I'm hoping this doesn't undercut Noemon's thread, and if he feels it does I'll withdraw it. But I thought with Inauguration Day less than a month away, we should start to transition away from the transition and into the actual presidency. There's a State of the Union coming up, some massive pieces of legislation that will soon be passed, and Obama's first 100 days, which might be more transformative or at least impactful than any since FDR.
So I wish to reserve this thread not for discussion of cabinet appointments or Bush pardons and appointments, though those are good points for discussion, but for the day many here and everywhere have been waiting for, some with dread and some with excitement, when Obama officially takes the oath and gets sworn in. And then everything that comes after it.
I'll update this thread as we move through the different phases of his presidency, though no doubt it'll be impossible to keep all political discussions contained to one thread, I loved the dialogue we all kept going as a community during the election process, and I think many of us would like to keep that same spirit alive in a continuing thread. So without any further preamble:
Obama had decided to use the same Bible that Lincoln used for his swearing in ceremony back in 1861. Generally I find details like this either fascinating or overly stupid, given the press' penchant for extreme overanalysis. But this one I find interesting only for the extreme effort Obama seems to be making to emulate Lincoln. He quotes him, claims to (and I have no reason to doubt it) repeatedly read the man's writings, has a cabinet that is often compared both fairly and unfairly to Lincoln's, and now chooses his Bible. Lincoln was a fascinating individual in a variety of ways, but the ones that might most be useful now are his ability to read the pulse of the nation, and his ability to manage people. Lincoln had an amazing talent for picking the right people for the right jobs, for making sure none of them were just appointees getting kickbacks, and for getting excellent service out of them. Seward, his Secretary of State, was believed to be a choice simply to mollify his greatest political rival in the Republican Party. Secretaries of State back then were far more likely to become president than any other federal position, so it looked to many like he was having Seward wait in line. But Seward ended up being a masterful SoS in a time where things like the Kearsarge and Trent incidents on the high seas could have unraveled much of Lincoln's plans.
If Obama could take any of Lincoln's attributes to heart, I'd like it to be those two. It looks like he is putting a team together with the intention to get stuff done, and he'll have more room to attempt it than any president in quite some time.
I believe the only US president never to take the oath on a Bible was Teddy Roosevelt. He was a Christian, but felt stronger than most for the preservation of the separation of church and state.
People should feel free to post any info on the upcoming swearing in ceremony, and on the ever more plentiful news leaking out about the possibly $800 billion stimulus package that Obama and the Dems are putting together. It's starting to look like Obama might get almost every campaign promise he made so long as he calls all of them "stimulus."
[ September 09, 2009, 08:47 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
Gonna be the best birthday ever.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The timing on this could hardly be more poetic. Between the various crises of confidence, law, and economics, Obama's been thrust into the very sort of 'opportunity' to become an incredibly notable president.
He is not going to have an easy job, though.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm hoping this doesn't undercut Noemon's thread, and if he feels it does I'll withdraw it.
Oh, of course not! My thread was intended to be more about the putting together of his cabinet and the other key players in his administration; I certainly approve of creating a new thread for this.
Even if there were more of a subject matter overlap, though, I'm more interested in the discussion itself than that it take place in a thread I started.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
America has had been extremely fortunate in many past times of crisis. It seems that whenever things come to a point of abosolute critical failure, we manage to elect someone who is clearly above the fray and excellent for the time. FDR got us out of the Depression and through WWII, Lincoln got us through the Civil War in a way that I think few other men could have done so successfully, and so on. It's starting to look like as a country we might be approaching another such point. The difference might be that I think few expected Lincoln or FDR to solve the kinds of problems they ended up solving, whereas Obama has taken the weight of every single problem on himself not just by virtue of his position, but through his own efforts. He's asked for and been granted these burdens.
If he manages to do even half of what he wants to do, I think he could easily be elevated into the pantheon of our most celebrated presidents. He's going to be given a LOT of room in which to attempt it. I saw a news article that I thought was hilarious titled "nation's honeymoon with Obama not over as polls stay high," the other day. The man doesn't even take office for another 26 days, how can the honeymoon end before he even takes office? The pressure on the American presidency is getting to pretty obscene levels. The kind of scrutiny that Obama is under, even before he takes office, is overkill in my opinion. I think it's about time we shifted a LOT of that scrutiny back over to Congress where it belongs.
Thanks Noemon. I didn't think you'd be miffed at all, but I hate to step on people's toes. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The overarching theme of our democracy so far is that sometimes we elect who we need, and sometimes we elect who we deserve.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Did FDR get us out of the depression or did WWII?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Combination of both.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Listening to the Planet Money podcast from NPR, I've been hearing a lot about economists (I want to call them the Austrian theoriests) who think that FDR actually prolonged the depression. But since there's only one incident of a great depression in the last century, how can anyone prove any of the causes?
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote: I believe the only US president never to take the oath on a Bible was Teddy Roosevelt. He was a Christian, but felt stronger than most for the preservation of the separation of church and state.
According to a couple of other articles I've come across, John Quincy Adams declined to take the oath of office using a bible. Nothing about his choices for being sworn in as a member of Congress, though.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Listening to the Planet Money podcast from NPR, I've been hearing a lot about economists (I want to call them the Austrian theoriests) who think that FDR actually prolonged the depression. But since there's only one incident of a great depression in the last century, how can anyone prove any of the causes?
No reason to dismiss the claim outright but there is a very significant chance that, yes, the theory comes from what could unflatteringly be termed 'economic dogmatists' — it all depends on the claims made and the evidence cited.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The messy transition certainly made things worse between his election and actually taking office. I'd bet a thousand dollars that Obama was taking cues from the mishaps in that transition when he started to roll out his economic and security teams, and everyone else in a very public manner after the election. He was doing that for the sake of the markets, especially given Bush's actions. I think Obama would have been pleased as punch to quietly toil away his time in relative seclusion coming up with teams and plans while Bush ran out the clock, but circumstances dictated his actions.
Phanto -
I'd say FDR got us into WWII, and at that point, it becomes too intertwined to differentiate.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Some things pretty unequivocally extended the great depression: huge trade barriers, attempting to prop up gold prices, and mandating wages not fall.
And no, that theory isn't from 'economic dogmatists'; that those policies made things worse is nigh-universally accepted among economists, including amongst those who think many of FDR's programs were great ideas. We have quite a bit of data about the impacts such programs would have on people: massive declines in household consumption and all business depending on foreign products, increased demand for monetary instruments (people horded money more), and increased firings with fewer hirings (since businesses couldn't legally employ people they'd love to employ, but couldn't afford to without paying less), among other things.
Btw, Lyrhawn, then you must think every economic policy he made after entering WW2 made it worse, since you've argued none of them mattered, but they cost the gov't large sums of money (that could have been spent on, for instance, shortening the war) Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Regardless of their take on the effects of FDR's' numerous programs, I have never yet seen an historian or economist who did not agree that World War II is what really got America out of the Depression. But all the members of FDR's generation I have known (including my parents, aunt, uncle) put FDR up on a pedestal as the Savior of America who got us out of the Depression. Their minds are pretty well closed on the subject, and unless you want to be disinherited, don't even try to raise questions about the facts of the matter. But just between you and me, I think FDR's scattershot and largely unconstitutional programs did in fact prolong the Depression.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
unconstitutional how.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Btw, Lyrhawn, then you must think every economic policy he made after entering WW2 made it worse, since you've argued none of them mattered, but they cost the gov't large sums of money (that could have been spent on, for instance, shortening the war)
I did?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Edits will get you everywhere. You changed "matter" to "differentiate", probably while I was editing.
That statement is fairly easy to deal with, though. While the war is somewhat hard to control for, we have lots of actions similar to the other actions, and can thus reasonably model the effect of the war itself. edit: keep in mind the US is not the only country in the world, also, and that many countries have had massive depressions other than that one. Many countries have also had wars that effectively take over the industry of their country, without having a depression at the time.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Regardless of their take on the effects of FDR's' numerous programs, I have never yet seen an historian or economist who did not agree that World War II is what really got America out of the Depression.
Then, unfortunately, you remain distinctly ignorant of the position of the majority of influential historians and economists.
quote:While most historians believe that the New Deal helped resolve the issues of relief, reform and recovery in the Great Depression, economists are less certain, with a substantial minority believing that it delayed full recovery.[45] A 1995 survey of economic historians asked whether "Taken as a whole, government policies of the New Deal served to lengthen and deepen the Great Depression." Of those in economics departments 27% agreed, and 73% disagreed. Of those in history departments, 5% agreed and 95% disagreed.[46]
So, let's think about that. Taken at random, about four out of five economists and about nineteen out of twenty historians would break your anecdote.
I can only assume that there is a severe ideological filter in play here, because you're ron lambert, but likely you also have probably encountered exposure to majority economic/historical thought that has not assumed that FDR prolonged the depression and have simply chosen to ignore it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Samp, I think the problem with your response to Ron is that you site data talking about the New Deal, not WW2. I wonder how a similar question about WW2 would go over with the same pool of economists. It's possible to believe that the New Deal shortened the depression *and* that the War was a vital event in the process of recovery (or for that matter, the attainment of such commercial success in later years). I don't see how your data contradicts Ron's assertion. It doesn't really address it.
Note too that the word "really," can be used as both an adverb and as a submodifier, making the meaning: "thoroughly or completely." In this reading of the wording Ron uses, the New Deal is not excluded. If another person had written the same statement, I don't think you would have assumed partisan revisionism.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It is indeed based on the reading of "is what REALLY got" in combination with "did in fact"
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I hadn't accounted for the last sentence. Still, it's hard to argue with the first one in general. It's clear that WW2 "really did" get us out of a depression or at least finally and distinctively did *something* to make our economy very stable for some time. But it's also always going to be a question as to what we were headed for if that war had never happened. I think that's the frustrating thing about studying the New Deal and the depression and WW2. The war lastingly changed the international and financial relationships between the East and West, from Japan to the US to China to France and Germany. Who knows if that had the greatest effect on our sustained period of lasting (relative) prosperity since that time, and less to do with all the programs that FDR introduced in the 30's. Many of them certainly could have helped in combination with the changed world situation. I think about this all the time- how things might have turned out given a few key details transposed. It's fascinating.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: And no, that theory isn't from 'economic dogmatists'; that those policies made things worse is nigh-universally accepted among economists, including amongst those who think many of FDR's programs were great ideas.
Pulling a majority of annonymous experts out of thin air is a great way to back up your point, but in this case, it's rather easily proven not to be so.
quote:Just how divided are experts? In 1995, economist Robert Whaples of Wake Forest University published a survey of academic economists that asked them if they agreed with the statement, "Taken as a whole, government policies of the New Deal served to lengthen and deepen the Great Depression." Fifty-one percent disagreed, and 49 percent agreed.
What I wrote is completely consistent with that. Some programs making things worse is consistent with thinking that programs "on the whole" made things better (or at least no worse).
You're not going to be able to find something contradicting what I actually said .
And the question is out-of-field for most historians.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Edits will get you everywhere. You changed "matter" to "differentiate", probably while I was editing.
That statement is fairly easy to deal with, though. While the war is somewhat hard to control for, we have lots of actions similar to the other actions, and can thus reasonably model the effect of the war itself. edit: keep in mind the US is not the only country in the world, also, and that many countries have had massive depressions other than that one. Many countries have also had wars that effectively take over the industry of their country, without having a depression at the time.
And so?
I edited my post pretty quickly, and for a reason.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And so the second part was responding to what you edited it to. The first part was merely remarking that I hadn't seen the edit, so I had responded before to what I saw you write.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
5 days and counting...
There are a lot of things already on deck to greet Obama when he gets into office on Tuesday.
Some of his nominees are already getting some flak from their respective committee hearings in Congress, I think most notably Tim Geithner, but also some for Eric Holder. Geithner is being attacked both for a year or two of underpaying on his taxes (he has since made amends) and for a woman who was working as his housekeeper having her work visa expire a month or two before she stopped working for him. I'm curious as to why he underpaid on his taxes (apparently it has to do with working for the IMF and the IMF not automatically deducting money from paychecks to pay certain US taxes that have to be paid by the person (which Geithner didn't do)). I'm not sure what the problems are with Holder, I haven't looked into it.
The other big hangup is that Obama wants the $350 billion left in the bailout fund, and the Senate is organizing a block, while Obama is already threatening his first veto. Looks like the honeymoon is over before the wedding.
On the bright side (for Obama), his massive stimulus package is being worked on, and it looks like, though the size is being discussed, it's going to be very, very big, and it's going to pass in some form.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:The other big hangup is that Obama wants the $350 billion left in the bailout fund, and the Senate is organizing a block, while Obama is already threatening his first veto. Looks like the honeymoon is over before the wedding.
Obama won that fight today when the senate voted down a measure to stop him from receiving the funds. In a vote of 52-42, Obama will get the funds.
Here is the thing, Geitner and Holder will be confirmed, though Geitner won't be until the 21st, and his economic stimulus package will probably go through at around 900 billion. However, it appears that Republicans are reverting to deficit hawks once again, and that could be a problem with both Obama and Republicans. Republicans do not want to be seen as obstructionists and Obama wants bi-partisanship, and it appears that neither is getting those things.
Obama's first 100 days will be interesting because I think two things will come to the fore-front pretty quickly, Guantanamo and "don't ask, don't tell". But more importantly, as Time wrote this week, Israel and Hamas will more than likely be ready for a cease-fire, and Obama's attention should then be there and on the economy. The one thing I see very soon is Obama giving a speech about foreign policy, and if he did it in Jerusalem after a cease-fire, that would send a powerful message. Can you imagine the impact of that kind of speech? His first 100 will be interesting...
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
From what I understand of Geithner's tax issue, he underpayed approximately $50,000 in federal income tax over the course of 4 years. The reason was he was working for an international agency as an independent contractor and claims he didn't understand that he need to pay both "employee" and "employer" taxes (or some such). He paid half back in response to an audit, but neglected the other half on advice of his accountant. When his appointment was being considered they realized he still owed $25,000 (or so), and payed it back with interest.
I don't see it as a big issue; it shouldn't (IMO) sink his nomination. But I don't particularly buy his story that it was an honest mistake. Or at least I hope it wasn't; someone unable to catch such a mistake doesn't inspire confidence as a Treasury nominee. I imagine it was an "everybody's doing it" sort of activity, where people understood that the rule was to pay but nobody actually did (all the US citizens employed by the IMF were granted a general amnesty in paying the taxes at the same time as Geithner because so many were derelict).
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I gotta admit, a person that can't manage his own money ... not exactly a thrilling choice to manage the nation's money.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Humean316:
quote:The other big hangup is that Obama wants the $350 billion left in the bailout fund, and the Senate is organizing a block, while Obama is already threatening his first veto. Looks like the honeymoon is over before the wedding.
Obama won that fight today when the senate voted down a measure to stop him from receiving the funds. In a vote of 52-42, Obama will get the funds.
Here is the thing, Geitner and Holder will be confirmed, though Geitner won't be until the 21st, and his economic stimulus package will probably go through at around 900 billion. However, it appears that Republicans are reverting to deficit hawks once again, and that could be a problem with both Obama and Republicans. Republicans do not want to be seen as obstructionists and Obama wants bi-partisanship, and it appears that neither is getting those things.
Obama's first 100 days will be interesting because I think two things will come to the fore-front pretty quickly, Guantanamo and "don't ask, don't tell". But more importantly, as Time wrote this week, Israel and Hamas will more than likely be ready for a cease-fire, and Obama's attention should then be there and on the economy. The one thing I see very soon is Obama giving a speech about foreign policy, and if he did it in Jerusalem after a cease-fire, that would send a powerful message. Can you imagine the impact of that kind of speech? His first 100 will be interesting...
I hadn't heard about that vote, thanks for the update.
Yeah I didn't think either of those things would stop Holder or Geithner from being actually confirmed, just that it might be a little more public or rockier than Obama would have liked. I'd be surprised if any of his nominees weren't confirmed. I can't believe that Obama wouldn't consult with the important Democratic leaders before making many of his top choices, or that he wouldn't vet them well enough. So if any DO fail, I'll be led to believe that it's likely do to the incompetence of Harry Reid.
As for the bailout, I think $900 billion is a good guesstimate, which is why you're hearing rumors of it being in the range of $1.2 trillion. Republicans are going to pretend they're fiscally responsible now that they have considerably less control over how the money is spent. If he asks for a much higher sum, then he can pretend that Republicans are actually talking him down to $900 billion, which is probably closer to what he actually is planning in, if not something more like $700 billion. I think that will depend on the tax cut portion of the bill, which will likely be necessary to grease the skids a little bit.
DADT will get bumped for awhile, if not for a year. Way too many things that need to be fixed in the near term. I think it's likely that it'll get attention before say, fixing all the last minute environmental damage that Bush is doing, but it'll be awhile. A Hamas/Israel ceasefire will probably happen in the near term. I have to imagine Clinton will be dispatched to Tel Aviv and Cairo on January 21st, and between the two of them with maybe us and European backing, some sort of ceasefire and withdrawal will come about.
The question there is, will he be satisfied with taking credit for a ceasefire, or will he actually use his 100 days to try and solve the conflict as a whole? Frankly I think the situation needs a major cool down before potential regional partners can be tapped to make a deal. But it'll be interesting to see what he does. I think he should start small, like trying to jumpstart the left by the wayside deal with Syria that was in the works until recently. Going for the whole enchilada might ruin it, where as starting now to put the right pieces in place might make it easier to assemble by the end of his first term.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:The question there is, will he be satisfied with taking credit for a ceasefire, or will he actually use his 100 days to try and solve the conflict as a whole? Frankly I think the situation needs a major cool down before potential regional partners can be tapped to make a deal. But it'll be interesting to see what he does. I think he should start small, like trying to jump start the left by the wayside deal with Syria that was in the works until recently. Going for the whole enchilada might ruin it, where as starting now to put the right pieces in place might make it easier to assemble by the end of his first term.
Well, he isn't going to solve the whole conflict in 100 days, that's for sure, but I do think that he will have a lot good will and optimism that he can take advantage of in the Middle East because he is not Bush. If he then decides to give a speech in Cairo or Jerusalem or Demascus, that good will will grow exponentially, and that is key to solving the crisis, I believe. Part of the problem in the Middle East is that you have a battle between the extremist Islamic world and the moderate Islamic world, and right now, the extremist Islamic world is looking for any sign or any slip up on Obama's part to seize upon, like they have Bush, to call America, as well as it's leader, the Great Satan (which is why Bin Laden is challenging Obama in his newest tape). If Obama can show that he is different, that he is not the Great Satan the extremists make him out to be, then he can temper those voices in the region, and then, he can push more forcefully for a peace in the region.
It also begins with what he is willing to do in the Middle East, whether that's bringing US troops home from Iraq quickly (as most in the Iraq and the Middle East want) or speaking with and engaging Hamas or even bringing in large amounts of humanitarian aid to Palestine or engaging Iran in a different manner than President Bush, because if he is willing to do those things, then simply by being different than leaders that have come before, he will have a much stronger claim with the moderates in the region and they will more likely support him.
The thing is, I think the pieces are in place, and part of the problem, and part of the source of Muslim and Middle Eastern frustration, has been that America has been unwilling to step in and be the leader in can be in this situation. I think Obama has to be willing to engage Israel differently and he has to be willing to place Israel's "right" to exist on the table for any kind of lasting peace to take effect. Israel's "right" to exist is different from it's existence, and if Obama can make that distinction, then I think it will go a long way towards forging a lasting peace. Now, before anyone gets all up in arms, Israel must exist, there is no question about that, and if Israel consists of the Israel pre-1967, where the West Bank and Gaza are not controlled by Israel then I think Israel would accept those conditions. I also think that placing Jerusalem under international rule, guaranteeing Israeli safety in their homeland, the whole-sale abolition of terrorist activity in the region monitored by an international peace-keeping force consisting of no Jewish, Arab or American forces, and support to those who won't be able to return to their ancestral homes would be the right idea and those pieces might just be the ones to fit.
I agree about the rest, mainly cause I don't want to type anymore. Dwayberry!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:I agree about the rest, mainly cause I don't want to type anymore.
Well it's hard to receive a more ringing endorsement than that!
I don't really think the pieces are quite in place yet. I think they were a lot closer before this most recent spat of violence erupted. Moderate Arab regimes who were close to either recognizing Israel or at least ready to sit down at the table with them, not the least of which was Syria, have all backed away from back channel discussions. They might even like to continue such discussions, but it's hard when their people are rioting in the streets to protest their moderate stance. If they were to take that kind of action now, we might very well see some revolutions.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: The thing is, I think the pieces are in place, and part of the problem, and part of the source of Muslim and Middle Eastern frustration, has been that America has been unwilling to step in and be the leader in can be in this situation. I think Obama has to be willing to engage Israel differently and he has to be willing to place Israel's "right" to exist on the table for any kind of lasting peace to take effect. Israel's "right" to exist is different from it's existence, and if Obama can make that distinction, then I think it will go a long way towards forging a lasting peace. Now, before anyone gets all up in arms, Israel must exist, there is no question about that, and if Israel consists of the Israel pre-1967, where the West Bank and Gaza are not controlled by Israel then I think Israel would accept those conditions. I also think that placing Jerusalem under international rule, guaranteeing Israeli safety in their homeland, the whole-sale abolition of terrorist activity in the region monitored by an international peace-keeping force consisting of no Jewish, Arab or American forces, and support to those who won't be able to return to their ancestral homes would be the right idea and those pieces might just be the ones to fit.
What do you think has changed in the Israel/Palestine situation in the last 8 years that will make an Obama attempt any different than a Clinton attempt (or a Reagan attempt, or a Carter attempt, or ...) Not that those presidents didn't have some success, but they weren't able to stabilize the situation, and I doubt whether Obama will be able to, either.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't think, other than Hamas taking political power and the splitting of the "palestinian people" into two sub-groups, one in Gaza and one in the West Bank, a whole lot has changed with Israel and Palestine specifically in the last 8 or so years.
But regionally things HAVE changed. Neighboring Arab countries, at least until the most recent ongoing conflict, have been much more willing to entertain the idea of recognizing Israel, so much so that Syria was actually in backchannel negotiations for some sort of peace treat and official recognition.
Obama might not be able to solve the whole thing tomorrow, but even if he could get a ceasefire going and sustained, and if he could get Syria back to the table and an agreement ironed out there as well, that would be the biggest advancement made in the march towards peace that anyone else has achieved in decades. It could be the movement he needs to get other countries to make similar moves, and just like that, you have the makings of a coalition that can do a whole lot more than just solve Palestine/Israel. Obama will package the whole thing under the umbrella of regional security. It'll be a bloc of Sunni nations recognizing peace with an established Israel and at at the same time, will create a bloc of regional partners to oppose the growing influence of Iran. It won't be universal, but it will be appealing. Iran will be the boogeyman he he needs.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:I don't really think the pieces are quite in place yet. I think they were a lot closer before this most recent spat of violence erupted. Moderate Arab regimes who were close to either recognizing Israel or at least ready to sit down at the table with them, not the least of which was Syria, have all backed away from back channel discussions. They might even like to continue such discussions, but it's hard when their people are rioting in the streets to protest their moderate stance. If they were to take that kind of action now, we might very well see some revolutions.
But doesn't that sound like the perfect opportunity? Again, Obama can temper the extremist voices in the Middle East after a general cease-fire to the conflict, and then, if done correctly, he can use the situation to help those moderate countries with their own people to come around on Israel. Obama can provide those moderate Arab regimes political cover because he is different than Bush, and thus, they can use this situation to sell a moderate approach to Israel. Furthermore, if Obama is willing to engage Hamas, then a solution should be easier to achieve because the one thing that Hamas does not want is to lose control of Gaza, but above all else, those moderate nations haven't done anything because America has not been willing to give them the political cover they need (and that is a source of Arab frustration with America) to bring about peace.
quote:What do you think has changed in the Israel/Palestine situation in the last 8 years that will make an Obama attempt any different than a Clinton attempt (or a Reagan attempt, or a Carter attempt, or ...) Not that those presidents didn't have some success, but they weren't able to stabilize the situation, and I doubt whether Obama will be able to, either.
Hamas was elected to power and the number of Arabs in Israel overtook the number of Jews. I think more than that though, Israel used to believe that they could survive by fighting just enough to keep the wolves at bay. They would not fight a large scale war against the middle east, but a skirmish here and a small invasion there would keep their homeland safe, but then, Hamas was elected by the Palestinians and the population of Israel changed. The prospect of a democratic Israel and only a minority voice for the Jews in Israel in the face of Hamas' election makes for a scary prospect in Israel.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:But doesn't that sound like the perfect opportunity? Again, Obama can temper the extremist voices in the Middle East after a general cease-fire to the conflict, and then, if done correctly, he can use the situation to help those moderate countries with their own people to come around on Israel. Obama can provide those moderate Arab regimes political cover because he is different than Bush, and thus, they can use this situation to sell a moderate approach to Israel. Furthermore, if Obama is willing to engage Hamas, then a solution should be easier to achieve because the one thing that Hamas does not want is to lose control of Gaza, but above all else, those moderate nations haven't done anything because America has not been willing to give them the political cover they need (and that is a source of Arab frustration with America) to bring about peace.
I think the best opportunity would have been BEFORE this most recent flare up in violence. Now time is going to have a much more powerful influence than Obama. Everyone has to wait for things to die down before anything other than a ceasefire can be seriously put forth.
The United States providing political cover to moderate regimes is going to do squat when the people clamoring in the streets and threatening revolution are pissed because they want their regimes to be LESS moderate and MORE radical. Making a deal with one great satan to recognize another isn't how you tamp down unrest.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:The United States providing political cover to moderate regimes is going to do squat when the people clamoring in the streets and threatening revolution are pissed because they want their regimes to be LESS moderate and MORE radical. Making a deal with one great satan to recognize another isn't how you tamp down unrest.
See, with Bush that sentence would be exactly true, but if Obama gives a speech in the middle east and has some inherent good will in the region, then I don't think it will be seen as making a deal with one great satan to recognize another. Obama can be a stabilizing force for the people in those countries that are rioting now, he can go into the situation, get a cease-fire, and calm the region to the point where moderate regimes can then make peace that the people can see as something "other" than making a deal with the great satan. In that sense, Obama has to give those leaders political cover, he has to be seen as something other than "the great satan", and in so doing, he can make it politically expedient and worth-while to make peace in Israel. In other words, he has to temper the extremist voices in the region and win the hearts of the people with a moderate voice from an America willing to do what is necessary and "fair" for peace to reign.
What you have to understand is that the only people in the middle east who do not want peace are the extremists and partisans, and if you can take those people out of the equation, then you can achieve a lasting peace. And I think that's what Obama has the opportunity to do, coupled with the notion that I believe, as I argued before, that most, if not all, of the pieces are in place, and you have a moment here that can be taken advantage of in the best possible sense. It won't happen in the first 100 days, but I can see it happen sooner rather than later if this opportunity is seized.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
quote: ...part of the source of Muslim and Middle Eastern frustration, has been that America has been unwilling to step in and be the leader in can be in this situation.
See, I don't understand how that can possibly be true. Why would the Middle East even remotely care what we think they ought to be doing? We're the Great Satan. We value our own comfort over morality. Why would they follow our lead?
Frankly, I think staying out of it is more productive in the long run. I don't want to see the Middle East doing what we tell them. I want to see the region come to its own equilibrium that reflects its cultures and values.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Blayne, I am just now getting around to responding to your question about some of FDR's programs being found unconstitutional. Here is one representative statement:
quote:Roosevelt stopped pushing New Deal legislation by 1938, after the courts ruled some programs unconstitutional. The effect of the programs was mixed, with most economists agreeing that what really got the country moving was the military buildup of World War II.
There is also this interesting item in a Wickipedia article:
quote:On May 27, 1935, the NRA was found to be unconstitutional by a unanimous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Schechter v. United States. On that same day, the Court unanimously struck down the Frazier-Lemke Act portion of the New Deal as unconstitutional. Some libertarians such as Richard Ebeling see these and other rulings striking down portions of the New Deal as preventing the U.S. economic system from becoming a planned economy corporate state. Governor Huey Long of Louisiana said, "I raise my hand in reverence to the Surpreme Court that saved this nation from fascism."
We can only wonder if the present trillion-dollar government bailouts of insurance and mortgage companies are also steps toward "a planned economy corporate state" that is synonymous with fascism.
[ January 17, 2009, 10:03 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:See, I don't understand how that can possibly be true. Why would the Middle East even remotely care what we think they ought to be doing? We're the Great Satan. We value our own comfort over morality. Why would they follow our lead?
Well, there are two things to consider when we answer that question. One, most in the Middle East will view America more favorably than Israel, though technically that isn't saying much, and two, it isn't about importing American ideology or morality, it's about the support we give and the influence we yield over Israel. Inherently, the vast majority of leaders in the middle east do not trust Israel, they do not believe that Israel will be fair or just in negotiating a peace, and hence, from the very outset, peace talks become much more difficult. What the situation needs is someone who can influence Israel, someone who can hold Israel's feet to the fire as the Arab position is held to the fire, and in the middle east, the only nation able to wield that influence would the United States. Arab frustration is that the United States is unwilling to do so.
Of course, those opposed to a peace deal and who want to see the destruction of Israel cannot allow that to happen, and thus, they attack the United States in order to keep us from being that leader in the negotiations. The extremists in the region call us the great satan, not necessarily because they oppose our ideology (as if "our" ideology can be summed so), though that's what they claim, but because they see the US as the path towards Israel's existence. Those who are moderate in the region and who see Israel's existence as necessary to peace want the United States to stand up and hold Israel to the same standard Arab leaders are held too, they want the US not the be their representative but to assure that Israel is at least fair at the table, and that's where American leadership or lack thereof comes into such important play. Obama has a chance to provide that leadership, he has a chance to build up enough good will that what the extremists say won't matter as much, and when that occurs, then Obama can hold, or at least appear to, Israel's feet to the fire. And if that happens, then a peace agreement that's reached in the region may in fact be seen as worth-while and fair, the latter being the most important.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Ron, it's interesting that the decision of the supreme court, if it was to avert the rise of a planned economy, was hailed as the move rescuing us from a fascist state. I mean, really it is interesting, because many people believe that the alternative to Roosevelt's rise to power might well have been a turn towards the more charismatic, and possibly pre-fascistic would-be leaders of the 1930's. I mean, it wasn't a *totally* different situation that put Hitler in charge of Germany after the first war. True, Germany experienced something far worse than we did, which helped that along, but there's no knowing now how things might have gone with another President- another ideology, in the White House. Love him or hate him, Things were better for America at the end of Roosevelt's presidency, so he certainly didn't ruin us, even if some people think he might have made things worse.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I think it is reasonable to say that America survived FDR. Who was it who left our forces in Hawaii in such a vulnerable state, even after (some claim) he had already received reports that Japan was planning some hostile action?
While reviewing FDR and his programs that were ruled unconstitutional, I came across these interesting statements:
quote:"You know I am a juggler, and I never let my right hand know what my left hand does. I'm perfectly willing to mislead and tell untruths"...FDR, May 1941 (FDR A Biography, 1985, by Ted Morgan, p. 550)
1 February 1920 before an audience of 1500 at the Brooklyn Academy of Music, FDR said, "Two months after the war was declared, I saw that the Navy was still unprepared and I spent $40,000 for guns before Congress gave me or anyone permission to spend the money." This action had been opposed by the President. FDR further boasted that he had "committed enough illegal acts" to be impeached and jailed for "999 years." (Eleanor Roosevelt, vol 1, 1992, by Blanche Cook, NY:Viking, pp. 265-266)
FDR ordered the assassination of Chiang kai Shek because he was not knuckling under to Mao and the Communists fast enough for FDR. In December 1943, FDR's military representative in China, General Joseph Stilwell told a subordinate, Col. Frank Dorn, that FDR was "fed up with Chiang and his tantrums, and said so. In fact, he told me in that Olympian manner of his, 'if you can't get along with Chiang, and can't replace him, get rid of him once and for all. You know what I mean, put in someone you can manage.'" Col. Dorn prepared a plan for an airplane mishap, in which there would be engine problems and, in the process of bailing out of the plane, Chiang and his wife would be given faulty parachutes. Fortunately Chinese security was too good and foiled the plot." (FDR A Rendezvous with Destiny, Frank Freidel, 1990)
FDR gave at least 1,465 pounds of uranium (about 4 times as much fissionable U-235 as the US kept for itself), 417 tons of cadmium, 437 tons of cobalt, 12 tons of thorium, and 1100 ounces of heavy water as well as all the designs for the atom bomb and reactor to create plutonium. Without this assistance it would have taken the Soviet Union 10 years and all of their economic resources to make a bomb. See the shocking story in From Major Jordon's Diaries and The US House of Representatives, Eighty-first Congress, Second Session, Committee on Un-American Activities, Hearings Regarding Shipment of Atomic Material to the Soviet Union During World War II (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1950).
1936 Supreme Court ruled FDR's Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA) unconstitutional (US v Butler). This was the program that plowed crops under and senselessly slaughtered millions of animals at a cost of $700,000,000 over two years. By cutting corn production the US had to import 30 million bushels from abroad. The Supreme Court ruled the AAA was "a central government exercising uncontrolled police power in every state of the union."
I can't say much for the poem that followed it up.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
Here you go. I thought it was a good speech. Thanks go to America Blog for the transcript:
quote:My fellow citizens:
I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.
Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms. At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.
So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.
That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.
These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land - a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.
Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America - they will be met.
On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.
On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.
We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.
In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted - for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things - some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.
For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.
For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.
For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.
Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.
This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth. Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests and putting off unpleasant decisions - that time has surely passed. Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.
For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. And all this we will do.
Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.
What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account - to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day - because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.
Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control - and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on our ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart - not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.
Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.
We are the keepers of this legacy. Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort - even greater cooperation and understanding between nations. We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people, and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet. We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken; you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.
To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West - know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.
To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.
As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us today, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment - a moment that will define a generation - it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.
For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter's courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent's willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate.
Our challenges may be new. The instruments with which we meet them may be new. But those values upon which our success depends - hard work and honesty, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism - these things are old. These things are true. They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history. What is demanded then is a return to these truths. What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility - a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.
This is the price and the promise of citizenship.
This is the source of our confidence - the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.
This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed - why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall, and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.
So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America's birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:
"Let it be told to the future world...that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive...that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet [it]."
America. In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.
Posted by Sala (Member # 8980) on :
Yeah, the speech was terrific, but the poem, <bleech>.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I didn't in the breakroom to hear the poem.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath.
This was either a mistake or he deliberately lied. I wondered if anyone else caught this.
In fact, Obama is the forty-third American to take the presidential oath.
(the reason I think he deliberately stated something false is that it would have been too awkward to explain in the middle of a speech)
WASHINGTON - It didn't take long for Barack Obama to make the first mistake of his presidency.
In the third sentence of his inaugural speech Tuesday, the newly sworn-in president said, "Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath."
While there have been 44 presidential administrations, there have been only 43 presidents; Grover Cleveland served two nonconsecutive terms in the late 1800s.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: FDR got us out of the Depression and through WWII,
Please. It was WWII that got us out of the depression. No thanks to Roosevelt, who simply made things worse.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by sndrake:
quote:Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath.
This was either a mistake or he deliberately lied. I wondered if anyone else caught this.
In fact, Obama is the forty-third American to take the presidential oath.
(the reason I think he deliberately stated something false is that it would have been too awkward to explain in the middle of a speech)
WASHINGTON - It didn't take long for Barack Obama to make the first mistake of his presidency.
In the third sentence of his inaugural speech Tuesday, the newly sworn-in president said, "Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath."
While there have been 44 presidential administrations, there have been only 43 presidents; Grover Cleveland served two nonconsecutive terms in the late 1800s.
No, he was actually correct. David Rice Atchison was sworn in as President on March 4, 1849. Zach Taylor was supposed to, but he refused to do it on a Sunday, so Atchison, who was the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, took it instead.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Please. It was WWII that got us out of the depression. No thanks to Roosevelt, who simply made things worse.
While I agree that the New Deal did not get us out of the Great Depression and WWII was that impetus, without the New Deal their wouldn't have been anything to save by the time WWII came around. The New Deal did not end the Great Depression, but it did save Capitalism and it did keep America afloat until it could be saved.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:No, he was actually correct. David Rice Atchison was sworn in as President on March 4, 1849. Zach Taylor was supposed to, but he refused to do it on a Sunday, so Atchison, who was the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, took it instead.
Lisa - thanks for this bit of information. I checked out a few sources and they all agree with this wikipedia entry on Atchison.
quote:Atchison himself never claimed that he was technically President of the United States for one day—Sunday, March 4, 1849. Outgoing President James Polk's term expired on March 4, and his successor, Zachary Taylor, refused to be sworn into office on the sabbath (Sunday). Taylor's Vice Presidential running mate, Millard Fillmore, likewise was not inaugurated. As President pro tempore, and therefore Acting Vice President, under the presidential succession law in place at the time, Atchison was believed by some to be Acting President.[4]
However, while it is alleged that the offices of President and Vice President were vacant, Atchison in fact was not next in line. While the terms of President James K. Polk and Vice President George Mifflin Dallas had expired, Atchison's tenure as President pro tempore had already expired when the Thirtieth Congress adjourned sine die on March 3. He also never took the oath of office. No disability or lack of qualification prevented Taylor and Fillmore from taking office, and as they had been duly certified to take office that day as president-elect and vice president-elect, if Taylor was not president because he had not been sworn in as such, then Atchison, who had not been sworn in either, certainly was not President either.[4]
In fact, it's not really clear just who was in charge for that single day, which makes it an even stranger day.
But it still looks like only 43 individuals have taken the presidential oath.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Initially, I thought you all were talking about Rick Warren's claim that there have been 44 peaceful transitions of power for the US (if I am remembering him correctly, and I may well not be).
That first one? Not so peaceful. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
And your degree in economics and or American history is certified by what University Lisa?
sndrake, is that really important? Rules of what makes a good speach dictate that a few trivial embellishments are allowed if it makes for a great speach.
Ron Chiang Kai Shek was a moron, an incompetant who had everything going for him and STILL lost against a force 1/10th the size of his, had no ability to manage a country and was corrupt to the core, he cared more about solidifying his power base then fighting FOREIGN INVADERS and had made public remarks to the affirmative. And why should you care? Would you have opposed it if he had ordered Mao murdered? The United States have had a history of overthrowing governments and subverting democracy when it pleases them after WWII and I haven't ever seen you express a single word of condemnation for when Left leadning governments have been overthrown.
A court decided an act is constitutional and thus striking it down doesn't mean that FDR commited a Unconstitutional Act, it means he tried to pass through an act considered Unconstitutional doesn't mean he did an unconstitutional act. I should also not that a large number of programs the court I believe eventually allowed to pass that were previously ruled uncon. does it still make it uncon?
As for Hawaii hindsight is 20/20 vision Ron, sure NOW we say "that was dumb" but back then? When the States didn't even think the Japanese could fly planes because of "bad vision" due to their slanted eyes? Overconfidence and Bureaucratic obstufication lead to the situation at Pearl Harbour and High Command utter blindness towards the versatility of aircraft carriers completely ignoring Billy Mitchel warnings in 1924. The Allies were utterly incompetant at worst in WWII and only barely competant at best.
And even then, as Bismark sad "God protects fool, drunks, idiots and the United States of America" USA was extremely fortunate that its battleships were neutralized as it FORCED the central role of the carrier into US Naval startegy from then on, while it is true a 3rd wave of Japanese attacks could have neutralized Pearl Harbor for an additional year and a Japanese land invasion could have possible prevented any American pacific action in the pacific in totality the US was extremely fortunate that Pearl Harbour occured and did what it did.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Obama did seem to flub his lines when giving his oath of office. But news sources said it was actually the Chief Justice who flubbed the line first. Obama seemed to throw him off when he came in with his repeat of the first statement too soon. Then they kind of threw each other off after that. Perhaps they were both too proud to start over again.
As for being the 44th president, this was stated by other speakers before him, and by the news commentators. No one disputed that George W. Bush was 43rd president.
If you are going to count the number of times someone took the oath of office, there are plenty of factors that you can play with. Should you count the times when an incumbent was re-elected, and took the oath of office again? 16 times presidents have been re-elected to a second term. Should you count when the vice-president had to take over for awhile, because the president was unconscious, in heart surgery, or whatever? I believe that happened during Eisenhower's presidency.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Hi, CT!
Yeah, first transition - from Brits to Continental Congress - not so peaceful.
But the past few weeks, I've been thinking now and then about what was probably the most significant inauguration in the U.S. The fourth one, when Thomas Jefferson became president.
In terms of hostility the "culture wars" are nothing new. At that time, it was Republicans vs. Federalists - and they despised each other. Here's a little bit from Steve Chapman at the Chicago Tribune:
quote:The most important presidential election in American history was the fourth one, in 1800. Not because John Adams lost and Thomas Jefferson won, but because Adams and his Federalist party surrendered control of the White House merely because the processes of constitutional government said they were supposed to. On Inauguration Day, we take this ancient tradition as automatic and unremarkable.
No one was really sure that there would really be a peaceful transition until it actually happened.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
But I can say for everyone here when watching the Inaugeration:
ENOUGH WITH THE DAMN COMMITIES WE WANT OBAMA!
Nuff said.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
sndrake, how does it still look like there were only 43? Atchison took the oath. That's 44.
Ron, I watched the clip. Roberts left out the word "faithfully", and Obama stopped because Roberts had gotten it wrong. Go and watch it yourself. In the end, Obama put "faithfully" back in, but in the wrong place. It was totally Roberts who screwed it up.
Also, you didn't understand what sndrake said. He didn't say that Obama wasn't the 44th president; he was quibbling about whether he was the 44th American to take the presidential oath of office. He was.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Blayne, would you argue as strenuously for it being OK for the President of the United States to order the assassination of the head of state of an ally, if it were Bush doing it?
It appears that FDR was really not opposed to communism, or to fascism. All presidents after him supported Chiang Kai Shek and the Taiwanese government of China-in-Exile which he formed. Perhaps if FDR had been a little more enthusiastic and consistent in his support of Chiang Kai Shek, the communists would not have succeeded in driving him off the mainland.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Well, Lisa, if Obama put in the word "faithfully" in the wrong place, then it was not "totally Roberts" who screwed it up. It was a committee effort. They should have started over again. Now who can say what Obama really swore to?
I was not the one quibbling about whether Obama was actually the 44th to take the oath of office. I did not count it as a flub when Obama said he was the 44th to do so.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by sndrake: Hi, CT!
Hi, sndrake!
---
Off-topic: 1. My condolences on the world's loss of Harriet McBryde Johnson. I thought of how difficult that time must have been for so many.
2. I've been reading David Hingsburger's daily blog, Chewing the Fat. I bet you already know his voice as a disability rights activist, but if you don't, you might find his stuff interesting. He used to work as a caregiver without a disability himself, but, you know, things change. I found him through Amanda Baggs' blog.
Anyway, nice to see you again.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: They should have started over again. Now who can say what Obama really swore to?
I think that the "screw up" was actually a secret-Muslam athiest plot, crafted by Rev. Jerimiah Wright and the Emperor of Kenya to make it so that it would look like Obama had sworn to uphold the constitution, when really he was swearing to destroy the United States.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
If you play the tape backwards, it sounds like he really said "I can haz cheezburger."
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote: sndrake, how does it still look like there were only 43? Atchison took the oath. That's 44.
Lisa, read it carefully. He never actually took the oath. Also, Atchison never made the claim himself.
Bush at the least has not ordered any assasinations I can think of, probably one of the few restraints he has done with his powers i can credit him for.
I should have mentioned but forgot to mention that it was the nearly universal opinion at the time that the Soviets were not our enemies and had no intentions to the world wide spreads of communism aka russian neoimperialism or intended to until roughly the time of the Berlin airlift.
I should also point out that history disagrees with you and so do facts FDR was dead at the time of Chiang Kai Sheks complete military route and in fact President Truman had for a time completely gave up and abandoned Chiang Kai Shek to his fate on Taiwan in 1949 only sending the Fleet to the Taiwan straights in the Korean War.
And oh my gods Ron, the United States gave BILLIONS of dollars in Aid, Funds and Military Equipment to Chiang Kai Shek, the United States massively funded and supported the Republican Army, how do you think the Communists did so well? Chaing's own Logistics Corps defected and transferred most of it over! The Communist forces did so well in the Koreanw ar because they had American equipment!
Do you KNOW ANYTHING about the Chinese Civil War of 1945-1949? heck the American military advisors even gave GOOD adivce that Chiang completely ignored in his single minded efforts to drive the Chinese Red Army into the Soviet Union.
heck! Even the Soviets didn't help the Chinese Communists they gave alot of land over to Chiang and gave little to no equipment to them the Chinese Red Army amde do almost completely on captured Japanese weapons caches in the countryside that in Chiangs strategy of securing urban centers completely ignored.
This is not an argument you can win Ron I actually read in minute detail this period of Chinese history the reds were better led, better organized, more determined and had more moral then the Republican Army who were cruel, incompetantly lead, corrupt to the core, had Red spies in EVERY level of Command, poorly trained and unmotivated.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: If you play the tape backwards, it sounds like he really said "I can haz cheezburger."
Wouldn't that be lovely?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: If you play the tape backwards, it sounds like he really said "I can haz cheezburger."
:: nods :: Totally. Obama has secretly been using subliminal messages in LOLcat pictures to steal the election. The secret message encoded backward into his speech is his way of laughing at us!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Well, Lisa, if Obama put in the word "faithfully" in the wrong place, then it was not "totally Roberts" who screwed it up. It was a committee effort. They should have started over again. Now who can say what Obama really swore to?
I was not the one quibbling about whether Obama was actually the 44th to take the oath of office. I did not count it as a flub when Obama said he was the 44th to do so.
As long as the Supreme Court SAYS he is the 44th President of the United States then he is the President.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: They should have started over again. Now who can say what Obama really swore to?
I think that the "screw up" was actually a secret-Muslam athiest plot, crafted by Rev. Jerimiah Wright and the Emperor of Kenya to make it so that it would look like Obama had sworn to uphold the constitution, when really he was swearing to destroy the United States.
Careful Noemon, men in black are being dispatched to your house as we speak. You've stumbled upon something bigger than you can imagine.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Why can't I win the argument, Blayne? If you are trying to justify FDR's ordering the assassination of the head of state of an ally--which is the issue here--then how can you expect to win? Besides just declaring yourself the winner. You even praised Bush for not ordering any assassinations. Doesn't your inconsistency bother you at all?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I watched it again on YouTube.
President Obama (I loved typing that!) did leap in earlier than Justice Roberts meant for him to - although there was a pause.
Then Justice Roberts left out the word faithfully and put it at the end of the sentence. Perhaps a grammar thing rather than a mistake? President Obama waited for him to repeat it (possibly because it wasn't what he expected to hear) and then repeated it as Justice Roberts said it with "faithfully" at the end of the sentence.
President Obama said all the words, Ron. I'm reasonably sure he wasn't trying to leave himself a loophole for a coup.
I think they just needed a rehearsal.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:I think that the "screw up" was actually a secret-Muslam athiest plot, crafted by Rev. Jerimiah Wright and the Emperor of Kenya to make it so that it would look like Obama had sworn to uphold the constitution, when really he was swearing to destroy the United States.
I smell a cover-up. You left out William Ayers, who is handling the Marxist elements of the conspiracy.
(Is it my imagination, or are we writing stuff we might find written by people who are serious on some of the fringier blogs?)
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: Careful Noemon, men in black are being dispatched to your house as we speak. You've stumbled upon something bigger than you can imagine.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Not to mention that the actual oath of office is something of a formality. The 20th amendment states that the presidency switches hands at noon on the dot, January 20th. Obama had been president for five minutes already before the flubbathon even began.
Edit: This in response to Blayne's post.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
kmbboots, I would think they did memorize the oath. And Justice Roberts probably had it written in front of him. No excuses. They were both nervous, obviously. How many people were watching and listening? How historic was the moment of the swearing in of the first African-American president?
But come to think of it, if we're going to go down the conspiracy route, wasn't Roberts a George W. Bush appointee?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
watching it again it is not a flubby as it seemed at the time. Still not smooth, but they recovered.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Here's the important question with the oath. Does Obama know Chief Justice Roberts so well that he was able to predict that by starting to speak too soon he would throw off Roberts for the next part of the oath thus allowing him to enact his plan? Or is the Chief Justice one of the conspirators as well?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I hear his alien probe revealed non-human anatomy, too.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by sndrake:
quote:I think that the "screw up" was actually a secret-Muslam athiest plot, crafted by Rev. Jerimiah Wright and the Emperor of Kenya to make it so that it would look like Obama had sworn to uphold the constitution, when really he was swearing to destroy the United States.
I smell a cover-up. You left out William Ayers, who is handling the Marxist elements of the conspiracy.
Actually, despite their nominally being in the same shadow government, William Ayers is the arch nemesis of the Emperor of Kenya. The only thing that may save the republic is the infighting between those two.
quote:(Is it my imagination, or are we writing stuff we might find written by people who are serious on some of the fringier blogs?)
I half expect to see quotes from this thread pop up in some of them. :: laugh ::
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: kmbboots, I would think they did memorize the oath. And Justice Roberts probably had it written in front of him. No excuses. They were both nervous, obviously. How many people were watching and listening? How historic was the moment of the swearing in of the first African-American president?
But come to think of it, if we're going to go down the conspiracy route, wasn't Roberts a George W. Bush appointee?
They probably did memorize it - that seemed to be part of the problem. Justice Roberts memorized it with "faithfully" in a different place. A rehearsal would have helped with where the pauses would be so the President wouldn't have stepped on the Justice's lines. If Justice Roberts was more practiced, he might have just let it go when President Obama leapt in and then continued without talking over him. And with a rehearsal, they might have noted where "faithfully" went.
But I think that was all honest nerves and lack of rehearsal rather than sinister motives.
I think that the people who get really good at administering oaths are people who do a lot of weddings.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Why can't I win the argument, Blayne? If you are trying to justify FDR's ordering the assassination of the head of state of an ally--which is the issue here--then how can you expect to win? Besides just declaring yourself the winner. You even praised Bush for not ordering any assassinations. Doesn't your inconsistency bother you at all?
I am going to give the benefit of the doubt here as I was probably unclear.
I will not delve into whether assasinating Chaing kai Shek was right or not as afterall it didn't happen and I should point out it did not stop futurue presidents democrat or republican from doing so, as such that was after my initial paragraph not what I was referring to or arguing however I AM disputing your comments about the Chinese Civil War and American partiticipation in it.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I hear his alien probe revealed non-human anatomy, too.
!!! I suspected as much, but I never thought that the jackbooted thugs at SETI would allow that information to become public.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
What I am saying is that on a argument on the facts of recent Chinese history between me and you I indisputably know more then you, bias or no bias. To avoid the logical phallacy of appealing to authority I also in the effort to prove this gave the counter argument/facts to counter your remark/argument that was not at all based on historical fact.
Correcting peoples misunderstandings of history is far more important to me then wether some act was morally or ethically justified.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I went to DC for the inauguration in 2004. Quite different.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Blayne, what I said--which seems to be what you are arguing about--was this: "Perhaps if FDR had been a little more enthusiastic and consistent in his support of Chiang Kai Shek, the communists would not have succeeded in driving him off the mainland." Did you notice the first word in that sentence? Perhaps? You are treating the sentence as if I made an assertion. What I made was a suggestion.
What exactly are you trying to refute?
If you are so motivated to correct misunderstandings of history, then the view of history Democrats propagate must be driving you to distraction.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote: Off-topic: 1. My condolences on the world's loss of Harriet McBryde Johnson. I thought of how difficult that time must have been for so many.
2. I've been reading David Hingsburger's daily blog, Chewing the Fat. I bet you already know his voice as a disability rights activist, but if you don't, you might find his stuff interesting. He used to work as a caregiver without a disability himself, but, you know, things change. I found him through Amanda Baggs' blog.
Anyway, nice to see you again.
Good to see you, too.
Seeing how we've drifted into alleged assassination orders directed at an Asian ruler over a half-century ago, I don't think there's any danger into going any more off-topic.
Thanks for the condolences, but Harriet and I weren't close. In fact, I decided I wouldn't be able to write about her since I wouldn't be able to do it honestly. Don't mean to be mysterious, but there are some things you just pass on.
I did, however, post something from historian/disability studies scholar Paul Longmore in response to a NY Times "Tribute" to her by Peter Singer - Link here.
(My last entry was a tribute to Ben Franklin in honor of his 303rd birthday.)
I don't read Dave's blog that often, but he's always been a great writer. And he tends to make me look calm and reasonable by comparison.
Lately, I've been reading William Peace's Bad Cripplepretty regularly.
Within a week or two, I should have a second blog up and running - this one a personal neurodiversity blog (tentatively) titled "water on the brain - and lots on my mind." Complete with baby pictures.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Being Canadian I could not care less about what History the Dems propogate.
I am refuting your claims of:
1) That The US did not consistently give aid and support to the Nationalists.
2) That All Presidents gave aid once they retreated to taiwan, this is false aid was only resumed after/during the Korean war.
3) I am also disputing that you inply that the Nationalists under Chiang Kai Shek could have won at all, considering how massively he ****ed it up as we say in the ghetto.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
OK, I decided I might as well let all my nerdiness, grumpiness and geekiness hang out.
At first I was amused, then annoyed, at the elaborate arrangement of a Shaker tune celebrating simplicity - Simple Gifts. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ... he ****ed it up as we say in the ghetto.
Seriously? Describe your ghetto
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
its an expression. I've heard it in 2 places.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Looks like Senators Byrd and Kennedy were taken to the hospital. Kennedy in an ambulance.
Edit. Senator Byrd was taken away ill, but not necessarily to the hospital.
Edit again to update: Looks like Senator Byrd did not go to the hospital and is okay. Senator Kennedy is awake and was able to take a phone call from the President.
[ January 20, 2009, 05:06 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Further Evidence of a vast Left Wing Conspiracy That the Communist Pseodo fascists of the Democrats are purging their ranks to make way for the Obama Soviet Dictatorship By willfully WISHING their political opponants to have strokes!
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
A presidency is over; another begins. Godspeed, Mr. Obama.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I kind of liked the sophisticated arrangement of "Simple Gifts." It was originally an old Shaker tune. I believe the Shakers are all gone now--they did not believe in procreating. Left some fine furniture behind to remember them by--and this song. So they are in no position to object. The same song is also known with different words, "Lord of the Dance." I always wondered what the Shakers thought of that.
It was neat to have Ytzak Perlman and Yo-Yo-Ma playing together. I had not heard of the clarinettist or pianist, but I assume they were well-known too. (Was it a clarinette? I did not get a good look at it.)
Oh Blayne, not to keep beating a dead donkey, but I just have to wonder how whole-heartedly the government of FDR was supporting Chiang Kai Shek if FDR ordered his assassination. After the attempt failed, don't you think Chiang figured out who had tried to off him? That would surely have tended to cool relations with the U.S.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
Congrats, guys, on a historic day. Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The British and American governments (and the Soviets via Operation Zet should look it up sometime) gave aid to the Chinese in their fight against their common enemy via the Burma Supply route (and why the Japanese invaded Burma and took Ragoon, to cut off Allied supplies to China) even if FDR did order CKS's assasination he still would have fielded supplies in an effort to further entangle the Japanese in China.
Realpolitik is a funny thing Ron.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: FDR got us out of the Depression and through WWII,
Please. It was WWII that got us out of the depression. No thanks to Roosevelt, who simply made things worse.
One could argue he got us into the war too, so, six of one.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I hear his alien probe revealed non-human anatomy, too.
!!! I suspected as much, but I never thought that the jackbooted thugs at SETI would allow that information to become public.
Wait! No!
<_< >_>
I didn't say that! You can't make me have said that!
Posted by Tara (Member # 10030) on :
So, the word on the street is that Obama had the oath memorized and the Chief Justice actually said it wrong.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That would seem to be consistant with the video.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by sndrake: OK, I decided I might as well let all my nerdiness, grumpiness and geekiness hang out.
At first I was amused, then annoyed, at the elaborate arrangement of a Shaker tune celebrating simplicity - Simple Gifts.
I thought John Williams "Air and Simple Gifts" was masterful and well suited to the occasion. The only thing that bothered me about it was the commentator who chose talk over Yo-Yo Ma and Itzak Perlman.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
This might help clear up all our confusion about what went on with the oath.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I'm not often one to throw crap on John Williams for being a karaoke composer who gets credit for mountains of material that isn't his, but just FYI, "Simple Gifts" is older than you think, at least if you thought Williams wrote it.
Add to that, he is not even the first American grandfather of music to use it in a composition (there have been many)- Aaron Copeland remains the most famous quoter, and one of the first, of that tune.
Edit: And I'm not claiming this particular piece is indeed a classic Williams rip-off by any standard, but I've heard enough Yo-Yo Ma travesties by now to be at least hesitant to lend the two of them instant credit.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
That's what I thought when I saw it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I'm not often one to throw crap on John Williams for being a karaoke composer who gets credit for mountains of material that isn't his, but just FYI, "Simple Gifts" is older than you think, at least if you thought Williams wrote it.
Add to that, he is not even the first American grandfather of music to use it in a composition (there have been many)- Aaron Copeland remains the most famous quoter, and one of the first, of that tune.
I never said that John Williams wrote "Simple Gifts", I said he wrote "Air and Simple Gifts" which is the number that was performed at the inauguration and was in fact written by John Williams. link Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
To me, "Air and Simple Gifts" was perhaps the most moving part of the entire ceremony.
I grew up watching Yo Yo Ma, Pearlman, and of course, loving everything John Williams. Their coming together to perform at inauguration was spectacular.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Yes, I'm aware of this- I find Williams' co-option of popular pieces to be sometimes distasteful. I am aware that he "wrote" "Air and Simple Gifts," I just think that perhaps "quote" or "arrange" or possibly "repackage" would be more appropriate. I'm also less than a fan of a composer who has an opportunity to present something more original and doesn't, or failing that, an event planner who has the opportunity to choose something original by the same artist (if such material exists), and chooses not to.
Ultimately, though I actually think John Williams is *okay*, I also think there are probably thousands of people in the United States who are better, or who at least do better work.
But I suppose that is probably why that event planner is not me, and why that composer is also not anyone I would pick.
By the way, the thing I said about Yo-Yo Ma, I only say because I find some of his work to be SO good. The travesty part only comes in when someone seems to be wrecking something of real value, and you are left wondering, "why do that?"
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
BTW, incorporation of traditional hymns and folk tunes into classical works has been done by Bach, Mendelsohn, Dvorak, Sibelus, Copeland and likely dozens of the greatest composer.
Posted by Architraz Warden (Member # 4285) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: ...an event planner who has the opportunity to choose something original by the same artist (if such material exists), and chooses not to.
You might be on to something, 'Imperial March' would have been a spectacularly more entertaining selection.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Yes, I'm aware of this- I find Williams' co-option of popular pieces to be sometimes distasteful. I am aware that he "wrote" "Air and Simple Gifts," I just think that perhaps "quote" or "arrange" or possibly "repackage" would be more appropriate. I'm also less than a fan of a composer who has an opportunity to present something more original and doesn't, or failing that, an event planner who has the opportunity to choose something original by the same artist (if such material exists), and chooses not to.
Ultimately, though I actually think John Williams is *okay*, I also think there are probably thousands of people in the United States who are better, or who at least do better work.
But I suppose that is probably why that event planner is not me, and why that composer is also not anyone I would pick.
By the way, the thing I said about Yo-Yo Ma, I only say because I find some of his work to be SO good. The travesty part only comes in when someone seems to be wrecking something of real value, and you are left wondering, "why do that?" [/QUOTE]
Do you feel the same way about Bach's St. Matthew Passion?
How about Dvorak's New World Symphony?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Architraz Warden:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: ...an event planner who has the opportunity to choose something original by the same artist (if such material exists), and chooses not to.
You might be on to something, 'Imperial March' would have been a spectacularly more entertaining selection.
::grin:: You just made my day...
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Architraz Warden:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: ...an event planner who has the opportunity to choose something original by the same artist (if such material exists), and chooses not to.
You might be on to something, 'Imperial March' would have been a spectacularly more entertaining selection.
No, I was thinking of "Cantina Band."
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
"Senator Kennedy is awake and was able to take a phone call from the President."
Kennedy is a media slut!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Do you feel the same way about Bach's St. Matthew Passion?
How about Dvorak's New World Symphony?
To answer your question as openly as possible, the different situations (all spread apart by a century) are not comparable in many useful ways.
Bach's St. Matthew Passion is not constructed of musical quotations, but of lyrical quotations, which is the point of the piece. It can't be proved, but probably most or all of that music was original to Bach, or substantially transcended original source material- and much of it is, as is characteristic of Bach, self-quotation. And besides, it's a three hour performance piece, in which much of Bach's music was at the time (and still can be heard as) startlingly inventive and original, not to mention daring.
As for the Symphony "From the New World," it's only a popular belief that Dvořák furiously transcribed and reinvented and re-envisioned the ethnic music of America. The idea was constructed later when other Central and Eastern European composers became famous for doing so with their own folk music, and with that of America. The entire belief is based on a handful of glowing quotations from Dvořák, and the strength of the idea that the use of a pentatonic scale is somehow native American (though the feature is present in the native music of Scotland, America, East Asia, and Dvořák's native Bohemia).
Add to that, Dvořák spent relatively little time in America, and even less of that time actually studying native American music or negro spirituals. Unfortunately, modern ears confuse the influence of Dvořák on the development of *that* music (as it was received in popular culture) with the influence of that music on Dvořák. Of course, every few years a musicologist or some conductor or author or composer makes claims about Dvořák's romantic exploration of American music, when all the substantive research and study of the actual music shows that this is wishful thinking- all of his music was characteristic of Bohemian folk music. However, unlike so many other composers, concrete examples of quotation are not forthcoming.
As far as that goes, you should have mentioned Stravinsky, or Shostakovitch, or Berlioz, or Beethoven, Schubert, or a long list of others who really did plumb the depths of existing written music looking for ideas, and lifting them right off the pages. Or George Crumb, who perversely went back and re-quoted quotations of traditional music that had been co-opted and identified with their non-authors... or George Rochberg, who just plain copied entire sections of Symphonies into his scores as background for weird serialist tone poems.
And then there's Copland, who did what John Williams only ever *tries* to do, which is use quotation effectively, like a carpenter laying down a piece of wood, and not a home repair "expert" spraying glue all over the basement floor in an attempt to stick plywood together.
But no, Bach and Dvořák you mentioned because today they are considered vanilla in comparison with some of these others (except Shosti...), and so of COURSE they must have been quoting someone. These others got away with it, and deserved to, because their fiddling created genuine art.
Don't get me wrong- I quote quite a lot from music I like, and I consider digital sampling to be a legitimate art form. I just don't go around naming my pieces "Orincoro's 9th Symphony: Air and Water Music Requiem Suite on a G String," and then proceed to give you someone else's music in a nice neat package that is impressive to look at with Yo-Yo and Perlman on stage together. I really am a pedant and a snob, but I still don't know a single good composer who would like the idea of doing that- especially with the results that are evident.
If you quote that last sentence out of context for effect, I banish you from e-cookies for life.
PS. The Poet at the inauguration SUCKED. How do you get to the point of reading a poem in front of an international audience, without someone pulling you aside at some point and saying: "you know that poetry reading voice that goes up and down and sort of sounds like a newscaster who is stoned, and only makes your poem *sound* like it rhymes or means anything... dude, that makes you sound like a total moron."
[ January 20, 2009, 06:22 PM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: BTW, incorporation of traditional hymns and folk tunes into classical works has been done by Bach, Mendelssohn, Dvorak, Sibelus, Copeland and likely dozens of the greatest composers.
Actually you'd be hard pressed to name one who never did. But then, they were great. Mendelssohn is spelled "ss." Your examples were just pretty wrong for your argument.
Also Bach is not particularly known for this, but then he's on the outer edge of spectrum in terms of research- he's really the back wall of classical musicological research. There is SO much material on him, that it can be difficult to properly parse his position in the musical framework of his own time. He's also a paradox because he was considered for many many years to be a traditionalist composer, and only later appreciated as a revolutionary and visionary when tastes began to escape classical dogmatism, and people realized he was an example of what they were yearning to create again.
Incidentally, there is a kind of inherent logic to your string of composers. Mendelssohn reintroduced Bach into popular (non academic) repertory, Dvořák rode the success of post-classical Romanticism into the beginnings of Modernism, Sibelius was a musical realist (if such exists) and Copeland was a kind of Dvořák/Sibelius freak hybrid who wrote severe and utterly realist music, and sometimes applied his craft to the creation of traditionalist post-Romantic music.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
Bach's St. Matthew Passion is not constructed of musical quotations, but of lyrical quotations, which is the point of the piece. It can't be proved, but probably most or all of that music was original to Bach, or substantially transcended original source material- and much of it is, as is characteristic of Bach, self-quotation.
Not true. The melody of the "Passions Choral" which is repeated 5 times in Bach's St Matthew Passion and which is arguable the most recognizable melody in the piece, was a popular secular melody written by Hans Leo Hassler.
quote: And besides, it's a three hour performance piece, in which much of Bach's music was at the time (and still can be heard as) startlingly inventive and original, not to mention daring.
John Williams "Air and Simple Gifts" also had large sections of totally original material. It may not be as great a master piece as Bach's St. Matthew passion but that isn't because one uses a melody stolen from other sources and the other is substantially original material. Both are pieces contain substantial "musical quotations". In this respect, the only difference is that the Bach piece has been around long enough to supplant the source material whereas the Williams number was first performed today.
If you don't like the Williams number, fine. But don't pretend its because Williams borrows melodies from other sources, most great composers have done the same thing, some of them like Bach wrote transcendent masterpieces using melodies they borrowed from others.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
When they announced the piece as "Air and Simple Gifts" that was giving credit. It is not plagiarism if you give credit. It is tribute, honoring what went before. Like when Rachmaninoff composed his "Variations on a Theme by Paganini," or when Vaughan Williams composed his "Fantasia on a theme by Thomas Tallis," no one thought there was anything wrong with that. Those more recent composers just saw additional places the themes could be taken musically than the original composers did.
There was alot of original musical and even melodic thought in the piece composed by John Williams. It was a sophisticated classical/romantic treatment. Hey, at least it did not sound like Star Wars or Harry Potter!
I would say that the only modern composer who can give John Williams a run for his money is Howard Shore, who wrote the film score for the Peter Jackson-produced Lord of the Rings trilogy. These gentlemen truly know how to speak in the language of emotion. You can have your modernists who scorn melody.
For a moment I wondered whether they meant John Williams the guitarist, or John Williams the composer and conductor. I wish they would use their middle initials, or something. The guitarist's middle name is Christopher, and the composer/conductor's middle name is Towner, so that would work.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
quote:So, the word on the street is that Obama had the oath memorized and the Chief Justice actually said it wrong
For once, the street is right: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:-"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The oath of office is in the Constitution and our Cheif Justice got it wrong. What is this country coming to?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
An end? Oh, you didn't want to hear that, did you?
Some fun things to remember are that Chief Justice Roberts was a George W. Bush appointee, and Sen. Barack Obama voted against his confirmation.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Orincoro, Sorry if that last post came across as condescending. I know music is your area of expertise. I just disagree with you that John Williams uses musical quotations in a way that differs substantially from the ways in which many great composers have used popular melodies.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ...To avoid the logical phallacy...
I now have to clean Coke off my computer monitor.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
quote:An end? Oh, you didn't want to hear that, did you?
As long as we have the warning...
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:You might be on to something, 'Imperial March' would have been a spectacularly more entertaining selection.
Ah, if Dick Cheney had been president....
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: An end? Oh, you didn't want to hear that, did you?
Some fun things to remember are that Chief Justice Roberts was a George W. Bush appointee, and Sen. Barack Obama voted against his confirmation.
If anyone but Ron posted this, I would have presumed that they were pointing out that Bush appointed a supreme court justice who wasn't even competent enough to correctly administer the oath office and that Obama had the sense to vote against him.
But since Ron was making this post, I haven't the foggiest idea what his point might be.
[ January 21, 2009, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Maybe he's implying that Roberts flubbed it on purpose?
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
quote:I would say that the only modern composer who can give John Williams a run for his money is Howard Shore, who wrote the film score for the Peter Jackson-produced Lord of the Rings trilogy. These gentlemen truly know how to speak in the language of emotion. You can have your modernists who scorn melody.
Not to be snarky, but can you name 3-4 more "modern composers" without googling? Any non-film composers in your library?
I don't argue when people laud John Williams for writing enjoyable music, but I have to object when they make claims about him being the greatest composer today. Most recognizable, sure--and consequently, most overrated.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
The problem was that it wasn't a John Williams variation on Simple Gifts, it was a variation on Copeland's take on Simple Gifts. The moment Williams decided to lead the theme with the clarinet, it became an obvious quote from Copeland rather than a variation on the Shaker Theme.
Lowery's speech made the ceremony for me.
quote:Vaughan Williams composed his "Fantasia on a theme by Thomas Tallis," no one thought there was anything wrong with that.
Because the piece is gorgeous.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
The announcer that I saw said that Williams "arranged" the simple gifts piece, not that he wrote it.
And also:"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
I thought of starting a thread on Michael Newdow's lawsuit to have "so help me God" removed from the oath. My take on this is that the reason that the constitution says "swear (or affirm)" is that to swear an oath is to make a religious promise. Specifically a promise to God, or calling on God to verify its truth. If the president wants to swear an oath, then "so help me God" is perfectly acceptable according to the constitution. However, this should be something the president adds on his own, not something that the chief justice asks him, since that would constitute a religious test. That's the only way I can see Newdow's case having any merit.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:The announcer that I saw said that Williams "arranged" the simple gifts piece, not that he wrote it.
Which would have been fine if the arrangement wasn't so crucially similar to Copeland's.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Because the piece is gorgeous.
It's one of my favorite pieces of music.
Also, on the subject of Inauguration Day, five or six of Obama's cabinet members have already been confirmed in the Senate by a simple voice vote, including SecEnergy Chu, SecEd Duncan, SecInterior Salazar, SecHomeSec Nepolitano, and SecAg Vilsack.
I read that a lot of his staffers actually left the inauguration event early to head to the White House as soon as they could to start working on, whatever it is that they had to get cracking on. Rahm Emmanuel ordered a halt to any and all pending Bush regulations that hadn't cleared yet, pending review by the Obama Administration.
Now starts the real wrangling over the unprecedented stimulus bill. They were saying on the news that in 93 when Clinton took office, he wanted a massive stimulus bill that Democrats in Congress balked at and refused to pass. It was less than $20 billion. I've heard anywhere between $600 billion and $1.2 trillion (if you include the other half of the bailout money that Obama will get) for this combined stimulus bill.
I mean, I guess he still has another $4 trillion in deficits to go before he spends what the Republicans did when they were in power.
[ January 21, 2009, 12:55 AM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
On a slightly side note, does anyone know what Scripture he was referencing in his speech? I did a quick search of my NIV and couldn't find anything close, let alone exact, and I'm curious as to where that came from.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think it was Corinthians. *checks* Yes. First Corinthians 13:11.
"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
That would explain it, I was searching for the "the time has come" phrase, and the first thirty something verses were about the time for judgment and wrath. That would... be a little awkward for an inauguration speech.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I loved the musical performance, but agree that the poet...and the poem itself...was a left down.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I would say that the only modern composer who can give John Williams a run for his money is Howard Shore, who wrote the film score for the Peter Jackson-produced Lord of the Rings trilogy. These gentlemen truly know how to speak in the language of emotion. You can have your modernists who scorn melody.
Put down the bong and your handbook of stereotypes and pick up a cd once in a while. Your modernists are long dead.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Orincoro, Sorry if that last post came across as condescending. I know music is your area of expertise. I just disagree with you that John Williams uses musical quotations in a way that differs substantially from the ways in which many great composers have used popular melodies.
Well, I think you're wrong in the sense that this creates a false equivalence. Williams' arrangements and quotations form substantial parts of his works, and they often do not add substantively to the work he is quoting, which makes him an arranger, and not a composer in that respect.
He also doesn't write a substantial part of the music for which he is credited, because he has workshops who do that for him- so he's in some respects a "director" or "producer" of film music. In this case, his use of the shaker tune was far too close to Copland for me to credit this piece as original in the same respect. I have little regard for a composer who takes such an opportunity as this one, and chooses to squander it by reintroducing a musical trope that has been in SO many pieces of music, including his OWN library of works, so many times before.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."
I heard Obama say it's time to put away childish things and I thought, "Ha, that's the line from 'Hackers'"
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Maybe he's implying that Roberts flubbed it on purpose?
Curious idea. Roberts had only one responsibility for the day and he deliberately blew it because he dislikes Obama. So now for generations to come when school children see the video clip of America's first president of African descent taking the oath of office, they will see Roberts flubbing it?
Not many people have that great a desire to go down in history for incompetence.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
That's ridiculous. Roberts messed up. He's not that good an actor that he could have screwed up like that and faked it.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: I thought of starting a thread on Michael Newdow's lawsuit to have "so help me God" removed from the oath. My take on this is that the reason that the constitution says "swear (or affirm)" is that to swear an oath is to make a religious promise. Specifically a promise to God, or calling on God to verify its truth. If the president wants to swear an oath, then "so help me God" is perfectly acceptable according to the constitution. However, this should be something the president adds on his own, not something that the chief justice asks him, since that would constitute a religious test. That's the only way I can see Newdow's case having any merit.
The objection, I believe, was to having the words "So help me God" added to the oath by the Chief Justice as if it were an official part of the oath. And it is not. George Washington added it himself, and I think Newdow would have been fine had President Obama added it himself as well.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Just like "in God we Trust" and "Under God" are inventions of the mid 20th century backdated to the founding of the Republic by people who like to argue for the "traditional" or "christian" nature of the government.
The founders were not deeply religious people. They frankly had more important things to worry about- like staying alive.
Posted by Lissande (Member # 350) on :
About two lines into the poet's reading I got up to make dinner. Couldn't. Handle. Any. More. Staccato.
Also, boring. I did like the music.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Rabbit, perhaps I should add something to what I was thinking about, having given the music a day to settle in my mind.
Part of what makes the shaker quotation tacky and ugly to me is that Williams' material at the beginning (the first two minutes) of the piece is actually really, really promising. He's extremely skilled at finding the right tone to open a piece, but where he often fails, and fails rather spectacularly, is recognizing that simple opening well is not enough, when your passagework (which is what the shaker tune essentially is here) is muddled and unremarkable.
He may be the kind of composer who writes his openings last, which often means that these will be the most richly polished passages of the piece. Other composers have their shining moments somewhere in the middle, and some do endings well- the best do everything well, of course. Williams, when it comes to middles, is just about the worst, in contrast with his obvious talents for openings. As for closings, he's also fairly dismal- but this is probably one of the hardest things about modern composition- you can't learn anything about finishing a piece from Beethoven, because he just kind of ended pieces by slamming the door on them when they were over.
Now, when Williams *does* get into the shaker tune, and you suddenly realize that the material you've been hearing is a foreshadowing of counter-themes he developed when he was writing the middle part, you realize that he MUST have started with the shaker tune, and written his music on top of it, gotten the gist of his own voice for that part, and then extended a beginning out in front of that. A great composer might do that, and then mercifully erase the embarrassing middle part. Brahms did this ALL the time- you can tell, and there have been really interesting breakdowns of his music to see where he had erased the previously supporting skeleton of quotation.
Williams is maybe like a stone sculptor who leaves his work on the saw-horses when he's done... only everyone notices how nice the saw horses are, and they think he's a genius for making such nice saw-horses.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Maybe he's implying that Roberts flubbed it on purpose?
Curious idea. Roberts had only one responsibility for the day and he deliberately blew it because he dislikes Obama. So now for generations to come when school children see the video clip of America's first president of African descent taking the oath of office, they will see Roberts flubbing it?
Not many people have that great a desire to go down in history for incompetence.
To be clear, I was not suggesting that at all.
You asked what Ron might be implying. I provided a possibility.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Anyone know where to find viewing statistics on the inauguration? Both domestic and foreign.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
head-hurty values
ron v. blayne: A music debate: D- inaugural poem: A+
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I would really be surprised if it were to be disclosed that Roberts screwed up the oath of office deliberately. I think it is obvious they were both nervous. I mean--how many people were watching? How historic was the occasion?
Orinoco, I have been a classical music buff since I was a small child. I have shelves and shelves of CDs, mostly classical. I do have some Andrew Lloyd Weber, and a very little Vangelis. But mainly I agree with the guy who said "Music as an intellectual achievement of Western Civilization reached its epitome in Beethoven, and has been steadily declining ever since."
I can "tolerate" other music, but the only music I truly enjoy is music I feel can be truly described as beautiful. You point to a composer who thinks that melody is "bourgeois," or who is preoccupied with "escaping the tyranny of the bar-line," and I will probably dislike his music greatly.
That does not mean I automatically turn thumbs down at syncopation. Brahm's A German Requiem is great, beautiful music (I have sung in a choir that performed it), even though portions do employ syncopation--such as the portion with the words, "The Redeemed of the Lord shall come with rejoicing." The syncopation there comes out sounding rollickingly joyful, the way Brahms employed it.
I was fortunate enough to sing in a fair-sized church choir that had a good, as well as rather ambitious choir director. We also sang Mendlessohn's "Hymn of Praise" from his second symphony, in addition to the usual Handel's Messiah (we did the whole thing, with orchestral accompaniment). But the Brahm's Requiem is what we remember with the greatest pride and satisfaction.
[ January 21, 2009, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
On the other hand, if it'd been Bush, everyone would have been all over it like, "Great, the idiot-in-chief can't even say a simple three sentence oath without tripping over his tongue".
We'll hear such things about Obama 'round about the time that people start making fun of Jimmy Carter for saying "nukyuler".
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: head-hurty values
ron v. blayne: A music debate: D- inaugural poem: A+
Sam V. The World, F+
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
Looks like Obama's hit the ground running. Besides requesting a suspension of all war crimes trials at Guantanamo for 120 days ( MSNBC link), Obama has froze salaries of White House staff making over $100,000 per year ( MSNBC link):
quote: ... [Obama] froze salaries for top White House staff members, placed phone calls to Mideast leaders and had aides circulate a draft executive order that would close the detention center at Guantanamo Bay within a year...
The pay freeze affects the roughly 100 White House employees who make more than $100,000 a year. "Families are tightening their belts, and so should Washington," Obama said.
I haven't followed previous administrations closely enough to compare Obama's to, but it does seem as if he's making some quick decisions even before everyone's in place. I certainly don't remember so much attention focused on a new President as he takes office and begins his term before. I expect to see a lot more happening over the next few days and weeks that ought to really stimulate the national dialog, if not the economy.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, what did Bush do after all? He went to the balls and services, and then flew to Texas to do yard work. Slight exaggeration- but actually not THAT much of one.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:He also announced a change in policy that will require each federal agency and department to give full attention to freedom of information requests and said he expects members of his administration to be responsive to such pleas.
"There is too much secrecy in this city. Every agency should know … this administration stands on the side of those who seek to make information known."
"Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this administration," Obama said.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: about the time that people start making fun of Jimmy Carter for saying "nukyuler".
I've been hearing that for years. When anyone bothers to talk about him at all.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
He's also made every day in the Oval Office casual day but overturning a Bush rule that mandated suit coats in the Oval.
No joke.
Clinton was confirmed today, 98-2.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
That is TOO funny!!!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
After all, he had to be sure he was yotzei. Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: After all, he had to be sure he was yotzei.
I was JUST thinking that. We had a all debate in the beit medrash about it...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Naturally.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Architraz Warden:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: ...an event planner who has the opportunity to choose something original by the same artist (if such material exists), and chooses not to.
You might be on to something, 'Imperial March' would have been a spectacularly more entertaining selection.
No, I was thinking of "Cantina Band."
Parade of the Ewoks.
I mean, duh.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: head-hurty values
ron v. blayne: A music debate: D- inaugural poem: A+
Sam V. The World, F+
By getting the + amended to the F, it means that I have at least made some people's heads hurt.
And I guess I can and should live with that.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
The rest of us have to.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
As long as we're discussing the first 100 days, has anyone taken a look at his two executive orders?
The first covers presidential records, while the second is regarding ethics obligations for political appointees with an emphasis on interactions with lobbyists.
My first impression is fairly positive, but I don't really have much context for understanding them fully. I'd love to hear someone more familiar with this sort of thing weigh in on them.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
He also ordered a freeze on all White House salaries over $100K. No raises for the staff this year.
PS. I love the new whitehouse.gov. I don't recall it being that easy to find executive orders under Bush, and in general I think it's a lot more user friendly.
I scanned over the Ethics Agreement order and it looks cool. I'm not sure what the precedent here is, in that, I'm not sure how current ethics laws cover Executive branch officials and in what way this XO is an increase in the level of severity of the law or not.
Regardless of how it compares to the laws on the books, it looks like a good measure. Dagonee could probably offer a far more in depth look, or at least put it in context a lot more easily. But it looks to me like he's going after kickbacks. No gifts from lobbyists, no steering dollars towards certain companies, and you aren't even allowed to be a lobbyist for anyone you've done business until after you're out of your position for two years, and even then, you aren't allowed to come back and lobby the Obama Administration in any official capacity.
I'm not sure how well this would cover the spectrum of graft that already exists out there, but it looks like it's trying to take a good bite out of it at least. Context is everything, and I'd love to know more about current ethics legislation and how effective anyone might expect this XO to be, but the spirit is nice anyway.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Obama and Roberts redo the oath just to make sure.
quote:Yesterday, Mr Obama joked with reporters about wanting to do it again. 'We decided, you know, that it was so much fun!' he said.
Then Mr Roberts asked him if he was ready to take the oath. 'I am. We're going to do it very slowly,' Mr Obama said.
If it weren't true, this could have been in The Onion.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:If it weren't true, this could have been in The Onion.
I'm a little disappointed that the time-line isn't faster but for now I'm willing to accept this as reasonable given the legal and administrative hurdles involved. If we don't see significant progress towards closing these prisons within the next few months or the 1 year deadline gets pushed back, this will seem more and more like posturing than real change. For now at least, I'm cautiously optimistic
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I missed it by that much. Its not really fair as my electrons had to travel all the way from the tropics and Strider is . . .
well actually I have no idea where Strider is but electrons are notoriously slow crossing through the Caribbean. They are just too drawn in by the don't worry, be happy culture and frequently stop to lime on a beach or flirt with the girls. I really didn't have a chance.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
You typed more words than me and shared more of your own thoughts. Sometimes it pays to be brief. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Wonder if he'll do anything about the practice of extraordinary rendition.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Obama has issued an executive order closing Gitmo and all the CIAs secret prisons within a year.
I'm a little disappointed that the time-line isn't faster but for now I'm willing to accept this as reasonable given the legal and administrative hurdles involved. If we don't see significant progress towards closing these prisons within the next few months or the 1 year deadline gets pushed back, this will seem more and more like posturing than real change. For now at least, I'm cautiously optimistic
My god.
This is like being given a backrub by the news.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: You typed more words than me and shared more of your own thoughts. Sometimes it pays to be brief.
That's right, blame the victim.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Hmmm, CIA secret prisons. I wonder if we get to know where they were after they're safely closed.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Strider: You typed more words than me and shared more of your own thoughts. Sometimes it pays to be brief.
That's right, blame the victim.
you're not the victim, you're the loser. important distinction. Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Kmboots, were you referring to me? I have no problem if Obama did a private repeat of taking the oath of office. I am glad he showed enough respect for the Constitution to do that, since the exact words are specified in the Constitution. So long as he did not swear on the Koran or something, who cares?
Too bad the whole Inauguration couldn't have been done in private, to save the country 160 million dollars for the biggest security challenge in history.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I was just teasing you, Ron. Though it is fine with me if someone takes the oath on the Koran if that has meaning for them.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Too bad the whole Inauguration couldn't have been done in private, to save the country 160 million dollars for the biggest security challenge in history.
You do realize that the $160 million dollar number is fraudulent?
Neither the security nor the parties associated with this inauguration were significanlty greater than what was spent for Bush's inauguration in 2005. Based on the best estimates I've seen, after adjusting for inflation the security for Obama's inauguration was actually less than the security for Bush's last inauguration.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:So long as he did not swear on the Koran or something, who cares?
He could've sworn in on a where's waldo book, it doesn't matter. He also doesn't have to say "so help me god" afterwords, that's his prerogative too.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:So long as he did not swear on the Koran or something, who cares?
Why would you care is he swore the oath on the Koran? What do you see as wrong about that?
Now if he'd sworn the oath on a copy of Dianetics or Atlas Shrugged, I'd find it cause for concern, not constitutional concern just personally worrying.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Wouldn't it be awesome if he swore the oath on something like Speaker for the Dead? Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance would be pretty awesome.
I'd be terrified if he used something like Twilight or The Davinci Code.
Now, what would *really* be amusing is if he swore the oath on a copy of Audacity of Hope.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Now, what would *really* be amusing is if he swore the oath on a copy of Audacity of Hope
Well it would definitely add fuel to the "Messiah complex" fire, if you find that kind of thing "amusing".
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
So, in other words, you believe that it would be seen as audacious?
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I hope he would
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Out of curiosity, if anyone here was sworn in, what would you be sworn in on?
I'd probably be sworn in on either a copy of the Constitution or the bill of rights. Or maybe just a book of US laws. JQA had it right.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: Now, what would *really* be amusing is if he swore the oath on a copy of Audacity of Hope.
:: laugh ::
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'd probably be sworn in on either a copy of the Constitution or the bill of rights. Or maybe just a book of US laws. JQA had it right.
Yep, Constitution for me too.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I'd be sworn in without my hand on any book. One's word should be valid regardless of where ones hand is when one makes it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: So, in other words, you believe that it would be seen as audacious?
But perhaps beyond hope.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The issue is that after being accused of being a closet Muslim, Barack Obama swore up and down he was not Muslim, but has been a Christian for decades. I understand that there was a Congressman a while back who did take his oath of office on a Koran. No big deal, as long as his constituents knew up front what they were voting for.
By the way, Rabbit, I don't see Islam as being any better than Dianetics. They are both religions I suspect of being dangerous to humanity.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Islam is a religion which over a billion human beings find to be deeply meaningful. Over its history, Islam has had no greater tendency to violence and intolerance than Christianity.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
In the interests of unity and peace, I'd like to declare that I agree with both of the previous two posts fully.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Out of curiosity, if anyone here was sworn in, what would you be sworn in on?
I'd probably be sworn in on either a copy of the Constitution or the bill of rights. Or maybe just a book of US laws. JQA had it right.
I don't really care what it is. As long as it's huuuuuuuuuuuge. Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Islam is a religion which over a billion human beings find to be deeply meaningful. Over its history, Islam has had no greater tendency to violence and intolerance than Christianity.
Yes, but most of Christianity has grown out of the pogroms and urge to genocide. Islam has yet to do so. There's a difference.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I'd be sworn in without my hand on any book. One's word should be valid regardless of where ones hand is when one makes it.
It's a miracle. I agree with the Rabbit about something.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Out of curiosity, if anyone here was sworn in, what would you be sworn in on?
I'd probably be sworn in on either a copy of the Constitution or the bill of rights. Or maybe just a book of US laws. JQA had it right.
I don't really care what it is. As long as it's huuuuuuuuuuuge.
I believe Colbert called it, "The Hogwarts' Book of Spells."
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Islam is a religion which over a billion human beings find to be deeply meaningful. Over its history, Islam has had no greater tendency to violence and intolerance than Christianity.
Yes, but most of Christianity has grown out of the pogroms and urge to genocide. Islam has yet to do so. There's a difference.
1) If memory serves, the Hutu are predominantly Christian. Or do you mean genocide in the name of a religion?
2)I assume your remarks stem from the recent history of Israel and the Middle East etc. and remarks such as those made by Ahmadinejad. I think it is a bit disingenuous to suggest that this conflict is fundamentally religious in nature: it is fundamentally about territory. It is convenient for leaders to occasionally frame it as a religious conflict to gain popular support, hence the rhetoric. Had the Jewish state been set up in Germany, do you think there would be tension between Islam and Judaism?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Yes, but most of Christianity has grown out of the pogroms and urge to genocide. Islam has yet to do so. There's a difference.
Ireland?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:One's word should be valid regardless of where ones hand is when one makes it.
This I promise to you: when the people of this great country finally elect me to lead them into a new and altogether shinier future, I will take my oath of office with one hand down my pants.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Front or back?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
natural_mystic and The Rabbit, you might find this link useful: link.
I'm so glad I could help.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Most of Islam isn't interested in pogrom and genocide either, Lisa.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
Fair enough; so do you accept ''most of Christianity and most of Islam have grown out of the pogroms and the urge to genocide''?
And you didn't address my second point.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Most of Islam isn't interested in pogrom and genocide either, Lisa.
QFT
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
Yes, but most of Christianity has grown out of the pogroms and urge to genocide. Islam has yet to do so. There's a difference.
I can't think of a kinder way to respond to this other than to say it is bigoted statement, pure and simple. Both religions still have their share of bloodiness, and those elements are pretty obviously divided by geo-political climate.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: The first executive order requires the closure of the Guantanamo facility within one year, but the new administration still doesn't know what to do with the roughly 245 detainees there, nor with suspected terrorists detained in the future. Those are questions that will be "reviewed."
A second order establishes a special task force co-chaired by the attorney general and the secretary of defense to come up with some options. Some House Republicans were quick to weigh in, introducing legislation Thursday that would bar Guantanamo detainees from coming into the United States.
The third order would put an end to the "coercive" interrogation techniques used by the CIA in recent years to get information from high-value detainees. One of those techniques, waterboarding, has already been categorized as torture by Obama's pick for attorney general, Eric Holder. That and other so-called "enhanced" interrogation techniques will be off-limits, though Obama had some trouble making himself clear on this point.
I don't think Obama had any trouble making himself clear as the next paragraph states
quote: "Anybody detained by the Untied States, for now, is going to be ... any interrogations taking place are going to have to abide by the Army Field Manual," he said.
The key words here may be "for now."
Obama is apparently leaving the door open to some techniques not outlined in the Army manual. The interrogation order sets up a task force to evaluate whether the interrogation "practices and techniques" in the Army manual provide an "appropriate means of acquiring the intelligence necessary to protect the nation."
I can't find the transcript of it yet but I also heard that Obama's XO closing secret overseas prisons was useless as the secret overseas prisons were already closed.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
DK, that's not a convincing reading you've given. The "for now" could be in reference to the detainees being detained "for now." The "for now" is ambiguous, and probably not some sort of slick-willy out that gives Obama permission to do whatever. He doesn't want people to be tortured. Simple.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
O, If you listen to the audio of the program it certainly did sound more convincing. I don't know if it is up yet or not but it is worth listening to and would be very consistent with Obama's words vs his actions.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I also heard that Obama's XO closing secret overseas prisons was useless as the secret overseas prisons were already closed.
So, um, how would we know whether the secret prisons were closed? Because, y'know, they're secret prisons. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
A timely documentary on Guantanamo link Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I also heard that Obama's XO closing secret overseas prisons was useless as the secret overseas prisons were already closed.
So, um, how would we know whether the secret prisons were closed? Because, y'know, they're secret prisons.
Well, they were never open in the first place. :waves hand: These aren't the prisons you're looking for.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
These aren't the prisons we're looking for.
Move along, move along.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: So, um, how would we know whether the secret prisons were closed? Because, y'know, they're secret prisons.
Um, we would know the same way we knew we had secret prisons in the first place....unless you are suggesting that the media is going to coverup all the illegal moves President Obama makes? Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
See, would you mind waiting a little more than 48 hours before you start talking about Obama's illegal moves? Please? I mean, for the sake of your own credibility, give the guy 100 days to start to resolve some of these issues. He's inherited a government in crisis, with a thousand skeletons in the closet, and a lot of people still at their posts with guilty looks on their faces. He has to do things the best way possible for all of us, and that won't be easy. No matter how he plays it, the dominoes are in place, and people are going to get hurt.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
My response is a response to TD and his comment
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: Fair enough; so do you accept ''most of Christianity and most of Islam have grown out of the pogroms and the urge to genocide''?
And you didn't address my second point.
No, I do not accept that. I think that most of Islam is still in the dark ages. And that's an understatement.
Your second point is wrong. It's not about territory. It's about the very existence of a Jewish political entity in the middle east. The Arabs and Muslims will never accept this.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
"The Arabs and Muslims will never accept this."
So your solution is genocide then? Since they will "never" accept you? So much faith you have in people. So righteous is your cause.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: Fair enough; so do you accept ''most of Christianity and most of Islam have grown out of the pogroms and the urge to genocide''?
And you didn't address my second point.
No, I do not accept that. I think that most of Islam is still in the dark ages. And that's an understatement.
Your second point is wrong. It's not about territory. It's about the very existence of a Jewish political entity in the middle east. The Arabs and Muslims will never accept this.
On the first point we might have to agree to disagree. I do, however, think that when a person makes that sort of claim the onus is on that person to provide an argument or evidence in support of that claim. In particular, justifying the 'most'.
For the second point, you acknowledge the relevance of 'in the Middle East'. Do you think that there would have been no conflict if a 'Native American homeland' had been set up in Israel instead of a Jewish state?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Most of Islam isn't interested in pogrom and genocide.
This is a rather crude measure, but...
I took the top 38 countries by Muslim population (source:Demographics of Islam wiki) - all countries with a population of Muslims higher than 5 million. Total Muslim count: 1.386 billion out of an estimated 1.46 billion total world-wide Muslim population.
I then added together the Muslim population of all of the countries where a U.S. Department of State Travel Warning is in existence - where travel warnings serve as a proxy for countries where large-scale violence is a possible thing. These countries (from the 38 countries list) are Pakistan, Iran, Nigeria, Algeria, Afghanistan, Sudan, Iraq, Saudia Arabia, Uzbekistan, Yemen, Syria, Ivory Coast, Somalia, and Kenya. Their total Muslim population is roughly 530,300,000.
Dividing the two gives us a number of roughly 38.3% - which could be considered the percentage of Muslims living in countries where wide-spread violence is a possibility.
Two points: While this is obviously a really crude measure, I think, if anything, it grossly overstates the number of Muslims who support genocide & the like, since there's no evidence that most Muslims in a country with a travel warning actually support the violence that's occurring (or potentially occurring) in their country.
There's also a possibility that the proxy under reports the problem, since you could have places like Russia & France where the Muslim population is not high enough to cause a dangerous situation (and thus no travel warning) although they may (or may not) support the idea of genocide, etc. However I'd be incredibly surprised if this factor was large enough to overwhelm the first problem of counting too many Muslims. And the countries where you have these low percentages of Muslims don't have large total populations of Muslims, except for China at 39 million. The next possible candidate is the US, actually.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't suppose I could prevail on those participating in the Israel/Palestine vein of discussion in this thread to relocate their discussion to a lovely and very adjacent thread that is specifically tasked for just such a conversation. Please.
DK -
Do you have a link that talks about the closing of the secret CIA prisons? And I have to ask, you said something about it being consistent with Obama's words versus his actions. To what are you referring? He's been president less than a week. What campaign promises and vows has he already violated that give him a reputation on words versus actions, or are you referring to his Senate record, and if so, what specifically?
Don't get me wrong, there are things in his Senate voting record that I have problems with as well, but, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a single senator, or even politician, that didn't either change his mind or back off a campaign promise or once stated position.
Obama's predecessor is a shining example of just such an action.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: ... Do you think that there would have been no conflict if a 'Native American homeland' had been set up in Israel instead of a Jewish state?
Well, no.
Because I think that native Americans would have the good sense to leave.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Lyrhawn - About the secret CIA prisons, I heard it on NPR today about 730ish, Fresh Air I believe. I don't have a link for it yet, I think it goes up around 3? For words vs actions, using public money, Patriot Act, Defense of Marriage Act, gays in the military, death penalty, gun control, no lobbyists in his White House to name a few. There is a long time between now and July 1st when I think the pay raises would happen so I wonder if the freeze will be lifted by then too.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Leadership: Will now scale properly to national crises. Intelligence was not being properly applied.
A bug has been fixed that allowed the President to ignore the effects of debuffs applied by the Legislative classes.
Drain Treasury: There appears to be a bug that allowed loot to be transferred from the treasury to anyone on the President’s friends list, or in the President’s party. We are investigating.
Messages to and from the President will now be correctly saved to the chat log.
Messages originating from the President were being misclassified as originating from The American People.
A rendering error that frequently caused the President to appear wrapped in the American Flag texture has been addressed.
Vice President
The Vice President has been correctly reclassified as a pet.
No longer immune to damage from the Legislative and Judicial classes.
The Vice President will no longer aggro on friendly targets. This bug was identified with Ranged Attacks and the Head Shot ability.
Reveal Identity: this debuff will no longer be able to target Covert Operatives.
Messages to and from the Vice President will now be correctly saved to the chat log.
A rendering bug was affecting the Vice President’s visibility, making him virtually invisible to the rest of the server. This has been addressed.
Cabinet
There was a bug in the last release that prevented the Cabinet from disagreeing with the President, which was the cause of a number of serious balance issues. This bug has been addressed, and we will continue to monitor the situation.
Judiciary
Many concerns have been raised regarding balance issues in the Supreme Court. This system is maintained on a different patch schedule, and will require longer to address.
A large number of NPCs in the Judiciary were incorrectly flagged "ideological." We are trying to identify these cases and rectify this situation.
Homeland Security
Homeland Security Advisory System: We have identified a bug in this system that prevents the threat level from dropping below Elevated (Yellow). The code for Guarded (Blue) and Low (Green) has been commented out. We are testing the fix and hope to have it in by the next patch.
Torture: This debuff is being removed after a record number of complaints.
Item: Large Bottle of Water is incorrectly generating threat with TSA Agents when held in inventory. We are looking into the issue.
Asking questions about Homeland Security was incorrectly triggering the Chain-Jingoism debuff.
Economy
Serious on-going issues with server economy are still being addressed. We expect further roll-backs, and appreciate your help identifying and fixing bugs. We can’t make these fixes without your help.
PVP
Reputation with various factions are being rebalanced. The gradated reputation scale was erroneously being overwritten by the binary For Us/ Against Us flag.
Quests
The” Desert Storm” quest chain was displaying an erroneous "Mission Accomplished" message near the beginning of the chain.
The quest chain that begins with “There’s no Cake like Yellow Cake” and terminates with “W-M-Denied” has been identified as uncompletable, and has been removed.
Reagents
Many recipes that currently call for Crude Oil can now be made with Wind, Solar, Geothermal and Ethanol reagents. We hope to roll out even more sweeping changes in the next patch.
Events
The “Axis of Evil” event is drawing to a close. Look forward to the “Rebuilding Bridges” event starting in January.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I don't agree with it all, but Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Good stuff. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I don't agree with it all, but
Ditto.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Samprimary, are you the original author of that? If so, do you mind if I spread it around in appropriate channels?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
A few things have struck me today:
- Geithner's "strong dollar" commitment and his calling China out (and using Obama's name to do so) for artificially manipulating the value of the yuan. I wonder what Jhai or fugu's take on it is, but to me it seems to signal a significantly more antagonistic approach to China. While I think China's economic policy has been pretty cut-throat, I don't know what impact calling them out this way will have.
- Obama maintaining the status quo with relation to Hamas and Palestine. All aid to Gaza must go through Abbas, and Hamas will not be recognized until they meet the three preconditions set back in 2006. This article has a lot of (negative) reaction from Palestinian supporters. One professor called it "sprinkling sulphuric acid on the wounds of the children in Gaza."
China's pegging of the yuan has naturally meant that it's manipulating its currency. I don't have a lot of time today, and I haven't yet seen Geithner's remarks, but this Economist article has a pretty good overview on the matter.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Ireland and Switzerland [according to the CBC] have offered to hold Guantanamo prisoners awaiting trial.
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Geithner's "strong dollar" commitment and his calling China out (and using Obama's name to do so) for artificially manipulating the value of the yuan. ...
Haven't seen any reaction on the China-focused news sites and blogs that I normally visit. I'll update if I see any.
However, theoretically shouldn't that be a "weak dollar" commitment since Chinese manipulation of the CNY actually makes the USD look stronger than it should be? (i.e. the removal of that manipulation should make the dollar weaker rather than stronger)
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: However, theoretically shouldn't that be a "weak dollar" commitment since Chinese manipulation of the CNY actually makes the USD look stronger than it should be? (i.e. the removal of that manipulation should make the dollar weaker rather than stronger)
I can give my impression, but I don't understand the underlying economic principles very well at all.
I believe that the point is that, starting in 2002, Bush let the dollar weaken to compensate for the artificially weakened yuan, and thus counterbalance the trade deficit. By saying we believe in a "strong dollar," Geithner implies that we will no longer do that. This would then be bad for our trade deficit (but good for the consumer buying cheap Chinese products) unless we can get China to stop their pegging of the yuan. Which, as far as I can tell, is not in their self-interest. So Geithner, by calling attention to the manipulation, seems to be attempting to pressure China to "do the right thing" (quotes intended to convey an imprecise colloquialism, and not a quote from Geithner's testimony) even though it doesn't seem to be in their self-interest.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
For anyone who wants to resurrect the "simple gifts" controversy.
I guess I missed my opportunity to expound on what an amazing feat it was to play in sub-freezing temperatures and actually be in tune.
SenojRetep : Hmmm, in what sense did Bush let the dollar weaken and in what sense would Geithner stop letting it?
I seriously don't know the American POV on this but I don't understand how the US could interfere with relative exchange rates between countries, either letting the US dollar weaken or strengthen.
In fact, as a non-economist, I'd like to ask, with floating currencies in general what options do countries have aside from engaging in currency manipulation (i.e. buying and selling currency in return) or playing with interest rates (raising them sharply to encourage deflation or dropping them to encourage inflation)?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Deosn't China let its currency float now for the last 4 years or so by a small amount each year?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Depends.
AFAIK the Chinese Yuan has a floating exchange rate based on a basket of currencies including the USD and Euro, but also including currencies like the Canadian dollar. There is a cap on maximum movement per year but in effect this has meant that the RMB has appreciated 21% since 2005. As so http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123266930430108055.html
On the other hand, the Hong Kong dollar has always been pegged to the USD and I haven't heard of any planned changes to that policy which was put in place by the British.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: For anyone who wants to resurrect the "simple gifts" controversy.
I guess I missed my opportunity to expound on what an amazing feat it was to play in sub-freezing temperatures and actually be in tune.
The mix really should have rung more alarm bells for me than it did- but this is pretty standard practice for such a large scale performance.
You actually *can* play in tune at a low temperature, but doing so requires a lot of preparation, and even then it is really not worth risking the damage to your instrument. The instruments they were playing were probably not their finest.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote: I think that most of Islam is still in the dark ages. And that's an understatement.
Well, since you quoted the definition of most to others, then you know that to prove your thesis, you are going to need numbers. Would you like to quote any to support this claim? I would certainly listen to the numbers you quote Lisa, and so I eagerly await that proof.
In lieu of numbers, whether it be most or less I'm not really interested, I just wanted to posit just how I think Islam works in the Middle East. In the Presidency thread, I argued that the most important divide in the Middle East is the divide between extremist and moderate Islam, it is a divide that spans the entirety of the Middle East and reaches all corners of the globe, and it is a more important divide than even, I believe, Shia and Sunni. Iran would be the perfect example to employ here because Iran is run by both the extremist elements in the Shah's and the moderate forces in the country that yearn for modernization and freedom. In some sense, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad represents the divide as well, for he is a politician that was much more moderate than he is today because he has been forced to the extreme by the extreme elements in Iran (though there is question whether he was driven there or whether that is his true self). The thing that is clear about the Middle East, I believe, is that the regimes of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, Yemen, and Kuwait, for instance, are starkly different governments than the regime in Iran. In these countries, modern and moderate voices are much more powerful than the extremism of their own country, though there are clearly extreme elements those countries must deal with in the political sphere.
The divide between extremism and modernism is one that we see in the histories and evolution of most, if not all, modern religions. The battle in Islam today consists of those extreme voices who advocate the destruction of Israel and the return of all Muslims to fundamental Islam and of those moderate voices who advocate some kind of relationship both with the west (including Israel) and with the modern world. Of course, there are other voices in the Middle East but I believe those are the most important for the situation we speak of now. What I find most interesting is the common ground that Islam in the Middle East shares with parts of Christianity and the religious right in the United States. If we think about what divides us, the culture wars or the debates between the status quo and the fundamentals of religion, then I think a parallel exists between the extremists in our country and the extremists in Islam. Now obviously the tools each employ are much different and the argument is clear that one does not kill innocent people while the other does, but when we think about the terrorism of extreme Islam and the politics of the extreme religious right, one can see a definite parallel. Essentially, both seek the same thing, power and the ability to either keep the status quo or return to the fundamentals of their chosen religion, and while one uses politics and the other terrorism, they both seek to use fear-mongering to achieve their goals.
I do feel like it's important to re-state that I'm not saying that the religious right or some in Christianity or those in extreme American politics (both liberal and conservative) are as audacious as to kill innocent people, in fact I guarantee that most would speak out strongly against violence and have even done so in the past, but I am saying that the divides in our country have something in common with the divides that the Middle East faces. For instance, the culture wars in America can be seen as a battle between liberal and conservative, Christian and not, and the battles of Islam can be summed the same way. Furthermore, that analogy provides important insight about Islam and the divides they face, for they aren't as ancient or stuck in the dark ages as we would believe. In fact, we have more in common with them than either of us seem to realize, and thus, I think Islam's problems are part of a grander problem that the world faces. Islam faces a fight between the status quo and modernity, it faces a fight between dogmatism and moderate views of both religion and politics, between the cultures of the west and their own culture, but more than anything else, it faces a fight for it's own soul, so to speak. As does the rest of the world.
And the best thing that we can do, as people, is to understand that we cannot define Christianity or Islam or the Middle East or the rest of the world by it's worst or most extreme elements. These are modern problems that need modern solutions, the conflict between Israel and the rest of the Middle East rests on the idea that we should accept that the worst of Islam is *not* Islam, the worst of the Middle East is *not* the Middle East, and the worst of Israel is *not* Israel. I think we have become so jaded and so skeptical of the human condition that the failure of the Middle East is not with Israel or Palestine, but with those who seek to mediate the crisis. We accept that Israel consists of barbaric killers who murder and subjugate innocent Palestinians, and we accept that Islam and the Arabs of The Middle East will never accept the existence of Israel and that they must be stuck in Dark Age thinking. And we accept the same things about ourselves, as if the worst of America or Christianity or the rest of the world could truly define who we are as human beings. In all actuality, their fight is our fight and they are no more stuck in the dark ages than you or I.
My two cents of course...
[ January 24, 2009, 05:01 AM: Message edited by: Humean316 ]
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
Whenever I try to recall the four of them playing for the inauguration I think of Final Countdown done by cellos. I would have enjoyed that much more than the odd rendition of Simple Gifts that they did.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It DOES look a little strange. The day after he signs an XO for tough new rules on lobbyists in government he asks for a waiver for a top lobbyist at a major defense contractor for an important post in the Defense Department?
I'm sometimes willing to give the benefit of the doubt when it comes to lobbyists, because I think a lot of them know their stuff very, very well. Gates pushed hard to get him, and I think Secretaries should have some meaningful say in the names of their deputies. That's why I didn't bat an eye at the provision in the XO that allowed for a waiver if it was in the public's interest. Lobbyists aren't generally acting in the best interests of the public when they are lobbyists, but they DO know their material, as such, a lot of them could be considered a corps of professionals in specific fields.
The timing is awkward, and if he has to recuse himself from any issue dealing with Raytheon, that's going to be a major hindrance to the performance of his duties. And if he doesn't recuse himself, than any decision he makes with regards to them will be suspect, especially if he goes right back to working for them when he gets out of the Defense Department.
Republicans, like John McCain already, are going to rail against it as Obama betraying both his campaign rhetoric and the ideals of his recently signed XO, and they'll call it hypocritical. Democrats will hem and haw because they don't have any particular loyalty to Obama at the moment and they love self destruction. Carl Levin (D-MI) is already saying that he has a lot of questions he wants answered before he okays the nomination moving up to the full senate. He's Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, where this appointment will have to pass first.
So, is this troubling, or overblown?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I don't think Obama could have first appointed William Lynn III and then established lobbyist restrictions. I understand that few if any laws are perfect, and so I hope that if Obama is allowed the benefit of the doubt this time, that exceptions will remain few and far between.
It's potentially troubling, but I really think it's just a case of poor timing.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I've been wondering: does anyone know if there's an official "Obama Watch" website that intends to keep track of his various promises and how well he keeps them?
That's something I felt would have been particularly awesome for the new whitehouse.gov to have on its own. They list a bunch of agendas he intends to pursue. Having a checkoff list, so you could sit down and look at how much the president has accomplished at the end would be a neat tradition to start. (Yeah, given the range of the definition of "successful" ["Mission Accomplished!"] I know it wouldn't ACTUALLY be practical, but I can dream)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Official? No. But will there be sites detailing his supposed failures and broken promises?
I'd be shocked beyond all possible belief if they didn't already exist.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I haven't done more than skim it, but this site seems to do what you're talking about.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
That's perfect. Thanks.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Lyrhawn, for Obama's words of "No Lobbyists" vs his actions of hiring lobbyists is an easy one to side step. Obama changed his campaign rhetoric to be lobbyists won't 'run' his White House, not that he wouldn't have any on his staff. Plus he wrote a waiver into the Ethics reform so he can do anything he wants and not violate it.
quote: Sec. 3. Waiver. (a) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget, or his or her designee, in consultation with the Counsel to the President or his or her designee, may grant to any current or former appointee a written waiver of any restrictions contained in the pledge signed by such appointee if, and to the extent that, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, or his or her designee, certifies in writing (i) that the literal application of the restriction is inconsistent with the purposes of the restriction, or (ii) that it is in the public interest to grant the waiver. A waiver shall take effect when the certification is signed by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget or his or her designee.
(b) The public interest shall include, but not be limited to, exigent circumstances relating to national security or to the economy. De minimis contact with an executive agency shall be cause for a waiver of the restrictions contained in paragraph 3 of the pledge.
quote: The memorandum reverses the "Mexico City policy," initiated by President Reagan in 1984, canceled by President Clinton and reinstated by President George W. Bush in 2001.
quote: The group Population Action International praised Obama's move, saying in a statement that it will "save women's lives around the world."
"Family planning should not be a political issue; it's about basic health care and well-being for women and children," the group said.
"Women's health has been severely impacted by the cutoff of assistance. President Obama's actions will help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, abortions and women dying from high-risk pregnancies because they don't have access to family planning."
Republican lawmakers were critical of the new president's action.
"Not even waiting a week, the new administration has acted to funnel U.S. tax dollars to abortion providers overseas," Rep. Tom Price, R-Georgia, said in a written statement.
"This is a stunning reversal of course from the president's campaign statements that he hoped to reduce the number of abortions. Just a day after thousands of Americans came to Washington to celebrate the principle of life, President Obama has made it clear that reducing abortions is not one of his priorities."
In his statement, however, Obama said he had directed his staff "to reach out to those on all sides of this issue to achieve the goal of reducing unintended pregnancies."
"They will also work to promote safe motherhood, reduce maternal and infant mortality rates and increase educational and economic opportunities for women and girls."
The president added that he looked forward to "working with Congress to restore U.S. financial support for the U.N. Population Fund."
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
"This is a stunning reversal of course from the president's campaign statements that he hoped to reduce the number of abortions. Just a day after thousands of Americans came to Washington to celebrate the principle of life, President Obama has made it clear that reducing abortions is not one of his priorities."
What an amazing misunderstanding of Obama's position.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm sure many of you have heard me talk about this before. California asked for a waiver some time ago to raise emissions standards for the state, as they have done several times before, but Bush ordered the EPA to block the waiver. Obama has directed them to give the waiver, which will allow California, (and a consortium of another dozen states who have declared their intention to join with California) to set their own tailpipe emissions and fuel efficiency standards. Given California's driving population and the mechanics involved, and the states that would join in, they'd likely be setting a de facto national standard (as has often been the story in the past).
Car companies argue against the difficulty in doing such a thing. Republicans (by and large, but also many Democrats from car producing states, except Republicans from the south of course) are saying this is the worst time to do such a thing, as it would further cripple an already ailing domestic industry. But domestic auto companies are already ramping up their production of more fuel efficient cars, and it's the biggest tag line on their infrequent ads these days. They're already pushing to increase their standards, not because of state or federal regulation, but because of market conditions and consumer demand.
I'm a little surprised that he got to this so quickly, but it's welcome news to the environmental community.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'm a little surprised that he got to this so quickly, but it's welcome news to the environmental community.
This is welcome news to my ears. I don't claim any special economic or environmental knowledge to support my stance on the issue (I just read a lot), but I think pushing environmental change policies will be a better stimulus to the economy than any of the plans I've seen on the table thus far. I could be wrong... But I think a new approach to our energy and infrastructure will create an employment and educational boom that could ultimately lift us out of this current economic crises.
Without being pushed into that direction, however, I don't think most private industry will make changes on their own accord. Restructuring is just too costly (whether in real dollars or perceived loss) to even be considered. Sure, there's plenty of talk, but I think that's mostly all there is at this point.
I think it's hard for mid - large companies to adapt easily, but as technology, regulation and infrastructure changes we could see the next "sector" boom that will lead the way for the half-century.
In other words, instead of another band-aid, what our economy needs is a transplant. I think this is a good sign.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
In the same article Obama also directed car companies to raise their fuel efficiency standards as well. I suspect if gas prices can stay under $2 a gallon demand for SUVs will rise again.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I'm a little surprised that he got to this so quickly, but it's welcome news to the environmental community. "
It seems that a lot of what Obama has been doing in his first week is undoing a lot of the really stupid crap that Bush did. This fits into that category.
I'm waiting anxiously for the directive to the IRS to go back to their old audit pattern rather then the bush directed audit pattern which has cost us about 200 billion in tax revenue per year.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: But I think a new approach to our energy and infrastructure will create an employment and educational boom that could ultimately lift us out of this current economic crises.
I think once we start to heavily invest in green energy that will be the newest boom as well...like the BOOM in hi-tech a few years ago, and the recent BOOM in the housing market.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
If I understand it correctly, one thing I really think is a bad idea for emission standards is that they set a average that a fleet needs to match. That is, all the vehicles that a company sells have to average out to XX mph.
That seems like such a strange way of doing things. I can see setting standards for each level of vehicle, but an average across the entire fleet just seems very stupid to me.
The car companies shouldn't be responsible for what the market wants. If people love brand X trucks, they shouldn't have to really push the super-efficient tiny cars. I'd much rather have them focus on increasing the fuel efficiency of the trucks that people are buying.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: But I think a new approach to our energy and infrastructure will create an employment and educational boom that could ultimately lift us out of this current economic crises.
I think once we start to heavily invest in green energy that will be the newest boom as well...like the BOOM in hi-tech a few years ago, and the recent BOOM in the housing market.
Heh... I thought someone would have fun with that.
As I said, I could be wrong. But I think with some regulations put in place and a plan that addresses our society and economy as a whole, a change in perspective akin to the industrial revolution would be possible. "Green" energy and products would be a major player in this.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Juxtapose, how was Obama's position not accurately represented? He did say (during the campaign) that he would like to see fewer abortions. Is it not reasonable then to ask how he expects to encourage that if he reverses a previous policy that did not allow government funds for family planning clinics that included abortion counselling?
Another interesting point is that this extra money that will now be sent to abortion clinics comes from what he calls his "economic stimulus package." How is this going to stimulate the economy? I heard one liberal spokesman try to answer this by saying that it would be beneficial to the economy if fewer people were born. Hearing that, a conservative fired back, "Where are we going next--euthanasia for the elderly?"
Face it folks--when you vote a person with an extreme liberal position and voting record into office, this is part of the package. Whether a candidate is liberal or conservative or moderate, does matter. If you voted for Obama because you liked him and you thought it would be great for an African American to become president, so much so that you ignored all the seriously troubling reports offered by those who did try to vet him in terms of his past associations and voting record, then don't complain if you are opposed to government funding for abortion. This is part of what you voted for.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
It's not accurately presented because the following has never been true from Obama's policies: "Would like to see fewer abortions and therefore would illegalize abortions." That would be the most obvious way to suddenly decrease the number of abortions performed in the US.
Reversing the government funds policy, in my opinion, values the overall good that those programs provide. He's implied that the way to reduce abortions is to reduce the perceived need to have abortions, not to make it harder to get.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:He did say (during the campaign) that he would like to see fewer abortions. Is it not reasonable then to ask how he expects to encourage that if he reverses a previous policy that did not allow government funds for family planning clinics that included abortion counselling?
I would like to see fewer racists. Nevertheless, I would oppose any law which prohibited the free expression of racist ideology.
Put another way - one can pursue a given goal while being unwilling to support every method which might assist in obtaining that goal.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I automatically distrust any political opinion that comes with the word "folks."
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Juxtapose, how was Obama's position not accurately represented? He did say (during the campaign) that he would like to see fewer abortions. Is it not reasonable then to ask how he expects to encourage that if he reverses a previous policy that did not allow government funds for family planning clinics that included abortion counselling?
It's very reasonable to ask. Rep. Price, however, did not ask that question. He called it a "stunning reversal", which it is not. EDIT - It seems to me that you don't seem very interested in asking that question either. If I'm mistaken about that, I think it's a worthwhile conversation to have.
quote:Another interesting point is that this extra money that will now be sent to abortion clinics comes from what he calls his "economic stimulus package." How is this going to stimulate the economy? I heard one liberal spokesman try to answer this by saying that it would be beneficial to the economy if fewer people were born. Hearing that, a conservative fired back, "Where are we going next--euthanasia for the elderly?"
I have no idea what you're talking about. Could you cite this please?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:"Not even waiting a week, the new administration has acted to funnel U.S. tax dollars to abortion providers overseas," Rep. Tom Price, R-Georgia, said in a written statement.
He did wait longer than either of the last two presidents to address it. Clinton killed it on Jan. 22, 1993, and Bush put it back on Jan. 22, 2001. I kind of liked how he avoided the symbolism of doing it on the Roe v Wade anniversary.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Theoretically, the move on funding agencies that may promote abortion isn't necessarily contradictory with a goal of reducing abortions anyways.
After all, these agencies usually don't exclusively promote abortion, many also provide advice on regular birth control or emergency contraception. Better education on or better access to these alternatives may very well decrease the number of abortions long-term anyways.
Of course, if you're opposed to both or one of these, then that won't be much consolation. But I'm just noting that its not necessarily contradictory depending on what assumptions you're bringing to the table.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
What the gag rule says is that people are being prohibited from advising women and families about procedures that are legal both here and in the countries in question. And organizations that refused to make that change lost funding, which means they also lost resources -- employees, medicine, contraceptives -- that helped them continue. And without those resources, they were less effective in all of their other services.
The Senate has, in fact, passed amendments to the gag rule several times to relax various restrictions, to no avail (and the votes were not entirely Democrats, either). The last time the House and the Senate both approved dropping it, but let it drop after Bush threatened a veto.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Perhaps opponents of Obama's decision could inform me as to how US tax dollars get into the hands of abortion providers? From what I can tell, this just allows family counseling centers to include abortion as an option when trying to help people. It's not writing checks to abortion clinics.
DK -
First of all, you mean bust, not boom. Second, I don't see the connection. When was the last time the fossil fuel industry went boom? Infrastructure and the like don't go bust in the same way that other industries can be prone to. A lot of this will be consumer goods that people consider essential, like lightbulbs, and a lot of it will be one time retrofits that make buildings more efficient. And as far as wind turbines and solar panels go, what do you think will happen, people will just turn them off and stop selling the power they produce?
What's your alternative?
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Juxtapose, how was Obama's position not accurately represented? He did say (during the campaign) that he would like to see fewer abortions. Is it not reasonable then to ask how he expects to encourage that if he reverses a previous policy that did not allow government funds for family planning clinics that included abortion counselling?
Because part of what cuts the numbers of abortions is preventing pregnancy in the first place, so by restoring funds to family planning facilities, there will be fewer unwanted pregnancies, and hence, fewer abortions.
This isn't the first time you've heard this argument, I'm sure.
quote:Face it folks--when you vote a person with an extreme liberal position and voting record into office, this is part of the package.
Ron, support for family planning is not an "extreme liberal postion" in this country. It's a moderate one supported by the majority.
You are the one espousing the extreme position.
I'm sure I'm not the first person to point that out to you either.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Ron. As stated here by many--funding health clinics that offer legal services that include Abortion, or at least the mention of Abortion, will lower the numbers of Abortions by providing several other services, from contraceptives to vasectomies, from teaching and education to the ability to offer other advice as well, such as adoption.
Further, it will reduce the overall loss of life as many women were helped in those clinics who were not planning on terminating their pregnancies, but who were not helped when the funds were cut.
That is one of misconceptions of the Pro-Life movement which must be removed if they ever plan on succeeding--that "We must save every unborn child, no matter how many women or other children we kill to get there."
Would you suggest that we make it illegal for any woman to see a doctor--ever. That way women could never get an abortion. Of course not. Yet cutting these funds did stop some of the only doctors some women could afford to see.
Mr. Squicky, they tried the idea of saying "Each type of car will meet a specific MPG." The car companies then invented new types of vehicles that were outside the specs so weren't covered. This is how SUV's came into being.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:
The car companies shouldn't be responsible for what the market wants. If people love brand X trucks, they shouldn't have to really push the super-efficient tiny cars. I'd much rather have them focus on increasing the fuel efficiency of the trucks that people are buying. [/QB]
I don't know. If car companies aren't at least part of how the public decides what kind of car it wants, they are wasting an awful amount of money on advertising.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Until the gas prices exploded, when was the last time you saw a car company put money into advertising for a subcompact?
The point is that companies shouldn't HAVE to make tiny fuel efficient cars that nobody wants. Car companies might make such a car, but no amount of advertising in the world that's even close to honest is going to convince them they want it when they really, really don't. They advertise similar products to other companies to extol the virtues of THEIR particularly type of product, generally (in the case of car companies) not to push something that rarely sells and that no other company is really pushing.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"that nobody wants."
This is an erroneous assumption.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well if they wanted them the whole time, why didn't they buy them? Subcompacts were a money loser all through the 90's.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: I'm waiting anxiously for the directive to the IRS to go back to their old audit pattern rather then the bush directed audit pattern which has cost us about 200 billion in tax revenue per year.
The IRS has been asleep for about 14 years now. It's not just Bush's fault -- but I would also like to see Obama work on fixing it.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Yeah, the IRS has been a mess. But bush specifically directed them to address audits toward middle class folk. These aren't the people screwing around significantly with tax returns.
Lyrhawn, people buy fuel efficient cars as long as they meet other needs. Prius has been a big seller recently. Honda civic going back further. And outside of this country, the really small cars sell... europeans are not entirely different people then americans. Advertising plays a big role, as does whats available, and what you can get a good deal on.These things are in the realm of the auto industry.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Woah there, you just went off in like three different directions. Recent conditions with $4+ a gallon gas don't match anything we've ever seen, even adjusted for inflation, by which I mean, people weren't buying cars with the same criteria and circumstances that they do no, or did a year ago. Europe does not equal America. The Prius and the Honda Civic do not equal subcompacts.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I'm not talking about subcompacts. I'm talking about fuel efficient cars.
Europe has had the same fuel costs we had last year for, well, at least a generation, maybe longer. Given the fact we're probably going to be seeing 3-4 dollar gas real soon, and maybe even more expensive in a couple years, while europe does not now equal america, in terms of car purchasing trends, they are probably going to head in the same direction.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
There is a lot more going on with car design in Europe aside from fuel costs. Besides, it was our government that had a byzantine tax incentive system in place to reward gas guzzling hulks, all the while allowing our fuel efficiency standards to actually *drop* in the last 25 years. All the while California has been expected to prop up the rest of the country by buying the crap being made while having our hands tied when it comes to our own efficiency standards. The whole situation has been one long embarrassing cluster F. It's been interference from the federal government that has kept us limping along for so long, while other nations got on with business and started producing the products we forgot how to make, or buying the only good ones we did make. I have little sympathy for the auto industry, but they were enticed into this stupid arrangement, and stuck there with the assistance of the federal government, the unions, and everyone else with no mind toward the future.
As someone here pointed out recently, our problem as Americans is that we believe in "solutions," wherein things go on exactly as they have, only for longer. How do we solve our transportation problems? Well let's not put the auto industry out of work while we give them money to lobby our government to delay public transportation projects for decades, that would be SILLY! Let's not allow individual states to raise their standards because other states don't feel like following their example, no. In fact, let's just keep not spending money on public transport, and make symbolic gestures about replacing our vast fleets of consumer cars with some technology guaranteed never to be delivered to the American consumer, like hydrogen fuel!
The American transportation system is like a society of people who ride around on donkeys trying to find a way to develop hover cars so that they can use the same donkey trails that they already use now. Never mind that leaping ahead 5 generations in technology is impossible, or that it isn't really leaping ahead at all, but more like putting hover boots on your donkey to make it go farther. It makes me sick. Watching George Bush talk about hydrogen fuel, standing next to a Shell Corporation hydrogen fuel pump is pathetic. PATHETIC.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Europe has had the same fuel costs we had last year for, well, at least a generation, maybe longer.
I know that in at least some European countries there are huge financial disincentives for purchasing inefficient vehicles far beyond the cost of gasoline. KoM can correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that in Norway, a significant portion of the cost of a new car is government fees and those fees are based on engine displacement.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
Yep,you read that one right.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Cool.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Lovely... and his first call to a foreign leader was to Mahmoud Abbas, the terrorist who runs the Palestinian Authority.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: There is a lot more going on with car design in Europe aside from fuel costs.
quote: Can we compare EPA's highway cycle to the EU's "highway" cycle? No. EU's highway cycle supposes the car at constant speed. As many Europeans can tell you, that's tough to get and real-world mileage figures actually are closer (and slightly higher) than the "Combined cycle", which is more comparable to EPA's highway cycle. Add the fact that EU's measurings are based on models and the EPA actually tests the cars. To make things even more complicated, the Japanese cycle is even different and focus on lower speeds.
Therefore, and as a rule of thumb, comparing EU and U. S. specifications is something that we can only do at approximate levels. However, we have the right to ask U. S. manufacturers to get us more fuel-efficient cars and their European operations show that they have those models. GM heard this when bringing the Astra and Ford did the same with the Focus and will bring the newer Focus and Fiesta stateside.
quote: Here's some information about U. S. manufacturers we obtained (all conversions obtained here)
Saturn Astra 2009, 1.8-liter, 140hp, 5-spd manual - EPA's figures: 32mpg U. S. (hwy) = 38mpg IMP = 7.35 l/100km // Opel/Vauxhall Astra,1.8-liter, 140hp, 5-spd manual - Official figures: 33mpg U. S. (EU combined) = 39.8mpg IMP = 7.1 l/100 km. This model doesn't offer significative difference.
Dodge Caliber, 1.8-liter, 150hp, 5-spd manual - EPA's figures: 29 mpg U. S. (hwy) = 34.8mpg IMP = 8.1 l/100 km // Dodge Caliber in Europe: 1.8-liter, 150hp ,5-spd manual - Official figures: 32 mpg U. S. (EU combined) = 38.7mpg IMP = 7.3 l/100km. This model has slight differences.
In the case of Ford, we can't compare current models because they're different cars altogether, but the figures were very similar for the 2.0-liter versions of the 5-door model back in 2005. In the case of European cars, the figures are, again quite similar: European VW Passat makes 29.78mpg (7.9 l/100 km) and the EPA assigns 31mpg for higway (7.6 l/100km). Again, not a significative difference.
quote: The base model Ford Focus gets 37 MPG in the US, which is pretty decent mileage. But it gets 59 MPG in Europe which is 60% better gas mileage!
quote: European cars are powered by turbocharged "common-rail" diesel engines. This type of engine has been widely used in Europe for the last 10 years. They don't need spark plugs, run on diesel fuel including bio-diesel and have a high compression ratio of 17 to 25:1 versus 9:1 found on a typical gasoline engine, making them that much more efficient. And by the way, did I mention that they run on bio-diesel as well? US car manufacturers attempted to produce diesel engines in the 80's but failed. They used standard engine blocks designed for gasoline, not for these high compressions and as a result the blocks cracked. Ever since diesels have had bad reputation in the US while they equip most cars in Europe and are highly reliable.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
It is lovely that his very first interview was a reaching out to all the Muslims in the world that do not necessarily hate us and offer a different view. And note that he doesn't set up al Qaida as an equal force: he lessens them. He undercuts their bluster.
quote:"Their ideas are bankrupt," he told host Hisham Melhem, when asked to respond to recent audio clips from al Qaida leadership calling him various epithets. "There's no actions that they've taken that say a child in the Muslim world is getting a better education because of them, or has better health care because of them."
Obama has already talked to the American people, over and over again. Now that he's president, he can talk to everyone else, and it's about damn time that a president did.
And Lisa, yes, he talked to a Palestinian leader. Do you think that the anti-Israel forces are ever going to just stand down and back off? Seriously, ever? A treaty may be impossible after all, but it will most definitely never happen without communication, and a strong indication that America is willing to communicate is that our new president called that man first. If communication doesn't work, tougher methods can be used, but it has to go in that order.
quote:"Ultimately, we cannot tell either the Israelis or the Palestinians what's best for them. They're going to have to make some decisions," Obama said. "But I do believe that the moment is ripe for both sides to realize that the path that they are on is one that is not going to result in prosperity and security for their people. And that instead it's time to return to the negotiating table."
(edited to add: this is in response to what I read as a sarcastic post. If it wasn't, I apologize )
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Does anyone have information on what Obama said to Palestine? Expanded Obama quote
quote: The president reiterated the U.S. commitment to Israel as an ally, and to its right to defend itself. But he suggested that Israel has hard choices to make and that his administration would press harder for it to do so.
"We cannot tell either the Israelis or the Palestinians what's best for them. They're going to have to make some decisions. But I do believe that the moment is ripe for both sides to realize that the path that they are on is one that is not going to result in prosperity and security for their people," he said.
Obama added: "There are Israelis who recognize that it is important to achieve peace. They will be willing to make sacrifices if the time is appropriate and if there is serious partnership on the other side."
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Now that he's president, he can talk to everyone else, and it's about damn time that a president did.
The only interesting thing about this, I guess, is the symbolism of it being his first interview. I think the more substantive point is that Obama's enlisted George Mitchell as a special envoy to the area. Hopefully he'll be able to work his N. Ireland magic in the Middle East.
In their book America and the World Zbignew Brzesinski and Brent Scocroft agree that successful mediation of the Israel/Palestine conflict should be the number one foreign policy concern of the new President. I tend to disagree, seeing India/Pakistan and China/Korea/Japan as being more urgent issues, but they're obviously experts and I'm not.
[ January 27, 2009, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: "It's chock-full of it," says Rep. Jeff Flake of Arizona, perhaps the most pork-conscious member of the Republican Party. "There aren't congressional earmarks, and that's a good thing. But when you get down to the city level, it's chock-full of pork."
quote: "It's gone through the congressional Democrats," he says. "It's basically a grab bag for every program that they've wanted to see funded for years."
The bill pushes tens of billions of dollars into education, and not just for building and renovation projects, but for everything from Head Start to college loans and Pell Grants. Some Republicans ask: How does that stimulate the economy?
"For example, $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts," Flake says. "There's no better example than that. How that stimulates the economy, I don't know."
And then there is the grass. The bill includes $200 million to reseed the National Mall in Washington.
quote: So, according to Republicans, the bill is full of pork. Not so, says Rep. David Obey of Wisconsin, the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.
"There's not pork in this bill," he says. "There's not a single earmark in this bill."
Every cent of government spending goes through Obey's office.
quote: "We are trying to find every possible constructive way to put people back to work," he says. "And if one of those ways is to repair the Mall, I see no harm in doing that, if it accomplishes a good public purpose."
Obey and other Democrats also say this bill will have some of the toughest oversight of any government spending in years — and not just by Congress. After it passes, the public will be able to track every penny of it on a Web site, recovery.gov.
Still, there are some odd bits in the legislation. For example, it specifically bars local governments from using the infrastructure money to build zoos, casinos, swimming pools and golf courses.
Arizona's Flake asks: If there's no pork in the bill, why ban these things?
Obey's answer: "We don't want to be cheap-shotted to death by people who will pick out something that sounds like a funny title and [use] it to ridicule the entire package."
I give NPR credit for picking a Republican named 'Flake' and a Democrat named 'Obey' for quotes in their story.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:For example, $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts," Flake says. "There's no better example than that. How that stimulates the economy, I don't know."
Um....Seriously? What exactly does he think the NEA does? It gives grants to artists to produce projects. These projects often require multiple craftsmen. The grants go towards materials and salaries (which, in turn, go back into the economy). The odds are good that $50m to the NEA is actually one of the more efficient investments the government could make.
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
I have a potentially stupid question. Is the point of the tax-cut/stimulus-check section of a recovery package to tell people "Please spend this money"? If so, why isn't there a direct push to tell people to spend more money?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote:What exactly does he think the NEA does? It gives grants to artists to produce projects. These projects often require multiple craftsmen. The grants go towards materials and salaries (which, in turn, go back into the economy).
or you could just give me 50 million and I will spend it on all kinds of things to benefit me, several new houses, cars, and all kinds of crazy stuff. By using your logic it would be the same end result.
quote: The odds are good that $50m to the NEA is actually one of the more efficient investments the government could make.
I would take those odds. I don't think we need more Serranos or Mapplethorpes work on display during a time when people have less disposable income.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
yeah, those hippie artists should cut their hair and get a real job, working for a nice corporation.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Well, since the corporation and the people employed at the corporation are paying for the artist's work I don't really have a problem with having the artist work at the corporation. Might be a nice change of pace for everyone involved to see what an artist does when they are on their lunch break. Good idea! The hair cut is optional.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: The odds are good that $50m to the NEA is actually one of the more efficient investments the government could make.
I would take those odds. I don't think we need more Serranos or Mapplethorpes work on display during a time when people have less disposable income.
Respectfully, I think you're quite wrong. And it's not the same thing as the government personally enriching an individual. Arts grants, if they go to the right people, can be a very good thing- even for the economy. Arts programs can have a way of making every dollar count, so that the use of the money involved is very carefully considered, and very widely dispursed. As Tom said, you don't just pay some guy to have an idea, you pay him to pay other people to help him, to do research, to creatively find ways of working with what he has, and to eventually contribute something to his community that benefits that community in a hopefully long lasting way. Government supported art projects can have real effects on the economy, whether through innovation of design, application to marketing, enrichment of the property value of a community, etc etc etc.
And what about research institutions like my Alma Mater, UC Davis? They pay a faculty of arts professors to do all manner of "useless" things. I had professors who were paid by our state government to spend their time composing music. But after 3 decades of support, they built the Mondavi Center, because Robert Mondavi was so keen on what he'd seen from Davis, that he gave about 60M dollars to the University to create a world class music hall. Now the best performance artists in the world stop in Davis California to practice their arts. We get authors and presidents to speak there. People want to live in the community because of this rich cultural life, and the economy of California is enriched by the rising property values, and the increased tax revenue. The local schools have very strong programs and local support because people move to that community in order to have access to those things. That is what changed Davis from a railway stop with some stores and a bunch of orchards, into a thriving small town with strong potential for the future. That all started with a university and a government that was willing to throw money into a seemingly bottomless pit starting 50 years ago.
So it's not nothing. And when you actually sit down and realize how little money the state has invested in order to generate such a huge return on so many fronts, you realize that this kind of arrangement is really something that ONLY a government can do. There'd be no company in the world that would invest so much for such a long term (and only speculative) return, and even if one would, there would be no possible way for a single company to capitalize on the success of a real community, but a government can.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: And what about research institutions like my Alma Mater, UC Davis?
There is 6 billion set aside for repair, renovation, and modernization for higher education.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:The bill pushes tens of billions of dollars into education, and not just for building and renovation projects, but for everything from Head Start to college loans and Pell Grants. Some Republicans ask: How does that stimulate the economy?
Are ya kidding?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Which kind of makes that $50m for nationwide arts unaffiliated with a college seem rather small, no?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Are ya kidding?
They're not kidding because they are looking at two different things. One is an immediate bill that would stimulate the economy now (tax cuts and incentives) and another bill with desireable spending that may stimulate the economy or provide other stimulative long term benefits. Throwing 825 billion dollars we don't have at a problem is not the best way to solve an issue.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Not at all. $50m is still $50m that we do not need to spend at this moment. I thought we had to reduce spending?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
During a recession?
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
I'm surprised by the GOP apprehension to the stimulus bill. I grant there are some things that don't sit well with Republicans, but at the same time, there are measures that Republicans would traditionally love. Like the ~250B dollars in tax cuts. So it surprises me that there wasn't a single GOP representative in the house that voted for the bill. Every single republican voted against the tax cuts. That's a pretty major gamble, especially if this stimulus bill helps.
The arguments they're making against the measure, I believe, are flawed. The $50 million to the NEA does help stimulate the economy. Now, I grant to DK that giving him the money would also result in a boost to the economy, but the bill is also aimed at trying to alleviate the hardships of people in this troubled economy. People don't want to spend their income on things like 'arts and crafts' when they're more focused on holding onto things that they need in life. Artists suffer in this kind of economy, so the 50M is an attempt to help them. (Edit: Not to say I don't think DK is a valued member of society, just that we should help as many people who are hurting as possible. )
The argument against the re-seeding of the lawn is better, but not without its downfalls. By granting that money, you are giving money for workers to have a job during this troubled economy. Is it only one project? Yes, but at the same time, you don't need to make it a permanent fix. When the economy rebounds, I'm sure there will be more privately funded projects for lawn-care. Until then, let's help people get money for work.
The bill is supposed to work twofold, it's supposed to help give some money quickly through the tax-cuts/stimulus check. But it's also supposed to hold people who have been hit hard by the economy during the recession. If they really wanted to attack the bill for its flaws, attack it for things that won't help with the economy in any measurable sense. For example, the money set aside for contraceptive and STD education for low income families. While I support the concept and would hope it would get passed, I'd more easily grant that the sex-ed doesn't belong in an economic stimulus package than the money to the NEA.
I'm fine with a degree of partisanship that functions as a check against bad ideas. But the GOP should pick their fights better, and when they pick them, know how to state their position more efficiently. The theatrics of a complete disavowal of this bill is silly, considering there seems to be far more good than bad.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
That's basically my take on it too. I wish that this was kept as a pure stimulus bill but it doesn't look that Congress can pass any big bill that is only for the purpose it is supposed to be for. There are definitely things that shouldn't be there, but the GOP have done themselves no favors by the kind of stupid way they've gone about opposing it.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: And what about research institutions like my Alma Mater, UC Davis?
There is 6 billion set aside for repair, renovation, and modernization for higher education.
Duh. I was asking "what about this, how does it contribute?" A rhetorical question- not a challenge.
Please read before you respond.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Not at all. $50m is still $50m that we do not need to spend at this moment. I thought we had to reduce spending?
I'm srsly?
Spending is not supposed to reduce. The *way* you spend money is supposed to change. Same goes for the government- whether they reduce budgets by decreasing taxes or streamlining or both, the extra money is meant to be spent. It has to be spent to do any good... or else it's nothing.
If the U.S. Government starts just cutting its own programs with no other plans for the money it has generated, so that it just sits there, then we really will be in economic trouble.
Plus, I'm feeling like you just don't *get it* on this one. Assume for a moment that 50M in art grants would contribute a net positive benefit to the national economy over the next decade of about 10% per dollar, adding 5M in value over 10 years. Do you think that our nation would be helped if we cut programs that were known to generate such a return to our national economy over long periods of time? What is a more wise use of the money?
Where is it going to go? I'm being completely dull-headed here, but really, where? If it weren't being spent on *something* then it would go into a bank. The money would be invested by the bank in commercial enterprises at similar, or possibly lower rates. The rate of return would most certainly be lower.
I am not an economist or a financial expert, but I think, from all I've learned in the past 6 months or so, that all money is being spent all the time. If it's money, someone is using it somewhere for something. Money doesn't ever just sit and rot.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The phase "throwing money at the problem" I think is often misused these days. If a hospital needs a new x-ray machine to help diagnose patients and says they need $40,000 to do it, then spending $40,000 to buy a new x-ray machine isn't just "throwing money at the problem," it's investing money to SOLVE a problem.
I think it's used far too often as a scare phrase these days to attempt to paint anything one might not like as wasteful spending. Given the purpose of the bill, I don't even mind a little bit of "pork," so long as it's the right kind. If it's to build a new road, then no, as that'll just increase long term maintenance costs and increase sprawl, but if it's to fix a local road that's in a state of disrepair, sure, or to help start a local business, sure. The whole point of this thing is long term and short term shots to stimulate growth, and sometimes that means spending money in someone's home district to do it.
I think if anything it'd be a challenge to spend that much money and NOT have it directly effect any specific Representative's home district, if not entirely impossible. I have some problems with this bill as well. I don't think it's perfect. But I think it might work. As far as I'm concerned, I like getting value for my money. Tax cuts don't do that. Tax cuts reduce income to the federal government in exchange for short term gains in the economy that never pay for the tax cuts themselves. But necessary infrastructure improvements can create jobs that'll do much the same thing, but at the end of the day we'll have an upgraded energy infrastructure and better roads, pipes and bridges. We have to spend the money eventually anyway, why not spend it now? I don't get what Republicans have against spending on infrastructure. You think this stuff just lasts forever?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
There's a great open letter to the Obama administration posted by Rebecca MacKinnon, a former bureau chief for CNN in Beijing who is now based in Hong Kong.
The actual letter isn't terribly long and I encourage Americans to read it, but here's a bit of it.
quote:Originally posted by Rebecca MacKinnon:
The point is that while these people are not citizens of a democracy, they are by no means an undifferentiated mass of brainwashed drones. Despite often crude censorship of the Internet and state-run media, despite manipulation, intimidation of dissidents and political astro-turfing of the blogosphere by paid commentators, there is no unity of thought in China today. Civic minded citizens manage to hold wide-ranging debates on the Chinese Internet, in living rooms, dormitories, office break rooms, and classrooms about many public issues. Reading the Chinese blogs I've found all kinds of views about you and your new administration. Many are inspired by your personal story and the idea of truly equal opportunity that you represent. Others hope that you will be more forthright and principled on human rights issues than the Bush administration was. Others are very concerned that you will be protectionist in order to help the American people in the short run, and that this will hurt the Chinese people economically. Others lament cynically that no matter what happens, the rich and powerful in both countries will be the relationship's main beneficiaries.
The Chinese government will have greater incentive to work with you on creative solutions to complex problems if your diplomats can do a better job of reassuring ordinary Chinese that you do actually care whether U.S.-China policy outcomes will benefit them -- not just China's commercial and political elites. Right now, frankly, they're not convinced...
quote: Duh. I was asking "what about this, how does it contribute?" A rhetorical question- not a challenge.
Duh? Nice tone. I was providing information in response to your post which you now label as rhetorical. Fair enough. I am regarding all of your posts as rhetorical and will not respond to them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm surprised by the GOP apprehension to the stimulus bill.
I'm not. It's political positioning. They don't expect the economy to recover within four years, so by making this entirely the Democrats' baby, they can make a run at the elections by claiming the Dems have failed to fix the economy.
Posted by Week-Dead Possum (Member # 11917) on :
Dude, one sentence in the post is rhetorical. I was correcting the assumption you made about what I said. Feel free to ignore everything else I've said (which you did).
And DK, honestly, take your ball and go home if you don't want to play with the other kids. I weep for you.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote:Amid all the anticipation of Obama's stimulus package, Americans should realize that its effects aren't likely to be felt until the economy is already rebounding on its own.
quote: The main obstacle to the ability of fiscal-policy measures to influence the path for the economy this year is that they usually require a frustratingly long amount of time to work their way through the system. President-elect Obama's claim that his economic team has, in collaboration with governors around the country, already identified a significant number of infrastructure projects that are ready-to-go once funding is approved, is encouraging on the face of it. But it needs to be viewed with some caution. The sheer scale of the spending involved makes it hard to identify enough such projects that can be immediately implemented.
In fact, this poses a distinct risk that would undermine Obama's recent statement that he has extracted a promise from Congressional leaders that the fiscal package, in an effort to eliminate wasteful spending, will not contain earmarks. In the rush to spend a large, pre-committed amount of money, projects of dubious quality and long-term value to the economy will start creeping into the package. The side effect of that prospect is that at least a portion of the total fiscal package may have very minimal contribution to economic activity over the next year or two. Differently put, bridges-to-nowhere may well be a quick way to spend the money but do little to set into motion a productive expansionary dynamic for the broader economy.
All in all, the legitimate infrastructure spending, which in its expanded form would include Obama's ambitious plans to invest heavily in renewable energy sources, will most likely not start coming on line until the fourth quarter of the year and its full effect is at least 12 to 18 months away. In other words, the fiscal stimulus measures that the incoming Administration will be pushing through are more a 2010 story.
The same needs to be recognized regarding the new President's assertion last week that his economic stimulus plan will create or save between 3 and 4 million jobs over the next two years. Even if these numbers were to be momentarily accepted at face value, the job creation almost certainly be heavily back-loaded. It's precisely for that reason that the Obama team is referring to such expected outcomes over the time frame of the next two years, carefully refraining from attaching a specific estimate to 2009 alone.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
DK,
Right, we should have been doing this two years ago.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
KMB, Do you think Democrats would have passed this kind of legislation under Bush? Democratic Party on Budget & Economy Back in 2006 the Democrat party line was all about pay as you go and fiscal discipline.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
That's not unreasonable, considering it was the minority party, trying to reign in an administration that was spending us into record debt. Now that democrats are in control, they want to spend more money on the things they think will work, and are important. That doesn't exactly match up with was the GOP thought would work and was important in 2006. And guess what, the GOP failed miserably in the last 8 years, and the democrats, at least in 2006, were right. It's 2009 now, and things have changed. It's not even that they've changed their minds, the situation is now different. It's a lot worse.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
For the record, I do think that there should have been more infrastructure spending under President Clinton.
ETA: However, my point is that we can't go back in time to make those emergency measures work any faster than they are going to work. If this is, as Paul Krugman suggested (IIRC) an "L" shaped recession rather than a "V" shaped recession, we are still going to need that spending next year or two years from now.
Tax breaks wouldn't hit till next year either. We tried stimulus checks to very little benefit.
What do you suggest?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
So is anyone actually surprised that Obama hired that witch Samantha Powers back again?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
We can dramatically cut virtually all federal tax rates today. Cut corporate, capital gains, and individuals taxes to very low rates and keep them low for a year. This is more money in your check every pay period starting the very first week. You could cut the bottom bracket from 10% to 2%, 15% to 6%, 25% to 13%, 28% to 15%, and so on. For corporate taxes we could do much the same with the same reductions. We could also eliminate capital gains taxes for the first year. After one year we start with a phased in, top down, tax increases for corporations and individuals. Those at the bottom will have their taxes stay the lowest for the longest. After one year of new capital gains taxes we slowly raise that tax to a max of 10%.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: So is anyone actually surprised that Obama hired that witch Samantha Powers back again?
Which would only work if people spent all the money they get in tax breaks.
Spent, not saved for a rainy day, not paid down their debt, not spent on imported anything.
In which case, since we need roads and bridges (some of them lead to places) and levies and so forth, it makes sense to spend it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: So is anyone actually surprised that Obama hired that witch Samantha Powers back again?
Nope.
Every one knew that her leaving during the campaign was just a political move to get the issue off of Obama. It's zero surprise that he'd bring her back in, or that he'd put her in a senior foreign policy leadership position.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
They don't have to spend it all. Paying off debt can free up credit, especially in the housing market. Putting money in the bank gives the bank more capital to work with as well. This is the short term help while we work on the best plans and efficient use of money for roads, bridges, levies and so forth. We already have money coming in from our gas taxes to spend on roads and the rest. We can start planning for more expensive long term road etc fixes and make sure we are making better choices instead of pave now, tear up to lay new pipes, and pave again.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Didn't we just do 8 years of tax cuts?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
And in those 8 years we never had a good economy with low unemployment? When the tax cuts were imposed, did the economy improve? Were the tax cuts this dramatic?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:We already have money coming in from our gas taxes to spend on roads and the rest.
You think so do you?
Sure, more money is coming in, but decreased consumption has the National Highway Trust Fund near the breaking point. The gas tax needs a serious boost.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
DK, I am beginning to think that you have a problem with the concept of "before" and "after".
Here. Take a look at this. It was even written by a republican.
Government spending is more effective than tax cuts.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
DK: the recovery from the early 2000s recession was the weakest recovery from a recession in decades. Since WW2, if I recall correctly.
The employment figures were pretty good, but not as good as they looked. Under the direction of the Bush administration, the rules for counting unemployment were changed (especially birth/death rate calculations). Many effective job losses are only now being realized in the statistics, contributing to the particularly large job losses at the start of the current situation.
So, no, Bush's tax cuts, despite being historically very large, on the whole had an abysmal record if you're taking the performance of the economy as an indicator.
Your idea is a very bad one. It would skyrocket both government debt and inflation (everyone has more money? Businesses will charge more money) to little positive effect. The crux of delays to current recovery seem to lie with uncertainty by banks and other institutional investors in the reliability of businesses and other institutions backing financial instruments. A massive, temporary tax cut does absolutely nothing to allay those doubts. Instead, it feeds them, since only if many institutions were in even more trouble than currently thought would such a plan be considered even vaguely a wise course of action.
[ January 30, 2009, 03:26 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
I admire President Obama's call for personal responsibility, but I'm worried that he's not leading by example. Certainly corporate bonuses for leaders of troubled companies are a bad idea, but Pres. Obama threw a very expensive cocktail party 2 days ago.
Now I feel that the leader of our country should live well and that the Office of the Presidency should be honored appropriately. I don't begrude him the very costly inauguration and I enjoyed watching it (and, yes, I watched mostly for the clothes (which were spectacular)). However, I don't like being told, "Do as I say, not as I do." I'm not arguing that he should lead a spartan lifestyle, but maybe don't serve kobe beef and high-end alcohol unless it's a very special occassion. And don't crank the thermostat when you admonished people about it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
This is one of those "lose/lose" situations. People made fun of Carter for turning down the thermostat.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
I'm not making fun of him. I just don't want to be told not to keep my thermostat at 72 (which I don't anyway) by someone who keeps his at 76.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Maybe I should knit him a sweater?
I would guess that the White House is a prime location for doing some winterizing. What a great photo op - President Obama with one of those 3M kits and a blow dryer working on the oval office windows.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Sure, more money is coming in, but decreased consumption has the National Highway Trust Fund near the breaking point. The gas tax needs a serious boost.
We need another way to fund our highways if we plan on not using gas as much in the future. Raising the gas tax is not a very viable option as the more we raise it the less we will use. Just like cigarettes.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
American-raised Wagyu beef was served, not Kobe beef. Wagyu beef is not Kobe beef, in the manner that Korbel is not DomPérignon. Wagyu is the name of a cattle breed. Kobe denotes a Japanese method of raising Wagyu with luxury resort pampering.
[ January 30, 2009, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: Sure, more money is coming in, but decreased consumption has the National Highway Trust Fund near the breaking point. The gas tax needs a serious boost.
We need another way to fund our highways if we plan on not using gas as much in the future. Raising the gas tax is not a very viable option as the more we raise it the less we will use. Just like cigarettes.
Yes and no. Regardless, then you're back to paying for roads out of the general coffers, which you just said we shouldn't do.
Yes, though, because the higher the price of gas goes, the less people drive, and the less money comes in, and it just keeps going up. But no, because the less people drive, the fewer roads you actually have to maintain. The problem is that we're trying to sustain an unsustainable transportation infrastructure. We need more mass transit and higher gas taxes, which go hand in hand. One forces them off the road, and the other gives them a viable alternative. Building more new roads just increases sprawl and gives us MORE stuff to fix in the long run.
Either way, now is the perfect time to raise the gas tax.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that a good chunk of infrastructure money should go to public transportation.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
We're hoping to get a tiny piece of it to help fund a light rail line from Detroit out into the suburbs. It'll do wonders for everyone economically and to cut down on congestion.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"We need another way to fund our highways..."
...whether or not fuel taxes are raised or decreased. A 6600pound/3tonne* Expedition causes far more than 3times as much road damage as a 2200pound/1tonne CRX. Road damage goes up exponentially with weight. If I remember correctly, a maximum-load 80,000pound/36tonne tractor-trailer rig causes substantially more than 300times as much road damage as a subcompact car.
As is, drivers of light-weight vehicles are subsidizing drivers of heavy-weights in both fuel and road repair.
* 1 metric tonne = 1.1 American tons
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Couldn't one surmise that lighter weight cars are more fuel efficient and thus pay for less gas than heavier weight cars? Or does the ratio still not work out right? I wouldn't be surprised if the CRX got three times the gas mileage that the Expedition did.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
I think that's covered under
quote:A 6600pound/3tonne* Expedition causes far more than 3times as much road damage as a 2200pound/1tonne CRX
and
quote:Road damage goes up exponentially with weight.
aspectre, do you have a source for this? (Not a challenge, I'm just curious.)
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Nope, was just memories of old articles inregard to how eg the heavy-trucking industry is hyper-subsidized in comparison to railroads, why semis should pay higher road-use fees, etc.
[ January 30, 2009, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Is there a reason to hate Powers other than the "monster" comment?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
hrrm... "Roadway wear also increases exponentially with axle weight (between the third and fourth power), so heavy vehicles impose much greater maintenance and repair costs than lighter vehicles. A heavy truck imposes roadway costs equal to hundreds or thousands of light vehicles, depending on weight and road type."
The 40ton truck is assumed to have 4or5 axles (10or8tons per axle) while the 1ton vehicle is assumed to have 2 axles (0.5tons per axle): ie a 20to1 or a 16to1 weight-per-axle ratio when comparing heavy trucks to personal transportation, depending on where "between the third and fourth power" the exponent lies.
"Couldn't one surmise that lighter weight cars are more fuel efficient and thus pay for less gas than heavier weight cars? Or does the ratio still not work out right? I wouldn't be surprised if the CRX got three times the gas mileage that the Expedition did."
Actually the CRX HF(HighFuelEfficiency) got up to 52miles per gallon on the highway (at the old EPA test-speed limit of 55miles per hour), while the Expedition gets 18mpg (at the new federal testing limit of 65mph).
While the CRX HF would have to get 65% more horse power to the wheels in order to test at the new standard (equivalent to air-resistance), really hard to compare directly: 1) The amount of power used to overcome powertrain resistance remains (closer to) constant as the amount of horsepower increases, so the ratio between powertrain resistance and horsepower decreases as horsepower increases. Or something like that 2) The gear ratio has to be tuned to engine rpm in order to maximize fuel efficiency. 3) The engine has to be reengineered, beefed up and tuned to have the highest efficiency at test speed (equivalent on the dynometer) 4) The transmission has to be beefed up to take the extra horsepower. 5) The car frame has to be strengthened for the extra weight of the engine and transmission, and the extra weight of the strengthened frame. ETC including all the new required safety equipment and frame-deformation requirements, plus more frame weight to carry the safey-requirement weights.
So an old CRX HF wouldn't be nearly as efficient in converting engine power to the new highway-test speed. And one newly engineered for the same performance (eg 0to60 in 12seconds) wouldn't be the same vehicle, and would probably be heavier.
Then there are typical driving habits: I've noticed Expedition drivers almost always opt for the bigger engine, and like to accelerate and brake as if they're driving sports cars.
I chose the two examples only for arithmentic simplicity, cuz the CRX HF weighed only a bit less than 1tonne while the Expedition weighed only a bit more than 3tonnes.
Still, the Expedition produces a 27+times* more road damage than the old CRX HF, and the Expedition driver pays only ~3to4times as much in gas taxes (depending on driving habits) as a CRX driver.
* Probably considerably less than 27times on Interstate freeways, which were engineered&built to meet much higher strength&durability standards than typical state&local roads. Mostly cuz the US military (and General-then-PresidentEisenhower) admired how the (over)engineering of the German Autobahn made it easy to quickly transport HEAVY war machinery such as tanks.
[ January 31, 2009, 11:58 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Wow. Thanks for the detailed breakdown.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
But the heavier weight of those big semis is spread out over many more tires--bigger tires, each with a broader "footprint." Only if the full weight of a semi were loaded onto four typical automobiles tires could it be true that semis cause "9,000 times" as much damage to roads. But then the tires would blow out, so it couldn't happen.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Nearly the entirety of damage done to roads and highways comes from two sources: over-limit loads (tens of thousands of which travel across states, both legally and illegally), and weather.
Standard wear and tear from regular vehicles does nearly nothing in comparison.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
The broader footprint of the more and bigger tires probably goes up roughly proportional to the weight. So even taking that into account, road damage would still go up as the 2nd or 3rd power of weight (if aspectre's link is correct).
And edit: regardless, it's not exponential, it's polynomial. Exponential increases typically only appear when a process feeds back on itself (e.g., a critical mass of a nuclear isotope, bacterial growth, or, in an ideal world, my bank account).
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mike: The broader footprint of the more and bigger tires probably goes up roughly proportional to the weight. So even taking that into account, road damage would still go up as the 2nd or 3rd power of weight (if aspectre's link is correct).
You're saying a 2 ton vehicle has 1/10th the footprint of a 20 ton vehicle, or 1/15th that of a 30 ton vehicle? Methinks you don't see many lorries on the road with 40 or 60 tires that are twice as big as standard car tires. 16-18 tires is more normal.
But still, just because the weight is distributed across more tires, you still have 4 times the number of tires on the road, and 10-15 times the weight (or considerably more) spread across those tires. That's a considerably larger amount of wear. Even if the vehicle weighed exactly the same per-tire, you would be talking about at least 4 times the damage per vehicle.
But I think the point is that there is a greater effect on the road of 16 wheels with 20 tons of weight on them passing than even 4 cars weighing 5 tons each. All that weight in the 16 wheeler is passing over the road all at once. I'm also no physicist, but I think the extra weight changes the equation significantly, so you can't just look at it as if cumulative wear of all types is equal. Even ignoring everything else, the weight distribution in a 16-wheeler is not as smooth as a modern 4-wheel car, which means the force of individual wheels on the ground in a 16 wheeler can be great at any one moment. Have you ever heard a 16 wheeler drive over a slight bump or imperfection in the grade of a road? BAM-BAM-BAM-BAM. The sets of wheels all do their added damage separately.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The materials used in road construction are designed to maintain well when driven on by all vehicles up to a certain weight limit. So we set that as a weight limit for vehicles. And this would result in a very low level of road degradation, were it not for the fact that this weight limit gets flaunted regularly.
The legal stuff is oversized loads (like when they commonly move mobile homes and stuff) and approved high-weight loads. The highway authority has to as a practical matter allow it often. And plenty more overweight loads go over illegally.
When a semi or something way over the street's load limit goes over that street's tested load bearing capacity, it smushes it in weird ways and degrades the quality. Segmented concrete roads suffer the worst from it. It's what deforms them in the way that makes your car start 'wobbling' over them.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:And this would result in a very low level of road degradation, were it not for the fact that this weight limit gets flaunted regularly.
See also, chains and studded tires when there's no ice on the road.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose:
quote:And this would result in a very low level of road degradation, were it not for the fact that this weight limit gets flaunted regularly.
See also, chains and studded tires when there's no ice on the road.
I've never actually seen this in my life. Is this something that goes on in the north or the east or something? Because it sounds like the most ridiculous things anyone could choose to do- leaving chains on their tires.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I haven't seen it either, but I could see it happening if the weather is on-again-off-again icy, and you don't feel like removing and adding the chains over and over again.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If you're moving from country and side roads that require chains to move down and onto main roads that actually get plows and salt.
The side street in front of my house has been a skating rink for about a month and a half now, but the main road nearby and the freeways are frequently cleared. I imagine it's a lot worse further up north, or especially in the UP and the west where they get more lake effect snow.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Tire chains are so much trouble, few people use them, unless they make frequent trips over the high northern mountain passes in Idaho or Montana, where they might actually be required during declared snow emergencies.
What used to be more common is tire studs, which were permanently embedded into the tire treads. You could pull them out with pliers. These caused so much damage to paved road surfaces, because people left them in year around, that they have been outlawed pretty much everywhere.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I don't think tire studs or tire chains are legal up here in at least Ontario either. Weird to hear that you guys are still having trouble with people using them.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
From the Detroit area, Ontario is "down there." A number of years ago, somebody got a good laugh by posing as a weatherman in Windsor, and referring to a "Cold arctic air mass moving in from the United States."
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I'm in Seattle. We had a bit of a snowstorm in December and people had no idea what they were doing. I'm still hearing people driving around with the damn things on.
There are potholes everywhere.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: From the Detroit area, Ontario is "down there." A number of years ago, somebody got a good laugh by posing as a weatherman in Windsor, and referring to a "Cold arctic air mass moving in from the United States."
I think of Ontario as "over there."
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
And I lump Ontario in with the other East Coast citys.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You lump Ontario in with other East Coast cities?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Artemisia, Ontario is a province, comparable to a state. Windsor, Hamilton, Toronto, and Ottawa are examples of cities in Ontario. Windsor is just across the Detroit River from Detroit. Toronto, where the Blue Jays baseball team have their home, is the closest to being like an east coast city. It has a population of 2,503,281, according to a recent census. But I think the folks in Toronto would probably take exception to being lumped together with New Yorkers and Bostonians.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
New Hampshire's Democratic governor has promised to name a Republican successor to Gregg, which was Gregg's only condition before accepting the position. The successor, like Gregg would have had to, will need to run for reelection in 2010 when the term will expire.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Daschle, a former senate majority leader, is President Barack Obama's nominee to oversee the Health and Human Services Department
quote: Those questions will focus on tax issues, such as the $128,203 in back taxes and $11,964 in interest that he paid last month, said the aide. Daschle will also be questioned about the potential conflicts of interests he would face because he accepted speaking fees from health care interests, said the aide, who asked not to be identified because the aide was not authorized to speak publicly on the matter.
Daschle also provided advice to health insurers and hospitals through his work at a law firm.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know, one thing I can't really figure out is why all these Congressional leaders seem to have so much trouble paying their taxes. I mean, they always wind up getting caught, so it seems like a bad long-term investment to not just hire an accountant in the first place.
If you have a high-profile job and are required to publicly disclose your income, pay your taxes correctly or hire someone to do it for you. Duh.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Ron, if you can't see Denver by standing on the hood of your car, you are on the East Coast somewhere. Boston, St. Louis, Detroit,Toronto, Atlanta they are all back East somewhere.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't believe that they always wind up getting caught.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I don't believe that they always wind up getting caught.
Just the ones that to our resident Right Wing conspiracy loons think "angered" the Powers-That-Be and selectively caught and punished.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Well, now Daschle has bowed out. This is the third Obama nominee who has had to bow out because of tax problems. In view of the corrupt political environment in Chicago and Illinois where he established his political career, at what point does all this begin to stain Obama? Is it all somebody else's fault?
In view of some of his other miscues, like ordering the immediately shutdown of Guantanamo, only to learn that he couldn't do that, he has to allow a year for it to wind down (and even with that extension, 50% of Americans oppose the shutdown to 44% in favor according to a recent Gallop poll), ordering that U.S. tax dollars be sent to fund overseas abortions (which 58% of Americans say they disappove of in the same Gallup poll)--not to mention the diplomatic corners he has painted himself into--at what point does Obama become branded as a doofus?
It is dangerous for him to make himself be seen in the world as a laughing stock, because this will encourage those who wish to test him with provocative political and maybe even military moves to be especially daring, and even sooner.
Those of you who voted for Obama need to re-examine whether you really voted for him for the right reasons, and were right to dismiss the efforts to vet him which revealed very disturbing things about his past associations, and were right to ignore the arguments that he is an inexperienced political lightweight. You are getting what you voted for.
You do see that, don't you?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*laugh* Oh, Ron, I only hope that some day you'll look back on these posts and see the same kind of humor in them that we do.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: You do see that, don't you?
Not in the slightest.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Laughing doesn't prove anything about your wisdom or intelligence. What will be more telling is seeing who has the last laugh.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
my laugh when all of you are brought up against the wall and shot for opposing my path to world domination.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Blayne, jokes about killing people != funny.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Under executive orders issued by Obama recently, the CIA still has authority to carry out what are known as renditions, secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that cooperate with the United States.
Current and former U.S. intelligence officials said that the rendition program might be poised to play an expanded role going forward because it was the main remaining mechanism -- aside from Predator missile strikes -- for taking suspected terrorists off the street.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Blayne, jokes about killing people != funny.
Except perhaps when they are combined with an idea as ridiculous as Blayne's world domination.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Daschle leaving will make my dad happy. My dad is almost, almost approving of Obama in general, but was unhappy about how the "change" administration was putting in Tom Daschle for ANYTHING. That he is old guard AND has sketchy taxes was quite upsetting.
So, good for Obama. I'm glad.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"The CIA shall close as expeditiously as possible any detention facilities that it currently operates and shall not operate any such detention facility in the future."
"to study and evaluate the practices of transferring individuals to other nations in order to ensure that such practices comply with the domestic laws, international obligations, and policies of the United States and do not result in the transfer of individuals to other nations to face torture or otherwise for the purpose, or with the effect, of undermining or circumventing the commitments or obligations of the United States to ensure the humane treatment of individuals in its custody or control."
"to study and evaluate the practices of transferring individuals to other nations in order to ensure that such practices comply with the domestic laws, international obligations, and policies of the United States and do not result in the transfer of individuals to other nations to face torture or otherwise for the purpose, or with the effect, of undermining or circumventing the commitments or obligations of the United States to ensure the humane treatment of individuals in its custody or control."
While the CIA still has authority to carry out renditions, the LA times article is somewhat misleading.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Does anyone know of a good source for the evolution of Obama's stimulus bill over time? IIRC, the original proposal from the white house was $785 billion. Then, a version passed the House that was $825 billion. I just saw the Senate is now amending a version that is $885 billion. Is there some explication of the growth?
Personally, I feel significant sympathy with the position that the bill is trying to do two different things. On one hand, there's immediate stimulus of the economy. On the other, there is a lot of institutional spending increase for established programs. I appreciate the efficiency of killing two birds with one stone, but I see these two goals as poorly aligned.
The sort of government spending I had envisioned from a stimulus package was large, one shot public works projects (TVA, but with broadband instead of electricity, for example) that could be administratively isolated from current spending. Instead, much of the spending is incremental increases in support for various already funded activities, like schools, roads and more. It seems like a de facto bump up in the federal budget, rather than a one time stimulus package, and I'll be surprised if that's not how those agencies view it. Just like with Bush's tax cuts, it's hard to revoke that kind of spending once you introduce it.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Man, I suck... I tried to copy paste a third section and apparently didn't re-copy. The third bit basically says "conclusions within 180 days."
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Well, now Daschle has bowed out. This is the third Obama nominee who has had to bow out because of tax problems. In view of the corrupt political environment in Chicago and Illinois where he established his political career, at what point does all this begin to stain Obama? Is it all somebody else's fault?
Ron, Obama is the Chosen One. You'd better watch out, or someone is liable to report you.
Oh, did you hear about the classroom where the children are being made to pledge allegience to a 4 foot tall projection of Obama against a background of 6 US flags, instead of towards a regular flag?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
link?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Search "Nevada Obama Pledge Image" or something like that.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
Will this thread die after the 100 days? Are we there yet?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think Obama is going to have to have another meet on the Hill when the two houses go to conference out the bill.
Mel Martinez's version isn't going to pass, and I think Republicans will round up a filibuster minority, and for once I actually hope it succeeds. There ARE a lot of billion dollar problems in the stimulus bill, and I'd like for Obama to not sit in the background and say "hey I didn't write it!" Well no you didn't, but you can still get in there and make suggestions and be a broker between the two sides. The Senate will probably pass something by the end of the week, and then next week they're going to have to figure this thing out.
I think they should do a combined payroll tax cut and spending bill, but I'm worried about how useless a lot of the spending might be.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Well, now Daschle has bowed out. This is the third Obama nominee who has had to bow out because of tax problems. In view of the corrupt political environment in Chicago and Illinois where he established his political career, at what point does all this begin to stain Obama? Is it all somebody else's fault?
In view of some of his other miscues, like ordering the immediately shutdown of Guantanamo, only to learn that he couldn't do that, he has to allow a year for it to wind down (and even with that extension, 50% of Americans oppose the shutdown to 44% in favor according to a recent Gallop poll), ordering that U.S. tax dollars be sent to fund overseas abortions (which 58% of Americans say they disappove of in the same Gallup poll)--not to mention the diplomatic corners he has painted himself into--at what point does Obama become branded as a doofus?
It is dangerous for him to make himself be seen in the world as a laughing stock, because this will encourage those who wish to test him with provocative political and maybe even military moves to be especially daring, and even sooner.
Those of you who voted for Obama need to re-examine whether you really voted for him for the right reasons, and were right to dismiss the efforts to vet him which revealed very disturbing things about his past associations, and were right to ignore the arguments that he is an inexperienced political lightweight. You are getting what you voted for.
You do see that, don't you?
Psssst. Ron, we are all in on the plot. Shhhh.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by lobo: Will this thread die after the 100 days?
Probably not. Happily, you can avoid having to deal with the thread using a new technology called "not clicking on it".
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Well, now Daschle has bowed out. This is the third Obama nominee who has had to bow out because of tax problems. In view of the corrupt political environment in Chicago and Illinois where he established his political career, at what point does all this begin to stain Obama? Is it all somebody else's fault?
Ron, Obama is the Chosen One. You'd better watch out, or someone is liable to report you.
Oh, did you hear about the classroom where the children are being made to pledge allegience to a 4 foot tall projection of Obama against a background of 6 US flags, instead of towards a regular flag?
Funnily enough, the only people who I've ever heard call Obama "chosen one" or "messianic" have been people archly dismissing his supporters as being blind, mindless drones. As far as I can tell, this "Obama is God and Democrats his worshippers" meme is little more than a conservative talking point, and has gotten more than a little tiresome. Shades of Rudy "Noun, verb, 9/11" Giuliani - repetition of a phrase or idea that adds nothing to the discussion at hand, but allows the speaker to feel self-righteous and superior.
Anyway, back on topic - I'm glad to see Daschle go. He never struck me as particularly qualified for the HHS position anyway, and the tax evasion should have put the nail in his coffin the moment it came out. Here's hoping Obama appoints Howard Dean in his place. He's got experience in virtually every relevant area, including the most important - he's an M.D. and worked as a practicing doctor for years before entering politics.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Of course Obama has made mistakes. But the best part is, he knows when to admit it:
That's refreshing.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
Oh great, now he's gone and made himself look weak. Now the terrorists are sure to attack!
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Search "Nevada Obama Pledge Image" or something like that.
I googled those terms and here's the first link: Military pledge for Obama a hoax None of the other results matched up remotely to what you're alledging.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
quote:Other incidents have come up with Nation of Islam chief Louis Farrakhan said about Obama: "The Messiah is absolutely speaking," and when an artist in Iowa created an inaugural parade with Obama riding on a donkey, complete with waving palm fronds.
Notice the mention in the above to Louis Farrakhan explicitly calling Obama the Messiah. He said this well before the election, and has been widely reported. To my knowledge, no liberal anywhere has objected to this.
WorldNetDaily also cites a pledge a number of celebrities have made "to be the change," which includes this line: "I pledge to be a servant to our president and all mankind."
The following is a report on WorldNetDaily regarding the report of the Nevada school projecting Obama's image backed by U.S. flags during the pledge of allegiance:
quote:The report on a forum called TheTreeofLiberty said teachers in a Nevada school district were having students stand and face a projected image of Obama – instead of the flag – at the beginning of class while the Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
The report's authenticity was questioned because no school, no city, no names were cited.
The forum participant followed up with:
"Since publishing this story, I am receiving e-mails and phone calls calling it a hoax because the story didn't detail the names of the people, teachers, principal or school. Unfortunately, they just want to shoot the messenger and instead of seeing this as a situation that was amicably resolved, it is seen as an attack on Obama, which it never was, and an attack on the flag, which it never was.
"Here is my answer – and it will have to stay this way until the school or district want to release some information. My guess is that eventually, some of it will get out – but I'm not going to do it without permission.
"It is a true story. The reason for the scant detail is to protect the school and the parents and children and I realize it could be seen that way but I am committed to their privacy and to not opening the school, principal, teachers, parents or kids to ridicule.
"The problem now is that this can get really messy if nothing more is released, so I hope the school district or school will admit this happened and give my story a second reference before this goes off into direction we don't want it to," the forum participant said.
Following was a brief statement that the issue was resolved.
"[The principal] said that in the morning that she would get with their audio/video tech and have him turn it off in my son's classroom. I asked her about the rest of the school and she said that she will make it for the whole school!"
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think Obama is going to have to have another meet on the Hill when the two houses go to conference out the bill.
Mel Martinez's version isn't going to pass, and I think Republicans will round up a filibuster minority, and for once I actually hope it succeeds. There ARE a lot of billion dollar problems in the stimulus bill, and I'd like for Obama to not sit in the background and say "hey I didn't write it!" Well no you didn't, but you can still get in there and make suggestions and be a broker between the two sides. The Senate will probably pass something by the end of the week, and then next week they're going to have to figure this thing out.
I think they should do a combined payroll tax cut and spending bill, but I'm worried about how useless a lot of the spending might be.
Wht about Jon Stewarts idea of government buying all consumer debt which people would pay back banks with returning their equity? Trickle up economics?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Anyway, back on topic - I'm glad to see Daschle go. He never struck me as particularly qualified for the HHS position anyway, and the tax evasion should have put the nail in his coffin the moment it came out. Here's hoping Obama appoints Howard Dean in his place. He's got experience in virtually every relevant area, including the most important - he's an M.D. and worked as a practicing doctor for years before entering politics.
I haven't liked Dean since the primaries, and would NOT like to see him in the cabinet. I'm sure there are a lot of well qualified doctors that know enough about healthcare to be SecHHS. Most of them are probably former lobbyists though, so, they'll likely be disqualified. But I'm sure the right candidate is out there. If not for his own health problems, I think Teddy Kennedy would actually be a halfway decent candidate.
My question on Daschle is whether or not he's going to retain his position as pointperson for healthcare reform in the administration.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: Funnily enough, the only people who I've ever heard call Obama "chosen one" or "messianic" have been people archly dismissing his supporters as being blind, mindless drones. As far as I can tell, this "Obama is God and Democrats his worshippers" meme is little more than a conservative talking point, and has gotten more than a little tiresome.
Hillary Clinton had a speech about Obama's Messianic image during the primary; but maybe she had a "road to Damascus" moment along the way. Obama feeds this impression, both with his lofty rhetoric, and his extensive use of inspirational symbolism.
Personally, I don't mind Obama's attempt to turn "the President" back into a virtuous hero figure; too many people have disrespected the office for too long, IMO. We could do with a generation that views the President as a hero rather than a punchline.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Enigmatic:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Search "Nevada Obama Pledge Image" or something like that.
I googled those terms and here's the first link: Military pledge for Obama a hoax None of the other results matched up remotely to what you're alledging.
Yeah, I read that too. It wasn't a hoax, it was a satire. And then people who didn't notice that it was a satire started spreading it around. But that's not what I was talking about.
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
I noticed the hoax/satire thing too, but just quoted the headline as is. But Ron found a link to the one that you were talking about (or so I assume, it sounds like what you were talking about).
--Enigmatic
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: Funnily enough, the only people who I've ever heard call Obama "chosen one" or "messianic" have been people archly dismissing his supporters as being blind, mindless drones. As far as I can tell, this "Obama is God and Democrats his worshippers" meme is little more than a conservative talking point, and has gotten more than a little tiresome.
Hillary Clinton had a speech about Obama's Messianic image during the primary; but maybe she had a "road to Damascus" moment along the way. Obama feeds this impression, both with his lofty rhetoric, and his extensive use of inspirational symbolism.
That was back when she was his primary opponent, when she was trying to turn Obama's popularity among young voters against him in exactly the same way Republicans are doing so now. It didn't work then, and it's not working today. The only people who place serious credence in the idea are those who have a frantic need to believe that Obama only won because of his cult of personality.
quote:Personally, I don't mind Obama's attempt to turn "the President" back into a virtuous hero figure; too many people have disrespected the office for too long, IMO. We could do with a generation that views the President as a hero rather than a punchline. [/QB]
I don't disagree with your last sentence, there, but Obama isn't making any such "attempt." If you actually watch interviews with the guy, he seems more embarrassed than anything else at the portrayal of him as a flawless visionary who will Save America. His inaugural address made his disapproval of this quite clear: he noted repeatedly that the road ahead is going to be incredibly difficult, and that he is under no illusions that his administration will be somehow able to solve all problems for all people.
As I've mentioned elsewhere, the defining attribute of Obama the man is almost a diametric opposite to his popular caricature. Although it's true that he gives a good speech, his underlying philosophy has never been about blind idealism or armies of sheeple marching in lockstep with his leftist agenda. He is, first and foremost, a pragmatist (hence "government that works" rather than government that is big or small) who values measurable results over ideology and consensus over partisanship. The one ideological position Obama seems absolutely married to is governmental transparency, which given the past eight years, is the thing this country most desperately needs anyway.
Posted by Aaron Rosenstein (Member # 11949) on :
quote:Other incidents have come up with Nation of Islam chief Louis Farrakhan said about Obama: "The Messiah is absolutely speaking," and when an artist in Iowa created an inaugural parade with Obama riding on a donkey, complete with waving palm fronds.
Notice the mention in the above to Louis Farrakhan explicitly calling Obama the Messiah." blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah"[The principal] said that in the morning that she would get with their audio/video tech and have him turn it off in my son's classroom. I asked her about the rest of the school and she said that she will make it for the whole school!"
[/QUOTE]
Ron! I went to the website you posted which begins with a child who doesn't want to go to school because the president’s photo is next to the flag... *sigh* You and I came to very different conclusions my friend. I don't ask in anger 'why is Obama's photo next to the flag', I ask, how is that child being raised in such a way that a teacher is ostracized for hanging the President's photo next to the flag? What if the Photo were of FDR, Washington, or Eisenhower? Shouldn't we have the current president's photo up somewhere in a school? Is it wrong to be patriotic? I also find the articles comparison of China's Chairman Mao Zedong's picture more than a stretch and an insult. Also, I question the way you mention "Nation of Islam chief Louis Farrakhan". Is it to continue to spread fear and hate propaganda against Obama? I ask because when I received farce emails during the election telling me that Our President to be is in league with Islamic terrorist bent on the destruction of Israel, I simply replied back with this link which talks about Obama trip to Israel. Also there are some good news videos of Obama and McCain talking to Israeli citizens in 2008. I hate scare tactics and I wish people would stop using it. http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/IsraelFactSheet.pdf Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Funnily enough, the only people who I've ever heard call Obama "chosen one" or "messianic" have been people archly dismissing his supporters as being blind, mindless drones. As far as I can tell, this "Obama is God and Democrats his worshippers" meme is little more than a conservative talking point
For this and a few other reasons, harping on Obama support with the 'obama messiah' line is a very effectual way to say "wahhhhhhhh, obama winning put sand in my shorts"
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aaron Rosenstein: Ron! I went to the website you posted which begins with a child who doesn't want to go to school because the president’s photo is next to the flag...
Wrong, Aaron. The teacher turned on a projector each day which projected a full body image of Obama standing in front of 6 flags onto the wall. The kids were told to face that, rather than the flag. Read more carefully.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Other incidents have come up with Nation of Islam chief Louis Farrakhan said about Obama: "The Messiah is absolutely speaking," and when an artist in Iowa created an inaugural parade with Obama riding on a donkey, complete with waving palm fronds.
Notice the mention in the above to Louis Farrakhan explicitly calling Obama the Messiah." blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah"[The principal] said that in the morning that she would get with their audio/video tech and have him turn it off in my son's classroom. I asked her about the rest of the school and she said that she will make it for the whole school!"
Ron! I went to the website you posted which begins with a child who doesn't want to go to school because the president’s photo is next to the flag... *sigh* You and I came to very different conclusions my friend. I don't ask in anger 'why is Obama's photo next to the flag', I ask, how is that child being raised in such a way that a teacher is ostracized for hanging the President's photo next to the flag? What if the Photo were of FDR, Washington, or Eisenhower? Shouldn't we have the current president's photo up somewhere in a school? Is it wrong to be patriotic? I also find the articles comparison of China's Chairman Mao Zedong's picture more than a stretch and an insult. Also, I question the way you mention "Nation of Islam chief Louis Farrakhan". Is it to continue to spread fear and hate propaganda against Obama? I ask because when I received farce emails during the election telling me that Our President to be is in league with Islamic terrorist bent on the destruction of Israel, I simply replied back with this link which talks about Obama trip to Israel. Also there are some good news videos of Obama and McCain talking to Israeli citizens in 2008. I hate scare tactics and I wish people would stop using it. http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/IsraelFactSheet.pdf [/QUOTE]
Actually, it is pretty peculiar. They didn't put up a picture of the guy in the classroom (which I think would be a good idea), they put up a projection of him during the pledge of allegiance and turned it off immediately afterward. That sends an entirely different message and I would be uncomfortable with it if my kids were in the school.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: The cost of President Barack Obama's economic recovery plan is now above $900 billion after the Senate added money for medical research and tax breaks for car purchases.
quote: In an interview on CNN, Obama signaled a willingness to drop items that "may not really stimulate the economy right now." He also signaled he'll try to remove "buy American" provisions in the legislation to avoid a possible trade war.
In a victory for auto manufacturers and dealers, Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., won a 71-26 vote to allow most car buyers to claim an income tax deduction for sales taxes paid on new autos and interest payments on car loans. The break would cost $11 billion over the coming decade but could mean savings of $1,500 on a $25,000 car.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
Why does Obama's team stress that Daschle withdrew on his own? Wouldn't it be a stronger message if they "fired" him?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Actually, it is pretty peculiar. They didn't put up a picture of the guy in the classroom (which I think would be a good idea), they put up a projection of him during the pledge of allegiance and turned it off immediately afterward. That sends an entirely different message and I would be uncomfortable with it if my kids were in the school.
I'd be uncomfortable with it too (heck, I think that the Pledge of Allegiance is grossly un-American in itself), but I very much doubt that this actually happened.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Laughing doesn't prove anything about your wisdom or intelligence.
Neither does any post I have seen you make on these topics the past 6 years, but that doesn't seem to stop you....
Actually I am wrong. It does prove something about those qualities. Just not what you think they do.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I took a look at the site where the issue was first posted (the link is in the article Ron linked to). I didn't read the whole thing, but it looks to me that the poster is saying that he complained and the principal had it all shut down. It seems that he's not providing any specifics, and the school district is denying it, so it's hard to say exactly what happened.
I think it's fine to have a picture of the President in the classroom by the flag. My AP US History teacher had pictures of all the Presidents along the tops of the walls. I wouldn't be terribly pleased if the photo was put up only if it happened to be a President the teacher liked, though.
quote:The photo looks 3d because they blurred the background so as not to distract from Obama. It freaks me too, sad that the Flag is blurred as if it is second rate to Obama. This is a very vain man.
It really is amazing the lengths people will go to to criticize a President they don't like. Yes, the background is blurred so as not to distract from Obama. That's an incredibly common portrait technique, and the photo would be horribly cluttered if everything was in focus (as it is, I think it's not that great a picture because it's too busy). Really, a simple background would be better. Something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:George-W-Bush.jpeg Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:too many people have disrespected the office for too long, IMO. We could do with a generation that views the President as a hero rather than a punchline.
To me, by far the largest disrespect of the office of the President was electing someone so obviously unsuited to it as George W Bush.
To me, I don't think you have much of a leg to stand on when you complain that people are making fun of the god-awful candidate you elected. In that case, your disrespect seems much the greater.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Tarrsk (and samp)-
About Obama's supposed "Messiah" complex: I would agree that the overblown imagery invoked by Hillary, McCain, and others, and particularly the attribution to anything Obama himself has said or claimed, is ineffectual and inaccurate. However, I do think Obama has consciously caste himself as a traditional hero in the Christian (particularly Puritan) tradition. I think this is what Clinton and McCain were trying to tap into. But it fails (IMO) because most people prefer hope to cynicism.
This is (IMO) exactly what drew Democrats to Reagan in the 1980 election. It wasn't his policy stances, it was that he effectively invoked the Puritan ideal of hope for renewal through sacrifice. The same was true of MLK, Lincoln, and others whom Obama frequently invokes (and is consequently favorably compared to).
So, while I think the "Messiah" complaints generally fall on deaf ears, it's not because there's nothing to them. It's just a misjudging of the hearts of the voters. We want hope. We want a President who we can admire. We want to believe.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: To me, by far the largest disrespect of the office of the President was electing someone so obviously unsuited to it as George W Bush.
To me, I don't think you have much of a leg to stand on when you complain that people are making fun of the god-awful candidate you elected. In that case, your disrespect seems much the greater.
I think it extends far further than Bush. It's been since Nixon (and maybe Kennedy) that people have respected the President as "the President." While I feel a certain degree of egalitarianism is healthy for democracy, I think the fact that every President for the past 40 years has been viewed more as a buffoon than a hero is problematic.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
It's difficult for me to really speak about earlier than George H W Bush, but that has not been my experience for him or President Clinton. The majority view of either of those in my experience was not a buffoon.
As for the President as hero, it very much depends on what we mean by hero. I don't want someone is seen as a can't do wrong, will fix everything guy. I don't want a king.
But someone who represents the best and the brightest who behaves and is seen as admirable and who inspires others to do better, yeah, that I can get behind.
---
edit: I think many people seem to want the President to be regarded as above regular Americans and that criticism of him is somehow wrong. I strongly disagree with both of these sentiments
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: While things in the economy truly are bad, this is not simply about reporting the truth; it's about representing that truth in the most responsible way. A media that is too much in love with stories that bleed is capable of making the recession worse than it has to be.
For instance, I recently read a headline announcing that the recession had begun to hurt small-business owners. The underlying article was about, believe it or not, a survey that registered an increase in the optimism of small-business owners. Deriding that small increase as insignificant, the article went on to tout the many sinister economic beasts awaiting us around every corner.
I saw another headline trumpeting negative job news. Upon reading the underlying article, I learned that initial jobless claims had unexpectedly fallen in the previous week. But this hopeful fact was quickly brushed aside as an aberration, and possibly even a result of layoffs getting an earlier start than in past winters.
quote: President Barack Obama says the recession will turn into a "catastrophe" if the economic stimulus is not passed quickly.
Obama rejected several criticisms of the plan: that tax cuts alone will solve the problem, or that longer-term goals such as energy independence and health care reform are not also critical to address at the same time. The White House released some of Obama's remarks ahead of an event on executive compensation limits.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If the Senate and the House are the ones adding tons of extra spending provisions to the bill, how is it still Obama's stimulus plan? From the looks of things, maybe half of the actual spending in the bill is something he personally suggested.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I do not consider Obama any sort of Messiah. I fully expect him to make mistakes - he has already - and I will come down on him when he does.
But he is making all the moves that I would want a president to make, and saying the things I wanted to hear when I voted, and he is trying his best to work with Republicans even in a situation where he really doesn't have to. He is not going to suddenly drop all his Democratic ways and push tax cuts across the board and he's not going to drop out and put Hillary in his place so some people simply will never be happy with him, but he does seem to be trying, damn near single-handedly, to make government work again.
He screwed up with his nominees. And then, you know what? He admitted it. On the air. Publicly. Something the previous pres never did in 8 years, and the pres-before-that had real problems with. He admitted it and moved on, like a grownup. I almost forgot what that was like.
quote:In view of some of his other miscues, like ordering the immediately shutdown of Guantanamo, only to learn that he couldn't do that, he has to allow a year for it to wind down (and even with that extension, 50% of Americans oppose the shutdown to 44% in favor according to a recent Gallop poll)
You're suggesting that he was backed down. he wasn't. He ordered the shutdown, with a deadline of a year, to allow time for the detainees to be processed. That was the plan, not something forced on him. What, you thought he was just going to fling open the doors? And it may take much less than that year to accomplish it.
quote:ordering that U.S. tax dollars be sent to fund overseas abortions (which 58% of Americans say they disappove of in the same Gallup poll)
I'd be curious to see how the poll would look if the question was what people thought about U.S. tax dollars being sent overseas to fund family planning, which is what the money is used for. No U.S. funds are used for abortions, that's a separate law that's still in place. Only for education, and other resources.
Also, hey, well done on picking out the 2 items out of 7 in the poll where Obama did not enjoy clear majority approval. The name of the Gallup article is even "Americans Approve of Most Obama Actions to Date." Obviously a disastrous first week for our new leader.
quote:Yep, just like Bush--not to mention the diplomatic corners he has painted himself into--at what point does Obama become branded as a doofus?
Which corners are those, exactly?
Re: the pledge to Obama. I'd like to see more verification, but it wouldn't surprise me. People are often idiots. What I'm wondering is what this is supposed to prove. Was the teacher acting on orders? Is there a secret White-House-endorsed plan to indoctrinate children into worshiping Obama? I guess it's supposed to somehow indicate that everyone who supports Obama is a mindless drone or something. One teacher, out of the 6.2 million teachers in the U.S., is an over-enthusiastic nutjob, so obviously we must distrust anything Obama says.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:He screwed up with his nominees. And then, you know what? He admitted it. On the air. Publicly. Something the previous pres never did in 8 years, and the pres-before-that had real problems with. He admitted it and moved on, like a grownup. I almost forgot what that was like.
A-freaking-men.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
When you MAKE lots of mistakes, it is easier to admit to some of them...
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
In the words of the white house.
"Even the toughest rules require reasonable exceptions"
kinda like waterboarding?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
That really doesn't seem to be the case in my experience in real life.
And, if you look at politics, George Bush admitted to almost no mistakes during his cluster flock of a Presidency.
I have a lot more respect for people who were willing to admit that they were wrong and attempt to learn from these mistakes than people who pretend that they make no mistakes. From what I've seen, the first type tends to make many fewer mistakes than the second type.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by lobo: When you MAKE lots of mistakes, it is easier to admit to some of them...
If that were true, the previous administration it should have been trivial for the Bush administration to admit mistakes yet . . .
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: That really doesn't seem to be the case in my experience in real life.
And, if you look at politics, George Bush admitted to almost no mistakes during his cluster flock of a Presidency.
I have a lot more respect for people who were willing to admit that they were wrong and attempt to learn from these mistakes than people who pretend that they make no mistakes. From what I've seen, the first type tends to make many fewer mistakes than the second type.
Amen
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The higher the body count, the harder it is to admit a mistake.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:But it turns out that Obama's words, well, mattered. They made it harder to ignore scandal, as the Bush administration had done. The endlessly long vetting forms forcing deep tax and income transparency, which in turn uncovered embarrassments that would never have emerged under past regimes. This has made for a more troubled transition, but will probably also result in a cleaner administration. For all the embarrassments, this, in a concrete sense, is what change looks like. It's not an administration that decides to be clean so much as one that has little choice in the matter.
I think Obama should have different ethics rules for his appointees. It was a nice principle to storm onto the scene and say "no lobbyists...except for these two or three or ten guys!" I think instead he should have included the new rules and guidelines for what lobbyists can serve and where, and what rules there are for ensuring there are no shady financial dealings.
Because as I've said before, a lot of these guys really are professionals who know what they are doing and could be a boon to government service, but they're limited by the stigma, and Obama loses more points than he gains by making grandiose rules that he immediately, and very publicly, asks for exceptions for. There's a principle and a PR problem at work there.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
Luckily for BHO, nobody expects him to fulfill even half of what he promised...
The chorus of the media is "His expectations were unreasonably high - give him a break"
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
"The endlessly long vetting forms forcing deep tax and income transparency, which in turn uncovered embarrassments that would never have emerged under past regimes."
Or, he is just putting more people forward who are slimy creeps...
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Luckily for BHO, nobody expects him to fulfill even half of what he promised...
I do, so your entire argument is flawed. As are pretty much all arguments based on sweeping generalizations that bear little resemblance to reality.
[whispers]Psst... "the media" includes Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, et al, who are most decidedly not giving him a break.[/whispers]
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
So, given that Obama admits Daschle was a mistake, what does that make Geithner? Why is it a mistake to appoint a tax evader as Sec HHS, but not as SecTreasury? Or are their situations materially different?
<edit>I didn't mean for that to sound as confrontational as it does. I'm not trying to play some gotcha game, nor am I trying to malign Geithner. I'm just wondering what the difference between the two is, and how the administration can justify keeping Giethner given their condemnation of the Daschle appointment.</edit>
[ February 04, 2009, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
sorry.
should have said:
"most don't expect..." and "mainstream media..."
better nit picker?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Or, he is just putting more people forward who are slimy creeps...
Do you really, really want to go there and start comparing politicians from both sides? Ain't neither side without its embarrassments...
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Oh dear, I pointed out that your statement was half wrong and I'm "nitpicking."
"Mainstream media" includes Rush, Hannity, Coulter, The Weekly Standard, The Wall Street Journal, Joe Scarborough, David Brooks, Michelle Malkin, Charles Krauthammer, Drudge (off the top of my head, I'm sure I'm missing some obvious names). I suppose Townhall.com, NewsMax and WorldNetDaily.com might not be mainstream, but they certainly have the traffic to compete with the liberal sites. You can certianly claim bias by specific networks/newspapers/commentators, and with justification, but you don't get to play the underdog and claim "the media" is against you.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
You make it sound like half the mainstream media is conservative and half is liberal.
The big difference is that the people listening to Rush et al. are mostly conservative and they don't claim to be news - they are commentators.
Those that hear the news from abc/nbc/cnn/fox etc. are expecting unbiased journalism. That is not what they are getting...
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by lobo: You make it sound like half the mainstream media is conservative and half is liberal.
The big difference is that the people listening to Rush et al. are mostly conservative and they don't claim to be news - they are commentators.
Those that hear the news from abc/nbc/cnn/fox etc. are expecting unbiased journalism. That is not what they are getting...
I expect honest journalism. I do not expect unbiased journalism. But I think we've had this conversation before.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:What will be more telling is seeing who has the last laugh.
You said stuff like this before the GOP got wrecked in two consecutive elections and lost the presidency to the candidate you repeatedly assured us was unelectable.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
You didn't say the news. You said the media. Yes, the news programs are often biased. FOX is helping even things up a bit, there.
But when it comes to shows and people who influence how people think, I think the right-wing isn't nearly as victimized as they might have us believe. An awful lot of people out there -- left and right and other -- really don't draw that much of a distinction between the news and the guy commenting on it afterward. And when the radio personality complains that no one ever reports the stuff he does, and he has an audience of 13.5 million people (at last count) to complain to, I have to think that the message is getting out there.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: The Senate Intelligence Committee is taking up the last of President Barack Obama's nominee for a high-profile national security post, the surprising pick of Leon Panetta to head the CIA.
Going into Thursday's public hearing, the former Democratic congressman from California knows he will have to give up lucrative seats on boards of directors, end his consulting work and do without well-paid speeches while running the spy agency.
quote: In choosing Panetta, Obama passed over current and former CIA officials with impressive credentials. The other candidates had either worked in intelligence during the Bush administration's development of policies on interrogation and torture or earlier, during the months leading up to Sept. 11, 2001.
Panetta was not expected to face major opposition. Obama failed to consult with the committee's new head, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., before going public with the selection. But a hastily arranged phone talk involving Obama, Panetta and Vice President Joe Biden smoothed the ruffled feathers.
quote: Panetta is a strong supporter of Obama's rules.
"Those who support torture may believe that we can abuse captives in certain select circumstances and still be true to our values. But that is a false compromise. We either believe in the dignity of the individual, the rule of law, and the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, or we don't. There is no middle ground," he wrote in the Washington Monthly last year.
Panetta comes with strong management skills, an insider's grasp of government, and the trust and confidence of the new president. But he has no professional intelligence gathering or analytical experience. The CIA's current deputy director, Steven Kappes, is expected to remain in that job.
quote: Shoppers grappling with rising layoffs and shrinking retirement accounts dug deep into survival mode last month, leading to sharp January sales declines for many retailers. The poor results raised more concerns about the financial health of the industry.
The malaise crossed the spectrum of retailing, from department chains to teen chains. Wet Seal Inc., Stage Stores Inc. and Children's Place Retail Stores Inc. were among those posting deeper-than-expected sales declines.
Sounds extremely dire and there is no hope for anyone yet....
quote: A sales tally by Thomson Reuters found that 12 retailers it tracks beat expectations, while 11 missed projections. The tally is based on same-store sales, or sales at stores opened at least a year, which are a key indicator of retailer's health.
One more than half of the retailers being tracked beat expectations? While not great it is certainly not completely terrible.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
DK: they don't say how many met expectations, neither beating them nor missing them.
But yes, while retailing is in bad shape, it doesn't seem to be unpredictably bad shape, which is a good sign.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Fugu, no it doesn't say that and it would be nice to know how many met expectations. If many of them met expectations combined with 12 beating expectations then I would think the economy is on a small decline but not anywhere close to the Great Depression
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: President Barack Obama warned on Thursday that failure to act on an economic recovery package could plunge the nation into a long-lasting recession that might prove irreversible, a fresh call to a recalcitrant Congress to move quickly.
In an op-ed piece in The Washington Post, the president argued that each day without his stimulus package, Americans lose more jobs, savings and homes. His message came as congressional leaders struggle to control the huge stimulus bill that's been growing larger by the day in the Senate. The addition of a new tax break for homebuyers Wednesday evening sent the price tag well past $900 billion.
quote: Obama painted a bleak picture if lawmakers do nothing.
"This recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse," Obama wrote in the newspaper piece titled, "The Action Americans Need."
He rejected the argument that more tax cuts are needed in the plan and that piecemeal measures would be sufficient, arguing that Americans made their intentions clear in the election.
"I reject these theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change," he wrote.
Is the change Obama voters went to the polls for? I guess economies no longer run in cycles so if we don't allow President Obama to spend well over 900 billion dollars we will never ever recover. The only solution is the Government? A lot of articles I read state that even if we do nothing the recession will end in a few years.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, we're not anywhere close to the great depression in terms of effect on most people. Destruction of wealth, arguably, but not consumption effects in the general populace.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I guess economies no longer run in cycles so if we don't allow President Obama to spend well over 900 billion dollars we will never ever recover.
You know, in fairness to Obama, the $900 billion isn't his idea. The package is hardly "his" to own.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by lobo: "The endlessly long vetting forms forcing deep tax and income transparency, which in turn uncovered embarrassments that would never have emerged under past regimes."
Or, he is just putting more people forward who are slimy creeps...
Dude. You have no credibility whatsoever. You have ignored everything, but EVERYTHING reasonable that is being said here. I don't know what makes you take the 8 seconds out of your day to type in the stupidest possible comeback when someone says something actually valuable, but I wonder at it, when I'm not glancing past your gnomic "contributions"
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Is the change Obama voters went to the polls for? I guess economies no longer run in cycles so if we don't allow President Obama to spend well over 900 billion dollars we will never ever recover. The only solution is the Government? A lot of articles I read state that even if we do nothing the recession will end in a few years.
I'm no economist and I didn't vote for this particular stimulus plan. I voted for people to represent me in making that decision. Spending that money makes me nervous but then again, so does the current economy.
The trouble with the cyclical view of this recession is that a lot of bad decisions, especially bad loans, led to our current problems, which suggests to me that this isn't just normal.
What concerns me -- and maybe I'm nuts -- is that I still see a problem with an economy based on credit, which ours still seems to be. In his appeal last year, Bush's stimulus package was supposedly all about bolstering lines of credit so that people could get loans.
So basically what I'm saying is that I see some very real problems that need fixing. This isn't the sort of thing that can just be left alone. My fear about the stimulus package is that it's just a band aid and that it doesn't solve the right problems.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
*%&^#^@&#&!! Now they're talking about cutting a bunch of the stuff I liked in the stimulus bill. What the hell? I recognize that it's too big, there's too much pork and it needs to be shrunk, but if they need to shrink it then they should remove the %&#*&^ pork! No these good programs that are useful on a national scale.
quote:Among the initiatives that could be cut are $50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts, $14 million for cyber security research by the Homeland Security Department, $1 billion for the National Science Foundation, $400 million for research and prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, $850 million for Amtrak and $400 million for climate change research. But so far, none of the suggestions come close to being enough to shrink the package on the scale proposed.
I mean those aren't pork -- pork is national funding for local stuff. And those are tiny peaces of it. But tiny peaces that help the economy in very real and good ways!
What's more the MSM is NOT backing up Obama the way you lot (DK, lobo, SenojRetep, etc) are claiming. Quite the opposite, they're placing the blame for the @#*$(& congressional Republicans obstructionism at his feet! As if he hasn't done every thing humanly possible to be bipartisan!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The dirty secret is that there really isn't a lot of "pork" in the bill, relative to the massive amount of cash handed out to the poor. Of that $900 billion, about $600 billion of it is income redistribution.
The problem with income redistribution as it's being done here is that they're not raising taxes on the rich to pay for enough of it yet (which is after all a bad idea in a recession), so they're attempting to pay Paul before robbing Peter. Which in itself would be perfectly Keynesian, except that they're actually borrowing money from Yang to pay Paul while making angry eyebrows at Peter the whole time.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Dude. You have no credibility whatsoever. You have ignored everything, but EVERYTHING reasonable that is being said here. I don't know what makes you take the 8 seconds out of your day to type in the stupidest possible comeback when someone says something actually valuable, but I wonder at it, when I'm not glancing past your gnomic "contributions"
Don't have a cow.
Feel free to ignore my posts if they affect you so...
I wouldn't characterize my post as a comeback. It was referencing an article someone linked to. My point is that the article claimed that the reason so many of Obama's appointments had some controversy attached to them was because they were being vetted more than past presidential appointments. I offered another take on that. Sorry it doesn't jive with your Obama man-love. Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: You know, in fairness to Obama, the $900 billion isn't his idea. The package is hardly "his" to own.
He is the President and is pushing the stimulus package as the only way to save the economy...so yes it is "his" to own...along with Democrats too but it starts and ends with President Obama.
quote: What's more the MSM is NOT backing up Obama the way you lot (DK, lobo, SenojRetep, etc) are claiming.
I believe I posted articles on how some media/news outlets and President Obama are making the economy sound extremely dire when the news is only bad.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:so they're attempting to pay Paul before robbing Peter. Which in itself would be perfectly Keynesian, except that they're actually borrowing money from Yang to pay Paul while making angry eyebrows at Peter the whole time.
:snort:
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: . I offered another take on that. Sorry it doesn't jive with your Obama man-love.
I'm sorry it was a pathetic attempt at spin. Your "different takes" are idiotic- therein lies the problem. It's very easy for you to take what someone has said, which is backed up with actual evidence, ignore that evidence, and then offer your "different take." That makes you a shill. It also makes you annoying.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Actually the response was fine, up until the "Sorry it doesn't jive with your Obama man-love" part which is simply condescending, dismissive jingoism.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Actually the response was fine, up until the "Sorry it doesn't jive with your Obama man-love" part which is simply condescending, dismissive jingoism.
True, but please use smaller words...
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: What's more the MSM is NOT backing up Obama the way you lot (DK, lobo, SenojRetep, etc) are claiming.
*looks around* Who me? I've questioned Obama's handling of Daschle, whether the specific sort of government spending in the stimulus bill is appropriate, and whether Obama feeds the Obama "Messiah" meme through rhetorical style and heavy-handed symbolism, but I haven't asserted what you claim. Actually, I think the MSM has beaten up the bill quite a bit (rightly so, IMO).
As far as Susan Collins list, which you cite, they are exactly the sort of intelligent, long-term spending proposals that don't belong in a stimulus package. If you want to increase these bureaucracies' budgets, that's great. Do it through the budgetary process that is in place. If you want to stimulate the economy through government spending, that's great: do it through definable, finitely-scoped, goal-driven projects.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I saw a breakdown the other day of the renewable energy spending in the bill and if it passes, it's incredible. It's everything environmentalists have been wanting and more for the last decade.
Between that and the new money for student aid, and electronic health records, there's a lot in this bill that I like personally and that I think will actually help stimulate the economy both in the short and long term.
But I think there's probably several billion dollars there in wasteful spending, and necessary though this may be, it doesn't mean we can be lazy about it, not with what we're paying out in interest on the national debt every year.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:As far as Susan Collins list, which you cite, they are exactly the sort of intelligent, long-term spending proposals that don't belong in a stimulus package. If you want to increase these bureaucracies' budgets, that's great. Do it through the budgetary process that is in place. If you want to stimulate the economy through government spending, that's great: do it through definable, finitely-scoped, goal-driven projects.
I totally agree. If it's necessary to pass this massive stimulus package, then do it, but don't try to slip a whole mess of other things onto it.
It was even worse last year when the bail-out wouldn't pass until they attached a whole mess of pork to it to bribe the Republican hold outs.
edit:
The "let's slip completely unrelated stuff onto a popular/necessary bill" thing is something I think is really wrong.
I don't support a full Presidential line item veto, but I'd love to see an ability for the President to send amendments like that back to Congress to pass or fail on a simple majority.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
The ex-CEO of HP talking about executive pay. I think it's very good stuff.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Nope, don't buy it. After years of hearing conservatives complain about welfare queens buying iPods and nice cars -- and rightfully so -- I think if a corporation is accepting government cash than the government gets to limit executive compensation.
One of the arguments against it is that it stifles the free market and that companies won't accept the bailout with that kind of restriction. Well, fine. They'll go under, principles intact. That's as free market as you can get.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I;m with Chris. I don't think that CEO salaries are really market based they way other things are market based. Boards hire CEOs and boards are made up of other CEOs. I think that artificially puffs up CEO salaries.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I;m with Chris. I don't think that CEO salaries are really market based they way other things are market based. Boards hire CEOs and boards are made up of other CEOs. I think that artificially puffs up CEO salaries.
Agreed. I remember an article about this a few years ago. Boards try and deal with this by hiring a company specifically to determine the appropriate level of pay. Of course this just translates the problem as 1)that company is going to heavily draw on other CEO's pays which have similar problems, and 2)that company will seek to please the CEO to increase its chance of subsequent re-employment.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Nope, don't buy it. After years of hearing conservatives complain about welfare queens buying iPods and nice cars -- and rightfully so -- I think if a corporation is accepting government cash than the government gets to limit executive compensation.
One of the arguments against it is that it stifles the free market and that companies won't accept the bailout with that kind of restriction. Well, fine. They'll go under, principles intact. That's as free market as you can get.
Amen. My only fear is that once this happens, the next step will be to try and expand the limits to companies that aren't getting federal bailouts. But that hasn't happened yet, and if a company wants to feed off of the public teat, they can damn well take the limitations with it.
When you think about it, this is pretty much the same thing as workfare.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
In her plan, the CEO's pay is going to get reduced - potentially even more than by the government capping.
Here's the parts on that:
quote: To strengthen accountability, all aspects of CEO compensation should be voted on by shareholders on an annual basis.
Ultimately, it is the owners of a company who must determine whether a CEO's rewards are justified by a CEO's performance. And because the American taxpayer is now a partial owner in many companies, the government can get a vote as well -- in some cases a very sizeable vote.
In addition, "clawback provisions," which require a CEO to return compensation to shareholders if promised results aren't delivered, should be standard fare.
She's proposing taking the CEO compensation decisions out from the board of directors and moving it to the shareholders, which in the case of many of the bailed out firms, means that the American public/government would have a very strong say.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
You know, someone needs to shake the members of Congress and keep shaking them until they get it. link
quote: Yes, while our representatives have been jumping up and down screaming about the excesses of Wall Street, condemning those corporate boondoggle trips to luxurious resorts, what do they do?
They all go away on retreat together to a luxurious resort.
quote: A fired-up Barack Obama ditched his TelePrompter to rally House Democrats and rip Republican opponents of his recovery package Thursday night – at one point openly mocking the GOP for failing to follow through on promises of bipartisanship.
So we must blindly follow President Obama and not ask questions? Isn't that what President Bush was constantly berated for?
quote: Obama, speaking to about 200 House Democrats at their annual retreat at the Kingsmill Resort and Spa, dismissed Republican attacks against the massive spending in the stimulus.
Who paid for this annual retreat at Kingsmill Resort and Spa? I am shocked anyone would be supporting a massive spending project of this size which has had no time at all to be planned. 1400 pages of spending and only a few days to review it? Most the money doesn't hit until 4 years from now. There is also no way to halt the spending if the economy turns around. Lyrhawn was right, this bill is everything environmentalists have wanted for years and have not been able to get. Now is not the time for that kind of massive spending. I heard Obama state today that replacing the government fleet with hybrids is a good move because we will save energy and help the auto industry. While that sounds nice replacing the entire fleet with hybrids makes no sense. In a few years we will be faced with having to replace the entire fleet again. The fleet should be replaced as it ages and not in one massive push. If he really wants to save energy then hybrids are not the best option. There are many cars that get better gas mileage than a hybrid and the 'carbon footprint' to make a hybrid is much worse than making a non hybrid car. Additionally, is he going to be a protectist and only buy American cars and shut out the Japanese or other foreign car manufacturers? Obama has bipartisanship with this bill, it is just bipartisanship against the bill and not for it.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Two weeks out from his historic inauguration and promises of a new, less partisan Washington, but with his stimulus plan taking a very public beating at the hands of minority Republicans on Capitol Hill, the president has been forced to transform.
And quickly.
The Great Diffuser of inclusion and charm first shifted to the Great Salesman of Stimulus. Over the past 24 hours, he has been forced to become the much more stern Man With the Mandate.
quote: Most dramatically, the president has been pointedly reminding Republicans, and some stimulus-skeptical Democrats, that he was the choice of the American people last November. Those voters, he asserts, rejected the GOP way of doing things.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: In her plan, the CEO's pay is going to get reduced - potentially even more than by the government capping.
Here's the parts on that:
quote: To strengthen accountability, all aspects of CEO compensation should be voted on by shareholders on an annual basis.
Ultimately, it is the owners of a company who must determine whether a CEO's rewards are justified by a CEO's performance. And because the American taxpayer is now a partial owner in many companies, the government can get a vote as well -- in some cases a very sizeable vote.
In addition, "clawback provisions," which require a CEO to return compensation to shareholders if promised results aren't delivered, should be standard fare.
She's proposing taking the CEO compensation decisions out from the board of directors and moving it to the shareholders, which in the case of many of the bailed out firms, means that the American public/government would have a very strong say.
I didn't post on this immediately because I had to think about it. My gut reaction was, and still is, that companies accepting federal money can take it with whatever strings we attach to it. Now, should executive compensation be such a string? I think so. And yes, half a mil is an arbitrary number. Any number would be.
This idea that you quoted here, though, is what I had to think about. Here's the thing: I think the market is already too tied to the will of the shareholders. That's why we look towards next quarter's profit instead of making long-term plans for our companies' futures.
Also, the US government isn't a shareholder. They're not buying up shares of stocks, they're giving companies money.
Lisa -- I do not see capping executive salaries ever going beyond companies that accept government money. That's insane. There are times when I fear things because of what else they may lead to, such as small abridgments of freedom for the sake of national security, but that's a principled stand, if nothing else. I actually think this cap is a good idea and since I'm footing the bill...
Grumble, grumble...did I mention that I hate the idea of bailing out companies? They've made these stupid decisions, why shouldn't they live with them? Why is it ok to give welfare money to large companies but not to individuals? And in this case, it may not even help but we're stuck with the precedent of giving money to anyone who is "too important" to fall. I've been mad at the Republicans for 8 years for this kind of junk and I can't honestly say I'm pleased with the Democrats for it right now.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Who paid for this annual retreat at Kingsmill Resort and Spa?
The DNC, which is funded privately.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
It doesn't really matter who paid for it. It sends the wrong message...
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: We wanted to know who’s picking up the tab—so NBC 4‘s Patrick Preston investigated to find out.
The Congressional Democrats are meeting at the Kingsmill Resort and Spa, where members will pay between $119 and $400 each night for their rooms. But taxpayers pick up the rest of the cost.
Taxpayer dollars are being spent for transportation—a chartered Amtrak train—and security to protect members of Congress, as well as facility and speaker fees.
When Preston asked the spokesperson for the Democratic Caucus for the total taxpayer expense, he was told that no one had that answer.
Democratic Caucus spokeswoman Emily Barocas said they don’t have to report the costs until April, but The Hill newspaper in Washington reported that previous Democratic retreats have cost taxpayers more than $500,000 over the past five years.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: ... Also, the US government isn't a shareholder. They're not buying up shares of stocks, they're giving companies money.
Uh, they've been buying up shares for a while.
quote:The U.S. government is dramatically escalating its response to the financial crisis by planning to invest $250 billion in the country's banks, forcing nine of the largest to accept a Treasury stake in what amounts to a partial nationalization.
News that European governments also planned to take stakes in their banks and anticipation of new U.S. measures unleashed a tremendous surge in U.S. stock prices yesterday, with the Dow Jones industrial average soaring to the biggest percentage gain since the 1930s, up 11.1 percent. It ended 936.42 points higher, the largest point gain ever, just days after the Dow had its steepest weekly decline in history.
The Treasury Department's decision to take equity stakes in banks represents a significant reversal, coming just weeks after Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. had opposed the idea. In a momentous meeting yesterday afternoon in Washington, Paulson, flanked by top financial regulators, told the executives of nine leading banks that they needed to participate in the program for the good of the national economy, two industry sources said on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.
The government's initiative, which was to be announced this morning before the markets open for New York trading, is part of a wider plan that goes beyond the $700 billion rescue package approved by Congress earlier this month. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. is also set to announce today the launch of an insurance fund to guarantee new issues of bank debt. It will provide unlimited deposit insurance for non-interest-bearing accounts, which are widely used by small businesses for payroll and other purposes.
In pressing the bank executives to accept partial government ownership, Paulson's message was clear: Though officially the program was voluntary, the banks had little choice in the matter. In exchange for giving the Treasury minority stakes, the nine firms would jointly receive an investment worth $125 billion. The government would make another $125 billion available for the next 30 days to thousands of other banks and thrifts across the country.
Given that the next stage of TARP is larger than the whole market capitalization of the financial sector, these banks are all essentially (or on the verge of becoming) totally state owned. We would call then crown corporations in Canada or state owned enterprises (SOEs) in China but you guys can come up with your own names.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I, for one, am tired of the republican minority trying to push their entire agenda. They were voted in as a MINORITY. The majority of the country wants what the democrats are offering, and it's not right for them to try to change the entire bill. Sure, they can ask for some things, but their demands are ridiculous.
I don't understand why a simple majority isn't enough to push through a bill in the Senate.
I was listening to the radio the other day and a republican was being interviewed. He was asked what it would mean if the stimulus bill wasn't passed because Republicans didn't support it. He turned it around and basically said it would be because Democrats didn't fall in line.
Republicans had the country for 8 years. They had their turn. If the situation was reversed, do you think the republican majority would give a damn about what the democrat minority wanted?
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
"Republicans had the country for 8 years. They had their turn. If the situation was reversed, do you think the republican majority would give a damn about what the democrat minority wanted?"
Where you not paying attention for the past 8 years? Same deal sister...
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: I don't understand why a simple majority isn't enough to push through a bill in the Senate.
Depends on the rules:
quote: A party with a majority can usually pass whatever it likes in the House, but the same is not true in the Senate. Debates in the Senate are not rigidly time-limited as they are in the House, and in order to end discussion and move to a substantive vote, a motion of “clôture”, or closure, has to pass. The snag is that 60 votes are needed to pass such a motion; and the Democrats have only 58 senators. In theory, if the Republicans hang firm—and they held absolutely firm in the House—they could prevent the stimulus bill from ever being put to a full vote.
Seems like their refusal to let it go to a vote goes against the spirit of the rule.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
From my above NPR article
quote: "I reject those theories," Obama said, "and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change." His assertion had echoes of George W. Bush two days after his re-election in a 2004 squeaker over Democratic Sen. John Kerry.
Said President Bush, "The people made it clear what they wanted. I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and I intend to spend it."
Obama until recent days had avoided displays of triumphalism or any suggestions of Bush-like claims to a mandate, even with the Democrats in firm control of both the Senate and the House. But his charm offensive failed to produce even a single Republican vote in support of the House version of his stimulus measure that passed last week.
And when even moderate Senate Republicans —and up to a dozen Democrats — began expressing public squeamishness about the plan's price tag and some longer-term objectives that don't translate into immediate job creation, the president shifted gears.
Thursday's assertion of the voters' mandate marked the third time the president has invoked the November election results. He also plans to hold a prime-time news conference Monday to again bring his argument to the nation's living rooms.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Obama's victory was hardly a squeaker.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
And did actually hinge on people being very fed up with the way things were being done and was accompanied by a decimation of the established Republicans across the board. It was a pretty clear rejection of the current Republican policies.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I don't think they are saying Obama's victory was a squeaker. I think they are saying Obama sounds like Bush did in 2004.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: Obama's victory was hardly a squeaker.
Obama's percentage of votes is pretty middle of the road. Since 1900, there have been 28 presidential elections. Obama's victory (percentage of votes won) ranks 15th...
Less than Reagan '84 (5th) and Bush '88 (14th) but more than Bush '2004 (19th) or Clinton '96 (24th).
A little context is helpful. Obama is not nearly as popular as his supporters would have you believe...
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Yes, but Bush didn't have a basis for saying what he did. Obama does. There's a big difference there.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Sure - you want to believe Obama and don't want to believe Bush.
Both sides do it. When people cheer their own side for doing and castigate the other, the hypocrisy makes me sick.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Sure - you want to believe Obama and don't want to believe Bush.
Both sides do it. When people cheer their own side for doing and castigate the other, the hypocrisy makes me sick.
And this is true. We do favor our own side.
And yeah, the "suck it, I won" thing is harsh. But I don't think it's comparable to Mr. Bush's statement. For one thing, there is a majority of Americans who agree that something must be done, and a great many of them do not think more tax cuts are the answer. Bush was still claiming a mandate even after the majority of Americans disagreed with his policies.
For another, Obama has reached out to the other side, numerous times, in ways that Mr. Bush simply did not do in 8 years. He has appointed Republicans to his cabinet, apparently in a bizarre-for-Washington belief that he wants people good at those jobs, regardless of their affiliation. And he is still talking to Republicans even after they swamped him with their shutout vote. He spent a half-hour talking to Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) about her suggestions for the bill, some of which sound good (she didn't focus on the ubiquitous tax cuts, but did focus on cutting the price and getting the job-creation going a little faster, and that's exactly the input he needs).
In comparison, Mr. Bush talked a good bipartisan game but never actually followed through with it. His cabinet was all far-right. If you recall, his shunning of Democrats even contributed to the loss of the Senate when Jim Jeffords changed parties.
Bush did work with Dems when their goals matched his, such as AIDS help to Africa, the immigrant bill, and a few -- very few -- others. But mostly he just steamrolled right over them.
Obama's "I won" declaration does have echoes of Bush. But they're not equal.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Little bit of a difference there.
This campaign in the last two months was about nothing but the economy. McCain and Obama, as well as the respective Congressional candidates laid out their plans for how this very specific problem would be solved, and in large part, people voted in those plans as much as they did the people espousing them. That election was about the economy a hell of a lot more than it was about anything else.
So when Obama says that the people elected him and Democrats because of their ideas, I think he has a lot of real backing behind the idea, rather than just saying "I won so I get my way." That'd be a silly argument if he was trying to create a national celebratory week where every one gets the week off work to celebrate the importance of sand. Obviously no one elected him to extol the virtues of sand. But they DID elect him in very large part to fix the economy. People didn't reelect Bush in 2004 because they thought everything in Iraq was hunky dory and wanted to keep things going as much as possible exactly the same. I think by and large they actually voted him in as an anti-Kerry vote as much as it was a pro-Bush vote.
Like Katarain said, people voted in Democrats in even larger majorities than before, and voted in Barack Obama, a Democrat, over a very, very clear Republican opponent espousing a very different set of economic ideals.
Now, if Democrats were SMART, they'd come up with what they think is the best bill possible and bring it to a cloture vote, and force Republicans to ACTUALLY filibuster the damned thing. Then while Republicans are reading cookbooks, the Democrats can groundpound every cable news show from here to the moon talking about obstructionist Republicans getting in the way of the people's will, and about how they TRIED to work with Republicans, but how they refused to come to a compromise unless the bill was radically altered to meet Republican demands. (I'm not saying that 100% true, but I could sure as heck sell it).
But Harry Reid is an idiot, and he'll never do that. Obama is NOT an idiot, which makes me think that maybe there's a chance, I'm not sure. With Reid in charge, between 2006 when the Dems took Congress and 2008 when the legislative session ended, Republicans only had to threaten to filibuster to get a bill killed, but Reid never made them follow through on it. Obama is a much more savvy interpreter of the public mood however, and he might be willing to take the public will for a test drive to see how much backlash he can generate against Republicans, which might force them to back down. Polls show that people ARE leery of the size of the bill, but they also show that by and large, they trust Democrats to handle it, have a lower opinion of Republicans, and approve of most of what Obama has done in his first two and a half weeks in office.
Democrats need to learn how to actually use the high ground when they have it.
DK -
As far as environmental spending goes, yeah, a lot of that isn't going to be spent in the next month, but a great deal of it will be spent in the next year. Besides, a lot of it is exactly the kind of thing that Republicans say we need MORE of: Tax cuts for business. Why do tax cuts not count when they're for renewable energy? As far as hybrids go, if they limited themselves to buying American hybrids only, there's absolutely no way they could replace the government's fleet anyway, as American car companies, and for that matter Japanese car companies, simply don't produce enough of them in a given year to replace the entire fleet. And that's if they actually bought out the ENTIRE supply. What you're complaining about isn't even feasible, let alone likely, so I wouldn't worry about it. The environmental spending in the stimulus package IS going to create a lot of near, midterm, and long term jobs, to say nothing of the long term energy savings we'll get from it. You might not like it, but it IS stimulus. It'll put people to work and save other people money. Isn't that the point of the bill?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Also, Pres Obama's statement is about specific policy, which was actually in play during the election, whereas Pres Bush's was about the blank check he felt he had been handed.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
katharina, I voted for Bush the second time. I was going to vote for him the first time, but I had never voted before and I went to the wrong place.
Even then I had enough of a grip on reality to realize that he hardly won by a margin that suggested a mandate. I don't know if Obama's margin could really be called a mandate either, but it sure as heck is closer to being one than what Bush had.
ETA: So, I wonder if that does anything to your hypothesis that I just want to believe Obama and disbelieve Bush. Am I still a hypocrite? Do I still make you sick?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Also, Pres Obama's statement is about specific policy, which was actually in play during the election, whereas Pres Bush's was about the blank check he felt he had been handed.
Really? What specific policy would that be?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Lyrhawn - This is tax cuts for specific Democrat approved businesses, not a tax cut for businesses at large. Green energy does not need a bailout at this moment and green energy did not cause this recession to occur. Shouldn't we work on helping the end the housing crisis rather than subsidizing the much more expensive green energy? Why is Obama talking about another spending spree to help homeowners? We should be taking care of mortgages with this package, not in another spending package. This is simply a Democrat wish list of spending that they do not want to put in a federal budget. Why try to place this in a federal budget when you can get a trillion plus dollars of Democrat spending in a spending spree package?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Also, Pres Obama's statement is about specific policy, which was actually in play during the election, whereas Pres Bush's was about the blank check he felt he had been handed.
President Obama doesn't want a blank check to spend....he and the Democrats want a trillion dollar plus check to spend
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm not sure, was that actually meant to address what I said?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: These are extraordinary times, and like a lot of Republicans I believe that a well-crafted stimulus plan is needed to put people back to work. But the Obama spending bill would stimulate the government, not the economy.
quote: As someone who spent a career in the private sector, I'd like to see a stimulus package that respects the productivity and genius of the American people. And experience shows us what it should look like.
First, there are two ways you can put money into the economy, by spending more or by taxing less. But if it's stimulus you want, taxing less works best. That's why permanent tax cuts should be the centerpiece of the economic stimulus.
quote: Last year, with the economy already faltering, I proposed a stimulus of $233 billion. The Washington Post said: "Romney's plan is way too big." So what critique will the media have for the size of the Obama package?
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Job creation should be the centerpiece of the economic stimulus package.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I think all the talk about mandates is nonsense and I did when Bush was in office too. He won. That means he (insert President's name here) has the power of the presidency, subject to the checks and balances set forth by the constitution. That's it.
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Lyrhawn - This is tax cuts for specific Democrat approved businesses, not a tax cut for businesses at large. Green energy does not need a bailout at this moment and green energy did not cause this recession to occur. Shouldn't we work on helping the end the housing crisis rather than subsidizing the much more expensive green energy? Why is Obama talking about another spending spree to help homeowners? We should be taking care of mortgages with this package, not in another spending package. This is simply a Democrat wish list of spending that they do not want to put in a federal budget. Why try to place this in a federal budget when you can get a trillion plus dollars of Democrat spending in a spending spree package?
I believe that Obama wants to support green energy because he believes that it will provide jobs, something we need right now, and also because it will decrease our dependence on foreign energy sources, which is in our best interest for a lot of reasons.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: Obama is not nearly as popular as his supporters would have you believe...
What's his popular approval rating?
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
I'm not sure I believe what I'm reading, but here's a blog post by Nicolas Kristof about the stimulus package:
quote: So this is what the Senate seems to be coming down to: keeping bridges and throwing students out the window. The effort to prune the stimulus package to make it more palatable to Republicans is focused on slashing money for education.
...
Come on, senators, education is the best way to fight poverty, the best way to break the cycle of the underclass, the best way to ensure a broader distribution of opportunity in America, the best way to preserve our country’s economic competitiveness. And it’s just as good for stimulus purposes as repaving a road — and you still want to throw those school children out the window?
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote: quote: Obama is not nearly as popular as his supporters would have you believe...
What's his popular approval rating?
The recent average seems to be about 63% approve, 23% disapprove for job approval.
There's a different one that says he has a 69% 'favorable' rating. Not sure how that's different from job approval.
Either way, he's still pretty darn popular.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Alcon, that is definitely the way the wind is blowing. As I said yesterday, if you are for the increase in Pell (and/or Stafford) contact your senator!
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:But if it's stimulus you want, taxing less works best. That's why permanent tax cuts should be the centerpiece of the economic stimulus.
No, they really, really don't. The Bush tax cuts provided a slight and temporary boost, but that faded and the value of it was offset by the growth in the deficit. That's it.
quote:By now, most economists doubt that tax cuts pay for themselves by stimulating the economy so much that revenues grow rapidly. A new Congressional Research Service report, for example, finds that the stimulus effects of the Bush tax cuts have faded, and the negative effect of added debt service has grown. In the first 10 years, those additional debt-service costs can add 25 percent in lost revenues to the original tax-cut revenue losses. So in the long term, tax cuts add to the deficit.
[ February 06, 2009, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Approval polls about the stimulus: even or trending down, but the wording on the questions has changed.
The Gallop poll, where the wording did not change from January to February, has almost identical results.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Even Mankiw, the architect of a good chunk of the tax cuts, didn't think they'd pay for themselves when instituted and says the evidence is clear that they didn't.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Even Mankiw, the architect of a good chunk of the tax cuts, didn't think they'd pay for themselves when instituted and says the evidence is clear that they didn't.
Yeah anyone who's pulling laffer-curvology on this one is a wee bit off the deep end.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Also, Pres Obama's statement is about specific policy, which was actually in play during the election, whereas Pres Bush's was about the blank check he felt he had been handed.
Really? What specific policy would that be?
Still waiting.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote: No, they really, really don't. The Bush tax cuts provided a slight and temporary boost, but that faded and the value of it was offset by the growth in the deficit. That's it.
quote: Myth #1: Tax revenues remain low. Fact: Tax revenues are above the historical average, even after the tax cuts.
Tax revenues in 2006 were 18.4 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), which is actually above the 20-year, 40-year, and 60-year historical averages.[1] The inflation-adjusted 20 percent tax revenue increase between 2004 and 2006 represents the largest two-year revenue surge since 1965–1967.[2] Claims that Americans are undertaxed by historical standards are patently false.
Some critics of President George W. Bush's tax policies concede that tax revenues exceed the historical average yet assert that revenues are historically low for economies in the fourth year of an expansion. Setting aside that some of these tax policies are partly responsible for that economic expansion, the numbers simply do not support this claim. Comparing tax revenues in the fourth fiscal year after the end of each of the past three recessions shows nearly equal tax revenues of:
18.4 percent of GDP in 1987, 18.5 percent of GDP in 1995, and 18.4 percent of GDP in 2006.[3] While revenues as a percentage of GDP have not fully returned to pre-recession levels (20.9 percent in 2000), it is now clear that the pre-recession level was a major historical anomaly caused by a temporary stock market bubble.
quote: Myth #9: The Bush tax cuts have not helped the economy. Fact: The economy responded strongly to the 2003 tax cuts.
The 2003 tax cuts lowered income, capital gains, and dividend tax rates. These policies were designed to increase market incentives to work, save, and invest, thus creating jobs and increasing economic growth. An analysis of the six quarters before and after the 2003 tax cuts (a short enough time frame to exclude the 2001 recession) shows that this is exactly what happened (see Table 3):
GDP grew at an annual rate of just 1.7 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the six quarters following the tax cuts, the growth rate was 4.1 percent. Non-residential fixed investment declined for 13 consecutive quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. Since then, it has expanded for 13 consecutive quarters. The S&P 500 dropped 18 percent in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts but increased by 32 percent over the next six quarters. Dividend payouts increased as well. The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters. The economy lost 267,000 jobs in the six quarters before the 2003 tax cuts. In the next six quarters, it added 307,000 jobs, followed by 5 million jobs in the next seven quarters.[16] Critics contend that the economy was already recovering and that this strong expansion would have occurred even without the tax cuts. While some growth was naturally occurring, critics do not explain why such a sudden and dramatic turnaround began at the exact moment that these pro-growth policies were enacted. They do not explain why business investment, the stock market, and job numbers suddenly turned around in spring 2003. It is no coincidence that the expansion was powered by strong investment growth, exactly as the tax cuts intended.
The 2003 tax cuts succeeded because of the supply-side policies that critics most oppose: cuts in marginal income tax rates and tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. The 2001 tax cuts that were based more on demand-side tax rebates and redistribution did not significantly increase economic growth.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Nobody who knows anything about tax history claims the tax cuts made taxes particularly low.
What people usually claim about the expansion is that GDP growth was low. Saying that people talk about tax revenue being historically low is deceptive. Whether or not that low GDP growth is in any part due to the tax cuts is another question, but the evidence is clear that we had one of the weakest recoveries ever.
The second bit only looks at a twelve quarter period. That's just three years, and one and a half of those years were before the tax cut. It isn't possible to use that information to refute the idea they had little effect after a short initial period because one and a half years is a short initial period!
Please read what you're about to quote from other sources before posting things that don't come remotely close to refuting what you're arguing against. The impact of the Bush tax cuts is extremely arguable, but you've put forward some of the weakest 'evidence' for their efficacy I've seen. There's even some better evidence in the parts of that report that you didn't quote.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Darn it, you quoted me before I edited it out
(edit: and I'd like to emphasize I'm talking about the quoted sections, not BB).
(edit again: and now the post this was in response to is gone (thanks), but I'll leave this up as an important disclaimer)
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: No, they really, really don't. The Bush tax cuts provided a slight and temporary boost, but that faded and the value of it was offset by the growth in the deficit. That's it.
I have noticed that any political essay entitled "Ten Myths about X", consists of ten straw men which barely resemble the real criticisms general followed by some very misleading and often statistically invalid refutation of the straw men. This article is no exception.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
We should have a thread like that! Ten Myths, and each post is about one specific Hatracker (either the poster or someone else who doesn't mind).
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Good idea, Rivka. I hear ScottR has done despicable things with a spoon -- is that a myth or a fact? Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Darn it, you quoted me before I edited it out
(edit: and I'd like to emphasize I'm talking about the quoted sections, not BB).
*scratches head*
-----
I can confirm Scott R has in fact done things of a despicable nature involving the application of a spoon.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: "A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe." -- President Obama, Feb. 4. Catastrophe, mind you. So much for the president who in his inaugural address two weeks earlier declared "we have chosen hope over fear." Until, that is, you need fear to pass a bill.
And so much for the promise to banish the money changers and influence peddlers from the temple. An ostentatious executive order banning lobbyists was immediately followed by the nomination of at least a dozen current or former lobbyists to high position. Followed by a Treasury secretary who allegedly couldn't understand the payroll tax provisions in his 1040. Followed by Tom Daschle, who had to fall on his sword according to the new Washington rule that no Cabinet can have more than one tax delinquent.
quote: And yet more damaging to Obama's image than all the hypocrisies in the appointment process is his signature bill: the stimulus package. He inexplicably delegated the writing to Nancy Pelosi and the barons of the House. The product, which inevitably carries Obama's name, was not just bad, not just flawed, but a legislative abomination.
It's not just pages and pages of special-interest tax breaks, giveaways and protections, one of which would set off a ruinous Smoot-Hawley trade war. It's not just the waste, such as the $88.6 million for new construction for Milwaukee Public Schools, which, reports the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, have shrinking enrollment, 15 vacant schools and, quite logically, no plans for new construction.
It's the essential fraud of rushing through a bill in which the normal rules (committee hearings, finding revenue to pay for the programs) are suspended on the grounds that a national emergency requires an immediate job-creating stimulus -- and then throwing into it hundreds of billions that have nothing to do with stimulus, that Congress's own budget office says won't be spent until 2011 and beyond, and that are little more than the back-scratching, special-interest, lobby-driven parochialism that Obama came to Washington to abolish. He said.
quote: The Age of Obama begins with perhaps the greatest frenzy of old-politics influence peddling ever seen in Washington. By the time the stimulus bill reached the Senate, reports the Wall Street Journal, pharmaceutical and high-tech companies were lobbying furiously for a new plan to repatriate overseas profits that would yield major tax savings. California wine growers and Florida citrus producers were fighting to change a single phrase in one provision. Substituting "planted" for "ready to market" would mean a windfall garnered from a new "bonus depreciation" incentive.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Lol.
It's so refreshing that the Washington Post discovered accountability, ethics, honesty, and proper use of power now that a Democrat is in office.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: The Age of Obama begins with perhaps the greatest frenzy of old-politics influence peddling ever seen in Washington.
Well, seriously. You guys elect a classic Chicago politician, and you're surprised at what you got?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Yes when one tries to not use the politics of fear it means that he must deny that fear exists or that anything could warrant fear.
And of course President Obama is directly responsible for every single piece of pork that gets attached the bill before he signs it.
The crookedness of some of these cabinet level nominees is indeed worrisome, but I'm forced to wonder, if almost all the experienced folks are corrupt, who do you turn to? I'm certain if Obama had surrounded himself with inexperienced Obama types, people would not be applauding.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Well, seriously. You guys elect a classic Chicago politician, and you're surprised at what you got?
I expected classic deep dish pizza. Still hasn't come yet.
---
From the last page, the specific policy that is relevant here is the Republican idea of tax cuts for everything. In the quote about Obama saying the election involved the American people weighing in on this, he was talking about the Republican's pushing for their economic plans, which was one of the central aspects of the general election.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I agree, there are more than a few pet projects in there.
How much of the stimulus bill is pork? Exactly?
What percentage of the nearly 900 billion dollar bill is for pork projects?
To start with, I added up this list from the GOP on the wasteful items. Total amount, somewhere around 20 billion, which is, what, 2% of the total? 2.5?
I am not defending the pork projects -- although some of them would in fact create jobs -- and they need to be stripped out if the bill is maintain any credence. But I am questioning the frantic, near hysterical cries of "pork!" if this is all there is.
There may be more, of course. Anyone got a complete list and bottom-line total?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
It bugs me that their cuts were mostly "Well, we'll spend less on this." rather than eliminating non-stimulus items from the bill.
I want this apparently incredibly important issue to not be treated like a bargaining chip.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Also, today's Gallup Poll -- that would be the same folks people here were quoting a few pages back to prove that Americans were disappointed with Obama -- says that Americans approve of how he's handling this.
"Do you approve or disapprove of the way each of the following has handled the government's efforts to pass an economic stimulus bill?
Obama: 67% approve, 25% disapprove, 8% no opinion. Democrats: 48% approve, 42% disapprove, 10% no opinion. Republicans: 31% approve, 58% disapprove, 11% no opinion.
Clear, clear majorities not only approve of Obama's style but disapprove of the Republicans' methods. Interestingly, they're about split on their feelings toward Dems.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
There's always going to be pork to some degree. In the same way that Democrats always carp about Republicans defending the wealthy and that Republicans attack Democrats for being big government when government can't do anything right, pork is attacked as intrinsically evil when a look beneath the surface of many pork projects can find that it many times is not. It's the job of Congressmen to secure funding for projects back home, and let's be real, it ALWAYS has been. Massive amounts of dollars flow into the government and people have problems that need fixing that they can't fix themselves, so every now and then they want a couple million dollars for a local matter.
Sure it gets out of hand from time to time, but pork is not evil in and of itself. It CAN be bad, and it CAN be good. Like any other spending bill, it varies from item to item.
But pork is here to stay, like it has been for the last two centuries. Congress never has been, and likely never will be able to keep kosher.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: But pork is here to stay, like it has been for the last two centuries. Congress never has been, and likely never will be able to keep kosher.
*snort*
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Obama's first press conference starts in five minutes.
This should be interesting.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Oh, DK, having you around is just like having my own personal WorldNetDaily feedreader.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
It was interesting how varied the questions were. Many on the economy, but there was one about steroids in baseball and a couple about foreign policy stuff.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
His answers were long and at times leaned towards ponderous, but were good for the most part. I liked what he had to say about Iran. I'm wondering if Obama's election will have any effect on the election between Khatami and Ahmadinajad (I know it's spelled wrong, I don't care). Clearly Obama would rather work with Khatami, despite the fact that Khatami's reformist position is checked by the clerics, it could go a LONG way towards cooling tensions in the region.
I'd love to see someone do a cliffs notes version of his answers. They could easily be distilled into something much smaller. I'm not criticizing the content though. It's funny, Bush always took crap for having short, clipped off non-answers to questions. Now we've swung back dramatically the other way with extremely long answers that not only answer the question asked, but 11 other questions that weren't asked. I'm not sure yet if Obama is just rambling, or if he's actively answering what he sees as related questions in a larger framework that he thinks is necessary to answer the main question. That's how I answer questions when I'm writing a paper, sometimes, though he might want to curtail it a little bit for a press conference.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am busy relishing the idea that our President gives us complicated answers and assumes that we are capable of understanding them.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I like how my parents responded to the press conference. Every now and then I'd hear "what's that supposed to mean," followed a minute later by "oh...good answer" "Yeah that was a good one." Whereas usually when Bush would give a speech or press conference I'd only hear them yelling at the television.
My parents are about as non-partisan as they come too. Neither of my parents could name any Republican or Democrat outside of those that actually represent our state and district (and our governor). And frankly I don't think they give a crap one way or the other. They aren't predisposed to like Obama, just as they weren't predisposed to dislike Bush when he was elected. Generally when they don't understand some specific policy, like the tax cuts in the stimulus package, they ask me what it is and I explain it to the best of my abilities. I use them as my yardstick to measure the average person who doesn't care about politics in the same way I use my grandpa to measure the effect of scare language since he believes EVERYTHING he's told (by the Republicans). Pull in my Libertarian leaning Uncle, my rich Republican Uncle, my Democratic brother and my right wing evangelical aunt, uncle and cousins on the other side of the family and we're like our own little national cross section. Maybe I should be starting up the Lyrhawn Family Think Tank.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Please do. Or at the very least, the Lyrhawn Family Polling Organization. Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:I'm wondering if Obama's election will have any effect on the election between Khatami and Ahmadinajad (I know it's spelled wrong, I don't care).
Probably not. What it could do is temper the anger and excitement of the religious right in Iran to the point that voter turnout turns from Ahmadenijad or it could embolden the reformists in the country to try Khatami again, but the important thing about Khatami is that he had his shot and failed to win over or get past the extremists in his country. Thus, I think the better question is not who Obama has to work with, but whether any leader in Iran can possibly work for a better relationship with the west.
Of course, I say that, and the simple presence of Obama can and has to a certain extent, tempered the argument of the extremists in Iran. For instance, part of the reason that Iran wants to build a nuclear weapon is for defense against an American invasion, but with Obama in office he can, simply by not being Bush, defeat that argument and provide legitimate reasons for peace talks. What Obama has to do with Iran, and the rest of the middle east for that matter, is to reduce the influence of the radical and conservative religious elements in the country. If he does that, it would not matter who is in power in Iran.
ETA: Oh yeah, I did want to say that over on Huffington Post, they claim that the reporters were not happy that Obama only answered 13 questions. They thought he was filibustering (the words they used).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I am totally being beaten to it but did you realize that you could just replace every subsequent post you would ever make in an obama thread with a link to redstate and it would functionally be the same!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: Please do. Or at the very least, the Lyrhawn Family Polling Organization.
I'll be around to collect emails for our newsletter very soon. Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: OBAMA: "My bottom line is, are we creating 4 million jobs?" he told the news conference.
He said in Indiana, "The plan that we've put forward will save or create 3 million to 4 million jobs over the next two years."
THE FACTS: Job creation projections are uncertain even in stable times, and some of the economists relied on by Obama in making his forecast acknowledge a great deal of uncertainty in their numbers.
The president's own economists, in a report prepared last month, stated, "It should be understood that that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error."
Beyond that, it's unlikely the nation will ever know how many jobs are saved as a result of the stimulus. While it's clear when jobs are abolished, there's no economic gauge that tracks job preservation.
___
OBAMA: "They'll be jobs building the wind turbines and solar panels and fuel-efficient cars that will lower our dependence on foreign oil and modernizing our costly health care system that will save us billions of dollars and countless lives."
THE FACTS: The economic stimulus bill would allocate about $20 billion to help hospitals and doctors transition from paper charts to electronic health records for their patients. Research has shown that in some instances, electronic record keeping can eliminate inappropriate services and improve care, but it's not a sure thing by any means. "By itself, the adoption of more health IT is generally not sufficient to produce significant cost savings," the Congressional Budget Office reported last year.
quote: OBAMA: "We also inherited the most profound economic emergency since the Great Depression."
THE FACTS: This could turn out to be the case. But as bad as the economic numbers are, the unemployment figures have not reached the levels of the early 1980s, let alone the 1930s — yet. A total of 598,000 payroll jobs vanished in January — the most in nearly 35 years — and the unemployment rate jumped to 7.6 from 7.2 percent the month before. The most recent high was 7.8 percent in June 1992.
And the jobless rate was 10.8 percent in November and December 1982. Unemployment in the Great Depression ranged for several years from 25 percent to close to 30 percent.
EDIT: My apologies to TD and Samprimary as I found this on Yahoo and not from the places they recommended to me.
[ February 10, 2009, 08:03 AM: Message edited by: DarkKnight ]
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
TD and Samprimary, you two are so very cute when you are condescending like that. No discussion, no thoughts, just 'Gosh we are so smart and we just know where you get all your info'. I suppose all the NPR links I post from stories I heard on NPR, yahoo links I get from having Yahoo as my home page, and everything else can all be dismissed because you and your saucy comments about where you think I find my links? What a very TD/Sampriary world we live in Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
DK:
Just to answer the bit about the economic emergency:
The unemployment figure is not the only indicator of economic health. Obama's statement can still be true even while our jobless rate is not as bad as it was in the 1980s.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Scott R has in fact done things of a despicable nature involving the application of a spoon.
It wasn't so much that I applied the spoon as that I wielded it in the commission of several heinous acts.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Frankly, I want DK (and others) to keep showing me the opposing viewpoints. Bush wasn't questioned or challenged nearly enough, and I don't trust reporters to dig deeply into the facts any more. Closest I can get is to read as many sides as I can and try to deduce the reality.
However, I expect him to be challenged on substantial problems, and not because some politician wants to see him fail or earn points for his own re-election. I have a great deal more respect for the Republicans who are working behind the scenes to improve the bill than I do for the bloviating ones who wangle their way onto TV to scream about the vital importance of tax cuts.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Chris wins with the word "bloviating."
Congratulations, Chris.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Bush wasn't questioned or challenged nearly enough, and I don't trust reporters to dig deeply into the facts any more. Closest I can get is to read as many sides as I can and try to deduce the reality.
I completely agree.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:TD and Samprimary, you two are so very cute when you are condescending like that. No discussion, no thoughts...
Tell you what: show me where you've shared your thoughts or had a discussion, and not just reposted links or material, and I'll feel maybe a little guilty.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Page 10 I posted "Lyrhawn - This is tax cuts for specific Democrat approved businesses, not a tax cut for businesses at large. Green energy does not need a bailout at this moment and green energy did not cause this recession to occur. Shouldn't we work on helping the end the housing crisis rather than subsidizing the much more expensive green energy? Why is Obama talking about another spending spree to help homeowners? We should be taking care of mortgages with this package, not in another spending package. This is simply a Democrat wish list of spending that they do not want to put in a federal budget. Why try to place this in a federal budget when you can get a trillion plus dollars of Democrat spending in a spending spree package? " Please don't feel guilty.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, if you insist. But, in all seriousness, I really WOULD prefer that you post some thoughts along with your links. The links themselves might be useful, but I'd much rather hear what you have to say about them.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
It sounded good for Obama to set a specific goal of saving or creating (I assume he meant net job gain) of four million jobs. But in a year and especially in two years, when nothing like that has happened, the media will be able to play back that sound bite, and it will be worse than when Bush I said: "Read my lips, no new taxes," then raised taxes. It cost him the re-election, even after a successful Desert Storm.
How likely is it that Obama will be a one-term president? So far, he is not really impressing anybody, except with confirmation that he is an inexperienced political lightweight, a mere cipher or cog who came out of the political machine of Chicago and Illinois.
But this growing perception will infuriate his diehard partisans all the more. They represent the real danger.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What "danger" do you think they represent?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Its nice to finally see the US at the forefront of innovation again. It seems that after Obama announced his plan to cap executive salaries at the essentially state-owned financial firms, China was inspired by the idea too and has done the same for its essentially state-owned firms:
quote: The U.S. isn't the only country that's making incredibly super rich people cut down on their incredible super richness, China has now also set compensation caps for its State-sector financial companies. Salaries for top executives are now limited to 2.8 million yuan. Caps for pay packages will be slashed for regular executives, down to four times their annual salary (50,000 to 700,000 yuan).
It will be nice if Canada jumps on the bandwagon too at some point.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Holy triple post Batman! Edit to add: Aw you fixed it.
Ron -
How do you reconcile the fact that he isn't impressing anyone with his approval ratings? And for that matter, how his approval ratings compare with the approval ratings for Congressional Republicans? If his numbers aren't impressive, then the Republicans are downright laughable.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Approval ratings for Congress as a whole are lower than they were for Bush. And the most recent Rasmussen polls indicate the majority of the country does not agree with Obama's stand on gay marriages and funding for overseas abortions. Support even among Democrats has dropped ten points, from 74% to 64%.
The "Honeymoon" new presidents get is already over. In fact, it appears Obama never had one.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Tom, the danger I foresee, as I have said at more length in the past, is that some of them will turn violent.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yeah, because there's no one more prone to violence than the hardened and steely-eyed supporters of Barack Obama. *rolls eyes*
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The most recent Rasmussen polls indicate the majority of the country does not agree with Obama's stand on gay marriages and funding for overseas abortions.
Obama, IIRC, takes Bill Clinton's stand on gay marriage-- he's against it, but isn't making a big deal out of it.
Do you have information to the contrary?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Yeah, because there's no one more prone to violence than the hardened and steely-eyed supporters of Barack Obama. *rolls eyes*
We will poke at them with our sharp retorts.
(imagine that with a french accent)
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Er...yeah. These are democrats. They can't even keep Roland Burris out of Congress, despite swearing that they would...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The numbers for Congressional Democrats and Republicans are quite different. Saying "as a whole" is a fun way to pretend that both sides in Congress are the same and thus Democrats are just as disliked as Republicans when that's not true. And any poll on funding for overseas abortion is a push poll, since no such funding exists.
Funny how conservatives keep fretting about liberal violence. Lynchings, Lincoln's assassination, the firehoses and dogs in Selma, etc.
Shouldn't we be worried about what you guys will do if you can't have your way?
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Approval ratings for Congress as a whole are lower than they were for Bush. And the most recent Rasmussen polls indicate the majority of the country does not agree with Obama's stand on gay marriages and funding for overseas abortions. Support even among Democrats has dropped ten points, from 74% to 64%.
The "Honeymoon" new presidents get is already over. In fact, it appears Obama never had one.
Unfortunately, the polls you're using do not back your point up sufficiently. You're trying to prove support for President Obama is dwindling, no? You don't do this by showing people's opinion on specific issues.
For example, CNN had a non-scientific straw poll asking what people thought of President Obama's Executive Pay Cap proposal. Somewhere around 90% of people said they supported such an idea. Granted CNNs readership leans democratic, but not so much that the number doesn't illustrate an overall support for the idea.
My point is that if you want to show President Obama is slipping in popularity and that 'no one is impressed,' you must give overall favorability numbers compared from the time of his inauguration to the present from multiple pollsters to try to create a decent average based on different question wordings.
Gallup showed President Obama with around 68% approve and 12% disapprove at the onset of his administration (Jan 21st - 23rd), His numbers have gotten worse over the course of the past few weeks such that he is now at 63% approve and 23% disapprove.
But there are still some fairly big points to be made with these poll numbers. First is that President Obama still is very well liked. To have a number over 60% means a strong majority of Americans support President Obama. Do less people support him? Yes. But is he unpopular? No. (Rassmussen shows similar polls with him dropping in popularity, but still remaining popular.)
As for your congressional numbers, people are angry with both the democrats and republicans, but in all fairness, they are more frustrated with the republicans. The republicans are being perceived as more obstructionist than being oppositionalist by a majority of Americans. At the same time, Democrats are being perceived by about half the nation as uncooperative. (I can't give specific numbers because I saw these polls on a CNN report on TV.)
So a very great number of people don't like how congress is running. Democrats are ticked at Republicans, and Republicans are frustrated with Democrats. In the end, there is very little for people to support.
The low approval of Congress is not indicitave of people disliking Democrats running the legislative branch, it's that people don't like congress.
Edit for clarity.
[ February 10, 2009, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: Vadon ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: TD and Samprimary, you two are so very cute when you are condescending like that. No discussion, no thoughts, just 'Gosh we are so smart and we just know where you get all your info'.
you're prolly not in the best position to be clucking your tongue at 'no discussion, no thoughts.' 90% of your posts could seriously be replaced by a link to redstate, which is Article Says Something Bad About Obama, Hourly Report
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Cross posted from aspectre's press conference thread: For anyone who watched the press conference last night, Jon Stewart just did a hilarious segment on it.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Lyrhawn, is that posted anywhere yet? do you have a link for it? I heard it was very funny but I missed it
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I downloaded the ep and watched that part. It was cute. It was actually kind of nice to see Stewart actually making fun of Obama. I hope he doesn't get in too much trouble for that.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
He's been making fun of Obama for the past two years.
And why the hell would he get in trouble? What kind of trouble are you referring to, exactly?
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
With the secret Obama police. You know...
<_< >_>
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Here is a summary of Obama's position on gay marriages and related issues:
quote:Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.
Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: President Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.
. . . .
Expand Adoption Rights: President Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not.
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I downloaded the ep and watched that part. It was cute. It was actually kind of nice to see Stewart actually making fun of Obama. I hope he doesn't get in too much trouble for that.
I suppose you'd have to watch the Daily Show (and the Colbert Report) on more of a nightly basis, but Stewart lampoons Obama on a fairly regular basis. He's FAR more critical of Congress, and seems to take special pleasure in ridiculing them, both Democrat and Republican, but he doesn't lay off Obama. He used him for material all during the campaigns, and now that he's president, he's getting his fair share of digs on.
He mixes them with compliments a lot more than he ever did with Bush but hey, that's not really surprising, or in many people's opinions, unearned.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
Yeah, I remember during the campaign, Stewart making a joke that nobody laughed at and he scoffed at the crowd that they could laugh at Obama. It's weird, Stewart says he has none and wants no influence, but that joke and response was almost the door-opener for comedy when it came to Obama.
Stewart doesn't joke about Obama as much as others, but he doesn't hold back. I don't think Obama makes is quite as easy as Bush did, congress does, or Fox news does. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Judd Gregg has withdrawn his name as Commerce Secretary nominee.
Third time's a charm I guess!
Gregg gave a nice speech about how it was his choice and he felt bad about it etc etc 'it's not Obama's fault.'
But the behind the scenes chatter paints a couple different stories. Democrats behind the scenes are saying that Gregg lobbied hard for the job, and Republicans are saying that Gregg felt betrayed and ceremonial when he heard that Obama wanted to take away the 2010 census and run it out of the White House rather than the Commerce Department. Those sources say that Gregg was unhappy with becoming a GOP puppet. Word is also that he will not seek reelection in 2010, making his seat up for grabs with no incumbent.
There was another candidate, whose name I don't know, who was said to be in close contention with Gregg for the post, so I suppose they'll go to their backup now (well, their OTHER backup after Richardson and Gregg).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I downloaded the ep and watched that part. It was cute. It was actually kind of nice to see Stewart actually making fun of Obama. I hope he doesn't get in too much trouble for that.
Are you still on your "MSM gives the Democrats a pass" run? Or did you really just not know that TDS makes regular comedy out of Obama?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Rail seems to be the biggest and most inexplicable winner.
quote:High-speed and inner-city rail: Went from $300 million in House bill to $2.25 billion in Senate to $8 billion in final version. There also is a $6.9 billion provision for public transit.
$300 million to $2.25 billion to $8 billion? Crazy, but I'm okay with it. I don't get what happens in conference.
"I want this amount!" "I want THIS amount!" "Let's compromise, we'll do four times your amount!" "Deal!"
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
What ever happened with the Long Island Rail investigation where 97% of their employees applied and qualified for disability pensions?
As the tired old joke goes: "...Pretty soon we're talking about real money!"
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Light rail pays dividends end over end. It's short term stimulus in the form of jobs created, it's long term stimulus from the economic activity it generates, it decreases traffic which means less wear and tear on roads, and decreases congestion which means better traffic flow and less waste due to snarls. It also saves on energy.
High speed rail works the same but different, depending on the corridor being discussed.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Indeed. Our (both Canadian and American) rail systems are simply embarrassing compared to the systems in Europe and in China, especially in the latter case since we're supposed to be first-world countries and they are still a developing country. Its about damn time we started to catch up.
The problem is that building these systems is labour-intensive and labour is normally quite expensive in North America. Therefore, both our governments should take this recession as an opportunity (and not as a burden) to take advantage of the situation and hire some labour on the cheap to get it done.
Light rail, high speed, and subways.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'd assume China et. al have a significant advantage in terms of subway and rail development because they just get to bulldoze whoever's in the way without any qualms.
It's just one of those circumstances also where starting later = better.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
And they have cheap Coolie labor.
I mean, really, what do you say about a government that treats its own citizens as Coolies? That's communism at its finest, for you.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: And they have cheap Coolie labor.
I mean, really, what do you say about a government that treats its own citizens as Coolies? That's communism at its finest, for you.
Ron how many coolies have you actually met? Now how many Chinese coolies have you actually met? While standards of living for some Chinese people pale in comparison to some Americans, to say that even a large minority of them live as coolies is ignorant and inaccurate.
America used "coolie" labor for much of its' history. The Chinese standard of living constantly increases just as ours has overall. If they are smart enough to get some public works in that are good for the whole country before they equalize with us, so much the better. America needs more high speed rail and lots of it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: And they have cheap Coolie labor.
I mean, really, what do you say about a government that treats its own citizens as Coolies? That's communism at its finest, for you.
I don't recall the US being communist in the 19th century when our railroads were built. Or don't people count as citizens unless they were born here?
And really, why is it worse to treat citizens like slave labour than it is to treat non-citizen like "coolies"?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Does anyone even consider China communist anymore? Totalitarian, sure, but it seems like most of the communist ideals have been mostly abandoned (of course, my family there are all successful business men so perhaps my perspective is off).
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Maybe more of a diet communism.
Tastes great, less filling.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: And they have cheap Coolie labor.
I mean, really, what do you say about a government that treats its own citizens as Coolies? That's communism at its finest, for you.
The ignorance in this statement astounds me.
And its usually republicans who are pro china too.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Does anyone even consider China communist anymore? Totalitarian, sure, but it seems like most of the communist ideals have been mostly abandoned (of course, my family there are all successful business men so perhaps my perspective is off).
The correct word is "Authoritative" they are distinctly not totalitarian. They are not Stalin's Soviet Union. There is a great deal of personal freedoms in terms of being a consumer.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
As long as you consume with your mouth shut, no one will severely beat you!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Wow. It still amazes me how much Americans knee-jerk into Communism bashing when China is mentioned. Its understandable given the propaganda you guys get in the American media but still fascinating.
First, I mentioned "Europe and China" as both having many examples of transit systems that are clearly better than North American systems. Whatever the failings of the European systems, I don't think Chinese "coolies" or Communism are among them.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: And they have cheap Coolie labor.
I mean, really, what do you say about a government that treats its own citizens as Coolies? That's communism at its finest, for you.
Thats pretty much garbage. The best counter-example is that the best transit system in China is still the Hong Kong MTR, most of which was built by the British not the Chinese government.
Despite propaganda, the MTR is privately owned and trades on the Hang Seng stock exchange. A large portion of its profit comes from development of land that it *purchases* for expansion just like any other company.
In fact, the MTR has purchased expansions in China and the UK and will start running the entire Stockholm Metro this year.
It sucks, but the failures of our public transit systems are due to our own mismanagement and short-sightedness. Blaming our failures to keep up on some "Communism" strawman isn't just factually wrong, its self-destructive. It stops us from looking with a critical eye at whats wrong in our own backyard and fixing it.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't recall the US being communist in the 19th century when our railroads were built. Or don't people count as citizens unless they were born here?
And really, why is it worse to treat citizens like slave labour than it is to treat non-citizen like "coolies"?
Bingo.
Its not just us North Americans taking advantage of Chinese labour to build railways. We import illegal immigrants from Mexico and South America to do construction, agriculture, house-work, and all the jobs we don't want to do ourselves.
We can sit on a high horse and pat ourselves on the back for not treating our own citizens poorly, but meanwhile our system still relies upon foreign labour.
And yet, here's a controversial point: this isn't inherently a bad thing.
Both the illegal immigrants from South America and the migrant workers are driven by the same things, by economic opportunities. The main force isn't the government, its what Americans used to call the American Dream.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Blayne, you said: "The correct word is 'Authoritative' they are distinctly not totalitarian."
You are asking for it when you say you are correcting someone, and then don't get it right. I think you probably meant to say "Authoritarian." Webster's Dictionary is authoritative.
Incidentally, authoritarian and totalitarian are generally taken as synonyms.
As for China not being totalitarian, just be thankful you don't live there.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: And they have cheap Coolie labor.
I mean, really, what do you say about a government that treats its own citizens as Coolies? That's communism at its finest, for you.
I think communism is pretty damn stupid, but I laugh at the notion that we can use modern China as an example of communism.
quote:The correct word is "Authoritative" they are distinctly not totalitarian.
Totalitarian is a better word to describe China with than 'authoritative.' Maybe you meant authoritarian.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm not sure a European system of mass transit would work here in the US, Mucus. We've got a completely different style of infrastructure, built almost entirely around the automobile for so long, that's practically the history of American roads.
I'm glad for the money going to light rail. I hope it's not wasted. Fast, efficient people transport would make a huge economic difference here in Northern VA.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
We need an American system of mass transit. It's doable certainly, with a combination of high speed rail, light rail, commuter lines and better buses. There needs to be a combination of great mass transit and a sizable disincentive to use personal vehicles. Some people aren't going to be able to get around it, depending on their job and their location, but a lot of people can and currently choose not to for lack of a better option.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Wikipedia has a pretty good description of the difference between totalitarianism and authoritarianism.
quote: According to Karl Lowenstein, "the term ' Authoritarian' denotes a political organization in which the single power holder - an individual person or "dictator", an assembly, a committee, a junta, or a party monopolizes political power. The term " Authoritarian" refers rather to the structure of government than to the structure of society. An Authoritarian regime confines itself to political control of the state.
The governmental techniques of a totalitarian regime are necessarily Authoritarian. But a totalitarian regime does much more. It attempts to mold the private life, soul, and morals of citizens to a dominant ideology. The officially proclaimed ideology penetrates into every nook and cranny of society; its ambition is total.
China is most definitiely authoritarian. It is not totalitarian, that designation is reserved for North Korea or China during Cultural revolution.
Its is fairly obvious to anyone that has actually spent time in China that the lack of a dominant ideology is actually *characteristic* of modern China and one of the main problems going forward. Pragmatism or realpolik is the order of the day and it has been ever since Deng and his parable about white and black cats. And only an authoritarian rather than a totalitarian government can explain the anomaly of Hong Kong and the various Special Economic Zones.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: ... As for China not being totalitarian, just be thankful you don't live there.
In addition to having spent time there, I've had a fair number of relatives, both native and foreign-born which have moved back to China to live for various reasons (or have moved from China recently).
Don't presume that your ignorance of what its like to live in China extends to others or informs their opinions the same way it informs your own.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: As for China not being totalitarian, just be thankful you don't live there.
Funny, I'm actually doing all I can to hopefully be stationed there one day.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Sorry- authoritarian is a better word choice- though I still stand by my not communist part.
My relatives in China seem pretty happy. Though they are in the wealthier class and the ones I directly talk to are in HK (the mainland ones are more distant so I hear about them and have met them when I went to China, but I don't directly interact).
For light rail, in my city, if they extended the rail they had along another 8 miles and had a parking lot, I would ride it everyday happily. I wouldn't be able to walk there and back, but only driving a mile in rush hour would be nice and once downtown, the walk would only be like 10 minutes (which I would save by not sitting in traffic for an hour). We have no buses or public transportation at all in my area, but I am confident that a lot of people would be willing to take light rail if it was a feasible option. But once you make people drive 10 miles, public transportation for the last 2 just isn't worth it.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Are westerners allowed to travel everywhere in China? Or is it just to a few westernized enclaves?
I for one have not forgotten the massacre at Tiananmen Square.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I for one have not forgotten the massacre at Tiananmen Square.
Good on you, but that doesn't back up what you've been saying.
There's a much more interesting thing happening between the Chinese populace and the ruling party that is far different than saying that they're a totalitarian regime that uses its citizenry as 'coolies.'
Maybe the CP wishes it was totalitarian (totally) but in actuality it's ceded much in the way of its domination of individuals simply to stay afloat. Now it uses a clever combination of capitalism and information control to keep the populace controllable, as much as they can.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Are westerners allowed to travel everywhere in China? Or is it just to a few westernized enclaves?
It depends.
AFAIK, a white Canadian can travel to Hong Kong (and Macau?) without a visa but a visa is required for work or permanent living. A visa is required for entry into mainland China after which one can pretty much travel anywhere except for probably Tibet during the upcoming anniversary celebrations.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
The problem with comparing the US's public transit system and Europe's is that we're (speaking as an American) laid out differently. Cities are a lot farther apart and the suburbs are much bigger (more people live farther away from their jobs). Smil does a great job showing how the higher per capita energy use of American for transportation has more to do with our geography than our cars or attitudes (not that the latter two couldn't be improved!). Public transit runs into the same problem as our original roads did: it just wasn't feasible to connect our commerce centers the way Europeans can. Too spread out, too much distance. I'm glad to see we're trying to address the problem, and am definitely a supporter of increased public transit; I just find the direct comparisons of the US to Europe ... misleading.
Hobbes Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Samprimary, does China still call its type of government communism? If it is not totalitarian, but rather just governs by--as you said--a sort of capitalism and control of information flow (an inherent characteristic of totalitarianism, by the way), then that means that mainland China is the first communist regime that is not totalitarian. Can this really be?
The way you describe mainland China is more the way that I picture Taiwan.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Ha! See, clearly I do know what I talk about.
Ron, my poor wording aside it is encredibly dense and bad form on your part to descend to nitpicking my grammer rather then the spirit of the argument, you claimed they were totalitarian, I said you were clearly wrong and gave the better description, and for one my usual debate friends here backed me up.
As for living in China, give me a free plane ticket and a comfy upper management job and a house I'll be there first thing.
Westerners can travel somewhat freely, they have afterall a large and booming tourist industry, unless you include freedom of movement to include things your own government doesn't allow you to do, like waltzing into a military base.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Samprimary, does China still call its type of government communism? If it is not totalitarian, but rather just governs by--as you said--a sort of capitalism and control of information flow (an inherent characteristic of totalitarianism, by the way), then that means that mainland China is the first communist regime that is not totalitarian. Can this really be?
The way you describe mainland China is more the way that I picture Taiwan.
The continued use of the term 'communism' is of historical significance only - the Communist Party is still the ruling party (as it was when China was communist e.g. under Mao). However it (and China) have metamorphosed to the point where they can no longer accurately be described as communist.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: ... and the suburbs are much bigger (more people live farther away from their jobs). Smil does a great job showing how the higher per capita energy use of American for transportation has more to do with our geography than our cars or attitudes ...
Arguably, thats somewhat of a snowball effect. i.e. our cars and our attitudes encourage the development of bigger suburbs and longer commutes, which encourages people to have cars, etc.
In any case, I suspect that while technological developments may cushion the fall, eventually we're going to have to live closer together whether for environmental reasons or simply gasoline scarcity. Whether we have that forced upon us when we can no longer afford long car-based commutes or whether we act pre-emptively is our choice.
What I'm basically saying is that from my POV we're going to have to do it some time or later so we may as well get started now and take advantage of labour and resources while its cheaper during a recession. Thats a good avenue for a stimulus package to go, pre-emptively solving problems such as a future gasoline crisis rather than futile attempts to solve the problems of the past such as tax credits for new home-owners.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Samprimary, does China still call its type of government communism? If it is not totalitarian, but rather just governs by--as you said--a sort of capitalism and control of information flow (an inherent characteristic of totalitarianism, by the way), then that means that mainland China is the first communist regime that is not totalitarian. Can this really be?
The way you describe mainland China is more the way that I picture Taiwan.
China claims to be communist, still reveres and honors Mao Zedong, and gives considerable preference to those who join the Communist Party, and indeed its largest source of new members today is College students.
However Chinese Communism has always been different from European/Russian Communism, and as such the Party line in Beijing had always been more pragmatic, after Mao's death Deng Xiaopeng said "Mao was 7 parts right, 3 parts wrong" to preserve continually, broke from away the previous administrations direction and started upon a policy of Open market reform and opened China to foreign investment and free trade.
In Short in Stephen Colbert's words "They are communists who like to make money" they are "Communist" in name only, but in reality are Neonationalist Pragmatists, even Mao was "Chinese first, Communist second" only what benefits China first matters.
They have an open market economy, have privatized large sections of the economy, are open for foreign investment, encourage innovation and experimentation, encourage initiative and critical thinking, in short they took every single thing from capitalism, including consummer freedom to encourage a sense of "envy" in the populace, so the people will work harder, think smarter, be more productive and inventive to catch up to the West in living standards.
The government in Big Brother in 1984 was Totalitarianism, China is not totalitarian, they are Authoritan because they try to monopolize political power but are not totalitarian because they however do not control the private economic and social lives of its people, they have what, more people with individual computers and internet access then there are men, women, and children in the USA?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: The problem with comparing the US's public transit system and Europe's is that we're (speaking as an American) laid out differently. Cities are a lot farther apart and the suburbs are much bigger (more people live farther away from their jobs). Smil does a great job showing how the higher per capita energy use of American for transportation has more to do with our geography than our cars or attitudes (not that the latter two couldn't be improved!). Public transit runs into the same problem as our original roads did: it just wasn't feasible to connect our commerce centers the way Europeans can. Too spread out, too much distance. I'm glad to see we're trying to address the problem, and am definitely a supporter of increased public transit; I just find the direct comparisons of the US to Europe ... misleading.
Hobbes
Hobbes! Good to see you around again.
And good point!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: ... The way you describe mainland China is more the way that I picture Taiwan.
Well, the Taiwan of like four decades back or more. But basically yes. China has become a one party authoritarian capitalist state, with a splash of imperial China.
To Western eyes, its essentially become something akin to the type of dictatorship that we *used* to support when we were fighting actual Communists.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
which probably frustrates them to no end. America needs to be more consistent with its foreign policy.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Blayne:
quote:even Mao was "Chinese first, Communist second"
If he actually said that, it is only true in that he spoke the words.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Please explain how and in what way he was never patriotic or nationalistic or sino-centric in his world view? Maoism is even called "Socialism with Chinese characteristics"! He went through the route of revolution via the peasants, clashed militarily with the Soviet Union and ingaged the Korean War because not doing so harmed China's interests, he Unified China and moved the capitol to Peking all for China. In what way was his pre-1949 thoughts and actions the opposite?
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote: Please explain how and in what way he was never patriotic or nationalistic or sino-centric in his world view? Maoism is even called "Socialism with Chinese characteristics"! He went through the route of revolution via the peasants, clashed militarily with the Soviet Union and ingaged the Korean War because not doing so harmed China's interests, he Unified China and moved the capitol to Peking all for China. In what way was his pre-1949 thoughts and actions the opposite?
... Um... Well, uh...
... You being sarcastic?
I can't tell, so I'll just... assume you're not.
I'm certainly not the foremost authority on communist China, so if I screw something up, correct me. (I'm thinking BlackBlade in particular)
First, I'd say that limiting our judgment on Mao and his intentions to 'Pre-1949' is a bit much, being as that overlooks "The Great Leap Forward" which I think goes without saying that it didn't help the people of China what with the millions of pre-mature deaths to famine. I'd say that takes a few points away from him.
Second, you can't judge a person based solely on their motivation. There's an old quote that says, "The path to Hell is paved with good intentions." I sometimes question consequentialist frameworks, but when you look at events in history, it's often best to judge a person by what the results their actions brought forward and not the intentions behind them. Mao destroyed the Chinese economy and his leadership devastated the people. I don't know how you determine 'acting in the best interest of the people' but he certainly wasn't.
Third, I wonder about your love of communism. In particular, what flavor do you prefer? (ETA: This question is not meant to be snarky, but a legitimate inquiry, because it would help me understand your defense of China more. Sorry if it comes off that way. ) You seem to have a strong fetish for the Soviet Union, and you are also defending the 'communist' state in China. Do you wish to defend communism in general or the distorted and discontiguous forms that strangled the Soviet Union and China? Because 'the revolution was lead by the peasants' is closer to Marx in one respect, but they missed a few key points before they were supposed to embrace the revolution. Specifically, Marx said that the revolution would come once the entire world was dominated by capitalists, and the labor will revolt to receive their just reward. China could hardly be called an industrialized state when the revolution took hold, let alone capitalist. The Marxist communist revolution requires that the infrastructure for industry already exists to that the people can run the country in prosperity. If you don't have it, then you will struggle and be in pain. Now there are modern authors who debate the motivation behind the revolution that Marx proposed and whether it should be inspired by the necessity of taking down the evils of the ruling class, or if it should be inspired by the will of the people to be viewed equally regardless of the external threat. Despite that debate among Marxists, it is generally agreed that the revolution was*(is) supposed to happen in an industrialized nation. China was not.
In summary of my third point, Mao's 'peasant revolution' wasn't the communist revolution that Marx wrote about and shouldn't be defended as such. In reality, it was a synthesis of Leninist communistic thought with the Mandate of Heaven so that it would be an easier pill to swallow. It isn't communist, it's 'communist.'
Fourth, I'm going to address your point on 'unifying China' with one simple statement. Free Tibet.
Fifth, you say that he moved the capitol to Peking/Beijing for the interest of China. I find this laughable when you try to defend a communist state because that advocates a central government. I mean, even a confederacy would have operated more closely to the principles of true communism. By moving the capitol to Peking/Beijing, Mao simply created an easier place for the Communist party to operate. That wasn't for China, that was for his friends.
*Most modern Marxists have forgone the idea of a communist state, but rather embrace the principles of the Marxist Dialectic and other doctrines that emphasize the importance of labor. Very few still hope for the 'revolution' because they recognize that it won't work.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Arguably, thats somewhat of a snowball effect. i.e. our cars and our attitudes encourage the development of bigger suburbs and longer commutes, which encourages people to have cars, etc.
Absolutely I agree. I took a history of science in the 19th and 20th century class last semester and one of the things I got out of it was the way our (American and European) approach to temporal problems is based on our environment. Europe had plenty of people in the Industrial age but limited natural resources. When America was getting started up there were almost no people here (Westerners that is, important point to some I'd imagine ) but a plethora of natural resources. I see it even in my field (civil engineering), materials are always used in excess here in America if it can reduce labor; whereas Europe's just the opposite. It's not good or bad, it's how it happened. When manpower is expensive and resources are cheap you substitute one for the other and vice-verso. Very straight forward economics, but it can lead to some problems if you want to take the train to work!
Furthermore I got a great book for Christmas called Traffic by Tom Vanderbilt which is a fascinating read I recommend to anyone. In it the author explains that studies have shown that not only is there a maximum time people are willing to (or would like) spend in their commute to work, there's a minimum times as well. People, not just one or two, but the majority, want to drive at least 15 minutes to work (I don't have the book with me so I can't remember the exact figure he quotes, it's about 15 minutes). There's certainly an example of our attitudes pushing us farther into consumptive behaviors.
Hobbes Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vadon:
quote: Please explain how and in what way he was never patriotic or nationalistic or sino-centric in his world view? Maoism is even called "Socialism with Chinese characteristics"! He went through the route of revolution via the peasants, clashed militarily with the Soviet Union and ingaged the Korean War because not doing so harmed China's interests, he Unified China and moved the capitol to Peking all for China. In what way was his pre-1949 thoughts and actions the opposite?
... Um... Well, uh...
... You being sarcastic?
I can't tell, so I'll just... assume you're not.
I'm certainly not the foremost authority on communist China, so if I screw something up, correct me. (I'm thinking BlackBlade in particular)
First, I'd say that limiting our judgment on Mao and his intentions to 'Pre-1949' is a bit much, being as that overlooks "The Great Leap Forward" which I think goes without saying that it didn't help the people of China what with the millions of pre-mature deaths to famine. I'd say that takes a few points away from him.
Second, you can't judge a person based solely on their motivation. There's an old quote that says, "The path to Hell is paved with good intentions." I sometimes question consequentialist frameworks, but when you look at events in history, it's often best to judge a person by what the results their actions brought forward and not the intentions behind them. Mao destroyed the Chinese economy and his leadership devastated the people. I don't know how you determine 'acting in the best interest of the people' but he certainly wasn't.
Third, I wonder about your love of communism. In particular, what flavor do you prefer? (ETA: This question is not meant to be snarky, but a legitimate inquiry, because it would help me understand your defense of China more. Sorry if it comes off that way. ) You seem to have a strong fetish for the Soviet Union, and you are also defending the 'communist' state in China. Do you wish to defend communism in general or the distorted and discontiguous forms that strangled the Soviet Union and China? Because 'the revolution was lead by the peasants' is closer to Marx in one respect, but they missed a few key points before they were supposed to embrace the revolution. Specifically, Marx said that the revolution would come once the entire world was dominated by capitalists, and the labor will revolt to receive their just reward. China could hardly be called an industrialized state when the revolution took hold, let alone capitalist. The Marxist communist revolution requires that the infrastructure for industry already exists to that the people can run the country in prosperity. If you don't have it, then you will struggle and be in pain. Now there are modern authors who debate the motivation behind the revolution that Marx proposed and whether it should be inspired by the necessity of taking down the evils of the ruling class, or if it should be inspired by the will of the people to be viewed equally regardless of the external threat. Despite that debate among Marxists, it is generally agreed that the revolution was*(is) supposed to happen in an industrialized nation. China was not.
In summary of my third point, Mao's 'peasant revolution' wasn't the communist revolution that Marx wrote about and shouldn't be defended as such. In reality, it was a synthesis of Leninist communistic thought with the Mandate of Heaven so that it would be an easier pill to swallow. It isn't communist, it's 'communist.'
Fourth, I'm going to address your point on 'unifying China' with one simple statement. Free Tibet.
Fifth, you say that he moved the capitol to Peking/Beijing for the interest of China. I find this laughable when you try to defend a communist state because that advocates a central government. I mean, even a confederacy would have operated more closely to the principles of true communism. By moving the capitol to Peking/Beijing, Mao simply created an easier place for the Communist party to operate. That wasn't for China, that was for his friends.
*Most modern Marxists have forgone the idea of a communist state, but rather embrace the principles of the Marxist Dialectic and other doctrines that emphasize the importance of labor. Very few still hope for the 'revolution' because they recognize that it won't work.
To clarify; I am arguing that Mao was in opinion "China first, Communist second" as in while communism was a tool to achieve his aims it was all for the betterment of China, the unarguable result is the reunification of mainland China under a single centralized government that was at its core pragmatic, moderate, and aimed clearly on a Sinocentric world view. While there was a lot of talk about leading the World Movement after Stalin died, it was however focused on Third World nations using the China Model (People's War, Agrarian Based Revolutions as opposed to Cities), world revolution always took a back burner to the modus operandi that everything must benefit China as a nation-state first, the world communist movement second, and PreCultural Revolution this was entirely the case. You entirely missed the point of my argument if you thought anything else. Whatever I may believe on the subject is irrelevent to the subject that first and foremost a corrector of untruths, misinformation and ignorance of the kind Ron spouts out.
My statement Mao was "Chinese first, Communist second" is true, yes historically Mao was a commited Communist, and commited to not only world revolution but revolution at home, but in all cases where it mattered he always put rhetoric and dogma aside and took up pragmatic aims to achieve the geopolitical goals of unifying china.
"Fourth, I'm going to address your point on 'unifying China' with one simple statement. Free Tibet."
How is this relevent?
"First, I'd say that limiting our judgment on Mao and his intentions to 'Pre-1949' is a bit much, "
I have clear reasons for this. The Prime (or Former) Minister of Singapore once said "If Mao had died in 1950 he would have been hailed as a Great Man and nearly a God-like, if he had died in 1960 he would have been seen as a Great Man, flawed but Great, in 1976 who knows?"
" That wasn't for China, that was for his friends."
This is clearly ignorant, how is establishing a functional civil government in a agrarian war torn state just recovering from a world war and civil war "for his friends"? I would have you know that the PLA and the CCP back in the 40's and 50's was according to Philip Short, writer of one of Mao's biographies a paragon example of dedication and integrity, soldiers stations in a harbor refused cigarrets from British sailors!
Frankly they could have put the capitol anywhere, Peking was chosen because its the historical capitol of when China was in some its golden ages, such as the Ming. Are you seriously suggesting that the Politburo of 1949 was some corrupt group of depraved and decadent wannabe dictators? Have you ever read anything about Zhou Enlai?
I am not in this thread arguing FOR communism, I am arguing FOR China regardless of the form of ideology it takes and correcting the misinterpretations of the misinformed.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
Blayne, I'm not sure why Mao was brought up at all in response to Ron. I think everyone but Ron has so far agreed that modern-day China is authoritarian, not totalitarian. However, Cultural Revolution-era China is surely a text book example of totalitarian rule.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
As an example that even in their more ahrdline days even Mao was at times more pragmatic then communist.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I am not in this thread arguing FOR communism, I am arguing FOR China regardless of the form of ideology it takes and correcting the misinterpretations of the misinformed.
Blayne, really —
your version of 'correction' is to replace a nuanced perspective with blatant pro-Maoism.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
No, if correct misinformation with fact, or at least an explanation of fact that was easily misinterpreted. Example, Jiung Chiang or whatever that b*****s name is claims that Mao "killed" 80 to 90 Million people.
This is number range complete and utter fiction based on fairy land evidence and yet there's dozens of people I've seen who use this source as if it were the Bible, despite the massive criticisms on its sourcing methodology and bias and compete fiction the writers churn out for large sections of the book.
I think I have never actually argued a defence of Maoism directly.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
Well, I certainly apologize for the longwindedness of my communism analysis and whether or not China's form of government falls under a Marxist system or not.
But I do still think there are three key things from your last post that does contest with the statement "China first, Communism Second" (ETA: Your last post in reference to me.)
1st, Mao was anything but a pragmatist. He was an idealist to a fault wherein his complete devotion to the revolution resulted in him harming the people. His Great Leap Forward attempted to make their agriculture sector more communistic in nature by removing private ownership of farms. Those who resisted were killed. The agrarian system that was created did not supply the people of china and resulted in millions of deaths by starvation. He did all of this because he put his beliefs in communism first, and not China. You can further dislodge notions of a pragmatic Mao with his attempts at bringing the people of China into government. That is, when he fired all of the top level bureaucrats and replaced them with farmers. This resulted in an administrative collapse where the bureaucracy was rendered unable to provide for the people. Again, putting his communist ideology first, and not China.
I suppose my point about "Free Tibet" wasn't as obvious as I had hoped. You talked about how Mao 'unified China' but certain parts of the Chinese State do not agree to being considered a part of the Chinese Nation. My example was Tibet, which proclaimed independence from China in the early 1900s (I want to say 1913?). Mao would later institute an invasion into Tibet (1950?) and try to reclaim them as a part of China. Now, I'll grant that this gives credence to your argument that Mao intended to put China first and Communism second, but like my previous post stated I believe that with history we should look at the consequences of a person's actions and not the intentions. When we do that, we see that Mao's actions in Tibet have arguably resulted in a net negative influence to the people of China. I would further argue that Mao did not act in the interest of 'China' because of the PRC's attitude toward the ROC.
The last point is on Mao in general. In regards to your quote, that's a nice speculation, but the fact of the matter is Mao did NOT die in 1950 or 1960. He died in '76, and if we are going to evaluate his life, we should do it based off of what he did from start to finish. Mao was an ideologue who forwent practicality and rationality in an effort to indoctrinate his views in the general population. He was not interested in 'China' so much as the movement. This was demonstrated by his actions throughout his life which would result in the loss of millions of lives.
And a final point, by arguing 'FOR' China, does that mean you're arguing for the ROC? Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Please explain how and in what way he was never patriotic or nationalistic or sino-centric in his world view? Maoism is even called "Socialism with Chinese characteristics"! He went through the route of revolution via the peasants, clashed militarily with the Soviet Union and ingaged the Korean War because not doing so harmed China's interests, he Unified China and moved the capitol to Peking all for China. In what way was his pre-1949 thoughts and actions the opposite?
Blayne a person can do a great many terrible things with the belief that it would be good for ones' country when it fact it was absolutely terrible for the country.
And Pre-1949? The KMT didn't actually leave China fully until 1949. It was when Mao had the reigns of power that he demonstrated his true colors.
And it does not take a Jung Chang to conclude that throwing away all your iron to make low quality steel and setting aside too much of your peasant population to quit the fields in order to do it is a terrible idea. Even the official government tally estimates 14 million dead in The Great Leap, scholars place it between 20 and 43 million. Why do you think Mao was essentially forced to resign his position of State Chairman of the PRC? Not that it did anything, he had a terrible habit of killing off his opponents, even those who were just as patriotic as he claimed to be. Why don't you go read about Peng De Huai and Zhou En Lai.
If you'd like to argue that Jung Chang suffers from a bias, that is a perfectly acceptable position to take seeing as how she and her family were directly affected by Mao and his programs.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'm going to skip most of the "China first, Communism Second" debate. It seems pretty obvious to me that this isn't really a choice, Mao genuinely believed that Communism was the best way to go for China. He was wrong.
quote:Originally posted by Vadon: ... When we do that, we see that Mao's actions in Tibet have arguably resulted in a net negative influence to the people of China.
An odd line of argument, while the Chinese colonization of Tibet sucked for the Tibetans, I find it hard to see why it would be a net negative for the people of China on the whole by any pragmatic measure. Between Tibet's resources, its strategic location, and the relative ease of occupation it seems to have been a pretty good deal for the Chinese.
As a similar trade-off: colonization of America, crappy for the native Americans, great deal for the illegal immigrants arriving by boat.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I'm going to skip most of the "China first, Communism Second" debate. It seems pretty obvious to me that this isn't really a choice, Mao genuinely believed that Communism was the best way to go for China. He was wrong.
quote:Originally posted by Vadon: ... When we do that, we see that Mao's actions in Tibet have arguably resulted in a net negative influence to the people of China.
An odd line of argument, while the Chinese colonization of Tibet sucked for the Tibetans, I find it hard to see why it would be a net negative for the people of China on the whole by any pragmatic measure. Between Tibet's resources, its strategic location, and the relative ease of occupation it seems to have been a pretty good deal for the Chinese.
As a similar trade-off: colonization of America, crappy for the native Americans, great deal for the illegal immigrants arriving by boat.
Fair point. My argument on why it was a net negative comes from the international perception. Granted a lot of the frustration from the international community is directed at the leadership, I feel that it does also hurt the people. I don't think that the "strategic position and relative ease of occupation" helps the people so much as the leadership of China, which was my original point.
But I think I'll concede this one in general though because I don't think the international pressure and anger at China has harmed the people in any measurable sense. (That is, unless there are tariffs and other trade limitations I don't know about.)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm wondering if she'd still consider a run for the senate even if she took this post. If so, I'd imagine that that means Obama plans to have his healthcare plan passed through Congress in the next year. Sebelius is pretty much the only chance Democrats have at capturing what will be an open senate seat when Republican senator Sam Brownback retires. Much like Janet Nepolitano was considered the only reasonable chance to pick up Arizona's senate seat from John McCain.
Appointing her will also throw Kansas to a Republican turned Democrat until the next election. I'm not positive as to her particular credentials in the healthcare field however. If anyone has info on that, feel free to share.
I'm willing to bet that his comment will be misconstrued by the right, and I'm sure Fox news is all over it already. But in context, I'm curious to hear the arguments that oppose him. Despite the strong language (maybe America could use some strong language when we're looking at OUR mistakes rather than tough talk in foreign policy), he's probing into an open wound that most Americans like to pretend doesn't exist. I fear however that a black AG appointed by a black president stirring up race relations, will rub a lot of people the wrong way. But often I think without agitation, a lot of this stuff never gets solved.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I'm going to skip most of the "China first, Communism Second" debate. It seems pretty obvious to me that this isn't really a choice, Mao genuinely believed that Communism was the best way to go for China. He was wrong.
That's pretty much my sentiments as well Mucus.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
One of the main reasons why non-blacks voted for Barack Obama was they thought it would prove we are a "post-racial" society, where race is no longer a problem. Would Holder say this was hypocrisy or hopefulness? If the former, then he is saying the vote by many for Obama was a mistake.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
A "main" reason? And where did you pull this from, Ron? Anything at all to back it up?
I'll agree that one of the reasons I was excited that he won (not a reason I voted for him) was that it was a step in the right direction. Even a big step is not the whole journey.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: One of the main reasons why non-blacks voted for Barack Obama was they thought it would prove we are a "post-racial" society, where race is no longer a problem.
I don't buy that assertion at all, Ron.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
This was his appeal as hyped by virtually all the mass media talking heads, and I think they were right. Why else would so many people vote for a guy who was so obviously inexperienced and a political lightweight, who had such an out-of-touch extreme liberal voting record, and who kept changing his positions all the time without his fans even noticing, and had some incredibly disturbing past associations (which would have mattered greatly with any other candidate)?
Why do Obama supporters keep denying reality, even when it is so obvious? How many more of his cabinet picks have to resign because of tax problems, and how many more of his actions as president will have to be seen as ill-informed--like his attempt to close Gitmo "immediately"--and how glaringly obvious must Congressional Democrats make the fact that they do not really view him as the leader of their party?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Why else would so many people vote for a guy who was so obviously inexperienced and a political lightweight, who had such an out-of-touch extreme liberal voting record, and who kept changing his positions all the time without his fans even noticing, and had some incredibly disturbing past associations (which would have mattered greatly with any other candidate)?
Because many people disagree with these characterizations?
quote:Why do Obama supporters keep denying reality, even when it is so obvious?
Just a guess here, but because it's not so obvious? Reasonable people can come to different conclusions and all that jazz. Remember that over half of the US voting population are Obama supporters. That seems to argue somewhat against the obviousness claim.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ron, there was not a single sentence in your last post that was correct.
I am again swayed to the "Ron could not possibly be real" school of thinking.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
kmboots, do you and your fellow knee-jerk naysayers and compulsive hecklers have anything substantive to say?
MattP, when has the majority ever been right? The only reason democracy has worked in America at least to some extent, is that usually the semiliterate, misinformed, and deluded majority do not vote. The more people who participate in an election, the more likely it is they will elect the wrong person or vote for the wrong thing. It was the will of the majority that drove the Roman Empire into oblivion. Vox populi, VEX Dei. Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:when has the majority ever been right?
Pay attention Ron. I didn't day the majority indicated correctness. I was talking about obviousness. If most people don't see what you see, then what you see is definitionally NOT obvious.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: But in context, I'm curious to hear the arguments that oppose him. Despite the strong language (maybe America could use some strong language when we're looking at OUR mistakes rather than tough talk in foreign policy), he's probing into an open wound that most Americans like to pretend doesn't exist.
He is quite simply wrong that we are a nation of cowards who don't talk about race. Race is discussed constantly in our country. I don't have a transcript of exactly what he said to keep everything in context about what specific aspects of race are being ignored because they are uncomfortable.
quote: The attorney general said employees across the country "have done a pretty good job in melding the races in the workplace," but he noted that "certain subjects are off limits and that to explore them risks at best embarrassment and at worst the questioning of one's character."
Without a transcript or clarification I don't know what he is referring to with that quote. I do think he picked a very poor way to express his point especially since he is from the Obama "Hope and Change" team. The article made things sound like doom and gloom but I grant that could be the article's take on his speech.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: One of the main reasons why non-blacks voted for Barack Obama was they thought it would prove we are a "post-racial" society, where race is no longer a problem.
my google-fu is limited at this moment but there has to be some polling data about this somewhere. It would be an interesting poll to have taken right before the election, now, and next year to see if opinions would change over time on why they voted for Obama
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: ... out-of-touch extreme liberal voting record ...
Sometimes I wonder if Ron would spontaneously implode if he set foot in Canada.
Any classification scheme that classifies Obama as "extreme" must have amazing difficulty in classifying the differences between the Liberal party, the Bloc Quebecquois, and the New Democratic Party.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Democratic Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina said Thursday that GOP governors who oppose the stimulus bill are giving African-Americans “a slap in the face.”
quote: Clyburn has been sparring with his state’s governor, Republican Mark Sanford, who has been a leading voice of opposition to the stimulus package. But the highest-ranking African-American in Congress said his frustration with the bill’s opponents isn’t limited to Sanford.
I wonder if AG Holder meant people like Clyburn in his 'nation of cowards' statement? Clyburn is absolutely using race to put pressure on his political opponent to get his way. Shouldn't this action be condemned?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think you'll find just as many people voted for Obama in spite of his race as did because of it. I think the majority of people that voted for Obama because of race would have voted for Clinton as well, not because of race, but because they view their policies as beneficial to their race or to the issue of race.
I'm very, very doubtful of the supposed large number of whites that voted for Obama just so they could claim some sort of healing on the race issue. When most people were polled on their major issues, things like healthcare, the economy, energy, the Iraq war, terrorism and even the budget were winners. Race relations was a statistical blip.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Race relations was a statistical blip.
This would make AG Holder's remarks all the more concerning to me.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Looked at from a different point of view, it makes his remarks all the more compelling.
Race relations weren't a statistical blip because we're a race blind utopia of acceptance. They were a blip because people for the most part live in voluntary (white suburbs) or involuntary socioeconomic (black inner cities) segregation and either don't recognize that there are problems or actively ignore them in favor of other problems.
In other words, to view Holder's comments with respect to the lack of importance of race as an issue in this most previous election, you would either have to accept one of two premises (or a couple variations that fit under these premises): 1. That America doesn't have any race problems, so why would they be an issue? or 2. That there is a problem, and we don't care about it very much.
There is, or there isn't a problem. If there's a problem and it's not an issue, we must not care about it very much, or care about talking about it very much. So, I think to argue that Holder's comments are untrue and concerning, you have to make the argument that America doesn't have a race problem. Good luck with that.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:He is quite simply wrong that we are a nation of cowards who don't talk about race. Race is discussed constantly in our country.
I think Eric Holder may have found a better way to communicate his point, but I believe his point is valid. Our problem is not that we don't talk, our problem is that we don't talk about the right things or act on anything really helpful. We talk about the things that are comfortable, we claim that we talk about race all the time, and yet, what we really do is hide behind those programs and ideas that are safe and easy. Of course, it's the same thing with everything else, whether it's sexism or the economy or politics, we hide behind what's easy and fail to become better because we are to content to allow others to make the bold decisions that can make us better.
quote:MattP, when has the majority ever been right? The only reason democracy has worked in America at least to some extent, is that usually the semiliterate, misinformed, and deluded majority do not vote. The more people who participate in an election, the more likely it is they will elect the wrong person or vote for the wrong thing. It was the will of the majority that drove the Roman Empire into oblivion. Vox populi, VEX Dei.
You know what I find hilarious? Someone who makes this claim and then forgets to place a dash between semi and literate.
I was thinking today about something someone said on CNN, I believe it was Bill Bennett, who claimed that Republicans were against the Stimulus Bill because they trusted the American people and small businesses to stimulate the economy through tax breaks. Inherently, that is not a completely incorrect nor implausible position to take, but the problem I have is that what I see in the position is hypocrisy. Trust in the American people is a beautiful thing as long as we don't have to trust them to make the correct moral decisions about gay marriage, for instance. For that, you need a constitutional amendment. Which makes me wonder why economic matters require trust in the people and social matters require Constitutional lawyers to keep the people from degeneration, and the only solution I can find is that when trust benefits someone, then economic policy means as little regulation as possible. As long as some don't have to deal with those poor people or those who cannot pull themselves up by their boot-straps (even, you know, if they have never had boots) or those who disagree with them socially, then everything is correct in the world. But get in the way of that agenda, and the very tools they rail against suddenly are good and useful in keeping the illiterate and stupid masses from messing with the ubermensch on top.
Boy, it's a good thing I dove into that mess...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I was thinking today about something someone said on CNN, I believe it was Bill Bennett, who claimed that Republicans were against the Stimulus Bill because they trusted the American people and small businesses to stimulate the economy through tax breaks. Inherently, that is not a completely incorrect nor implausible position to take, but the problem I have is that what I see in the position is hypocrisy.
I know that I am both
1. cynical, and 2. definitely against the republicans
but I feel it is entirely fair to state: the GOP has rather correctly figured that if this whole stimulus thing WORKS, the Democrats get all the credit. Ergo, they should oppose it — even if (especially if!) the GOP thinks it will work.
The GOP knew that the stimulus bill was inevitable. Were Bush still in charge (or, were McCain to have won) and the GOP was a legislative majority, they would have proffered over 60% support of it, and Bush would have supported a stimulus bill of similar size.
Because they knew the bill was assured, this gave them an opportunity to hedge their bets rather than dare give Obama support over this issue. So they decided to play a little game theory by "embarrassing" Obama over his "failure" to bring about any degree of harmony in the senate.
Rationally, it makes sense for the sake of the party, but not necessarily for the sake of the nation were they to have actually had filibuster power.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: You know what I find hilarious? Someone who makes this claim and then forgets to place a dash between semi and literate.
quote:. Trust in the American people is a beautiful thing as long as we don't have to trust them to make the correct moral decisions about gay marriage, for instance. For that, you need a constitutional amendment. Which makes me wonder why economic matters require trust in the people and social matters require Constitutional lawyers to keep the people from degeneration, and the only solution I can find is that when trust benefits someone, then economic policy means as little regulation as possible.
The Constitutional amendment is trusting the people, it goes on the ballot and is voted upon. The constitutional lawyers are on the other side trying to get rid of it. I'm certainly not of the believe that Republican politicians, unlike their Democrat counterparts, are motivated solely by the good of the country any more than I think the reverse. However, gay marriage amendments have been the will of the people. My understanding is that the only state that didn't approve a definition of marriage amendment that came to a vote was Arizona, which just reversed that in the last election. I didn't research though so someone please correct me if I'm wrong!
Hobbes Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Humean316, language is continually changing. Many words that used to be hyphenated have become one word. Such as "extraordinary." Either I am ahead of the times, or you are behind them. If you will check Webster's Online Dictionary, "semiliterate" is now considered properly one word, not hyphenated. Thanks Mike, for providing the link.
One other admittedly nit-picky point--the proper term would be hyphen, not dash, if "semiliterate" were hyphenated. A dash in most typefaces is the same width as the letter "M," and so is called the "em dash." That is, maximum width for the typeface. In a 12-point typeface, the dash would be 12 points wide. A "short dash" or "en dash" is half as wide--the width of the letter "n" in most typefaces. The hyphen is shorter still. Here is what Wickipedia says: "A dash is a punctuation mark. It is longer than a hyphen and is used differently. The most common versions of the dash are the en dash (–) and the em dash (—)." Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dash See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyphen
I used to work in a printshop.
MattP--what is "obvious" does NOT depend on how many people see it, it depends on what is logical to those who are logical. That would seldom be the majority.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ron, things that are logical to logical people are logical things. There's another definition we use for "obvious," and that isn't it.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
A joke about obviousness in math:
A professor, in the course of teaching a class, claims that a certain step in a proof is obvious. One of the students queries him on this. The professor leaves the room and 45 minutes later (two minutes before the end of the lecture) the professor returns and declares that the step IS obvious.
If anyone finds this amusing I also have one about visualizing 3-manifolds.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
do go on.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: 1. That America doesn't have any race problems, so why would they be an issue? or 2. That there is a problem, and we don't care about it very much.
or 3. America does have some race issues but the issues are not severe as they have been in the past. Holder even says that in the workplace things are fine or much improved we just don't associate outside of work as much as he feels we should be doing. So we do care but is not a gigantic issue facing the nation.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think you're pretty much choosing option two, but you're trying to spin it in a more positive way.
Sure we've come a long way since the 60's, obviously since the 1860's, and measurable progress since the 1960's, and we have a black president, huzzah. What about urban poverty that overwhelmingly is suffered more by blacks than whites? What about black graduation rates? Imprisonment rates? Mandatory minimums that effect blacks more than whites on certain drug related crimes? Inner city violence?
It's easy to call a lot of these problems "black problems" and foist the issue off as something other than race, but whites don't have to deal with a lot of these things nearly as much because we fled the to the suburbs en masse in the 60's and made it impossible for blacks to follow us. Yeah I know we also moved to the burbs as early as the 1880's and 90's, and it picked up dramatically when returning GIs in the 40's and 50's took home loans from the government to get their little slice of the American Dream, but the final nail in the coffin came in the 60's, and racist lending rules and intimidation made kept blacks stuck in the inner cities. Holder's point now is as much social as it is anything else. We live in a state of voluntary segregation (of course this diverges when you consider inner city poverty, where I'd call involuntary), where whites happily separate themselves from blacks, and proclaim that all our race issues are solved, but only because they don't have to deal with blacks face to face. If I could wave a magic wand and ensure that every white person in the country lived within a couple houses of a black person, I guarantee you we'd see a whole new side to the problem erupt that you claim is of minute importance.
We've segregated ourselves from the problem and from the discussion, like religious figures who become recluses to remove the temptation of sin, it's easy to pretend there isn't a problem when you create a social norm that insulates you from ever having to confront it.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
The truth is out. Why don't I trust the ultra-conservative wing of the Republican party?
quote: when has the majority ever been right? The only reason democracy has worked in America at least to some extent, is that usually the semiliterate, misinformed, and deluded majority do not vote. The more people who participate in an election, the more likely it is they will elect the wrong person or vote for the wrong thing. It was the will of the majority that drove the Roman Empire into oblivion. Vox populi, VEX Dei.
So, what are we to do--replace our democracy with what? A Ron-Lambert Dictatorship? A Theocracy of Christian Ministers? A Oligarchy of Business Interests? An Aristocracy of Republican families?
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: The truth is out. Why don't I trust the ultra-conservative wing of the Republican party?
quote: when has the majority ever been right? The only reason democracy has worked in America at least to some extent, is that usually the semiliterate, misinformed, and deluded majority do not vote. The more people who participate in an election, the more likely it is they will elect the wrong person or vote for the wrong thing. It was the will of the majority that drove the Roman Empire into oblivion. Vox populi, VEX Dei.
So, what are we to do--replace our democracy with what? A Ron-Lambert Dictatorship? A Theocracy of Christian Ministers? A Oligarchy of Business Interests? An Aristocracy of Republican families?
An excerpt from the 2006 Texas Republican Party platform: "We pledge to exert our influence toward a return to the original intent of the First Amendment and dispel the myth of the separation of church and state."
Perhaps theocracy, then.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: A joke about obviousness in math:
A professor, in the course of teaching a class, claims that a certain step in a proof is obvious. One of the students queries him on this. The professor leaves the room and 45 minutes later (two minutes before the end of the lecture) the professor returns and declares that the step IS obvious.
Will you think less of me if I admit I don't get it?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: It's easy to call a lot of these problems "black problems" and foist the issue off as something other than race
I may not be understanding your point here. They are not "black problems" as many inner city whites, hispanics, and others face the same issues.
quote: but whites don't have to deal with a lot of these things nearly as much because we fled the to the suburbs en masse in the 60's and made it impossible for blacks to follow us.
Whites made it impossible for blacks to move to the suburbs? There are no blacks in the suburbs? Really? 40 years there was a much bigger race problem than there is today. Whites are not keeping blacks out of the suburbs today. 'Racism' does still exist and will always exist to some extent in America. Most people are more comfortable in familiar surroundings regardless of race.
quote: We live in a state of voluntary segregation (of course this diverges when you consider inner city poverty, where I'd call involuntary), where whites happily separate themselves from blacks, and proclaim that all our race issues are solved, but only because they don't have to deal with blacks face to face.
I have never said that all our race issues are solved. No one is saying that. ('No one but Jayne is saying that' if you understand the reference) But you are limiting yourself too much with that statement. What about the hispanics? Asians? Arabs? or is it just whites shutting blacks out of the suburbs? Are you sure that similar people don't choose to live together? Similar cultures and backgrounds tend to stick together. For example, we have an area with primarily people of Arab descent living in it and in that area is a large sub-area of Syrian immigrants. No one forced them to live in a small area. Whites did not push them into this area. They chose to live close to each other because of similar cultures, languages, and backgrounds. Stores with Arabic language first signs are predominant there because of the local unique culture. Should that be destroyed because of racism? Should we erase little Italy or Chinatown in Philly because they are not ethnically diverse enough?
quote: If I could wave a magic wand and ensure that every white person in the country lived within a couple houses of a black person, I guarantee you we'd see a whole new side to the problem erupt that you claim is of minute importance.
What new side would that be? How sure are you that the blacks would not be the ones outraged having to live with whites and having white culture forced upon them? This goes both ways. I live in a diverse neighborhood ethnically (my family is definitely in the minority) but we are all similar in backgrounds and middle class status. The complaints of my black neighbors are the exact same as those of my white and hispanic neighbors...inner city 'thugs' and the violent, selfish lifestyle they lead and bring to our streets. That and bad dog owners who let their dogs poop in someone else's yard and don't pick it up. I've been chased after and thanked profusely for cleaning up after my dog.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Godric 2.0: Will you think less of me if I admit I don't get it?
The rest of the proof is trivial. QED.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Lyrhawn, while you are right that certain problems do disproportionately affect blacks, I think ultimately the solution has to be dealt with as a class issue. I have white friends who deal with the effects of poverty and drugs while I have black friends who live extremely privileged lives. While these may be outliers, it builds resentment when someone who is poor watches a rich spoiled brat get the college scholarship because they are of a specific race. We also need to eliminate the idea that being poor is a choice or a sign of a defect.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Oh I agree, it's not solely a minority issue, and there are plenty of whites that live in poverty as well. And I think a lot of the problems we have are going to have to be tackled more as socioeconomic problems than as racial ones.
DK -
It's a long story. Yes, whites were initially responsible for keeping blacks out of the suburbs. They used lending practices that denied loans to blacks who wanted loans to buy homes in the suburbs, and for the few who made it in, largely using black banking institutions, they were intimidated until they were forced out. Is it the same problem today? Of course not, but the damage was done. Having been stuck in the inner city for a generation or two has crippled them with poverty rather than race. Now it's not a matter of racial barriers but economic ones.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
I'm disappointed. I know hearing all the cases would be a burden on the federal courts, but I still like to believe that you ought to be able to challenge your detainment through a fair, 'objective' system. They ought to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in that they should have charges brought against them. If you can't come up with a good reason for their detainment other than 'they were on the battlefield,' then it's not right to keep holding them captive. If the detainees officially declared prisoners of war, that would be one thing. But as it is right now, they're in a legal grey-area that I don't like where we can hold them indefinitely without charge. I know it's a bit of a stretch to imagine, but I don't like the precedent that's being established where the government can detain you for the rest of your life and you're never given the opportunity to prove your innocence or even find out why you're being held.
I grant that many, if not a great majority of those detainees ought to be held because of their activities, but the burden should be on us to prove their wrong doing.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote: I know hearing all the cases would be a burden on the federal courts, but I still like to believe that you ought to be able to challenge your detainment through a fair, 'objective' system.
I'm not sure what sort of system could handle that many people. When virtually all of your enemies fight without a uniform, you get a glut of enemy combatants. Allowing every individual prisoner to contest their being held would be a huge mess.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote: I know hearing all the cases would be a burden on the federal courts, but I still like to believe that you ought to be able to challenge your detainment through a fair, 'objective' system.
I'm not sure what sort of system could handle that many people. When virtually all of your enemies fight without a uniform, you get a glut of enemy combatants. Allowing every individual prisoner to contest their being held would be a huge mess.
I agree, but then again, I think this whole situation is a mess right now.
I think it would be completely infeasible for the courts to handle the burden. At the same time, I think military tribunals don't work either for reasons of objectivity. But I do think we need some sort of system that fairly objective. Maybe make a commission that functions as a grand jury or something and assign a federal judge, a person in uniform, and an independent observer together who just hear whether we have reason to hold this person. If the military can't make a compelling case to continue their detainment, that detainee is allowed to challenge their detainment in an actual trial procedure. If the commission finds reasonable proof of actions that were incriminating, their detainment is upheld.
I don't think my solution is perfect, or even that good, but we need something.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Darth_Mauve, I don't think there is anything we can do to improve democracy, other than continue to promote universal literacy, and continue allowing voting to be voluntary (not compulsory). People with the worst judgment and who are the most misinformed generally tend to be concerned primarily with their own selfish lives, and unconcerned with issues and events larger than themselves. This leads them to be apathetic, and to skip going out of their way enough to vote. That works out to society's advantage, most of the time.
The only ideal government will be the one that God will set up without any human help. (See Daniel 2:44, 45--note the words "without hands.") This is contrary to what Augustine taught in The City of God, and what many promoters of Papal dominion teach, based on Augustine.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
quote:People with the worst judgment and who are the most misinformed generally tend to be concerned primarily with their own selfish lives, and unconcerned with issues and events larger than themselves.
Many people complain about the "Liberal Elitism". This is the idea that East Coast Liberals patronize the working class who don't know any better.
Then we get quotes like this that I can only describe as Republican Elitism. This was a hallmark of President Bush's failures--he didn't believe that the People could understand why he was doing what he was doing, so he kept many many things secret. This is the idea that some great Conservative thinkers have the answers and their Business Experience allows them a special ability to do what is right beyond what the majority can comprehend.
Combine this statement with your earlier one:
quote:Why else would so many people vote for a guy who was so obviously inexperienced and a political lightweight, who had such an out-of-touch extreme liberal voting record, and who kept changing his positions all the time without his fans even noticing, and had some incredibly disturbing past associations (which would have mattered greatly with any other candidate)?
And what do you get? You get the idea that any person who voted for Obama was selfish, ignorant, and unconcerned with issues outside their own lives.
I voted for Obama.
I did so for reasons that were not selfish. I researched the issue and the positions so I was not ignorant. I thought that his positions would help with issues that were far outside my own private life.
Your description of President Obama however, shows ignorance, selfishness, and a concern for issues only dealing with your private life.
Just because people don't think like you do does not mean that they are not thinking.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Darth_Mauve, I don't think there is anything we can do to improve democracy, other than continue to promote universal literacy, and continue allowing voting to be voluntary (not compulsory). People with the worst judgment and who are the most misinformed generally tend to be concerned primarily with their own selfish lives, and unconcerned with issues and events larger than themselves. This leads them to be apathetic, and to skip going out of their way enough to vote. That works out to society's advantage, most of the time.
The only ideal government will be the one that God will set up without any human help. (See Daniel 2:44, 45--note the words "without hands.") This is contrary to what Augustine taught in The City of God, and what many promoters of Papal dominion teach, based on Augustine.
Please keep your hocus pocus myths out of our real world politics.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I'm disappointed. I know hearing all the cases would be a burden on the federal courts, but I still like to believe that you ought to be able to challenge your detainment through a fair, 'objective' system. They ought to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in that they should have charges brought against them. If you can't come up with a good reason for their detainment other than 'they were on the battlefield,' then it's not right to keep holding them captive. If the detainees officially declared prisoners of war, that would be one thing. But as it is right now, they're in a legal grey-area that I don't like where we can hold them indefinitely without charge. I know it's a bit of a stretch to imagine, but I don't like the precedent that's being established where the government can detain you for the rest of your life and you're never given the opportunity to prove your innocence or even find out why you're being held.
I grant that many, if not a great majority of those detainees ought to be held because of their activities, but the burden should be on us to prove their wrong doing.
Shouldn't they be treated as Prisoners of War?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Can you declare someone a prisoner of war when you haven't declared war?
Hobbes Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I believe so.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Darth_Mauve, I don't think there is anything we can do to improve democracy, other than continue to promote universal literacy, and continue allowing voting to be voluntary (not compulsory). People with the worst judgment and who are the most misinformed generally tend to be concerned primarily with their own selfish lives, and unconcerned with issues and events larger than themselves. This leads them to be apathetic, and to skip going out of their way enough to vote. That works out to society's advantage, most of the time.
The only ideal government will be the one that God will set up without any human help. (See Daniel 2:44, 45--note the words "without hands.") This is contrary to what Augustine taught in The City of God, and what many promoters of Papal dominion teach, based on Augustine.
Please keep your hocus pocus myths out of our real world politics.
Cut it out Blayne, if you could be so kind.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Ron, have you actually read Augustine? Because you're missng the point of City of God by a pretty wide margin.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Yes. And no, I'm not. The point is that the church is to create the kingdom of God on earth. This is the thinking that led to the Inquisition, and many other abuses by the ecclesiastical authority.
It is interesting to note, as most scholars do (even Protestant) that Augustine was probably a sincerely devout Christian, who thought he was doing good and advocating good things. He was just severely mistaken. Though there are some partisans of Papal supremacy who still have not given up on Augustine's vision. (See The Keys of This Blood, by Malachi Martin.)
I realize it is customary to refer to him as Saint Augustine, but I am reluctant to do that, because I do not agree with the Roman Catholic view of what it means to be a saint. I agree with the New Testament/Biblical view that all believers are saints (see for example Romans 16:15; Psalms 34:9).
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Yes. And no, I'm not. The point is that the church is to create the kingdom of God on earth.
No Ron, that is the exact opposite of the point. Augustine wrote The City of God specifically to distinguish between the earthly city and the heavenly city. Because people of his time were conflating them.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Yes. And no, I'm not. The point is that the church is to create the kingdom of God on earth.
How did you read it and come to that conclusion?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Because that's what it says. What kind of scholars are you people?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Ron...
[strikeout]Perhaps if you brought in a quotation or two to show how you arrived at your conclusion.[/strikeout]
Ah...forget it.
[ February 23, 2009, 09:33 AM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:What kind of scholars are you people?
Oh, Dana, PLEASE answer this question. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Woo! Default!
quote: As a politician, Locke is a staid character. I covered him when I was starting out as a reporter in a small town in Washington state. When I interviewed him in 2001 he showed both a strong grasp of the varied issues important to the northwest corner of the state (where he wasn't very popular) and a remarkable ability to say nothing noteworthy. I had to prod and push him to utter anything semi-lively. Joe Biden he's not.
But what he lacks in flash he makes up in depth, especially when it comes to China. Locke was the first and so far the only Chinese-American governor in U.S. history, and his heritage is a key part of his identity. Since leaving the governor's seat he's work for a Seattle law firm and focused on China trade. He's popular in China, has close ties with the leadership in Beijing including President Hu Jintao, and has been quoted before talking about how important it is that both sides find benefit in the Sino-U.S. economic relationship.
quote:Accordingly, two cities have been formed by two loves: the earthly by the love of self, even to the contempt of God; the heavenly by the love of God, even to the contempt of self. The former, in a word, glories in itself, the latter in the Lord. For the one seeks glory from men; but the greatest glory of the other is God, the witness of conscience. ... But in the other [heavenly] city there is no human wisdom, but only godliness, which offers due worship to the true God, and looks for its reward in the society of the saints, of holy angels as well as holy men, "that God may be all in all." ... The earthly city, which does not live by faith, seeks an earthly peace, and the end it proposes, in the well-ordered concord of civic obedience and rule, is the combination of men's wills to attain the things which are helpful to this life. The heavenly city, or rather the part of it which sojourns on earth and lives by faith, makes use of this peace only because it must, until this mortal condition which necessitates it shall pass away. Consequently, so long as [the heavenly city] lives like a captive and a stranger in the earthly city, though it has already received the promise of redemption, and the gift of the Spirit as the earnest of it, it makes no scruple to obey the laws of the earthly city, whereby the things necessary for the maintenance of this mortal life are administered; and thus, as this life is common to both cities, so there is a harmony between them in regard to what belongs to it.
The text is essentially about how the earthly city can never become the heavenly city, and that trying to set up an earthly city as the heavenly city is doomed to failure. They are by their very natures distinct entities.
The point of The City of God isn't to set up God's kingdom on earth, but to remind us that God's kingdom cannot be set up on earth. It is heavenly, not earthly, and trying to make the one into the other is exactly the wrong thing to do.
[ February 26, 2009, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
It's important to keep in mind that a big chunk of that newly swollen deficit is the cost of the Iraq war. The Bush administration left the war costs entirely out of their budgets in order to give the impression of smaller deficits. Obama, in what I hope both sides can agree is a principled move, has restored war funding to the budget - part of that whole "accountability and transparency" thing.
Between the bank bailouts and stimulus bill, a massive increase in the deficit was inevitable anyway. The Republicans' tax cut-focused stimulus plan would have resulted in similar deficit increase.
Posted by Mocke (Member # 11963) on :
Yay deficit! Yay funding for Science!
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
I like how it extends ten years out instead of five years, like the previous budget(s?).
Still, ten years is not very long. Especially when looking at things like climate change and energy initiatives.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:It's important to keep in mind that a big chunk of that newly swollen deficit is the cost of the Iraq war. The Bush administration left the war costs entirely out of their budgets in order to give the impression of smaller deficits. Obama, in what I hope both sides can agree is a principled move, has restored war funding to the budget - part of that whole "accountability and transparency" thing.
That makes a lot more sense. I was wondering where the sudden increase came from. Unfortunately, I figure this "huge budget increase" will just come back to bite him before the next election.
--j_k
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
When reading Augustine, you have to read between the lines, and see how elements in it were construed by the leaders of the Papacy, to justify their attempts to get the secular authorities to enforce the church's edicts.
This is apparent even in the selections you quoted, Claudia. Note this sentence:
quote:The heavenly city, or rather the part of it which sojourns on earth and lives by faith, makes use of this peace only because it must, until this mortal condition which necessitates it shall pass away.
Note the expression "makes use of this peace...."
The historic position of the Papacy has always been that it is entitled to command secular governments to enforce its edicts. This was the justification for the Inquisition, for the supposed right of the church to set up and put down kings and emperors, and for the expectation that secular authorities should recognize the legitimacy of Indulgences (which at times had humorous consequences, particularly where one indulgence-seller by the name of Tetzel was concerned, who granted an indulgence in advance of a crime, and then when the person who bought the indulgence robbed Tetzel, the authorities gleefully decided to respect the indulgence).
Devout defenders of the Papacy still hope for a re-establishment of the "Holy Roman Empire." See on this Malachi Martin, whom I mentioned earlier, in his book, The Keys of This Blood. Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Maybe not, he's been pretty good about getting people to understand that he's levelling with them. I think people will realize that the budget increase is him just being honest about how much money Bush's policies are costing.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: But let me perfectly clear, because I know you’ll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.
Obama's "Read my lips" moment..... So when the taxes are increased much more than a single dime I wonder how he will spin it?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
"Not one single dime." How about many dimes?
And what if like most people, your family has 401K retirement investments, or other investments in the stock market, or commodities, or mutual funds, and you are fortunate enough to realize some gain? You have to pay capital gains tax on that, on top of income tax. Obama said during the campaign that he intends to increase the capital gains tax from 10% to 30%. On everyone. So even if you only make $30,000 a year, you will pay an increased tax on any gains you make on your investments. And what if Obama reduces the amount the average family can deduct for the homestead allowance, if you own your own home?
Just look at history, folks. When has any Democrat ever reduced the tax burden on the middle class, despite whatever was claimed?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rom: Criminey Ron how many people do you know making $30,000 a year and have serious money to invest?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
IIRC, Ron lives in Detroit. You can get houses for $5 there.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Yeah, but with interest you end up paying closer to $8.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
And you only pay capital gains tax if they go up in value, and that never happens.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: ... You have to pay capital gains tax on that, on top of income tax. Obama said during the campaign that he intends to increase the capital gains tax from 10% to 30%. On everyone. So even if you only make $30,000 a year, you will pay an increased tax on any gains you make on your investments. And what if Obama reduces the amount the average family can deduct for the homestead allowance, if you own your own home?
Is that first part right? AFAIK, in Canada, the federal tax rate on capital gains is 50% of the tax bracket in which your capital gains fall into. So for someone making 30k from only capital gains, that would be 7.5% and even for someone in the highest income bracket they would pay only 15%. If the US capital gains tax is going to be a flat 30%, thats pretty substantially higher.
Also, whats a homestead allowance?
Edit to add: For a house, capital gains on a primary residence should be exempt anyways, in Canada anyways.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Also, AFAIK the $1.6 trillion budget deficit doesn't include much of the bailout money. That's all additional deficit left off the budget. Or am I wrong? I could easily be misreading the itemization of the budget and missing stuff. But if it does leave out bailout funds, I'd say that's at least as dishonest as Bush leaving the full costs of the wars off the budget.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: But let me perfectly clear, because I know you’ll hear the same old claims that rolling back these tax breaks means a massive tax increase on the American people: if your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime.
Obama's "Read my lips" moment..... So when the taxes are increased much more than a single dime I wonder how he will spin it?
You clearly haven't read a single article about Obama's budget, because if you had, you'd know that it increases taxes only on households earning more than a quarter million dollars a year (and does so by rolling back the Bush tax cuts). It also provides a tax cut or refund for most of those who earn below that threshold. You know... exactly what Obama promised in your quotation.
Here, have a cite. It's even from Fox News, so you know it's not filtered by that pesky liberal media.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
quote:And what if like most people, your family has 401K retirement investments, or other investments in the stock market, or commodities, or mutual funds, and you are fortunate enough to realize some gain? You have to pay capital gains tax on that, on top of income tax. Obama said during the campaign that he intends to increase the capital gains tax from 10% to 30%. On everyone. So even if you only make $30,000 a year, you will pay an increased tax on any gains you make on your investments. And what if Obama reduces the amount the average family can deduct for the homestead allowance, if you own your own home?
Once again we are here to witness why the Republican Party lost touch with so much of the country.
Here Ron assumes that the Middle Class are people who can afford to play the stock market, dabble in commodities, and has to worry about the amount of money they will have to pay on Capital Gains from their investments.
What he doesn't realize is that the person making $30,000 a year can't afford to take 10% of their income and invest it in the market, doesn't have the specialized education to risk trading in commodities, and doesn't mind paying more on their capital gains, because they don't make any, or the little they make as "capital gains" is nothing compared to the services and security their taxes pay for.
Elitist.
[ February 27, 2009, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: Darth_Mauve ]
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I make 30,000 a year and I have to agree with Darth_Mauve and BlackBlade. My investments? HA!
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Maybe I'm weird, but I was able to put away money into investments while making very little money. I saved money while making 15k a year or less during college and grad school. By the time I got married I had never had a job earning more than 15k a year yet I had enough money to pay off my husband's student loans and I had half the down payment we needed for our house. I had additional money in Roth IRA's (which is still there).
Granted, I wasn't raising a family on that money or anything, but still, it wasn't much. I don't even look at the first 10% of my income and never have, no matter how little it is. (Well, except for the 6 months I was unemployed, during which time I was able to live off my savings.)
These things are possible. Extremely difficult. I never had much in the way of stuff and I didn't have nice apartments.
It may be unlikely, but maybe there should still be wording in the law to cover people who manage to save money while making a pittance.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: You clearly haven't read a single article about Obama's budget, because if you had, you'd know that it increases taxes only on households earning more than a quarter million dollars a year (and does so by rolling back the Bush tax cuts). It also provides a tax cut or refund for most of those who earn below that threshold. You know... exactly what Obama promised in your quotation.
Up here in Canada a lot of middle class people (say household income 50k to 100k) have to manage their own retirements via RRSPs and non-registered investments.
These people pretty much have to invest in the stock market for the long term and thus they will have to deal with capital gains at one point or another. Capital gains taxes are hardly only a upper class concern. In fact, 30k of income probably isn't that unrealistic at this juncture.
That said, I'm sure that there is some kind of progressive element to the actual proposed changes to capital gains taxes and that Ron is probably misinterpreting something.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: Maybe I'm weird, but I was able to put away money into investments while making very little money. I saved money while making 15k a year or less during college and grad school. By the time I got married I had never had a job earning more than 15k a year yet I had enough money to pay off my husband's student loans and I had half the down payment we needed for our house. I had additional money in Roth IRA's (which is still there).
Granted, I wasn't raising a family on that money or anything, but still, it wasn't much. I don't even look at the first 10% of my income and never have, no matter how little it is. (Well, except for the 6 months I was unemployed, during which time I was able to live off my savings.)
These things are possible. Extremely difficult. I never had much in the way of stuff and I didn't have nice apartments.
It may be unlikely, but maybe there should still be wording in the law to cover people who manage to save money while making a pittance.
You are definitely not weird, just frugal and apparently wise with your money. Putting money away into savings or an IRA is not the same thing as having money to invest in the stock market or shop around in commodities. If you decide you want to sell your house then you will likely incur capital gains.
As a single student I was doing just fine with 15k a year in income. Now that I am married and childless 30k a year is still plenty of money. But there are myriad circumstance that can adjust costs of living to the point that 30k a year leaves little room to wiggle much less invest.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Most people who have jobs have 401K retirement accounts. Those funds generally are invested somewhere in the stock market. They are supposed to be tax exempt, but the instant you retire, or take money out for any reason, you have to pay capital gains tax.
Tom, I live in one of the the northern Detroit suburbs, not in Detroit itself. Out here, houses are still worth something. Though less than they were.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: President Obama's first speech to a joint session of Congress was stuffed with signals about the new direction his budget will take and meant-to-be reassuring words about the economy. But it was also peppered with exaggerations and factual misstatements.
He said "we import more oil today than ever before." That's untrue. Imports peaked in 2005 and are substantially lower today.
He claimed his mortgage aid plan would help "responsible" buyers but not those who borrowed beyond their means. But even prominent defenders of the program including Fed Chairman Bernanke and FDIC chief Bair concede foolish borrowers will be aided, too.
He said the high cost of health care "causes a bankruptcy in America every 30 seconds." That's at least double the true figure.
He flubbed two facts about American history. The U.S. did not invent the automobile, and the transcontinental railroad was not completed until years after the Civil War, not during it.
He claimed that his stimulus plan "prevented the layoffs" of 57 police officers in Minneapolis. In fact, it's far more complicated than that, and other factors are also helping to save police jobs.
The president also repeated some strained claims we've critiqued before.
Not that it seems to matter too much when President Obama gets it wrong but Fact Check reviewed his speech and found many errors. Even his tax 'cuts' for 95% of Americans is wrong. Plus his payback for union support executive order and all the other issues stacking up with him. I wonder how soon it will be until his supporters, especially the youth supporters, realize he is just another Democrat politician....which the way things have been going is not all too different from a Republican politician.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
quote:Obama said during the campaign that he intends to increase the capital gains tax from 10% to 30%. On everyone. So even if you only make $30,000 a year, you will pay an increased tax on any gains you make on your investments.
quote:ABC News' Teddy Davis, Arnab Datta, and Rigel Anderson Report: Sen. Barack Obama’s, D-Ill., top economic advisors announced on Thursday that he is seeking to raise the capital gains tax rate from 15 percent to 20 percent for those Americans making more than $250,000 per year.
Not only are your numbers wrong, but the increase Obama is asking for is income dependent, so no, it will not affect people earning $30,000 a year.
quote:Most people who have jobs have 401K retirement accounts. Those funds generally are invested somewhere in the stock market. They are supposed to be tax exempt, but the instant you retire, or take money out for any reason, you have to pay capital gains tax.
Given that the contributions are not taxed at the time they are added to the 401k, and remain untaxed as they grow over a period of (generally) decades, paying capital gains tax is still a better deal than investing after-tax money.
As for "taking money out for any reason," that's only true if you actually take money out of the account. The whole idea is that you get the tax benefit because you aren't supposed to take the money out at all, until you retire. Still, there is the provision that you can take a loan from your 401k, but you have to pay it back within 5 years, and you have to pay interest to yourself, which is actually a pretty good deal.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: IIRC, Ron lives in Detroit. You can get houses for $5 there.
Ouch.
$1 actually, but they aren't liveable. The average sale price for a liveable home in Detroit is $7K right now, but plenty are going for in thousand dollar range.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Holy crap. It boggles the mind to think how many house-equivalents I've lost in the last few months.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: He said the high cost of health care "causes a bankruptcy in America every 30 seconds." That's at least double the true figure.
Is a bankruptcy every minute instead of every 30 seconds even remotely more comforting?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Sure. That's half the bankruptcies! I mean, if there WERE a bankruptcy every 30 seconds, and through diligent effort we cut it to one every 60 seconds, we'd advertise that as major improvement.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: Not that it seems to matter too much when President Obama gets it wrong but Fact Check reviewed his speech and found many errors. Even his tax 'cuts' for 95% of Americans is wrong. Plus his payback for union support executive order and all the other issues stacking up with him. I wonder how soon it will be until his supporters, especially the youth supporters, realize he is just another Democrat politician....which the way things have been going is not all too different from a Republican politician.
Actually, his "tax cuts for 95% of *working* Americans" was not exactly wrong, Fact Check just added some explanation that makes the number not seem quite as good as he was trying to make it sound. From the article you posted:
quote:Obama said his stimulus program provides a tax cut for "95 percent of working households" and later said that a cut would go to 95 percent of "working families." That calls for some explanation. The key words are "working" and "cut."
He's referring to the "making work pay" refundable tax credit, which is only available to workers. As we pointed out previously on The FactCheck Wire, there would be no credit for retirees or those who are unemployed. A Tax Policy Center analysis found that a more modest 75.5 percent of all households would benefit, whether their members are working or not.
It is also questionable whether all of the tax refunds can properly be called "tax cuts." The credit is refundable and, therefore, is going to many who earn so little that they pay no federal income taxes in the first place. The White House calls them tax cuts, but the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office officially scores the bill’s refundable credits under "direct spending."
As far as the rest of what you said -- I think we've all noticed that Obama is a politician. Whether or not he is typical remains to be seen. So far, though, I've noticed that while he makes mistakes and embellishments, he's less prone to outright lies than many others.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Overt, obvious taxes may be cut for some. But when the carbon fines to businesses and corporations are added, that will mean increased costs for virtually everything all people buy, as the costs are passed on to the consumer. This is a real "stealth" tax.
Also note that when taxes are raised for those who make more than $250,000 a year, this is talking about a large number of small businesses and start-up entrepreneurial ventures, since they are considered "individuals" in the eyes of the taxers. Since many Americans have their jobs through these small businesses, etc., and the businesses have to lay off workers and cut back on everything to deal with the increased taxes, this also is a way that higher taxes truly affect everyone even in the lowest tax brackets. Of all the "stealth" methods of taxation, this is one of the worst, since it actually costs people their jobs and careers.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
If I've learned anything from my tax workshops and seeing many people's tax returns, it's that very few small businesses are making anything close to that $250,000 -- not officially. There are many, many deductions that apply only to small business owners. Someone who after all that is actually netting $250,000 is not getting a whole lot of my sympathy.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I wonder how soon it will be until his supporters, especially the youth supporters, realize he is just another Democrat politician....which the way things have been going is not all too different from a Republican politician.
I wish the conservatives would make up their mind and decide to either go with an equivalency argument ("He's just a politician, he's pretty much the same as a republican politician") or a Different And Wrong argument, and cease doing both.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: I wish the conservatives would make up their mind and decide to either go with an equivalency argument ("He's just a politician, he's pretty much the same as a republican politician") or a Different And Wrong argument, and cease doing both.
He can be Different and Wrong when compared to my beliefs and be equivalent to Republicans when he has out of control spending like they did, or more correctly stated, greater than they did.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: If I've learned anything from my tax workshops and seeing many people's tax returns, it's that very few small businesses are making anything close to that $250,000 -- not officially. There are many, many deductions that apply only to small business owners. Someone who after all that is actually netting $250,000 is not getting a whole lot of my sympathy.
Now that Rivka has espoused this position I can be certain that it's not some personal failing on my part that I also feel this way. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: If I've learned anything from my tax workshops and seeing many people's tax returns, it's that very few small businesses are making anything close to that $250,000 -- not officially. There are many, many deductions that apply only to small business owners. Someone who after all that is actually netting $250,000 is not getting a whole lot of my sympathy.
Now that Rivka has espoused this position I can be certain that it's not some personal failing on my part that I also feel this way.
Me too!
I have no problem admitting that the wealthiest among us should be contributing more to social infrastructure. In fact, I think $250,000 is a very generous cut off. People in my income bracket which is less that half that could easily be paying more and I'd be more than happy to do that to support better schools, research, social services, and infrastructure. I have personally benefited from good schools, good science, good roads, and a good justice system -- I have no problem paying back into the system so others can benefit as well.
(Of course, right now I'm not a US resident so my US income taxes are virtually zero, but I was thinking more of last year when I did pay US taxes and future years when I will again.)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: He can be Different and Wrong when compared to my beliefs and be equivalent to Republicans when he has out of control spending like they did, or more correctly stated, greater than they did.
Note my usage of the word 'conservative' as opposed to 'Republican.'
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
What about inflation? Printed money (not a product of the GNP) Isn't this a money bomb? Watch the price of gold. The value of gold does not change. If the price goes up it just means that the value of the dollar is going down. We would be better off if it was $30.00 an ounce.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The value of gold does not change? Where on earth do you get that idea?
How much food/housing/cellos I can get in exchange for a set amount of gold changes all the time. That's the value of gold changing, right there. There is no absolute measure of value, much less gold being it.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I don't know how many pre-tax deductions small business owners, especially in sole proprietorships, can claim. Aren't they taxed on gross, like individuals, rather than on net? $250,000 sounds like a lot of money, but it is only $20,800 a month. If it is some HVAC firm that installs and repairs furnaces, and employs only 5-10 technicians, that is not a whole lot of margin above breaking even.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, even sole proprietors get to deduct business expenses before calculating taxes. So they're taxed on net, definitely not gross.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Most sole proprietorships are (for tax purposes, anyway) either breaking even or showing a loss. The ones that actually show a substantial profit either are doing very well (especially this year!) or have incompetent accountants. Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Is a bankruptcy every minute instead of every 30 seconds even remotely more comforting?
So by your logic, $100,000 is the same as $50,000? Doubling the amount of bankruptcies to scare Americans is pretty significant.
quote: Sure. That's half the bankruptcies! I mean, if there WERE a bankruptcy every 30 seconds, and through diligent effort we cut it to one every 60 seconds, we'd advertise that as major improvement.
I am not sure if you wanted this to be sarcastic or not? If we could cut the number of bankruptcies in half that would be a reason to celebrate unless you think the opposite for some strange reason?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Btw, what was the cite for that number being wrong? As far as I know, there's no consensus on the number of bankruptcies caused by medical issues, only several widely disparate attempts at estimating it.
edit: also, if the number is being used to evaluate a policy, a doubling or halving would be important. But if it is being used in a speech to highlight there's a problem with the current system, it is a major problem at once a minute just as it is a major problem at twice a minute.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
From the linked article:
quote: Data from the U.S. Courts show about 934,000 personal bankruptcies in the 12-month period ending June 2008. There are about 32 million seconds in a year. So someone filed for bankruptcy roughly every 30 seconds last year. But even a very high estimate, like the Harvard study we looked at last year, would only attribute half of those personal bankruptcies to medical expenses. So that's one health-related bankruptcy every minute at most.
So Obama doubled a very high estimate to create a bigger crisis than actually exists and that isn't concerning?
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
That's not a simple mistake at all. Clearly Obama is making this into a bigger issue than it is so that he can turn your children into muslim terrorists.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Is anyone following the drama in republican leadership over Limbaugh? I don't know what to make of it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, it isn't particularly concerning. Most likely the original language was something like "there's a bankruptcy ever 30 seconds, and many of them are caused by medical issues".
Errors like that happen in speeches all the time. What concerns you about it?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Is anyone following the drama in republican leadership over Limbaugh? I don't know what to make of it.
Could you be a bit more specific? I mean I've always felt that Limbaugh was poison for the Republican party, but perhaps you are talking about something specifically.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I don't know how many pre-tax deductions small business owners, especially in sole proprietorships, can claim. Aren't they taxed on gross, like individuals, rather than on net? $250,000 sounds like a lot of money, but it is only $20,800 a month. If it is some HVAC firm that installs and repairs furnaces, and employs only 5-10 technicians, that is not a whole lot of margin above breaking even.
I don't think it's mathematically possible to tax people on gross income rather than net.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Yes, jebus, that is clearly what i was saying Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Is anyone following the drama in republican leadership over Limbaugh? I don't know what to make of it.
Could you be a bit more specific? I mean I've always felt that Limbaugh was poison for the Republican party, but perhaps you are talking about something specifically.
I think this has been cleverly played by the Democrats. Having Rush be the face of the Republican party limits the party's appeal to moderates.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Is anyone following the drama in republican leadership over Limbaugh? I don't know what to make of it.
Could you be a bit more specific? I mean I've always felt that Limbaugh was poison for the Republican party, but perhaps you are talking about something specifically.
I think this has been cleverly played by the Democrats. Having Rush be the face of the Republican party limits the party's appeal to moderates.
Cleverly played by the Democrats? Here's Rush' own words,
quote:“I'm not in charge of the Republican Party, and I don't want to be. I would be embarrassed to say that I'm in charge of the Republican Party in the sad-sack state that it's in. If I were chairman of the Republican Party, given the state that it's in, I would quit. I might get out the hari-kari knife because I would have presided over a failure that is embarrassing to the Republicans and conservatives who have supported it and invested in it all these years.”
Translation: I am content to have people call me the "voice of conservatism," as that is far more prestigious than any elected position within the Republican Party. Please make me the next William F. Buckley.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Is anyone following the drama in republican leadership over Limbaugh? I don't know what to make of it.
Could you be a bit more specific? I mean I've always felt that Limbaugh was poison for the Republican party, but perhaps you are talking about something specifically.
Rahm Emmanuel baited some republican leaders into taking potshots against Rush, having them feel obligated to say 'no, he doesn't represent us'
Backlash forced all these republican leaders to firmly backtrack and brownnose. Steele ate it. Steele ate it hard. there's angry commentary on republican blogs. Republicans are bickering amongst themselves across the webs.
He put the new leader of the GOP in a situation where he would have to choose his words very carefully to assert his control of the GOP while at the same time not upsetting Rush (and in doing so the only voting block Republicans can count on). He failed and in doing so put Rush vs Steele as the headline in the current news cycle.
Obama seems to have a plan with regards to the conservative commentators that no one has tried before. Not only is his administration calling them out specifically on comments they are making, they are using them as a wedge to divide the moderates from the Republican party. Previously the usual response to Rush and others was to ignore them, but Obama has thrown that tactic out for direct confrontation on ideological grounds.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Obama seems to have a plan with regards to the conservative commentators that no one has tried before. Not only is his administration calling them out specifically on comments they are making, they are using them as a wedge to divide the moderates from the Republican party. Previously the usual response to Rush and others was to ignore them, but Obama has thrown that tactic out for direct confrontation on ideological grounds.
This is something I saw, and the first time Gibbs attacked Limbaugh, my gut reaction was, "Dude, you're attacking a man that buys ink by the barrel and reaches 20M people. Are you nuts?"
The media reflected this line of thought, yet Gibbs kept with it. Then it sunk in to me that they're doing exactly what you're saying. By lumping the pundits in as speaking heads for the party, it creates in fighting where the party is trying to assert its own control over its image, while the pundits have the voter's ear.
It's risky, but a gutsy and potentially devastating move for sure.
[ March 04, 2009, 04:41 AM: Message edited by: Vadon ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Anyone say CPAC? Is Daily Show taking anything out of context cuz' the following sounds suspisious.
1) "to us bipartisanship is when the dems are forced to agree with us after we have cleaned their political clocks." - Lush Limbaugh
2) "the guys with the guns make the rules." -NRA CEO
3) Rush further I think, reiterating his wish for Obama to fail, not succeed, to FAIL he wants him to fail. Woohoo for treason!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
At CPAC? That sounds about right.
Any organized event where the belles of the ball are Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter should give you a pretty decent idea of what's going to happen there.
This whole active engagement with the media thing is an interesting tactic. Republicans are losing badly in the polls right now, but really, their strategy of goofy defiance isn't surprising. They spent 6 years greenlighting a bunch of policies that now they're trying to disavow, and somehow at the same time are trying to foist off all the blame on Democrats. It's an unenviable position, especially given the fact that the American public seems to be somewhat removed from the fog of stupid that usually clouds their judgment. Republican intransigence is NOT playing well with the public, and GOP approval ratings are in the tank.
If they're going to oppose this bailout on principle then fine. Frankly I think it makes a lot of political sense to do so. If it fails, they get to say I told you so, but if it goes well, they were never going to get credit for it anyway. I don't get why they are ruining that strategy when guys like Jindal come out and excoriate the package, say that governors shouldn't take the money and that he personally is rejecting some of it...and then you find out he's perfectly happy taking 98% of the money offered to him. Well gee, that 2% of haughtiness isn't really all that impressive Bobby.
And on top of this, now Obama is forcing them to either own or disown the right wing media machine. Like others have said, they're forced to choose between alienating moderates who hate those loudmouths and alienating the only voting group that is solidly in their corner. The result is a lot of hemming and hawing, which is getting in the way of their planned dickishness.
It's no surprise Limbaugh would come out and say that he hopes Obama fails. Politically, unless Obama flops pretty hard, Republicans are in for a rude 2010 midterm.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Obama seems to have a plan with regards to the conservative commentators that no one has tried before. Not only is his administration calling them out specifically on comments they are making, they are using them as a wedge to divide the moderates from the Republican party. Previously the usual response to Rush and others was to ignore them, but Obama has thrown that tactic out for direct confrontation on ideological grounds.
I think he is doing more than that. In some sense, Obama is doing exactly what Lyrhawn said, he is forcing the GOP to own or disown the most extreme and vile part of their own party, and in return that obviously pays political dividends for Democrats. On the other hand, I think he is doing something more interesting, I think he is moving the extreme right wing of the Republican party out front on the Republicans, and in doing so, he is hoping to quell those extremist ideologies by presenting them to the American people and allowing the people do away with it. It's how you quell extremism when you have an idealist trust in the people, you bring to the fore-front that extremism and trust that the American people will see how it cuts to the very problems we face, and in doing so, you not only win a political fight but you empower the people by allowing the most extreme elements to hang themselves at the people's hand.
It's an interesting strategy that requires a lot of trust in the people, but I also think it is highly ambitious, like everything else he is doing. If Obama gets half of what he has envisioned in the budget, if he gets some kind of health care reform, and if he can really take on the lobbyists and the special interest groups, then it is possible that he can change the way our politics and our government work.
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
_____________________________________ Originally posted by Humean:
If Obama gets half of what he has envisioned in the budget, if he gets some kind of health care reform, and if he can really take on the lobbyists and the special interest groups, then it is possible that he can change the way our politics and our government work. _____________________________________
Bleh, Bleh, Bleh, Bleh! . . . President Obama is stretching us too thin with his ambition, and we'll pay for it, in "dividends."
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: ) Rush further I think, reiterating his wish for Obama to fail, not succeed, to FAIL he wants him to fail. Woohoo for treason!
It's the same thing as the Democrat line of 'we support our troops, but not the war'. Rush and many conservatives want Obama's 'policies' of massive government spending and many of the XO's he has issued to fail because we should not be doing what he proposes in the way he proposes it. Rush has clearly stated he wants America to succeed. From Rush's website:
quote: RUSH: It sounds to me you're hoping for economic failure so that people realize just how inexperienced and poor a President Obama is.
CALLER: That's pretty much it, yeah.
RUSH: See, I don't want that. I don't want it to happen that way. I'm afraid that it will. I don't want economic failure. I don't want the kind of pain and suffering that we have now to get any worse. It's the exact opposite. I don't want this economy to get worse just so people learn the truth about Obama. It may take that, I hope not, because if it takes that, we may not have enough power left to gain control of our economy the way it was. But I don't want the economy to fail. I don't want people losing their jobs and being kicked out of their houses. I don't want people going on welfare and unemployment just for people to realize what a mistake they made with Obama. I want Obama to fail, not the country. I want Obama to fail in being successful with his economic plan. Now, if Barack Obama all of a sudden came out and said, "You know what? I think we need to do something here in the midst of this recession. I'm going to resend my capital gains tax increase and I'm going to suspend capital gains. And, you know what, I think we can really improve the economic circumstance if I would cut the corporate tax rate in half, and maybe just suspend capital gains for three months. Maybe have a tax holiday on FICA, Social Security withholding."
Well, I tell you, I would become Barack Obama's biggest cheerleader in this country. If he actually proposed ideas to jump-start this economy, so there isn't any more economic pain and we can bottom out at some point and start building this back. But, folks, his plan doesn't do that. Government spending does not elevate the private sector. It does not stimulate the private sector. It does not in any way, shape, manner, or form expand the private sector. But hear me, and hear me loud. Look at me. I don't want the economy to fail. That's why I'm sticking my neck out here. I actually care about the people who are seeing their financial lives damaged and, in some cases, ruined. I'm the one, among many on my side, who are truly worried about this. Some of you are hoping that the words from Obama's mouth will magically bring you back. It ain't going to happen. I do not want economic collapse. This is it for me. This is enough. It's got to stop. The problem is this administration has no interest in it stopping right now.
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
I tried to point out that there is such a thing as the "gold standard" that supports and backs up the value of the dollar. Sorry, I assumed that this was common knowledge. The reply that was posted shows that it isn't.
fugu13 Member Member # 2859
posted March 03, 2009 04:43 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The value of gold does not change? Where on earth do you get that idea?
"How much food/housing/cellos I can get in exchange for a set amount of gold changes all the time. That's the value of gold changing, right there. There is no absolute measure of value, much less gold being it".
Once upon a time long long ago our dollars could be exchanged for gold or silver. Gold is the base. If an ounce of gold cost $30.00 then the dollar is strong. If an ounce of gold costs $1,000 then the dollar is weak. Inflation is when it takes more and more dollars to buy an ounce of gold.
I agree with the statement that there is no absolute measure of value. Unless of course it is God that is doing the measuring. On the other hand a money bomb of printed paper money (without gold being trucked into Fort Knox to back up the new paper)can only be inflationary.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Oshki, you're a bit out of your depth, here. Do you want me to explain why?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: I don't get why they are ruining that strategy when guys like Jindal come out and excoriate the package, say that governors shouldn't take the money and that he personally is rejecting some of it...
The reason for refusal is very important
quote: "Today, Governor Bobby Jindal announced that the state will not change its law to use a part of the $787 billion federal stimulus bill that would result in an unemployment insurance tax increase on Louisiana businesses. The Governor also announced that the state will use a provision in the legislation to increase state unemployment benefits for recipients by an extra $25 per week, and reaffirmed his acceptance of the transportation funds included in the bill to fund shovel-ready transportation priorities in the state."
His reasoning: the federal government won't pay the money forever, so taxpayers and businesses would have to foot the bill for the bigger dole. Jindal, in the statement, urges other states to take a look at the provision. In lieu of the government money, Jindal said that the state would increase its unemployment payments by $25 per week.
quote: and then you find out he's perfectly happy taking 98% of the money offered to him. Well gee, that 2% of haughtiness isn't really all that impressive Bobby.
I'm not sure I understand your ire. He is accepting money to fix the infratructure but turning down money that will hurt his state in the long run. Should he just accept these millions because it is only 2% and 2% is small? If that is truly your rationale then I definitely want the Democrat strategy of spending trillions of dollars on everything imaginable because each part is only a small percentage of the whole to completely fail and not have any of the money spent. I also believe he is still reviewing the other Billions to see if there is anything else that will not benefit him and his state in the long term.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Oshki, you're a bit out of your depth, here. Do you want me to explain why?
This should be entertaining.
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
Tom-
Sounds right to me. What part are you having difficulty understanding? Oshki is only referring to how it used to be. The value of the dollar was once measured by how much gold the U.S. had in reserve. Now, the problem is there isn't enough gold in all of America to back how much the banks lend and the government uses. This is one of our fundamental economic issues.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oshki, there is no gold standard. There hasn't been since long before it was officially abolished. The "only" thing backing the dollar is the faith and credit of the United States of America.
That once there was a gold standard doesn't make gold the standard now (and really, it didn't create a fixed value of gold, then; governments spent huge sums of money moving gold around just to keep the exchange value of gold roughly fixed, it certainly didn't happen by itself).
beleaguered: Oshki made a statement about current practice, not past practice, that "The value of gold does not change". That statement is nonsense.
And that we don't have a bunch of gold in reserve is not a problem at all. Even most advocates of the gold standard don't think not having enough gold around is a fundamental problem, they think that by forcing the government to keep gold around that would prevent the government from inflating. Anyone who thinks not having enough gold is a 'fundamental economic issue' does not understand economics.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Dark Knight -
quote:It's the same thing as the Democrat line of 'we support our troops, but not the war'. Rush and many conservatives want Obama's 'policies' of massive government spending and many of the XO's he has issued to fail because we should not be doing what he proposes in the way he proposes it. Rush has clearly stated he wants America to succeed. From Rush's website:
That doesn't really sync in my head 100%. If the policies are successful, why wouldn't you want them used? Absolutely no one WANTS the Iraq War to fail. None of us who support the troops but dislike the war actively wish for them to fail because of personal ideology. We hope they are wildly successful and get the hell out of there as fast as possible, but fear that that won't happen. This isn't the same, because Rush doesn't want Obama's policies to succeed at all, even if they were the best thing for the country.
I get what you're saying, but I think there's still a disconnect there.
quote:I'm not sure I understand your ire. He is accepting money to fix the infratructure but turning down money that will hurt his state in the long run. Should he just accept these millions because it is only 2% and 2% is small? If that is truly your rationale then I definitely want the Democrat strategy of spending trillions of dollars on everything imaginable because each part is only a small percentage of the whole to completely fail and not have any of the money spent. I also believe he is still reviewing the other Billions to see if there is anything else that will not benefit him and his state in the long term.
If you have to change the law to provide more benefits now, then why wouldn't you just change the law back when the money runs out? I wasn't aware that the stimulus bill was a suicide pact signed in blood. But that's hardly my main objection.
I have no problem with him taking individual exception to pieces of the bill, but to lambaste the entire bill while extolling the virtues of lost Republican ideals that haven't been practiced or held in a decade while at the same time gleefully accepting 98% of the thing that he 100% disses is over the top for me. You don't get to pretend 2000-2006 never happened, and you don't get to foist off their legacy of fiscal irresponsibility on the Democrats while at the same time taking handouts from the people you're badmouthing.
I don't think he should accept the money if he doesn't want it. But you look pretty damned silly when you wag your finger and tip your hat at the same time.
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
Ad hominem already? (smile) Not having enough gold around only means that it takes more paper money to get it. At least they changed the law so that we can own it. Hasn't anyone noticed the commercials where people will buy your old gold? Heck, they will come to your home and cut you a check. To do that, means that they are going to some trouble and expense to write that check. They must not understand economics either.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Oshki, I have no idea what you're talking about.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
just me or has the number of conservatives on the board increased?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I kind of hope so, for two reasons. 1. The conservatives that do post here in political threads probably feel outnumbered and dogpiled from time to time, and that's never cool. 2. It's always nice to hear what the other side is thinking.
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
Sorry, I was answering fugu13 and didn't post fast enough. I just feel that we are going to be hit by a money bomb. (even the life of the sun is measured in billions of years) I was addressing the upcomming abundance of paper money. Which is only as valuable as peoples confidence in it. Gold is always valuable.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I ld be careful about following that slippery slope, once in my college a teacher let a NeoNazi (yes even Canadians have em') speak for an hour in front of his class to "hear the other side".
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Quite some time ago, it was mostly social conservative that posted here.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ... once in my college a teacher let a NeoNazi (yes even Canadians have em') speak for an hour in front of his class to "hear the other side".
Go on.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Ad hominem already? (smile) Not having enough gold around only means that it takes more paper money to get it. At least they changed the law so that we can own it. Hasn't anyone noticed the commercials where people will buy your old gold? Heck, they will come to your home and cut you a check. To do that, means that they are going to some trouble and expense to write that check. They must not understand economics either.
Where have I said gold had no value? Obviously for many people it has quite a bit of value. How on earth is this evidence that "the value of gold does not change"?
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I ld be careful about following that slippery slope, once in my college a teacher let a NeoNazi (yes even Canadians have em') speak for an hour in front of his class to "hear the other side".
It isn't a slippery slope to want to hear the other side. Often times, a like-minded group will become close-minded unintentionally because their ideology and beliefs aren't challenged. To simply want more people to contrast with your opinion speaks well of the person in so far as they probably are looking for another perspective to help shape their own. (Then there are some who want people to disagree with them so they can just rip them a new one, but I'm not advocating that line of thought.)
I'm glad to see more conservatives posting as well.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ... once in my college a teacher let a NeoNazi (yes even Canadians have em') speak for an hour in front of his class to "hear the other side".
Go on.
I wasn't there I do not know the content though I could geuss.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ... once in my college a teacher let a NeoNazi (yes even Canadians have em') speak for an hour in front of his class to "hear the other side".
Go on.
I wasn't there I do not know the content though I could geuss.
If all they were doing was talking, I don't see the real harm of it. The person had an opinion and wanted to express it. Just because you wholeheartedly disagree with a person doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to speak. It's the freedom of expression. I'm sure practically everyone in the class was shaking their head or bashing their face into the desk while they were speaking, but the fact that they were allowed to express them self speaks well of your professor.
I think an hour might be a little bit long, I mean, how much time do you need to profess your Neo-Nazi ideology? But still, I'm not opposed.
Another cool thing with your professor allowing them to speak is that by allowing the Neo Nazi to speak freely, your professor was subtly attacking the person's ideology. Freedom of expression was nonexistent in Nazi Germany, so the fact that this person was able to express them self without repercussion should re-enforce the value in the freedom of expression.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Not having enough gold around only means that it takes more paper money to get it.
Because, of course, the end goal of any macro-scale economy should be to acquire gold.
I can only assume that you believe our planet is secretly run by a cabal of ancient dragons or something.
*laugh*
Seriously, man, gold's inherent value relative to its portability isn't really all that interesting; there's nothing special about the metal. (Note: it's precisely because old people believe that there is something special about the metal that groups like Cash4Gold, which you cited as evidence of the inherent value of gold, are able to take advantage of them and scam them out of their jewelry for a pittance.)
Yeah, gold's got value as long as people believe it has value. But arguing that we should measure our economy against the amount of gold we keep in a box somewhere seems a bit limiting.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: It's always nice to hear what the other side is thinking.
I agree and one of the main reasons I stay at Hatrack is because of people like Lyrhawn (who posted the above quote). We may not agree on everything but I have always found her posts to be informative and always civil even when the views are polar opposites.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Her?
*choke*
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
quote Where have I said gold had no value? Obviously for many people it has quite a bit of value. How on earth is this evidence that "the value of gold does not change"?
You never said that. I never ment to imply that. Is that all we are arguing about? Is it true or not that the price of gold is (or not) an indicator of inflation? Is everything equal including apples and oranges? (everything is supply and demand) Address the great influx of money. Is inflation tied to the GNP so that more money earned is less inflationary then enjected unearned money? If there is a sudden supply doesn"t the demand do down which means it's value. Does this apply to money also?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: It's always nice to hear what the other side is thinking.
I agree and one of the main reasons I stay at Hatrack is because of people like Lyrhawn (who posted the above quote). We may not agree on everything but I have always found her posts to be informative and always civil even when the views are polar opposites.
Lyrhawn's a man.
I agree with you, though--he's almost unfailingly level headed and fair, and even when we come to different conclusions, it's clear that he's given whatever he's talking about a fair amount of thought.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Not having enough gold around only means that it takes more paper money to get it.
Because, of course, the end goal of any macro-scale economy should be to acquire gold.
I can only assume that you believe our planet is secretly run by a cabal of ancient dragons or something.
*laugh*
STOP LAUGHING AT ME! It would be AWESOME AND COOL AND GREAT if the above dream came true.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vadon:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ... once in my college a teacher let a NeoNazi (yes even Canadians have em') speak for an hour in front of his class to "hear the other side".
Go on.
I wasn't there I do not know the content though I could geuss.
If all they were doing was talking, I don't see the real harm of it. The person had an opinion and wanted to express it. Just because you wholeheartedly disagree with a person doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to speak. It's the freedom of expression. I'm sure practically everyone in the class was shaking their head or bashing their face into the desk while they were speaking, but the fact that they were allowed to express them self speaks well of your professor.
I think an hour might be a little bit long, I mean, how much time do you need to profess your Neo-Nazi ideology? But still, I'm not opposed.
Another cool thing with your professor allowing them to speak is that by allowing the Neo Nazi to speak freely, your professor was subtly attacking the person's ideology. Freedom of expression was nonexistent in Nazi Germany, so the fact that this person was able to express them self without repercussion should re-enforce the value in the freedom of expression.
The idea is that in a class room of 40 people, what happens if in that hour the nazi manages to convicne even ONE person that he is right in someway? By and large people are easily impressionable, not everyone has a well thought out opinion in every subject, the Holocaust is one of those tragedies that we by and large accept as fact and never research it on their own, so when someone comes up to you suddenly and challenges this world view with an argument that at first glance SOUNDS logical or better thought out then the argument you half listened to in high school history 101, may convince someone of this. And once they repeat this to a friend and rebuffed as stupid, theyll research all the wrong sources just to justify their terribly wrong new world view just to avoid admitting their wrong.
This is why sometimes it is better to not give the person a soap box, to avoid convincing that one person.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
I guess this is an instance where we'll just have to agree to disagree. I guess I invest more faith in people not being a flock of sheep easily convinced by one fanatic. Sure, a person may agree with the neo-nazi after the rampage, but I believe society as a whole is rational and that in the end our better judgment will come out stronger than the cacophonic ravings of a fringe ideologue.
Historically, yes, people have fallen for the venomous diatribes from horrendous people against others, but I like to think that we grow and learn from our mistakes. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
You know, I don't think it's even criminally wrong to be a neo-nazi. I think it's criminally wrong to hurt people, but the world is full of people with bad opinions.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: You know, I don't think it's even criminally wrong to be a neo-nazi. I think it's criminally wrong to hurt people, but the world is full of people with bad opinions.
Agreed.
And while I disagree wholeheartedly with the opinions expressed by neo-nazis, I think that suppressing their opinion because it is fraught with intolerance is in itself a form of intolerance.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
IIRC, a documentary stated that there is only enough gold in the entire world to fill an olympic sized swimming pool. In terms of global economies I just can't see that much gold as being representative of the credit due the entire world.
[ March 04, 2009, 06:47 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:And while I disagree wholeheartedly with the opinions expressed by neo-nazis, I think that suppressing their opinion because it is fraught with intolerance is in itself a form of intolerance.
Agreed. I too am glad there are more conservatives on the board, especially because I think it helps to distinguish between well reasoned and logical conservatism as opposed to the conservatism advocated by Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh. In fact, I think conservatives and Republicans in general need to speak up and take back their own party from the entertainers and the extremists. It's like the old debate my roommate and I used to have, he was a religious Christian who argued that Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell gave Christianity a bad name because of some of the hatred and extremism they advocated. My point to him was always that he was a cool and moderate voice for a religion that embraced exactly none of the hatred and extremism pronounced by some who claimed to speak for it, and yet, he did not speak out and appeal to the people in order to show the true and good nature of Christianity.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oshki: I presumed you thought I said that since it was what you appeared to be arguing against.
The price of gold is a horrible indicator of inflation. Take a look at a chart of the price of gold, and take a look at a chart of inflation. Notice that the price of gold has large, frequent fluctuations (much larger and more frequent than many commodities). You might also note that most of the swings in the price of gold don't correspond to changes in monetary policy.
I am particularly confused why you would think I think changes in the money supply would not change their value. You're the only one who has argued there is a thing of constant value that doesn't change (something which you still haven't provided any argument for).
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I've heard several ads suggesting that people buy gold as an investment. Which just makes me suspicious that someone has a bunch of gold and they're trying to drive the prices up. I'd be worried about a bubble.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: IIRC correctly I remember...
Wow, my brain just exploded.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The White Whale:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: IIRC correctly I remember...
Wow, my brain just exploded.
Cripes, I am so sorry.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Her?
*choke*
Hatrack really needs a facepalm emoticon. Though I think this will do: I'm going to assume that there's just something about my user name that strikes people as girly, and that it has nothing to do with my personality or posting style, though I appreciate rivka's incredulous response to the idea that I might be a woman.
Thanks though DK, I appreciate the sentiment. And thanks Noemon. You guys supplied my warm fuzzies for the day.
Posted by Godric 2.0 (Member # 11443) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Her?
*choke*
Hatrack really needs a facepalm emoticon. Though I think this will do: I'm going to assume that there's just something about my user name that strikes people as girly, and that it has nothing to do with my personality or posting style, though I appreciate rivka's incredulous response to the idea that I might be a woman.
Thanks though DK, I appreciate the sentiment. And thanks Noemon. You guys supplied my warm fuzzies for the day.
Yes, I can say for me it was the user name. However, I try to never refer to any poster as he or she unless I know for sure what gender they are (just looking at a user name doesn't really say definitively one way or the other).
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I genrally assume everyones a he until proven otherwise, or the Isaac Asimov approch, (he uses "he" as his venecular when making essays citing convenience rather then writing (he/she) or (he or she).)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I appreciate rivka's incredulous response to the idea that I might be a woman.
Your first name (and the historical significance thereof) makes it even more amusing.
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
Well, I'm lost on the gold conversation- too many twists and turns with the topic, and I don't claim to be in economics- I think it's Fugu who pointed that out (thanks).
I'm also very happy to see more conservatives on the boards. I'm more conservative, and have felt at times a bit overpowered with more liberal ideas. There's a lot to be said to have multiple sides to one argument, and I welcome the liberal ideas.
As for the neo nazi group in Canada- I understand why the teacher allowed them to give their point, and I also understand the potential dangers in exposing impressionable minds to neo nazi propaganda. If I was the teacher, I would think the propaganda from a couple young neo nazis would be presented poorly, only exposing them as the hateful group founded on petty and racist beliefs <Not to say any presentation, no matter how expertely delivered would be able to change my own opinions of disgust and confusion on the neo nazi party> I would think the majority of the class would have more contempt for such a group after hearing their arguments than having not heard their arguments.
I wonder if the teacher who allowed the discussion/presentation in his class was able to set aside his own feelings and prejudices he might have for the neo nazi party in order to grade the students fairly. I'm assuming the teacher wasn't a neo nazi himself.
[ March 05, 2009, 02:46 AM: Message edited by: beleaguered ]
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
fugu13 I was refering to the gold standard that has been replaced by modern economics. As to absolute value or any "value" that is a subjective human judgement. Like the question: If a tree falls in the woods and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a noise? Of course not because noise is a subjective human judgement of the quality of sound.
I believe that the basis of modern economics or supply and demand was an insight that was reached when a good looking girl and her not so good looking friends entered a bar. If everyone went for the good looking one then no one would get a girl. Therefore ignore the good looking blond and go for the others and everyone got a date.
So every commodity is equal. The good looking blond (not that I know it was a blond.)was ignored. I say that the good looking blond is still golden. But must be ignored as a tenet of supply and demand. But gold will still be there if it gets ugly enough.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You're trying to get your understanding of modern economics from A Beautiful Mind? No wonder you're so confused. And no, that isn't the basis of modern economics. The basis of modern economics (especially if you just mean supply and demand) goes back to Adam Smith (at the very least), well before the gold standard was abolished.
And no, every commodity is not equal. I note your continued complete lack of defense for your assertion that gold currently has a constant value. Do you abandon that statement? And you've totally ignored where I critiqued your incorrect statements about gold and inflation. Are you interested in talking about these things, or just uttering platitudes and having people accept them as correct?
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
fugu13 I did not ignore your statement about gold and inflation. I actually accepted it as true. As for the my assertion that gold has a constant value, that has been a long held belief of mine.
You are causing me some cognitive dissidence which is ok. Your use of the word "platitudes" was a little heavy. If anything I have been shown my ignorance when it comes to economics.
Someone, after I made my first statement about gold, said that I was way over my head and offered to tell me why. I may have gotten the same information had I accepted.
You may say you won if you like, but I also won because I learned something in a new area for me. I can freely admit that I have just brushed the surface. I am mostly interested in human nature and communication. Economics is part of human nature. I will pose further posts on this subject as questions.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm not trying to combat you, I'm trying to engage you in a discussion. You've mostly been avoiding a discussion.
I still have no idea at all why you think gold has a constant value (indeed, I'm extraordinarily vague on what you even mean by that). If you are interested in communication, please try communicating those things.
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
fugu13 It did have a constant value of $35.00 an ounce. It doesn't have a constant value since 1973 when Richard Nixon took us off the gold standard. The value was set by the gov. as did other countrys. So that the rate of exchange was constant.
Now we are on the system of fiat money. Wiki glossery defines it as: "money that is intrinsically useless; is used only as a medium of exchange". I don't know where the heck they got that definition because fiat means let it be done.
Seems that the one who defined it liked the gold standard. (smile) Of course I am telling you something you already knew.
"Communication is lineal but understanding is holistic" and I quote myself. I do wish to continue this discussion.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Even when gold was (artificially, and often not really) held to a constant exchange rate, it didn't have a constant value (except, theoretically as measured in dollars). There was still inflation and deflation, and how much 'real stuff' you could buy with gold still changed.
Being intrinsically useless is a positive quality of money. It means the value of it isn't distorted by things like technological advances (unlike gold).
Fiat is a reference to the government imposition of the currency. The government says "let this be money", and it is.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:It did have a constant value of $35.00 an ounce.
But what happened to the price of bread during that period. Or gasoline? Or a new car? How is it useful to fix the price of gold if the price of everything else fluctuates according to market forces? If one ounce of gold could buy me 100 loaves of bread one day but only 50 on another, is the value of gold constant in any meaningful way? Or, more importantly, how would such constancy of value provide a tangible benefit to myself as a consumer or to the economy as a whole?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:It did have a constant value of $35.00 an ounce.
But what happened to the price of bread during that period. Or gasoline? Or a new car? How is it useful to fix the price of gold if the price of everything else fluctuates according to market forces? If one ounce of gold could buy me 100 loaves of bread one day but only 50 on another, is the value of gold constant in any meaningful way? Or, more importantly, how would such constancy of value provide a tangible benefit to myself as a consumer or to the economy as a whole?
Bingo!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: You're trying to get your understanding of modern economics from A Beautiful Mind? No wonder you're so confused.
No joke. That sample thought problem in ABM isn't even a good example of game theory!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshki: It did have a constant value of $35.00 an ounce
That's because the value was set to the ounce. In and of itself, it doesn't actually mean anything.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:No joke. That sample thought problem in ABM isn't even a good example of game theory!
True, but it does serve as solid proof that blonds don't always have more fun.
Hobbes Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
Here I thought it was a true story. I did research Adam Smith and got aquainted with his ideas. I also read all his quotes that were listed. He did talk about human nature not only on the drive to barter, buy and sell. But indicated also that a moral sense of justice works as a check and balence to greed. If we ignore the religious tone and call it ethics it would still be a check and balance. The excuse "It is busness" to rationalize gouging customers is against this founder of modern economics basic principles.
Although you kid me about A Beautiful Mind I believe that many in busness believed (don't remember the name of the movie.) the actor who stood up and said: "Greed is good." "Greed is good."
RE The housing bubble. Now I have a couple questions: What effect did the low interest rates have on the banks profits?
How did the low interests rates effect the realitors profits?
Who determines the value of a house at the micro (neighborhood) level?
I have a sneaky suspicion that the realitors in conjunction with the banks pushed the (values) prices up to increase profits.
Canada, on the other hand, kept to their standards and are less effected.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Obama’s reliance on the teleprompter is unusual — not only because he is famous for his oratory, but because no other president has used one so consistently and at so many events, large and small.
After the teleprompter malfunctioned a few times last summer and Obama delivered some less-than-soaring speeches, reports surfaced that he was training to wean himself off of the device while on vacation in Hawaii. But no such luck.
quote: Obama has relied on a teleprompter through even the shortest announcements and when repeating the same lines on his economic stimulus plan that he's been saying for months — whereas past presidents have mostly worked off of notes on the podium except during major speeches, such as the State of the Union.
quote: But be it extra precaution, style or a mental crutch, Obama has shown in the past that he needs the teleprompter. And while he still has his prepared remarks placed on the podium in a leather folder, the White House has shown no sign of trying to wean him off of it.
Before Obama entered a room in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building on Wednesday to announce his crackdown on defense contracts, a CNN reporter asked an Obama aide if the teleprompter could be moved further away from the podium or lowered. The answer was an unequivocal ‘no.’
“He uses them to death,” a television crewmember who also covered the White House under Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush said of the teleprompter. “The problem is, he never looks at you. He’s looking left, right, left, right — not at the camera. It’s almost like he’s not making eye contact with the American people.”
President Obama is not a good speaker. But then again this is pretty much how things are going with him. People believe one thing about him but the opposite is true. His poor speaking abilities are just another example.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
This is why Candidate Obama was unwilling to face John McCain in a true Town Hall format debate. He sounds great only when he has a pre-packaged speech to deliver by reading from a teleprompter. When he is forced to be truly extemporaneous, he flubs up almost as badly as Joe Biden. One wonders how Pres. Obama will do talking one-on-one with heads of state. Especially when they are hostile to the USA.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Obama uses a teleprompter in situations where past presidents have used paper notes.
I'm really not seeing a relevant distinction.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:It’s almost like he’s not making eye contact with the American people.”
*laugh* Yeah, I'm sure that's it.
It seems like a manufactured complaint. I have no problem with the teleprompter and I don't know why anyone would.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: This is why Candidate Obama was unwilling to face John McCain in a true Town Hall format debate. He sounds great only when he has a pre-packaged speech to deliver by reading from a teleprompter. When he is forced to be truly extemporaneous, he flubs up almost as badly as Joe Biden. One wonders how Pres. Obama will do talking one-on-one with heads of state. Especially when they are hostile to the USA.
So you're saying that Obama used a teleprompter in the three debates that did happen (you know, the three debates in a row that he won)? And McCain somehow managed not to notice this, despite spending one entire debate wandering around the stage as if he were lost? Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:It’s almost like he’s not making eye contact with the American people
Seriously? It would embarrass me to make this criticism.
Ron: Obama's announcement of his candidacy as well as all three debates were without the use of teleprompters. Seriously, criticizing him for using a teleprompter is akin to criticizing a dancer for using shoes. I bet Thomas Jefferson would have used a teleprompter if such technology had existed, instead he often sent speeches to congress to be read by subordinates. It's like he "wasn't on speaking terms" with the American people!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: This is why Candidate Obama was unwilling to face John McCain in a true Town Hall format debate. He sounds great only when he has a pre-packaged speech to deliver by reading from a teleprompter. When he is forced to be truly extemporaneous, he flubs up almost as badly as Joe Biden. One wonders how Pres. Obama will do talking one-on-one with heads of state. Especially when they are hostile to the USA.
So you're saying that Obama used a teleprompter in the three debates that did happen (you know, the three debates in a row that he won)? And McCain somehow managed not to notice this, despite spending one entire debate wandering around the stage as if he were lost?
Not to mention the 14 hundred debates during the primaries.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshki: RE The housing bubble. Now I have a couple questions: What effect did the low interest rates have on the banks profits?
How did the low interests rates effect the realitors profits?
Who determines the value of a house at the micro (neighborhood) level?
I have a sneaky suspicion that the realitors in conjunction with the banks pushed the (values) prices up to increase profits.
Canada, on the other hand, kept to their standards and are less effected.
Great Video that I think will answer your questions. (It's only about ten minutes long and worth the watch.)
[ March 06, 2009, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: Vadon ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally from Dark Knight: President Obama is not a good speaker. But then again this is pretty much how things are going with him. People believe one thing about him but the opposite is true. His poor speaking abilities are just another example.
That might be an argument you could have with someone not on Hatrack, but I don't think any of Obama's supporters here are confused as to the binary state of his speaking skills. When he's in front of a teleprompter he's impressive, and when he's off the cuff he's slow, and full of ums and uhs. But most of us can forgive the relatively lesser performance of his unscripted answers because generally the reason why they're so stilted is because he's trying to actually stop and think about his answer before just defaulting to a precanned BS response like Bush did for eight years.
It's a lot easier to come off smoother if all you talk about are flags and apple pie, but real answers don't usually roll of the tongue that easily. Clinton was an exception, as he just had a fantastic command of facts and language that I think only comes around once in a generation, but:
I have no problem at all trading style for substance. Pres. Bush's problem was that, for all his flubs, he generally spoke clearly, but what came through clearly was a big pile of nothing. Obama might come through haltingly, but at the end of a statement or the answer to a question, you actually have an answer.
I do think you're right that there is a bit of a disconnect between the perception of his oratory and the actual level it reaches in unscripted moments, but I think the reasons for that difference, and for that matter how little a difference it really makes, make such an argument pretty low on importance. No one ever said that Bush shouldn't be president because he was a poor communicator, that was just a fun way to vent frustrations. People thought he shouldn't be president because of what he actually did, not said.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
As what tends to be the norm in these threads, I agree completely with Lyrhawn.
But to add one thing that went unsaid in Lyrhawn's post, but thoroughly implied. To me, it doesn't matter how well you say something, I worry more about what you actually say. Normally I'd think this is intuitive, but seeing that people want to criticize Obama for utilizing tele-prompters, I guess it needs said.
I completely concede that Obama loses a substantial amount, if not all of his eloquence without his speech pre-written right before him. But when you compare his pre-written statements with his improvised answers, the end result is that they are remarkably similar in ideas expressed.
If you want to attack Obama's speeches, go against the lack of cited examples and specifics in his course of action. Those are often absent in place of flying rhetoric. Attacking him for using a pre-written speech is silly and seems desperate.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Some news snippets:
Gupta has backed away from the Surgeon General position citing his work at CNN as more important, more or less. One would think he could do more for public health advocacy as the SG, but it's his choice. Still, Between him and Gregg, I think people are being a little disrespectful to Obama in accepting a nomination then backing out because they changed their minds.
Howard Dean is emerging as a possible frontrunner to become Surgeon General.
In other news, House and Senate Democrats are apparently in a little tiff right now over the budget. Pelosi and Reid apparently engaged in a heated debate over what to do with the budget bill. The rumor is that Pelosi wants to continue spending at last year's rate because Republicans, while hating on the bill, actually want it passed at a higher rate, and doing it this way would call their bluff. Seems like too many wheels within wheels to me. But it's all just conjecture anyway, I don't know what the heck is going on in the negotiations, but Democrats left and right are coming up with a myriad of positions. Feingold wants Obama to veto any bill with earmarks in it, Reid doesn't think they have the votes to pass.
Word is Republicans are thinking about some heavy concessions to Democrats on the upcoming push for a healthcare bill, because they'd rather negotiate and get something than have Democrats use a process called "reconciliation" which I still need to look up, but apparently it allows the Dems to bypass the cloture motion and pass a bill directly. I need to look it up, but I know something like that exists, as Democrats had to cave on a couple issues when Republicans threatened to do it a few years ago during a filibuster deadlock.
More later...
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
is HD a Medical Doctor?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Just go to the link on the page to see the inner workings...
quote:But it's all just conjecture anyway, I don't know what the heck is going on in the negotiations, but Democrats left and right are coming up with a myriad of positions.
Essentially, Reid isn't sure that he has enough votes to get cloture on the bill and Pelosi wants to completely scrap the bill and pass another that would keep the government running until September, which would be in line with Republicans who have been calling for a spending freeze until then. Really, Reid does have enough votes to pass the bill because there are a handful of Republican Senators who will vote for the bill but the problem is that those senators will not do so unless as many 12 amendments to the bill are allowed to be voted on. Afterwards, Cloture will be invoked and the bill can then proceed, but in the process, I think the Republicans want more time to lobby Obama and to hit him on his pledge of earmarks. Which is the craziest part of this because 40% of this bill consists of earmarks from Republicans, and Republicans want this bill passed as much as Democrats because it pays for their aids and for their offices on Capitol Hill.
Part of me says that what the Democrats should do is simple, take all of the earmarks and unnecessary spending out of the bill and make sure that every dollar taken out of the bill is a Republican earmark or dollar used for Republican districts or states. Then, make the Republicans go out there and complain that their OWN earmarks and wasteful spending were the dollars taken out of the bill, and make them reconcile that with their position on the government, wasteful spending, and the new found ideas behind their spending freeze. But then, I am not reckless either...
Howard Dean and Rahm Emmanuel cannot co-exist, so do not expect Dean in that role, especially given that he is a very partisan figure where Republicans are involved, and given the fight Obama wants to have, he can't go into the fight with them already frothing at the mouth.
Finally, Obama will reverse Bush era policies on stem-cell research Monday. Yay that.
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
Vadon quote If you want to attack Obama's speeches, go against the lack of cited examples and specifics in his course of action. Those are often absent in place of flying rhetoric. Attacking him for using a pre-written speech is silly and seems desperate.
The question boils down to: Does Obama originate the ideas that are expressed in his speeches?
The niggling double that surfaces but is perhaps not expressed because of his dependance on a teleprompter is the possibility that he is just a talking head. Like a straight up anchor man.
Then the question would be who is behind Obama?
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshki: The question boils down to: Does Obama originate the ideas that are expressed in his speeches?
The niggling double that surfaces but is perhaps not expressed because of his dependance on a teleprompter is the possibility that he is just a talking head. Like a straight up anchor man.
Then the question would be who is behind Obama?
I'd bet if you'd asked Obama, he'd say Michelle is the voice behind him and keeps him in line.
But the real answer to your question is that Obama really is the one behind his speeches. You can tell by the similar rhetoric between his books and his speeches. But if that's not enough, here's a nice old article from Time that talks about how Obama writes his speeches entitled... well... "How Obama Writes His Speeches"
And a specific highlight of the article:
quote:Obama takes an unusually hands-on approach to his speech writing, more so than most politicians. His best writing time comes late at night when he's all alone, scribbling on yellow legal pads. He then logs these thoughts into his laptop, editing as he goes along. This is how he wrote both of his two best selling books—Dreams from My Father and The Audacity of Hope—staying up after Michelle and his two young daughters had long gone to bed, reveling in the late night quiet. For this speech Obama removed himself from the distractions at home and spent many nights in a room in the Park Hyatt Hotel in Chicago. These late-night sessions produced long, meandering texts that were then circulated to a close group of advisers, including Axelrod and Obama's speechwriter Jon Favreau—a 27-year-old wunderkind wordsmith. "When you're working with Senator Obama the main player on a speech is Senator Obama," Axelrod said. "He is the best speechwriter in the group and he knows what he wants to say and he generally says it better than anybody else would."
P.S. I want to add my own personal cheer at the overturn. Woo-Hoo!
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
Vadon
That is well and good. But not everyone in America has read that. So that unease persists.
It would behoove Obama to have a short piece showing him, late at night, writing a speech.
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
Vadon
It would behoove Obama to have a short piece showing him, late at night, writing a speech.
This would also help the conservitives in that they would not have to waste effort on the issue. Oh, by the way. The Republican party is the fringe of the Conservative Movement. They know it to because they walk on tippy toe.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
Personally, I don't think Obama should spend any time addressing this. I agree that it's a waste of time for conservatives or Republicans to attack Obama on this issue. I also think it would be a waste of time for him to answer it. Rather than making a video of himself writing a speech, I would much rather he keep governing as he was elected to do. Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
Vadon
No nipping in the bud? The video could be just part of a domestic piece about Obama in the White House. The issue addressed without being addressed.
All the Conservatives need now is to come up with an Hispanic Rush Limbaugh. Conservatives are begaining to call themselves the "Common Sense Party." The feet on the ground in touch with reality party. Whereas the Democrat Party is portrayed as the Ivory Tower Party. This plays into the rural vs big city split. In the country side the attitude seems to be: If something really bad happens, city people wouldn't know to boil water before drinking it. Mostly it is Conservative thought that most of what Democrats say does not pass the test of common sense.
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
Vadon Member Member # 4561
posted March 06, 2009 01:41 PM --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Oshki:
RE The housing bubble. Now I have a couple questions: What effect did the low interest rates have on the banks profits?
How did the low interests rates effect the realitors profits?
Who determines the value of a house at the micro (neighborhood) level?
I have a sneaky suspicion that the realitors in conjunction with the banks pushed the (values) prices up to increase profits.
Canada, on the other hand, kept to their standards and are less effected. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great Video that I think will answer your questions. (It's only about ten minutes long and worth the watch.)
Vadon, Thanks
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Oshki: Vadon
No nipping in the bud? The video could be just part of a domestic piece about Obama in the White House. The issue addressed without being addressed.
All the Conservatives need now is to come up with an Hispanic Rush Limbaugh. Conservatives are begaining to call themselves the "Common Sense Party." The feet on the ground in touch with reality party. Whereas the Democrat Party is portrayed as the Ivory Tower Party. This plays into the rural vs big city split. In the country side the attitude seems to be: If something really bad happens, city people wouldn't know to boil water before drinking it. Mostly it is Conservative thought that most of what Democrats say does not pass the test of common sense.
Beginning to? Where have you been? Republicans have been doing that for at least as long as I've been paying somewhat close attention to politics, so at least for the last decade, and I'm sure anyone here older than me would likely back it up even further back than that.
The "down home common sense" Republican versus the "ivy league ivory tower elitist" Democrat mantra has been preached for a long, long time. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, and usually it's most effective when deployed to bolster their base, who are most swayed by such an argument. But frankly, as of now, those are the people Republicans need the most, so it's not a surprise. I didn't really think it'd happen, but Republicans at the moment are in the midst of an identity crisis. The leaders of the party, at least Congressionally, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are trying this holier than thou dickish attitude sort of response to everything Democrats do, but the public is reacting to them as obstructionist. Jindal, the young blood and perhaps leader of the Republican governors, is trying to portray the Republicans as having been lost but now are found, but his coming out party after the state of the union was flubbed, and his message, being a bit too much to buy in the first place for anyone left of the nation's centrists and moderates (or them themselves really) was lost in the shuffle.
Obama I think doesn't have a message problem right now, but he is having issues rallying his troops. I think part of that is the fact that Pelosi and Reid are just God awful. They have a proven track record of being inept and stupid. Obama was the one who brought on Republican senate support for the stimulus bill, not Reid. They shouldn't sign control over to him, we've already seen what happens when Congress does that, but they could at least not be quite so territorial, thus damaging everyone involved.
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
Lyrhawn Member Member # 7039
Ah, but there is a resurgence partially because conservatives are addressed and spoken about like they are children also that they are radical and just a fringe group. Whereas they are voters. The quickest way to loose power is to act the way that the opposition says you will act. I am not addressing policy but rather the attitude with which they are addressed. So, when one says: Conservatives are this and are that, there are real people who take it personally and this conferms their perception of Democrat elitist. To actually acknowledge them may be thought of as giving them power but to continue the hostile nose in the air we got the power and know what is best for you attitude only fuels the resurgance. Bush made the same mistake by not listening to voices of the opposition.
Perhaps because there is a resurgance the pendulum is swinging back. That maybe why The Democrats are putting money into their grass roots organizations. Booing Bush at the inauguration was stupid. After the things that were said about Bush by Democrats during his administration attacks on Linbaugh appears extreemly hypocritical. Where the heck are the statesmen?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't agree.
Far from treating Conservatives like children, Obama is bending over backwards to give their representatives a seat at the table. Congress in general often looks like a round table of children, and that goes regardless of party affiliation, and that's why their approval ratings in general are often in the tank. But Obama's are still high, and so long as he remains the icon and leader of the party, Democrats aren't really going to suffer from the thing you're referring to.
Besides, almost two years away from midterms. In political years, that's like a decade. Lots of stuff can happen.
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
Lyrhawn, I don't believe Obama's approval ratings are high because he gives Republicans a seat at his table, in fact which Republicans are being seated at his table? The way I see things, the Republican party is being completely pushed out of Washington. Obama's approval rating is still high because he's still a "super-star".
His actions and ideas are so far left and contrary to current policy that people don't have the slightest clue of what to make of them. His ratings are high because while people- even the experts are scratching their heads wondering if it will work, he's still the "super-star", first black president, and "hope of the world".
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by beleaguered: Lyrhawn, I don't believe Obama's approval ratings are high because he gives Republicans a seat at his table, in fact which Republicans are being seated at his table? The way I see things, the Republican party is being completely pushed out of Washington. Obama's approval rating is still high because he's still a "super-star".
His actions and ideas are so far left and contrary to current policy that people don't have the slightest clue of what to make of them. His ratings are high because while people- even the experts are scratching their heads wondering if it will work, he's still the "super-star", first black president, and "hope of the world".
Now I'll grant that congress is keeping the Republicans out. With Pelosi's highly partisan attitude and Reid's inability to lead, it is true that the Republicans are largely absent from the key discussions and work done in congress. But you shouldn't blame Obama for this. As Lyrhawn pointed out, Obama has been all but bending over backwards to try to get more Republican involvement. He's had meetings with Republican leadership at the white house to discuss policy and ways they can compromise. Lyrhawn's right that it was the work Obama partook to get Republican support needed in the senate to get the stimulus passed.
The reason Obama's approval is still high is because he is working hard on getting things done. He's not being exclusive like the congressional Democrats, nor is he being obstructionist like the grand majority of the congressional Republicans. It's not his super-star image, it's that he's actually trying to do what he said he would when elected. That's pretty refreshing.
Edit to Add: I'm not making this post to be outright contradictory. I'm just trying to say that if you're going to be miffed about Obama's popularity, don't make generalized assumptions that it's based solely on his rock-star image. I have issues with different parts of Obama's agenda as well as some of his appointments and policies. The real point of this post is that if you're going to be angry about the lack of Republican involvement in the process, aim your frustrations at who it's due. It certainly is not Obama.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
beleaguered -
I don't think his approval ratings are high just because he's including Republicans either, but you must not be paying very careful attention if you think he isn't reaching out to them. There have been at least a dozen meetings with high ranking Republicans since he took office to hear their concerns and look for ways to work together to pass legislation. He made big multi billion dollar changes to the stimulus bill to gain at least some bipartisan support to pass the bill, and has openly put himself in front of a camera to answer questions directly from Republican leadership on live television. That last bit there I think is the most drastic change from the last administration. The push you're referring to, like Vadon said, is intracongressional. It's coming from Pelosi and Reid, not Obama.
The Democratic party is in an incredibly strong position right now, and on a great many issues could run roughshod over the Republicans without even mentioning their name, but Obama is making a concerted and pointed effort to include them. Maybe he's doing it just so he can use them for cover later if the ideas don't pan out, or maybe it's a genuine drive for bi-partisanship, but he's doing it, and I think there's ample evidence to support such an assertion.
I'm not exactly sure what is the cause of his approval ratings, though I suspect some of it is really afterglow. His individual policies are ranking pretty low in the polls, but while most people don't LIKE what he is doing, most of them grudgingly admit that it has to be done and is necessary. I don't like what's going on either, but I think we have to do a lot of it to move on. Again, like Vadon said, I think a great many people are respectful of the fact that he is tackling these issues with headlong enthusiasm and is genuinely seeking the best answers possible. That's worth a lot to a great many people. Beyond the stimulus, and the looming budget battle, there are a number of things that he's done just in the last month in a half that are a stark departure from the previous administration and that are worthy of approval.
I don't think his numbers are due do a celebrity haze of approval. More than in most of recent memory Americans seem to be critically cognizant of the legislation moving through Congress and how it effects them personally, and knowing that and still giving him the thumbs up I think means they genuinely approve rather than some sort of approval in a fog of ignorance (though of course, that always exists).
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
As per usual, I agree with Lyrhawn's answer and recommend you at least take a good listen to it. (Or, read it, rather as you can't really listen to it... that is unless you read hatrack through a text to speech program in which case I suppose you still could.) I suggest that you put more weight in his response than mine, what with his sounding a lot less contentious than my post. Even if we largely said many of the same things, he said them better.
Posted by Oshki (Member # 11986) on :
Although this is "The Obama Presidency Discussion Thread",I was addressing the general lack of decorum and making an attempt to show that it is counterproductive. The person of President Obama himself did not enter my mind. There seems to be a general lack of self awareness on the part of many in public office.
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
Well Vadon, in this case I'm reading these responses, since I haven't put in the time to get the text to speech program running.
I appreciate both yours and Lyrhawn's arguments on this issue.
President Obama certainly must gain some approval from the Republican party just to get his policies passed, or so the public can see his policies are getting some conservative approval.
I'm finding something interesting. Both of your responses got me thinking . . . Obama reaches out for Republican approval, yet for the exception of Judd Gregg, has only appointed Democrats to government positions in Washington. Funny thing about Judd Gregg, he's pro life, yet votes For Stem cell research, and he seems to be undecided when it comes to gun control, and he voted against the Federal Marriage Act.
Obama's approval rating could come from many factors, one of which, I believe is that he's the Nation's shiny new toy, and for the time being he can do no wrong. I also think you touched on something, Vadon. I think part of his approval rating is because he's actually doing what he promised he will do, and as you put it, sort of refreshing.
I also think it's interesting how the public seems not to like the majority of his policies, yet they still approve him as a president - supports him for his efforts and the promised positive outcomes maybe? The whole thing confuses me.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The whole thing confuses me.
It's called "cognitive dissonance."
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:I also think it's interesting how the public seems not to like the majority of his policies, yet they still approve him as a president - supports him for his efforts and the promised positive outcomes maybe? The whole thing confuses me.
Really? I know support for stem cell research is high, and a quick look at Gallup shows that over 58% support the stimulus plan. Furthermore, the new budget enjoys strong support among Democrats, liberals, moderates, and independents, with nearly a 20% difference between positive and negative feelings (44-26, with 30 undecided) overall. 59% say support for homeowners is necessary and done well by the Obama administration, and majorities support tax increases on the wealthy*. Where is the majority opinion here because it sounds like most people support his plans so far?
I do believe that part of the allure of Obama is that he is new and shiny, but I also think that not only is he winning politically (with the Rush thing--who has managed to be less popular than Jeremiah Wright), he is doing things that most people agree with and that he promised in the election. Even more than that though, he seems to be throwing everything he can at this economic crisis, he is acting and not saying no without having a better plan, and I think all of those factors contribute to approval ratings of anywher from 60 to 72%. Of course, majority opinion has no effect on the moral or legal correctness of an action either, but still, I find this argument interesting for many reasons.
quote:I don't believe Obama's approval ratings are high because he gives Republicans a seat at his table, in fact which Republicans are being seated at his table? The way I see things, the Republican party is being completely pushed out of Washington.
In some sense this is correct, sans the stuff about Obama's ratings. However, I think instead of Republican party, you should have said the extreme conservative wing of the Republican party because, as I argued earlier, I think the part of the Republican party that is being pushed out of Washington is the part run by Rush Limbaugh. Make no mistake, Rush Limbaugh is not the leader of the Republican party, he is an entertainer and an extremist, but by placing him out front, what Obama is forcing Republicans to do is embrace the moderates in their own party. This is directly opposed to how the Bush Administration and Karl Rove worked, they forced everyone to the extremes by arguing absolutes and claiming that we were either with them or against them. On the other hand, Obama is forcing the Republicans to the center so that he can work with them and get things done, and I think later on, he will force the Democrats to the center as well. In some sense too, this is in response to what happened on the stimulus package, I think Obama went in thinking that Republicans would provide ideas and allow him to govern if he would show a willingness to work with them. However, what happened was that the Republicans came to the table with the same ideas of the Bush administration and the extreme conservative wing of the Republican party, and when that happened, Obama calculated that the only way to get things done was to break the cycle of extreme and polarizing politics in Washington.
*Note, there were too many links to link to so just go to Gallup.com to see where I came up with these numbers.
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
Thank you for your opinions, Humean. I don't have time for a lengthy response, nor is one needed, or we would be going in circles. I see you points, and understand what you're saying. I don't think we can argue further about his approval ratings, or about who his staff consists of. As you pointed out, I can just refer to Gallup.com for information about popularity.
Instead of arguing about these points, I'd like you to google something. I'm sorry I don't have the time to research this myself right now- I'm late as it is- but think you're a very capable googler.
Uncle Sam's Plantation, by Star Parker. She's written a book, and that's probably what you'll find most with your Google results, but she's also written a newspaper article about her book, and that's what I hope you'll be able to find. It was emailed to me as an image, so I couldn't just add it to this post. I'll figure out how I can post about this article. I find it very insightful and would like to see what you think.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:The President's first address at the Forum is unambiguous that we cannot delay health reform: "Our goal will be to enact comprehensive health reform by the end of this year."
quote: The President concludes his first address to the forum guests, telling everyone to get to work: "this time there is no debate about whether all Americans should have quality, affordable health care - the only question is how?"
quote: He then addressed the notion that we are taking on too much in attempting reform this year. He said when times were good - when the economy was better and we were not at war, we failed to get it done. President Obama said there is always a reason not to do it - and he could think of no better time than now.
Comprehensive health reform doesn't work! Just talk to anyone who comes from a nation that offers something like this already. We have some Canadians in the forums, tell us how health and medical coverage works when then the government is in charge. I know my brother has lived in Canada with his family for about 10 years, and they have had their share of issues. There was some malpractice with the way they handled one of my sister-in-law's last pregnancies, and all they could do is pray everything would heal right and they would be taken care of. They weren't able to sue the government over medical issues, what good would it have done?
I have spent time in Belgium and France (when I say time, I mean I lived there for years, and still keep in touch with some friends from there), and have spoken with some of them on this topic. They've told me they never felt as if they mattered. They are asked to wait a very long time for the simplest of care.
Also, I'm not sure how this plan would incorporate current independent doctors and care practices. It seems to me they would be given the choice of either competing with the government medical facilities and crossing their fingers insurance companies would still back them, joining the government at a likely pay cut, or moving out of the country to practice somewhere else.
[ March 10, 2009, 05:34 AM: Message edited by: beleaguered ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Government medical facilities? Independent doctors?
You need to read up on what is being proposed.
I think in your mind, we're going to become France. No one is seriously suggesting such a change. The reform being talked about does cover a broad swath of issues and subjects, but the big thrust of it is in the government mandating a certain level of coverage so that everyone is covered, it doesn't have to do with government running all the hospitals.
Reform is absolutely necessary. Electronic medical records will reduce waste and will reduce errors, which will both prevent deaths and injuries and save us a ton of cash. Having everyone be covered means costs are reduced for everyone, and moves a lot of care for the uninsured out of expensive emergency rooms and into Primary Care Physician offices where it should be. It moves us from a response plan to a wellness plan that aims to keep us healthy and prevent problems rather than focusing on treating more expensive problems only after they've occurred. I'm just barely brushing the surface of the change that is necessary and that will be good for us, but it's late, or rather early, and I haven't gone to sleep for the night yet. Generally when I'm tired I'm not quite as long winded as usual. Well, relatively.
Suffice it to say that the American healthcare system is assbackwards six ways from Sunday and is in dire need of fixing. We aren't going to go the way of France and nationalize the whole thing, but the status quo is utterly intolerable, and we're also not going the McCain/Republican way that pretty much says every man for himself.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
People who can afford healthcare will always be able to pay for care.
Ask someone who can't afford any healthcare if they mind waiting a little while to finally get treatment!
I absolutely agree with one of the statements on the health reform government website--that healthcare should be a right, not a privilege.
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
Well Lyrhawn,
I'm very interested to see how things pan out. I certainly hope American healthcare doesn't get nationalized, for the very reasons I mentioned before.
I DO believe everyone should have some kind of coverage, but I have a problem with the idea of the government just giving a base or simple coverage to those who can't afford it. I believe people will use that not as the bare minimum, but a base standard to measure coverage by- and I also believe more people will try to qualify for this free coverage rather than having to spend a whole lot each month for pretty good coverage on their own.
Do you believe this healthcare reform package will cause any of these adverse reactions among the US population? And, are you worried at how this cost will affect us as tax payers? I have another worry- who would qualify for this program? Are illegal aliens going to be able to benefit from the government's base healthcare coverage?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Nationalized health care in many nations similar to ours, such as Canada, has been studied quite thoroughly. It has generally lower costs, better outcomes, higher satisfaction, and shorter wait times.
Or do you think people in the US don't have infinitely more horror stories about their insurance turning them down for a treatment entirely (if they even have insurance)?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I'm Canadian, universal healthcare is the right of every canadian.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by beleaguered: ... We have some Canadians in the forums, tell us how health and medical coverage works when then the government is in charge. ...
I like it. The most important difference to me is I don't have to manage insurance companies* or worry about losing healthcare if I lose my job (especially now).
* We do have a private system for dentists though, so I suspect that the hoops we have to jump through for them are akin to those for health in the states
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Kinda reminds me of Bush Seniors asinine "If you want to know the nightmares of Socialized Medicine ASK A CANADIAN"
I think its been overwhelmingly proven that Universal Healthcare is a net positive for the population, and that a private system whose only purpose is the generation of monies only hurts the people.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Here are a couple times about Democrats in the Senate and the House that are opposing various portions of Obama's budget. Most of it appears (to me) to be on special interest grounds (the legislators are afraid to anger wealthy donors).
Obama also received intra-party resistance to the $410 billion spending omnibus to get the government through September. Here, though, it seems the resistance was more from those who felt the omnibus was too porcine. Evan Bayh was the spokesperson, and he essentially just pointed out the omnibus was bloated beyond reason. Obama rationalized it by saying it was "last year's business" but Bayh (and Landrieu and Feingold and a couple others) didn't feel that absolved them of the necessity of trying to scale the spending back.
The Minneapolis Star articles suggests a nascent conservative Democrat caucus in the Senate. We haven't heard much from the "blue dog" Dems these days, but the balance of power in the Senate at least should favor a caucus of 5-10 conservative Democrats. I wonder if one will emerge (as the Star suggests) over the coming months. Who would be candidates? Bayh, Landrieu, Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor, maybe Bill Nelson and Kirsten Gillibrand. Others?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Nationalized health care in many nations similar to ours, such as Canada, has been studied quite thoroughly. It has generally lower costs, better outcomes, higher satisfaction, and shorter wait times.
Yep.
I'm Canadian, but as an example, the system in the UK has been shown to deliver better health outcomes for the working class than those of the richest Americans.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
Can anyone help me find some more information about Obama's proposal for merit-based pay for teachers?
Obviously this is a thorny issue, and one that I am not opposed to in principle. The current teacher pay system in public education is almost universally a salary schedule where pay increases with experience and with increased credentials (a teacher with a Bachelor's degree earns less than one with a Masters, etc.) This can present inequities. For instance, a new, energetic, young teacher may be far more effective than an old teacher just waiting out the last couple of years until they can retire. Time-of-service is not necessarily correlated with effectiveness as a teacher, so it follows that it shouldn't necessarily be correlated with salary.
The thorniness of the issue comes into how exactly teachers are evaluated.
Standardized test scores? This will only increase the phenomenon of teaching to the test. And what about teachers (like me) who teach in a subject that isn't tested?
Administrator evaluation? Favoritism (or animosity) becomes an issue here, and what if building-level administrators are pressured to give poor evaluations so that the schools can save money on salaries? Currently, schools like to hire younger teachers to replace retiring teachers so that they can save significantly in salary. Would we start to see districted intentionally hire inferior teachers to save money?
I'm not saying that merit-based pay is a bad thing, but a great deal needs to be considered before it can be implemented. Obviously, teacher unions are generally very much opposed to any merit-based systems; but when has education every functioned like a real-world business?
Anyway, if anyone has information about Obama's thoughts on how to determine merit for teachers, I'd love to see it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
My preference would be to leave it up to states (who would hopefully mostly leave it up to school systems, who would have small rotating committees), but fund a series of experiments for different systems in different contexts, strongly encourage states to adopt systems like those tested that worked out well, and provide assistance with evaluating merit-based systems (perhaps even require it).
I suspect successful systems would look at performance of taught students in future years, dropout rates for similar students, to some extent test scores on tests administered across the department (to similar students), and a certain amount of district discretion. Probably other things as well.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Wrote this over on ornery about a week ago.
Obama has in his budget something that looks like teacher salary incentives based on effectiveness.
The way this can work, rather then being a disincentive to teaching in certain districts, levels, or subjects, is to make sure that teacher evaluations based on student performance are evaluated to remove as many variables as possible.
Assuming that what will be implemented is some sort of bonus system (I.E. compensation above base salary based on performance of students,) here are some of my thoughts on how to evaluate teachers so we evaluate the skill of the teacher, not externals:
1) Within district. Boston has a different student population, and different complications for teachers, then do "The W's" in massachusetts (Wayland, Westford, Weston, Wellessely, are four of the best school districts in the state). A teacher in Boston Public shouldn't be compared to a teacher in Weston... he'll almost always come out looking worse.
2) By standardization, not grades. Grades are a carrot/stick that is highly variable from teacher to teacher.
3) By grade. Especially within small schools or districts, the distinction between students taking English 2 one year, and English 2 the next year, can be dramatic. An increase or decrease in standardized test scores is sometimes reflective of that fact. Look at how the class of 2012 does as a whole on all tests, look at how the class of 2013 does as a whole on all tests, and take the distinction into account when evaluating teachers.
4) By subject. Scores are different on different tests simply by virtue of being different subjects. Examination of MCAS results in massachusetts shows this quite clearly.
5) By teacher. A teacher certified in Physics asked to teach one course in biology for a year because of district or administration issues (hey! this could be me!) shouldn't be penalized when his biology students inevitably do not do as well as the biology students of a teacher certified in biology. This type of situation is a fault of the administration, not of the teacher.
I think whats left after you take all this into account is the effectiveness of the teacher.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
Paul, this is great stuff. Thank you. Do you have any thoughts on how effectiveness will be evaluated for teachers in elective subjects (like...say... band?) where there isn't a standardized test score? What about P.E., which often isn't actually an elective course at all?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Well, this isn't to say how it will be evaluated. Its what I think needs to be taken into account when doing evaluations.
I have no idea how band, gym, art, etc. teachers will be, or even should be evaluated, but I think those same variables need to be taken into account.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I think what's left after you take all that into account is not measurable to any reasonable extent. Which is precisely my problem with such proposals.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Bando, When I was in your shoes, the District attempted an evaluation model. The criteria they decided for music (and other electives) was participation in the program. The more kids signed up, the higher the evaluation. I even got some "help" from the counselor. The straw that redirected my career goals, was his assigning 10 drummers to my string orchestra. I tried explaining that there were only 40 string players in the school. His counter-arguement was that I had the biggest classroom in the building, and that a class of 40 was unreasonable and would certainly dampen my performance evaluation.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I think what's left after you take all that into account is not measurable to any reasonable extent. Which is precisely my problem with such proposals."
I'm not sure I entirely agree. Take the scores of standardized tests for example, account for the variables, and then look at modified scores. And the differences should be teacher skill. Problem is, you need a lot of data before you can make the model work for you.
I think its COMPLICATED to measure teacher skill. But being able to correctly measure it would be a very valuable thing indeed, and in order to correctly measure it, we're going to need a lot of very good data.
Unless you are saying you don't think there's much variability in student outcomes due to teacher skill? In which case I definetely don't agree with you Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Simply put, the data isn't going to be good enough to control for most of those together. The regression will have too much uncertainty to tell you which teachers are better. You'll be evaluating thousands of different treatment variables at once! That's just not a good way of approaching things.
It would also be subject to extreme manipulation by changing the parameters of the regression, probably creating drastic changes in relative rankings (since almost all teachers will be statistically indistinguishable from each other) with even the slightest tweaks.
Furthermore, it ignores that what good performance is will change by the priorities of the school district. If there are a lot of dropouts, a teacher that encourages attendance is much more valuable than one who produces a slight increase in test scores.
edit: also, we already know how to increase test scores -- teach to the test. So that's what you're going to be measuring, in large part: how much each teacher teaches to the test. If that's turned out to be a bad way to evaluate students, why would it be a good way to evaluate teachers?
[ March 10, 2009, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
And, most of all, it relies on standardized testing, even if hundreds of variables are accounted for. Subjects with no standardized tests are left out and this system increases our already ridiculous reliance on test, test, test.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I'm actually not advocating that we evaluate by standardized tests. Its an example.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Take the scores of standardized tests for example, account for the variables, and then look at modified scores. And the differences should be teacher skill.
Yes, and the example is incorrect. If you control for all the sorts of variables, the primary remaining variable will most likely be time spent teaching to the test, not teacher skill. That's assuming it is anything; more likely the answer will be too fuzzy to work out. There just won't be enough data available with the right coverage to disentangle all those treatment variables. And that's before you try controlling for teaching to the test (good luck with that notion)!
Simply put, I think time spent coming up with a complicated regression or other statistical model that no one would understand even if it worked (and I don't think it would work) would be better spent having a few open meetings to discuss what important criteria are for the district, controlling for some of the most obvious variables when comparing teachers (but only comparing teachers who are to the untrained eye in similar situations), and using a certain amount of judgement.
This is especially true as there'd be no one model that would work for all school districts, so there'd have to be a corps of elite statisticians constantly developing models based on local priorities.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
On a side note, this is something law firms are grappling with. The culture for lawyers is to have precise metrics for performance, so they have precise metrics. But then everyone sets out to game those metrics, and overall firm performance suffers notably. Businesses that use more flexible performance notions involving judgment and focus on relating employee performance to improvements in firm-level outcomes that matter to them improve those outcomes.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Simply put, I think time spent coming up with a complicated regression or other statistical model that no one would understand even if it worked (and I don't think it would work) would be better spent having a few open meetings to discuss what important criteria are for the district, controlling for some of the most obvious variables when comparing teachers (but only comparing teachers who are to the untrained eye in similar situations), and using a certain amount of judgement."
I tend to agree. Problem is, unless something is worked out that transports from district to district, a financial incentive system is going to put a new kink into how good teachers choose which district to work in, and I think it would provide a disincentive to working in certain school districts. Of course, right now, those disincentives are funding, type of student, and salary structure. But you'd be throwing another one in there: Bad incentive program. Which, I think, is more likely to further hurt school districts in need of good teachers.
Which is why I started this exercise in the first place.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I believe Freakonomics showed an example of how a student proved a teacher was cheating for his students in the SATs.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think that would be best solved at the state level, by distributing some monies that can only be used in incentive pay to some of the worst-off districts.
I don't think it can be completely alleviated, nor do I think it should. That some districts can afford to pay far more for the best teachers is already a fact, and will continue to be a fact. It isn't going to be possible to completely distribute the funds they would have spent on good teachers equally around -- they wouldn't make them available, were that the case. The focus should be on bringing the worst school districts up in standards (and channeling money to them to do so), and that's going to require a concerted effort no matter what the evaluation system.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Unless you are saying you don't think there's much variability in student outcomes due to teacher skill?
Definitely NOT. I am a (former) teacher, and the offspring of two teachers. I know good teaching when I see it; I just don't think any reasonable testing method will sufficiently account for the confounding variables.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
What about, instead of raises, the districts could grant monetary awards to teachers that are deemed by the district to be effective? These could be decided by peer review, administration, PTA, children (in older grades) or some combination. Appoint an awards committee made up of the above and give out a handful of awards every year.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Email I just got from one of my better high school teachers...
"Why is it that no politician, not even Obama, can get it right? Yes, some of his recommendations are viable, especially mentoring of new teachers, but of course that theoretically happens now in many schools to very mixed results. He'll have to be very, very specific about what mentoring entails, including released time. But it's the merit pay issue that burns my ass. Anyone who has worked in a school knows that collaboration is the key to good teaching, and if you collaborate, how will the "merit" be determined? It's supposed to be by student achievement--improvement, I believe. So more testing, more teaching to the test, and cat fights about who has to teach those low-level kids, the ones who most need the best teachers? Why can't anyone get it straight that the private sector model of incentives doesn't work in the ideal collegial environment of a school? If I"m going to get my merit pay, and I'm in competition with you, do you think I'm going to share my good ideas with you? Maybe, and maybe not. Is that the culture we want to engender in schools?"
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Ideal collegial environment? I went to some very good schools, and there was no such thing. And the teacher jumps the gun quite a bit to tests, especially as Obama has already come out against cookie-cutter tests.
And it isn't like this is an unstudied question. There have been studies surrounding merit pay and other pay differentials in teaching, and a commonly observed effect (among others) has been that pay can make a difference in things like retention rates of effective teachers. Also, merit pay is used successfully in many private schools (and I don't just mean the ones run by larger corporations; small religious ones often use merit pay as well). For something that "doesn't work" there's a strangely large amount of evidence that it can work and a strangely large number of people are using it.
I suspect that it fails to work in many situations due to teacher opposition. I also am all for testing scenarios where merit pay isn't awarded at the individual teacher level, but based on groups of frequently collaborating teachers.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
That old saw "if you can't measure it, you can't manage it." has an unfortunate correlary: "You will manage what you can measure." We are in sore need of really good teachers in our public schools. But, I'm not convinced that we really know what makes a really good teacher. And, even if we do. I've heard no metric that makes more than superficial sense.
Oh, there was one. My dad, a master teacher who usually taught sixth grade, was once evaluated aganst his peers, inversely, by the weight of sweepings collected from his classroom over the evaluation period. He didn't do well. The most successful teacher was a martinet. But, the criteria was certainly measureable.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Ideal collegial environment? I went to some very good schools, and there was no such thing. "
Are you sure? This type of thing is easily hidden from students. My biology students would never have known that I was talking to the other biology teachers every day, but I couldn't have taught that class without their help. Same with my classes of chemistry last year, although I was on much more solid footing on my own. All the kids would have seen is once in a while one of the other teachers wandering over to see how their lab was coming along. With my physics classes, the collaboration is more blatant, because we deliberately started syncing the courses and projects so that students from all classes could do much of the work together. But still a lot of the collaboration would have been hidden.
I'd say 70% of the teaching i've done is with collaboration.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
How about not trying to somehow measure and reward good teachers, but focus on removing bad ones? Arguably they'd be somewhat easier to detect, based on reviews and grades and parent/student complaints. Granted, those must be taken with a grain of salt, but I'd have a lot more respect for teacher unions (and the medical profession, for that matter) if they'd do a better job of weeding out their own incompetents.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I wasn't saying there was no collaboration, but that there was no ideal collegial environment. I was aware of plenty of very good collaboration, but there was also vicious backstabbing and territorialism.
Chris: yes, one of the things that heartened me in Obama's address was the call for firing teachers who do not perform sufficiently (I assume after giving them several chances, including with different job duties).
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
quote: And it isn't like this is an unstudied question. There have been studies surrounding merit pay and other pay differentials in teaching, and a commonly observed effect (among others) has been that pay can make a difference in things like retention rates of effective teachers. Also, merit pay is used successfully in many private schools (and I don't just mean the ones run by larger corporations; small religious ones often use merit pay as well). For something that "doesn't work" there's a strangely large amount of evidence that it can work and a strangely large number of people are using it.
Fugu, I'm not saying that merit pay can't work. In fact, I clearly stated my opinion that the current system is woefully inadequate. What I would like to see, if you have them available, are concrete examples of these private schools and their systems for determining merit. It may well be that systems exist that address my concerns and the concerns for others.
For me, I'm specifically worried about being permanently relegated to the bottom of the pay-scale. I'm not saying that I'm an ineffective teacher (I'd like to think that the opposite is true), but that, since I teach a subject that is historically treated as a frill, that they wouldn't even bother to evaluate my merit.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: How about not trying to somehow measure and reward good teachers, but focus on removing bad ones? Arguably they'd be somewhat easier to detect, based on reviews and grades and parent/student complaints. Granted, those must be taken with a grain of salt, but I'd have a lot more respect for teacher unions (and the medical profession, for that matter) if they'd do a better job of weeding out their own incompetents.
My mom's a teacher. In the teacher's union.
I think that the teacher's union is a sack of expletive. Recently, I found out my mom does too.
You say 'if they did a better job of weeding out their own incompetents' and I have to make fun of the statement (not you, though).
They can't do a better job of it if they aren't doing a job of it at all. They are actually doing the reverse job: the protection of incompetents. A significant quantity of my teachers in middle and high school were old sacks of poo who were worthless at teaching their subject but because they had seniority they were able to just take that job over more qualified, younger teachers.
They would sit us down, give us some busy work arguably connected to the subject matter, and sit back and try to age sufficiently enough to retire with the teacher's pension-o-matic.
It was awful. Later I would discover that my own mom — an extraordinarily talented art teacher who is presently teaching international bacheloriate — was once the standout candidate for teaching art at Centaurus and would have gotten the job, but a crusty old math teacher decided that she wanted to try her hand at it and despite having zero qualification for teaching art, the school had to put her in the job. Because of seniority. I took this all in and immediately had a flashback to high school and went "oh my god, that explains like half my teachers"
Every time I google a phrase like "Dance of the lemons" or "rubber room" I sigh a very deep sigh. So broken.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: My preference would be to leave it up to states (who would hopefully mostly leave it up to school systems, who would have small rotating committees), but fund a series of experiments for different systems in different contexts, strongly encourage states to adopt systems like those tested that worked out well, and provide assistance with evaluating merit-based systems (perhaps even require it).
I suspect successful systems would look at performance of taught students in future years, dropout rates for similar students, to some extent test scores on tests administered across the department (to similar students), and a certain amount of district discretion. Probably other things as well.
I still think this is the best suggestion so far.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I asked before about whether a group of moderate Democrats would emerge to wield power in the Senate. This post at fivethirtyeight.com lists several relatively conservative Dems who are opposing <edit>or not actively supporting</edit> the Employee Free Choice Act.
quote:[L]ast year at this time, EFCA had 47 Democratic co-sponsors out of 51 members in the Senate: the holdouts were Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and Ken Salazar of Colorado. This year, however, EFCA currently has only 40 co-sponsors, in spite of the fact that there are now 58 Democrats in the Senate.
Failing to renew their sponsorship are Max Baucus and Jon Tester of Montana, Evan Bayh of Indiana, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota, Dianne Feinstein of California, Herb Kohl of Wisconsin, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, and Jim Webb of Virginia. Freshmen Senators Michael Bennet, Kay Hagan and Mark Udall and Mark Warner have also declined to sponsor the bill.
Interesting (if predictable) thing about this group is they're almost all from reddish states (exceptions are Feinstein from CA and Kohl from Wisconsin): Arkansas (x2), Missouri, Virginia (x2), North Carolina, Lousiana, Montana (x2), North Dakota (x2), Colorado (x2), Nebraska, Indiana.
If these Senators (or some large subset of them) managed to form a cohesive group on policy issues they would wield a significant amount of power within the Senate and in setting overall policy (since the House is so lopsided, and hence strategically weak, currently).
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I think itld help if we didnt repeatedly teach the same but slightely different course 6 times over like english. or Generic Science classes.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Samprimary's post is a large part of why I don't think I'll ever return to the idea of teaching. If they fix the system from the ground up, I'd seriously consider becoming a teacher, and I actually think I'd be good at it, but I'm not prepared to sacrifice my life and soul to get sucked into the current system.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I don't know about other states, but the idea of tenure is gone in massachusetts at this point. If you want to get rid of any teacher, for reasons other then budget, you have to go through an identical process, no matter how long the teacher has been in the school. If its competency, you have to demonstrate the teacher is incompetent, and attempt to help them improve. If they dont improve, and the lack of improvement is documented, you can get rid of them... no matter how long they've been in the school.
Don't know what its like in other states, but...
And what happened to Samp's mother is also illegal here now. Again, don't know how that works in other states.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It is set at the district level here in Indiana. Our district's contract with the teacher's union requires them remove teachers from least senior to most senior, excepting where a particular competency is required. So if they just need fewer teachers (or can't afford all the teachers they have), they can't fire the worst teachers, they have to fire the newest teachers.
There are procedures for firing teachers for other reasons, too, but those are almost impossible to employ except in the most extreme circumstances.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
american education is filled with a lot of systematic problems which should have been dealt with decades ago, if not at their inception. One of them is how funding per student is tied to regional income from taxation. A lot of the rest are problems which are exacerbated if not created by the union, and it depresses me.
I'm glad to see that Mass seems to have shucked some of this. There's also a lot of coverage on the issue of how education is being overhauled from the bottom up, with radical overhauls in DC and other failed institutions.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I've found that a lot of universities that "feed" local high schools with teachers are creating ebtter and better education programs, with a much heavier emphasis on the science of education, and teachers coming out of these programs tend to have a better idea of what they should be doing in the classroom.
I tend to think that there's not much bad in education that wouldn't be worse without unions, but my experience with teachers unions is of course limited to massachusetts. *shrug* I certainly wouldn't work as a teacher without a lot of what shows up in the union negotiated contracts. And a lot of my fellow teachers feel the same way.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Anyone watch the second press conference?
A lot of tough questions and a lot of real answers (and a couple of dodged answers too).
The press certainly isn't shying away from asking hard questions.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
I caught the last 30 minutes or so. Because of that, I don't really have many comments on it other than the media really isn't trying to coddle him anymore. They definitely aren't pulling punches.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
In many ways, I think the press conference shows just what a tight-rope the administration is walking. Obama has to temper the anger that has erupted, and is only a symptom of a larger problem, around AIG and the financial bailouts but he also has to show that he understands that anger or risk being seen as out of touch. In some sense, that is the tight-rope he has to walk with everything he does, whether it's the budget or foreign policy or the economy, because of the political and social climate of the country.
What I find more troubling is the scapegoating of the rich and the general anger and hostility the public has embraced. I don't believe there is any question that deregulation and greed were primary causes of the economic crisis and I don't believe that the populist rage of the public is entirely unjustified, but I do believe that there is an inherent danger in doing anything based entirely on rage and anger. I think Obama's main goal has to be to temper that anger, to get across and convince the people that he is correct when he says that we cannot govern out of anger, and I think he did a good job of that this weekend and in this press conference.
Edited: I was surprised that there was a lack of questions about foreign policy at the press conference. I think Obama is doing something interesting with Iran, he is trying to play the populist and moderate movements of Iran against the hard-line Islamic extremism in the country, and in so doing, he is trying to help the people of Iran force their own country into moderate talks with the United States. I think that's what he is trying to do with Republicans as well, he is trying to appeal to moderate republicans and force the extremists into a more palatable position where they will be forced to work with his administration.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Of course the media is finished coddling him and ignoring any potentially negative subject. They accomplished their mission on inauguration day. Now the interest has turned from contributing to a campaign to selling their product. Scandal sells and they've run out of Republicans to scandalize.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
To be fair to the media, those Republicans sold their own scandals. The media didn't have to invent anything.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I agree they weren't invented but focused on. There are plenty of stories on the other side that were barely touched on or left for tabloids. John Edwards, Kwame Kilpatrick, William Jefferson, Obama's entire backround. If Obama were a conservative from Chicago, the media and democrat lawyers would be crawling all over that city for dirt to connect him with Rezco, Blago et all. Kinda like they did to Palin in Alaska. Chicago is only known as the most corrupt political environment in the nation. The very same media that gives him a pass has noted repeatedly you do not succeed in Chicago politics unless you pay to play. Of course Obama's clean.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
If the parties were reversed here's your headlines:
President Skirts Ethics Laws By Signing $500k Book Deal Days Before Inauguration.
Culture of Corruption Continues: Top Recients of AIG and Fannie/Freddie Political Contributions #1 Senate Banking Comittee Chair Chris Dodd #2 President Barack Obama #3 Vice President Joe Biden
Spam Sales at Record Levels - President Spotted Eating Filet Mignot
Republicans - Administration of Tax Cheats
President's Ties To Rezco and Blago, Impeachment Procedures Considered
President on tape "57 States" (at least its not potato)
R. Barnie Frank Warned by Dems about Banking Collapse in 2003, Still in Charge of Oversight
President Appoints Tax Cheat to Head IRS
President Bowls, Appears on Leno, ESPN as Economy Collapses. (Bush golfed once, remember?)
Most Expensive Inauguration Ever, DC Homeless Relocated from Celebration Grounds (twice as much as the one Bush was scorned for during better times)
Presiden't Aunt an Illegal Alien Living in Slum
President's Brother Living on $2 a Month
Gaph Prone VP Secluded for Contradictions
White House Parties it Up on Wednesdays as Homeless Line Up For Food
Leiberman Receives Political Retribution For Reaching Accross the Aisle
Out of Touch Republican Congress Takes Holiday, Delays Stimulus Plan
Abuse of Power, Republican Speaker of House Uses AF G5's as Private Jets....more to come
Partisan Republicans Block Dems From Contributing to Stimulus Bill, Given 24 Hours to Review 1100 Page Plan
Republic Speaker Endorses Bailing Out Fox News (actually Pelosi and failing lib nespapers)
Republican Administration Strips DC Minorities of Scholarship Opportunities
Republican Bailout Funelling Tax Dollars to Foreign Countries
President Garners Opponents Support In Exchange for $10 Million Campaign Debt Contribution
Senate Banking Comittee Chair Dodd(R) Lies About Writing Amendment Aproving AIG Bonus...Then Admits it was at the Administration's Request.
Congress Has Lowest Approval Rate in Nation's History - 11%
RNC Fights Court Cases Calling For President's Birth Certificate
President Still Refuses To Release College and Medical Records - What's He Hiding?
Largest Stock Market Drop Ever For a New President
Stocks Plummet as President Speaks
President Dismisses Stock Market Slide, Compares it to a Poll.
President Laughs When Questioned About Economy
Republican Speaker Caught on Tape...."Never let a good crisis go to waste."
Republican Speaker Caught on Tape Telling Minute Men "You are true patiots". Calls for increased immigration raids.
There's Blood in the Streets, Dogs and Cats Sleeping Together.
Remember "hubris"...I think that term is more apt today.
I could probably come up with more. The media is a little bit more critical now but they need to get a second term before they really open up.
[ March 25, 2009, 04:36 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
Um... minus the Republican substitutions, I recall reading many of those headlines almost recreated to the T off of CNN at least.
The ones about Obama's brother, his aunt, the records(minus the "What's he hiding"), stocks plummeting, Pelosi using private jets, Lieberman attacks, congressional approval rating, congressional holiday, etc. I even saw the price-tag inauguration day ones, despite much of the inaccuracy.
The media reports these things, the problem is that these issues don't stick. Today's media focuses on giving the people what they want to hear about in order to increase profit and market share. These stories have been reported, it's just that most aren't interested in hearing them over and over again.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
The media decides what people are interested in getting, they always "stick" to republicans. If the roles were reversed, they would get every inch of every mile out of these stories. The administration would be finished. They have been reported, on page two without the sensationality. I don't buy into the birth certificate conspiracy crap either, but I do believe it would be serious if were the other way around. Remember the scrutiny of McCain for being born on a Panamanian Military Base?
Obama refused to release his undergrad records. I don't really care but where's the transpancy. What, he get a C in Speech.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
So no one wants to talk about Iran? Or maybe the economy? How about the anger Americans are feeling right now and how that effects our politics?
Cmon guys, Iran nearly has a nuclear bomb, banks won't lend money, people are being laid off in record numbers, and the most important thing about tonight was the media? The freaking media is what we choose to debate? You have got to be kidding me.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
The president sending a soft background video to the Iranian's only emboldened them. He is weak in the eyes of the terrorist and we're going to be attacked.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
McCain and Panama was a story for a day, but whether or not Obama is eligible to be president somehow survived for months despite repeatedly being debunked.
I'm all for bringing up pertinent historical data in current discussions, but I don't think this is relevant for two reasons.
1. Obama's media fawning wasn't nearly as pronounced as the Right likes to make it out to be. I think that within the Democratic party it may have been, as Clinton got a lot more negative press that I don't think was earned, but the negative press that McCain and Palin got was earned every step of the way. The media reported every single word the two of them said that was negative about Obama. I'm sorry, but that counts. The reason we can sit here and talk about all the negative Obama crap is because the media reported it all, then reported it again every time someone in the GOP rehashed it. Some people got sick of it, some people bought into it, and the media divided itself by catering to these groups accordingly. In other words, I think it was consumer driven. People didn't buy the BS about him, so it wasn't as prominent, but Palin was her own little media circus, and the people ate that up.
2. He's been getting this kind of press ever since he won the election. Day and night coverage about everything he had to do, about his cabinet picks and why they were wrong, and then about the actual scandals in many of his picks, some of which were actually pretty minor but still the media harped on them and people bowed out to avoid the frenzy. Now we're less than 70 days into his presidency and half the media are already calling it a failure of some degree.
My point? Get over it. The media weren't responsible for his victory or for McCain's loss. They're raising a lot of excellent points about possible pitfalls in Obama's plans, which I think deserve a lot more time and attention paid than a relatively minor, mostly baseless beef that ended four months ago.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
You're correct. I believe the media is being fair handed with him but they would not and have not been so when roles are reversed.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: So no one wants to talk about Iran? Or maybe the economy? How about the anger Americans are feeling right now and how that effects our politics?
Cmon guys, Iran nearly has a nuclear bomb, banks won't lend money, people are being laid off in record numbers, and the most important thing about tonight was the media? The freaking media is what we choose to debate? You have got to be kidding me.
I was surprised there weren't more foreign policy questions as well. Palestine/Israel was an interesting choice with Iran and Afghanistan on the table, but it gave him the perfect chance to basically say "Look, it's been 60 days, what do you really expect?"
I hope that message really sinks in, because "impatience" is becoming the national watchword I think. Too many people are expecting too much too fast, despite Obama's constant harping on the fact that these are long term solutions. The media I think are fanning this a little bit by suggesting that fast turnaround isn't just laudable, but possible when it really isn't.
The guy is trying to change 30 plus years of American foreign policy blunders in the Islamic world, and it was an excellent analogy to compare that to an ocean liner rather than a speedboat, in that they make slow turns, not sharp ones. The pace of our diplomatic reconciliation with the Muslim world will be set over there, not here. We can make the gestures, but they have to trust us first. That'll take time.
As for the economy...I honestly don't pretend to understand all the complexities. A lot of it sounds good on paper, but I don't know nearly enough about how the system works to try and parse out what the best solution is. I do think we're spending too much time focusing on AIG bonuses when we should be focused on cleaning up the banking system.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
We can discuss American patience. The patience the former president commented on with this war on terror. Day one he said it was going to be long and unpopular. I was angry with the US flag sales after 911. Like yellow ribbons or sales of last years superbowl winner products, faddish patriotism. I needed a new flag last week, and Home Depot doesn't carry them anymore. I went everywhere, and Kmart found one in the back room. They were in gas stations for crying out loud. If we are ever going to be at peace with the Muslim world, we need them to be free nations.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The president sending a soft background video to the Iranian's only emboldened them. He is weak in the eyes of the terrorist and we're going to be attacked.
How did it embolden them? If the moderates in the region see this as America reaching out to them in the name of peace, then isn't it quite possible that the extremists would actually be harming their own cause by attacking the United States?
quote: If we are ever going to be at peace with the Muslim world, we need them to be free nations.
Why do they necessarily need to be free for us to be at peace?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
If we're talking about Iran, the extremists are in charge. There is a significant pro-western population under the thumb of an extremist rule. They need to be free of this tyranical rule. We aren't fighting Iraqi's in Iraq. We are fighting alongside Iraqi people, for their freedom against enemies pouring in from neighboring nations. We leave, the previous tyrant will be replaced with another. The battle ground for the war on terror is in Iraq. When they are free, we will have an ally and the moderate Iranian people will have even a stronger desire for the freedom from tyrany they see next door.
Generally speeking, free nations do not attack free nations. If we could transform a country who believed its emperor was god (Japan) we can in the Middle East.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: We can discuss American patience. The patience the former president commented on with this war on terror. Day one he said it was going to be long and unpopular. I was angry with the US flag sales after 911. Like yellow ribbons or sales of last years superbowl winner products, faddish patriotism. I needed a new flag last week, and Home Depot doesn't carry them anymore. I went everywhere, and Kmart found one in the back room. They were in gas stations for crying out loud. If we are ever going to be at peace with the Muslim world, we need them to be free nations.
Hah, you're just all over the place now aren't you? From bush to flags to claiming Muslim nations must be free for peace. Not much connection between the ideas.
I actually agree with you on the flag bit. I don't think a person's patriotism is measured by how often the show the flag. I believe it comes from how much they care for the well-being of this nation. It's why I thought the attacks on Obama for not wearing the flag-pin were so silly.
As for the discussion on foreign policy at large. I liked Obama's 'speedboat' analogy as well. I think his strategy is brilliant with Iran, but like his plan with the Republican party, I think it's very risky. I also think it will take time like Lyrhawn was saying. We've had years of screwing up US perception and giving countries like Iran plenty of reason not to trust us. It will take time for them to trust us and be more forthright in the peace process.
I also don't buy into the argument that they need to be a free nation for there to be peace. If we keep that burden on them, it will only create discontent between both parties. They'll think that we're trying to enforce our misbegotten moral superiority, and we'll be frustrated that they don't want to accept it. I also don't buy into democratic peace theory. So I don't see how their being free/democratic would result in a more conducive environment for peace than we have now.
In fact, in some ways I think that their having highly centralized governments and heads of state could be to our benefit in trying to achieve peace. Obama is trying to speak to the people of the middle-east saying that we don't want to fight them, we want peace. This puts pressure on the leaders, and if Obama is consistent with that message, the leaders may eventually have to buckle to their people's demands in order to maintain their power. By having a country like Iran, we know who we have to pressure and persuade in order for change to take place because their form of government is contingent upon the Ayatollah.
ETA: I'm no foreign policy expert. I just like reading about the stuff. So I'm not altogether positive my line of thought is even close to what the real-world situation is. Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Didn't mean to jump. I was asked about an earlier entry and not attempting to make a connection. I suppose patience, lasting patriotism for a long term objective might connect the statements though.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Like "The Time Machine" when he kills the leader the hunters go crazy? I think higher of these people. I've worked with them, over there. They are terrified of what will happen if we leave. It will be the same type of genocide they had after we told them to rise up during gulf war one, and left them hanging.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Like "The Time Machine" when he kills the leader the hunters go crazy? I think higher of these people. I've worked with them, over there. They are terrified of what will happen if we leave. It will be the same type of genocide they had after we told them to rise up during gulf war one, and left them hanging.
I'm uh... I'm not sure what this applies to or even what you mean. Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Movie reference. Leader controls the masses through a mental connection. He dies and they eat everyone and destroy the planet....sorry
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:If we're talking about Iran, the extremists are in charge. There is a significant pro-western population under the thumb of an extremist rule. They need to be free of this tyranical rule. We aren't fighting Iraqi's in Iraq. We are fighting alongside Iraqi people, for their freedom against enemies pouring in from neighboring nations. We leave, the previous tyrant will be replaced with another. The battle ground for the war on terror is in Iraq. When they are free, we will have an ally and the moderate Iranian people will have even a stronger desire for the freedom from tyranny they see next door.
That same argument was used to let the Palestinians vote and they chose to put Hamas into power. The problem with the argument that freedom is the panacea of the region is that sometimes people choose incorrectly, sometimes people choose to live under systems of government that we would find objectionable, and under a true democracy that can be the case. We cannot expect that the rest of the Muslim world will embrace the West and our ways, in fact that argument is used by extremists to scare fellow Muslims into joining their cause, but what we can do is empower the Muslim world against the extremists and allow them to take back their own lives. What we can do is show the rest of the Muslim world that we have no intention of taking over or forcing our beliefs on them, and by doing so, we can undercut the very arguments the extremists employ to stay in power. In fact, when Ahmadinejad and Khameni replied to Obama's video, what they had to do was paint him as no different than Bush because they knew that his moderate stance would undercut their own hold on power.
By continually reaching out for peaceful and meaningful negotiations, Obama is curtailing the influence of the extremists in the region and giving the moderate voices a chance to expand into the rest of the Muslim world. In the end, they cannot attack us if they cannot vilify us, and by releasing that video, Obama is making that more and more difficult.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
No, no... I get the reference, I'm just not sure where you thought any of us were implying that. I mean, maybe you're trying to paint my argument that we can utilize Iran's entire government revolving around the Ayatollah as me saying that without him it would crumble, but that's not the case. I'm merely saying that it might be easier to make peace with Iran without requiring a complete overthrow of the government.
ETA: And Humean did a great job of explaining what I meant in better terminology. I'm freakishly tired right now and am not really sure why I'm still up.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
The villification against us will not end unless we abandond Israel. The ire did not begin in Iraq or Afghanistan, so our presence there has little to do with it. They have been at war with us for at least 30 years. We could cut off all military aid to Israel, pull out of the region completely. Watch them destroy Israel and hope they are satisfied.
The problem with the election of Hamas, the population was given a vote but were still completely brain washed or terrified. I have no doubt if North Korea had an election, they would freely elect their "beloved leader". The man is a god who recieves their praises. Saddam Hussein always won elections as well. It wasn't even necessary to mess with the ballot box. The people hated Saddam but knew a vote against him was death.
When I said "free" country I meant more than an election. Freedom of press. Freedom of information. Freedom of education. Brainwashing schools, propoganda press and filtered internet, the sheep will fall in line. Maybe we aren't so differen't. Old propoganda is easier to detect and we seem satisfied with the illusion of freedom.
Maybe the relativism of societies is all that matters. If the North Koreans believe they live in the best place on the planet, we shouldn't question the millions starving while they sing praises to a god man. If the Muslim woman thinks that it is her obligation under God to have her clitoris cut off by a man, who are we to interfere with her religious beliefs. If their society embraces the execution of homosexuals and allows a rape victim to be stoned for dishonoring her family, so be it. These are not "moderate" things there. If by moderate you mean, not likely to attack America, we can appease and hope. We'll ignore the barbarism so long as they believe it's right. We're above it all and understanding of other cultures.
Where are the feminists? Where are the gay rights activists? Where are the HUMAN rights activists. We sure have plenty protesting our government, in our country. No wonder we're the joke of the world. The true tyrants are laughing at the fools over here who call for Bush to be charged with war crimes.
Morality is relative, who are we to judge.
[ March 25, 2009, 08:26 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
But my friend, you seem to judge a lot.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Morality is relative, who are we to judge.
For starters, you've been doing so quite heavily all through the thread.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The villification against us will not end unless we abandond Israel. The ire did not begin in Iraq or Afghanistan, so our presence there has little to do with it. They have been at war with us for at least 30 years. We could cut off all military aid to Israel, pull out of the region completely. Watch them destroy Israel and hope they are satisfied.
I disagree. It is certainly the case that our support for Israel creates much anger but I believe the problem is different than this. The battle we fight is not really a traditional war, it's not simply a war between Muslim extremists and The United States, it's a culture war whose cause is much deeper and more philosophic than our support for Israel. In some sense, it is the same culture war we fight in America, it's a war between ideologies and culture, between religion and atheism, and between the future versus the status quo. Muslim extremists may speak of the evils of Israel and of it's unilateral destruction, but that's just a rallying cry these days. These days, Muslim extremists are fighting for what they view as their way of life, their ability to practice the form of Islam they desire, their ability to make their pilgrimage to Mecca without U.S. intervention, and in that sense, this isn't a war simply about Israel. For hundreds of years, the Muslim world was the most sophisticated and brilliant "Mecca" in the world, it was the place of civilizations beginning, and yet, in the past 100 years, the Muslim world has fallen woefully behind the rest of world. The war we fight today is about where the Muslim world will go in the future, it is about how the Muslim world will integrate itself onto a global stage, and it's about the future versus the status quo. Israel is maybe number 4 on the list of most important issues.
quote:Maybe the relativism of societies is all that matters. If the North Koreans believe they live in the best place on the planet, we shouldn't question the millions starving while they sing praises to a god man. If the Muslim woman thinks that it is her obligation under God to have her clitoris cut off by a man, who are we to interfere with her religious beliefs. If their society embraces the execution of homosexuals and allows a rape victim to be stoned for dishonoring her family, so be it. These are not "moderate" things there. If by moderate you mean, not likely to attack America, we can appease and hope. We'll ignore the barbarism so long as they believe it's right. We're above it all and understanding of other cultures.
You know what this assumes? That America's moral high ground is really the high ground. Of course, this would be the very reason that the rest of the world views America as arrogant, they see how we fight for our own view of morality and religion and they do not see modesty or humility in our approach. Basically, when you argue that you are with us or against us, don't be surprised when people choose to be against us.
But that's not my point. The problem is not that the rest of the world is immoral or in need of change, it is that we face the rest of the world incorrectly. There is no question that the rest of the world is morally, ethically, and spiritually different from America, but the solution cannot be that we automatically assume our way is correct and everyone else is incorrect. One of the rules of debate is that one must go into an argument with an open mind, with the ability to change one's views if faced with a persuasive and logical argument, and yet, this is the part of the debate we fail everyday. We believe that if we can transplant American ideas about freedom and justice and the American way, then we can make the world a better place, but this is exactly the wrong way to handle the problem. Our goal should not be to transplant American ideals but to appreciate and tolerate other cultures and their values. What it doesn't mean is endorsing that which we find reprehensible, but what it does mean is understanding that we can help to build a better world by simply following that simple rule of debate.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Anyone watch the second press conference?
A lot of tough questions and a lot of real answers (and a couple of dodged answers too).
The press certainly isn't shying away from asking hard questions.
I was again pleased more with the care with which he answered questions than with the particular answers. He took the time to explain things in some detail. And I loved that he encouraged people to stay attentive.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Not that he's particularly frustrating me now, but whenever Obama does frustrate me in some way, all I have to do is think to myself "What Would McCain Do"
and all is better.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Mr. Obama will try to show confidence that his stimulus and economic program will work, administration officials said, while conceding that it may take time. He will say that he has put all the pieces in place to fix the American economy, while acknowledging that in a global system nations cannot put up walls to protect their individual economies.
Robert D. Hormats, vice chairman of Goldman Sachs International, said the president “must demonstrate to the world that he understands that it’s not just about saving ourselves.”
And Mr. Obama must try to do all of that in the middle of a global recession for which most of the world blames the United States. “The U.S. brand name has clearly suffered from this crisis, and the rest of the world is no longer willing to sit quietly and be lectured by the United States on how they should conduct economic policy,” Mr. Rogoff said.
I found it interesting. Just thought I would share.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
There's definitely something seriously wrong when a communist country is worried about our government spending.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'm very happy that conservatives have rediscovered outrage over executive accountability and a burning defense of frugality now that a democrat is in power.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I'm very happy that conservatives have rediscovered outrage over executive accountability and a burning defense of frugality now that a democrat is in power.
Bush's defecit never went much over 4% of GDP - Obama is at 12%.
Your counterpoint is the first tactic a child learns. "Well, he did it"
Defend your position, if you can.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Actually, while Samprimary may believe that what Obama is doing is okay, he never actually said it.
He's not excusing Obama, at least not with that statement, he's pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of Congressional Republicans all of a sudden discovering fiscal restraint after doubling the national debt, and fulminating at everything Obama says after eight years of telling the country to get in line behind Bush regardless of circumstance.
In other words, he doesn't have to defend his point until you address it.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
There's definitely something seriously wrong when a communist country is worried about our government spending.
I made a statement about China's concern. I didn't mention conservative concern. Increasing numbers of Dems are expressing concern as well. The deflection tactics in here are pretty amazing. I was slow to respond to the "I know you are but what am I" type of statement.
Please, explain how one wrong justifies another. If there is no wrong explain the economic benefits of the spending.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
There's definitely something seriously wrong when a communist country is worried about our government spending.
Please, explain how one wrong justifies another. If there is no wrong explain the economic benefits of the spending.
Essentially, instead of attacking the supply side of the equation, you spend money to attack the demand side, you give people money to spend by giving them a job and tax cuts, and in so doing, you can stimulate the economy. In simpler terms, people have no money to spend because they don't have a job or because their business maintains less customers. It would seem counter-intuitive to then give those people more things to buy, but what would help is to put money into the system so that jobs can be created and so that customers can have more money to spend.
I understand the need to cut deficit spending and balance the budget, but in some sense, President Obama has come upon a situation where the house is on fire. Until the fire is put out, I don't understand the call for water conservation. I think it's clear that you put out the fire and then worry about the water.
ETA: Honestly, it would be nearly impossible to imagine how little I care about who is to blame for this mess. It is a complete waste of time for us to sit here and indulge ourselves by throwing the people we hate to the wolves. What we should do is understand that we aren't going to fix the problems we face by burning innocent people at the stake nor are we going to satisfy the anger that has enveloped America by vilifying those we blame. We need solutions not scapegoats.
[ March 31, 2009, 05:13 AM: Message edited by: Humean316 ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Bush's defecit never went much over 4% of GDP - Obama is at 12%.
That's only if you don't count "war" expenditures, which Obama has deliberately included as part of his budget. Bush billed several things to the war -- including more than a few expensive Homeland Security programs -- that weren't military expenses and furthermore were clearly not "emergency" costs.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Bush's defecit never went much over 4% of GDP
I'm unsurprised that you were so easily tricked into believing this!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
There's definitely something seriously wrong when a communist country is worried about our government spending.
I made a statement about China's concern. I didn't mention conservative concern. Increasing numbers of Dems are expressing concern as well. The deflection tactics in here are pretty amazing. I was slow to respond to the "I know you are but what am I" type of statement.
Please, explain how one wrong justifies another. If there is no wrong explain the economic benefits of the spending.
You're completely missing the point.
Read what Samp said again. Read what I said again.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
There's definitely something seriously wrong when a communist country is worried about our government spending.
Please, explain how one wrong justifies another. If there is no wrong explain the economic benefits of the spending.
Essentially, instead of attacking the supply side of the equation, you spend money to attack the demand side, you give people money to spend by giving them a job and tax cuts, and in so doing, you can stimulate the economy. In simpler terms, people have no money to spend because they don't have a job or because their business maintains less customers. It would seem counter-intuitive to then give those people more things to buy, but what would help is to put money into the system so that jobs can be created and so that customers can have more money to spend.
I understand the need to cut deficit spending and balance the budget, but in some sense, President Obama has come upon a situation where the house is on fire. Until the fire is put out, I don't understand the call for water conservation. I think it's clear that you put out the fire and then worry about the water.
ETA: Honestly, it would be nearly impossible to imagine how little I care about who is to blame for this mess. It is a complete waste of time for us to sit here and indulge ourselves by throwing the people we hate to the wolves. What we should do is understand that we aren't going to fix the problems we face by burning innocent people at the stake nor are we going to satisfy the anger that has enveloped America by vilifying those we blame. We need solutions not scapegoats.
I agree with the spending to stimulate the economy as a short term solution. I have serious doubts about government releasing the reigns of control when the economy does rebound. Government usually only does one thing, grow, tax more, create more laws and more regulations. Everything they do costs more and lasts longer than promised, much, much more. Many of the proposals are long term social agenda that have been rejected when the house wasn't burning down. In part, I feel they are using the economic crisis much as Bush was accused of using 911 to go to war with Iraq. If they'd stick to what they "sell" I'd be less skeptical.
IE. TARP, never happened but was sold to us now they are revisiting buying up troubled assets after spending the money.
GM bailout or they will fail and destroy the economy. We, as a people, bought it. Now they've receive billions the pres sais we may have to just let them fail anyway.
I worry about the companies coming back repeatedly with their hands out as well as the strings attached to private industry from the govt.
I'll make a prediction. Even if GM survives, Ford will be the only great American American auto maker left. GM could end up like AMTRAC, forever subsidized and making green cars. Ford, string free will be profitable and busy making the cars the people want to buy, not the ones the govt dictates.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:GM bailout or they will fail and destroy the economy. We, as a people, bought it. Now they've receive billions the pres sais we may have to just let them fail anyway.
I worry about the companies coming back repeatedly with their hands out as well as the strings attached to private industry from the govt.
I'll make a prediction. Even if GM survives, Ford will be the only great American American auto maker left. GM could end up like AMTRAC, forever subsidized and making green cars. Ford, string free will be profitable and busy making the cars the people want to buy, not the ones the govt dictates.
The irony there is that the Big Three have been chastised for years for making big SUVs. People have said that it was these big honkin' cars that no one wanted, and that's why the Japanese cars sold so much better with smaller more fuel efficient cars. Now GM is basically banking their future on green cars. Mild hybrids, two mode hybrids, and now fully electric vehicles in the form of the Chevy Volt. And the reaction? In your case, it's that they're still making cars that no one wants.
Keep in mind that the US auto industry repaid every cent they borrowed in the 80's and had a banner decade in the 90's. The problem with this bait and switch is that GM asked for a certain sum of money to get them through June, but were only given money for three months. The fact that GM is back for more isn't a surprise to anyone but Richard Shelby and the media, who are making it look like some shock and surprise that they need more money.
Ford is suffering but will be fine, you're right. Chrysler it seems now will join with Fiat, and will slim down and be fine. GM is three quarters of the way through their restructuring, but their main problem is that the billions in savings they've arranged for don't really take effect until next year. They've also slimmed down, as was necessary, but it might have been too late. It's still unclear whether people will buy cars from a company in bankruptcy, or if they can even get out of bankruptcy. But GM being on the federal dole for years to come isn't going to happen.
Besides, EVERYONE makes cars the government dictates. That's what CAFE standards are for, and if you'd like to argue against them, I relish the discussion.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Perhaps, just perhaps, the cars in the highest demand are neither SUVs nor hybrids/electric cars.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
They're making those too, that's part of what I meant when I said "green cars," as I count conventional ICE cars with high gas mileage as green for this discussion. I should have been more clear when I specifically named off types of cars after I said that. They make a dozen different mid-size, full size and compact cars with excellent gas mileage by any measure I've seen used.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Maybe we just don't need as many cars as they are making because we can't afford to get a new one every couple of years.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Better-made cars means that the average time folks keep new cars has gone WAY up to 9.4years or nearly 100thousand miles. And even second-hand cars are well worth repairing up to 160thousand miles or so.
Barrack's still the charmer. That's German Chancellor AngelaMerkel beside him at the official dinner, and Argentine President CristinaKirchner across the table. And Michelle has extraordinary charm of her own.
[ April 02, 2009, 07:56 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Meanwhile:
quote: Chinese leaders have adopted a plan aimed at turning the country into one of the leading producers of hybrid and all-electric vehicles within three years, and making it the world leader in electric cars and buses after that.
The goal, which radiates from the very top of the Chinese government, suggests that Detroit’s Big Three, already struggling to stay alive, will face even stiffer foreign competition on the next field of automotive technology than they do today.
“China is well positioned to lead in this,” said David Tulauskas, director of China government policy at General Motors. ... China wants to raise its annual production capacity to 500,000 hybrid or all-electric cars and buses by the end of 2011, from 2,100 last year, government officials and Chinese auto executives said. By comparison, CSM Worldwide, a consulting firm that does forecasts for automakers, predicts that Japan and South Korea together will be producing 1.1 million hybrid or all-electric light vehicles by then and North America will be making 267,000.
The United States Department of Energy has its own $25 billion program to develop electric-powered cars and improve battery technology, and will receive another $2 billion for battery development as part of the economic stimulus program enacted by Congress.
Premier Wen Jiabao highlighted the importance of electric cars two years ago with his unlikely choice to become minister of science and technology: Wan Gang, a Shanghai-born former Audi auto engineer in Germany who later became the chief scientist for the Chinese government’s research panel on electric vehicles.
Mr. Wan is the first minister in at least three decades who is not a member of the Communist Party. ... Electric cars have several practical advantages in China. Intercity driving is rare. Commutes are fairly short and frequently at low speeds because of traffic jams. So the limitations of all-electric cars — the latest models in China have a top speed of 60 miles an hour and a range of 120 miles between charges — are less of a problem.
Thought that was interesting in light of the government directing GM to focus more on "green" cars. Nothing like some good competition to keep each other honest, sounds cool.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mucus: I have no doubt China is in a good position to step firmly into this market. I kinda hope they do. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Maybe we just don't need as many cars as they are making because we can't afford to get a new one every couple of years.
Yep. I mentioned that, well, obliquely.
That's why there's such a dramatic drawdown in production at GM. When this is all over, and the credit markets finally get unfrozen, the market will probably support a couple million less units per year than it had before, which means everyone is going to have to produce less. Don't worry, they know that.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
More specifically on the Obama front:
quote: No Decline in Belief That Obama is a Muslim Nearly One-in-Five White Evangelicals Think So
More than two months into Barack Obama's presidency, as many people incorrectly identify him as a Muslim as did so during the 2008 campaign. When asked about Obama's religious beliefs, 11% say he is a Muslim. In October, 12% said Obama is a Muslim, which was unchanged from earlier in the campaign.
quote:No Decline in Belief That Obama is a Muslim Nearly One-in-Five White Evangelicals Think So
ahahahahahahahaha
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Huh, maybe it actually says something good about us that we'd vote someone into office that we think is a Muslim even when he isn't.
Granted I don't think that's true, but it's a nice fictitious silver lining.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Mainly it just further underscores the fact that there is perpetual subgroup of American evangelicals who exist in a culture that provides them vehement immunity to factual correction.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
He was a Muslim when he lived in a Muslim country. A Protestant in Hawaii, an athiest in college and a follower of Black Liberation Theology in Chicago. One could assume if he moved to Italy, he'd be a Catholic.
[ April 03, 2009, 04:02 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
If he moved to Florida, would he be an idiot? Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:As was the case last fall, white evangelical Protestants (19%) and Republicans (17%) are among the most likely to view Obama as a Muslim. Fewer than half in each group -- 38% of white evangelicals and 46% of Republicans -- correctly identify Obama as a Christian.
What is it that renders the opinions of conservative immune to facts, logic and sound reasoning?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: If he moved to Florida, would he be an idiot?
NO, but I am sure you'd treat him like one. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The president sending a soft background video to the Iranian's only emboldened them. He is weak in the eyes of the terrorist and we're going to be attacked.
You're a moron and your posting has lowered the overall IQ of Hatrack by 10 points all by yourself.
Good job.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Malanthrop is the new Reshpeckobiggle.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I didn't get along with Resh, but at least Resh was fairly well spoken.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Oooooo...?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I love how Obama's childhood in a Muslim country counts. Even if he was a Muslim at that point (which I do not believe to be true, and I wouldn't care if he was a Muslim now) he was a just a kid. As children, we are prone to switching beliefs quite easily, should the adults around us put up a convincing case. Heck, it's not like it's a huge leap from Christianity to Islam.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Apparently I was a Muslim for the 4 years when I lived in Malaysia as child. Now that I think about it I did go to a mosque once and attend a marriage reception. I also didn't eat pork as it was not really available, I had Muslim friends, I'm almost afraid to keep thinking about this for fear of what else I'll come to realize.
[ April 03, 2009, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Malanthrop did make a good point about President Obama's religious history. I would ask it differently, though, and perhaps this is really a more relevant question: Does President Obama believe in anything very seriously, really? Besides, perhaps, his own "manifest destiny."
There is no question that his inexperience and perception as being a political light-weight has led hostile world leaders to view him with contempt. Chavez of Venezuela rejected his good-will overtures and called him an "Ignoramus." Iran and North Korea just use him as an excuse to heap more derision on America.
We told you Obama-supporters it would be like this. But no, you thought the whole world would respond to him with stars in their eyes, just like you.
Next, any day now, we will see fulfilled what then Sen. Joe Biden predicted, that within months of Obama's election, some hostile state would test him with some serious, blatant, provocative move on the international scene. Hold your breath, it is coming....
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Malanthrop did make a good point about President Obama's religious history. I would ask it differently, though, and perhaps this is really a more relevant question: Does President Obama believe in anything very seriously, really?
So you believe that visiting other countries while a child makes it so that you don't believe anything very seriously? Or is it only certain countries?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Malanthrop did make a good point about President Obama's religious history. I would ask it differently, though, and perhaps this is really a more relevant question: Does President Obama believe in anything very seriously, really? Besides, perhaps, his own "manifest destiny."
If by good question, you mean "question based on fallacious data and weak reasoning", then you are correct.
Since when is converting to a religion as an adult a sign that one isn't committed? G.W. Bush converted as an adult, should we also presume that his "Christianity" was only for political gain? The apostle Paul converted to Christianity as an adult after having stoned other Christians, I guess he we should also see him as an opportunist who just saw becoming a Christian as the best way to make a name for himself. We certainly wouldn't remember him today if he hadn't.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: There is no question that his inexperience and perception as being a political light-weight has led hostile world leaders to view him with contempt. Chavez of Venezuela rejected his good-will overtures and called him an "Ignoramus." Iran and North Korea just use him as an excuse to heap more derision on America.
Didn't Chavez call Obama an ignoramus after Obama accused him of exporting terrorism?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
The Rabbit, you seem to be claiming that President Obama is a true-hearted convert to Christianity. If this is what you mean, then how do you know this? And I don't mean by anything he has said. Do you know this by anything that he has done, anything he has demonstrated? Does he show he is religious? About any religion?
If he was a true convert to Christianity, then why did he spend 20 years in a church that promotes Black Liberation Theology, and is focued mainly on dissing the "White Establishment"? Is that what you call being a convert to Christianity?
I asked my earlier question seriously. What DOES Obama really believe in? Can you tell me, The Rabbit?
By the way, nobody could be more guilty of basing their thinking on "fallacious data and weak reasoning" than those who voted for Obama.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: ... you seem to be claiming that President Obama is a true-hearted convert to Christianity.
Gods, I certainly hope he isn't.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:The Rabbit, you seem to be claiming that President Obama is a true-hearted convert to Christianity. If this is what you mean, then how do you know this? And I don't mean by anything he has said. Do you know this by anything that he has done, anything he has demonstrated? Does he show he is religious? About any religion?
You claimed Obama's conversion was insincere. The only evidence you gave to support this claim was that he didn't convert until after his college graduation. I find that a specious argument.
I do not know Obama personally so I have little grounds on which to judge the sincerity of his beliefs. I have read several statements he has made regarding his conversion and they seem sincere. His public life seem consistent with his professed beliefs.
As a follower of Christ, I am commanded not to judge him on this, as are you. Neither you nor I can KNOW what Obama or any one but ourselves really believes. I believe that in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, a Christian has the moral obligation to presume people believe what they claim they believe.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The Rabbit, you seem to be claiming that President Obama is a true-hearted convert to Christianity. If this is what you mean, then how do you know this? And I don't mean by anything he has said. Do you know this by anything that he has done, anything he has demonstrated? Does he show he is religious? About any religion?
That's a good point! Why, I'll bet he doesn't even go to church. Thanks for being such an insightful skeptic.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
The day America has an atheist President, that will be a day really worth blogging about.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
He has shown concern for the poor and for acting with justice. Those traits are not exclusive to Christianity, but are certainly consistent with it.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote:why did he spend 20 years in a church
Well, I'd say spending 20 years attending any church, praying, praising, singing hymns etc each week, means that you almost certainly believe in something. Twenty years is a long time. If you don't believe, why put in the effort?
As for 'dissing the "White Establishment', well, his vicar probably did and does. But there have been plenty of other churches and spiritual leaders I have come across who also have a bee in their bonnet about some pet cause, be it abortion, or gay people, and while they might rattle on about that in their sermon of a Sunday, they always get back to talking about God in the end. It's sort of their job.
quote: What DOES Obama really believe in?
Forgive me, I'm a heathen - but I always thought that for Christians, there was a belief that only one being in the universe could know the complete truth of everyone's mind and heart.
What have George Bush, or John MacCain done recently to prove to you without a shred of doubt that they are Christians?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:quote: What DOES Obama really believe in? Forgive me, I'm a heathen - but I always thought that for Christians, there was a belief that only one being in the universe could know the complete truth of everyone's mind and heart
Quite honestly, if we are talking about behavior as an indication of Christian devotion, then I have a lot more reason to question the devotion of Ron Lambert than Barack Obama.
By that standard, I'd have a hard time find enough devoted Christians to throw a party.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Chavez of Venezuela rejected his good-will overtures and called him an "Ignoramus." Iran and North Korea just use him as an excuse to heap more derision on America.
Whereas Chavez had nothing but good things to say about Bush...?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:quote: What DOES Obama really believe in? Forgive me, I'm a heathen - but I always thought that for Christians, there was a belief that only one being in the universe could know the complete truth of everyone's mind and heart
Quite honestly, if we are talking about behavior as an indication of Christian devotion, then I have a lot more reason to question the devotion of Ron Lambert than Barack Obama.
*snort*
---- Ron: See look right here,
quote:By the way, nobody could be more guilty of basing their thinking on "fallacious data and weak reasoning" than those who voted for Obama.
You basically said, "My opposition are all too idiotic for me to really respect their reasoning capabilities."
Why are you even bothering to speak to us, unless you think there is a choir somewhere that for whatever reason is unable to sing along with you? Or do you enjoy besmirching others just to see if you can get them to argue with you?
If there is a heaven where all the just go, I do not think you and I can exist there at the same time as things stand.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bella Bee: What have George Bush, or John MacCain done recently to prove to you without a shred of doubt that they are Christians?
To answer sarcastically as a caricature of Ron: "They were the Republican candidates."
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Can we stop answering as "caricatures" of other users?
This stuff is getting just petty, tiresome, and really reducing what has been, historically, a great signal-to-noise ratio at Hatrack.
-Bok
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Sorry, Bok. If someone says something like
quote:By the way, nobody could be more guilty of basing their thinking on "fallacious data and weak reasoning" than those who voted for Obama.
then they're offering themselves as fair game by being ugly and flippant over an issue important to people.
I reserve the right to be as callous towards their opinions as they are towards mine.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Sorry, Bok.
. . . and then the rest of the post makes it clear that you're actually not sorry at all.
*sigh*
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah, I'm sorry I disagree with his recommendation.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
The one thing he arguably did during his presidency that may have exacerbated the depression was try to manage the deficit during a financial crisis.
Post-Roosevelt, this has largely been shown to be a mistake.
Keynes has ruled the predominant economic theory past that: in a depression, spend.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That is hardly the only thing he did that may have exacerbated the depression. It was certainly a bad move, though.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Who he? And from where / how did these apparent nonsequiters originate?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
BlackBlade, perhaps you failed to notice, but when I said
quote:"fallacious data and weak reasoning"
I was quoting an insult The Rabbit gratuitously made to me, and I was merely throwing it back at him.
About the "judging" thing. This is typical of superficial readers of the Bible, who do not know how to take things in context. True, Jesus said: "Judge not, that ye be not judged." (Mat. 7:1) However, a few verses later, Jesus also said: "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." (v. 20) So apparently He did not mean we are not to excercize some intelligent discernment. The "judging" He was talking about in verse one must have referred to the judging involved in meting out punishment. Notice the context provided by verses 2 and 3: "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."
Bella Bee, what a political leader BELIEVES is the single most important thing about him, that we all must consider in order to rightly evaluate his fitness for leadership. If we do not do this, we are abdicating our responsibility to make an intelligent choice about whom to elect.
So I ask again. What does Barack Obama believe? And do not bother to quote what a politician says. With Obama especially, words demonstrably mean nothing. But you do not want to look at his past, do you? Not at his past associations, his past positions, his past actions. That would be to give credence to "Republican smears," right? So you think it is OK just to believe anything that Obama says, and ignore any evidence to the contrary? Like: Obama claims it is not true, and just a Republican smear, that he launched his political career with a speech in the living room of William Ayers (the former Weather Underground terrorist who planted bombs in government facilities, and only got off because the FBI bungled the case, despite catching him in the act). But eyewitnesses who were there in Ayers' living room then say that it is true. Obama did give a speech to the people assembled there!
This is what disgusts me about Obama supporters. You don't seem to care about truth. You just want your propaganda to prevail, so your political hero or messiah can get elected. You still have no idea the harm you have done to our country, by electing as president a man who is so utterly unqualified. You just voted for another American Idol!
[ April 05, 2009, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:This is what disgusts me about Obama supporters. You don't seem to care about truth.
A point of distinction: not agreeing with you on what constitutes the Truth is not equivalent to not caring about Truth. FYI.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
If I am right, then it is. FYI.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
No, not even then. As a slightly ridiculous example:
I care deeply about people. One day, while out hunting, I accidentally shoot something that I think is a deer. I am wrong; I have shot a human being, who luckily is not dead. I would not have shot him, obviously, had I known he was a person, because I care about people.
Do you understand the distinction? There are individuals out here, Obama supporters, who are doing things that you think display a callous disregard for Truth -- when the reality is that they care deeply about Truth, but simply disagree with you about what the Truth happens to be.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: ... that he launched his political career with a speech in the living room of William Ayers ...
Out of curiosity, say Obama IS inspired/controlled/funded/following (take your pick) William Ayers. What does that mean? What kinds of signs should we be looking for that indicate a modern renewal of the Weather Underground movement?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Ron:
quote:I was quoting an insult The Rabbit gratuitously made to me, and I was merely throwing it back at him.
Just quick FYI but Rabbit is a woman, and quite an agreeable one at that. Laying aside whether it's polite to throw an argument back at somebody, you still seem to operate under the premise that Obama is so obviously weak, misguided, mischievous, and bad that only a fool could find cause to support him. He's been in office for a few months now, has he acted in a manner that justifies the deep disdain you have felt for him?
quote:About the "judging" thing. This is typical of superficial readers of the Bible, who do not know how to take things in context. True, Jesus said: "Judge not, that ye be not judged." (Mat. 7:1) However, a few verses later, Jesus also said: "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." (v. 20) So apparently He did not mean we are not to excercize some intelligent discernment. The "judging" He was talking about in verse one must have referred to the judging involved in meting out punishment. Notice the context provided by verses 2 and 3: "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."
I confess I am not sure how this connects with what I was saying with you. I hope you can make that clearer to me. As an aside I have never said we should never use judgment. And I can completely agree with the assertion "For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again." If you have judged supporters of Obama so harshly and in my opinion too hastily you yourself should expect little empathy or respect in how you see things.
Your opinions regarding Obama would hold a lot more stock IMHO if you could identify something genuinely positive about him. Not something like, "well he is certainly a good speaker that he can fool so many into blindly supporting him." But perhaps something like, "Only a very hard working and intelligent person could have surpassed so many other political heavy weights to get elected." or "Only somebody who appreciates intelligence in women would not feel intimidated by Michelle Obama."
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
As the mother of a disabled child, I was really hurt by his derisive remark about the Special Olympics. It was the casual way he made it that was especially cruel. His apology did little to assuage me. It also makes me worry about his feelings toward disabled people and if they will affect policy.
I was also appalled by the audiences' reaction.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mrs.M: As the mother of a disabled child, I was really hurt by his derisive remark about the Special Olympics. It was the casual way he made it that was especially cruel. His apology did little to assuage me. It also makes me worry about his feelings toward disabled people and if they will affect policy.
I was also appalled by the audiences' reaction.
I certainly don't wish to discredit your outrage against his statement, that's fully justified. I was appalled and disappointed by his comment and felt it was truly out of line. I also agree that his apology really didn't amount to much.
So while I think it's understandable that you feel animosity towards him stemming from that incident, I don't think you need to fear his opinions or policies in regard to the disabled for two reasons.
One, I have many friends who make jokes against other groups without feeling any real hatred for them. Part of the humor, in their eyes, is that it is edgy, but doesn't reflect their real views. I imagine this is kind of the view Obama has with that statement. It doesn't in any way decrease the offensive nature of his joke, but I do think it shouldn't reflect as heavily on the beliefs of the man. (Short-sighted nature, sure. Beliefs? Not so much.)
Two, Obama has countless advisors and staff. Even if Obama has a prejudice against the disabled, I'm pretty sure it would be kept in check by his advisors. I don't think that there will be anything done on the policy front that will have negative repercussions to the disabled. At the same time, I'm not positive that his agenda will try to bring additional assistance.
So while I'm with you completely on being angry with his joke, I don't think you have to fear his personal beliefs on the matter or how it will affect policy.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It seems pretty strange to me to grant that it's justified to be angry about such a joke, but not think there's a reason for that same person to fear the policies of the one who made the joke.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"What kinds of signs should we be looking for that indicate a modern renewal of the Weather Underground movement?"
[ April 05, 2009, 06:24 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It seems pretty strange to me to grant that it's justified to be angry about such a joke, but not think there's a reason for that same person to fear the policies of the one who made the joke.
I'm not saying there's not reason. The joke itself is reason enough to create some fear. I was merely trying to show that in spite of the joke, I don't think that we have to worry about the implications.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:From Ron: You still have no idea the harm you have done to our country, by electing as president a man who is so utterly unqualified. You just voted for another American Idol!
I'm voting Underwood/Daughtry in 2012.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'm not saying there's not reason. The joke itself is reason enough to create some fear. I was merely trying to show that in spite of the joke, I don't think that we have to worry about the implications.
I understand that...but why not?
One of your reasons why there isn't anything to fear is pretty flimsy: President Obama has lots of advisors. Well, who selects those advisors - or more appropriately who selects the people who select the advisors, depending on what level we're talking about?
So the idea that one should not be afraid of the implications of a man because the advisors that man selected will protect us from those implications...well, suffice to say I don't think that's very persuasive.
As for your other reason - it was just a joke - well, that's slightly less unpersuasive, but not by much, because I kind of seek a higher level of dialogue from the President. Even when it's lighthearted.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:You still have no idea the harm you have done to our country, by electing as president a man who is so utterly unqualified. You just voted for another American Idol!
The effectiveness of this statement is inversely proportionate to the pleasure you get in saying it, Ron.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ...because I kind of seek a higher level of dialogue from the President. Even when it's lighthearted.
I hope that for the most part, our President can live quite happily in a world of higher dialogue. But I'm also quite happy when he comes down and talks about his pick for March Madness. He's not a robot, and I don't think he should be expected to act like one 100% of the time.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I'm not saying there's not reason. The joke itself is reason enough to create some fear. I was merely trying to show that in spite of the joke, I don't think that we have to worry about the implications.
I understand that...but why not?
One of your reasons why there isn't anything to fear is pretty flimsy: President Obama has lots of advisors. Well, who selects those advisors - or more appropriately who selects the people who select the advisors, depending on what level we're talking about?
So the idea that one should not be afraid of the implications of a man because the advisors that man selected will protect us from those implications...well, suffice to say I don't think that's very persuasive.
As for your other reason - it was just a joke - well, that's slightly less unpersuasive, but not by much, because I kind of seek a higher level of dialogue from the President. Even when it's lighthearted.
The argument behind the advisors is that it is their job to make sure that that the President doesn't screw up policies. Making policies that work against the disabled hurts politically, so they try to make sure he doesn't do it. The odds are that he'd listen to his advisors better judgment in spite of his prejudices. I highly doubt that Obama had a litmus test when selecting his advisors and asked, "Are you interested in making policies that harm the disabled." There are some smart people in his administration, and I doubt that they're going to stay silent if he went for that agenda. Like I said earlier, I'm not sure his agenda will include improved government assistance for the disabled, but I really don't think people have to be afraid he'll go out on a rampage.
And on the second point, I want a higher level of dialogue from our President as well. I think the joke was in poor taste and he did a poor job trying to make up for it. That said, I don't think that the joke showed his true beliefs on the matter because there are many people who make those jokes just for the 'edgy' nature of them.
My purpose is not to say Obama did no harm. He screwed up and he hurt a lot of people's feelings. I'm simply saying that while it's cool to be ticked at him for the joke, I don't think we have to worry that he's going to destroy the programs aimed at helping the disabled.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I hope that for the most part, our President can live quite happily in a world of higher dialogue. But I'm also quite happy when he comes down and talks about his pick for March Madness. He's not a robot, and I don't think he should be expected to act like one 100% of the time.
I don't either, but this isn't just a matter of being upset he's not always minding his Ps and Qs.
quote:The argument behind the advisors is that it is their job to make sure that that the President doesn't screw up policies.
I understand the basis of the argument you're making. My point is that it's not persuasive, for the reasons I've given. Unless of course you're intended to persuade someone that the Obama Administration won't 'go on a rampage'...who was it who suggested they would?
quote:Like I said earlier, I'm not sure his agenda will include improved government assistance for the disabled, but I really don't think people have to be afraid he'll go out on a rampage.
If you're someone who believes that the government is negligent in what it does already, 'not improving' is actually pretty serious.
quote: And on the second point, I want a higher level of dialogue from our President as well. I think the joke was in poor taste and he did a poor job trying to make up for it. That said, I don't think that the joke showed his true beliefs on the matter because there are many people who make those jokes just for the 'edgy' nature of them.
Here's the thing, though: he wasn't cracking open some brews with his buddies or chilling next to the water cooler. I'm less likely to grant a substantive difference between 'short-sighted nature' and actual belief if someone talks a certain way in front of God and everybody, as the saying goes, rather than amongst close friends. It speaks to their perception of what the comfort level is.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
I don't disagree with any particular thing in your last post, so I don't see the point in continuing to argue against you. I agree that there's a difference between talking among close friends at to a larger audience of acquaintances, I also am one of those people that think sticking to the status quo on disability policy is a pretty serious mistake. You were also right that no one was saying Obama would go on a rampage. I misread the statement 'fear his views will affect his policy' as a fear that Obama would actively go against policy. That's my mistake, and I'm sorry that I read it wrong.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Here's the thing, though: he wasn't cracking open some brews with his buddies or chilling next to the water cooler. I'm less likely to grant a substantive difference between 'short-sighted nature' and actual belief if someone talks a certain way in front of God and everybody, as the saying goes, rather than amongst close friends. It speaks to their perception of what the comfort level is.
You know, one of Obama's strengths during the election was his ability to conduct himself in an interview as if he is speaking to a close friend. I think statements like this maybe a side effect of that informal style.
--j_k
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:You know, one of Obama's strengths during the election was his ability to conduct himself in an interview as if he is speaking to a close friend. I think statements like this maybe a side effect of that informal style.
So did he simply forget or overlook that he wasn't in an informal setting?
Informal isn't the word I'd use for his style of communication. And, just to be clear, that's not a criticism.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Frankly I think Obama's biggest public weakness is his propensity for being overly casual in unguarded interviews, which leads him to gaffes. Leno is the latest, but the first big profile one was the "clinging to guns and religion" comment which he made seemingly on home turf.
He's had much more success when he knows he has to be serious. The Leno interview was good, it was informative and funny, but one slip of the tongue that I think frankly millions and millions of people DON'T find offensive at all, and he's in the middle of a hoopla. He seems to think sometimes that when he's in front of talk show cameras (or the like), he can say things that don't get treated like they would if he's in front of the White House press corps cameras.
When I heard the Special Olympics comment, my first thought wasn't "My, that insensitive bastard," it was "Woah, he's going to get plastered by the talking heads."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The Leno interview was good, it was informative and funny, but one slip of the tongue that I think frankly millions and millions of people DON'T find offensive at all, and he's in the middle of a hoopla.
I didn't find it offensive for my own sake, either. But seeing Mrs. M's remarks makes me wonder. Were I the parent of a disabled kid myself, I doubt I'd be as thick-skinned about it as I am now.
Then I asked myself, "What does that matter?" and I'm having difficulty answering why it shouldn't matter.
Should it matter? Is joking about 'retards' something we shouldn't mind doing? *shrug* I guess I'm swayed towards the PC side of the Force on this one. And I'm not one to be concerned with not offending people for its own sake.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
It doesn't appear to have popped up in the discussion yet, so I'll jump in with some new news for everyone.
I saw Obama's speech Sunday in Prague, although I didn't go to the square because it was going to take a couple of hours to get past security- I did see the protests in Nove Mesto later in the day, however.
I asked my students (12th graders) about the speech the next day, and a lot of them had seen it, and were highly receptive to it. They were especially flattered by the time Barack took to praise the history of the Czech republic and mollify concerns over NATO and missile defense in central Europe. Czechs have been taking a cautious wait-and-see attitude towards Russian and US relations, and with good cause. The Czech Republic has been divvied up and sold and bartered for centuries without local control, so to hear such supplicating language from Obama was impressive, especially to the younger people I talked to. People here are very pessimistic about politics and world affairs in general, but that partly comes from a low national self-esteem- the fact that CZR as a nation had never really existed before very recently. Czechs have been used to trading one oppressor for another, but to hear Obama couch it as a partnership, speaking of Czechs in the way that American presidents often speak of the British, or other western Europeans, impressed a lot of people here.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Should it matter? Is joking about 'retards' something we shouldn't mind doing? *shrug* I guess I'm swayed towards the PC side of the Force on this one. And I'm not one to be concerned with not offending people for its own sake.
At the risk of appearing blind to all evil in regards to Obama, I didn't even think this was the point of the comment. It was that Leno was treating him like he was in the special olympics by saying "no, no, good job!" Obama was responding to the patronizing language. Perhaps that's not the best thing in the world to say in response to being patronized, but I didn't think Obama was making fun wholesale of retarded or disable people- he was after all, talking about his own lack of skill at bowling.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I would note that the phrase "joking about retards" is about three magnitudes more offensive than what Obama actually said.
Perhaps it's a Great Lakes thing; maybe in other states, people really do genuinely believe that the Special Olympics is an event that deserves nothing but solemn reverence or something -- but while it's not a joke I've made myself, this particular joke is made often in my circle of friends and, more importantly, is always made about oneself. It is, however, not a joke I'd expect the president to make.
The unfortunate thing about this, though, is that one of the things that was most bothering me about Obama as time went on is that he clearly started to become more and more circumspect and guarded in his appearances, when I firmly believe that we sorely need our presidents to be less guarded in their public statements. That he's learning to not say anything without running it by a focus group is a lesson I wish he could have done without, but I suppose it was inevitable.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I would note that the phrase "joking about retards" is about three magnitudes more offensive than what Obama actually said.
Really? A difference of opinion, then. I would agree that 'joking about retards' is more offensive than what was said, but not by as much as you're suggesting.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Perhaps it's a Great Lakes thing; maybe in other states, people really do genuinely believe that the Special Olympics is an event that deserves nothing but solemn reverence or something -- but while it's not a joke I've made myself, this particular joke is made often in my circle of friends and, more importantly, is always made about oneself.
You should get yourself some better friends.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
quote:At the risk of appearing blind to all evil in regards to Obama, I didn't even think this was the point of the comment. It was that Leno was treating him like he was in the special olympics by saying "no, no, good job!" Obama was responding to the patronizing language. Perhaps that's not the best thing in the world to say in response to being patronized, but I didn't think Obama was making fun wholesale of retarded or disable people- he was after all, talking about his own lack of skill at bowling.
Orincoro, yes, you are blind to anything negative about Obama. His comment was clearly meant to compare his bad bowling with the (incorrectly perceived) lack of skill of Special Olympics athletes. Simply take out the words "Special Olympics" and replace it with, say, "the CZR" and you'll see that it is insulting.
We don't patronize our athletes in the Special Olympics. They aren't unskilled in the sports in which they compete. In point of fact, President Obama would be soundly beaten by the athletes who compete in bowling.
quote:Perhaps it's a Great Lakes thing; maybe in other states, people really do genuinely believe that the Special Olympics is an event that deserves nothing but solemn reverence or something -- but while it's not a joke I've made myself, this particular joke is made often in my circle of friends and, more importantly, is always made about oneself.
Yes, Tom, we do genuinely believe that the Special Olympics deserves nothing but "solemn reverence or something." It's so distressing to me to hear that people often joke about them and that you think that's just fine. Do you honestly think it's okay if the joke is made about oneself? What does that even mean? That your friends only joke about how they'd fit right in to the Special Olympics because they stink at sports? Are stupid? You really think that isn't hurtful to the athletes or their families? My daughter might not understand if people are making fun of her, but I do and it breaks my heart. And don't think it's okay that you don't make any jokes yourself - if you don't let your friends know that they're out of line, you're just as guilty as they are.
I truly hope that you and your friends never have to go through the worry and stress and heartbreak that comes with having a disabled child. I hope your children never have to overcome the obstacles that my daughter and the Special Olympics athletes do. People like you and your friends make me so afraid for my daughter's future. I'd hope that y'all would have some compassion and decency and realize that there are some things that it is not okay to joke about.
I'm getting too upset, so I'll leave you with the oath of the Special Olypics: "Let me win. But if I cannot win, let me be brave in the attempt."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I would agree that 'joking about retards' is more offensive than what was said, but not by as much as you're suggesting.
Why? Where I come from, "retard" is a fighting word; "Special Olympian" certainly is not.
------
quote:Yes, Tom, we do genuinely believe that the Special Olympics deserves nothing but "solemn reverence or something." It's so distressing to me to hear that people often joke about them and that you think that's just fine.
Why not? Yes, Special Olympians deserve respect. What they do often requires Herculean amounts of willpower and training -- and even when it doesn't, the Special Olympics still serves a valuable purpose. But to suggest that joking about it should somehow be off-limits is ridiculous; it's like saying that people shouldn't make jokes about soldiers because soldiers are doing something important.
quote:People like you and your friends make me so afraid for my daughter's future.
Think about this for a second. Really? Why? Are you afraid that someone might joke with your daughter about how she's not particularly good at sports, and that this will somehow ruin her future? The thing is -- and I've refrained from saying this so far mainly out of respect for you -- the handful of Special Olympians I know personally are among the first to joke about the Special Olympics. They know they're not all necessarily competing to the same standard, and are -- depending on the individual, of course -- willing to laugh about it. If the hardest thing someone faces is having to live up to the realization that people aren't going to think they'll make it as a professional bowler, I'm not afraid for their future at all.
[ April 06, 2009, 09:04 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Why? Where I come from, "retard" is a fighting word; "Special Olympian" certainly is not.
Where you come from, are the two meant in any way differently? They're not where I come from, but I ain't from the Great Lakes:)
quote:Why not? Yes, Special Olympians deserve respect. What they do often requires Herculean amounts of willpower and training -- and even when it doesn't, the Special Olympics still serves a valuable purpose. But to suggest that joking about it should somehow be off-limits is ridiculous; it's like saying that people shouldn't make jokes about soldiers because soldiers are doing something important.
It's not like saying that at all. It's rather like saying people shouldn't make soldiers the butt of jokes because they're doing something good and worthy of respect.
quote: quote:People like you and your friends make me so afraid for my daughter's future.
Think about this for a second. Really? Why? Are you afraid that someone might joke with your daughter about how she's not particularly good at sports, and that this will somehow ruin her future? The thing is -- and I've refrained from saying this so far mainly out of respect for you -- the handful of Special Olympians I know personally are among the first to joke about the Special Olympics. They know they're not all necessarily competing to the same standard, and are -- depending on the individual, of course -- willing to laugh about it. If the hardest thing someone faces is having to live up to the realization that people aren't going to think they'll make it as a professional bowler, I'm not afraid for their future at all.
Heh, you realize what you just said, right Tom? The disabled-perjorative equivalent of, "Well black people say ni@#er too, so why can't I?"
ETA: The thing you don't appear to be addressing isn't that Mrs. M (and she'll correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure) isn't worried about her daughter's future because people say her daughter won't be good at bowling. I suspect she is concerned about her daughter's future simply because many (most) people think it's OK to make fun of her - directly or indirectly - and not consider it harmful.
You're a smart guy, Tom, so I'm having trouble thinking you didn't realize that, that you actually believe Mrs. M's post was about not wanting people to make fun of her daughter's skill at bowling.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I suspect she is concerned about her daughter's future simply because many (most) people think it's OK to make fun of her - directly or indirectly - and not consider it harmful.
And what I'm trying to get across is that the "Special Olympian" joke, as it's usually delivered, is not actually aimed at Special Olympians. I wouldn't consider its use to necessarily betray any deep-seated dislike of the the demographic, unlike the use of the word "nigger."
That said, like I've said, I think it's impolitic. I think it's a stretch to worry about resulting policy as a consequence, though.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
quote:ETA: The thing you don't appear to be addressing isn't that Mrs. M (and she'll correct me if I'm wrong, I'm sure) isn't worried about her daughter's future because people say her daughter won't be good at bowling. I suspect she is concerned about her daughter's future simply because many (most) people think it's OK to make fun of her - directly or indirectly - and not consider it harmful.
Exactly.
And as it happens, my Aerin is actually freakishly athletic. So much so that the instructors at the childrens' gym we attend want her to move to a competitive gymnastics program at 3 years old (we're not). She's always been graceful and coordinated, but she can't talk. There's a good chance that she'll have to communicate using an electronic device. I live in fear that people will be put off by it and/or mock her for it.
And, Tom, it's very different to make fun of someone who understands what you're saying. You may know Special Olympics athletes who are very high functioning, but many of them are not. If you say something mean about my intellect, say, I'll understand what you mean. I'll be able to shrug it off because I know that I'm not stupid. My daughter wouldn't understand why you were laughing at her if you mocked her athletic ability. She wouldn't be able to shrug it off because she's great at sports. All she would know is that you are making fun of her and it would hurt her.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mrs.M: It's so distressing to me to hear that people often joke about them and that you think that's just fine.
I've heard the same jokes as Tom, and they are not jokes about the Special Olympics. Nor are Special Olympians, to use Rakeesh's phrase, the "butt" of the jokes. The most common phrasing I've heard is "Yeah, I'm not exactly an Olympic level skier. Not even Special Olympics." Is it offensive, once you stop to think about it or if you have a previous association with the Special Olympics? Absolutely. But are the people who make the joke thinking about the people who compete in the Special Olympics when they say it? No, they aren't. It's offensive in exactly the same way someone saying "You throw/run like a girl" is sexist. Doesn't mean the person saying it has anything against female athletes, does mean they haven't thought through the implications of the statement, and definitely requires an apology if a public figure says it.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
quote:And what I'm trying to get across is that the "Special Olympian" joke, as it's usually delivered, is not actually aimed at Special Olympians.
Yes, it is. You may not want to think that it is, but it is. If you say, "I'm as bad at bowling as a Special Olympics athletes," you are saying that the athletes are bad at bowling. Your main point might be that you yourself are bad at bowling, but you have also insulted someone else in the process. Saying, "I'm as cheap as a Jew," is insulting to Jews, even if your main point is that you yourself are cheap.
And "as it is usually delivered?" How much do your friends joke about the Special Olympics?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote: ... it's like saying that people shouldn't make jokes about soldiers because soldiers are doing something important.
It's not like saying that at all. It's rather like saying people shouldn't make soldiers the butt of jokes because they're doing something good and worthy of respect.
On the other hand, soldiers *are* made the butt of jokes and a lot, both mean-spirited or not. Same with regular Olympians as well.
If anything, around here people would shy away from making fun of the Special Olympics compared to the former two precisely because its so easy to sound offensive (and there are less scandals to point at, true).
(Not that I'm particularly advocating narrowing the gap, but thats at least my observation around here)
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
dkw, it's more than just thoughtlessness. What you're saying is that people you know use the Special Olympics to measure lack of skill. That's not right, it's not accurate, and it's callous and hurtful. It's never right to mock, however indirectly you think it is, people who can't defend themselves or understand the nuances of the "joke."
I think I should bow out of this thread now because I'm in tears and I'm more sad and hurt for my daughter than I've been in a long time.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mrs.M:
quote:And what I'm trying to get across is that the "Special Olympian" joke, as it's usually delivered, is not actually aimed at Special Olympians.
Yes, it is. You may not want to think that it is, but it is. If you say, "I'm as bad at bowling as a Special Olympics athletes," you are saying that the athletes are bad at bowling. Your main point might be that you yourself are bad at bowling, but you have also insulted someone else in the process. Saying, "I'm as cheap as a Jew," is insulting to Jews, even if your main point is that you yourself are cheap.
And "as it is usually delivered?" How much do your friends joke about the Special Olympics?
This is a fight you will never win. Aside from my feeling that even a self-imposed prohibition on black humor or blue and insulting humor would be worse for disabled people than what they are currently treated to, you will never be able to change the fact that the special olympics are treated, by design, as a different activity than the olympics. Jews don't have a seperate olympics, because there is nothing different about them that matters in sports. Not so for disabled people, and so they will always be seperated, and so, unfortunate though it is, they will always be treated differently. That part of human nature, I don't think you can change.
Now, the President shouldn't even be in that territory to make jokes, but as for us private citizens, you don't have much of a right to cast judgment based on our not being terribly offended by certain jokes. I don't make those kinds of jokes, but I also don't scorn those who do, if I feel that the sentiment is self-depricating, rather than malicious. It would be nice if it would all disappear, but I'd rather choose my battles.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mrs.M: dkw, it's more than just thoughtlessness. What you're saying is that people you know use the Special Olympics to measure lack of skill. That's not right, it's not accurate, and it's callous and hurtful. It's never right to mock, however indirectly you think it is, people who can't defend themselves or understand the nuances of the "joke."
No, that isn't what I'm saying. It is pure thoughtlessness. The reason I (or Tom) would never make that particular comment, though we've heard it often, is that we have thought about the indirect implication. The people who use it as an offhand comment have not. And if one of them said it in front of you and you said, "my daughter is a Special Olympian, and I don't appreciate you using her as an example of a low bar to meet" 99% of them would be horrified and apologize immediately. And a good number of them would never say it again. (Some might need to have a similar experience 2 or 3 times before it completely sunk in.) Someone without a personal connection saying something doesn't have the same impact. We're just accused of being "PC."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:She's always been graceful and coordinated, but she can't talk. There's a good chance that she'll have to communicate using an electronic device. I live in fear that people will be put off by it and/or mock her for it.
I'll be honest with you: some people will be put off by it and will mock her for it. This is going to happen. It will be absolutely regrettable, and your daughter will not deserve it, but it is inconceivable that she won't get crap from her peers about it. You cannot protect her from that. Don't fear it; expect it, and start now by teaching her how best to react when it happens.
And I want to be clear about this. I think this is a horrible, horrible thing -- but I don't think it's a battle you can fight, or even a battle worth fighting.
There was a kid in my elementary school who would regularly get kicked around because he had a lazy eye. I mean, seriously, a lazy eye; that was the only "abnormal" thing about him, in any way, except one: he reacted badly when people teased him about it, and in so doing rewarded their negative attention with even more attention. And as a consequence, barely a day went by when he and some other kid didn't wind up in the Principal's Office.
It was brutally unfair. But by refusing to accept the unfairness of it, he made his life much, much harder for the two years I knew him.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:She's always been graceful and coordinated, but she can't talk. There's a good chance that she'll have to communicate using an electronic device. I live in fear that people will be put off by it and/or mock her for it.
I'll be honest with you: some people will be put off by it and will mock her for it. This is going to happen. It will be absolutely regrettable, and your daughter will not deserve it, but it is inconceivable that she won't get crap from her peers about it. You cannot protect her from that. Don't fear it; expect it, and start now by teaching her how best to react when it happens.
And I want to be clear about this. I think this is a horrible, horrible thing -- but I don't think it's a battle you can fight, or even a battle worth fighting.
There was a kid in my elementary school who would regularly get kicked around because he had a lazy eye. I mean, seriously, a lazy eye; that was the only "abnormal" thing about him, in any way, except one: he reacted badly when people teased him about it, and in so doing rewarded their negative attention with even more attention. And as a consequence, barely a day went by when he and some other kid didn't wind up in the Principal's Office.
It was brutally unfair. But by refusing to accept the unfairness of it, he made his life much, much harder for the two years I knew him.
I think the idea Tom is presenting is extremely important. Unless your child is like Ender in his/her ability to manipulate others, they require training to deal with people ridiculing them. I really wish my parents had done more for me than, "If somebody is mean to you just ignore them." That council failed me several times when I was growing up, thank God I figured out my way out of it, but it was a long lonely road.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:It was brutally unfair. But by refusing to accept the unfairness of it, he made his life much, much harder for the two years I knew him.
This seems awfully cynical to me. Instead of claiming that people should accept the unfairness, why not focus on the unfairness and change that? Seems like a much better answer to me.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:This is a fight you will never win. Aside from my feeling that even a self-imposed prohibition on black humor or blue and insulting humor would be worse for disabled people than what they are currently treated to, you will never be able to change the fact that the special olympics are treated, by design, as a different activity than the olympics. Jews don't have a seperate olympics, because there is nothing different about them that matters in sports. Not so for disabled people, and so they will always be seperated, and so, unfortunate though it is, they will always be treated differently. That part of human nature, I don't think you can change.
This argument is remarkable in its lack of persuasion in light of how many times people have said much the same things about other groups, relying at heart most on the idea that 'human nature won't change'.
quote: Now, the President shouldn't even be in that territory to make jokes, but as for us private citizens, you don't have much of a right to cast judgment based on our not being terribly offended by certain jokes. I don't make those kinds of jokes, but I also don't scorn those who do, if I feel that the sentiment is self-depricating, rather than malicious. It would be nice if it would all disappear, but I'd rather choose my battles.
What a strange statement. Mrs. M doesn't have the right to be offended at enjoyment of jokes at the expense of disabled people? She's not talking about making them illegal unless I'm very much mistaken. The question is whether something can be primarily meant in a self-deprecating way and also be completely free from any spiteful or prejudiced coloring as well. You apparently think it can. If I can venture a guess, Mrs. M (and, to an extent, myself) doubt that claim.
-----
Tom,
quote: quote:She's always been graceful and coordinated, but she can't talk. There's a good chance that she'll have to communicate using an electronic device. I live in fear that people will be put off by it and/or mock her for it.
I'll be honest with you: some people will be put off by it and will mock her for it. This is going to happen. It will be absolutely regrettable, and your daughter will not deserve it, but it is inconceivable that she won't get crap from her peers about it. You cannot protect her from that. Don't fear it; expect it, and start now by teaching her how best to react when it happens.
It seems, to put it lightly, unlikely that Mrs. M, being so far as I can tell not complete ignorant of human nature and foresight, hasn't considered that.
Anyway, is it a battle she can fight or win? Who knows? I admit you're probably right that it won't be won. Should that be a bar towards trying? Is any battle over matters of human perspective and human nature ever truly won?
Once upon a time, it was considered just a fact of life that girls were bad at math. Just a part of the human condition. Better at cooking, not so great at converting the fractions involved in recipes. That was a battle I suspect at one time seemed completely unwinnable, and I have no doubt fighting it made many lives much more unpleasant than they would otherwise have been.
----------
quote:No, that isn't what I'm saying. It is pure thoughtlessness. The reason I (or Tom) would never make that particular comment, though we've heard it often, is that we have thought about the indirect implication. The people who use it as an offhand comment have not. And if one of them said it in front of you and you said, "my daughter is a Special Olympian, and I don't appreciate you using her as an example of a low bar to meet" 99% of them would be horrified and apologize immediately. And a good number of them would never say it again. (Some might need to have a similar experience 2 or 3 times before it completely sunk in.) Someone without a personal connection saying something doesn't have the same impact. We're just accused of being "PC."
This, I agree with. It just seems strange to me that the advice of so many people seems to be, "Don't point it out."
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Humean316:
quote:It was brutally unfair. But by refusing to accept the unfairness of it, he made his life much, much harder for the two years I knew him.
This seems awfully cynical to me. Instead of claiming that people should accept the unfairness, why not focus on the unfairness and change that? Seems like a much better answer to me.
The naivity is just so cute.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The naivity is just so cute.
Well, it's jebus talking so I'm totally uncertain whether or not you're being serious.
That said, there's nothing naive about what Humean said. He makes no claims about whether it will be easy or even possible. Fighting for a lost cause when you know it's lost ain't naive, it's gutsy.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I have a family friend who has Down Syndrome and competed and won a gold medal in the 4x25 swimming relay in the Special Olympics in Beijing in 2007. It was a great thing. I'm enormously proud of him and think the Special Olympics is a great program.
But anyone who claims that the Special Olympics don't pander to mentally disabled people is either ignorant to the facts or suffering from selective blindness. My friend is good swimmer, but he isn't a world class swimmer by any standard except Special Olympics standards. The very fastest swimmers in the Beijing Special Olympics, had times 50% longer than swimmers in the regular Olympics. That makes them very good swimmers, but not good enough to be winning a regular international competition. What's more, the Special Olympics are divided up into divisions so that everyone competes in a group that is at the same level they are. Each division in the Beijing Olympics had at most 6 swimmers. My friend's team that won the gold medal, finished with a time that was fastest in their division but was also 40 seconds slower than the fastest time in all divisions.
One goal of the special Olympics is to build self esteem and that's done by rewarding many people whose performances would not be noteworthy in general competition. The special Olympics are in part about making everyone feel like they've done a good job.
I listened to the tape of Obama's comment on Leno a couple times now. To me, it doesn't sound like he is comparing his bowling skills to the bowling skills of Special Olympians -- it sounds like he is comparing the praise he is getting for a mediocre (but much improved) bowling score to the praise given to Special Olympians. If that is the case, its a completely just comparison. The Special Olympics do in fact give praise and awards to lots of people whose athleticism would not be noteworthy if they were not mentally disabled. And while that kind of praise is appropriate in the context of the Special Olympics, it just isn't appropriate for the President of the US. He does need us to build his esteem, that makes it pandering.
Now I can see how people could read the comment the other way, as a comparison of his bowling skills to the skills of special Olympians. And if that was how it was intended, then it was inappropriate. But at least consider the possibility that my interpretation is correct before you jump to concluding that Obama was bashing disabled people or is insensitive to their needs.
Certainly, no matter how the comment was intended, it wasn't a particularly sensitive thing to say particularly since Special Olympians are often the butt of very insulting jokes. But occasionally making a comment that can be taken wrong is not the same as being insensitive to the issue.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Sorry, Bok. If someone says something like
quote:By the way, nobody could be more guilty of basing their thinking on "fallacious data and weak reasoning" than those who voted for Obama.
then they're offering themselves as fair game by being ugly and flippant over an issue important to people.
I reserve the right to be as callous towards their opinions as they are towards mine.
Why did a certain WarGames quote spring to mind when I read this?
-Bok
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:The naivity is just so cute.
Well, it's jebus talking so I'm totally uncertain whether or not you're being serious.
That said, there's nothing naive about what Humean said. He makes no claims about whether it will be easy or even possible. Fighting for a lost cause when you know it's lost ain't naive, it's gutsy.
It's totally naive. The world will never be a perfect place. Brushing aside what Tom said about how necessary it is to be realistic of the unfairness of life will lead to nothing but more pain and suffering. The world won't be rose-coloured no matter what colour the glasses are.
That doesn't mean it's not worthy to fight to make the world better in whatever small measure is possible, it just means reality still needs to be faced head-on rather than pining for kindness and justice for all.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Humean316:
quote:It was brutally unfair. But by refusing to accept the unfairness of it, he made his life much, much harder for the two years I knew him.
This seems awfully cynical to me. Instead of claiming that people should accept the unfairness, why not focus on the unfairness and change that? Seems like a much better answer to me.
I think a realistic response to this is to try to deal with both sides of the problem. The day we don't have to worry about ridicule is the day people cease to have any evil in their natures. That's not going to happen, and so people need to recognize that they are going to be maltreated unfairly, and that there is still a way to live ones' live happily in spite of it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:It's totally naive. The world will never be a perfect place. Brushing aside what Tom said about how necessary it is to be realistic of the unfairness of life will lead to nothing but more pain and suffering. The world won't be rose-coloured no matter what colour the glasses are.
No, it's not. What Humean said had nothing to do with believing the world would ever be a perfect place. Furthermore, I didn't brush aside what Tom said, I expressed doubt that Mrs. M hadn't already considered it.
quote:That doesn't mean it's not worthy to fight to make the world better in whatever small measure is possible, it just means reality still needs to be faced head-on rather than pining for kindness and justice for all.
Facing reality head on doesn't preclude fighting to make the world a better place in something more than the 'small measure possible'.
Or, as (no kidding) a fortune cookie told me yesterday, "Better is the enemy of good."
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: [QB]
quote:It's totally naive. The world will never be a perfect place. Brushing aside what Tom said about how necessary it is to be realistic of the unfairness of life will lead to nothing but more pain and suffering. The world won't be rose-coloured no matter what colour the glasses are.
No, it's not. What Humean said had nothing to do with believing the world would ever be a perfect place.
Agreed.
On a completely different note, I want to post a few links:
During the election, Gov. Palin and Sen. McCain were criticized for the extreme rhetoric they were employing and the hysteria they were inciting at some of their rallies. In a world that faces numerable problems and an economy that is creating more and more of the homeless and desperate, angry and hateful rhetoric can be tremendously damaging and have many unintended and negative consequences. Of course, calls for armed revolutions, comparisons of Obama to Hitler and socialism, a populist rage that has enveloped some, and entertainers who see fear and hate as tools for ratings and popularity aren't new to the political and social fabric of America, but what is new is that few, if any, are there to temper the debate and plead for rational discourse. In some sense, that is the fault of Obama himself because he has failed to lead that minority that is angry right now, but I also think the situation speaks ill of the Republican Party itself. I believe that this country works best when we have two, strong and intelligent political parties with rational ideas and rhetoric to match, and yet, Republicans are no where to be found when a member of their own party, a congresswoman from Minnesota, calls for an armed revolution.
So what do we have to do to fix the problem? Not only do I think we have to temper the anger and fear many Americans maintain these days (I think that's part of Obama's job in the next few weeks), but I think we need strong and principled Republicans to stand up to the extremists in their own party and present to the American people a rational Republican Party. In some sense, after being defeated in two straight elections, Republicans faced a power vacuum that they allowed to be filled by people like Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, and the extreme wing of their own party. Much like the argument faced by many moderate Muslims about the extreme wing of their faith, Republicans have to stand up and take back their party and their ideas from the extremists, they have to denounce, like John McCain finally did during the election, those who would use fear and anger to prosper or advance an extreme agenda. We need the Republican party to be strong again.
And it would be great if they could do it before someone gets hurt.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:It's totally naive. The world will never be a perfect place. Brushing aside what Tom said about how necessary it is to be realistic of the unfairness of life will lead to nothing but more pain and suffering. The world won't be rose-coloured no matter what colour the glasses are.
No, it's not. What Humean said had nothing to do with believing the world would ever be a perfect place. Furthermore, I didn't brush aside what Tom said, I expressed doubt that Mrs. M hadn't already considered it.
Ok, but Humean's respose was: "why not focus on changing the unfairness instead of accepting it?" Which does specifically brushes aside what was being said (note, I said nothing about your own reaction to Tom's advice). Tom's point, and the one I agree with, is that it is incredibly important to accept the reality of the situation as it is now. That, I believe, is more important, in fact, than trying to change the world - in terms of an idividual's own happiness, at least.
quote:
quote:That doesn't mean it's not worthy to fight to make the world better in whatever small measure is possible, it just means reality still needs to be faced head-on rather than pining for kindness and justice for all.
Facing reality head on doesn't preclude fighting to make the world a better place in something more than the 'small measure possible'.
Or, as (no kidding) a fortune cookie told me yesterday, "Better is the enemy of good."
I didn't say it precluded it, I just think it's pointless in trying to change things that are unchangeable, which take time and effort away from things that can actually produce real, direct and quantifiable benefits.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
The Special Olympics comment was weirdly gross. I make a lot of off color jokes, but there is something jarring about hearing even a crack like that come out of an adult's mouth. Obama's glib joke doesn't seem that much better to me than the time Bush made a joke about a woman on Death Row.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I make a lot of off color jokes, but there is something jarring about hearing even a crack like that come out of an adult's mouth.
Aren't you an adult?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I take ownership of the jokes I say now, and I mean them, Even the ones that aren't nice. If I hear a kid make a joke about a disabled person, I'm more likely to blame the parents or the culture. With Obama, I think, how has he made it to almost fifty thinking in those terms.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think you can safely blame his parents and his culture.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Is this true? If so, I would like to know what the Obama supporters here have to say about it.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
*shrug* He already has to pray toward Mecca everyday.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*laugh* I love the wingnut's comments at the end of the article. They really make the piece: "The Saudi king, meanwhile, is a tyrannical entity to which Obama can subjugate his individuality – and through which he can vicariously experience a feeling of power and purpose. This is the process of negative identification that every leftist must practice and that 'United in Hate' documents is at the heart of every leftist's main driving force."
It is my ardent hope that another year of Obama will cause a wave of heart attacks that wipe out half the crazy people in the country. Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Off topic for a second - I think it says something about how people view intellectual and brain damage disability vs. physical disability - in how that Special Olympics seem to be less respected than the the Paralympics.
I think I've never heard anyone make a joke about Paralympians - probably because everyone is taught from an early age that it's not nice to make fun of the kid in the wheelchair. But apparently there's less awareness about the value of people with a mental disability. Which, I guess, is exactly what the Special Olympics are there to combat.
I must say, though, I wish they'd come up with a less condescending name than 'Special'.
As for Obama bowing to king Abdullah - well, at least it was polite. The US is trying to mend broken bridges with the Middle East, remember?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote: I think it says something about how people view intellectual and brain damage disability vs. physical disability - in how that Special Olympics seem to be less respected than the the Paralympics.
Really? My impression is that many people don't even necessarily know the difference between the two. Even though I'm familiar with both, a few times in this conversation my mind has equated "Special Olympics" with general disability.
As you mention, it's the "Special" part that people derive humor from, not the actual nature of the individuals involved. They should rename it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The idea that President Obama has to vicariously experience a feeling of power and purpose through anyone is pretty funny.
quote:Ok, but Humean's respose was: "why not focus on changing the unfairness instead of accepting it?" Which does specifically brushes aside what was being said (note, I said nothing about your own reaction to Tom's advice). Tom's point, and the one I agree with, is that it is incredibly important to accept the reality of the situation as it is now. That, I believe, is more important, in fact, than trying to change the world - in terms of an idividual's own happiness, at least.
You're getting pretty literal here, jebus. I think perhaps to continue this discussion we'd need a clarification from Humean on what exactly he meant. Right now we're not going off much, though you are technically correct.
Except in the implication that an individual's own happiness should be what we strive for and what we should encourage people to strive for.
quote:I didn't say it precluded it, I just think it's pointless in trying to change things that are unchangeable, which take time and effort away from things that can actually produce real, direct and quantifiable benefits.
Here's my point in a nutshell: there are hardly any major social or political rights which we take for granted today that weren't, at one time or another, considered completely impossible and utterly not worth fighting for (because they were impossible).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that the Special Olympics are more of a household name than the Paralympics. I am only vaguely aware of the Paralympics, but the Special Olympics are a household name. That could be a local thing, since we like to think of the Special Olympics as "ours". I agree that the name adds to the ease with which people make fun of it. It was a good name 40 years ago and would be hard to change now, I think.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:there are hardly any major social or political rights which we take for granted today that weren't, at one time or another, considered completely impossible and utterly not worth fighting for
Here's the first obvious problem with that analogy: there is no "right" being defended here.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Here's my point in a nutshell: there are hardly any major social or political rights which we take for granted today that weren't, at one time or another, considered completely impossible and utterly not worth fighting for (because they were impossible).
I think that is very true. I also think that parents of any child should prepare their children to face the world as it is (while working toward what it should be) without letting it break their hearts. I have every hope that Mrs.M is doing just that, but the fact that even a fairly mild conversation about it was too much for her to bear worries me.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Here's the first obvious problem with that analogy: there is no "right" being defended here.
Please, go on to articulate the other obvious problems.
Whether there's a right involved or not has pretty much nothing to do with the point I was making: that many, maybe even most, of the good things in life - rights or privileges or what have you - we take for granted today were at some time in some place considered impossible and not worthy of striving towards.
--------
quote:I think that is very true. I also think that parents of any child should prepare their children to face the world as it is (while working toward what it should be) without letting it break their hearts. I have every hope that Mrs.M is doing just that, but the fact that even a fairly mild conversation about it was too much for her to bear worries me.
Goodness, it's fortunate for Mrs. M then that you and Tom are here to advise her on this matter.
That's pretty snarky, I know. But the sheer presumption that she isn't taking this very basic and fundamental step towards helping her daughter deal with a difficult world is very off-putting to me, and I don't even know the lady.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You will notice that I didn't make that assumption - "I have every hope that Mrs.M is doing just that" - despite the fact that she couldn't even manage to emotionally cope with the conversation here.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote: I think it says something about how people view intellectual and brain damage disability vs. physical disability - in how that Special Olympics seem to be less respected than the the Paralympics.
Really? My impression is that many people don't even necessarily know the difference between the two. Even though I'm familiar with both, a few times in this conversation my mind has equated "Special Olympics" with general disability. ...
I admit that I didn't even know that there were two. I just assumed that Special Olympics was just an odd synonym for the Paralympics.
Doing some Googling, it seems that reason for that perception is that the Paralympics are much much more international and have a closer association with the real Olympics mirroring times, infrastructure, and host events. The Special Olympics seems to be very American-centric.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:You will notice that I didn't make that assumption - "I have every hope that Mrs.M is doing just that" - despite the fact that she couldn't even manage to emotionally cope with the conversation here.
Well, actually, saying you have 'worries' and that you have 'every hope'...that's not really the same thing as saying, "I think she's doing it." And of course things like 'couldn't even manage'.
Maybe she just didn't feel like it at that particular time? She got upset about something she read online. That's a really crappy basis to call into question someone's parenting.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I neither think she is or that she isn't. I think you are reading a tone that is not intended. I don't know Mrs.M well enough to make such a personal judgement.
And, even if I did have an opinion one way or the other, it would not be her parenting in general that I was questioning, it would be one specific thing which would be the ability to teach her child not to get upset by insensitivity to people with disabilities. That Mrs.M could not do this herself on this particular occasion is not a good sign.
However, anyone can have a bad day, it is often harder to bear hurt to your children than it is to bear it for yourself, and parents can often teach their children things in which they themselves are not expert.
Given the extraordinary devotion that Mrs.M gives to her children,* I continue to have every hope that she is teaching her children what they need.
*ETA: That much I am willing to surmise.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I neither think she is or that she isn't. I think you are reading a tone that is not intended.
If you say so, I'll accept it as an accurate reflection of your feelings on the matter. Inflections of meaning are difficult to get across solely in print after all, and I know I'm misread too sometimes.
On that subject, I'll just reiterate though that saying things like 'I have worries', 'I have every hope that', and 'couldn't even manage' don't actually present (IMO) the message you meant to convey.
quote:...it would be one specific thing which would be the ability to teach her child not to get upset by insensitivity to people with disabilities. That Mrs.M could not do this herself on this particular occasion is not a good sign.
It's almost a completely inconclusive sign without any other knowledge is what my point was. If you grant that even someone who knows something can have a bad day and forget it, and that someone can know something yet forget it if a mistake is made towards a loved one, etc., then someone forgetting something they know - in and of itself - doesn't signify much.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Try reading "every hope" as "every expectation" plus the sentiment that the expected thing is a good thing. Thus "hoped" rather than the value neutral "expected".
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote: I think it says something about how people view intellectual and brain damage disability vs. physical disability - in how that Special Olympics seem to be less respected than the the Paralympics.
Really? My impression is that many people don't even necessarily know the difference between the two. Even though I'm familiar with both, a few times in this conversation my mind has equated "Special Olympics" with general disability.
I don't think the level of respect given Paralympians vs. Special Olympians has the slightest bit to do with how we view physical and mental impairment. It has much more to do with the differences in the nature of the games themselves.
The Paralympics were held in Salt Lake City in 2002 following the Winter Olympics. I was living there at the time and heard many explanation about how the Paralympics were not at all like the Special Olympics. And those explanation were valid and justified giving far more respect to the athleticism of Paralympians.
The goal of the Paralympics is to recognize the strongest, fastest, most skilled physically impaired athletes in the world. In the Paralympics, the different divisions are based on different physical disabilities. So for example in down hill skiing, there is a division for people with only one leg and a division for people with no legs, there are several divisions for blind skiers depending on how severely their vision is impaired. Paralympians are without question world class athletes. The person who wins the down hill ski race in the division for people with one leg, is in fact the fastest one legged skier on the planet (at least on that day). When you go to see the Paralympics, you will see very impressive athleticism, some of the best in the world. Most of the performances you see at the Paralympics are truly impressive, even when compared to "able bodied" athletes.
But this just isn't true in the Special Olympics. Special Olympians are not, for the most part, world class athletes. The goal of the Special Olympics is not to recognize the strongest or fastest mentally impaired athletes in the world. The primary goals of the Special Olympics are to build self esteem and foster social skills. The division in the Special Olympics aren't based on the degree of disability of the competitors, they are based on the competitors performance in qualifying and preliminary rounds. Every one gets put into a division with people who are roughly at their level. In the Special Olympics, people get rewarded with Gold medals for performances that are mediocre -- even within the context of mentally impaired athletes. The Special Olympics don't honor excellent athleticism. That isn't the point of the Special Olympics.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Is this true? If so, I would like to know what the Obama supporters here have to say about it.
Are you upset that John Adams rehearsed the very complicated procedure for approaching King George III? It was a maneuver that involved bowing several times and reverencing the king while drawing closer. Bear in mind this was the very king we were revolting against, does it bring Mr. Adams patriotism into question?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
John Adams bowed to King George when he was the US ambassador, not the POTUS.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: John Adams bowed to King George when he was the US ambassador, not the POTUS.
The POTUS is the "chief ambassador."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
But official ambassador is not POTUS.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: But official ambassador is not POTUS.
You're hurting my head Porter. I'm just saying as chief ambassador there is no impropriety with the President using a token of great respect that another culture prefers. If down the road they become friends and kiss each other on the cheek that won't bother me either.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I think there are likely some things that would be appropriate for an US ambassador to do that would not be appropriate for the POTUS, even in his role as chief ambassador, to do.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: I think there are likely some things that would be appropriate for an US ambassador to do that would not be appropriate for the POTUS, even in his role as chief ambassador, to do.
Perhaps. Do you think Obamas' bow to the king of Saudi Arabia was one of those things?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Perhaps. I am undecided.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Americans do not bow to any earthly monarch. That is what America means NOW. Anyone who does not affirm this, is not worthy of calling himself an American.
At the 1908 Olympics in London, where countries were asked to dip their flag to King Edward VII of the United Kingdom as they passed by the king's review stand, the American team captain Martin Sheridan refused, famously proclaiming that "this flag dips to no earthly king.")
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Is this true? If so, I would like to know what the Obama supporters here have to say about it.
Why should I have anything to say about it? Why should anyone care?
The US President treats foreign leader with respect -- what's wrong with that? Why does it bother you?
Now if he starts letting the King of Saudia Arabia dictate US policy, that would bother me. If he exempted the King of Saudia Arabia from US security regulations or prosecution for crimes committed that would bother me -- but bowing??
Get real, find something real to complain about.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
The Rabbit, some of us are fiercely patriotic. You live in a free country because of people like us. You do not even seem to know what patriotism is, or why it is important. Nor do you see the American ideal and democracy itself as actual moral causes to be defended at all costs. That is what we have against you.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: The US President treats foreign leader with respect -- what's wrong with that? Why does it bother you?
It's bothersome because of the association of such bowing in this culture not with the showing of respect, but of obeisance.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:The Rabbit, some of us are fiercely patriotic. You live in a free country because of people like us.
Are you sure that she does? Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I'm not even convinced it was a bow. It looked to me like he reached for something with his left hand at an awkward moment.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Yea obviously he just saw a penny on the ground and reached down to pick it up then decided it wasn't the right place to do so. The fact that his left hand actually never moves in no way contradicts this theory.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Looks like you're right, his hand doesn't move. I'd best go read up on Sharia law.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Looked like a gesture of politeness rather than of deference.
It might irk me on a basic level, as I don't think heads of state should really bow to one another, at least, not without reciprocation, but I don't think he insulted America or anything by doing so. Is is really that much different than Bush holding hands with him?
Like Rabbit said, a bow is one thing, but letting him actually dictate policy is where I'd jump in. But then, that's really just a surface issue.
Saudis have been controlling many US policies for decades. Ironically, Obama is more likely than Bush or any previous president since Carter to enact policy that will LIMIT Saudi influence on American policy, and yet Ron is worried about a bow. Oy. Dig a little deeper buddy.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: Saudis have been controlling many US policies for decades.
That's a bit incomplete, Lyrhawn. Or do you imagine with the metric sh@#-tons of money flowing from us to them there isn't control of them as well as from them, too?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Not nearly enough to even pretend that it's equal. It's not as if we're paying from control, it's more like they're extracting money from us.
The intel we get from them is valuable, but they certainly get money for that value. They manipulate our energy policy by flooding the world with cheap oil (low grade sure, but it's still in high volumes), then through OPEC they turn off the spigots to drive up the price and collect, but then deliver a one-two combo that ensures we'll never invest in the money necessary to break their hold over our energy needs. They give large amounts of money to congressional campaigns from both parties, and hire dozens of lobbyists to represent their interests. And there's that market flooding thing. They attack an ignorant short sighted populace with cheap prices, and they attack the people representing them with the money the population just gave them because of high oil prices! It's an almost hilarious cycle that has them bribing Congress with constituent funding.
To say nothing of the fact that thanks to us, they have one of the best trained, best equipped armies in the region, if not the actual most powerful. We can say, well gee, the fact that Iran is their most likely enemy in the region and that also happens to be OUR most likely enemy as well does nothing to detract from the fact that the money we send over there (and the money they have in general) is used to fund schools that preach anti-Western rhetoric, which is ensuring that this cycle of west/east violence won't end this or the next generation.
In other words, yes, the relationship is give take, but nothing they are doing is harming them long term. They're getting everything they want for a pretty good price. We're making a devil's bargain, trading away future safety and giving up a measure of autonomy for an extremely high price. Yes, there's more to the story than that, but I think it's pretty telling that every time Bush asked for a public favor during his presidency he was flatly rejected. Just because they serve as an anti-Iran bulwark and do our torturing for us, it doesn't mean we're controlling them. It means we're sharing in the benefits of things they'd do whether we asked them or not.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I agree they're getting a pretty good deal.
Though I wonder what you'd be willing to do about it should the painful and lengthy but necessary process of conservation and alternative energy switching prove insufficient.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Is is really that much different than Bush holding hands with him?
Does bowing send a different message than holding hands? Yes, it definitely does.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:The Rabbit, some of us are fiercely patriotic. You live in a free country because of people like us. You do not even seem to know what patriotism is, or why it is important. Nor do you see the American ideal and democracy itself as actual moral causes to be defended at all costs. That is what we have against you.
I sometimes wonder if *you* know what any of those words mean Ron. Sometimes, the measure of a person is not what they believe but how they think of those who believe differently. I understand that you are angry at the world and I understand that you believe our little experiment in our new President is an absolute nightmare, but I think the hatred you embrace is antithetical to all that you seek to defend.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I agree they're getting a pretty good deal.
Though I wonder what you'd be willing to do about it should the painful and lengthy but necessary process of conservation and alternative energy switching prove insufficient.
I don't think we'll totally cut off relations with them. I think the intelligence they provide is important, though I think we should recognize the ways with which they attain it. And I think they could be a sort of enemy of my enemy is my friend type of ally in the region. But they aren't our friends, and they aren't really our allies.
Frankly I don't really think that those efforts will prove insufficient. I agree it'll be a long and painful process, but between domestic sources, Canadian and Mexican oil, and the changes we'll make, I don't think it's at all unrealistic to expect that in the mid distant future, getting off Saudi or even all OPEC oil will happen.
Besides, some of Saudi Arabia's largest oil fields are starting to either run try, or produce drastically more water than oil per barrel pumped. 20 years from now we'll be getting more oil from Brazil than Saudi Arabia anyway, which makes the point somewhat moot, but the faster we can switch away, the freer our foreign policy and energy related policy can be to serve OUR needs, both long and short term, rather than theirs in their terms.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Is is really that much different than Bush holding hands with him?
Does bowing send a different message than holding hands? Yes, it definitely does.
Substantively, specific to this instance, I disagree.
Generally, you might be right, but I think there's a vast gray area in which these two behaviors overlap and put themselves on opposite sides of the spectrum at the same time. He wasn't kowtowing before him.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Holding hands is inherently reciprocal. Bowing, both in general and in this specific case, is not.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The Rabbit, some of us are fiercely patriotic. You live in a free country because of people like us. You do not even seem to know what patriotism is, or why it is important. Nor do you see the American ideal and democracy itself as actual moral causes to be defended at all costs. That is what we have against you.
What??? Because it doesn't bother me that the US President shows deference to the customs of other countries and respect for their leaders, I don't know or understand the ideal of democracy as something to defend.
[ April 08, 2009, 07:20 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What bothers me about the incident is this: Obama, as far as I can tell, either has complete incompetents working for him at State or is being deliberately sabotaged by them. His highest-profile, legitimate missteps have all so far been on issues of protocol -- which is to some extent to be expected, given his situation, but which is also something that the State Department is supposed to have a whole herd of people to ensure doesn't happen.
Americans have never been particularly good at protocol -- Bush's neckrubs always made me cringe -- but Obama gives the impression that there isn't anybody out there taking him to one side and saying, "Now this is what you're supposed to do when..." I can't believe Clinton still has her job.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Good points, Tom. He very well might have incompetents working for him or is being deliberately sabotaged, as you said. Someone apparently neglected to clue Michelle into the fact that under no circumstances is the Queen of England to be touched. Yet she threw her arms around the Queen and hugged her.
Then, as you alluded, there was that gift that Sec of State Clinton publically presented to the Russian leader, which had a Russian word on it that was supposed to mean "Reset," but actually meant "over-charge." Someone should have been fired over that!
There is a real mystery here about the lapses in protocol, what is going on?
But also considering how many of his cabinet appointees had to withdraw their names after being found out to have past problems with paying their taxes, you wonder if anybody is doing any vetting of proposed candidates.
If a president is this frequently ill-served, then he must be choosing the wrong servants, which means the responsibility comes back on him.
After all this, how can foreign government leaders not be looking upon any delegation from the American Administration as being "Amateur Hour"?
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Good points, Tom. He very well might have incompetents working for him or is being deliberately sabotaged, as you said. Someone apparently neglected to clue Michelle into the fact that under no circumstances is the Queen of England to be touched. Yet she threw her arms around the Queen and hugged her.
Then, as you alluded, there was that gift that Sec of State Clinton publically presented to the Russian leader, which had a Russian word on it that was supposed to mean "Reset," but actually meant "over-charge." Someone should have been fired over that!
There is a real mystery here about the lapses in protocol, what is going on?
But also considering how many of his cabinet appointees had to withdraw their names after being found out to have past problems with paying their taxes, you wonder if anybody is doing any vetting of proposed candidates.
If a president is this frequently ill-served, then he must be choosing the wrong servants, which means the responsibility comes back on him.
After all this, how can foreign government leaders not be looking upon any delegation from the American Administration as being "Amateur Hour"?
To be fair, the queen hugged Michelle first.
But on the whole, I agree that we certainly are looking amateurish, but then again, we do have a new administration. I'd hope that the folks are learning very quickly from these mistakes and they won't repeat them in the future. I almost imagine the Aaron Sorkin West Wingesque dialogue going on during these incidents.
(President Obama approaches the King and bows. Two staffers start to say no, and wave their hands in hopes of catching his attention in time but to no avail.) "The President just bowed." "Think anyone noticed?" "I don't know... there's a camera over there." "We're screwed." "Well, you are at least. It was your job to teach the President protocol." "I better go pack my desk up." "Dude, we're out of country." "...Oh... Right."
(Rahm Emanuel sees the Clinton gaff on his television in his office.)
"DONNA!"
When I think of the gaffes in that light with poor helpless staffers feeling the pain, I'm entertained by them like I was with the show. I really probably shouldn't be, but its better than being angry with something I have no control over.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:The Obama administration is “invoking government secrecy in defending the Bush administration’s wiretapping program” against a lawsuit brought by AT&T customers who claim “federal agents illegally intercepted their phone calls and gained access to their records.” Justice Department lawyers yesterday demanded dismissal of a lawsuit brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation against Bush officials, arguing that the information constitutes privileged “state secrets.”
I'm so disappointed. Obama is going to lose a lot of his progressive and grassroots support with more decisions like this. And the republicans will continue to not vote for his agenda. I don't understand who this will help.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The Rabbit, some of us are fiercely patriotic. You live in a free country because of people like us. You do not even seem to know what patriotism is, or why it is important. Nor do you see the American ideal and democracy itself as actual moral causes to be defended at all costs. That is what we have against you.
I don't know which is worse: your cluelessness in regards to the notions of patriotism that you cloak yourself in, or your arrogant callousness towards people who (thankfully) keep your wild notions in check.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Frankly I don't really think that those efforts will prove insufficient.
I hope you're right.
It'd be a helluva gamble, though.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:When I think of the gaffes in that light with poor helpless staffers feeling the pain, I'm entertained by them like I was with the show. I really probably shouldn't be, but its better than being angry with something I have no control over.
I admit I do this too. When I hear about news or things I can just see the President and the staffers in their roles running around doing stuff, making phone calls.
Re: The Queen incident.
Americans get away with a lot when it comes to royalty. And I think they are "allowed" to get away with it when it comes to the British monarchy because of their history and because they don't buy into any of this ridiculous formality stuff.
When the British PM makes a gaffe though (which, according to the movie The Queen, Tony Blair did) it's a different kettle of fish.
I do not think the queen needs the kind of reverence when it comes to protocol that people seem to give to her. She's just a person wearing a sparkly hat. She was probably charmed by the spontaneity of the visiting Americans.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Frankly I don't really think that those efforts will prove insufficient.
I hope you're right.
It'd be a helluva gamble, though.
There's a lot to be hopeful about. I don't think it's so much a gamble as it is a matter of will. We know what levels of technology are feasible for fuel efficiency in cars, we know that mass transit and alternative zoning reduces the overall need for driving and we already have a certain amount of oil from domestic as well as friendly allied sources.
The only real question I see is how quickly biofuels will come into their own. Corn ethanol is crap, we all know that (and thankfully the Secretary of Energy agrees), but there are a ton of different non food source crops that show a great deal of potential. They're only now getting significant investment and attention, and finally, federal attention as well as private. A lot of them are at the point of fine tuning and figuring out how to scale them up to commercial numbers.
We'll keep the status quo for now, but I don't see any reason why we couldn't be Saudi free in five or ten years. OPEC free? No, but Saudi Arabia is just one piece of a large network of suppliers, and in five or ten years, a great deal of new production will have come online, and none of that new production will be from Saudi Arabia. South America (Brazil) and Africa are the new emerging oil markets, not the Middle East.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
quote:The Obama administration is “invoking government secrecy in defending the Bush administration’s wiretapping program” against a lawsuit brought by AT&T customers who claim “federal agents illegally intercepted their phone calls and gained access to their records.” Justice Department lawyers yesterday demanded dismissal of a lawsuit brought by the Electronic Frontier Foundation against Bush officials, arguing that the information constitutes privileged “state secrets.”
I'm so disappointed. Obama is going to lose a lot of his progressive and grassroots support with more decisions like this. And the republicans will continue to not vote for his agenda. I don't understand who this will help.
He probably got into office and found out a lot of the reasons for what Bush did and agreed with him. You probably would too if you knew what they know. Secret is not always bad you know.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I actually have to agree with lobo here. I'd have to know more particulars of this case before I decide how I feel here. Bush was wrong for doing wiretaps without warrants. But there's still perfectly legitimate reasons for doing wiretaps WITH warrants and maintaining a degree of secrecy about it so criminals/terrorists can't work around our strategies to stop them.
Yes, a law was broken. Perhaps some (maybe even most) of the individuals who were spied on were perfectly harmless, but there are still those were, in fact, terrorists, and even offering a flat "settle out of court" payment to anyone who was wiretapped would give away which people the government was watching. Yes, I could see that as a threat to national security.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Here's the thing Raymond, there are perfectly legitimate reasons for doing wiretaps WITH warrants, but these are warrantless wiretaps we're talking about.
I agree, he might very well have gotten in and become privy to information that made him think these things should continue. I understand that. But fine, sell the idea to the American public. Convince us it's in our best interest to get behind you on this. Don't rally against it, campaign against it, and then slip this in without informing your supporters of why you're doing it.
I'm still part of the grassroots group that started way back last winter to support Obama, we're 180 people strong in our community and still highly active. Most of the members are fuming right now. We stayed together because of a direct request from Obama to maintain the group, continue to be active in our community and keep a two way communication going with the administration, and hold him accountable(his words). We're currently deciding the best way to voice our displeasure and we hope the two way part of this communication was truly meant.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I'm unclear on whether he was saying the policy of wiretaps without warrants would continue (I would highly disagree with that). My understanding was they were calling to dismiss a lawsuit on the ones that had already happened.
As I said, I'd have to know more particulars to make a final judgment call here. But if my current understanding is correct I can see why a settlement (let alone trial) on those wiretaps could compromise security.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I really dislike this line.
quote:Moreover, the DOJ claims the Patriot Act bars lawsuits against “illegal government surveillance unless there is ‘willful disclosure’ of the illegally intercepted communications.”
I don't like the implications of that. I have to be fair here, cause if I read this coming from Bush's whitehouse I would have been livid.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I have already written a few angry letters on this topic.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
in this thread? or to elected officials?
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The Rabbit, some of us are fiercely patriotic. You live in a free country because of people like us. You do not even seem to know what patriotism is, or why it is important. Nor do you see the American ideal and democracy itself as actual moral causes to be defended at all costs. That is what we have against you.
And some of us have served, and come from highly decorated families, yet STILL do not agree with you.
YOU don't get to decide what being an American means to ME....that's what we are today, and hopefully will be always.
[ April 09, 2009, 12:04 AM: Message edited by: Kwea ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
To elected officials. And to MoveOn, explaining why I could no longer in good faith remain a member.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
interesting, what does this have to do with MoveOn?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Oh, man. I don't think you could pay me to be part of MoveOn.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: I'm still part of the grassroots group that started way back last winter to support Obama, we're 180 people strong in our community and still highly active. Most of the members are fuming right now. We stayed together because of a direct request from Obama to maintain the group, continue to be active in our community and keep a two way communication going with the administration, and hold him accountable(his words). We're currently deciding the best way to voice our displeasure and we hope the two way part of this communication was truly meant.
I would be very interested in knowing what, if anything, your group decides to do. I don't know why this is a surprise. He voted for this legislation, why would he not use it for himself? I'm sure there is a very carefully worded statement being prepared just in case this is actually covered by the MSM.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Between this and the stupid populist pandering on the AIG bonus thing, I'd have to say I'm disappointed by the job that President Obama is doing. Right now, he's in the "Will not vote for again" column for me.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
The AIG bonus thing is just insane for Obama. According to Dodd the Obama Administration told him to put in the amendment to authorize the bonuses. Then Obama gets outraged about AIG getting bonuses?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Good points, Tom. He very well might have incompetents working for him or is being deliberately sabotaged, as you said. Someone apparently neglected to clue Michelle into the fact that under no circumstances is the Queen of England to be touched. Yet she threw her arms around the Queen and hugged her.
Then, as you alluded, there was that gift that Sec of State Clinton publically presented to the Russian leader, which had a Russian word on it that was supposed to mean "Reset," but actually meant "over-charge." Someone should have been fired over that!
There is a real mystery here about the lapses in protocol, what is going on?
But also considering how many of his cabinet appointees had to withdraw their names after being found out to have past problems with paying their taxes, you wonder if anybody is doing any vetting of proposed candidates.
If a president is this frequently ill-served, then he must be choosing the wrong servants, which means the responsibility comes back on him.
After all this, how can foreign government leaders not be looking upon any delegation from the American Administration as being "Amateur Hour"?
THE QUEEN WAS TOUCHED!? HOW DARE YOU DIRTY AMERICANS LAY HAND UPON THE SACRED! SACRED!!!! Body of the Queen! THIS MEANS WAR!
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:what does this have to do with MoveOn?
Well, I've been disgruntled with them for a while. They started (IMO) quite nobly, but they've been an increasingly shrill and partisan bunch of rabble-rousers over the last two to three years. Their latest communications are the last straw; they're sending out emails explaining how we should be writing in to encourage the Obama administration to step in and force the firing of the CEO of the Bank of America -- and not sending out even a single email noting that Obama has, so far, managed to completely sidestep his promises of real procedural change. I believe this is the wrong priority for the group; MoveOn, no matter how partisan it may now be, shouldn't be about focusing attacks on private corporations, but rather about building up citizen action in response to federal missteps.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
You too ... can invest in the bailouts.
quote:During World War I, Americans were exhorted to buy Liberty Bonds to help their soldiers on the front.
Now, it seems, they will be asked to come to the aid of their banks — with the added inducement of possibly making some money for themselves.
As part of its sweeping plan to purge banks of troublesome assets, the Obama administration is encouraging several large investment companies to create the financial-crisis equivalent of war bonds: bailout funds.
Interesting
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
and the gov't backs these?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: Here's the thing Raymond, there are perfectly legitimate reasons for doing wiretaps WITH warrants, but these are warrantless wiretaps we're talking about.
I agree, he might very well have gotten in and become privy to information that made him think these things should continue. I understand that. But fine, sell the idea to the American public. Convince us it's in our best interest to get behind you on this. Don't rally against it, campaign against it, and then slip this in without informing your supporters of why you're doing it.
Yup.
Have written to congress people.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: The Olbermann segments, which are really worth watching, highlight the exact passages of the Obama DOJ's brief which I excerpted and posted on Monday, and underscore how intolerable the Obama administration's conduct in the area of transparency and civil liberties has increasingly become. Credit to Olbermann for highlighting this issue and commenting on it with such unrestrained candor. This should help galvanize greater action to make clear to the Obama administration that this conduct is completely unacceptable, and -- with Accountability Now, FDL and others -- I expect there to be some specific actions announced very shortly to begin pushing back, hard, against these serious transgressions
quote:The news media, either in the form of commentary or hard news, has a responsibility to remain within certain ethical boundaries, primarily because it operates in the context of the real world -- not to mention the prestige of being the only industry to be specifically listed in the Bill of Rights. Viewers, listeners and readers, for better or worse, take the news seriously because it's packaged and sold as an authoritative, credible and accurate delivery method for understanding and observing events both seen and unseen.
So it stands to reason that people might take Beck or Michele Bachmann seriously when they say, in the context of a news network and with convincing zeal, that President Obama is a Manchurian candidate and a Nazi who's shoving dissenters and children into concentration camps, and therefore we have an obligation to become "armed and dangerous" in order to save America.
At the same time, however, this form of commentary happens to be constitutionally protected speech and press. But even First Amendment absolutists will admit that freedom and responsibility aren't mutually exclusive. If you broadcast these sorts of outlandish ideas -- especially in a news forum -- you have a responsibility to own both the speech and its consequences. And if Beck chooses not to own what he says, he probably shouldn't be so outraged when people call him on his insanity or his lack of credibility or his unethical behavior.
On February 9th, 1950, speaking to a Republican women's group in Wheeling, West Virginia, Joseph McCarthy produced a piece of paper with a list of names of people who he believed to be Communists. He is quoted as saying: "I have here in my hand a list of 205, a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department." The reason I post this is because today I read this:
The anger and resent that grows in America today is the product of the multitude of problems the world faces today, and yet, the greatest problem we face may not be from Iran or from the economy, the greatest problem is in how that anger manifests. In the 50's we decided that the House Un-American Committee was the way to deal with the fear and anger than resounded across America and today some have decided that they will look to Glen Beck or Michelle Bachmann or Spencer Bachus to help them face that fear and anger. Fear and anger are powerful motivators but I hope that we as people can look to the past so that our future will be brighter.
[ April 09, 2009, 07:46 PM: Message edited by: Humean316 ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:In the 50's we decided that the House Un-American Committee was the way to deal with the fear and anger than resounded across America and today some have decided that they will look to Glen Beck or Michelle Bachmann or Max Bachus to help them face that fear and anger.
I believe you mean Rep. Spencer Bachus. Max Baucus is a democratic senator from Montana. It's not fair to confuse him with this hate monger solely because their last names sound the same.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:In the 50's we decided that the House Un-American Committee was the way to deal with the fear and anger than resounded across America and today some have decided that they will look to Glen Beck or Michelle Bachmann or Max Bachus to help them face that fear and anger.
I believe you mean Rep. Spencer Bachus. Max Baucus is a democratic senator from Montana. It's not fair to confuse him with this hate monger solely because their last names sound the same.
Ah I certainly do Rabbit, thank you for the correction. It shall be noted.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Glen Beck or Michelle Bachmann or Spencer Bachus
Hmm. Beck v. Bachmann in a crazy-off is something I would like to see.
Ann Coulter could be the ref.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:In the 50's we decided that the House Un-American Committee was the way to deal with the fear and anger than resounded across America and today some have decided that they will look to Glen Beck or Michelle Bachmann or Max Bachus to help them face that fear and anger.
I believe you mean Rep. Spencer Bachus. Max Baucus is a democratic senator from Montana. It's not fair to confuse him with this hate monger solely because their last names sound the same.
Do you know something I don't know? I can't find anything in Bachus' biography that would remotely indicate he's deserving of that sort of moniker. Are you reacting solely to his statement that there are members of the House that he considers socialists? Or is there more to it? The only remotely incendiary thing I found in my .2 seconds of web searching was calling Bill Maher's comments about the military "treasonous."
<edit>I see he's also been quite active in the anti-illegal immigration front (although honestly his rhetoric, if not his voting record, indicate a greater level of thoughtfulness than some of his House colleagues). Perhaps that's what you're reacting to?</edit>
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
As far as I can tell, almost everyone in the House is a socialist. It's just a matter of degree.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Obama already will get his first appointment it looks like, and with an overwhelming Senate majority, it looks like he might just have his pick of the litter rather than having to settle for a moderate.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
Wow, big news.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Surprising and unsurprising. I think Ginsberg and Stevens were waiting for a liberal president before they retired, which they have now, but I never thought Souter would be the first one out of the gate. I think before his first term is done he'll get to make three appointments, and if he's there for eight years, I could see a couple more people going too. This could be a big presidency for remaking the Court.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Actually, his "tax cuts for 95% of *working* Americans" was not exactly wrong, Fact Check just added some explanation that makes the number not seem quite as good as he was trying to make it sound. From the article you posted:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Obama said his stimulus program provides a tax cut for "95 percent of working households" and later said that a cut would go to 95 percent of "working families." That calls for some explanation. The key words are "working" and "cut."
He's referring to the "making work pay" refundable tax credit, which is only available to workers. As we pointed out previously on The FactCheck Wire, there would be no credit for retirees or those who are unemployed. A Tax Policy Center analysis found that a more modest 75.5 percent of all households would benefit, whether their members are working or not.
It is also questionable whether all of the tax refunds can properly be called "tax cuts." The credit is refundable and, therefore, is going to many who earn so little that they pay no federal income taxes in the first place. The White House calls them tax cuts, but the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office officially scores the bill’s refundable credits under "direct spending."
--A single worker with two jobs making $20,000 a year at each job will get a $400 boost in take-home pay at each of them, for a total of $800. That worker, however, is eligible for a maximum credit of $400, so the remaining $400 will have to be paid back at tax time -- either through a smaller refund or a payment to the IRS.
The IRS recognized there could be a similar problem for married couples if both spouses work, so it adjusted the withholding tables. The fix, however, was imperfect.
-- A married couple with a combined income of $50,000 is eligible for an $800 credit. However, if both spouses work and make more than $13,000, the new withholding tables give them each a $600 boost -- for a total of $1,200.
There were 33 million married couples in 2008 in which both spouses worked. That's 55 percent of all married couples, according to the Census Bureau.
-- A single college student with a part-time job making $10,000 would get a $400 boost in pay. However, if that student is claimed as a dependent on a parent's tax return, she doesn't qualify for the credit and would have to repay it when she files next year.
Some retirees face even bigger headaches.
The Social Security Administration is sending out $250 payments to more than 50 million retirees in May as part of the economic stimulus package. The payments will go to people who receive Social Security, Supplemental Security Income, railroad retirement benefits or veteran's disability benefits.
The payments are meant to provide a boost for people who don't qualify for the tax credit. However, they will go to retirees even if they have earned income and receive the credit. Those retirees will have the $250 payment deducted from their tax credit -- but not until they file their tax returns next year, long after the money may have been spent.
Retirees who have federal income taxes withheld from pension benefits also are getting an income boost as a result of the new withholding tables. However, pension benefits are not earned income, so they don't qualify for the tax credit. That money will have to paid back next year when tax returns are filed.
More than 20 million retirees and survivors receive payments from defined benefit pension plans, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute. However, it is unclear how many have federal taxes withheld from their payments.
Obama already will get his first appointment it looks like, and with an overwhelming Senate majority, it looks like he might just have his pick of the litter rather than having to settle for a moderate.
Which is unfortunate, I think our best justices (the honorable Justice Marshall excepting) have been the ones that were expected to lean one way and instead leaned the other.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Thats what Canada is for, our Supreme Justices are independent of whichever fall apart coalition of parties happens to be in power at the time.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
So, this is going to sound extremely sexist, but I would like to see him pick a woman. Even if Obama gets 3 picks and all three are women (assuming Ginsburg) leaves, that would only have 1/3 of the court as female. And I think that in many cases, gender does matter. For example, the recent strip search case- I think a woman is far more likely to understand the distress a 13 year old girl will feel being strip searched at school then a man will.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Obama's expected to appoint a woman, though I'm going to be disappointed if he does. Pick a GOOD justice, not a politically correct one.
Scalia, Thomas, and Alito are unfortunately going to be poisoning the SC for a very long time. Pick someone young, smart, and for god's sake competent.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
You're going to be disappointed if he does? What if the woman IS the good one?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I think he should look for a half hispanic, half black, obese, transgendered female just to cover all the bases. It's obvious qualifications don't really matter anymore, otherwise Obama never would've been elected.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Obama's expected to appoint a woman, though I'm going to be disappointed if he does. Pick a GOOD justice, not a politically correct one.
The implication is that those two are mutually exclusive. They are not.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
No, the implication is that he might pick his justice by type, not quality. If he finds an excellent woman candidate, fantastic. Ginsberg's been awesome. But it's just stupid to say he should pick a woman over an outstanding male candidate. And by extension, it's stupid to say he should pick a woman. The only qualities we're really looking for are intelligence and competence. Cases in point, Clarence Thomas and Harriet Miers.
I'm not well-versed on the qualities of different federal judges, so I'll wait until I hear some proposals from various sources. If there's an incredible person in the lineup who's passed over for a black/female/Latin candidate, I'm going to be upset.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Also, it's worth pointing out that this is by far one of the most embarrassing Supreme Courts we've had in a while. Justices in the past century have been outstanding (even ones I seriously disagree with), but started dying out in the 1980's with Reagan appointments. I pray to god the Rehnquist court is finally ending.
Scalia's the most outstanding example of judicial incompetence, but the Court as a whole has nowhere near the quality of former Courts. I'd love to see Obama restore the prestige of the SC by appointing a Black or a Douglas. I'd kill to have another Warren court.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Women seem to be the grand majority of the short lists I've seen floating around. There's a lot of talk about it being a women, or a woman and a minority, or just a minority.
I think they need to find the absolute best judge they can find, and it happens to be a women, then excellent. If they find two or three that are tied, and one is a woman, then I have no problem with making that the tie breaker. I think having a diverse court can result in better decisions, but their qualifications will always be the most important thing.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Yahoo has a story up about Obama looking to close tax loopholes for businesses. I don't know enough about any of that to really have an opinion, but I came to a dead stop when I read this.
quote: Obama also planned to ask Congress to crack down on tax havens and implement a major shift in the way courts view guilt. Under Obama's proposal, Americans would have to prove they were not breaking U.S. tax laws by sending money to banks that don't cooperate with tax officials. It essentially would reverse the long-held assumption of innocence in U.S. courts.
Surely the reporter got that bit wrong, right? Has anyone heard anything more official about what Obama's proposing?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Surely the reporter got that bit wrong, right? Has anyone heard anything more official about what Obama's proposing?
Don't call us Shirley....I would not doubt the report got it right. He is proposing that overseas banks sign up with our IRS and if they don't we will assume that they are guilty and we will take action.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by AvidReader: ... Has anyone heard anything more official about what Obama's proposing?
I don't know about your domestic side but on the international side I think its just part of the implementation of a move by the United States and some other European countries, notably France, back during the G20 to track down missing tax revenue due to tax havens.
quote:The most dramatic crackdown on tax havens was unveiled by G20 leaders at their summit today, paving the way for the naming and shaming of countries that fail to comply with internationally agreed standards.
Gordon Brown hailed the agreement as he issued a blunt warning to individuals and corporations that invest in renegade tax havens that their money will be unsafe.
"People will increasingly see that it is unsafe to be in a country which still wants to declare itself as a tax haven," the prime minister said.
"There will be no guarantee about the safety of funds there. If tax information is exchanged on request, as these countries have agreed to, then the benefits from being in these countries will diminish every day."
Within hours of the agreement, which was only concluded in the final minutes of the summit after a row between France and China, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development was issueing a list of countries that are failing to comply with its guidelines. The OECD – dubbed the rich countries' club – placed countries in four categories based on the actions they have taken to comply with the "internationally agreed tax standard"
quote:Americans would have to prove they were not breaking U.S. tax laws by sending money to banks that don't cooperate with tax officials. It essentially would reverse the long-held assumption of innocence in U.S. courts.
I know nothing of the details of this proposal but it is worth noting that there are already a myriad of instances under current tax laws where people are required to provide proof that they are adhering to the law. This would hardly be a precedent setting change.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
quote: ...it is worth noting that there are already a myriad of instances under current tax laws where people are required to provide proof that they are adhering to the law.
!!!
When did that get slipped past us? We should be ashamed of ourselves letting something like that go.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The President takes a reaaaaaaally looong time ordering food.
And I think Fox News hit a new low saying Barack Obama is "enjoying a murdered cow for a pagan meal" as their headlines.
Joe Biden came to save the day showing how to properly order food.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Daniel Effron and colleagues presented dozens of predominantly White undergrad students with one of two scenarios that would reveal their favouritism towards White people: one was a hiring decision, the other related to the allocation of funds to communities. Crucially, the students were asked to make their choices about the hiring or funding either before or after they had declared whether they planned to vote for Barack Obama, in what was then the upcoming Presidential election.
Students who declared their intention to vote for Obama before making the hiring/funding decisions subsequently showed more favouritism towards White people than did students who made their decisions first. A third study showed this effect was particularly apparent among more racially prejudiced students.
quote: We expected broken promises. But the gap between the soaring expectations that accompanied Barack Obama's inauguration and his wretched performance is the broadest such chasm in recent historical memory. This guy makes Bill Clinton look like a paragon of integrity and follow-through.
From healthcare to torture to the economy to war, Obama has reneged on pledges real and implied. So timid and so owned is he that he trembles in fear of offending, of all things, the government of Turkey. Obama has officially reneged on his campaign promise to acknowledge the Armenian genocide. When a president doesn't have the 'nads to annoy the Turks, why does he bother to show up for work in the morning?
Obama is useless. Worse than that, he's dangerous. Which is why, if he has any patriotism left after the thousands of meetings he has sat through with corporate contributors, blood-sucking lobbyists and corrupt politicians, he ought to step down now--before he drags us further into the abyss.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So, to clarify, you would like to see Obama resign because he hasn't followed through with enough of his campaign promises, DK? I find that surprising.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
I find it surprising that Ted Rall, not exactly a bastion of conservative ideals, has come out so strongly against Obama.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
And do you agree with him? Would you like to see Obama condemning the Armenian genocide and ending our recent tradition of indefinitely holding and torturing random dudes accused of stuff? Because, heck, it's hardly surprising that non-conservatives are ideologically more consistent and willing to criticize their leadership; that's been the case for as long as I've been alive, at the very least. What is surprising to me is that conservatives are apparently agreeing with non-conservatives about what Obama should be doing.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'm confused as to how somebody can be lambasted for not leading out while simultaneously being castigated for dragging us into an abyss.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
No kidding. Contrary to the hysterics of the conservatives, President Obama is not all that liberal. Better by a long shot than what we have had, though.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Since Ted Rall got mentioned in a Hatrack thread a few weeks ago, he's become my answer to anyone who claims that political hate-mongering is a peculiarly Republican trait.
Rather than a resignation, I'd appreciate some recognition that those campaign promises (and attacks on the opposition) were misguided. I thought Democrats were right when they castigated Bush for being unable to admit when he was wrong; I think the same is true in this case.
Also, here's a good article on the state-department diplomat who's trying to find homes for the Gitmo detainees. In the four and half months since Obama ordered GTMO closed, the US has successfully moved two detainees, one each to the UK and France. Besides the Uighars (who everyone wants released, just not in their back yard), there are about 30 other detainees who have been cleared for release, but cannot be sent home (because of danger of torture and death) and cannot be relocated to other countries, either. And that's not even considering the other 200-odd detainees who are deemed more likely to pose a threat to whatever country accepts them.
As the deadline approaches and options dwindle, I think there will be a moment of truth when Obama will have to decide whether to bring the rest of the detainees state-side (angering congressional Democrats, and probably causing some degree of public outcry), or send them to someplace like Bagram Air Force Base (where there's another, less politically radioactive, military detention facility). Or keep GTMO open and face the political firestorm.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: And do you agree with him?
If you are asking do I agree Obama should resign then my answer is yes. If you are asking to I agree with all the points in his article then no.
quote: Would you like to see Obama condemning the Armenian genocide
He promised he would do it and didn't.
quote: ending our recent tradition of indefinitely holding and torturing random dudes accused of stuff?
Very poor and poorly worded question since we did not do that. But then again you already knew that and are simply trying to sound clever. However, quoting from the article
quote: I refer here to Obama's plan for "preventive detentions." If a cop or other government official thinks you might want to commit a crime someday, you could be held in "prolonged detention." Reports in U.S. state-controlled media imply that Obama's shocking new policy would only apply to Islamic terrorists (or, in this case, wannabe Islamic terrorists, and also kinda-sorta-maybe-thinking-about-terrorism dudes). As if that made it OK.
Doesn't that bother you more than holding combatants we captured on the battlefield?
quote: Because, heck, it's hardly surprising that non-conservatives are ideologically more consistent and willing to criticize their leadership; that's been the case for as long as I've been alive, at the very least.
You forgot to add "In my opinion" because your statement is simply untrue and that's been the case for as long as I've been alive, at the very least. You make that false statement all the time. Where are all the non-conservatives speaking out against Obama now? Ted Rall is one but he is hardly well known.
quote: What is surprising to me is that conservatives are apparently agreeing with non-conservatives about what Obama should be doing.
Following your logic, it isn't surprising to conservatives that non-conservatives want Obama to resign because Obama is a poor leader.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Doesn't that bother you more than holding combatants we captured on the battlefield?
No. And you know why? Because we only had the administration's word for it that we were only holding combatants we captured on the battlefield. And since I know we also practiced "extraordinary rendition" -- which often involved kidnapping someone out of their home country to send them somewhere else, often somewhere they'd be tortured by thugs -- and know moreover that there were people held at Gitmo who were referred to us by local warlords just to get them out of the way, I know for a fact that we weren't just dealing with battlefield enemies.
quote:Where are all the non-conservatives speaking out against Obama now?
Try reading the non-conservative press some time. Or just wait. Obama's been a huge disappointment to the Left already, and the muttering started a while ago. It'll get loud within a year, I promise.
quote:Following your logic, it isn't surprising to conservatives that non-conservatives want Obama to resign because Obama is a poor leader.
Except that is surprising. Non-conservatives aren't complaining about Obama's leadership skills; they're complaining about what he's doing with them.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Many of us realize that it is harder and more complicated and slower to get out of messes than to get into them. It would be fabulous if, by the simple act of becoming president, Obama could undo all that had been done by President Bush.
ETA: That said, keeping political pressure on President Obama to do as much as possible is a good thing. Even if we realize that every thing we want is not possible.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I would settle for a a few things I want.
Kate, your optimism at this stage baffles me. On what are you basing it?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Many of us realize that it is harder and more complicated and slower to get out of messes than to get into them. It would be fabulous if, by the simple act of becoming president, Obama could undo all that had been done by President Bush.
That's a red herring, Kate. When he made the promises he was aware of the situation; it wasn't like his reversals are reactions to any changes in the state of affairs between the time of the campaign and the time of the inauguration. What changed wasn't the situation, it was Obama's position, his responsibility to his country, and his access to non-public information.
The truth is Obama got into office, realized Bush had (by and large) done a good job of figuring out a national security strategy that worked, and left most of it intact. Even decisions related to the <edit>torture</edit> debacle, like his reversal on the release of the torture photos, isn't dictated by the mess he found. He thought they should be released, but when he came to understand the situation more fully he realized that the Bush administration had made the right call. His reversal wasn't dictated by some mess that sprang up, it was dictated by his changed perspective.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Goodness that didn't sound optimistic at all. "we should keep pusking for what we want even if getting it is impossible"?
Even if President Obama wanted to do all the things we want, Congress is still (stupidly) being an obstacle.
He values intelligence and hearing other points of view. That is an improvement right there. And, seriously, who would have been doing better, right now? DO you think you would be getting more of what you want with someone else?
ETA: SenojRetep, that doesn't take into account that under Obama we wouldn't have gotten into those messes in the first place. We wouldn't have been torturing people at Abu Ghraib because we wouldn't have been there.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I've had a lot of ups and downs in the short few months that Obama has been in office, though I confess that I'm not paying nearly as much attention to politics now as I was during the election. I'm too busy with school at the moment to focus much extra attention, and maybe I'm also a little burned out.
For the moment I'm in a holding pattern of cautious optimism. For everyone who says "but look what he hasn't done yet!" I'll just remind them that he's only been in office for four months, give or take. Economists are predicting an end to the recession by the end of the year or the middle of next year, healthcare reform is likely to be tackled this Summer, probably major climate change legislation by next year (at the latest, given a like EPA standard that business fears even more), and more. He's been focusing a lot more on Israel/Palestine in the opening weeks and months of his presidency, rather than a last ditch end of term attempt to fix things at the last minute like Bush did.
And at the same time, I've had some disappointments. $50 billion plus to keep GM going? Surely there had to be a cheaper option. I say that as a metro Detroiter who'd like to not see southeast Michigan turn into something out of Mad Max, but geez, I'd have rather seen him spend $25 billion on green energy money to turn the area into the world's leader in environmental manufacturing and technology rather than propping up GM. I thought that was a poor use of a lot of money.
But resign? Please, you have to be kidding me. I don't necessarily have any huge problems yet with his handling of foreign policy. I haven't seen any major new pushes, and I'm waiting for a few. I think things are going to get really interesting when push comes to shove and American soldiers have to retreat from Iraqi cities next month. What's going on in Afghanistan and Pakistan right now is near the top of my foreign policy list, and he seems pretty keenly tuned in to a delicate situation. Despite his tenuous hold on the country's government, and the fact that it teeters on the verge of collapse, they're still fighting insurgents in the Swat valley, which is more than Bush was ever able to get them to do.
As far as Guantanamo detainees go, there's actually a community in Montana that wants them, but neither Montana's governor, senator, or state rep are in favor of it. There's a gleaming, brand spanking new maximum security facility there with zero inmates, and they want the federal dollars that would come with housing them there. Everyone is saying no reflexively though. Given some of the psychos we've housed in our prisons, I'm surprised at the reaction. The facility is out in the middle of nowhere. In the offchance that someone were to escape, do we really think that he'd be able to blend in with rural Montanans? I don't think he'd make it very far.
quote:The truth is Obama got into office, realized Bush had (by and large) done a good job of figuring out a national security strategy that worked, and left most of it intact.
Talk about an overstatement...
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:The truth is Obama got into office, realized Bush had (by and large) done a good job of figuring out a national security strategy that worked, and left most of it intact.
Talk about an overstatement...
Sorry, I realized after the post that I should have qualified that, but was away from my computer. Although I'm not as big a detractor as many of Bush's decisions during his first term, I freely admit that much of his foreign policy was terrible. I think he made significant strides in his second term, which few give him credit for. That was what I meant by having done a good job of figuring out a national security strategy that worked. And if you want to dispute that, I guess you could, but I think Obama (in action, if not in rhetoric) is on my side.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And, seriously, who would have been doing better, right now? DO you think you would be getting more of what you want with someone else?
That's not what I voted for. I actually held my nose voting for Obama because he's more liberal than I would like, but I had hoped that he sincerely meant his statements about change, transparency, ethical conduct, etc.
I said at the time that I was skeptical, but that I thought it was worth risking four years on a long shot. He has certainly justified my skepticism.
I know it's inevitable that any candidate who makes it that far is going to be beholden to pragmatism above all, but it's still disappointing to me.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well, yes. But I think that those things don't get changed overnight and they aren't going to be changed by one person. I think the fact that he at least wants those things (or even sees them as desirable enough to pretend to want them) is a good sign compared to our other choices.
ETA: SenojRetep, I do acknowledge that President Bush started to see the error of his ways in the last two years of his administration.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Am I an Obama nut? No.
Yet it seems to me that most of the week complaints fired at President Obama can be divided into two areas.
1) He's too liberal.
2) He's not liberal enough.
As a moderate I say, sounds about right.
From the "He's too liberal" side comes what I can mostly write off as Sour Grape attacks.
From the "He's not liberal enough" side comes what I detect as a whiney, "But I want it NOW!" that my son quit trying to use on me after he turned 7.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't think I fall into either of those two complaints, but I've been very disappointed with President Obama's actions so far. The populist scapegoating, reneging on promises without even acknowledging that he is doing so, let alone explaining why it is necessary, and the failures in accountability and transparency have all given me a poor opinion of his administration so far.
Yes, he's better than George Bush, but "better than one of the worst Presidents in history" isn't something I regard as an impressive standard.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I don't want it now. I want it whenever. And Obama has already made it clear that many of the things that I wanted, and which he promised to deliver, are not things he ever intends to do.
I didn't accept that kind of thing from Bush, and I won't accept it from him. In fact, I'll demand from him the same thing I demanded from Bush, and didn't get: a full and honest explanation of why those things cannot be done.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Good! Keep demanding. I intend to.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Are you going to use the "contact us" option on the whitehouse.gov page? Or are you going to write letters? How are you going to demand these things?
Cause, if you DO write something, I bet a whole lot of hatrackers would love to sign and distribute your letter for more signatures. I think a lot of people who voted for Obama are unhappy with many of his decisions not to change things he said he would.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I usually use the contact us thingy. I also am on the mailing list of about a bazillion different liberal groups* that do exactly what you suggest.
I also write to my congresswoman (though she gets it) and to Senator Durbin, not Burris. I don't really count Burris. The congress needs to move, too. Even if President Obama was working as hard as he could on exactly what I want him to work on, congress has to do the same.
Write your congress people.
*I am happy to suggest some of these mailing lists if people want them. The downside is you get a lot of email, the upside is that with a few clicks of a mouse, you can email lots of people.
[ June 02, 2009, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Yeah, I write my congress people and I've written Obama using the contact us option. I happen to think Tom is more eloquent on these issues than I am, and would probably write something I would love to sign, which would also express better than I could what I think of what Obama is doing.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:I don't want it now. I want it whenever. And Obama has already made it clear that many of the things that I wanted, and which he promised to deliver, are not things he ever intends to do.
Just out of curiosity, what has faltered on in your eyes?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:what has faltered on in your eyes?
Not to be flippant, but what hasn't he faltered on, as far as things like transparency are concerned? He's very aggressively and effectively installed people beholden to the mainstream Democratic establishment, but has done little else.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:what has faltered on in your eyes?
Not to be flippant, but what hasn't he faltered on, as far as things like transparency are concerned? He's very aggressively and effectively installed people beholden to the mainstream Democratic establishment, but has done little else.
Can you give a list, though? Some of the things that would be on my list I have had satisfactory explanations for.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
I knew they'd do this, or something like it, sooner or later.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:what has faltered on in your eyes?
Not to be flippant, but what hasn't he faltered on, as far as things like transparency are concerned? He's very aggressively and effectively installed people beholden to the mainstream Democratic establishment, but has done little else.
Im neither defending nor opposing Obama, but you made a claim and I just wondered why you made the claim. So what has he done that you didn't like with regards to transparency? I mean clearly if you are going to be that emphatic about something then you clearly have many, many reasons and I was just wondering what they are. They might even be things I agree with.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I knew they'd do this, or something like it, sooner or later.
I'll believe it when I actually hear him or Gibbs say it.
But if it's true...that's a stunning betrayal of campaign principles. Even if they limit it to the wealthy, that would amount to a huge new tax on the wealthy of this country, and while I'm not against a slight raise in their tax rates, this I think would be unreasonably large. Those struggling to come up with a way to pay for healthcare benefits can't afford a tax, those who are barely treading water and are thanking their lucky stars every day for their healthcare can't afford a tax. That really just leads the wealthy, and we can't foist off the financial burden for solving every problem on them.
I have a hard time believing this is true. I think there's a slight difference between not doing things you said you would and doing things you specifically railed against. I find the latter more objectionable.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The article linked says that President Obama doesn't want this. He can't do health care reform without Congress. Which would be worse - limiting but not eliminating the tax free status of empoyer provided health care or no health care reform at all? I don't really know. Getting taxed on health care would suck. The situation as it is now is pretty untenable, too. Does it make political sense to at least consider Sen Baucus's proposal? Or would that lead to less cooperation from Congress?
My suggestion - contact your senators. Especially if you live in Montana.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
Why hasn't President Obama commented on the shooting at an Army recruitment center in Arkansas? One soldier, Pvt. William Long, was killed and another, Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula, was gravely wounded. They were 24 and 18 years old, respectively. We are close with many military families and they are feeling very hurt and betrayed by Pres. Obama's silence.
I wouldn't have even heard about this if it weren't for friends of ours. Why is this not news?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Um....Why should it be news? The president doesn't comment every time someone's shot at a DMV or IRS office.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Uh, Tom, how often does that happen? Besides, DMV is a state agency, and nobody likes the IRS.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
He commented very quickly on the killing of Dr. Tiller, for one. Secondly, these soldiers were shot on American soil by a convert to extremist Islam.
I don't understand your point. Why wouldn't he comment on a killing at the DMV or IRS? I think it would be completely appropriate for the POTUS to comment on the murder of a government employee in the line of duty.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I think it would be completely appropriate for the POTUS to comment on the murder of a government employee in the line of duty.
The "line of duty" here seems an odd way to put it. I mean, if someone comes into the server room and shoots me, I suppose you could argue that I was killed in the "line of duty," but I think the phrase is considerably more meaningful if the duty in question is one that is expected to have a significant chance of death.
I wouldn't expect him to comment because -- at the level we're talking about -- it's not particularly important. People are shot and killed all the time for ridiculously stupid reasons, and the federal government is the largest employer in the country. Commenting on the on-the-job death of every federal employee doesn't seem like a good use of the president's time, especially since he's almost certain not to have known that employee in any way.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
American soldiers are killed by Islamic extremists on American soil all the time, Tom?
Mrs. M clearly isn't asking why Pres. Obama isn't commenting on every federal employee death, or even every American soldier death. These particular deaths, however, are clearly rather unusual circumstances to say the least.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
If they're unusual in any way, they're unusual in that they might be indicative of a larger conspiracy. (If they're not, if they're just a random nut striking out in a ridiculous fashion against the nearest target of his dissatisfaction -- and from what I've heard, this is not necessarily the case -- they're definitely not unusual. So then the question becomes: is there a larger issue that should be addressed? If so, how can you address that issue in a sensitive way? It's not like the president can come out and say, "Hey, look, there are more constructive ways to deal with your feelings of abandonment than converting to Islam, joining a terrorist cell in Yemen, and shooting two random recruiters.")
If they are part of a conspiracy, I want to hear law enforcement giving us details as they become known. This latter model is pretty much what's happening, so I don't see the problem.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
There's also the fact that the guy had an arsenal in his vehicle, and told the police that he planned to use it to kill as many soldiers as he could when he was apprehended. I think it's a pretty newsworthy attack, but I can understand why Obama wouldn't want to mention it right before his goodwill speech in Cairo.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The speech will begin shortly.
Predictions on what he will say range from very low to very high. Many are saying that this speech will merely be yet another display of soaring rhetoric, with no major punches and no concrete promises or solutions. While the effects Obama might have on the Muslim world as a goodwill ambassador might be noteworthy, many are expecting nothing short of a game changing speech with concrete demands and plans for Israel/Palestine, American support for Middle Eastern dictators, and the US relationship with Islam in the Middle East.
Personally I'm leaning towards the low expectations side. He isn't going to ruffle any feathers over there because he needs Saudi support for a broad coalition against Iran, and for that matter, there are too many elections being held (Iran and Lebanon) in the next week or two that could have some pretty big effects on anything Obama might want to do. There'll be no antagonism on the issue of civil and political rights, which is sad because so many Middle Easterners claim it's their number one issue.
I think you'll hear a lot of "America is a friend to Islam" and "Mr. Netanyahu, tear down that wall!" with regards to the security fence and illegal settlements in the West Bank. He'll try to sound a little tougher on Israel, a little tougher on the Mid-East, and at the same time, not really say much of anything at all. It IS a big opportunity, but with so many things up in the air, were he to really take a tough, concrete stance on something, someone that we need is going to get pissed off. Whether it's threatening Israel to get them to capitulate on settlements, or threatening Saudi Arabia on the issue of civil rights, he'll pay a price. That's to say nothing of the huge political damage he might suffer at home for whatever he might say about Israel at a time when he's about to launch a summer domestic policy offensive. Personally, i think if he was going to say anything that might risk strained relations with those aligned with AIPAC, now is the BEST time to do it. Waiting four years until after he's been elected again, IF that happens, is too long, and he can't wait 8 years like Bush did. Attack the problem now, then at least he has a few years to see how things pan out and to explain his actions to the American people. He might win more support for doing something than he'll lose by acting against interest groups demands. But I don't see that happening.
To sum it up: He ain't gonna rock the boat.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
As a sort of running commentary...
I like that he acknowledged at the beginning the bad blood between Islam and the West. I liked his running list of Islam's best moments, and his emphasizing of Muslims in America. It's good to remind people of America's diversity (yeah, ignoring the problems inherent in such a diverse nation, but I'm okay with that).
His applause lines thus far I think have all been appropriate, though I don't think all of them are applause lines. A lot of this seems to be spontaneous. I'd be careful with the American pom-pom waving though. It's true that we aren't a stereotype, but promoting the best points of our national philosophies rings hollow to those who know that where the rubber meets the road, it's not so rosy all the time.
"Words alone aren't cannot meet the needs of our people," hm, maybe I was wrong, he will do something concrete. Okay, from the looks of things, he's actually laying out an agenda. Interesting. Hey, I almost nailed the "America is not at war with Islam" line. Tough language on Afghanistan and 9/11. I thought some of that would depress the enthusiasm of the crowd, but a couple quotes from the Qu'ran got a lot of applause. Nice concrete details on the humanitarian and infrastructure details for Afghan people.
Now he's drawing a line on Iraq. He's confirming all the agreements for troop withdrawal, which I personally like to hear. Lots of applause for no torture and no Guantanamo.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
And we're on to the second major problem, Arab/Israeli relations. A very unsubtle swipe at Ahmadinijad here with talk about the holocaust and holocaust denial. Biggest applause yet for affirmation of America's desire to help Palestinians. Reaffirming America's desire for a two-state solution. He'll take heat for more or less legitimizing Hamas, though I roll my eyes at that. They're legitimate whether we like it or not. Hey, there's the finger wag at illegal settlements. That got an applause, where the finger wag at Hamas didn't, which is surprising from an Egyptian audience. Calling on the Arab states to recognize Israel is kind of a no duh moment. Most of them have already expressed willingness to do so, when conditions are met, but the reminder isn't so bad for Israelis listening at home.
I can already hear someone shouting about Obama saying "the home of the three great faiths." I like that he mentioned the commonality of Abrahamic religions.
The third issue of tension is nuclear weapons, so here's the Iran section of the speech. Lots of applause for nuclear disarmament.
The fourth issue is democracy, which got applause before he even went into it. I guess I was wrong, maybe he's going for it. He didn't go into specifics, but I'm glad he reaffirmed the basic principles of democracy, human rights and freedom of choice.
The fifth issue is religious freedom. I assume that the "cops" in Egypt are Coptic Christians? I've never heard that reference before.
The sixth issue is women's rights. Wow, he's really going after every issue, even controversial ones. Good stuff on microfinancing and pledging help to women around the world.
The final issue is development, and beyond simply giving advice on development to the MidEast, it's a nice discussion on increased educational and other kinds of ties between America and the MidEast beyond just oil and gas ties.
Now it sounds like closing poetic niceties. Good ones, too. Looks like he might have bungled the end a little bit though. "And may God...peace be unto you." Sounds like he almost reflexively said "and may God bless America" but switched over. Not a big deal at all, but it's a little funny if that's what it was.
He got a standing ovation though.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
He probably said Copts, and not cops.
He needs to back off of this "two-state" stuff. You'd think that by now people would realize that there's no way that's going to be feasible.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
What would be feasible?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:An African-American President with Muslim roots stands before the Muslim world and defends the right of Jews to a nation of their own in their ancestral homeland, and then denounces in vociferous terms the evil of Holocaust denial, and right-wing Israelis go forth and complain that the President is unsympathetic to the housing needs of settlers. Incredible, just incredible.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: From Jeffrey Goldberg:
quote:An African-American President with Muslim roots stands before the Muslim world and defends the right of Jews to a nation of their own in their ancestral homeland, and then denounces in vociferous terms the evil of Holocaust denial, and right-wing Israelis go forth and complain that the President is unsympathetic to the housing needs of settlers. Incredible, just incredible.
I know Jeff. We went around and around about this back in the '90s. He's wronger now than he was then, and that's impressive.
Dismissing "the housing needs of settlers" when we're talking about essentially making yet another area Judenrein (like Gaza).
Can you even begin to imagine the outcries of horror if anyone were to suggest that the Palestinian Arabs within the 1949 armistice lines should have to leave Israel? Hell, you don't have to imagine it. You've heard it right here on Hatrack every time I've said it.
No, it's only Jews who have to be kicked out of their homes.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
Can you even begin to imagine the outcries of horror if anyone were to suggest that the Palestinian Arabs within the 1949 armistice lines should have to leave Israel? Hell, you don't have to imagine it. You've heard it right here on Hatrack every time I've said it.
Are these symmetric issues (I'm asking)? The Arabs in Israel are still bound - to a point (I think they are exempted from military service; presumably other things as well) - by Israeli law? If the two state solution were to happen, would the settlers be bound by Palestinian law? I assume the settlements would be part of Israel in the event of the two state solution actually occurring.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Were the settlements in Gaza kept as part of Israel? No. They were destroyed, and their population rendered homeless and jobless. Why would you think it would be any different if we were to pull out of Judea and Samaria?
In fact, when we pulled out of Gaza, the very first thing they did, after destroying the synagogues we left intact, was to start firing rockets into Israel, using the land we ceded them as a staging ground. Why would you think it would be any different if we were to pull out of Judea and Samaria?
You know the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Israel makes concessions, the Arabs increase their violence. Israel cedes things to them, they use whatever was ceded against us.
Netanyahu, the last time he was PM, gave the Arabs of the Palestinian Authority guns. He armed them. Why? Because as a reasonable individual, he recognized that the Arabs would need to be able to keep order in the lands the Israeli army had vacated. Those guns were supposed to be used by the Palestinian police.
Of course, they immediately named the Palestinian police "the Palestinian National Army", and those guns have been used against Israel more than they have against criminals in the PA.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
I was addressing your apparent claim that the de-settlement of the settlers would have been equivalent to the Israeli Arabs being evicted.
To answer your question: I'm not sure that in the short term it will be different. However I don't think the status quo is desirable or sustainable.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Haven't you learned yet from Obama that change, as such, is not necessarily a good thing? If the status quo is undesirable (and I agree that it is), that doesn't mean that it can't be made worse. And that's what this two-state nonsense is. A recipe for disaster. A recipe for a bigger and badder Gaza.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
Do you agree that the continued growth of the settlements is highly provocative to Palestinians?
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
quote:You know the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Isn't that the point. Strong arm tactics against Palestinians in retaliation to terror attacks have resulted in the terrorists using strong arm tactics in retaliation, and both sides keep doing the same thing over and over again, expecting the other side to back down, do something different.
And the rest of the world looks on and mutters, "insanity."
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
link for the speech?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: Do you agree that the continued growth of the settlements is highly provocative to Palestinians?
Israel's existence is highly provocative. They consider all of Israel to be occupied Palestine. Tel Aviv is a "settlement" to them.
Their insistence on wiping us out is provocative to us. When will they stop that?
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: Do you agree that the continued growth of the settlements is highly provocative to Palestinians?
Israel's existence is highly provocative. They consider all of Israel to be occupied Palestine. Tel Aviv is a "settlement" to them.
Their insistence on wiping us out is provocative to us. When will they stop that?
Nice non-answer.
Big issues that need to be resolved include: -rockets, suicide attacks etc. -recognition of Israel. -settlements.
Everyone knows this. What should the Palestinians read into the continued expansion of the settlements?
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: link for the speech?
You may need to click through an ad before you're taken to the text of the speech.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Thoughts on the speech Noemon?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: Do you agree that the continued growth of the settlements is highly provocative to Palestinians?
Israel's existence is highly provocative. They consider all of Israel to be occupied Palestine. Tel Aviv is a "settlement" to them.
Their insistence on wiping us out is provocative to us. When will they stop that?
Nice non-answer.
Big issues that need to be resolved include: -rockets, suicide attacks etc. -recognition of Israel. -settlements.
Everyone knows this. What should the Palestinians read into the continued expansion of the settlements?
You're looking at this through the lens of a perspective that didn't exist until the early 90s, and the Oslo accords.
Settlements are not an issue. Nor are rocket attacks and recognition anything but symptoms of the larger issue, which is the Arab/Muslim refusal to countenance a Jewish state in the region they consider their own.
You're fooling yourself if you think that there's anything that will satisfy them short of all the Jews packing up and leaving.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
"Dismissing "the housing needs of settlers" when we're talking about essentially making yet another area Judenrein (like Gaza)."
Either Israel ought annex the territories and give the Palestinians there full Israeli citizenship and voting rights, or it should stop these settlements.
The settlers have no business there. Occupation is one thing, and even occupation can be justified in the case of danger. But settlements are an attempt to displace the native population and they can't be seen as anything but a form of ethnic cleansing, same as China sending Han Chinese to change the demographics of Tibet.
The "two-state nonsense" as you call it, is the only solution that doesn't include a either the ethnic cleansing of all Jews from Israel or all the ethnic cleansing of all Arabs from Palestine.
You say, Lisa, "they consider all of Israel to be occupied Palestine". The problem is that you (and the current Israeli governnment) seems to consider all of Palestine to be not-yet-cleansed Israel.
And you may want to consider "Arabs" as one single group, but truth is that you got peace with Egypt, you got peace with Jordan, and Hamas often seems to be fighting Fatah more than it's fighting Israelis.
And guess what? Hamas doesn't want a Palestinian state either. Fatah does. Which one is a worse enemy, the ones wanting a two-state solution, or the ones believing that a two-state solution will never work?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: "Dismissing "the housing needs of settlers" when we're talking about essentially making yet another area Judenrein (like Gaza)."
Either Israel ought annex the territories and give the Palestinians there full Israeli citizenship and voting rights, or it should stop these settlements.
No. Israel should annex the territories and give the Arabs a couple hundred thousand dollars per family and a ticket to the country of their choice.
Not only the Arabs in the territories, but the Arabs who currently have Israeli citizenship should be required to take an oath of loyalty to Israel as a Jewish state, or leave.
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: The settlers have no business there. Occupation is one thing, and even occupation can be justified in the case of danger. But settlements are an attempt to displace the native population and they can't be seen as anything but a form of ethnic cleansing, same as China sending Han Chinese to change the demographics of Tibet.
They aren't "the native population". Nor is it occupation. For the takeover of territory to be considered occupation, it must be taken over from a polity. Who did Israel take Judea and Samaria from? Jordan. Whose annexation of those lands went unrecognized by the entire world (other than Britain and Pakistan). What polity preceded Jordan as overlords? That'd be Britain, who requested an end to the British Mandate in 1948. Once the Mandate ended, the UN's offer of two states went into effect.
The thing is, Aris, the Jews accepted the offer. The Arabs declined. Violently. So no Arab polity came into being in those lands, and when Israel took them in 1967, they were politically ownerless.
Now, if you're talking about private ownership, that's another story. What about all the land that Jews bought prior to 1948? One of the settlements that was destroyed in Gaza was built originally on land bought by Jews, and then conquered by Egypt in 1948. Is there any sane way you can call it occupation when Israel took it back in 1967? The same is true of the Etzion Bloc of settlements south of Jerusalem. In 1948, the Arabs massacred the inhabitants who didn't manage to escape, and in 1967, the area was rebuilt. That's occupation?
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: The "two-state nonsense" as you call it, is the only solution that doesn't include a either the ethnic cleansing of all Jews from Israel or all the ethnic cleansing of all Arabs from Palestine.
Well, I can guarantee you that so long as there is a Jewish state in the middle east, the Arabs will continue their war against it. So I'm fine with expelling them and dealing with an external enemy instead of an internal one.
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: You say, Lisa, "they consider all of Israel to be occupied Palestine". The problem is that you (and the current Israeli governnment) seems to consider all of Palestine to be not-yet-cleansed Israel.
Yes, I do consider all of it to be Israel. Of course it is. And your continued use of "cleansed" for removing a genocidal populace is noted and disregarded.
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: And you may want to consider "Arabs" as one single group, but truth is that you got peace with Egypt, you got peace with Jordan, and Hamas often seems to be fighting Fatah more than it's fighting Israelis.
I wish people would stop calling it Fatah and go back to calling it the PLO. That's what Fatah means, you know. It's an abbreviation (reversed, because the actual abbreviation was embarrassing) of PLO in Arabic. It's a terrorist organization, and Hamas is just PLO+.
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: And guess what? Hamas doesn't want a Palestinian state either. Fatah does. Which one is a worse enemy, the ones wanting a two-state solution, or the ones believing that a two-state solution will never work?
The ones wanting a two-state solution. Thanks for asking.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I'm moving this discussion to a new topic. This one has lasted 24 pages, and on the chance that this subject attains lockability, I don't want to get this topic locked.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I liked this take on Obama's speech. It summarized much of the feeling I had about it. Overall, I thought it hit the right tone, but I tend to disagree with Lyrhawn's suggestion that it approached any real(istic) policy proposals. From the article:
quote:Still, I can't help but feel frustrated that I've been watching Obama closely for more than two years now, and after an hour-long speech in Cairo today, I still don't have a clear read of which way he'll come down on the looming hard decisions for which there is no middle ground, try as he may to carve some out. He talked about violent extremist groups and democratic elections. Well, Hezbollah is about to win one (partly) in a few days. Then what? He talked about democracy and the non-linear path that it often takes. Well, I'm not sure where on that path the Egyptian or Saudi governments are, and surely today's speech won't stop them from imprisoning peaceful dissidents, and worse. So, then what? How hard will Obama strain those relationships for the sake of human rights, if at all? Or for that matter, how hard will he push his own Congress and State Department to restore the funding that was recently cut for democratic reformers in Egypt? He talked about the war in Afghanistan, which may very well get worse before the new commanders, troops, civilians, and resources can make it better over the coming year, and many in Obama's own party may start heading for the door. Then what? I wish I knew.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I must have misspoke, though I'm not sure where. I didn't really see him laying out any specific policy proposals, but then I don't think that's what the speech was about.
It was a big olive branch and a coming out party. I didn't think it was the place for new policy proposals. Sure there were a couple specifics like rebuilding Afghanistan, and reaffirmations of policies already in place like troop withdrawals in Iraq. But the speech was from the get go more about good will than it was good policy.
But yeah, I agree with a lot of that article too when it comes to the issue of what comes next is certainly the real crux of the problems in our relationship with the MidEast. I said as much in my pre-speech comments. And like I said there, there isn't going to be a single problem he can fix that won't have huge ripple effects. Pushing for human rights will come at the expense of relationships with the leaders of the countries we'd be pushing, and those leaders provide intelligence and increasingly a coalition to use against Iran. If Obama has to choose between an Iranian nuke and support for human rights in places like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, I think we know it will be the Iranian nuke that takes precedence, but both are still issues at hand.
We're living in a world where, like he laid out, there really are six or seven issues at hand as a real MidEast agenda for the United States, and some of them are diametrically opposed to each other, and pulling one thread is going to unravel another. And for that matter, no matter what he does, someone is going to slam him for it.
So, did it suggest any new policy proposals? Not really, but it did set the new policy framework for what we'll be dealing with in the Middle East, and it did so quite well I think. Now that we know what's at hand, how do we solve it? Well that comes next. We'll wait and see.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: "Words alone aren't cannot meet the needs of our people," hm, maybe I was wrong, he will do something concrete. Okay, from the looks of things, he's actually laying out an agenda. Interesting.
Rereading your commentary (which I certainly understand only reflects your impressions at various points of the speech, this one pretty early on), I see you never really said he was making concrete proposals. However, I don't really think what he gave was an agenda, either; it was more a wish list. One that I think most people can agree on, and that ruffled as few feathers as possible. It was a good speech, but I'm waiting to see what comes next.
On a nit-picky note, he used one of my least favorite of his rhetorical devices. John Dickerson pointed out in an article a couple months ago how Obama is a "nuance-free exaggerator." He often frames an extreme position of expectation, and then benefits by seeming reasonable in comparison. Examples Dickerson points out include the following:
quote:Some of my reporter friends from the States were asking, 'How come you didn't solve everything on this trip?'
quote:We did a video, sending a message to the Iranian people and the leadership of the Islamic Republic of Iran. And some people said, 'Well, they did not immediately say that we're eliminating nuclear weapons and stop funding terrorism.'
Dickerson goes on to point out that Obama uses this device to not only contain expectations, but also to caricature his opponents viewpoints, putting words in their mouths that no one ever said (sound familiar, Hatrack?).
From the speech last night he said
quote:I know there's been a lot of publicity about this speech, but no single speech can eradicate years of mistrust...
It's hard to argue with the sentiment. In fact, I'd call it impossible. Which is why I doubt any of the pre-publicity of the speech set any such expectation, despite Obama's intimation that it did.
Anyway, not a criticism, just a vague annoyance. As I said, on the whole I think it was a good speech that offended few and prepared the ground for hopefully at least modest progress.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Senoj: I agree that the device can be annoying, but at the same time sometimes you have to preempt those extreme statements so that the talking heads can't use them. I could easily see certain news outlets saying, "It's ridiculous that the president thinks that by just making speeches he can solve our biggest foreign policy problem, maybe he should take a look at our troops and realize that they are doing the most for our country's interests."
or "What did that speech accomplish? I'll be nice and answer my own question, nothing!"
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Where are all the non-conservatives speaking out against Obama now?
Try reading the non-conservative press some time. Or just wait. Obama's been a huge disappointment to the Left already, and the muttering started a while ago. It'll get loud within a year, I promise.
It was already at that point in Canada when I left a week ago. Even our right-wing pro-business newspapers have been regularly running articles on Obama's hypocrisy when it comes to protectionism while the actual left-wing newspapers have been eating up the hypocrisy on issues such as torture and transparency.
Obama's foreign "honeymoon" at least in Canada has been pretty short-lived.
Edit to add: Here's a good example in one of Canada's more left-wing newspapers
quote:The saint is no longer quite so saintly. Barack Obama began his presidency promising a sea change in the way America handles civil liberties. Now, four months later, and after a masterful – if unconvincing – attempt this week to explain his contradictions, he's shown that he's still an old-time Chicago pol.
Willing to wheel, willing to deal and – when the going gets tough – willing to retreat.
Americans have already figured out that Obama is a mere mortal. But to the star-struck world outside, his abrupt reversal on the use of Guantanamo Bay military commissions is a stark reminder that the new U.S. president is more man than god.
He's also more like George W. Bush than either would care to admit.
...
He boasts about his decision to ban torture by government interrogators. But read the fine print: He would still permit the use of so-called extraordinary rendition – sending prisoners to be tortured in other countries.
And, as Central Intelligence Agency chief Leon Panetta told a Congressional committee this year, Obama has left open the possibility of authorizing harsher, unspecified interrogation techniques.
Obama once opposed Bush's use of domestic wiretaps as an unnecessary infringement on civil liberties. He now happily uses those same wiretaps.
As a senator, Obama staunchly fought Bush's attempt to forge a free trade deal with Colombia because of that nation's human-rights abuses. He now supports the deal and has ordered his trade representative to make it happen.
[ June 06, 2009, 12:57 AM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: However, I don't really think what he gave was an agenda, either; it was more a wish list. One that I think most people can agree on, and that ruffled as few feathers as possible. It was a good speech, but I'm waiting to see what comes next.
Didn't he specifically call it an agenda? It was a list of all the major points of contention or things that need to be addressed between the West and the MidEast. I'd call that an agenda.
Besides, "agenda" and "wish list" aren't mutually exclusive. Just because you want to solve something on the agenda doesn't mean it gets solved, it just means it needs to be addressed.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
It's helpful to see what people on one really far end of the spectrum are saying about the speech.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Thanks.
It's helpful to see what people on one really far end of the spectrum are saying about the speech.
I'm just curious, but why?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You don't think it's valuable to see how people who oppose your own view on things express their view?
In fairness, I was being maybe 90% sincere and 10% sarcastic, since Lisa could have more accurately titled the link "An extremely pro-Israeli lens through which to view the Cairo speech."
I don't think the people on the opposite end of the spectrum from Lisa's link, those who think the speech was all sunshine and rainbows and the best thing ever are right either. But seeing the extremes, for me, makes it really easy to spot the flaws in their arguments that might get lost in an analysis written in gray rather than black and white. You have to be careful not to allow over the top arguments like that one color your judgment too much, lest you start to think it's actually representative of a huge population, rather than being a loud mouth one off (which it may or may not be), though.
And then there's the very real possibility that I might have just missed something. I think of myself as pretty smart most of the time, and that I have good enough background knowledge to analyze Obama's speech in the right context and against my own personal beliefs for what is right and wrong, and what we as a nation should and should not do. But I rarely close the door to the possibility that I'm wrong, and I'll never know I'm wrong unless I go looking for other viewpoints, no matter how extreme, that might point out something that I totally missed, or that engage a flaw in my reasoning. Or I might still be right but using faulty logic, so it allows me to refine and hone my argument.
Besides, if for no other reason, if you aren't listening to a multitude of opinions, you're just hearing your own echo, and that's no fun at all. Discussing the issue with a bunch of adherents is fun for a pep rally, but if you want to accomplish something, you have to engage people who hold fast to extreme ends of the spectrum, both to learn and understand where they are coming from, and to represent your own views before them.
I might have overanswered you, since I suspect you don't have a problem with reading up on opposing views, but merely want to know why I'd place value on such an extreme end of the spectrum of opinions. And the answer to that is: In America anyway, I think the average politico will tell you that maybe 20% of the country is die hard Democrat and 20% is die hard Republican, and 60% will swing whichever way they feel most appropriate given a set of circumstances. Just because someone holds an extreme view doesn't mean they can be dismissed, because they still have power, and friends, and the opinion makers among them have influence. They can't be ignored, so rather than view them through a filter or not view them at all, from time to time it's best to hear it straight from the horse's mouth to see what everyone is saying, so you can consider it fairly, dismiss it, agree with it, qualify it, or whatever, but at least you're ready when you hear someone of like mind put forth that argument, everyone has had their fair attempt at a say, and pluralism reigns.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:I might have overanswered you, since I suspect you don't have a problem with reading up on opposing views, but merely want to know why I'd place value on such an extreme end of the spectrum of opinions. And the answer to that is: In America anyway, I think the average politico will tell you that maybe 20% of the country is die hard Democrat and 20% is die hard Republican, and 60% will swing whichever way they feel most appropriate given a set of circumstances. Just because someone holds an extreme view doesn't mean they can be dismissed, because they still have power, and friends, and the opinion makers among them have influence. They can't be ignored, so rather than view them through a filter or not view them at all, from time to time it's best to hear it straight from the horse's mouth to see what everyone is saying, so you can consider it fairly, dismiss it, agree with it, qualify it, or whatever, but at least you're ready when you hear someone of like mind put forth that argument, everyone has had their fair attempt at a say, and pluralism reigns.
I think the general consensus is that it's 30, 30, 40 in America, but other than that, I think what you said is fair. You should try reading Think Progress or Daily Kos and then go right to Red State or Townhall, it is such an interesting dichotomy and 9.5 times out of 10 they find a way to look at any problem from two completely different angles.
I do believe there is value in extreme thought, but only in so much as it shows us what shouldn't be and is wrong. And that's why I asked the question, I don't place too much value on extreme thought because I think that, by definition, it is illogical and false. I think the trick is deciphering what is extreme and what is not, what is conspiratorial or not, but other than that, cheers Lyrhawn.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
If you want to calculate the percentages of Die-hards, there's more lefties than righties. The lefties are extraordinarily fissiparous, the righties are single-minded and still well-organized in the wake of the Bush years. There's a concentrated core of 'red-staters' that are given incredible solidity by their undying attachment to what are often called wedge issues but to them are the issues: anti-abortion, pro-gun, anti-gay, pro-god, pro-god in government, pro war on terror, pro supply side economics, pro deregulation, etc.
Nate Silver puts these at about 20% of the American population. They have been the driving force behind all of the tumult of contemporary politics because it is their role, their political viability, their legacy, and their stature that has changed dramatically over the past ten years. The short copy is that they used to be the driving force behind Republican victories, but they have rapidly transformed into a political liability and they are purposefully driving a wedge between themselves and the moderates of the party.
The liberal bloc is larger and growing, but they're all over the place. They're 'aligned' towards liberal values, but only the same way a bunch of cats can be considered 'aligned' just by being in the same house.
The 'mainstream' populace is apparently sort of shifting over to a sort of left-center (!) that most resembles and probably explains the success of Blue Dogs and Westy Dems.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
More analysis.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
That wasn't analysis so much as "rantalysis." There wasn't anything that approaches careful consideration in the man's post, just a whole bunch of 'gotchas' and 'whydidncha.' I mean speaking from Indonesia? Seriously? That's like trying to give a human rights speech directed at the Chinese people from Toronto or San Fransisco. Most of his points were in effect, "Thanks for bringing up this idea, but because you didn't talk about it as much as I would have, you didn't do that idea justice, you might as well have not spoken at all!" You can't bring up slavery unless you disown your ancestors who may or may not have been involved in that slave trade. Saying that supporting nuclear energy for Iran indicates that one is OK with them getting nuclear weapons is probably the best non sequitur I've heard so far this week, maybe this month.
Come on Lisa, I like healthy criticism of all ideas as much as anybody should, but that can't be the best critique of the speech out there. Just because the writer seems to dislike Obama as much as you do doesn't mean he's right.
Fawn Brodie is an exmormon who is no fan of the church, but she still has done some of the best scholarship on Joseph Smith there is. If she was a slathering rabid madwoman who would pay attention to her?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
"Ralph Peters, Fox News' Strategic Analyst, demonstrates how to strawman with maximum efficiency."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Anyone watching the health care address?
Thus far (I'm flipping back and forth between this and the US Open), I think that he's been very clear, very concise, and very informative.
Congress has been more reactive than I've ever seen during a presidential address. Republicans were actually catcalling at one point. Otherwise, it's been like the Sharks and Jets have been elected to Congress based on the somewhat funny back and forth they're doing.
Thus far he's hit all the sweet spots I want to hear, with the exception of tort reform, which I hope to hear before the end of the speech, whether the Dems want to hear it or not.
My biggest problem? He needed to give this speech two months ago.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Hey look at that, very next thing he said was a tepid endorsement of tort reform. Neat.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
A good bit of an overall good speech:
quote:This has always been the history of our progress. In 1933, when over half of our seniors could not support themselves and millions had seen their savings wiped away, there were those who argued that Social Security would lead to socialism. But the men and women of Congress stood fast, and we are all the better for it. In 1965, when some argued that Medicare represented a government takeover of health care, members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, did not back down. They joined together so that all of us could enter our golden years with some basic peace of mind.
You see, our predecessors understood that government could not, and should not, solve every problem. They understood that there are instances when the gains in security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom. But they also understood that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little; that without the leavening hand of wise policy, markets can crash, monopolies can stifle competition, and the vulnerable can be exploited. And they knew that when any government measure, no matter how carefully crafted or beneficial, is subject to scorn; when any efforts to help people in need are attacked as un-American; when facts and reason are thrown overboard and only timidity passes for wisdom, and we can no longer even engage in a civil conversation with each other over the things that truly matter - that at that point we don't merely lose our capacity to solve big challenges. We lose something essential about ourselves.
What was true then remains true today. I understand how difficult this health care debate has been. I know that many in this country are deeply skeptical that government is looking out for them. I understand that the politically safe move would be to kick the can further down the road - to defer reform one more year, or one more election, or one more term.
But that's not what the moment calls for. That's not what we came here to do. We did not come to fear the future. We came here to shape it.
Yup, well, good luck.
Ironically, Boustany (the guy they chose for the republican 'response' speech) is also the co-sponsor of the "Life Sustaining Treatment Preferences Act of 2009" which would mandate that Medicare reimburse the cost of end-of-life counseling, a.k.a.'d as the "death panels."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You could tell he was chosen only because he's a doctor. He has shockingly little charisma or positive on screen quality.
Some interesting reactions to the speech:
Early polls are showing a double digit gain in support of Obama's plan (now that he's actually elucidated one), and among those who actually watched the speech, 67% responded favorably, though the audience is believed to be more Democrat than Republican. Still, I think that number ranks higher than his previous purely Democratic favorability ratings, which still indicates a post speech bump.
Joe Wilson, the man who shouted "you lie!" when the president stated that healthcare for illegal immigrants was not part of the package, seems to be the biggest subject of attention following the speech. He called to apologize afterward, and has been condemned or castigated by pretty much everyone who can find their way to a microphone, regardless of party.
Olympia Snowe (R-ME), who along with Republicans like Susan Collins (R-ME) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA), were supposed to be key players in Obama's drive for bipartisanship, has come out in opposition to a straight out public option for the reform bill. Grassley, actually, has turned from a Kennedy ally supporter of reform to saying that the plan will 'pull the plug on grandma,' which is a pretty interesting turn of positions. Snowe, like centrist Democrat Ben Nelson (NE, I think), is leery of the public option, though more because it's a huge stumbling block to passage of the bill rather than for ideological reasons. Snowe and others have suggested, as the president mentioned tonight, a trigger, which, if certain cost inefficiencies are not remedied, would allow for a public option to become available if other attempted remedies don't function well enough. If Dems can't get people like Grassley, Nelson, and Snowe on board for a bipartisan bill, and Democrats can't pass it alone, they might have to settle for just such a compromise.
What's the real thrust of the speech? Obama is banking on turning back the tidal wave of anger that Republicans have stirred up at town halls across the country. No one knew what was going on, and confusion is to water as fear is to mosquitoes: a potent breeding ground. He's trying to move the debate back to substance, for one, and back into his court, for another. If he drops the ball and hands it back off to Congress, this will all have been for nothing, but if he hammers the point and leads the negotiations, then the last couple months of disarray might actually wash away a bit. A lot of that will depend on the media, and to a degree, none of it really matters, as an extremely small number of Republicans are actually going to vote differently just because of that, but it might move the debate, and it might put Democrats back in the drivers' seat for the first time in months. If even that happens, then the speech was well worth it.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
The speech isn't as important as the actual bills being written. If the bills stay the same, or more likely are written even worse than they are now, then the opposition will continue. I can see the Democrats writing terrible bills again which will force any 'trigger' for the public option to occur.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I am watching it now (I put my kids to bed at 7-8 in the evening). I'm liking it. He's been very vague before and this time he was far more clear and specific. I actually wouldn't even mind something more like universal health care, but he made a valid argument for building on what we have now. Though, I suspect, it's got a lot more to do with the fact that our very conservative country simply isn't ready for that kind of radical change.
I was actually disappointed that the public option is only available to those who can't get insurance any other way. I would actually like to see us eliminate the employer-based health insurance in which the companies we work for get to choose our plans for us. My family has seen the best and worst of that. The job my husband just quit came with absolutely atrocious insurance (he worked for an insurance company ). He started a new job this week and we're excited to be switching next month, but still...I see real need for individual choice rather than company choice.
Without competition on an individual level, we have to hope that his other proposed changes will actually work -- caps on out of pocket expenses, no caps on how much the insurance company will pay for care, no pre-existing conditions, and no cutting someone off when they need treatment. Yes, these are all things that need to happen but I'm worried about how enforceable they will be and on the flipside, how affordable they will be. These are currently the way insurance companies make money. It seems like he's asking insurance companies to take a serious hit to their bottom line.
But those doubts aside, I did at least think the speech was (finally) what we needed to hear: what this plan is about. I would even go so far as to say that I support the passing of this plan if for no other reason than we need to do something and I am now confident that this proposal will make improvements and do less harm than good.
So I don't know about anyone else but I was on the fence and now I support the bill. It's a compromise, but that's what our government does. Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:The speech isn't as important as the actual bills being written. If the bills stay the same, or more likely are written even worse than they are now, then the opposition will continue.
This speech wasn't really directed at either the cheerleading liberals or opposing conservatives, neither of which are likely to change their position regardless of what the bill actually contains. The purpose of this speech was to provide some cover to Blue Dog Dems and to provide specific information to the confused and undecideds which haven't really understood what exactly the proposed reforms would involve.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: The speech isn't as important as the actual bills being written. If the bills stay the same, or more likely are written even worse than they are now, then the opposition will continue. I can see the Democrats writing terrible bills again which will force any 'trigger' for the public option to occur.
You think Democrats are so ideologically entrenched in the idea of having a public option that they would intentionally sabotage the rest of the bill, and health care in general, just so they could have an excuse to get the public option?
Wow. That's nefarious.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: So I don't know about anyone else but I was on the fence and now I support the bill. It's a compromise, but that's what our government does.
Exactly.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Joe Wilson, the man who shouted "you lie!" when the president stated that healthcare for illegal immigrants was not part of the package, seems to be the biggest subject of attention following the speech. He called to apologize afterward, and has been condemned or castigated by pretty much everyone who can find their way to a microphone, regardless of party.
This bit amazed me -- it's as if he thinks that by yelling loud enough he can change the facts. The illegal immigrant exception is explicitly stated in the bill. Opening up the public option to illegals doesn't really help the Democrats, so why would they put it in the bill?
--j_k
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, the idea would be that illegal immigrants use ER facilities just like other uninsured people do. If the idea is to get them insured so they cost the system less as a whole, then insuring them would make sense.
But it's a political impossibility.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Well, the idea would be that illegal immigrants use ER facilities just like other uninsured people do. If the idea is to get them insured so they cost the system less as a whole, then insuring them would make sense.
But it's a political impossibility.
Exactly. I was actually disappointed when he said that illegal immigrants wouldn't be covered but I do understand why it has to be this way.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It's a compromise I'm willing to live with if it means getting reform as a whole passed.
Illegal immigrants will still seek and receive ER care in most states, and it's a battle I'd be willing to take on after the bigger problem is solved.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
As compared to...I don't know...letting them bleed to death in the hospital waiting room. I mean, after all, they aren't US Citizens, and are criminals.
It is sad that on one day in Washington DC illegal immigrants, who are not Citizens, lose while the corporations who employ them have their rights bolstered. (Supreme Court listening to arguments that Corporations have the same freedom of speech as citizens, so can spend unlimited amounts of money on elections.)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well theoretically, corporations who employ illegal immigrants wouldn't be the exempted small businesses that Obama was referring to, and they would be legally required to contribute to the fund or provide even their illegal workers with some sort of health insurance.
I'm wondering if businesses will find new ways around who they have to report as workers, but a large number of the millions of employed illegals already pay income and state taxes, as they are employed using falsified records, but their employment is still recorded. It'll be interesting to see the response from the business world to mandated coverage.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Pollgasm.
quote:CNN is reporting a double-digit bump for health care reform in the wake of Obama's speech:
Two out of three Americans who watched President Barack Obama's health care reform speech Wednesday night favor his health care plans — a 14-point gain among speech-watchers, according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation national poll of people who tuned into Obama's address Wednesday night to a joint session of Congress.
At least one organization's focus group found the biggest gains among swing voters:
Support for Obama’s plan jumped 20 points, from 46 percent before the speech to 66 percent after. Importantly, Obama also achieved one of his principal goals of boosting the intensity of support. Prior to the speech, just 2 percent of these swing voters supported the plan strongly while 26 percent opposed it strongly; by the end of the evening those numbers were virtually reversed, with 28 percent supporting the plan strongly against just 8 percent strongly opposed. The president was also extremely successful in moving the needle on areas where progressives have struggled over the last few months, making great strides in reassuring voters on issues like the deficits and taxes, seniors and Medicare, choice and control, competition and costs, and government intervention.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
A lot of that is sort of pointless without telling us how many people actually watched the speech. I love poll numbers in a vacuum.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
The poll is also skewed Democrat so is even less relevant. Pretty shodding reporting EDITED
[ September 11, 2009, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: DarkKnight ]
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
interesting, i seem to remember most of the pre election polls being pretty accurate.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: interesting, i seem to remember most of the pre election polls being pretty accurate.
The poll is accurate of people who watched the speech, but the conclusions drawn are misleading in that the poll is more Democrat than any other group. This poll does not mean the nation as a whole, or independents and republicans, are more in favor of the democrat health care plan.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
DarkKnight, it only claims that it is a poll of people who watched the speech. That isn't misleading to people who bother to read.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: interesting, i seem to remember most of the pre election polls being pretty accurate.
The poll is accurate of people who watched the speech, but the conclusions drawn are misleading in that the poll is more Democrat than any other group. This poll does not mean the nation as a whole, or independents and republicans, are more in favor of the democrat health care plan.
No, but then again Obama was never going to get the people with their fingers in their ear. He did seem to get a number of people who were at least somewhat inclined to hear what he had to say.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight:
quote: interesting, i seem to remember most of the pre election polls being pretty accurate.
The poll is accurate of people who watched the speech, but the conclusions drawn are misleading in that the poll is more Democrat than any other group. This poll does not mean the nation as a whole, or independents and republicans, are more in favor of the democrat health care plan.
What are you talking about?
Poll #1 is selective to people who watched the speech, and it states that plainly.
Poll no. #2 is taken from a focus group designed to be representative of swing voters, not democrats. It means it would primarily be a sampling of independents and weak partisans.
If you want to claim bias in a poll, don't make stuff up to do so.
Independents and swing voters are, by the way, actually more in favor of the health care proposal post-speech. Just fyi.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: No, but then again Obama was never going to get the people with their fingers in their ear. He did seem to get a number of people who were at least somewhat inclined to hear what he had to say.
More from the instant-response analysis (that stuff where people are essentially given a dial and asked to rate their approval or disapproval in realtime)
quote:Obama also made great progress in reestablishing that he is “on your side” – one of the traits our polling has consistently shown to be a key driver of his overall approval – with the percentage saying this describes Obama “well” jumping from 50 to 72 percent.
Significantly, Obama’s speech played well across the political spectrum. Traditionally, voters from the opposite party of the president tend to score consistently low and to create huge partisan divides in these dial tests. That was not the case with Obama’s speech. With just a few exceptions, Republicans held solidly around 50 and even exceeded 70 percent favorability during parts of the president’s speech, giving particularly high scores to Obama’s remarks on not adding a penny to the deficit, creating a health care exchange, protecting Medicare, and reforming medical malpractice. While Republicans in the audience may have viewed this as a partisan speech, those outside of the room clearly did not.
Several sections of the speech stood out for their resonance across party lines. Voters, especially independents, reacted strongly to Obama’s determination to end the partisanship on both sides and to build on the current system to get reform done, with the dials spiking when he proclaimed that “now is the season for action.” Obama’s call to hold insurance companies accountable, particularly with his pledge to end the practices of rescission and denying coverage for pre-existing conditions and to implement insurance exchanges, received some of the highest marks of the night, with the dials topping 80.
Two focus groups were conducted among select participants following the speech – one among those who switched from opposing Obama’s plan before the speech to supporting it after, and one among those whose support shifted from weak to strong. Among those who shifted from opposition to support, there was consensus that Obama gave a powerful and compelling speech that hit on many key issues. While they continued to express skepticism about cost and the ability to execute such widespread change at once, they repeatedly cited the reassurances offered by Obama – the plan pays for itself and will not increase the deficit, no coverage for illegal immigrants, medical malpractice reform, and his sharp rebuke on death panels – as the parts of the speech which stood out most to them. They also highlighted the end of lost coverage for pre-existing conditions or serious illnesses as critical and expressed confidence that his plan will be able to control costs to some degree. More than anything, they shared a belief that something must be done and that a failure to deliver any reform represents a victory for the insurance companies and other special interests who profit most from the status quo.
One of the most striking aspects of tonight’s speech was the large increase in people who went from “somewhat supporting” to “strongly supporting” the Obama health care plan. In our focus group discussion, these voters agreed that the president did an excellent job of explaining his priorities and refuting the horror stories they have been hearing from the media or from email chains.
quote:Last week, just 40 percent of these adults approved of how the president was handling health care. More, 47 percent, disapproved. After the speech, 52 percent said they approved and only 38 percent said they disapproved. Those are the best assessments for Mr. Obama's handling of health care shown all year by CBS News Polls.
President Obama's speech was particularly successful in unifying Democrats. Now, 85 percent of them approve of his handling of health care.
Approval rates also rose among independents and Republicans, but independents are still divided and only 17 percent of Republicans approve of the president's health care actions.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
It seemed to me that the speech was basically targeted to blue-dogs. I think the poll numbers support that.
This is something they should have done some time ago: abandon attempts at bipartisanship and work to consolidate your party.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
WaPo poll shows 3 point post Obama-speech bounce for health care reform. The proposal(s) went from 45-50 against to 46-48 against. The 20-point instant poll improvement Samp linked above appears to have been somewhat evanescent. I wonder if there's any substantive work on modeling the dynamics of public opinion poll data...
<edit>Nate Silver rounds up three polls, showing an average bounce of 6-7 points. The real question, as he points out, is how long lived the bounce will be. Again, I wonder if anyone has done a good study of opinion poll dynamics. Seems like a valuable thing to look into.</edit>
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The numbers that Samp referenced were only among speech watchers, not the general population. It wasn't temporary, it was incomplete.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:WaPo poll shows 3 point post Obama-speech bounce for health care reform. The proposal(s) went from 45-50 against to 46-48 against. The 20-point instant poll improvement Samp linked above appears to have been somewhat evanescent. I wonder if there's any substantive work on modeling the dynamics of public opinion poll data...
What? No, the numbers above are from different sections of the populace, not an overall polling — those hadn't been even attempted yet.
Believe me, as much as I would like a 20% shift in 'all americans ..'
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Note the timing of the whole ACORN thing. The smear machine has been very good at anticipating the news cycle.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Note the timing of the whole ACORN thing. The smear machine has been very good at anticipating the news cycle.
I think that's a little disingenuous. I have no doubt that if you do a search for 'ACORN scandal' you will find many articles over the last few years.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: What? No, the numbers above are from different sections of the populace, not an overall polling — those hadn't been even attempted yet.
Believe me, as much as I would like a 20% shift in 'all americans ..'
I thought you were using it as an indication (a leading indicator ) that Obama's speech would provide a large bounce. I see now that you never made that sort of assertion.
But why did you link the numbers, then? Was it to show the speech was "Good?" And do you attribute the relative lack of general populace bounce to the fact that not enough people saw the speech, or some other factor?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:But why did you link the numbers, then? Was it to show the speech was "Good?" And do you attribute the relative lack of general populace bounce to the fact that not enough people saw the speech, or some other factor?
I guess for the sake of providing the expanded context — something which was not transmitted by a snapshot of watcher analysis — of what these numbers can be taken in consideration of, I'll quote first myself from elsewhere and follow it up with a 538 analysis by Silver.
first, here's me:
quote:Some numbers are coming in. Right now, we have a handful of analysis regarding how opinions shifted overall among three particular types of Americans
Group (1) is polls or focus groups involving Americans who watched the address. 1 is obviously tilted towards democrats and has an 'out of center' bulge — people less interested in politics are more likely to be swing voters or weak partisans and are less likely to have watched; people more interested in politics are more likely to be strong partisans and entrenched voters who have more or less made up their mind one way or another on the issue. In these polls, what we largely get is a consolidation and strengthening of support amongst Democrats and liberals, and a notable shift amongst independents. The impact of Obama's speech on the populace that watched the speech was, actually, bizarrely favorable.
Group (2) involves polls selected for independents and weak partisans; the people whose votes and support can still be jockeyed for. Very strong and positive response for Obama.
Group (3) involves focus groups designed around independents and weak partisans, who were specifically shown the address as part of the study. Very very strong and positive response for Obama.
Initial polls of overall response to reform showed that overnight, the country shifted into majority support for the reform plan. Swing voters, undecideds and 'weak partisans' alike, were swayed over to pro-reform where and when they watched the speech. This is an unusually positive response for democrats.
So unusually positive, in fact, that among others, I am assuming that Obama was helped along by the Republicans coming off very poorly with their public demeanor and response. Yes, Obama's speechcraft is strong, but when you take Wilson's "You lie!" outburst and the republican responder being a birther and a controversial title-buyer wannabe — seemingly chosen out of desperation for merely being a doctor — delivering a sub-par counterpoint, the numbers make more sense.
Let's see how much these gains contract in the next few days; if the contraction is minimal or nonexistent, the public option may become solidly feasible. If you start to see an overall 3-5 percentage point shift involving health care reform attitudes in favor of the Democrats, that would be all you need to declare Obama's speech an incredible success, and the question will begin in earnest if it can actually be the tool that results in the consolidation of Democratic votes against filibuster.
Remember: this reform plan is electorally weird. Republican support is irrelevant to the success of the bill. The GOP effectively refuses to let a "bipartisan approach" work, since they are too strategically invested in preventing the bill's passage and attempting to create a 'debacle' for Obama's presidency — to them, it is a matter of electoral survival. The only way this speech will at all influence the passage of the bill is through the swaying of anywhere between one and five democratic senators specifically.
and Nate Silver:
quote:Remember back to the campaign? I know, it feels like ages ago. But one of the things we all learned back then is that one really needs to look the preponderance of the polling data to get some idea of where the numbers are headed. The margins of error on individual polls -- margins which are in fact much larger than the ones the pollsters report officially -- are generally too large to be terribly useful unto themselves.
So far, there have been three sets of polling on health care conducted since Barack Obama's big speech last Wednesday:
-- Rasmussen finds an 7-point bump in support for health care reform -- from 44 percent in a poll conducted last Tuesday and Wednesday (essentially all the interviews were completed before the President's speech began) to 51 percent support based on polling conducted over the weekend.
-- ABC/WaPo, on the other hand, identifies just a 1-point improvement in support for the President's plan versus a poll conducted about a month ago (although their "strongly oppose" number has decreased by 4 points, and their "strongly support" number has increased by 3 points.)
-- CBS/NYT re-sampled their panel from 8/27 and 8/28 and found a 12-point increase in approval for Obama on health care after his speech; this is not the same thing as asking whether people whether they support or oppose his health care plan, although the numbers have generally tracked one another fairly closely.
The first thing to notice is that each of these polls has a different jumping-off off point. Rasmussen has begun tracking the health care numbers daily; CBS's previous poll was about two weeks old, and ABC's previous poll was about a month old. So these polls are not necessarily contradictory if Obama's health care numbers had declined from mid-August -- when ABC last polled the issue -- until the night before his speech. On the other hand, it's not clear that Obama's numbers were in decline over that period -- most of the damage seems to have been done in July and early August.
If we simply take the three polls at face value and average them together (6.7 points), they in fact point toward a statistically strong likelihood of a bounce. Concluding that there is no bounce on the basis of the ABC poll, as some smart commentators appear to have done, while ignoring the other polling, is not objective, plainly put. There should, however, be plenty more data out before the end of the week to help settle any arguments.
The real question, of course, is not whether there's been a bounce, but how long-lasting its effects might be. Bounces usually dissipate. That's why we call them bounces; they go up and they go down. If Obama's health care polling is back in the low 40s by early next week, well then, who cares if there had been a bounce -- it's entirely an academic question. I'm not yet prepared to render a prediction on this subject, although for a variety of reasons -- basically, the GOP having used up a lot of its firepower coupled with Obama having underachieved his overall approval ratings on health care reform -- I think the bounce (if there is one) is more likely to have "oomph" than it usually does.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Rasmussen, which was showing the largest "bounce" among all pollsters, is now showing a significant decline in support: 55-42 opposed. Pollster.com shows a more complete story. Support for the bill(s) has increased slightly in the wake of the speech, but opposition to the bill(s) has increased more. The WaPo survey demonstrated this effect with the question on "The more I hear about the plan, the (more/less) I like it." 55% chose less and only 42% chose more. The Pollster chart shows exactly what you would expect for that sort of opinion: a steady movement from uncertain/undecided to opposed.
Hat tip to Mickey Kaus, who's thoughts on the strategic mistakes made in selling health reform are worth reading.
<edit> Numbers on that "more/less I like it" question should be 41/54 (not 42/55). The verbatim question is in the WaPo poll I linked on the previous page.</edit>
[ September 17, 2009, 10:20 AM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Baucus released the "compromise" bill yesterday, declaring it won't add anything to the deficit, and has everything Obama asked for except a public options. Republicans are almost universally against it, and the more liberal Dems are refusing to support it without a public option.
Looks like his compromise was in effort to find a way to piss off everyone.
What a mess. As near as I can tell, there's no way this thing is going to pass, in almost any form, in any bi-partisan way. I think it's time to jettison bi-partisan kumbaya handholding, use "reconciliation" and hammer the thing home. The budget process loophole only requires a 51 vote majority, rather than the faux 60 vote supermajority. Otherwise it's never going to pass, or it'll pass in such a watered down form as to not even matter.
I can already hear Republicans screaming about subverting democracy, but look at the Constitution. It only requires a simple majority to pass legislation. The filibuster is a parliamentary tool, a trick, in order to make legislation even harder to pass. I like supermajorities for some things, like passing constitutional amendments or overriding presidential vetoes, but to pass regular legislation? Nope, we're a majority rules country (with respect for minority rights), no matter how much that might suck for the other side, and lord knows the Republicans played it that way.
This has to end one of two ways: 1. Democrats threaten to use the reconciliation budget method of passing the bill with a simple 51 vote majority, which they can get even without blue dog senators, and they use that as a stick, and perhaps something like tort reform (if Obama can force them to) as a carrot to lure in some Republican support. I fully expect this not to work, as Republicans would rather have something to complain about than they would vote for a piece of legislation that has things they like in it even if it has a single thing they don't. It's smart politics. So that leads us to 2. Democrats actually use the reconciliation process and pass a much more liberal version of the bill than would have been passed had Republicans cooperated. It becomes law, and Republicans threaten to storm the bastille because Democrats have subverted Democracy. Lots of hissy fits and tantrums.
If it ends any other way, we won't have health care reform, we'll have some slapped together piece of crap legislation that calls itself health care reform but likely does nothing to solve any of our long term problems, but has some feel good pieces in it to temporarily placate the masses.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I have a very difficult time believing that this bill is not a product of the fact that Sen. Baucus gets lots and lots of money - more than anyone - from health and insurance interests.
This really bugs me. I hate that our government is for sale.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I have no doubt that if you do a search for 'ACORN scandal' you will find many articles over the last few years.
Yes. And note the timing.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I have a very difficult time believing that this bill is not a product of the fact that Sen. Baucus gets lots and lots of money - more than anyone - from health and insurance interests.
This really bugs me. I hate that our government is for sale.
We're generally either a nation that does things in baby steps or giant leaps. I think even if Baucus wasn't in the pocket of Big...Health Care...assuming he is, single payer would never be a viable option. Even if the Dems rammed it through using loopholes, the outcry would be so dramatic as to be not worth it I think. On the other hand, a public option is an excellent foot in the door, which is exactly what insurance companies are afraid of. If they can get it up and running and let it go for a few years, and it works, they'll have something to point to and say "see, it works!" and people will be used to it, so when they come back and put more stringent requirements on insurance companies in ten years, it can drive more people towards the public option. Health care is going to have to be one of those things we do in baby steps, but I think a public option is necessary in moving us along the road to single payer.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Yes. And note the timing.
So any reports of misdoings by ACORN can only be politically motivated because of when they are released?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
No. Rather, it is unsurprising that the conservative media is doing everything it can to fill the airwaves with distraction at specific times. Currently, ACORN is a useful distraction. They will find another one when this one is used up, since none of them actually care about ACORN in any way except insofar as it can be used to discredit their opponents.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Baucus released the "compromise" bill yesterday, declaring it won't add anything to the deficit, and has everything Obama asked for except a public options. Republicans are almost universally against it, and the more liberal Dems are refusing to support it without a public option.
Grassley admitted he wouldn't vote for it no matter how many concessions were put in, and thus has all but come out and said all his stress on "bipartisanism" and "compromise" was in bad faith.
In so doing, Grassley essentially just got Baucus to write a bill the democrats won't vote for. It was a poison pill, and Baucus should had realized this.
The GOP is united in a single purpose of never compromising on this bill. Concessions only serve to weaken bills and reward debate stonewalling tactics.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yep. The Dems should really just push through a bill that will work. The bill put forth by Sen. Baucus is dreadful. And I don't blame Sen. Grassley as much as the money Sen. Baucus gets from the health insurance biz.
[ September 18, 2009, 06:35 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:From Samp: In so doing, Grassley essentially just got Baucus to write a bill the democrats won't vote for. It was a poison pill, and Baucus should had realized this.
Come now, Grassley gave Baucus the perfect cover he needed to water down a bill that harshly affected his greatest campaign contributors. Now he can say he didn't do it to help them and rake in the cash, he did it in the spirit of bipartisanship!
Now even if (when) it fails, he can claim he tried to be bipartisan, but the Republicans acted in bad faith, he can tell his donors that he was trying to protect them, and tell the people that he was trying to save them from high health care costs.
His halo practically glows!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I don't know where to put this, but this is closed!?!?! But it's Palin on China, healthcare, and government! C'mon, this is going to be gold-quality stuff!
quote:Former US vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin is expected to speak about US foreign policy and China in her first keynote speech outside North America, Hong Kong organisers said on Monday.
Palin, mocked during last year's presidential campaign for her lack of experience in foreign affairs and for her verbal gaffes, is due to address hundreds of financial big-hitters at the CLSA Investors' Forum on Wednesday.
"We have asked her to address US foreign policy, to discuss her views on governance, healthcare, and of course, China," Jonathan Slone, chief executive officer of the Asia-focused brokerage, said in an interview with AFP.
Palin was chosen to speak since she's a possible Republican candidate in the next US presidential election and because of her influential role in politics, he said.
But CLSA, an arm of French bank Credit Agricole, decided to close Palin's session to the media after the former Alaska governor indicated that she would have to adjust her speech if reporters were present, Slone said.
I want her to go down in history for starting this speech with "Konichiwa, Hong Kong!"
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I think we should kill this thread. Seriously. One giant omni-thread may have worked well for the campaign but the Presidency isn't the same. Having one thread for 4 - 8 years for all the political issues involving Obama just isn't working at least not from my perspective.
People will always start new threads as new events and issues happen. Keeping this thread alive means splitting the discussion and diluting it.
One point of having different threads with different titles is to alert people to a discussion topic they might want to join. Even if Lyrhawn frequently modifies the title its really hard to have a clue what is currently being discussed in this thread.
A second point of having different threads is to group together posts on a common topic. This allows people to read through what has been said by others on the topic recently before posting their own points. In a mega thread like this, the topics discussed on page 1 have become irrelevant and there is no marker that would tell someone where to beginning if they want to join the current discussion.
After 25 pages, this thread has aquired some serious baggage. Hence posts on ACORN and the birthers get interspersed between discussion of the current health care proposals and recent developments.
I know that threads naturally drift and don't necessarily stay on topic -- but that is fundamentally different from having a thread that is intended to encompass everything political.
So please, let's just let this thread die and go back to starting new threads focused on current important issues in the Obama Presidency.
[ September 22, 2009, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I have mixed feelings on that.
On the one hand, having one giant thread is interesting if you want to go back and see what was being discussed at a certain time about a certain thing. It's interesting to see how opinions might have changed, how an issue was discussed and then brought back up again later, etc. You can't do that with multiple threads. They're impossible to keep track of, both for the frequency with which national issues continue to change and the sheer number that would be necessary to keep up with new subjects. I don't think it's that difficult to spend 30 seconds looking through the most recent pages to see how far back you have to go to jump in on a current conversation. Otherwise you'd have to catalog every Obama related thread and have a big list of links somewhere for people to reference, which I'm personally unwilling to devote the time to.
Also, any thread is going to have baggage. Frankly I don't think any of the "baggage" in this thread particularly matters now. No one is going to harp on something from 20 pages ago, and I think this thread has actually remained remarkably on topic, and has done very well at shying from thread drift and serious arguments.
Furthermore, I didn't intend for this to be an in general politics thread. Several things, from next year's midterm, to anything specific to Congress, to the discussion about Palin that you (I think rightfully) moved to a different thread, are things I never intended to include here. So many threads over the last several years were "Bush did X" threads that they became tedious and rarely lasted for more than a page or two, and I found the clutter factor to far outstrip the convenience factor.
On the other hand, it's difficult to know what might belong in the Obama thread and what might deserve it's own separate point of discussion, and I can see how a thread of such breadth could possibly turn some people off to joining the debate at all when they feel they have to read the whole thing to participate (that's why I often lurk rather than post on sake, to be honest).
I'm sorry if it disappoints you, and you should feel free to start a topic on anything you wish to, but I plan to continue to update this thread with new issues as I see fit. If there is a mass of agreement with you, or a mass of complaints against my posting/thread starting style, then I'll probably change my mind. As I have before, I'll never attempt to co-opt a subject from another thread, and in fact if I see a subject already being talked about, I'm far more likely to join that discussion rather than start my own. But I'm not going to start all new threads for things I see, I'm going to continue using this thread. Perhaps it's overly self-involved of me, but I always thought people sort of appreciated having things in one convenient place, rather than dozens, often overlapping. But that's what I get for assuming, and I apologize for that.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Lyrhawn, Please reconsider. The problem isn't simply that this thread has become so long. Its that "The Obama Presidency" is far to broad a topic to be useful. You say it hasn't drifted, but that is solely because the topic is so broad you can discuss anything and its still on topic. If you had started a thread on say "health care reform", I could go back through the thread and see evolution of thinking on the the issues. But in this thread, there are simply too many topics being discussed for me to be able to readily find discussions on any one issue.
If you really want to preserve the history, consider doing what CT did for climate change. Start a new thread on topics like the economic recovery, taxes or health care and link all the relevant parts of this thread to it. I know its work, but this thread is just too cumbersome to deal with. Its your baby and I understand that you want to keep it going, but it's not working. The real value of hatrack is drawing people into a discussion not preserve the history of the debate. This thread is killing discourse. Please find another way.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Forgive me, I'm an historian in training. It's hard to fight instinct.
I'm curious as to what others, who are either regular contributors or readers of this thread, think.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I'm not sure that I care much either way, but I think I've been more likely to check out a new thread than to check this thread each time it bumps.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
I agree with The Rabbit. For semi-lurkers such as myself at least, it would be much easier to keep up with discussions on individual aspects of Obama's presidency if they had their own threads.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Personally, I would have stashed that tidbit in the equivalent of a "foreign issues"* thread. The only reason I picked this thread was that it from a quick check looked like the only possibly relevant thread on the first page but it on its own (and my thoughts on the matter) was not nearly "big" enough to warrant a new thread.
* A cynical part of me wonders how popular that would actually be in light of the other thread
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
And Mucus points out another problem with the massive Omni-thread. It becomes a dumping ground for everything with a political tint to it. Taken to an extreme, it pretty much eliminates the point of separate threads at all.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
The Katamari Damacy of threads!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am greedy. I want this thread and other more specific threads.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Naturally.
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
Kate
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
As I said yesterday, if you are for the increase in Pell (and/or Stafford) contact your senator!
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
I'm going to assume that there's just something about my user name that strikes people as girly, and that it has nothing to do with my personality or posting style, though I appreciate rivka's incredulous response to the idea that I might be a woman. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)