMD…
EVERY NATION ON EARTH thought that Saddam had WMD.
Saddam never did anything to show that he did not, and indeed, acted like Iraq had something to hide.
And Iraq did have something to hide, as evidenced by the prohibited weapons and weapons systems found by the UN weapons inspectors in ’02.
Your continued refusal to accept those points of reality casts a very negative light.
The road to Jerusalem, the neo-cons argued, led through Baghdad. And after Iraq, why not Syria, Iran and anyone else that stood in Washington’s way?
Why not indeed ?
None of those concepts are yet proven to be unfounded. Time will tell.
Iran and Syria have both been isolated by the international community, and America may now act against them with impunity.
You want your aged Scotch to be ready in a week. Not possible.
The great tragedy in all this is not America’s failure to win the war in Iraq. It is that we have lost the moral high ground and the bully pulpit. What effect will our stong words have now that we’ve proven we can’t back them up?
We haven’t lost the war in Iraq, the moral high ground, nor the bully pulpit.
Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but there has been a marked pro-American shift in both Europe and Canada over the past year.
We took down two nations, both of which had been quagmires for earlier Empires, in two successive years.
No nation hostile to the U.S. thinks that they could win against the U.S. The game is to avoid being attacked, while altering behavior as little as possible.
That was the very danger many of us warned about, a lesson this country paid dearly to learn in Viet Nam. That was the lesson the British learned in the colonies, and it was the beginning of the end of that empire. That was the lesson the Russians learned in Afghanistan, and it was the beginning of the end of that empire.
Well, let’s see…
Afghanistan did indeed badly hurt the USSR, but after losing the American colonies England continued to be the global superpower and cop for another 170 years.
America was hurt by Vietnam, but is vastly more powerful now, both economically and militarily.
Meanwhile, our Vietnam era opponents, the USSR and China, have become friendly rivals to the U.S.
I think that you’ve misread the lessons of history.
You believe that American influence is waning, when in fact it’s still waxing, and will be for at least another forty years.
Global demographics ensure that. As the populations of Europe and Asia age faster than does that of America, relative economic power will continue to shift to America. Even China’s rapid economic growth will slow considerably – and that’s assuming that China avoids a civil war, which may be a foolish thought.
As America grows stronger economically, both in absolute terms, and relative to the rest of the world, it’s a sure thing that we’ll continue to transform wealth into military power.
lonbud:
I have no idea what you are trying to say with human nature is not some tabla rosa [sic] to be written upon at will by the latest political theory.
He’s saying that wishing that humans were not a violent species won’t make it so.
If you desire peace, prepare for war – true at both an individual and national level.
And that doesn’t even take into account the fact that the average new model car built in 1975 — while lacking the bells, whistles, and technological gimmickery of the present era — was destined to last far longer than the cars built today will.
No, that’s not the case.
You may be thinking of the fact that earlier era cars were more solidly built – “Detroit steel” and all that – but even the cheapest automobile sold in America today will drive far longer than the autos of ’75. The engines and powertrain are vastly better.
They’re also safer.
After adjusting for inflation, we find that Americans are paying roughly the same as they ever did for their vehicles – but today’s vehicles are far superior to those of earlier eras.
Therefore, today’s vehicles are an historical bargain, and evidence of deflation.
As to your theories re: the saving rate, I won’t even go into the dichotomy raised by your citation of a critique of government statistical reporting linked to Mr. Herdegen. He may devalue offical statistics on other blogs, but here he has only ever been a champion of their validity as proofs of his political and world views.
Yes, one of your blind spots is that you don’t accept that governmental bureaucracies do both good and bad work. You prefer to believe that they’re either all good, or all bad, and you choose the latter.
We know how the government calculates the savings rate and the Consumer Price Index, and how it tallies up employment and unemployment.
In the first two instances, there are glaring deficiencies, but with regards to employment they’re mostly just counting, which they manage to do well.
Amusingly, in claiming that it’s not valid for me to both defend and refute official gov’t statistics, you’re implicitly claiming that the savings rate calculations are correct, and yet you don’t believe that the gov’t can even perform the simple task of counting unemployed people correctly.
How very dichotomous of you.
One thing completely ignored […] is Americans’ household debt. No discussion whatsoever about the effect on what we call “savings” of record-breaking levels of personal debt…
The reason that debt levels are breaking records is because home ownership is at record highs.
A mortgage is debt, but it’s capital spending.
The amount of credit card debt held by Americans is but a small fraction of the amount of assets held by Americans.
If we were to liquidate America, selling all privately-owned assets, and paying all debts both public and private, every American would receive $ 50,000, their share of the remainder. And that doesn’t even count the value of America’s vast expanse of publicly-held lands, and the hundreds of trillions of dollars worth of natural resources contained therein.
This country’s entire well-being rests on a mountain of fiat currency and worthless paper, and when Foreign Central Banks lose their taste for the purchase of US corporate and government debt instruments, things are going to look like that town they just unearthed in Indonesia buried in about 15 minutes under Tambora. Then you’ll get a little lesson in the nature of wealth.
The value of fiat currency and “worthless” paper is in the institution backing it, in this case the most wealthy and powerful government on Earth. If you think that American currency is worthless, by all means, please convert your life savings into Euros or yuan.
The fact that you won’t do so tells us all we really need to know about your conviction that American fiat currency is worth nothing.
Foreign Central Banks won’t lose their taste for the purchase of US corporate and government debt instruments for at least another forty years.
As I wrote to Tam above, the relatively very strong performance of the American economy over the next few decades is going to leave foreign investors with few choices about where else to park their money.
That will be good for us, since it will allow our Central Bank to keep interest rates low.
But, let’s assume a worst-case scenario – no foreign government or investor will buy U.S. paper.
What would happen then ?
Well, the first thing that’d happen is that the value of the U.S. dollar, relative to other currencies, would deeply plunge. While that sounds like a bad thing, recall that a falling currency is bad for other nations primarily because their foreign debt is denominated in U.S. dollars.
It would mean that the U.S. auto manufacturers would start selling cars like crazy overseas, along with every other American company or industry with a strong export business.
Further, it would erode the value of overseas labor, as such would no longer be as cheap. Imported goods would also become more expensive, leading to greater demand for domestically-manufactured goods.
In short, it would lead to a boom in American employment.
Since you think that there are legions of unemployed Americans sitting around at home, you should be hoping that foreigners stop buying our paper.
It would also mean that we’d begin drilling for oil in ANWR.
I’ll leave the explanation for why that would be so as an exercise for the reader.
Tam O’Tellico - March 10, 2006 @ 8:27 am
M: EVERY NATION ON EARTH thought that Saddam had WMD… Your continued refusal to accept those points of reality casts a very negative light.
I assume you’re including Iraq as one of those nations even if it isn’t much of a nation at the moment. Still, wouldn’t that be ironic? What if even Saddam didn’t know he didn’t have such weapons?
If you read your post carefully, you’ll notice where the real problem is, though, and it’s not my failure to deal with reality. Do you see the word “thought” in your opening salvo? So what if every nation “thought” Saddam had WMD? It is not enough to think; you must have proof before going to war, which is why we sent inspectors. But for people like you, the fact they couldn’t find any WMD only proved that the inspectors were inept.
And speaking of “thought”. If this administration had given it a little more thought, maybe they would have realized that war ought to be the last resort, not the first option.
Frankly, I was surprised that Saddam wasn’t better armed, given the amount of shit we sold him back when he was our buddy. But I guess his devastating war with Iran, his gassing the Kurds and the first Gulf War must have depleted his stores. After that, the supposedly ineffective sanctions must have had some effect after all. Certainly that was the opinion of the weapons inspectors on the ground, if not the hawks in the White House and the Washington think tanks.
But in any case, this war was never about WMD. A policy decision was made long before 9-11, and that decision was based on an ideology cooked up in those same Washington think tanks and committed to paper back in 1997.
The Project for a New American Century is an ideology almost as perverse as Osama’s. It envisions us as the ultimate arbiters of good, but sees no irony in proposing at the same time that we behave like the biggest, bad ass on the planet. In short, under the PNAC, we were going to bully the world into seeing it and doing it our way. Sounds like several posters here are signatories by proxy.
Well, history teaches me, and I won’t bother to repeat the examples I’ve already offered, that other folks may not be ready to roll over for a bully. And we all know what happens when the bully get his nose bloodied instead. I know, I know – Mission Accomplished. Please spare me the party line, but, hey, maybe you can get folks in the streets of Baghdad to buy it.
Again, you don’t have to listen to a wimpy liberal like me, but you ought to at least pay attention to the cautions offered by your own kind about the consequences of continuing down this dangerous path. Fukuyama and a growing number of disillusioned hawks now understand what they should have known all along: War is the least effective way to bring about what must ultimately be a political solution.
Michael Herdegen - March 10, 2006 @ 9:36 am
Still, wouldn’t that be ironic? What if even Saddam didn’t know he didn’t have such weapons?
Yes, it actually appears that some of Saddam’s people were yes-men that couldn’t tell him that things were not as he thought, and that others were running a scam, telling him that they were working on WMD, but really only doing enough to keep the checks rolling in. And keep their lives – can’t forget that the penalties for conning Saddam would have been higher than a prison term.
So yes, there is some possibility that Saddam was protecting capabilities that he only thought that he had.
So what if every nation “thought” Saddam had WMD? It is not enough to think; you must have proof before going to war, which is why we sent inspectors.
That might be true in ordinary circumstances, but Saddam had agreed, as a condition of the ’91 ceasefire, to get rid of his WMD, and DOCUMENT IT.
In this case, the onus of proof was on Saddam, and he did absolutely nothing to attempt to credibly convince the international community that he had complied. As the head of the UN weapons inspection teams, Dr. Hans Blix noted that Iraq harrassed the inspectors, and refused to provide supporting documents.
Iraq also had an opportunity to turn in a report documenting their disposal of WMD; they turned in a photocopy of a report they’d made years previously. To say that the UN Security Council was unimpressed is an understatement.
Of course, you could just claim that the ’91 ceasefire and the subsequent 14 UN resolutions directing Saddam to comply are invalid somehow, but then what basis do you have for claiming that the U.S. shouldn’t have invaded Iraq ?
If Iraq isn’t bound by international agreements, then no nation is.
But for people like you, the fact they couldn’t find any WMD only proved that the inspectors were inept.
No, the inspectors DID FIND BANNED WEAPONS AND WEAPONS PROGRAMMES !!!!
I’ve pointed that out many times in this forum, and provided links, but for people like you, reality will never trump your need to believe that Saddam was the good guy, or at least that America was wrong.
(Can Saddam be evil, and the U.S. still be wrong in invading Iraq) ?
I don’t really care if you ever decide to accept reality, I just wish that you wouldn’t keep repeating the same unexamined cliches over and over, especially without addressing Blix’s 27 Jan. ’03 report to the UN Security Council.
But in any case, this war was never about WMD. A policy decision was made long before 9-11…
Yeah ?
How were they going to sell the war, without 9/11 ?
They were barely able to sell it with 9/11, which is exactly why lonbud believes that the Bush admin allowed the attack to proceed – to gain some domestic political capital, in order to prosecute a foreign war.
The Project for a New American Century is an ideology almost as perverse as Osama’s. […] In short, under the PNAC, we were going to bully the world into seeing it and doing it our way. Sounds like several posters here are signatories by proxy.
Yes, I agree with the PNAC, and certainly would have signed it, if given the opportunity.
lonbud - March 10, 2006 @ 12:14 pm
Thanks, Michael for bringing the central thesis of this thread back to the top of the discussion. Saddam was driven into the spider hole essentially because his papers weren’t in order.
I don’t think there’s any question that Saddam was a bad man, nor is there any question that he wouldn’t have tried to use whatever capabilities he might have been able to muster to advance whatever perverted agenda he may have had.
I’ll allow that Blix’s reports were accurate, and evidence enough that Iraq was not in compliance with UN Security Council directives.
None of that, however, equates with the picture of the threat drawn by BushCo. None of that equates to anything like an ablility to launch a nuclear/WMD strike within 20 minutes of his giving the order, as Condi Rice and others claimed. None of that equates to images of mushroom clouds that Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld all described to the American people.
Saddam was a megalomaniac who we could have easily kept under control and prevented from doing any but the most incidental damage if we’d chosen to do that.
Instead we chose an illegal, unprovoked, unnecessary course of action that has driven Iraq to the brink of civil war, increased anti-American sentiment manyfold throughout the world, and wasted countless billions of dollars of US taxpayer money and the lives of over 20,000 US military personnel and counting. Heckuva job, Bushie.
The real Project for the New American Century, contrary to the hubristic fantasies of Grover Norquist and his krewe, is going to involve a wresting of power from corrupt, corporate-minded sycophants of the defense, energy, and financial services industries, and a return to the principles of equality, and fairness, and justice, and respect for community and the value of the commonweal.
Michael Herdegen - March 10, 2006 @ 12:43 pm
None of that, however, equates with the picture of the threat drawn by BushCo. [etc.]
Hey, another point on which we agree !
Saddam was a megalomaniac who we could have easily kept under control and prevented from doing any but the most incidental damage if we’d chosen to do that.
But on this point I disagree.
What are some examples of ways in which this could have been accomplished without a war, and without UN sanctions ?
We weren’t going to be able to keep him in that box forever, and in any case, the UN sanctions were killing 35,000 Iraqis a year, mostly children.
How is that more moral than an overt war ?
Instead we chose an illegal, unprovoked, unnecessary course of action…
Unnecessary is debatable, but you’ve just agreed that it was provoked, and it certainly wasn’t “illegal” – both the UN Security Council and the U.S. Congress approved the use of force.
What controlling organization do you believe that we failed to consult ?
The real Project for the New American Century [will involve] a return to the principles of equality, and fairness, and justice, and respect for community and the value of the commonweal.
Hard to “return” to a zeitgeist that never was, although I’m curious about where and when you believe that such a Golden Era existed.
Tam O’Tellico - March 10, 2006 @ 2:13 pm
Michael, Michael, Michael, there’s no need to shout – I hear you just fine; I just don’t agree with you.
So now that the Iraq War has proven to have little to do with WMD or stopping terrorism or spreading democracy, you resort to the last refuge of a scoundrel – the law. Now the the only justification left is the toilet paper war – no job is complete until the paperwork is finished. Saddam didn’t turn in his homework, so we had a perfect right try and kill the bastard even if we ruined his nation – and ours – in the process. Does that sound logical to you?
Certainly, you and Bush are technically correct about the legality of the war. But as you admit, most Americans would not have gone along with that legalistic dodge. Absent 9-11, there would have been no Iraq War.
Bush knew that, which is why right after he made the invasion decision in his first days in office, he started to cook the books. But he knew the evidence was sketchy at best, so he had to wait around for a good excuse. Enter Osama.
Even with all the manufactured evidence he could muster, Bush very likely couldn’t have had his war without help from Osama. Come to think about it, maybe Lon is right. It wasn’t Osama and Saddam in cahoots – it was Osama and Bush!
At least that makes more sense than the claim that Osama and Saddam were allies, when by all indications they were mortal enemies. And like the mysterious rocket-mounted WMDs that were supposedly twenty minutes from Washington, DC, no one has yet found a connection between Saddam and 9-11.
However, there is plenty of evidence that Saudi and Egyptian citizens had a lot to do with 9-11. So why the hell didn’t we invade those countries?
We can split these hairs as long as you like, but there are only a couple of questions that really matter:
Question: Did Iraq pose a serious enough threat for the U.S. to risk going to war?
Answer: No
Question: Did Bush decide to invade Iraq anyway and cook the books to fit his agenda?
Answer: Yes
Tam O’Tellico - March 10, 2006 @ 2:58 pm
Another conservative breaks ranks, this time on torture; if you dare to read this article you will be forced to this same conclusion:
Cheney’s view, Wilkerson suggested, was fuelled by his desire to achieve a state of “perfect security.” He said, “I can’t fault the man for wanting to keep America safe, but he’ll corrupt the whole country to save it.”
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060227fa_fact
Except from New Yorker:
Mora thinks that the media has focussed too narrowly on allegations of U.S.-sanctioned torture. As he sees it, the authorization of cruelty is equally pernicious. “To my mind, there’s no moral or practical distinction,” he told me. “If cruelty is no longer declared unlawful, but instead is applied as a matter of policy, it alters the fundamental relationship of man to government. It destroys the whole notion of individual rights. The Constitution recognizes that man has an inherent right, not bestowed by the state or laws, to personal dignity, including the right to be free of cruelty. It applies to all human beings, not just in America—even those designated as ‘unlawful enemy combatants.’ If you make this exception, the whole Constitution crumbles. It’s a transformative issue.”
Tam O’Tellico - March 10, 2006 @ 3:38 pm
As for our continuing debate about whether the increased American productivity this administration likes to boast about is benefitting most Americans, I’m with Alan Greenspan, “who – surprisingly, given his libertarian roots – has repeatedly warned that growing inequality poses a threat to “democratic society.” Gosh, he sounds just like Lou Dobbs!
Here’s some telling statistics for the Voodoo Economics Free Marketers:
“Highly educated workers have done better than those with less education, but a college degree has hardly been a ticket to big income gains. The 2006 Economic Report of the President tells us that the real earnings of college graduates actually fell more than 5 percent between 2000 and 2004. Over the longer stretch from 1975 to 2004 the average earnings of college graduates rose, but by less than 1 percent per year.
So who are the winners from rising inequality? It’s not the top 20 percent, or even the top 10 percent. The big gains have gone to a much smaller, much richer group than that.
A new research paper by Ian Dew-Becker and Robert Gordon of Northwestern University, “Where Did the Productivity Growth Go?,” gives the details. Between 1972 and 2001 the wage and salary income of Americans at the 90th percentile of the income distribution rose only 34 percent, or about 1 percent per year. So being in the top 10 percent of the income distribution, like being a college graduate, wasn’t a ticket to big income gains.
But income at the 99th percentile rose 87 percent; income at the 99.9th percentile rose 181 percent; and income at the 99.99th percentile rose 497 percent. No, that’s not a misprint.
Just to give you a sense of who we’re talking about: the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center estimates that this year the 99th percentile will correspond to an income of $402,306, and the 99.9th percentile to an income of $1,672,726. The center doesn’t give a number for the 99.99th percentile, but it’s probably well over $6 million a year.”
(Sorry, but that bastion of liberality, the NYTimes won’t let me link to the Paul Krugman article)
I know these numbers probably come as a shock to Michael, but I’m sure he’ll find some VooDoo explanation to make them go away. I’m equally sure that if you’re in the 99+ percentile, you’ll find these numbers comforting. The rest of us recognize them as the truth you won’t hear from this President or certain contributors to this blog.
BTW, Michael, do you suppose it’s only coincidence that the 497% rise at the 99.99 percentile is almost exactly the same as the Wretched Excess Executive Compensation factor which is about 497 to 1 these days?
lonbud - March 10, 2006 @ 8:05 pm
Michael:
If you desire peace, prepare for war – true at both an individual and national level. This an essential truth recognized by great thinkers on the subject from Sun Tzu to Machiavelli, and perhaps because it’s something so rooted in the intellectual record of great men and nations, it seems to have escaped w entirely.
One thing proved by current events and the record of BushCo’s prosecution of what Donald Rumsfeld refers to as our “adventure in Iraq,” is that the reigning junta was not prepared for war. At least not for the kind they ended up having to fight.
Michael Herdegen - March 10, 2006 @ 9:42 pm
Tam O’Tellico:
Michael, Michael, Michael, there’s no need to shout – I hear you just fine; I just don’t agree with you.
Right, the fact that you don’t agree that the UN weapons inspectors found prohibited weapons in Iraq is why I say that you’re delusional.
It’s not about interpreting a policy, it’s about finding mustard gas, basic chemistry. It can’t be argued. It’s just a fact.
What’s YOUR explanation for why Blix reported that they had found weapons ?
He was in on the fix ?
So now that the Iraq War has proven to have little to do with WMD or stopping terrorism or spreading democracy, you resort to the last refuge of a scoundrel – the law.
In the first place, it’s very interesting that you’re willing to throw legality out the window in your desire to paint America as the villain.
If we get rid of laws, what prevents might from making right ?
Under your own rules, America is automatically right, no matter what we do, so why are you still complaining ?
Further, the war in Iraq is about WMD, and about stopping terrorism, specifically by spreading democracy.
Your use of the word “proven” is ludicrous, since you have yet to present ANY evidence to support such a claim.
Saddam didn’t turn in his homework, so we had a perfect right try and kill the bastard…
Saddam’s “homework” was to get rid of his WMD.
Since Saddam has KILLED over 100,000 people with poisonous gasses, I find your flippancy regarding this matter to be in the poorest of taste.
Mora thinks that […] “the Constitution recognizes that man has an inherent right, not bestowed by the state or laws, to personal dignity, including the right to be free of cruelty. It applies to all human beings, not just in America—even those designated as ‘unlawful enemy combatants.’ If you make this exception, the whole Constitution crumbles.”
That’s just retarded.
Besides, didn’t you just post the legality is the last refuge of scoundrels ?
Wouldn’t that make this argument irrelevant ?
So why did you post it ?
In any case, like Mora, I’m willing to unilaterally extend the U.S. Constitution to cover all of humanity, since that would also necessarily mean that American law enforcement agencies would have the authority to force all of humanity to follow U.S. laws.
Highly educated workers have done better than those with less education, but a college degree has hardly been a ticket to big income gains, etc., etc., blah blah blah
Is there some reason that you don’t think about these articles before you post them ?
Or are you really convinced that we live less well than we did in ’75 ?
lonbud:
This an essential truth recognized by great thinkers on the subject from Sun Tzu to Machiavelli…
How do you reconcile this being “an essential truth”, with promoting pacifism ?
Tam O’Tellico - March 10, 2006 @ 11:22 pm
Legalese
You’re ducking my questions. I repeat – no one has presented any credible evidence to date that proved Iraq posed an immediate threat to the U.S., and none of the constantly changing reasons offered by this administration have proven to hold water. Do you have any evidence that would warrant the pre-emptive attack of a sovereign nation? I think not, or you’d offer it gladly.
Given that fact, it’s about time somebody in this administration joined Francis Fukuyama and had the guts to say: We were wrong. Wouldn’t you agree?
Futhermore, you brought up the subject of failure to fill out paperwork. And in that regard, I did not say the law doesn’t matter; I said Saddam’s failure to fill out the paperwork proving that he didn’t have what he didn’t have did not constitute a reasonable cause for the invasion of Iraq.
So I am compelled to ask you again – does failure to fill out paperwork warrant a pre-emptive attack on a soverign nation? I think not, and so should you.
M: In any case, like Mora, I’m willing to unilaterally extend the U.S. Constitution to cover all of humanity, since that would also necessarily mean that American law enforcement agencies would have the authority to force all of humanity to follow U.S. laws.
Now that IS truly retarded, and the weakest argument you have ever offered here. You know perfectly well it means no such thing.
The fact that we, the paragon of virtue, should choose to extend to all citizens of the world the same inalienable rights by which we separated ourselves from Britain in no way obligates any other nation to reciprocate. We do so because as Mora rightly suggests, it’s the right thing to do. That’s how you maintain the moral high ground, not by crawling down in the torturous gutter with the likes of Saddam – and torturing in, of all places, Saddam’s horror chambers.
If you are at all serious about the torture argument, you should read the New Yorker piece – I suspect you didn’t. It might help you to know that Alberto J. Mora was the general counsel of the United States Navy, a military lifer and lifelong conservative who risked his career to speak out about our appalling torture policy.
But the administration chose to ignore his vast experience and his highly informed legal opinion in favor of the adolescent musings of John Yoo, a bright enough young fellow, but as a legal scholar, very much wet behind the ears. He offered a poorly reasoned opinion, but one that had one major advantage: It supported the administration’s decision to extract information from prisoners “by any means necessary”.
While you may see a distinction between behaving like an animal in a good cause and behaving like an animal in a bad cause, some of us see only men behaving like animals. It seems to me absurd to say that we have an obligation to violate every precept of decency to preserve our way of life.
Tam O’Tellico - March 10, 2006 @ 11:25 pm
VooDoo Economics: Part 134,459
M: Is there some reason that you don’t think about these articles before you post them?
Well, in this case, I posted them because I’m basically ignorant of statistics, and knowing your penchant for them, I presumed you would be able to explain why they don’t say what they seem to say; that is, that for the last thirty years, the richer have been getting a hell of lot richer, while the rest of us have been pretty much treading water. So pray tell me what’s wrong with the statistics – I mean besides the fact that they don’t fit your economic prejudices.
And I suppose Alan Greenspan is another left-leaning moderate in your book, too.
As for 1975, I’m sure you, as opposed to collective we, are probably living better. But in that thirty year period real wages have declined and healthcare and pensions have all but disappeared. Wake up and look around you. Better yet, get out on the street and talk to the downsized and outsourced – they’re easy to find, just listen for the magic words that have become the carch-phrase for VooDoo Economics: You want fries with that?
Michael Herdegen - March 11, 2006 @ 11:31 am
You’re ducking my questions. I repeat – no one has presented any credible evidence to date that proved Iraq posed an immediate threat to the U.S…
Ah, but now you’ve changed the criteria.
Was Iraq an immediate threat to the U.S. ?
No.
But what you said before was that “no WMD were found”, and that it’s been “proven” that Iraq wasn’t about WMD, which are entirely different arguments from that which you now offer.
It’s as if a criminal was charged with possession of a concealed handgun.
Whether he actually had a firearm, and what he intended to do with it, are two separate questions.
Do you have any evidence that would warrant the pre-emptive attack of a sovereign nation? I think not, or you’d offer it gladly.
I’ve offered it many times, you just don’t agree.
That’s why we keep having the same exchange over and over, because not only don’t you agree with my rationale for attacking, you refuse to believe that Saddam was found to be violating the agreements that allowed him to retain power.
I did not say the law doesn’t matter; I said Saddam’s failure to fill out the paperwork proving that he didn’t have what he didn’t have did not constitute a reasonable cause for the invasion of Iraq.
So I am compelled to ask you again – does failure to fill out paperwork warrant a pre-emptive attack on a soverign nation?
We didn’t invade Iraq because Saddam didn’t fill out some forms correctly, we invaded because he didn’t get rid of his WMD, and he refused to step down as head of the Iraqi gov’t.
It’s as if we caught someone dumping toxic waste in a river, and you focused on the fact that they didn’t have a proper permit for waste disposal.
That’s irrelevant.
Iraq promised to get rid of their WMD, and to document it, and they did neither.
The UN asked them for their documentation; they couldn’t come up with any.
The UN sent in weapons inspection teams, which were harassed and stymied. However, despite that, the teams still found MANY prohibited weapons and weapons systems.
The UN asked Saddam to step down, under threat of violence; he refused to do so.
Australia, the UK, and the U.S. invaded Iraq.
The deal with the paperwork is that it was another missed opportunity by Saddam to come clean, and avoid war.
It was not a casus belli.
“In any case, like Mora, I’m willing to unilaterally extend the U.S. Constitution to cover all of humanity, [etc.]”
Now that IS truly retarded, and the weakest argument you have ever offered here. You know perfectly well it means no such thing.
The fact that we, the paragon of virtue, should choose to extend to all citizens of the world the same inalienable rights by which we separated ourselves from Britain in no way obligates any other nation to reciprocate.
The U.S. Constitution is a contract, and while it confers benefits, it also bestows obligations.
To focus only on the rights, and ignore the responsibilities, destroys the contract.
We could treat others as if they were covered by the U.S. Constitution, but we have no obligation to do so.
Mora is attempting to argue that non-Americans have a right to the protections of the U.S. Constitution, and that is retarded.
By definition, the U.S. Constitution only covers American citizens, and to a lesser degree, non-citizens on U.S. soil.
It’s exactly analogous to you claiming that you should have the right to inherit from my parents, despite not being a member of my family, or named in a will.
Since the U.S. Constitution is a contract between the governed and those who govern, any peoples claiming the rights of the governed are necessarily placing themselves under the authority of the named governors, Q.E.D.
Given that Mora was the general counsel of the United States Navy, and should know what I’ve just explained inside and out, it suggests either senility or a deliberate attempt to deceive.
If you are at all serious about the torture argument, you should read the New Yorker piece – I suspect you didn’t.
Of course I didn’t, and I didn’t because I’m serious about the torture argument.
My position is clear, and won’t be changed by the blatherings of anyone who isn’t serious about the defense of America – as Mora is clearly not.
What might change my mind is if it could be shown that we are being overly aggressive in interrogating prisoners, or if we’re interrogating too widely, i.e. many people who have no information to give; or if it could be shown that no lives have been saved due to information obtained under duress.
However, all of that stuff is classified, so there’s no way for us to know any of it.
All we can do is argue over the philosophy of extreme interrogation techniques, and there my position is clear and rock solid: I’m quite willing to kick a guy in the nuts, to get him to reveal where and when his pals are planning to set off a car bomb.
The very thought that some might be willing to let others die so that they can avoid having to kick a guy in the nuts is nauseating to me – it’s both weak and evil.
Of course, that’s assuming that we’re talking about adults. Another way to put it is that such an attitude is childlike. I’d understand that a child might not be able to bring themselves to do a dirty job, one that scars both the subject and interrogator.
It takes an adult to know that some things have to be done, no matter what the cost.
So another way to put it is that I understand why some people might shrink from the tasks that the world puts before them, but I don’t want those childish people running anything important.
Let them go to Hollywood and make amusements for the adults who keep them safe.
While you may see a distinction between behaving like an animal in a good cause and behaving like an animal in a bad cause, some of us see only men behaving like animals.
As I explained above, an inabililty to distinguish between good and bad is the hallmark of a child.
Since the bad guys are going to behave like animals anyhow, the only thing that can be accomplished by banning animalistic behavior is to hamstring the good guys.
I very much wish that those who want to see the good guys fight with one hand tied behind their backs, would get into the ring themselves. It’s really, really easy to be an armchair quarterback, and really, really hard to actually DO.
It seems to me absurd to say that we have an obligation to violate every precept of decency to preserve our way of life.
We don’t do so; for instance, we let those subjected to extreme interrogation live afterwards, which is a rare behavior among the kind of people that we subject to such.
I presumed you would be able to explain why [the statistics] don’t say what they seem to say; that is, that for the last thirty years, the richer have been getting a hell of lot richer, while the rest of us have been pretty much treading water. So pray tell me what’s wrong with the statistics…
There’s nothing wrong with the statistics, per se. They measure what they were designed to measure.
However, they were designed to produce results which reflect a pre-determined wordview, which is why the cliche goes “lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
That’s why we cannot accept statistics at face value – we have to know the methodology behind their creation. It’s why I accept the gov’ts figures on employment, but reject the “savings rate” and “Consumer Price Index” statistics.
Same with polls, which is why some polls show Bush at 30% approval, and some at 45%. They’re both accurate, what’s different is what they were designed to measure.
And I suppose Alan Greenspan is another left-leaning moderate in your book, too.
Alan Greenspan has spoken extensively about the productivity revolution in America, and believes that Americans are immensely well-off.
Nothing left-leaning, (i.e. defeatist), there.
As for 1975, I’m sure you, as opposed to collective we, are probably living better. But in that thirty year period real wages have declined and healthcare and pensions have all but disappeared. Wake up and look around you.
That’s exactly my point about about the Krugman article.
Look around you, and you’ll see that it’s clearly untrue that we live as we did in ’75, or worse.
For one thing, average home size has increased from 1200′ sq. to 2000′ sq. It’s hard to argue that we’re poverty-stricken when 2/3ds of American households own their own home, a home that would have been considered “very large” in ’75.
Real wages haven’t declined for the vast majority of Americans. The decline has been concentrated among those with no education and no skills.
I’m simply baffled by your assertion that American receive worse healthcare in 2006 than they did in 1975.
Pensions have gone away, but 401(k) plans are widespread, and even during the heyday of defined benefit pension plans, they didn’t cover a majority of Americans. Why else do you think that the Social Security programme was established ?
The average American family of ’06 lives in a big house with a large television and a computer, and owns two cars.
To claim that they would have been better off in ’75 is ludicrous.
Better yet, get out on the street and talk to the downsized and outsourced…
Sure, if you spend all of your time hanging out with losers, you can get the impression that the world is a tough place. If you hang out with millionaires all day, you might come to believe that life’s all about luxury and good service.
Neither are accurate views of reality.
Now, why do I call downsized and outsourced people “losers” ?
Because the vast majority of people who lose their jobs don’t hang out on the street, they go get new jobs !
OF COURSE people hanging out on the street think that times are tough, if they weren’t lazy losers they’d have simply found new employment, as 99% of their peers do.
Tam O’Tellico - March 11, 2006 @ 5:37 pm
M: Of course I didn’t [read the article], and I didn’t because I’m serious about the torture argument.
Now that is childish. In other words, my mind is made up, don’t confuse me with facts. You remind of the religious nuts who disparage The Last Temptation of Christ without ever having seen the movie. Truly, the blind shall lead the blind – right into the bowels of Hell.
M: What might change my mind is if it could be shown that we are being overly aggressive in interrogating prisoners …
Let me show you. Why the hell do you think this administration used a boy like John Yoo to write a brief that strained legal reasoning to absurdity? Why do you think the President signed off on the McCain bill and then turned around and immediately exempted himself from it? There would be absolutely no reason to go thru these pitiful exercises except to justify being overly aggressive in interrogating prisoners.
M: However, all of that stuff is classified, so there’s no way for us to know any of it.
Therefore, you’re asking me to take the word of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld or Gonsalez. You’re asking me to believe all the evidence that has been revealed in spite of all the suppession of evidence, all the photos and eye-witness reports by military personnel, are just traitorous exaggerations rather than the tip of the iceberg.
Sorry, no can do – I don’t take the word of people who lie habitually. You were in Viet Nam; you already know that the first casualty of war is the truth.
M:My position is clear, and won’t be changed by the blatherings of anyone who isn’t serious about the defense of America – as Mora is clearly not.
And you know that how, by not reading the article? Your psychic powers? A voice from God? Or perhaps you’re personally acquainted with Mr. Mora. Sounds to me like you’re simply using the same illogic as our deep-thinking President – anyone who doesn’t agree is a traitor.
M: Since the U.S. Constitution is a contract between the governed and those who govern, any peoples claiming the rights of the governed are necessarily placing themselves under the authority of the named governors, Q.E.D.
You’re not reading what I wrote, or else you missed the point entirely. The obligation is not theirs, but ours. WE hold these truths to be self-evident and God-given, but others may hold otherwise. But since we so believe, we have an obligation to extend those rights to all, whether or not they reciprocate, else we negate the very foundation upon which our moral and legal systems rest.
This couldn’t be clearer, and Mora makes this case quite effectively. If you are sincere about this issue and the principles you claim, the principles you were willing to fight and possibly die for, read the article. Then we can discuss it intelligently if you choose to do so. Otherwise, please don’t characterize what you haven’t even seen.
M: Alan Greenspan has spoken extensively about the productivity revolution in America, and believes that Americans are immensely well-off. Nothing left-leaning, (i.e. defeatist), there.
Well, I’m so glad to hear you say that he’s not a left-leaning defeatist, so obviously you must agree when he says that “growing inequality poses a threat to democratic society.”
As for the stastics, all you have accomplished is to demean your own argument. You are simply saying “Conservatives statistics good; liberal statistics bad. Must be the new math.
Michael Herdegen - March 11, 2006 @ 6:30 pm
And you know that how, by not reading the article? Your psychic powers? A voice from God?
Because he’s arguing, as do you, that everyone in the world is entitled to be treated as an American citizen.
That’s a fundamentally unserious position.
You compound that error by writing that not only should we do the above, but that those so treated have no responsibility to us in return.
It seems as though you believe that there is such a thing as a free lunch.
Michael Herdegen - March 11, 2006 @ 6:34 pm
You are simply saying “Conservatives statistics good; liberal statistics bad.”
The nat’l savings rate and the CPI are “liberal” statistics ?
Who knew.
Tam O’Tellico - March 11, 2006 @ 10:27 pm
M: Because he’s arguing, as do you, that everyone in the world is entitled to be treated as an American citizen.
Everyone in the world is not entitled to be treated like a American citizen, but our credo obligates us to treat everyone in the world like a human being. Your failure to grasp this concept explains why you and I are on the opposite side of so many of these discussions. You obviously have a good mind, so I fear it isn’t that you can’t see; it’s that you don’t want to see.
But the truth here is plain. By claiming our basic human rights to be self-evident and endowed by the Creator, we have commited ourselves to the ideal that all men are to be treated equally. To do else is to return to the evil notion that an accident of birth makes some men better than others.
You simply can’t have it both ways; either these moral imperatives apply to all men or they apply to none.
Tam O’Tellico - March 11, 2006 @ 10:31 pm
M: The nat’l savings rate and the CPI are “liberal” statistics ?
Call them what you will, but how about the statistics I presented? Do they indicate that a “growing inequality poses a threat to democratic society”?
Tam O’Tellico - March 12, 2006 @ 6:58 am
FBI Memos Reveal Allegations of Abusive Interrogation Techniques
By Drew Brown Knight Ridder
Friday 24 February 2006
Washington – Military interrogators posing as FBI agents at the US detention center at Guant√°namo Bay, Cuba, wrapped terrorism suspects in an Israeli flag and forced them to watch homosexual pornography under strobe lights during interrogation sessions that lasted as long as 18 hours, according to one of a batch of FBI memos released Thursday.
FBI agents working at the prison complained about military interrogators’ techniques in e-mails to their superiors from 2002 to 2004, 54 e-mails released by the American Civil Liberties Union showed. The agents tried to get the military interrogators to follow a less coercive approach and warned that the harsh methods could hinder future criminal prosecutions of terrorists because information gained illegally is inadmissible in court.
The memos offer some of the clearest proof yet that the abuses and torture of prisoners in US military custody weren’t the isolated actions of low-ranking soldiers but a result of policies approved by senior officials, the ACLU said. Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who was in charge of the prison at the time, overrode the FBI agents’ protests, according to the documents.
One of the memos said: “Miller … favored (military) interrogation methods despite FBI assertions that such methods could easily result in the elicitation of unreliable and legally inadmissible information.”
Military interrogators “were being encouraged at times to use aggressive interrogation tactics in GTMO (Guant√°namo), which are of questionable effectiveness and subject to uncertain interpretation based on law and regulation…Not only are these tactics at odds with legally permissible interviewing techniques used by US law enforcement agencies in the United States, but they are being employed by personnel in GTMO who appear to have little, if any, experience eliciting information for judicial purposes.”
Military interrogators “are adamant that their interrogation strategies are the best ones to use despite a lack of evidence of their success,” it said.
Michael Herdegen - March 12, 2006 @ 7:47 am
Everyone in the world is not entitled to be treated like a American citizen, but our credo obligates us to treat everyone in the world like a human being. Your failure to grasp this concept explains why you and I are on the opposite side of so many of these discussions.
Rather, our difference seems to be that I believe that with rights come responsibilities, and you appear to believe that behavior doesn’t matter.
Further, why do you conceive that I “fail to grasp” your argument, rather than simply disagreeing ?
That’s some ego you’ve got there, Mr. O’Tellico.
We ARE treating the terrorists and terror suspects like human beings – evil human beings.
For instance, the Constitution says, in Article III, Section 3:
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”
That perfectly describes the behavior of the terrorists, terror suspects, and Gitmo prisoners.
What is the most common penalty for treason during times of war ?
Death.
###
Growing inequality does pose a threat to democratic society, but only a threat.
India, for instance, is a functioning democratic society, and their income inequality is many times America’s.
Further, as I said when I wrote about statistics, and how they can be manipulated, what we have here is a difference of opinion about how “unequal” American incomes actually are.
You appear to believe that we’re in the middle of a recession, and I think that we’re in the middle of a boom.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, only 8% of Americans lived in poverty in 2004, although 12% had poverty-level incomes.
In 2004, 60% of American households had incomes between $ 18,500 and $ 88,000, and 95% of American households earned less than $ 157,000.
The median income among the working-age population — households headed by adults under 65 – was $ 51,000.
Among the 6% of American households headed by a person aged 15 to 24 years, 33% of those households had incomes of less than $ 18,500, and fully 60% had incomes of less than $ 35,000.
Which is exactly what we’d expect: Young people, with little or no work experience, earn less than everyone else.
If we only look at households headed by people aged 25 – 64, we see that 85% of them earned more than $ 18,500, with fully 25% earning more than $ 88,000.
Further, among households headed by people who worked at least one full-time job for 27 weeks or more that year, 93% earned at least $ 18,500, and 75% earned more than $ 35,000.
If we break it down regionally, we see that in the South, the area with the lowest cost of living, 25% of households had annual incomes of less than $ 18,500 – but most of them had comfortable lives, since $ 10,000 annually is an adequate income in much of the South, excluding only the largest urban areas.
Same in the Midwest, the second-lowest cost of living area; 20% of households in that region had incomes of less than $ 18,500.
But, for example, in Junction City, Kansas, a small military and agricultural town of less than 25,000 people, a 2,000′ sq home costs less than $ 50,000.
Source data
Therefore, nationally, for the 75% of American households that were within the top 80% and the bottom 95%, the largest income disparity was 7 – 1. That’s a disparity that progressives regard as being “equitable”.
Among those households headed by a person who worked full-time for at least 27 weeks in 2004, 48 million earned between $ 35,000 and $ 157,000, an income disparity of 4.5 at the very most – an extremely equitable distribution of income.
Those 48 million households comprised 70% of households headed by people who worked full-time for 27 weeks or more, and 42% of ALL American households.
Now, we might say that such is all well and good for those who have jobs, but perhaps work is hard to find ?
Not at all.
If we look at people aged 25 – 64, including so-called “discouraged workers”, (who would’t mind working, but only if they find the perfect job), unemployment is only at 4.5%.
19 out of 20 people who want to work, or who are willing to work under the right conditions, have jobs.
So, we can see that “American income disparity” is largely a myth.
Sure, we have people who live in hardship and want, but 92% of the population doesn’t.
We also have the richest private citizens on Earth, and the gulf between them and the poverty-stricken is wider than the Pacific Ocean – but even there, the fact that America has A LOT of really, really rich people indicates that they aren’t an unbreachable elite. People can and do become millionaires in America every day, ordinary people who made wise choices throughout their lives.
For 75% of American households, the gap between the poorest in their group and the richest is 1 – 7, and for 70% of the American households headed by a full-time wage earner, the gap is less than 1 – 5.
Half of all households headed by people aged 15 – 64 have annual incomes of $ 50,000 or more, providing for a very comfortable life.
Further, the existence of income disparity doesn’t automatically signal poverty. The average household incomes of households in the South and Midwest are much lower than those in the Nor’east and West, but due to the lower costs of living in those areas, disparate incomes result in similar standards of living.
That’s why Americans are too content to rise up and execute the revolution that lonbud is hoping for.
Most people who want to work can do so, and among people who do work, the overwhelming majority of them earn a wage within one order of magnitude of each other.
lonbud - March 12, 2006 @ 10:16 am
Tam:
I’m gonna help translate yet another blizzard of statistical analysis from our resident apologist for the status quo — If you think things are bad here, you should try living in India.
Be not concerned that your Commander-in-Chief is an incurious tool of the super-rich, with astoundingly poor character judgment, for his ineffectiveness as a leader is trumped by forces that have always made and will continue to ensure America is the strongest, most advanced, secure, and comfortable nation on earth.
Why, even the most destitute cast-offs of our society (the shockingly few of them there are) ought to thank their lucky stars they are not begging for a crust of bread on the streets of Varanasi or Mumbai. Besides, the only reason they are begging here and not living in a 1200 square foot pleaseure dome or receiving their certificate as the country’s most newly-minted millionaire is because they have made poor choices and don’t try hard enough.
America is the only place in the history of the world where, if you make good choices and work hard enough, you can be absolutelyfree of want and fear. So quit your bitchin’ or you might just get tagged as an enemy combatant, whereupon you shall be summarily divested of your human dignity and force fed as a gesture of our commitment to making this country the freest, happiest, most bestest place to live on earth.
Tam O’Tellico - March 12, 2006 @ 2:25 pm
M: For instance, the Constitution says, in Article III, Section 3:
“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”
Please …. what a red herring that one is! As you know perfectly well, my legalistic friend, treason cannot be committed by a foreign national. Treason is a crime against your own state – like lying in order to take the country to war, or slipping no-bid contracts for war material to your buddies, or revealing the identity of covert agents. Certain citizens of this United States may yet be charged with such a crime.
As for the sort of international crime you confuse with treason, certain citizens may also find themselves charged as war criminals for authorizing the very torturous behavior you and I are debating. That is why they are so nervous about the well-reasoned arguments of people like Alberto J. Mora.
Tam O’Tellico - March 12, 2006 @ 2:56 pm
M:$10,000 annually is an adequate income in much of the South, excluding only the largest urban areas.
Omigod, no wonder you think we’re in the middle of a boom!
I live in precisely one of those low-rent Southern communities. You want to put your money where your mouth is? C’mon down here and try to live on $10,000 a year. Utter absurdity for anything but bare subsistence.
Know what you’ll do without first? Health insurance – it costs exactly the same here as anywhere else in America and hardly anyone here has it. The state’s solution? Kick everybody off TennCare and let them fend for themselves – sounds like exactly your kind of problem resolution.
And to borrow from someone I’m sure must be one of your favorite fair and balanced “journalists”, DITTO for an automobile (you’ll be driving a very used car, probably without insurance), phone service (forget about a cell phone), college tuition (you won’t be going anyway), computers (hi-speed internet will be higher-priced, but you won’t be able to afford the Internet at any price). In fact, almost everything but housing and property taxes costs the same or more here as nationally.
And that’s only property taxes that are cheaper. You’ll be paying 9.25% state sales tax for luxuries like milk and bread and underwear. I could go on and on, but it would be pointless because you obviously just don’t get it.
So keep throwing out those sparkly numbers from people trying to make themselves look good, while all around you people at every end of the political spectrum are issuing warnings that are falling on deaf ears. Here’s another warning, but you won’t listen to this one either because it’s from The Economist, and you know what a liberal pinko rag that is:
The Economist, reporting on inequality in America, concluded that the United States “risks calcifying into a European-style, class-based society.”
Whether you choose to believe it or not, ordinary Americans are headed for Third World status unless something is done to change the direction we’re heading. But that sure as hell won’t be done by the “I got mine” Philistines in this administration.
By the way, do you know what tune Nero fiddled while Rome burned or Bush plucked while New Orleans drowned? Rumor has it, it was the same in both instances: It’s Good To Be King
lonbud - March 12, 2006 @ 7:09 pm
Tam:
You don’t understand, Michael isn’t worried about America slipping into a European-style, class-based society. That’s not a warning in his mind. He thinks it’d be fine if we were a functional democracy with income disparities on the order of those found in India.
And don’t boo-hoo to him about the lack of health care or new cars or the high price of underwear in the Tennessee hills, y’all just aren’t trying hard enough, or else you’re just too stupid or lazy to move to where there’s better jobs and the livin’ is easy.
C’mon, man, make some better choices fer cryin’ out loud!
Tam O’Tellico - March 12, 2006 @ 7:54 pm
Lon of Live Bait, since you mentioned the status quo, I thot you might appreciate this little ditty:
Make No Mistake
The prophet offers wisdom: there is no status quo
Everything is changing; there is only ebb and flow
Words are but small comfort when deeds aren’t apropos
Truth isn’t in the moment, but in the direction that you go
It’s a long, hard way, the way we’re going
It’s a long, hard way, the way we’ve been
If we can’t find a way to change directions
Make no mistake, we’re headed for the end
The king compelled the ocean to stem the rising tide
The waters unabated engulfed him in his pride
They called it a drowning, but it was a suicide
Sad to say the peasants went with him on his ride
The general barked his orders, and the first rank fell
Then just like the ocean, the next wave crashed as well
Reason was forgotten in the raging bowels of hell
Leaving sad survivors with stories they won’t tell
The bankers in the towers looked down upon it all
And turned a handsome profit from the bugle call
Their purses filled with profit, their souls corrupt and small
They sailed away to safety and watched the towers fall
The singer tells his story, there’s nothing left to say
The skies of purple glory have turned to bitter gray
So listen to the prophet, don’t cast his words away
Or you may have to answer come the Judgment Day
©2006 Tom Cordle
Tam O’Tellico - March 12, 2006 @ 8:53 pm
Michael is absolutely right, I made my choices, and I chose to starve with the hillbillies rather than feast with the yuppies. But I’ve made many other choices, far more critical to making mine a life of somewhat genteel poverty.
I chose to wrestle with my conscience rather than ignore it, I chose to struggle with Jesus’ teachings about pacifism and loving my enemies, I chose to hope that reason will prevail over passion, I chose to trust that good will triumph over evil without having to do evil, I chose to believe the noble words by which we set ourselves above history.
If anyone chooses to throw all that away for the security and privilege of his present circumstance, I can only pity him and pray for him.
You may have noticed how this thread keeps shifting between guns and butter; that is no coincidence. In the end, these seemingly disparate issues are one and the same. As the great 20th Century philosopher Pink Floyd put it:
With, without, and in the end
That’s what the fighting’s all about
Michael is quite right that this is also a struggle between good and evil, but not as he imagines. For that matter, most men cannot yet even imagine what is transpiring in this struggle.
Imagine you lived at a time when it was commonly accepted that the earth was flat. Then imagine what a tectonic shift was necessary for it to become commonly accepted that the earth was a sphere. It required nothing less than most of the world learning to think in a whole new dimension.
Before this struggle can end, most of the world will have to undergo that same sort of tectonic shift. Men will have to believe that peace is possible, or they will never know peace. They will have to learn that economics is not a zero sum game and that their own security depends not on their wealth, but on their generosity.
Yes, these are radical ideas, but they are certainly not new. In fact, they are the very heart of Christ’s teaching – now if only Christians believed them. But if they are going to be Christians in anything but name only, they are going to have to make the leap of faith.
But for now, “let there be peace on earth, and let it begin with me” remains a fantasy, much as a spherical earth was not so long ago. But one day men will consign sword and greed to the dust heap of history along with a flat earth.
Or not.
But if men do not, they must eventually destroy themselves. Either way, there will be Peace on Earth.
Tam O’Tellico - March 12, 2006 @ 9:46 pm
More if you can stand it:
A recent article in The Financial Times reports on a study by the American economist Robert J. Gordon, who finds “little long-term change in workers’ share of US income over the past half century.” Middle-ranking Americans are being squeezed, he says, because the top ten percent of earners have captured almost half the total income gains in the past four decades and the top one percent have gained the most of all – “more in fact, than all the bottom 50 percent.”
As great wealth has accumulated at the top, the rest of society has not been benefiting proportionally. In 1960 the gap between the top 20% and the bottom 20% was thirty fold. Now it is seventy-five fold. Thirty years ago the average annual compensation of the top 100 chief executives in the country was 30 times the pay of the average worker. Today it is 1000 times the pay of the average worker.
“You can have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, or democracy, but you cannot have both.” Louis Brandeis
lonbud - March 12, 2006 @ 10:33 pm
Thanks for the ditty, Tam. It sings with the ring of Truth. Live Bait, eh? We’ve known each other longer than I thought.
Here’s to the memory of Tommy Cole and Jim Henson, kind hearted men who might have made better choices, but who made great music nonetheless.
Tam O’Tellico - March 13, 2006 @ 6:13 am
Lon, don’t know Tommy or Jim, but I sure do know about might have made better choices. Actually, our acquaintance came about thru the good offices of Don Abel, a once upon a time Memphis music man, but now a fellow Tellicoan; a harmonicat, a roughneck, and now a railroad man. Don’s the one who told me to fish or cut Live Bait. Naw – I said that.
Tam O’Tellico - March 13, 2006 @ 7:02 am
Michael, while the notion of independence and rugged individualism that permeates the ethos of America looks good in paperback Louis Lamour novelettes, it is little more than a delusion. Unless you are a mountain-man survivalist or a loony-tunes hermit like the Unabomber, odds are pretty good that your very existence, let alone your success, is inextricably tied to the actions of others. In short, you ain’t a self-made man.
One of the worst purveyors of this romantic but illusory notion was former Senator Phil Gramm of Texas – why does the worst always seem to have something to do with Texas? Gramm used to expound endlessly on this subject, but his success was very much the product of public schools, government loans, and draft-evasion. Fact is, he never held a job in his life where he didn’t draw his check from “the guvmint” he so decried. Now he is retired and drawing the lavish recompense Senators appropriate for themselves.
Oh, the hypocrisy of the man who forgets from whence he came.
These days, one of the finest worst examples of this self-aggrandizing, self-induced amnesia is Clarence “AAA (Anti-Affirmative-Action)” Thomas. And the beat goes on.
Yes, planning and diligence matter. But the reality is that success in life has far less to do with a brilliant succession of well-thought out maneuvers, and far more to due with an accident of birth and subsequent good fortune. If you doubt that, look no further than the present occupant of the White House.
So what’s going to happen to America if we permit the present trend toward economic inequality to persist or, God forbid, even worsen? America is going to get even sicker.
“Richard Wilkinson, a professor at the University of Nottingham medical school, shows in his latest book, The Impact of Inequality, that social inequality itself causes worse health.
Human beings are fundamentally social animals, and during most of their evolutionary history lived in small groups that valued—and zealously protected—egalitarianism. Humans have the capacity for both cooperative, egalitarian solutions and hierarchical, competitive strategies, and most complex societies rely on both. When there’s an imbalance, Wilkinson argues, it’s not just the society that gets sick; the individuals within it become literally ill.
The evidence that greater inequality in rich countries leads to higher death rates and shorter lives—by as much as 15 years for those with low incomes and status—comes from a large number of comparative studies. Wilkinson argues that inequality creates chronic stress. That’s partly because as societies grow less equal, there’s less trust, greater conflict, more crime, less “social capital” and more racism. Also, in highly unequal societies, more individuals suffer from stresses associated with low status, weak social ties (such as limited links with others as kin or friends), and emotional difficulties early in life.
While stresses normally lead to hormonal responses that help individuals survive, the chronic stress of unequal societies is much different in its cumulative effect. These social stresses leads to bodily changes that reduce immunity, raise the risk of heart disease and other illnesses, and lead to dangerous behaviors, such as heavy drinking, that increase the chance of disease and death.”
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2413/
Tam O’Tellico - March 13, 2006 @ 11:21 am
I watched some of the budget debate in the senate today and was amazed to discover that this supposedly Conservative Congress and President are unashamedly proposing a budget that will result in deficits estimated to exceed half-a-trillion dollars in each of the next five years.
No, that is not a typo, that is half-a-trillion per year for the next five years.
The fairy-tale king may depart the scene in a couple of years with HIS well-undeserved retirement benefits intact, but he will leave in his wake a disaster that will make Katrina look like a Sunday picnic. How do I know? Because his own experts say so.
“Anybody who says you’re going to grow your way out of this problem would probably not pass math.”
That was the kindest thing the Comptroller General, the nation’s chief accountant, has to say about the mess were in. Michael may dismiss the connection between our predicament and Rome’s, but the real experts do not.
“To hear Walker, the nation’s top auditor, tell it, the United States can be likened to Rome before the fall of the empire. Its financial condition is “worse than advertised,” he says. It has a “broken business model.” It faces deficits in its budget, its balance of payments, its savings — and its leadership.”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-11-14-fiscal-hurricane-cover_x.htm
Obviously, not all this can be blamed on this President. But he can be blamed for deluding himself into believing what even his own experts tell him can’t happen: There is no way to solve these problems through tax cuts; in fact, economists, as opposed to supply-side True-Believers, all but unanimously agree there will be no significant increase in revenues from tax cuts.
But we all know what members of this administration think about experts who don’t share their ideology.
Tam O’Tellico - March 13, 2006 @ 1:07 pm
“Jesus used to be so merciful and loving of the poor. But now he’s a
Republican.” Kurt Vonnegut
Michael Herdegen - March 13, 2006 @ 3:12 pm
Be not concerned that your Commander-in-Chief is an incurious tool of the super-rich…
That’s an astoundingly poor judgment of character.
Why, even the most destitute cast-offs of our society […] ought to thank their lucky stars they are not begging for a crust of bread on the streets of Varanasi or Mumbai.
Most of America’s “poor” would be middle class citizens in a third of the nations in the world.
Even our homeless are pampered by global standards.
Besides, the only reason they are begging […] is because they have made poor choices and don’t try hard enough.
Are you saying that you don’t know any poor people, or that you don’t know any who have made poor choices ?
I’ve lived around poor people my entire life, and I can tell you from experience that most of ’em are that way because THEY CHOOSE TO BE, although often they don’t recognize the connection between their behaviors and the outcomes, even when it’s gently pointed out to them.
If you’re serious about learning about the pathologies of the poor, I suggest that you volunteer at a soup kitchen, and talk to the clients.
You’ll get an earful about drug addiction, alcoholism, emotional and mental dysfunction, and generally bad life choices and behaviors.
America is [a place] where, if you make good choices and work hard enough, you can be absolutely free of want and fear.
Do you believe that America is a place where good choices, hard work, and an absence of bad luck DON’T result in satisfaction ?
So quit your bitchin’ or you might just get tagged as an enemy combatant, whereupon you shall be summarily divested of your human dignity and force fed…
If you believe that they should be starved to death, then why object to “torturing” them first ?
As you know perfectly well, my legalistic friend, treason cannot be committed by a foreign national.
That’s the point – you want all of the world’s peoples to enjoy the benefits of being an American, without the burden of the concomitant obligations.
Even Jesus, who was willing to pay the same wage to both those who labored all day in the vineyards, and those who labored for an hour, required the labor.
America is as she is due to the hard work, wise choices, and good luck of those who came before us. It’s not an accident that the West is rich and powerful, and that those in the East who emulate us are rich and powerful, and that everyone whose nation doesn’t copy the West is poor and usually oppressed.
ALL OF THE PEOPLE ON EARTH could live like Americans – but many societies have chosen not to do so.
Until they grow up, we can’t treat them like mature societies and cultures.
I live in precisely one of those low-rent Southern communities.
Tennessee isn’t low-rent.
Places like Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina, northwestern Ohio, and most of Texas are.
You want to put your money where your mouth is?
I’ve lived on far less than $ 10K in Colorado, Kansas, and North Carolina.
Utter absurdity for anything but bare subsistence.
Yes, it’s a subsistence income, but the point is that it IS a subsistence income. People can get by on that much, and enjoy themselves whilst doing so.
Know what you’ll do without first? Health insurance – it costs exactly the same here as anywhere else in America…
No, it doesn’t. Try pricing health insurance in the Northeast.
In NJ, $ 2,000/mo. premiums for a family plan are considered “reasonable”.
[Forget about] college tuition (you won’t be going anyway)…
Plenty of college students get by on less than $ 10,000 in annual income.
You seem to have forgetten that poor people get plenty of financial aid.
You’ll be paying 9.25% state sales tax for luxuries like milk and bread and underwear.
Yes, Tennessee is a poor place to live, but as you point out elsewhere, you CHOOSE to live there.
In any case, very few states have a sales tax on food, and even fewer have a 9% sales tax – although 7% is fairly common.
I could go on and on, but it would be pointless because you obviously just don’t get it.
I DO get it – the world owes you a living.
I just disagree.
Here’s another warning, but you won’t listen to this one either because it’s from The Economist, and you know what a liberal pinko rag that is…
I subscribe to The Economist, but what you have to remember is that although they’re a great resource for learning information about the world, they’re not great at accurate long-term predictions.
You don’t understand, Michael isn’t worried about America slipping into a European-style, class-based society.
Because there’s absolutely no movement in that direction, as I demonstrated above.
And don’t boo-hoo to him about the lack of health care or new cars or the high price of underwear in the Tennessee hills, y’all just aren’t trying hard enough, or else you’re just too stupid or lazy to move to where there’s better jobs and the livin’ is easy.
Why do you think that it’s a bad idea to move to where there are better jobs and the livin’ is easy ?
Why isn’t it stupid to stay where there are no jobs, just widespread hardship ?
I chose to wrestle with my conscience rather than ignore it, I chose to struggle with Jesus’ teachings about pacifism and loving my enemies, I chose to hope that reason will prevail over passion, I chose to trust that good will triumph over evil without having to do evil, I chose to believe the noble words by which we set ourselves above history.
Your mistake is in assuming that because others have reached different conclusions, they must not have done as you did, examining the world and trying to reconcile it with religion and philosophy.
Most have not, of course, but one cannot assume that they haven’t.
They will have to learn that economics is not a zero sum game and that their own security depends not on their wealth, but on their generosity.
Lessons well-known to America as a society, if not to all citizens thereof.
NAFTA, CAFTA, bilateral free-trade agreements with Chile, Singapore, Australia…
Huge trade deficits with China…
We could slap big tariffs on Chinese-made goods, and cut their economy off at the knees. Instead, we allow millions of Chinese to prosper, selling us cheap knick-knacks and clothing.
America is also the largest foreign-aid donor in the world, in absolute terms, and our private charity organizations provide BILLIONS in aid annually, along with much-needed expertise in third-world hellholes.
In 1960 the gap between the top 20% and the bottom 20% was thirty fold. Now it is seventy-five fold.
In 2004 the gap between the second quintile and the fourth quintile was five-fold.
As I wrote above, the reason that incomes appear to be growing more disparate is because the very rich are getting much richer, so at the margins, there is greater inequality.
However, when we examine the bulk of the population, we don’t find a sea of desperately poor folk, and a few plutocrats. On the contrary, for 75% of American households, the gap between the poorest and richest is a mere seven-fold.
Now, there might still be a problem if, because the top 10% are sucking up 50% of the growth in American prosperity, the bulk of Americans aren’t experiencing an improving standard of living.
But, that’s not the case. The average American household lives in stunning luxury, compared to the average American household of thirty years’ past.
So, while the average American is clearly benefitting less from economic growth than the average member of the American elite is, it’s still true that the goodies are being spread around.
Louis Brandeis can rest easy.
Further, it’s SIMPLE to join the top 20% of Americans. There are no gatekeepers, it’s all up to individuals. Race matters, but it’s merely a hurdle, not a wall. There are plenty of minorities in the top 20%.
All one has to do is get a good education, and not necessarily at an established institution of higher learning.
Yet, that’s the ONE THING that Americans resist above all else.
We spend an average of 20 hours a week watching television, but only 25% of Americans have even a layperson’s working knowledge of science and biology.
As a society, we are EXACTLY WHAT WE CHOOSE TO BE.
There are no barriers whatsoever to education in America today.
We give it away. All anybody has to do is decide to accept it.
It’s not easy, but it is simple.
Yes, planning and diligence matter. But the reality is that success in life has far less to do with a brilliant succession of well-thought out maneuvers, and far more to do with an accident of birth and subsequent good fortune.
It doesn’t take a brilliant succession of well-thought out maneuvers, just common sense and an avoidance of self-destructive behaviors.
What we do matters more than an “accident of birth”.
Or is your contention that George W. Bush would still have been elected President if he hadn’t kicked drugs and alcohol, and hadn’t been twice elected Governor of Texas ?
There are plenty of immigrants and children of immigrants who outperform the scions of the American middle class.
It’s the norm.
I watched some of the budget debate in the senate today and was amazed to discover […] a budget that will result in deficits estimated to exceed half-a-trillion dollars in each of the next five years.
Best get used to it – we’ll be running deficits until 2040, when 80% of the Boomers will have shuffled from the mortal coil.