It’s not the syntax, stupid—and I’m not misspeaking
Obama continues to come up with creative excuses for his remarks that have come to be known as “Bittergate.”
He now says he “mangled” his words (ouch!) and that it all was a syntax problem.
As a writer, I sympathize. Those dangling participles will get you every time.
And I love this one:
But as a wise older woman I was talking to the other day said: “You misspoke, but you didn’t lie.”
Ah yes, “misspoke.” It’s been one of my most unfavorite words for some time now. It might be relevant for explaining slips of the tongue or Spoonerisms or the like. But listen to Obama tying to explain how syntax did him in:
Obama yesterday told the Daily News that he “conflated” two points—the first being that people who have felt abandoned by political leadership turn to their faith, family or traditions like hunting. His second point was that politicians have tried to distract those voters with wedge issues like homosexuality or immigration.
He seems to have conveniently left out the word “cling,” and added “traditions.” He also seems to have forgotten his all-important third point: that they become racists. But I suppose that’s just another case of Obama’s misspeaking.
[ADDENDUM: And here’s an article by George Packer in the New Yorker, of all places. He doesn’t exactly say that Obama was lying, but he thnks he was certainly incorrect in a way that was not accidental, but exposed a basic flaw in the Democratic Party and many of its candidates. Packer says Obama and his supporters need to understand this rather than excuse it.]
[ONE MORE THING: I didn’t watch last night’s debate, but apparently Obama was dispirited and singularly unimpressive. He’s not at all used to the heat in this kitchen, having led a mostly charmed political life till now. Once again, he seems to have sounded dismissive and disdainful of questions he didn’t choose to answer, and tentative and unsatisfying in his responses to those he did.
Last May I wrote that Obama appeared to lack the grit and stamina required for the long haul, and was too eager to make excuses for himself. I stand by my words a year later.]
There were those who made the argument that ABC played to the sensational rather than the substantive, which I believe was true. But the substantive questions would have only been answered with prepackaged poll driven responses.
This way you are required to move outside of your comfort zones make the candidates clarify who they are character wise, and last night showed Obama not doing well outside the carefully scripted response.
Harry M: “scripted response.” One of the best philosopher critics for this political era is Kenneth Burke, whose notion of “dramatism” has been picked up by a variety of social science types. He views rhetoric as an “on stage” production and analyzes it dramatically, or “dramatistically, including what happens at the proscenium and off- stage. I think some of the irrational aspects of modern politics results from a culture of media and and political pundits/advisors having a visal media/literary background. Thus, they build candidates and campaigns in terms of senarios, and “what will play” and how in media terms instead of real persons and real issues. Thus are lives and elections are more and more in virtual reality where things less than rational can and do happen, often with great success. Consider the successful “Camelot,” which we know now was far more unreal than the myth itself.
“But as a wise older woman I was talking to the other day said: “You misspoke, but you didn’t lie.””
Ah, the every popular Dan Rather defense! “It was false but accurate”!
What next, blaming it on acid reflux?
I’m reminded of the (good natured) barbs Fred Allen and Jack Benny exchanged, with Allen, generally, getting the better of it. Benny’s best response probably was: “You wouldn’t say that if my writers were here!”
“But as a wise older woman I was talking to the other day said: “You misspoke, but you didn’t lie.””
How odd that he seems to think that this is a defense. No one, of course, has suggested that he was lying. The problem is not that he misspoke and told a falsehood. The problem is that he misspoke and told the truth. . . or at least, what he believes to be the truth. Self-destruction by self-revelation. If he were better at misspeaking by telling lies, he’d be in much less trouble.
Phooey. The italics took over. That’s what I get for trying to fool around with tags.
Obama doesn’t seem to have a plan for dealing with this. I’d treat the questions with sarcasm and disdain, “Don’t you think the voters are concerned with BIGGER issues than this?”
I read the “Annie Oakley” remarks, and they seemed pretty deadly in print, but then I saw the video of Obama delivering them and it was really pathetic. He delivered the line, paused for the laugh, and seemed shaken when it didn’t come. So he repeated the line, almost like he was cueing the audience – – HUGE mistake, you don’t continue to beat a dead horse – – and of course, another embarrassing silence. And then at the point where the applause and cheering (had there been any) would have been starting to die down, he interjects a “huh” or “hunh” just like any good black preacher would – – only it really sounded WRONG when there was no background noise for the “huh” to ride on, no affirmative audience response for the “huh” to endorse and validate.
He’s really gotta turn this around. He is just NOT on the right track. He’s lost his way.
He’s a brittle whiney bitch.
It’s over.
Spoonerisms, eh?
No wonder he comes across as a, um, shining wit.
Obama yesterday told the Daily News that he “conflated” two points–the first being that people who have felt abandoned [victimized] by political leadership turn to their faith, family or traditions like hunting. His second point was that politicians have tried to distract those voters with wedge issues like homosexuality or immigration [and BLT]
Then “they become racists”, the Pastor becomes rich, and the Politician hopes to get elected.
‘Sounds more like a description of how BLT works on those susceptible to this sort of victim-blame schema – also including Progressives – which I think is especially not the case among rural Americans, and not the case among Classical Liberals – those seeing, trusting, and valuing above all their inherent capacities as the key to facing life.
DuMaurier-Smith Says:
I think some of the irrational aspects of modern politics results from a culture of media and and political pundits/advisors having a visal media/literary background. etc..
Great hypothesis, then description of what we observe happening! It goes well with the working Progressive mantra and its political and completely controllist m.o., “Perception is Reality.”
Marx actually fingered mostly himself when he originated his “false consciousness” meme and his generally inapplicable and self-contradictory derivitive ideas.
Has Obama blown the nomination? If Hillary can finish strong, will the super delegates see the Obama negatives as bad for the general and decide to go with Hil?
My guess is that the convention is going to be filled with strife. Oh, won’t that be fun to watch?
“Oh, won’t that be fun to watch?”
Yes, immensely – it is even fun to watch *now*.
It is so on several levels, this is one of the few times a liberal/leftist has been pretty much saying what they believe. It is highly amusing watching the “middle” or Dems in name only be shocked, shocked I say, that the Democrats are still supporting this person! I mean, who knew this is what they party stands for, certainly not me. Ted Kennedy would *never* have supported this in the past (and if he did he would not be a party leader).
Obama is a train wreck and there are only two questions. First is when – before the convention, before the election, or (as a bitter rural person who literally just got back from the range helping teach a hunters education program and a junior archery program – God forbid) after the election. The next question (and really the one with the greatest amusement factor) is what will be the fallout? None of this has done much to stop most of his supporters as he is “The Real Deal” and is close to a messiah. How will they react when the train wrecks?
Sadly, all it will do is allow the Republicans to do even worse as they are still the “better” choice. So as a long time Conservative Republican I like to see the Dems finally getting what I see them as deserving. However I can’t say I am happy about where the Republicans have gone and see them as going the way of the current Dems in a few years too.
But hey, I’m a conservative first so maybe some party will eventually come out and be that instead of playing “Who Can Be the Least Worst”. It’s happened before in our history (see any Whig candidates out there?) and there is a certain amount of similarity in the unrest then to now.
Don’t forget that the people who will make him president don’t care a bit about syntax, gaffes, technicalities, generalities, nor substance in general; why the nebulous “hope and change” is virtually the sole theme, and he appears shallow, even empty during real debate. At the top of the democratic party he is their manchurian candidate, their smug ticket to regain power and puppet to control; Look at the endorsements he already has. At the grass roots level he is the closest thing to “intellectual” revenge that a left-wing Bush hater, or those harboring racial/religious/cultural bitterness could hope for, and representing virtually everything repugnant to the non-left. Mainstream voters are essentially disinterested in the devil of the real details of government, issues and international geopolitics, while the “liberal progressive” mainstream media is only their reflection; Remember, it’s (still) the economy stupid, especially when there are significant food riots in the world. Hillary is too much like McCain, even Bush, to satisfy and vindicate their very personal emotional needs for revenge. For a while, after his election, their “cultural revolution” can begin, but like the election of Jimmy Carter, the romance won’t last long. But, like Kerry and Gore, only more so, this campaign and election represents the continuing tidal change of the europeanization of American culture.
There has to be a defining breaking point on the horizon for this image over substance crisis by democrats.
Obama didn’t missspeak, he missmatured. Just like most of his supporters.
This elections clearly show how much better American system – of selecting candidates for nomination by public debates – works than any European system, where population is completely excluded from the process. European system became an empty shell of democracy, their elites are unmovable and stripped from any accountability to the public.
Pingback:Snobama-gate continues on its relentless path…. at Amused Cynic
Now I feel better. I hope all you Obama-haters have seen the AP-Yahoo poll this morning – – Obama has definitely crossed a line – – the number of Democrats who believe he is their party’s best hope has trended up and crossed the steadily-descending line of the number of Dems who think Hillary is the party’s best hope.
So all the negative campaigning by Hillary resulted in a net loss – – her bullets were aimed at Obama but they hit her own foot. Looks like the voters don’t CARE if Obama wears a flag pin or places his hand over his heart during the national anthem. Some of them might actually like it that he was one of the few who saw through Bush’s lying bullshit and stood up to it, while Hillary and the rest joined the stampede to war like the little lemmings they actually are.
Radical concept, huh? That some American voters are actually intelligent information processors? Not distracted by bullshit issues of what candidates’ pastors preach? Because I will bet that for 99% of the voting public, whatever their pastors say on Sunday mornings goes in one ear and out the other. Though it may be impolitic to say so, religion itself is a bullshit waste of everyone’s time and NOBODY gives a rat’s ass what the pastor says, whether it’s “Love thine enemies” or “Turn the other cheek” or “Thou shalt not kill.” Because they KNOW it is pure BS.
I think by treating all this trivia seriously, Hillary has just revealed herself as an opportunistic, unethical, insincere, say-anything candidate willing to trash the better candidate (and with him, the hopes of his Party) and halleluja!!! it all backfired on her.
And Obama’s biggest gaffe to date – – describing the Rust Belters as angry and bitter people clinging to religion and guns for comfort – – nobody really gives a shit because everyone knows it’s true, even if they won’t say it themselves.
Obama’s gonna win the nomination and the Presidency – – and people, that is a GOOD thing. We are going to see a new direction in American politics.
So MTaylor, who ya gonna vote for?
Your main conclusion is debatable. To say the least…
the number of Democrats who believe he is their party’s best hope has trended up and crossed the steadily-descending line of the number of Dems who think Hillary is the party’s best hope.
Um.. we know Obama is going to be the nominee. In fact I want Obama as the candidate
Obama is going to be a disaster for the Democrats.
McCain may be the best man for the job. Obama may be well-intentioned, but the institutions of war and militarism are so deeply entrenched in American government that one man, even the President, can’t turn them around. This thing is WAAAY bigger than Obama. Without the help of Congress he’ll get nowhere in turning America around. In the long run, only disasters and outside forces can force change on America.
Bush has taken America to the edge of the abyss – – two disastrous and unwinnable wars, a drain on the Treasury that can’t be sustained indefinitely (therefore another humiliating defeat a la Viet Nam or fiscal ruin, already clearly visible in the fate of the dollar) all at a time when rival economic power-houses are emerging all over the world, unburdened by any of America’s craziness.
At this point, a man like McCain can be trusted to continue the disastrous course of arrogance, unbridled stupidity, disdain for the welfare of his fellow citizens, bringing on the disaster bigger and faster than any of the other candidates possibly could and also preparing the American public emotionally and rationally to accept – – in fact, to DEMAND – – really radical change. Strangely enough, I see McCain much more than Obama as the real agent of change here. I’m just afraid that his age may be a turn-off for a great many Americans.
Michael, why are you posting here?
Michael, why are you posting here?
Because he feels armed with knoweldge he learned once in sunday school, its his obligation to point out all the errors those of us who have studied islam for years have made.
Why am I posting here?
I came across the site by accident but it looked intriguing. I saw right away that here were a lot of people desperately in need of enlightenment or at the very least another point of view.
I can’t claim to have studied Islam but I do have a lot of business contacts with Muslims from all over the Middle East and Pakistan, a few of whom have become my friends over the years. And I have some practical working knowledge of Saddam-era Iraq, in addition to what I learned as a member of AI and other organizations.
I don’t claim to know everything about the subject, and I’m certainly no Juan Cole in the knowledge department, but then again neither are any of you.
And now let me ask you a question: Why does it seem to bother you so much that I post here? Can’t stand the truth? Can’t stand another point of view?
McCain may be the best man for the job. Obama may be well-intentioned, but the institutions of war and militarism are so deeply entrenched in American government that one man, even the President, can’t turn them around. This thing is WAAAY bigger than Obama
At this point, a man like McCain can be trusted to continue the disastrous course of arrogance, unbridled stupidity, disdain for the welfare of his fellow citizens, bringing on the disaster bigger and faster than any of the other candidates possibly could and also preparing the American public emotionally and rationally to accept – – in fact, to DEMAND – – really radical change.
Besides being resolutely ignorant of history and absolutely nescient of economics, the commentor seems to be not so much stupid as schizoid on Presidential politics. He refers to Obama as “well-intentioned” but because “one man” cannot possibly correct what he wrongly perceives as America’s faults(an “entrenched” tendency toward “war and militarism”) he wants McCain to win in order to force the American public to demand the “radical change” that America seems unwilling to require at this point in time.
The commentor reminds me of his counterparts on the Right, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham and the beloved and revered(esp. by the Far Right) Rush Limbaugh, who all, upon realizing that McCain was going to get the Republican nomination got into such a funk that they urged their followers to vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever that might be – the better to bring on catastrophe and a resulting swing of political sentiment toward the extreme Right. Both stances are total bunk. Moderate candidates tend to win because most voters have a moderate frame of mind, irregardless of wrong-headed exhortations from the extremes.
In the long run, only disasters and outside forces can force change on America.
Here the hatred of America is almost naked in its openness. The commentor and those who think like him(Obama supporters for the most part) actually applaud events like 9/11. When innocent Americans die at the hands of terrorists they are at their happiest. Although they might deny it they WANT the terrorists and the Islamist to win and for the West to be subjugated.
Of course a victory in Iraq would send them into deep depression so they are frantic that it should not happen. What sick folks they are.
There’s a column over at American Thinker this a.m. which doesn’t go quite so far as to suggest BHO is a Manchurian Candidate, but the column certainly makes the case for such. http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/the_obama_aesthetic_1.html
I would go ahead and say he just exactly that: the predicted Manchurian Candidate.
“Though it may be impolitic to say so, religion itself is a bullshit waste of everyone’s time and NOBODY gives a rat’s ass what the pastor says, whether it’s “Love thine enemies” or “Turn the other cheek” or “Thou shalt not kill.” Because they KNOW it is pure BS.”
Is there a more pure example of projection than what MT posted above? He even highlighted it – NOBODY. All it takes is one in order to falsify that belief.
BZZZZTT! You lose.
GRACKLE has presented the perfect example of what I mean by America’s entrenched militarism and love of war (provided only the intended victim be small enough and weak enough.)
His classic line is “Of course a victory in Iraq would send them into deep depression so they are frantic that it should not happen. What sick folks they are.”
That’s priceless. An unprovoked war of aggression against an oil-rich Third World nation, founded on lies and deception, pursued with atrocities, terror and still more lies – – but you gotta be “sick” to want it to fail. Beautiful. I could almost hear the same kind of rhetoric from the “good Germans,” the “moderates” of Nazi Germany – – – “there are some Germany-haters amongst us, treasonous swine, who want our effort to save Europe from Bolshevism to fail, who want Germany defeated, blah blah blah.”
OF COURSE I want the effort in Iraq to fail. What sane and normal human being would pray for the VICTORY of an unprovoked act of aggression that violates every basic norm of international law? Just as Nazi Germany could only be stopped by a coalition of nations of every stripe of the political spectrum, united by the need to stop the predator before it attacks again, that is the fate that awaits America should it continue on the sick and criminal path it has started out on. Ultimately it will wind up butting heads with China, Russia and India, who have no intention of seeing the energy resources of the world, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, gobbled up one by one by an out-of-control U.S.A. egged on by its Zionist protege, and some serious repercussions will follow.
Obama, hopefully, represents a determined effort to get off that track, to leave war and militarism aside as the first resort of policy. Obama may not bring it off. He may be insincere, he may be a weak leader, he may make some foolish mistakes that destroy his effectiveness. But we know the others won’t even try. Thus at this point, Obama is what he says he is – – the voice of hope. We can all HOPE that Obama is the man who will change the disastrous path America is now on.
grackle:
“- the better to bring on catastrophe and a resulting swing of political sentiment toward the extreme Right.
Explain the “extreme” right grackle. Is “clinging” to the 2ns Amendment, the religion of you choice, and a demand of an adherence to immigration laws among the “extreme” tenets?
Obama’s gonna win the nomination and the Presidency – – and people, that is a GOOD thing. We are going to see a new direction in American politics.
heck he wants to up the ethanol production and cause more poor people to starve aroudn the world!!!
they are already rioting to it… and they are now hating us becvause no one appreciated how the US kept the food prices down, and so allowed the world to eat on the americans tax dollar.
well, now the prices are skyrocketting…
as you can see… socialism helps the poor..
thats why they starve… in chavez land the cost of milk is so high, but champagne is cheap on the shelves, so i guess “let em eat cake” is the way to go.
both candidates want to up this food fuel connection…
that way they can say… we took your 840 billion, but we need more to feed the poor of the world who we just screwed!!!
in fact, more people have died of starvatoin due to socialism than any other cause in history!!!
Obama pushes for increased ethanol production
http://obama.senate.gov/news/050315-obama_pushes_for_increased_eth/
note the date… march 15..
care to look up when the food riots started?
U.S. Sen. Barack Obama urged Congress Monday to end a two-year stalemate that has stifled production of ethanol, a corn-based fuel additive that he says could create more than 200,000 new jobs and ease the nation’s dependance on foreign oil.
nope… aint going to happen… food is too expensice, so you aint going to get any jobs..
and now that eeryone is shifting from weat to corn… and meat is going through the roof, i suspect that people will shift for a while to ocean food, and tank those supplies now too (after all they are non renewable like cows).
Now is the opportunity to get this done– not only for the future of our farmers, the future of our economy and the future of our environment, but to make our country a place that is independent and innovative enough to control its own energy future,” Obama said in a statement after touring an ethanol plant in Pekin.
this is why they now have clear cut more land… are purchasing more fertilizer… corporations are going to buy up more small farms to make super farms to make super ethanol plants…
how is this going to save the environement?
nuclear energy is our only REAL option… all this is going to cause world wide crisis…
which is what he wants…
The nation’s ethanol production is expected to top 4 billion gallons this year, and some supporters have advocated doubling that by 2012. They say raising production could ultimately boost corn prices by 25 cents a bushel, which would pump an extra $375 million a year into the Illinois farm economy.
heck… starving the poor will help the green party meet its quota of less humans and less damage
Today, if you pull into a gas station and want to fill up your tank, you’re paying some of the highest prices of all time,” Obama said. “And if you turn on the news, you can see that our dependence on foreign oil is keeping us tied to one of the most dangerous and unstable places in the world.”
thats a lie… now our prices are on par with europe.. and we dont get most of our oil from where he is implying we do…
unless he is considering canada to be one of the most dangerous and unstable places in the world?
Fatal food riots in Haiti. Violent food-price protests in Egypt and Ivory Coast. Rice so valuable it is transported in armoured convoys. Soldiers guarding fields and warehouses. Export bans to keep local populations from starving.
————
“Two words not in common currency in recent years – famine and starvation – are now being raised as distinct possibilities in the poorest, food-importing countries.”
hey MT… i bet your happy!!!!!
The cost of green tinkering is in famine and starvation
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/16/biofuels.alternativeenergy
CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE!!!
we used to eat, but that has changed…
By the way mt… it takes 2 gallons of gas to make 1 gallon of alcohol…
transport secretary, Ruth Kelly, said this week: “The government has consistently stressed that biofuels are only worth supporting if they deliver genuine environmental benefits.” Yet she must know that, at present, the opposite is the case.
I have rarely encountered so much fanaticism and blind faith. Did those demanding fuel subsidies not realise that palm oil would wipe out rainforests and that ethanol from corn would use as much carbon as it saved? Did those pleading for wind farms really think they could ever substitute for nuclear power; or those wanting eco-towns not realise they would just add to car emissions? Did they not understand that, once the tap of public money is turned on, lobbyists will ensure it is never turned off – however harmful?
If all these fancy subsidies and market manipulations were withdrawn tomorrow and government action confined to energy-saving regulation, I am convinced the world would be a cheaper and a safer place, and the poor would not be threatened with starvation.
no.. they didnt see it beasue people like MT are usefuil idiots, not fellow travellers
and the green party USED to be the nazi party…
got that lefty? go check it out.. the nazi party became the green party…
and through their SOFT methods they are murdering and killing off the races and the poor…
you see their HARD program failed. so now the left has dozens of soft programs…
they sell them saying AAA, but they accomplish BBB..
so the negro project became planned parenthood.
which puts many more offices in certain neighborhood than others (and just got stung in a study in which they asked them if they would accept donations to be used only in aborting black children… they said yes… and many of them did)
lets see… put off marraige… that does it too.
then there is fuel and food tied togerther… save us from those bad other socialists… but it will cause the starvation of millions.
even if we stop today, reverse, it will still take more than a couple of years to recover.
lets all applaud MT, for his clearheaded socialist perpective.
http://www.newstatesman.com/200804170026
The World Food Programme has seized up and the World Bank on 13 April forecast that 100 million people face starvation. It should not have come as a surprise.
Explain the “extreme” right grackle. Is “clinging” to the 2ns Amendment, the religion of you choice, and a demand of an adherence to immigration laws among the “extreme” tenets?
I would call extreme anyone, professing to be conservative, who asked Republicans to vote for a Democrat or to “sit it out” and not vote at all because a moderate was about to become ascendant. Limbaugh did both.
I never heard McCain say immigration laws should not be enforced, speak against the 2nd Amendment or religion yet McCain’s impending nomination sent Limbaugh, Coulter and Ingraham into hysterics. Many have died to preserve the right to vote; to exhort someone not to vote is shameful.
Do moderates whine and urge folks not to vote when the far Right wins Party posts or nominations? If so, I have not observed it; it seems to be a behavior confined to the extremes.
When there is an unbending insistence on absolute adherence to the extremes on issues it makes even the smallest legislative compromises impossible. Take for example immigration: There were some things about the defeated Immigration bill sponsored by McCain that were not to my liking – one being that it would have the effect of only allowing the elite into the US – the educated professional class.
The problem is that south of the border(and in other regions of the world) the elite IS the problem. They are what is wrong with the Southern Hemisphere, the reason many Latin American nations are inept and corrupt. The US doesn’t need to be giving these dolts the lions share of immigration slots – they will do nothing for our society except perhaps contribute to its decadence.
On the other hand, the lower classes are the salt of the earth. They are humble and appreciate a gift when it is given. Their sons and daughters become our entrepreneurs and leaders in all fields – and they tend to be grateful for opportunity. They provide a rich infusion of vital and highly oxygenated blood to our body politic – for both Republicans and Democrats I might add.
For this and other reasons I was not totally satisfied with the Bill in question but was willing to live with it. But the extremes won the day and the Bill was defeated.
The extremes make too much of essentially inconsequential issues. Take for instance this insistence that immigrants must speak English or be put in schools to learn it before becoming ‘legal.’ It’s an unnecessary, fuss-budget type of requirement. The first generation speaks Spanish in the home and broken English outside. The second generation speaks Spanish in the home and good English outside. The third generation is probably no longer fluent in Spanish at all and uses English exclusively. Language takes care of itself, has done so for hundreds of years. Yet the far Right froths and blows if the requirement isn’t in any proposed immigration bill. Such rigidity is counterproductive and makes for legislative constipation.
And now let me ask you a question: Why does it seem to bother you so much that I post here? Can’t stand the truth? Can’t stand another point of view?
I have no problem with alternative points of view. But your posts here seem to be nothing but partisan braggadocio, trash talk, and (polite) flame-baiting. I don’t see where you are trying to have any kind of discussion, or seeking any common ground. Instead you’re doing nothing but waving your team’s pennant and insulting the opposing team’s manager.
Haiti: Saint Louis Meriska’s children ate two spoonfuls of rice apiece as their only meal recently and then went without any food the following day. His eyes downcast, his own stomach empty, the unemployed father said forlornly, “They look at me and say, ‘Papa, I’m hungry,’ and I have to look away. It’s humiliating and it makes you angry.”
Cairo: the military is being put to work baking bread as rising food prices threaten to become the spark that ignites wider anger at a repressive government.
In reasonably prosperous Malaysia, the ruling coalition was nearly ousted by voters who cited food and fuel price increases as their main concerns.
“It’s the worst crisis of its kind in more than 30 years,” said Jeffrey Sachs, the economist and special adviser to the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon. “It’s a big deal and it’s obviously threatening a lot of governments. There are a number of governments on the ropes, and I think there’s more political fallout to come.”
so the socialists here did the right move to cause collapse and replacement of more miserialists…
Burkina Faso
sub-Saharan Africa
Malaysia
Indonesia
Senegal
Even in Thailand, which produces 10 million more tons of rice than it consumes and is the world’s largest rice exporter, supermarkets have placed signs limiting the amount of rice shoppers are allowed to purchase.
“This is a perfect storm,” President Eléas Antonio Saca of El Salvador said Wednesday at the World Economic Forum on Latin America in Cancéºn, Mexico. “How long can we withstand the situation? We have to feed our people, and commodities are becoming scarce. This scandalous storm might become a hurricane that could upset not only our economies but also the stability of our countries.”
———
The rising prices are altering menus, and not for the better. In India, people are scrimping on milk for their children. Daily bowls of dal are getting thinner, as a bag of lentils is stretched across a few more meals.
Maninder Chand, an auto-rickshaw driver in New Delhi, said his family had given up eating meat altogether for the last several weeks.
Ravinder Kumar Gupta, said his wife had stopped seasoning their daily lentils, their chief source of protein, with the usual onion and spices because the price of cooking oil was now out of reach. These days, they eat bowls of watery, tasteless dal, seasoned only with salt.
“If all the people rise, then the government will resolve this,” said Raisa Fikry, 50, whose husband receives a pension equal to about $83 a month, as she shopped for vegetables. “But everyone has to rise together. People get scared. But we will all have to rise together.”
as if rising up grows food…
no.. conservatives warned that this would happen.. but socialists like MT have all the answers.. as he does here.
well bright fish… what now?
In Haiti, where three-quarters of the population earns less than $2 a day and one in five children is chronically malnourished, the one business booming amid all the gloom is the selling of patties made of mud, oil and sugar, typically consumed only by the most destitute.
“It’s salty and it has butter and you don’t know you’re eating dirt,” said Olwich Louis Jeune, 24, who has taken to eating them more often in recent months. “It makes your stomach quiet down.”
of course americans have so much of a tax burden… the middle class that would have mobilized to help has been destroyed by the socialists..
obama wants more of this kind of change.
because change causes crisis, and crisis causes the replacement of the state by a comunist state.
then we can lower our life expectancy to 58, as it is now there..
we can live in barracks… and gulag work camps.
working for subsistence food…
not like it hasnt happened before… shall we list the states?
Meanwhile, most of the poorest of the poor suffer silently, too weak for activism or too busy raising the next generation of hungry. In the sprawling slum of Haiti’s Cité Soleil, Placide Simone, 29, offered one of her five offspring to a stranger. “Take one,” she said, cradling a listless baby and motioning toward four rail-thin toddlers, none of whom had eaten that day. “You pick. Just feed them.”
kind of the same thing the starving in russia did, and china, and elswehere.
care to read the diary stories of women throwing their babies onto trains in hopes that a stranger would save them.
this is the world that those like MT create
big talkers… but if they really were all they thouht they were, they would go out and EARN the money, and then put it where they want.. as carnegie did creating all the libraries… and as i could literally list out thousands that did.. never asking the poor to have their taxes higher.
back then though, the poor didnt pay any taxes.
to create a progressive tax is a point of the commnuist manifesto..
meanwhile an apportioned tax would have done more to help them all than any elite program that gives them everythign would ever do.
but then they couldnt give out pork, take credit.
by this time next year… the left will have millions of dead on their hands again.
but heck… they dont have a concionce.
after all, they didnt care that their actions led to more than a million families to drown onthe ocean after veietnam.. the nagain after cambodia. and the genocide AFTER we left.
but hey… he sits there warm.. not worried if he is going to eat.. prosyletixing to those that his kind would make it better.
all the while, ignoring that his kind has been respnosibel for more killing, torture, terror, and mayhem than all others combined throughout history!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
grackle:
“Language takes care of itself, has done so for hundreds of years.”
Thats you willfully ignoring reality as it presents itself to you. There is far less of an incentive today to speak the language of you adopted country or abide by any other real laws of a sovereign country. Far from being a “fuss-budget” concern, I consider it essential.
I know, Im bitter and clinging.
You havent keep your self informed on the issues considering our reluctant support of McCain. Rush Limbaugh has pledged his reluctant support of “the Maverick” just as I have, yet both of us are still being labeled as extremes by you and others who cant identify what it is that makes you conservatives.
Grackle said: “I never heard McCain say immigration laws should not be enforced”
You might be right. What he’s mainly tried to do for years, is to change the laws to benefit the illegals. Why worry about enforcing them when you can ensure the mass importation of a serf class through simply changing the laws? Just for starters:
Supporting mass amnesty. The May 29, 2003, Tucson Citizen quoted Mr. McCain as stating that “Amnesty has to be an important part of” any immigration solution. He was part of the bipartisan coalition that tried to pass amnesty legislation in 2006 and 2007. In 2006 he voted in favor of S. 2611, legislation that would reward between 10 and 11 million illegals with amnesty if they apply for legal status and pay a $2,000 fine.
Supporting in-state tuition for illegal aliens. Mr. McCain was a cosponsor of S. 774, the Dream Act, providing in-state tuition for illegal aliens. The legislation would have enabled illegal aliens who entered the United States before age 16 to obtain a green card and then use their newly acquired status to obtain green cards for the millions of parents who illegally brought their children with them into the United States. Mr. McCain missed a Senate vote on the issue in October. He said that he would have opposed it on the Senate floor had he been there to vote.
Voted to kill border fence. In 2006, Mr. McCain voted for an amendment to S. 2611 offered by Sen. Arlen Specter to require consultation with the Mexican government concerning the construction of fencing along the U.S.-Mexican border. According to Numbers USA, an organization that lobbies against illegal immigration, this amendment would have effectively guaranteed that the border fence was never built.
Voted against permanently barring gang members and terrorists from the United States. Last year, Mr. McCain voted against an amendment (Senate Amendment 1184) introduced by Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, that would have permanently barred gang members, terrorists, sex offenders, alien absconders, aliens convicted of domestic violence and aliens convicted of at least three DUIs from the United States. The Cornyn Amendment was rejected on a 51-46 vote.
Voted in favor of Social Security benefits to illegal aliens who commit identity fraud. In 2006. Mr. McCain joined with Mr. Kennedy in working to defeat an amendment by Sen. John Ensign, Nevada Republican, that would have barred Social Security credits for work being done prior to their receiving amnesty – in other words, while working under a false Social Security number. The Ensign Amendment, (Senate Amendment 3985) was defeated on a 50-49 vote.
McCain: liberal enough for all illegals!
Michael wrote: And Obama’s biggest gaffe to date – – describing the Rust Belters as angry and bitter people clinging to religion and guns for comfort – – nobody really gives a shit because everyone knows it’s true, even if they won’t say it themselves.
Well, actually, “everyone” doesn’t know this, except in the Pauline Kael sense. In fact, the small group of people who believe such nonsense are narrow-minded ignoramuses who may think that they are liberals, but don’t actually understand the meaning of the word.
As for whether it’s good news that Obama will likely be the Democratic nominee, many Republicans certainly think so.
OF COURSE I want the effort in Iraq to fail.
yup… he would love the same end… half of europe was put into chains by russia… china later became mao’s plaec with russias help.
but the best is that he would love the same kind of wast of life… 23 million on the field, and 100 million tortured isnt enough.
he is a socialist, and he loves death…
his religion is HATE and ENVY…
well this just out of bagdad..
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080418/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_basra_s_revival;_ylt=Avs6r1KT9RTCZyumExOvbOms0
Basra’s `dark ages’ lifting as hard-line grip weakens
BAGHDAD – CD shops sell love songs again. Some women emerge from their homes without veils, and alcohol sellers are coming out of hiding in the southern city of Basra – where religious vigilantes have long enforced strict Islamic codes.
The changes in recent weeks mark a surprising show of government sway – at least for now – after an Iraqi-led military crackdown that was plagued by desertions, ragged planning and ended in a virtual stalemate with Shiite militias in Iraq’s second-largest city.
But it’s unclear whether the new tone in parts of Basra represents a permanent tilt toward the Iraqi government or just a temporary retreat of Shiite hard-liners challenging the current Baghdad leadership.
During five days of heavy fighting last month, Iraqi troops struggled against militiamen, particularly the Mahdi Army loyal to anti-U.S. cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. The military was plagued by desertions and poor organization – and, in the end, the offensive was inconclusive with Iran helping mediate a truce.
Still, the crackdown appears to have succeeded in giving some sense of government control in Basra.
Two Associated Press employees in Basra interviewed several shopkeepers and other residents on the lifting of some lifestyle restrictions imposed by Shiite hard-liners. The AP also toured four districts around the city to observe the recent changes.
For years, militiamen and vigilantes have had nearly a free hand in Basra. They intimidated, attacked and sometimes killed residents who broke the strict social rules in the city – once known for its liberal lifestyles and nightlife.
Walid Khalid had to stop selling alcohol in 2005 after gunmen snatched his brother from their home and dumped him hours later in the street with gunshots to both legs.
But the two brothers resumed their business in the past days, feeling safer after the crackdown launched March 25.
“Now, I have resumed my business and I am selling alcohol in a street in central Basra near an army checkpoint,” Khalid told the AP.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ordered the offensive in Basra in a bid to confront what he called Shiite gangs and criminals. Basra is also critical for the government as the commercial hub of the nation’s southern oil fields.
The assault stalled as Mahdi Army fighters put up unexpected resistance, and at least 1,000 soldiers and many police refused to fight – either because they were intimidated by the militias or were loyal to al-Sadr.
The military had to rush in reinforcements from other parts of Iraq and call for help from the British and the Americans. U.S. and British aircraft launched airstrikes and ferried wounded Iraqi soldiers to hospital.
Since the truce, government forces have continued raids and arrests, but in a more low key way. More than 400 militiamen and criminals have been arrested since the sweep began, the Interior Ministry said.
It is unclear whether the decreased presence of militiamen in the streets is because they were dealt a real blow or just a tactic to lie low for the time being. The Mahdi Army in Basra remains in control of its stronghold district of Hayaniyah and other small areas – and it and other militias, all with political backers, retain enormous influence in the city.
Security forces are pushing hard to convince Basra residents they have broken the militias’ hold. Checkpoints have been set up on main streets and intersections, with increased patrols in other areas.
State TV showed police cars decorated with streamers and flowers circulating the streets broadcasting music through loudspeakers, and top commanders walking around, chatting with pedestrians and shopowners, telling them not to be afraid of gangs.
Interior Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf told the AP the crackdown will continue till “Basra is back to its glorious joyful days.”
The people in Basra “will forget the dark ages they lived during the past years. Basra will not be a sad city anymore,” Khalaf said, speaking from the city.
Muhanad Jawad, owner of a CD shop, said that before the crackdown, bearded men wearing black clothes frequently raided his shop to look for banned love songs or romantic Western or Egyptian movies. Gunmen would order him to sell only CDs with songs or video mourning Imam al-Hussein, a revered Shiite martyr in the 7th century.
“Now, the situation is better. The fanatic gunmen have vanished and a lot of young people are visiting my shop to buy songs, pop music and romantic movies,” he said.
In the city’s main street, Al-Jazir, several CD shops have been opened and music is played loudly outside the stores while unveiled young women pass by. Although not fully covered by a traditional veil, most women nonetheless wear head scarves over their hair.
Mohammed Abdul-Amir, a government employee, dared to hire a singer and a band for his wedding four days ago.
“I am happy to have a real wedding party,” he said. “A few weeks ago, doing such a thing would have meant death.”
and like a true useless idiot…
he wants that to be taken away from them. he liked it better when the place was destablizied and he could get more out of the state by using them as a ’cause’.
he wants them in burkas.
he likes when the state cuts off body parts
when they back up a truck and pour a few tons of rocks on someone in a sack
he is a socialist… and like the socialists said
you have to break a few eggs to make an omlette.
he is a socialist.. he likes death squads, and people who come in an order peopel how to live, and confiscate property for themselves..
thats what sociaism is all about….
though he dosnt get taht…
he never actually lived in that.
Science Class for Kandahar Girls
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZThlNzgzNzhlOTRiZGYxZmI4MGZjYmYxYTgwNmZjODU=
oh no… MT doesnt like it.. they are teaching women science… better to have them not learn..
thats what he likes..
he wants us out of iraq…
so that the same thing that happend in vietnam can happen… the socialists come in and kill millions.
he doesnt like the americans… they let them learn, they let them drive, they let tehm have freedom
now what respectabel socialist wants freedom?
NONE of them since socialism is incompatible with that.
When President Obysmal comes up against the pros like Putin, what’s he going to say, I misspoke. My syntax was wrong. I conflated two thoughts. I didn’t mean it, whhhaaaaa, honest Mr Putin I didn’t mean it….please don’t whup me, please….O please Mr Putin….
Y’know? I’d enjoy that massacre so much I think I’d vote for the puny little weakling if I get the chance.
… An unprovoked war of aggression against an oil-rich Third World nation[Iraq], founded on lies and deception …
If the commentor would provide some links to some lies about the Iraq war as said by anyone currently in power(Bush, Cheney, Rice … Gabby Hayes? Why ARE they always so vague with their accusations?) perhaps we could all become as upset as the commentor.
No quotes allowed unless they can be checked — For instance there’s probably transcripts of ALL of Bush’s speeches and pronouncements on the internet. Bush’s UN speech is definitely on the internet. You would probably find all of these at the Whitehouse site. Scan a few, find the lies and link to them here. Ditto Cheney or whoever else you have in mind.
I’m afraid I have to eliminate hearsay, you know, the tactic of quoting those who SAY they overheard someone say something. This eliminates any quotes from columnists who allegedly quote television programs. I must insist that a transcript of the actual utterances be linked to since I have found the MSM to be notoriously inaccurate about what they claim to have been said on TV shows they claim to have viewed. More than once I’ve gone to a Meet The Press or some other show’s transcript and found that some columnist’s version of what was said as reported in an article or op-ed was complete bunk.
OK? Got it straight? To reiterate: Original sources, linked to the transcripts which have the ACTUAL words from the original speaker(Bush?) so we can all check for ourselves whether the quote is valid. If there are half as many lies as you seem to think there are it should be easy.
OF COURSE I want the effort in Iraq to fail.
Here the commentor is open about what many of his ilk can only imply, hope for and explicitly verbalize about when gathered amongst their fellow America-haters. Obama has to be oblique about it and profess concern about military casualties, cost to the treasury, etc., but it’s the same basic meme: America is bad, the enemy is good. I must say that I prefer the commentor’s misguided, ignorant rants to Obama’s mealy-mouthed, cowardly language. At least he’s honest.
What sane and normal human being would pray for the VICTORY of an unprovoked act of aggression that violates every basic norm of international law? Just as Nazi Germany could only be stopped by a coalition of nations of every stripe of the political spectrum, united by the need to stop the predator before it attacks again, that is the fate that awaits America should it continue on the sick and criminal path it has started out on. Ultimately it will wind up butting heads with China, Russia and India, who have no intention of seeing the energy resources of the world, Kuwait, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, gobbled up one by one by an out-of-control U.S.A. egged on by its Zionist protege, and some serious repercussions will follow.
The commentor continues to jabber on about “international law,” something that for all practical purposes doesn’t exist – not that he would know anything about it if it did. As soon as I see the words “international law” I know an America-hater is commenting – it’s one their favorite phrases – right up there with “war crimes.” But they never hold the enemy, who routinely commits every atrocity imaginable, to ANY of these vague standards.
All the US has ever attempted to do is purchase oil on the open market and pay the going rate. We want to trade in peace, not make war. If Saddam had complied with the agreements and standards after his first defeat, if he had never invaded Kuwait in the first place, he would no doubt be living in his palaces and happily torturing hapless Iraqis to this day.
Yet the ignorant perpetuate the myth of the US ‘gobbling up’ oil-rich nations. And one can always expect A “Zionist” remark or two. It’s the politically correct way of expressing Jew-hatred. Not anti-Semitism, mind you, just disagreement over policy – eh what? As far as India, Russia and China, and “butting heads” is concerned I’m sure the US will be content to compete peacefully with them as long as they behave decently and eschew violence against us or our allies. If any of them have skullduggery in mind weakness and lack of resolve will only encourage it.
Obama, hopefully, represents a determined effort to get off that track, to leave war and militarism aside as the first resort of policy.
It’s ironic that the commentor chooses to compare the US to Nazi Germany, the Nazis being universally described by even lefty revisionist historians as one of the chief beneficiaries of a policy of appeasement. A policy of appeasement and apology, no matter how well intentioned, guarantees war or subjugation – sometimes both. In ’79, when Carter failed to act with vigor and purpose against the Iranians after they took our embassy hostage he gave example for many shrewd eyes to observe, not just in Iran but in many other places.
They all must first have marveled at the spectacle of the handing over of South Vietnam to the Communists in that debacle a few years earlier. Then when we turned tail after Lebanon and acted weakly in Mogadishu it must have hardened their conviction that the US had lost the will to strike back.
It’s a passive, appeasement type of foreign policy that bought on 9/11 and has necessitated wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s clear now that Saddam and his Ba’athists thought they were free from accountability and never expected the US to act and that the Taliban believed it safe to harbor Osama bin Laden. They know better now or at least they WILL know better unless Obama and the rest of the anti-war crowd have their way.
Here is the proof that the vile Democrats lied about Bush lying:
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” — From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
“This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” — From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
“Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities” — From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002
“Saddam’s goal … is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed.” — Madeline Albright, 1998
“(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983” — National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
“Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement.” — Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability.” — Robert Byrd, October 2002
“There’s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat… Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He’s had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001… He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn’t have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.” — Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
“What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad’s regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs.” — Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
“The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow.” — Bill Clinton in 1998
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
“I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.” — Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
“Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people.” — Tom Daschle in 1998
“Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.” — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
“The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.” — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
“I share the administration’s goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction.” — Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
“Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” — Al Gore, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” — Bob Graham, December 2002
“Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction.” — Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” — Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002
“There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.” — Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002
“I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” — John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
“The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.” — John Kerry, October 9, 2002
“(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. …And now he is miscalculating America�s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.” — John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.” — Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002
“Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States.” — Joe Lieberman, August, 2002
“Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 – 1994, despite Iraq’s denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq’s claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction.” — Patty Murray, October 9, 2002
“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” — Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
“Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production.” — Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources — something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” — John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
“Saddam�s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq�s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.” — John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
“Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration�s policy towards Iraq, I don�t think there can be any question about Saddam�s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts.” — Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
grackle:
“Language takes care of itself, has done so for hundreds of years.”
That’s you willfully ignoring reality as it presents itself to you. There is far less of an incentive today to speak the language of your adopted country or abide by any other real laws of a sovereign country. Far from being a “fuss-budget” concern, I consider it essential.
I am not ignoring reality, I am citing reality as it has existed for hundreds of years.
I know, I’m bitter and clinging.
Please don’t put words in my mouth.
You haven’t keep your self informed on the issues considering our reluctant support of McCain. Rush Limbaugh has pledged his reluctant support of “the Maverick” just as I have, yet both of us are still being labeled as extremes by you and others who cant identify what it is that makes you conservatives.
Oh, has Rush changed his mind? Well, good for him. It was only a short time ago I heard him with my own ears urging his listeners to vote for Democrats or to not vote at all. How did he put it – “No horse in this race,” I think it was. How about Coulter and Ingraham – any changes on their part? Coulter is sometimes witty and I might like to revisit her website – IF she were properly repentant, of course … but on second thought – maybe not. Anyone who urges people to not vote is pissing on the ultimate sacrifice of millions of brave souls. I will have a difficult time forgiving THAT.
As to what identifies me as a conservative – well, the answer to that is I’m NOT a conservative – I’m independent and do not follow the dictates of any political organization or movement. I analyze issues one by one through my own research and thought. For example, I own four sidearms and know how to use them. As you may guess the 2nd Amendment is near and dear to my heart. I’m thinking about purchasing a pump shotgun with a high shell capacity. There’s nothing better for discouraging the recalcitrant.
But I have my own ideas on the immigration issue that doesn’t fit either end of the left-right political spectrum – perhaps because I have quite a few acquaintances who are or have been “illegal.” I live in a large city that is over 50% Latino and have personal experience with diversity. Although I am “Anglo” I am familiar with Latino culture and became fluent in Spanish when very young. I regret to say that the language left me in the years after because I did not need to use it, except for a small vocabulary. The conjugation is not there, though. I may take it up again someday – there is much great literature written in Spanish.
I don’t think a border fence is practical, for a lot of reasons. It’s just too long of a border for it to be feasible. And fences can be climbed over. The great expense is another problem. Contractors are licking their chops at the prospect of so much government money in the offing. I wouldn’t mind beefing up the Border Patrol but that’s always been needed, even before the issue became hot. I could go on but to make it short I believe certain politicians on the right saw that immigration could become a winning issue for them because there are SOME legitimate aspects to it, then used it, then elevated it to a wedge issue and now are caught in a delimma.
On the one hand they’ve fanned the emotional flames of the base in order to garner votes but on the other hand some are now searching for a way to backtrack on it a bit. The Latinos here legally are reliably moderate in their voting habits now but what happens after they see millions of brown-skinned folks being rounded up by police and … what? Being incarcerated? Being transported by train? By truck? Bus? To how many different South and Central American countries(the ignorant think they’re all Mexican)? Any administration that institutes such an action will regret it.
Let me just take one of the things you list as one of McCain’s transgressions, his opposition to Senate Amendment #1184. Below are some excepts from a critique of that amendment:
The Cornyn Amendment would prevent millions of people from legalizing by barring individuals who have been present in the U.S. without documents for over a year and have left and re-entered. Millions of the undocumented people who would otherwise be eligible to legalize have traveled in and out of the country while living and working here. Some go home for holidays or visit families and then return to work. There is no legitimate justification why these individuals should be barred from legalizing while undocumented immigrants who have not traveled would be allowed to legalize.
The Cornyn Amendment would prevent millions of people from legalizing if convicted of using false documents. Since nearly all undocumented immigrants, by definition, use false documents to work, millions could be barred from legalizing if convicted of this offense. In order to legalize, individuals would have to come forward, register, and admit to having used a fake social security card in the past to work in the U.S. — only to be prosecuted criminally and then barred from the legalization they seek.
Virtually all of the provisions in this amendment are retroactive so that acts that occurred before the date of enactment would become grounds for removal.
Retroactivity is antithetical to core American values. Changing the rules in the middle of the game is unconstitutional in criminal law. It is patently unfair and strongly objectionable in the context of immigration law, where retroactive changes can have grave consequences.
I agree with all of the above critique and am glad that McCain opposed it. To my way of thinking the amendment would obviously have been bad law if enacted. Cornyn’s amendment was one of the factors that doomed the McCain bill – which is what probably what Cornyn wanted – no immigration bill at all of any content.
I also agree with many but not all of the other parts of the critique of the amendment but they are so lengthy that I will simply provide a link to the critique.
http://www.aila.org/search/default.aspx?searchterm=1184
The immigration issue, as framed today, is ultimately a loser for the Republicans and I believe they are beginning to realize it and would like to step back, but certain conservative hardnoses won’t let it alone so chalk it up as potentially a big plus for the Democrats in the future.
The immigration issue, as framed today, is ultimately a loser for the Republicans
This statement is silly. The republicans are split between the Globalist Open Border wing and the Security/Cultural – concerned wing.
“The immigration issue, as framed today, is ultimately a loser for the Republicans”
This statement is silly. The republicans are split between the Globalist Open Border wing and the Security/Cultural – concerned wing.
I’m really here to debate foreign policy but will try to convey to those who may be interested why I think the way I do about certain other issues.
I would describe the two factions, the “Globalist Open Border wing and the Security/Cultural – concerned wing,” a bit differently – there are immigration moderates and there are immigration extremists. The extremists have a host of impractical positions that they won’t back down on and have the upper hand at the moment. Certain very conservative Republicans get votes from their anti-immigration stance but I believe the Party as a whole will be hurt by it sometime in the future – perhaps even in this coming general election.
The immigrants provide cheap labor for agriculture – those cantaloupes don’t jump up off the ground into refrigerated trucks on their own. I don’t think other Americans will take these seasonal jobs unless the wages are so high as to be ridiculous, maybe not even then. I have over 25 years of experience in the employment sector to draw my conclusions from. I suspect the size of the illegal immigrant population actually dwarfs most estimates. Immigrants are embedded in our economy in many different areas. Maybe some want to pay twice the price for food than is now charged but I don’t. Extrapolate this to construction – highways, streets, homes, commercial office buildings and hotels – all new development. Everything would go up drastically in cost tomorrow if all the illegals disappeared today. Talk to construction supervisors – I have had dealings with hundreds of them over the years – and they’ll testify to the value of the labor of these workers.
I do believe the politicians will pull away from the brink before it gets to this – they’ll have to, for no other reason than the impracticality of not doing so. McCain may represent a step in that direction. The US doesn’t possess a big enough police force to round these folks up and they’re sure not going to turn themselves in. Some form of what the extremists call ‘amnesty’ will have to be instituted, if nothing else to simply get those already here documented.
Documentation needs to be done for security reasons. Amnesty will be a bitter pill to swallow because of the emotion that has been needlessly inflamed. Either that or a continuation of the present situation – an underground society that lives and thrives in my area of the nation. I don’t think our mayor will be ordering the police to round them up no matter what the immigration extremists want to happen.
Many areas of the country have a de facto amnesty already and have for many years. Conservative bloggers and news organs paint this as political in nature – ‘defying the will of the majority’ and a frivolous breaking of the law but it’s for economic reasons. No city wants their local economy to go belly up but that’s what might happen if the immigrants disappear.
The immigration issue isn’t about local economy, but world corporate economics. An international economic bloc that will be competitive with China and Euro blocs requires a large agrarian/ peasant work force, and that’s why the politicos are willing to ignore/encourage every negative aspect of illegal immigration. I think I’ve mentioned here Friendly Fascism: The New Face of Power in America, by Bertram Gross. We will increasingly see the national sovereignty dissolving to serve government/corporate economic interests. That government/corporate economic merger is the heart and soul of Gross’s “friendly fascism.” The fundamental character of the nation is being eroded away by “what’s good for business,’ what’s good for economic growth. What the citizens of the country might want is apparently as irrelevant as their desires regarding illegal immigration.
The immigration issue isn’t about local economy, but world corporate economics. An international economic bloc that will be competitive with China and Euro blocs requires a large agrarian/ peasant work force, and that’s why the politicos are willing to ignore/encourage every negative aspect of illegal immigration. I think I’ve mentioned here Friendly Fascism: The New Face of Power in America, by Bertram Gross. We will increasingly see the national sovereignty dissolving to serve government/corporate economic interests. That government/corporate economic merger is the heart and soul of Gross’s “friendly fascism.” The fundamental character of the nation is being eroded away by “what’s good for business,’ what’s good for economic growth. What the citizens of the country might want is apparently as irrelevant as their desires regarding illegal immigration.
A Marxist viewpoint is interesting to read. But I’ve always found it to be overly concerned with a utopian desire to handicap all the players instead of merely leveling the playing field and allowing the best game to win. There’s also a tendency to level certain epithets, such as “Fascism,” at opposing opinion or ordinary social situations. And if social situations are demonstrably benign, well, I suppose then you label them as “friendly fascism.” But I too am concerned with “national sovereignty;” that’s why I find the concept of “international law” so humorous when it’s not disturbing.
I wouldn’t argue that agricultural workers aren’t important – after all, the lettuce doesn’t deposit itself in refrigerated bins at the local supermarket. But to call the present state of agricultural labor in the US fascist strikes me as hyperbole.
As for the “desires” of “the citizens of the country,” isn’t that what debate, campaigns, primaries, conventions and elections are all about? I find the “New Face of Power in America,” as described by the commentor, to be disturbingly similar to the ‘Old Face of Utopian Marxism,’ a system that fails every time it’s tried.
Labeling Gross a Marxist does not discredit his ideas nor nor his observations of the increasing commonality of corporate and governmental interests. Gross’s use of “Fascism” seems to distract you from the actual issue–which is hardly the “present state of agricultural labor in the US,” and was not my nor Gross’s subject. For the sake of discussion, let’s forget the boogie-man words “Marxist” and “Fascist” and talk about things as they are. The “old face of Utopian Marxism” is indeed a tired face, but it’s not the one we’re looking at. Utopian Marxism may have failed, but the economic union of Europe is hardly a failure, is it? And the sort of corporatism that is it’s administration and is chafing to some of its members’ sovereignty doesn’t seem so humorous to them. The economic union under discussion and development among the US, Canada, and Mexico is intended to put the US in a better competitive stance relative to Europe and Asia. If you imagine social and civil control in such unions stop at the cash register, it is your view that is either humorous or disturbing.
It is important to understand that the model of modern government is that of corporatism. The various agencies of our government are being run for their own economic well-being. Crime, for example is a growth industry. If someone discivered a drug that eliminated the attraction of drugs and their addictiveness, he’d likely be assassinated and his disovery “disappeared.” The war on drugs cannot be won. That result would be catastrophic to law enforcement. The government has grown like a huge corporation with its own interests in economic growth that are entirely independent of citizen welfare–often are even antithetic to it. Why is it with all the economic growth and wealth of this country that we still need more growth and wealth to live up to the Social Security obligations and simple common welfare program development, such as adequate health care? Why is it the power of the people we elect is never enough to reform government? Because the government interests, including its profits and losses, come first and the citizen gets whatever is left–which may be more debt. Who gets the profits? The empires, the elected officials and their minions who live like royalty and retire millionaires. Now before that nasty word “socialism” creeps in, I hate the idea of a collectivist society. I don’t want a redistribution of wealth. I want a non-corporatist government that is more interested in serving its citizens than growing itself. I have nothing against corporations, per se. I intensely dislike the idea of corporatist government, including multi-national corporatist government. And that dislike, not the current state of US agriculture–which is increasingly corporately owned, by the way–was the subject of my post.
“The Cornyn Amendment would prevent millions of people from legalizing if convicted of using false documents. Since nearly all undocumented immigrants, by definition, use false documents to work, millions could be barred from legalizing if convicted of this offense. In order to legalize, individuals would have to come forward, register, and admit to having used a fake social security card in the past to work in the U.S. – only to be prosecuted criminally and then barred from the legalization they seek.”
This is an incredible analysis–as so much on the topic seems to be. We used to be a nation of law. We have some one who has committed a crime, an illegal entry into the country. And because the person has committed the crime, they must commit another in order to get what they want–they fake Social Security ID. An underage person fakes an ID to buy liquor. According to the above analysis, the kid buying the booze is a victim, forced to commit a crime to do what he wants that is forbidden by law. So . . . , well, in all fairness, shouldn’t the kid be given the liquor? He’s suffered enough!
“Virtually all of the provisions in this amendment are retroactive so that acts that occurred before the date of enactment would become grounds for removal.
Retroactivity is antithetical to core American values. Changing the rules in the middle of the game is unconstitutional in criminal law. It is patently unfair and strongly objectionable in the context of immigration law, where retroactive changes can have grave consequences.”
The two cited paragraphs above border upon insanity. There’s no retroactivity involved. Rather, what we see is justice delayed now required. Criminal records have have always been grounds for refusal of immigration, and so far as I know, unless the statute of limitations has run out, it is not retroactive to enforce the law. It is the illegal who chose to break the law repeatedly by illegal entry and forging documents. Those sorts of acts have grave consequences–or at least they were supposed to until the politicians started the bullshit on victimization and amnesty.
Of course it is. It just hasn’t collapsed yet. The USSR took 70 years to collapse, and the EU will too. Once really bad economic times hit, it’ll be every European country for itself. Mark my words.
Germany and Italy are expecting the Euro to fracture sometime in the mid-term future.
Failing and failure are not the same thing. The first is a judgment regarding how things are going and the second concerns an ostensible fact–how things went. But for humanitarian concerns, I’d like to see the Euro collapse, Things never simply revert to a former state after such a collapse, and may be replaced by something worse–which is another argument why we should not go in that direction.
which is another argument why we should not go in that direction.
Nothing to do with us. The centripetal forces in Europe – economic, political, cultural, historical, linguistic, philosopical even – will tear it asunder sooner or later.
The point remains that the EU is in the process of failing, after which it will have failed, will then be considered a failure. Take your pick between the gerund, the verb, and the noun.
Occam’s Beard. (I see why you don’t touch the razor! :=) ) I expect your are right that should the Euro fail it will have little to do with us. But that has little to do with anything I’m talking about. Your metaphor, however, is fun: that all the centripetal forces within Europe essentially act as centrifugal forces to tear the union apart. Nationalism, international histories and animosities are certainly problems for economic unions. But I believe I noted the chafing of some Euro countries regarding their perceived sovereignty. But I’m hardly willing at this stage to declare the Euro failed. Nor am I ready to accept your judgment that failure is inevitable. Why should I? The only point on the table is your assertion the EU is in the process of failing, and the rest is history. Much as I admire Occam, I’ve never seen him as a prophet in the class, say, of an Edgar Cacey.
Fair enough. The point is that the success of the EU is by no means assured, and in fact is more than a little questionable.
Btw, I actually meant “centrifugal,” which physicists now deprecate.
I’ll go with that. Re: centifugal: I like the new view because it seems so appropriate to life’s ironies: sort of a “necessary fiction” with real consequences.
For the sake of discussion, let’s forget the boogie-man words “Marxist” and “Fascist” and talk about things as they are.
I would like nothing better than to forget the “Marxist” word but unfortunately the commentor continues to apply an ersatz Marxist interpretation to the US economy. It’s a little like someone wanting you to not use the word, ‘rapist,’ as they force sex upon you. Take the following sentence:
It is important to understand that the model of modern government is that of corporatism.
It’s made clear in other parts of the comment that the commentor is speaking of the US government, not governments in general and not the more socialistic European Union, which he evidently prefers over the American hybrid capitalistic-socialistic system.
What is also clear is that the European Union is in no way comprised of Marxist states, although its member nations might have governments that are more socialistic than the US. The EU’s success or lack of it is in no way is a reflection on Marxism as a system.
It is the commentor’s right to like the EU over the US but I prefer the American system. I am confident that the American system can compete on an even par with the Europeans – EU or no EU.
The American government is a democratic republic and no amount of falsely labeling it as “corporatism” will change that bedrock fact. “Corporatism” is simply a derogatory term that Marxists and other critics like to falsely apply to the US but that is better applied to most European nations where protectionism is the rule.
The commentor claims to “hate the idea of a collectivist society” but this assertion comes at the end of an analysis that lambastes
… elected officials and their minions who live like royalty and retire [as] millionaires …
berates an American government
… entirely independent of citizen welfare …
and contains the astounding opinion that
If someone discovered a drug that eliminated the attraction of drugs and their addictiveness, he’d likely be assassinated and his disovery “disappeared” …
I disagree with this negative assessment although I’ll readily admit that historically under the American system, which is constantly in flux, inequities have occurred and corruption may be uncovered from time to time. American history is replete with examples of those twin imperfections, inequity and corruption, an extreme instance being slavery, which was corrected at the cost of an very bloody civil war.
I’m not sure what “union” the commentor is referring to with the following statement(NAFTA, perhaps?):
The economic union under discussion and development among the US, Canada, and Mexico is intended to put the US in a better competitive stance relative to Europe and Asia.
The commentor seems to think trade agreements to make the US and its neighbors more economically sound to be unfair or somehow a breaking of the rules. Yet he seems to be absolutely enthralled with the EU, a larger and more far-reaching thing than any trade agreement – what with its common currency and all. As for myself I think it is the US government’s duty to come up with ways to better compete on the world stage and to strengthen the US economy.
And I would never claim that some instances of what could be thought of as “Corporatism” may not crop up every once in awhile. There can be no system so perfect as to operate in a perfect manner all the time but to claim on the basis of some recently perceived permutations in equity that the US is fascist, “friendly fascist” or otherwise, is rank exaggeration of a high order.
And that dislike [of corporatist government], not the current state of US agriculture—which is increasingly corporately owned, by the way—was the subject of my post.
It seems to me that one way to insure that US agriculture become “increasingly corporately owned” is to make it very, very difficult for farmers to hire the laborers necessary for the seasonal chores, especially harvesting, that every farmer faces, by criminalizing a good part of the agricultural workforce.
I consider the level of criminality of illegally working in the US as little above speeding or running a red light. To refer to “criminal records” in conjunction with people whose only offense is to have not had a work permit is simply ridiculous.
To treat these folks as if they were criminals of a high order and to put draconian measures affecting them into law is a form of social hysteria and/or unwise expedient political gamesmanship. My hope is that common sense prevails in the end before the border of insanity is crossed.
Let’s start with the last two paragraphs: a fine example of postmodern logic. It was in your previous post that illegal aliens had committed the crimes of illegally crossing the border and forging Social Security cards. But what the hay, you don’t like that and feel free to insist that their only offense is to not have had a work permit, and that those who argue for an impartial application of the law are hysterical or political gamesmen. (You got a liberal posing as a conservative.) I hope that this nonsensical version of commonsense never reappears under any color of law.
And all of that in the service of creating a peasant/slave laboring class, good for the [insert here: solid Marxist drum roll!] “Corporatist Republicans”] and [violins, please!] Prole-Constituent-Seeking Liberals.
We could have, as we did for years, a viable migrant worker program. I grew up working with Mexican migrant workers. It’s not an all or nothing. But the above politicos got too greedy to give a damn about the law.
It’s true that illegal aliens provide cheap labor for business; for the rest of us, they’re pretty expensive:
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
Why should American taxpayers subsidize business? Why don’t the businesses using the industrious workers foot the education/health care/crime bills for them? Why, they would make less profit! Let the tax payer make less money. I say, let business eat cake.
As for the rest of your post, you either worked very hard to scapegoat me for your devils, or dropped off in to slumber and dreamed I was someone else. To glimpse the negative utopia that worries me, you might watch the old movie version of “Rollerball”. It dramatizes the issues in a way I can’t in exposition and perhaps you will find it less confusing.
I don’t like the EU and never said I did; I used it as a negative example of a world trend towards corporate structuring of governments. I even said that if not for humanitarian reasons, I would welcome its collapse. I also do not like the corporate model for governments for the same reason I detest Marxism: both are absolutely corrosive for individual rights and liberties. In fact, Marxism was corporatism, but rather by profit motive, its materialism was driven by an ideology. The trend toward the corporate model is worsened by that coalescence of interests between government and corporations discussed by Gross–of whom you see only a forehead with Scarlet M. Finally, I note that you appear unaware that the administrations of the US, Canada and Mexico are laying the groundwork for an economic trade bloc. Such a bloc is a forerunner of an EU, with common currencies and loss of sovereignty. I don’t like it for all the above reasons.
Correction: (“You got a liberal . . .” should read “(You got to be a liberal . . . .”
I dont think the people throwing around the word Corporatist even know what the words mean
Let’s start with the last two paragraphs: a fine example of postmodern logic. It was in your previous post that illegal aliens had committed the crimes of illegally crossing the border and forging Social Security cards. But what the hay, you don’t like that and feel free to insist that their only offense is to not have had a work permit, and that those who argue for an impartial application of the law are hysterical or political gamesmen. (You got a liberal posing as a conservative.) I hope that this nonsensical version of commonsense never reappears under any color of law.
I do not consider it nonsensical to believe that working without a work permit is not very high on the scale of crime. For me it’s WAY down there, right above spitting on the sidewalk. It must put the commentor out of his mind to witness such dire transgressions as traffic violations and jay-walking.
As I related earlier, I am not a conservative or a liberal or “posing” to be either. I attempt to analyze the issues of the day using my own research, thought and experience rather than adhering to the tenets of any particular group.
And all of that in the service of creating a peasant/slave, good for the [insert here: solid Marxist drum roll!] “Corporatist Republicans”] and [violins, please!] Prole-Constituent-Seeking Liberals.
The above is garbled, with weird punctuation and unusual terms. It’s unclear whether the commentor is serious or is attempting irony. If the commentor truly believes the US has a “peasant/slave laboring class” the commentor must have a very unusual definition of “slave.” If farm laborers are meant by “peasant” I willingly allow that farm laborers exist in the US – it could hardly be otherwise, the crops do not harvest themselves. However, I don’t consider it wicked that there are farms within the US and that work is performed by farm laborers – the work on a farm, after all, could hardly be expected to be performed by anyone but farm workers. It’s like breathlessly relating with great fanfare that dogs possess fur.
We could have, as we did for years, a viable migrant worker program.
It seems disingenuous to profess to regret the loss of a “viable migrant worker program” while being in favor of criminalizing that same worker.
It’s true that illegal aliens provide cheap labor for business; for the rest of us, they’re pretty expensive:
http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
I visited the site mentioned by the commentor. Here’s one of their points:
Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household.
I would guess that many illegal workers pay no income tax at all by virtue of being undocumented. That represents lost revenue, revenue that would probably more than make up for the $2,700 per household cost mentioned in the quote.
Even being undocumented and with most paying no income tax at all they pay more than half the $26 billion cost mentioned in the quote. For me the lost revenue represents a good fiscal reason FOR documentation, NOT a reason for criminalization.
I say put them into the system so they can all pay taxes without fear of being rounded up and put in jail.
Why should American taxpayers subsidize business? Why don’t the businesses using the industrious workers foot the education/health care/crime bills for them? Why, they would make less profit! Let the tax payer make less money. I say, let business eat cake.
It may surprise the commentor that I favor some form of universal healthcare for the US. However, I believe the expense of such a program should be funded from the treasury, not from the business community. I would rephrase: Why should business be forced to subsidize the healthcare of the population? But the commentor is NOT a Marxist.
As for the rest of your post, you either worked very hard to scapegoat me for your devils, or dropped off in to slumber and dreamed I was someone else. To glimpse the negative utopia that worries me, you might watch the old movie version of “Rollerball”. It dramatizes the issues in a way I can’t in exposition and perhaps you will find it less confusing.
I don’t like the EU and never said I did; I used it as a negative example of a world trend towards corporate structuring of governments. I even said that if not for humanitarian reasons, I would welcome its collapse. I also do not like the corporate model for governments for the same reason I detest Marxism: both are absolutely corrosive for individual rights and liberties. In fact, Marxism was corporatism, but rather by profit motive, its materialism was driven by an ideology.
Perhaps I am confused but I think anyone following the commentor’s offerings might be forgiven for a little head-scratching. To illustrate two or three of my sources of confusion let us all take a look at some of the material that has been posted by the commentor.
Utopian Marxism may have failed, but the economic union of Europe is hardly a failure, is it?
Gee, for the life of me the above looks like a defense of Marxism – as in ‘one version of Marxism may have failed but another is flourishing.’
The fundamental character of the nation is being eroded away by “what’s good for business,’ what’s good for economic growth.
The above is also a common Marxist analogue: business = something bad.
An international economic bloc that will be competitive with China and Euro blocs requires a large agrarian/ peasant work force, and that’s why the politicos are willing to ignore/encourage every negative aspect of illegal immigration.
The above looks to me to be a talking point right out of a Marxist primer. What’s the old adage? If it squawks like a duck, waddles like a duck, etc.
Why don’t the businesses using the industrious workers foot the education/health care/crime bills for them? Why, they would make less profit!
A Marxist tenet: Profit is bad. Another tenet: Capitalists(“businesses”) ‘use’ “workers.”
The trend toward the corporate model is worsened by that coalescence of interests between government and corporations discussed by Gross—of whom you see only a forehead with Scarlet M.
I never claimed Gross was a Marxist, only that his book, as described by the commentor, seemed to rely on a Marxist interpretation of society.
Finally, I note that you appear unaware that the administrations of the US, Canada and Mexico are laying the groundwork for an economic trade bloc. Such a bloc is a forerunner of an EU, with common currencies and loss of sovereignty. I don’t like it for all the above reasons.
Again, it is difficult to know what the commentor is referring to by “groundwork for an economic trade bloc,” but one must assume he means NAFTA. It would be less difficult to understand, to be less “unaware” as the commentor puts it, if only the comments offered were a bit less obtuse.
I believe it is somewhat paranoid to be worried about NAFTA leading to “common currencies and loss of sovereignty.” Trade agreements have been around for a very long time, long before the EU existed, without occasioning any loss in sovereignty for the participating nations.
VinceP:”I dont think the people throwing around the word Corporatist even know what the words mean.” Well, there does seem to be a shortage of catchers. On the other hand, fears and concerns about corporations have been expressed from the country’s founding, from people like Jefferson down to Mussolini and beyond. So there’s no shortage of meanings corporatism–from corporatism as fascism or as socialism. In fact, ther are so many meanings for the word almost any meaning could find support somewhere. So it’s not exactly arcane.
How about democratic Wikipedia: “At a popular level in recent years “corporatism” has been used to mean the promotion of the interests of private corporations in government over the interests of the public.” I’d accept that and substitute for “interests” “individual civil and human rights of the citizenry.”
grackle: I don’t see that my last post brought us any closer to a meaningful argument on the issues I’ve raised. Rather than waste our time, we can leave it at where you seem to want it: I’m just one confusing writer.
Corporatism is the way collectivist governments implemented the day to day guidance of industry, the mechanism by which fascist states moved policy from the central command to the factory floor. It has nothing to do with corporations.
Coirporatism , like all collectivist systems, is a Left Wing movement.
grackle: I don’t see that my last post brought us any closer to a meaningful argument on the issues I’ve raised. Rather than waste our time, we can leave it at where you seem to want it: I’m just one confusing writer.
I’ll not dispute the commentor’s last sentence in the above quote. I’ll also not dispute that the occasional deference of politicians to the representatives of corporations sometimes leads to situations that are not necessarily beneficial to the nation as a whole; what is commonly referred to as ‘lobbying.’
But while lobbying may sometimes cause politicians to make unwise legislative decisions I would never want the activity to be abolished or even curtailed.
One must be careful to keep from relegating corporations to some kind of abstract entity. Corporations are people, not monsters. They are comprised of the people who work for corporations and they are financed by stockholders who invest in them. All these folks have a right, guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution, “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances;” in other words, to lobby politicians.
What I believe is important is to make lobbying an open process, known to anyone who might be interested to find out who might be bending the ear of a politician. With an open process the voters should be capable of ferreting out the unwise legislative decisions sometimes caused by lobbying.
VinceP: “Corporatism is the way collectivist governments implemented the day to day guidance of industry, the mechanism by which fascist states moved policy from the central command to the factory floor. It has nothing to do with corporations.”
Very good. You read Mussolini: “The first stage of fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power.” But that was a long time ago. Things change, and so do conceptions. You may recall I mentioned Gross’s notion of “friendly fascism,” which is a different arrangement of state and corporate power–as Gross explains at length. Before you dismiss it out of hand as “left wing” or Marxist, which it may be, you should read it, if only to discover more than one conception of corporatism.
You go on to say, “Coirporatism , like all collectivist systems, is a Left Wing movement.” I get weary of collapsing all politics into left and right. If you take Marx as virtually the archetype of the left, and Hitler of the right, what was Mussolini, whom Hitler admired? Marxism and Nazi Fascism were two different names of socialism, equally collectivist and equally brutal. Things change and so do meanings. The “corporatism” I described is not Gross’s fascism, nor is it animated by an abstract theory of materialist dialectic, nor the myth of an Imperial Reich; its motive is a simple profit motive shared by business and government. It’s quite simple, but monstrous as government. My soul may be damned to hell for daring to use the term “corporatism” but I’ll risk it.
Grackle: I’m a sucker for lost causes, and I’m sure this is futile: the idea that corporations are persons is acknowledged even by the courts to be a legal fiction, not a reality. It is also the case that the legal fiction was, essentially, a hoax perpetrated by an over-reaching court reporter who printed head-notes (not usually part of decision) as part of decision. The case was Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific (in 1866, I think). The Court has never declared that corporations are persons, but the printed head-notes got cited and set the precedent of which the law is so fond. What that hoax means is that the corporation–already advantaged by economic power and metaphysics–they are, for example, immortal and capable of being in many different places at the same time–also have civil rights, such as freedom of speech, which they use to good effect in political campaigns. Money is speech, says SCOTUS, so corporations get lots of speech. But who, in the legal fiction, is speaking? Management? Stockholders? Who does the corporate speech represent? Obviously, a fiction that is in direct competition with the real citizenry for real environment, real political control, real participation in government. And all that because of a hoax.
Hitler was not a right-winger!
All Collectivism is Left wing, including National Socialism. The Soviet Union believed in an Interntional Universalist spread of Communism. Germany’s socialism model was not universal but nationalistic. Germany viewed SU’s desire to spread Communism worldwide as a threat.
In its propaganda war against Germany, the Soviet Union called Germany “right wing” in order to discredit Germany’s flavor of collectivism. And the propganda worked.
I have no interest in perputuating propaganda lies started by Stalin, so I reject any characterization that Nazism is a Right Wing thing.
I get tired of peolpe who distort history.
VinceP: I wrote: “Marxism and Nazi Fascism were two different names of socialism, equally collectivist and equally brutal.” Does that not suggest to you that we are in agreement regarding the nature of socialist systems? What’s so precious to you about “right wing” that you can’t bear it to be applied to Hitler? Stalin did not invent the long standing association between nationalism/statism and the right, and it is no distortion of history to make the association. It a distortion to act as if it started with Stalin. Better to blame it on the French. It may be nonsense, it may be inaccurate (in the sense of making false distinctions–as I suggested). But it is a popular, traditional association and as such certainly no distortion of history.
What’s so precious to you about “right wing” that you can’t bear it to be applied to Hitler?
Um.. becuase it’s not true?
And are you telling us that those on the Left can’t be nationalistic or patriotic?
THanks for confirming what so many of us think.
Not true? Uh . . . tell it to all the people who believe Hitler was “right wing” and who think it matters.
No, I’m not telling you that. It is true, however, that Marxism, if you characterize it in the traditional way–as politically left–was internationalist and anti-nationalist. But I suspect there were many communists who nurtured a secret love and loyalty to Russia or other homelands.
Not true? Uh . . . tell it to all the people who believe Hitler was “right wing” and who think it matters.
I am telling it to them, just like I have told you. If you want to puretuate soviet deception that’s up to you.
Only someone who doesn’t think can place a socialist collectivist dictatorship on the right.
In relation to the Communism, NAZIism was to right.. But on the absolute scale, NAZI is on the Left.. Communism was even further left.
Thus Stalin , to discredit Germany’s version of Socialism , labelled NAZIsm to be totally ‘right wing’.
These two Left-wing fascist states were in competition with each other.. so they said what they needed to in order to discredit the other.
I’m glad you said that. I can skip it in my next hallucination.
DuMaurier-Smith If you take Marx as virtually the archetype of the left, and Hitler of the right, what was Mussolini, whom Hitler admired? Marxism and Nazi Fascism were two different names of socialism, equally collectivist and equally brutal. Things change and so do meanings.
Hitler is only the archtype of the right to a communist. Go past the utopian, end justifies the means, and pragmatic view of war, you then get to the right. as you say, Hitler and Marxism, and all the others are socialist. At best they are what you can call an administrative feudal state in which there is the upper lords and their employs, and below the serfs, for whom all the toil is said to be the benefit of.
That’s what the American system was getting away from!!! And did!!!
in all other systems the classes are fixed, they cant move. In the US, despite the games of nearly 100 years of socialism trying to make communism, people are still mobile. The borders have to let workers in because the workers who were here moved upwards. And wealthy people spend poorly (or usually their children do), and they fade from wealth again.
the take to socialism is the creation of a fixed system that stagnates and makes possible a ruling class. About the only difference from kings is that their power is not from right of birth, or at least succession is not from right of birth, birth still guarantees you a place in the game.
Artfldgr: I wholly agree with your analysis of the socialist state. We differ on borders. I am an unabashed American nationalist. I this country is the world’s greatest socio/political experiment. It was dedicated to the proposition that individuals had inalienable rights that were beyond the state’s powers to grant or reduce. That is, each person was entitled to seek self-realization according to their own conscience so long as they did not infringe upon another’s right to do the same thing. Why are borders important to that? Because this is an isle of sanctity for those values whose sovereignty I want to see presevered at all cost. As for Mexican migrant workers, I am all for that, so long as immigration laws are impartially followed and not sacrificed to political or economic expediency. We are a nation of laws–secular laws–as is required in a country of such diverse population with persons of diverse talents, dreams, and life goals. When our politicians are acting as if breaking the law is no big deal, it is a very big deal and bodes ill for our future. So far as I’m concerned, a pox upon both parties for promoting his immigration travesty. I see no reason to exculpate them by allowing them to act as if the law is not the law. So far as I’m concerned, they can hang and turn slowly in the wind forever as an example of debased politics. Or, they can enforce the law whose violation they have so far promoted. It is not for us to give them a pass on their misdeeds; it is for them to redeem themselves.
Grackle: I’m a sucker for lost causes, and I’m sure this is futile: the idea that corporations are persons is acknowledged even by the courts to be a legal fiction, not a reality. It is also the case that the legal fiction was, essentially, a hoax perpetrated by an over-reaching court reporter who printed head-notes (not usually part of decision) as part of decision. The case was Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific (in 1866, I think). The Court has never declared that corporations are persons, but the printed head-notes got cited and set the precedent of which the law is so fond. What that hoax means is that the corporation—already advantaged by economic power and metaphysics—they are, for example, immortal and capable of being in many different places at the same time—also have civil rights, such as freedom of speech, which they use to good effect in political campaigns. Money is speech, says SCOTUS, so corporations get lots of speech. But who, in the legal fiction, is speaking? Management? Stockholders? Who does the corporate speech represent? Obviously, a fiction that is in direct competition with the real citizenry for real environment, real political control, real participation in government. And all that because of a hoax.
I would never claim that a corporation is a person – anymore than I would declare that a city is a man or that the NBA is a basketball player. If the Sun disappeared cabbages would also eventually disappear – but the Sun is not a cabbage simply because one is dependent for existence on the other. So persons and corporations are two distinct classes of things and what seems obvious to the commentor is also obvious to me. But it also seems obvious that if a city or the NBA disappeared some people(or persons) would be negatively affected.
The shareholders, investors and employees of a corporation would probably be negatively affected if a corporation disappeared – as the stockholders of Enron found out. Assuredly the stockholders would not disappear if a corporation disappeared – just their investments. Likewise the employees would also not disappear – just their paychecks. It is plain that the stockholders and employees are not the same thing as the corporation.
But the commentor seems to have an awed and supernatural view of corporations. For example the commentor seems to believe corporations are immortal, like gods I guess:
” … they[corporations] are, for example, immortal and capable of being in many different places at the same time
I happen to come across the Wisconsin Historical Society’s Library Archive which has an index of the Incorporation Papers of Defunct Domestic Corporations in Wisconsin through the years 1848 though 1945. Submitting just one county(Racine) results in a list many pages long of corporations that no longer exist. But I thought they were immortal!
http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/libraryarchives/corporations/domestic.asp
But leaving metaphysics and getting back to the legal rights of persons: Certain members of corporations have been found by the Judiciary to possess a legal right to present their views to politicians in order to influence legislation. And they may hire people to present those opinions for them. It’s known as ‘hiring a lobbyist’ and is guaranteed by the First Amendment.
While there are laws governing the act of lobbying there is no law banning it. Lobbying is one of those fundamental rights that has been upheld by the Judiciary, as embodied in the First Amendment which “prohibits the United States Congress from making laws” to “limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
The case cited by the commentor, Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific, had to do with rights under the fourteenth Amendment involving the jurisdiction of states to tax corporations – not lobbying – and has little bearing on anything I’ve posted.
grackle: Should have gone with my instincts.