Some people are getting a bit cranky about the fact that I pissed in their cornflakes this morning, so here's a little more exposition.
A charismatic new face appeared on the political scene, somebody who was honest and sympathetic and intelligent. So he was a little more religious than I liked; he's still a good man who promises to repair the damage of the former presidency. He's running against a relic of that previous corrupt administration, his campaign slogan is all about change, and I am so relieved to have a promising choice. I campaigned for him, I stayed up all night with my friends on election night cheering him on, and I woke up the next morning optimistic for the future, glad that we finally had a progressive president.
Obviously, that wasn't this year's election. It was 1976, the very first presidential election in which I was eligible to vote, and the candidate was Jimmy Carter, a man I still think was probably the most honorable and decent president of the 20th century. But optimism and good intentions were not, are not enough. What followed Carter's election was well-meaning bumbling, a dismal and unaccomplished presidency, and Ronald Reagan, the catastrophe that paved the road to our current state.
This election was so much like that one, only even more so. And I dread the possibility that jubilation will lead to complacency, that moderation will produce stasis, and that what will follow an Obama presidency could be something far, far worse than we can imagine.
So no, no ebullience from me, no brief relaxation into celebration. I'm charging up my cattle prod, because I want to goose the Obama administration into actually getting something done in the coming years. I think Obama could be a great president, especially since greatness in that office is measured by the magnitude of the challenges faced (which are off the scale), and the ability of the leader to rise to them. There is reason to have hope, but hope doesn't get the job done.
Ten years from now I don't want to be praising Obama by commenting on his generosity and his carpentry skills.
- Log in to post comments
I hear you. We'll see.
Amen!
I agree with Sven DiMilo (# 1).
Yea, I understand why you'd be a bit sour. Frankly, I liked that you were "sour". Always gotta remember, this is politics, and politics are all about false hopes and lies...
Carpentry...
Obama is Jesus!
It was nice to hear him mention science ever so briefly in his speech, and he did say "out of many, we are one" though he kind of ruined it by ending with the invocation of god.
Unlike Carter, and judging by what I saw on a show called "Frontline," Obama is far more Machievillian than Carter. I mean that in a good way. He might be able to get things done.
I feel much the same way you do because, although the better of the two candidates won, it takes more than the hopes of one man to make things happen. There is also a new Congress to consider and, potentially, some new Supreme Court justices.
But more importantly, I woke up to the sobering fact that most Americans still feel perfectly comfortable arming their religious beliefs with the power of the law in order to strip away the rights of others simply because they are different. Not only comfortable, I might add, but several in my state of Mississippi are celebrating this.
Friends, we still have so much work left to do. If we want to ever see our world ruled by rational thought and pro-science views, we must be even more active.
I pretty much agree. Hope is one thing. Following through is another. However, I do believe that this is the best path. LoL, here's hoping anyway.
Thanks for adding the additional context...
Truthfully, I'm just as happy at the fact that the damn thing is over as I am about the outcome.
Anymore, discussing politics makes me think / speak hastily and occasionally irrationally more than any other topic. I'd love to be able to go back and edit / toss out some of the comments I've made in this and other blogs on this topic. Oh well...
Let's return to pissing off Bill Donahue...
Did you notice during Obama's acceptance speech, he got the crowd chanting "Yes, we can" for a while? I'm hopeful that this means that he wants people active and doing stuff during his term, and not that he intends to sit on his laurels.
Very nicely said, PZ. D'accord... although I'm still sticking with being pretty excited for a day or two.
I fully agree.
PZ,
Your earlier post reminded me of Obama's speech last night - at least in spirit. Let's not cheer ourselves too much, get too lost in patting each other on the back, because today is when the actual work begins. Part of that work is a determination to pursue what we each think is a truer course.
If anything, isn't this what people voted for?
Worse than we can imagine? Worse than Palin in 2012? ::insert sideshow bob shudder here::
I hope he hears you.
Agreed. I was ecstatic last night. But when I woke up this morning and saw the Prop 8 BS I realized nothing has really changed. Ignorance still reigns supreme. I can only hope that Barack comes even halfway to living up to the pedestal we've put him on.
I'm cautiously optimistic, he's been given the opportunity, we need to make sure he makes the most of it.
Too many people in this country are happy to blame the other side for failure whilst giving a free ride to their own.
You may be right. I certainly hope not, but it is certainly a possibility.
Nevertheless, Obama doesn't appear to share Carter's key failing, managerial ineptitude and paralysis. This may be just an illusion, but the evidence from the few short years that since Obama appeared on the national scene is quite encouraging. Certainly, his campaign was not only the cleanest seen in many years, but also by far the most effectively and efficiently managed in at least a century.
Perhaps he will prove to have only been an exceptional campaigner and will utterly fail as president. But the temperament and intellect that he has displayed to date has been simply extraordinary. Then there's his astonishing political talent that we've seen so far, the steel hand in a cushy velvet glove approach to politics that so far has won over many potential enemies while giving others the perfect amount of rope to hang themselves in an orgy of self destruction. I am rarely impressed by any politicians, but these factors, combined with his surprisingly robust legislative record to date (both in the Illinois and US Senate), make me immensely hopeful in a way that never quite fit with Carter (who may have been the most decent man we've had for President in quite some time).
Nevertheless, I do believe that Obama will sorely disappoint many progressives. Despite the caterwauling on the right, Obama really wasn't a particularly liberal Senator. Progressives expecting him to govern with a partisan progressive agenda are likely to be shocked, if Obama's history is anything to go by.
If I had to make a prediction, expect an low drama administration that is nevertheless filled with a wide spectrum of political viewpoints and a surprising number of conservatives in influential positions.
I don't think we'll see "bipartisanship" on a large scale. The Republican party has gone too far off the deep end for that. But I do expect Obama to develop several firm Republican allies in the Senate. Most likely starting with Dick Lugar.
Well, obviously, B.H.O might seem tainted because he knows how to play "The Game" and he does play it. But we have to face the fact that anybody that doesn't know how to play the game, or won't play it because of principles, wouldn't make it far up the ladder. No matter how good, intelligent and/or honest he would be.
So, who do you (i'm from Canada) guys have elected? Somebody who knows what it takes to get elected. Who will say "God Bless America" when the timing seems right. Who will try to please some of our (us reality driven people) natural enemies to try and get some of the necessary and dirty jobs done.
But also somebody who seems to share some of our core values. Sciences and educations seems to be important to him. Agrees that some times, violence must be met by violence ("when it's foaming at the mouth, you HAVE to shoot it"), but believes that diplomatic discourse is much more useful.
Yes, the sense of euphoria currently buzzing thru the planet might be a bit much, but saying that the glass is half-empty for fear of a huge letdown is a bit harsh.
There's an expression in French: "donnez la chance au coureur." Let's see what he does.
Bully, bully... (Is that the same as hear! hear!)
Carter had the ever so great Volcker f'ing up the economy for him, inherited a flawed foreign policy in SW Asia, and faced a hostile Congress of his own party! Clinton lost the House, the House! in 1994, just two years into his term.
It is wise to avoid unbounded optimism, there is no precedent supporting it.
Carter wasn't that bad. Many historians look at his term as being more successful than not. There were major problems and at least we floundered through them. He brokered a peace between Egypt and Israel that has lasted, a feat that makes building the pyramid seem easy.
PZ is right though. McRage/apPaling would likely have been far worse than Bush. Bush is very stupid and passive, those two aren't much brighter but more active.
But it is a false dichotomy to say, McBush=bad so Obama=good. He isn't a messiah promising paradise. At this point, he gets our hopes and best wishes. He comes through and he is a hero. If he screws up too bad, I at least will hold him and the Dems to account.
We want leadership and vision not the same old politicians and worn out slogans.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/mikeserfas/gGx3Dh
'Let's return to pissing off Bill Donahue'
Methinks we do not have to, seems de dude is in a permanent state of pissedoffedness.
After Obama that might well reach critical bitch and his head might well go ...'poof!'...there is hope.
As for ya new pres...depends on how bloody minded the repubs are.
Fillibustering is still possible I believe, the dems not quite making the 60 seats required to kick that nonsense into touch.
Maybe even the repubs are relieved that shrub is ex and the mac and palin show is scrapped...but we shall see...
Well, there's plenty of time for Obama to be attacked by a rabbit.
I so agree with you. I have been worrying that Obama could another Carter, well meaning but totally ineffectual. The one difference that could change things is Obama came up through Chicago politics which is about as vicious and cut throat as it gets. Now if he can just use that experience to get some good things done.
Somebody needs a hug.
Well said, PZ. I think Obama will be more effective than Carter, but we on the left are going to have to drag him, perhaps kicking and screaming, out of his centrism. I do think he can be persuaded. I just don't think it will be easy.
Can anyone educate me about what Reagan did to lead us to this position? I wasn't even alive in that era, so I don't know much. There seems to be a negative tone towards him around here, so I am curious.
The way I look at it, we've set ourselves up with a climate that might actually allow us to do some good rather than being constantly on the defensive. Now we have to actually do something with it.
PZ:
While agree with you and we all need to keep on our toes and make sure Obama keeps on his, I am still going to celebrate the small bit of light I can see on the horizon after the 8 years of embarrassment and near-oppression under Bush.
I agree with you about Carter but I think you're underestimating Obama. He's a much more capable politician than JC and has sparked an enthusiasm (worldwide) that I've never seen before.
That's good PZ but I hope you'll remember that there are times to use the cattle prod and other times when we all need to help lift the ox out of the ditch.
Carter's presidency provides a great example of what Obama should not do, though there are many examples of what to do, and some ambiguous stuff.
Obama comes out of Congress, out of the Senate, and so he should not repeat Carter's errors of treating Congress like the Georgia state legislature. But just coming from the Senate isn't enough. Kennedy came from the Senate; but the example to follow in this regard is Johnson. Also a creature of the Senate, he simply used the White House as a bigger lobby hall. Senators, and Representatives, were frequent guests in the office. Johnson brought them to the White House to flatter them, but to hammer them as well. Often, Johnson got his way. Carter rather ignored Congress, assuming they are adults. They are not, not in that regard.
But, Tip O'Neill had a telephone that could call the White House, too, and didn't use it as much as he could have.
The result was bad linkage between the Democratic White House and the Democrats in Congress. If Rahm Emanuel plays any role, either in the White House, or in Congress, we should avoid those troubles.
That's the single most important Carter error to avoid. There is no inherent reason Obama can't learn from Carter's history -- and no reason to think he hasn't, already.
Just the same, let's remind him.
Well, the talk in the financial media is about how it is hoped that Obama will favor this group and that group (Silican Valley, esp.), because of their support of his candidacy.
As far as I can see, the same rules apply, and indeed, all too little has changed. Theocrats go into exile--though don't forget that they feed off of exile and resentment--for the time-being, the rich will be favored marginally less, CO2 will probably be abated to a small degree, etc. A number of good things, but what always strikes me about American politics is how power mainly shifts between bourgeois groups, with little challenge to the whole rotten mess.
It's incrementalism at best, and I'm glad that PZ is aware of how little has changed.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
This situation is similar to 1976, but it is also similar to 1932. Despite similarities, it is important to remember than Obama is not Carter.
That said, I agree that it's important to have a healthy skepticism. Obama should never be immune to criticism, from either side. The ultimate test lies ahead of him, and I hope that he is more like the next FDR than the next Carter.
Don't forget that however the vote turns out, a politician winds up getting elected. Politicians play by the rules of politics.
It doesn't pay for us, the governed people, to get too enthusiastic about the government. Nobody is coming to rescue us. We can't afford to slack off. We still need to work for ourselves, our families, and our neighbors.
We succeed in spite of, not because of, politicians and government.
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3766813,00.html
Vienna news editorial:
"The next US president will need to leave Iraq and its ethnic groups -- with their merciless fights over oil, money and power -- to their own devices. He will need to see that no power in the world will be able to force Afghanistan's warring mountain groups into the corset of parliamentary democracy -- a form of government that is useless there -- despite any 'we'll get Bin Laden' promises. This president will have to understand that neither the financial crisis nor global warming can be solved by the USA alone. (...)
"Not only the USA, but the rest of the world, too, needs a new American realism. America must learn to see itself as the debtor nation, the failed warmonger, and the technological latecomer that it is. Only then can it lay claim to the title of "Leader of the Western World."
Funny, I wrote a similar post on my blog lamenting my disdain for the very mixed election last night. We must be in tune. I agree with you.
Oh, and I have found proof that Obama = Lord
Follow me . . .
In the bible the Lord says: "I am the alpha and the omega"
omega = o mega, literally translated to "The Great O"
Thus: O = Obama = The Great O = Omega = LORD
Irrefutable proof. See? He's not the antichrist.
:)
Funny, I thought Bush was trying (to much derision from the peanut gallery) to be the Alpha. (heh)
In other word, the "context" is that experience has made you older and wiser, and thus you are bordering on Curmudgeon Territory. Ok; since I am old enough to be your slightly older cousin, I can go along with that. Curmudgeon it is. Crusty curmudgeon, if need be.
But we must all strive hard to avoid 'coot.' Yes, we can.
Errr.. PZ? When in hole... stop digging... something like that? I think responding to Obama's election by worrying that it might in some unspecified way lead to some unspecified bad thing in future is pointlessly negative.
If you're concerned about well-meaning bumbling, there at least you're probably going to be OK. A black guy from a single-parent family with an Arabic name and huge ears just beat the Clintons in the longest primary ever and beat the Republicans in the longest election ever while raising more money than the mind can comfortably grasp by shaking down millions of people for a hundred bucks each. I don't think that was achieved by hoping for the best or naive high-mindedness.
There is undoubtedly a plan there.
Great points, PZ, and well taken. I completely and wholeheartedly agree with what you say, and passionately so as a cautionary message of great importance.
You're right: I saw that happen before too. (Carter > Raygun). It's a sobering reminder and I thank you for it sir.
I'm sorry PZ, but your wiener missed my cornflakes :-P I'm jubilant!
I'm Ecstatic that we can shove a pike up Lieberman's A** now that he can't blackmail the Democrats anymore!
I'm Ecstatic that the nightmare of the last 8 years is ending!
I'm Ecstatic that the neocon Fwads were resoundly kicked in the balls!
I'm Ecstatic that I feel a hell of a lot better than I did four or eight years ago!
I'm Ecstatic that a black man is actually going to the Whitehouse!
I'm Ecstatic that we have a person with the potential to make an informed, rational decision entering that house!
Yeah, things aren't perfect, but they're a hell of a lot better than they were yesterday!
Sorry to piss in your piss, but I'm going to enjoy the moment.
Pdiff
You are right to be cautious, but you have also earned the right to a celebratory respite before the next round of hard work begins. For me, Michael Moore's comment on his web site, mixing joy with pragmatism, struck the right note--and he celebrates the prospects for science!
Also, spare a thought for New Zealand--we go to the polls on Saturday with a strong likelihood of a conservative victory. On the plus side, in the final debate between the leaders of the two main parties last night: "Both said they did not believe in God or in an afterlife, and that it was a woman's right to choose on abortion." And guess what, it hardly caused a ripple. So be strong (or as they say in Maori "Kia Kaha!") it can happen. Good luck to you all.
The MSM is trying out the "country voted center right" bullshit.
The people voted for a progressive candidate. People voted FOR change not republican lite.
It's our job to not let Obama lose his nerve and get wishy washy.
HappyKiwi, I'm pulling for you and your beautiful country. All I can say regarding the people who eventually win the top political slot and the majority representation is that, like other things we can think of, is it's not the apparent size of it, and it's not how much you talk about it, it's what you do with it. Here's hoping that your politicians don't use it to screw you too much, eh.
"It" meaning "political power." Why, what did you think I meant? ;)
I find that following the outcome of the election, my operative emotion is chiefly relief that we can take a terrifying prospect... that of McCain choking on a chicken bone, and having Palin take over the Oval Office... off the table.
Hey... how about this...
March 30, 2009
The White House
President Obama met early this morning with his inner circle... Secretary of Defense Louis Farrakhan, Secretary of State Jesse Jackson, and National Security Advisor Rev. Al Sharpton... to discuss the Administration's plans for deployment of US troops to Kenya...
(... just kidding... but wouldn't that be a hoot?)
I'm with PZ. I thought of the Carter parallel too, and I'm scared BHO will f**k it up. But I'm still happy he won and proud of the country for electing him. Wow!
Steve_C wrote:
First they tell us that Obama is the most left leaning Dem, even a socialist. Now they want us to believe the "country voted center right"? That Repug lite used to be John McCain, not Obama.
Thank you, that did need to be said. Obama won the election but we didn't win anything yet. As always it is up to us to keep the politicos on their toes. Something that has been sadly lacking the past 8 years.
Also bear in mind that in many areas Obama's hands are tied. He can't simply yank the troops out of Iraq for example. He could re-start a dialog with Iran though.
Which, if you're making comparisons to Carter, is incredibly ironic.
I was too young to vote in 1976 (I was in Kindergarten) but I do remember it vaguely, from a child's perspective. I was also too young to have much of an opinion about the 1980 election at the time.
Fast forward to 1992, and I remember how ecstatically happy I was that Clinton had won, and how quickly I was disappointed not long after. What's different from 1992 and now, of course, is that Barack Obama won on his own merits, and there was no Ross Perot element unwittingly stealing potential R votes away from his opponent.
I have lower, more realistic expectations this time, so as to safeguard against too much disappointment after inauguration day. I'm pleased with the outcome, mostly, and have no doubt that McCain/Palin would've been infinitely worse.
This is not like 1932, however; there is no militant labor movement, with no wildcat "sit-down" strikes; Much as I wish it were otherwise, Ralph Nader is no latter-day Huey Long, and Eugene V. Debs's perennial presidential campaigns on the (actual) Socialist ticket is not something within living memory of most voters like it was in 1932.
Mr. Obama has his work cut out for him, as do we, holding him to his campaign promises and pressing for more.
I still don't like the piss in my cornflakes, but I'm glad you explained with this post.
Biden was a great choice, Emanuel is another. I am oddly optimistic so far.
Look for Powell and Hagel next. There will be some old Clinton people involved with the economics portion of the test.
The 60 majority in the senate barely matters at this point. Obama will lead from the center, and there are still a few moderate repubs that will be dying to work with him.
So far, he seems to be just what the doctor ordered.
Let's let him stretch his legs and see how it goes.
At times when I heard Obama speak I've thought "Blair". I guess that's even worse than Carter, right? On the other hand even as kid I could see Blair was bullshitting half the time. If Obama is bullshitting he is more convincing
DuckPhup wrote:
No, not after reading the FReepers screams of horror and pain:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2008/11/you-can-blame-me-obama-won.html
Oh man the Carter years.. lines for gas, watching my parents' frustrating searches for work and salvation army clothes while dealing with stagflation.. oh my. Fun years. He was a lousy president with a lousy congress that made our lives lousy, the Eighties was a new dawn for us: Parents found steady jobs, for the first time we could afford to even eat at a McDonalds, and I could get new clothes (without holes no less!), it was nice to finally make it into the middle class (even if it was the lower middle class).
Thank goodness Clinton was not Carter, the Nineties were actually good to me.
Wow, I'm glad I had Cocoa Krispies for breakfast and not corn flakes.
All true, given the democrats past performance we will all have to get out our cattle prods. However, keeping that reality in mind, I choose to be happy that Obama one, as well as hopeful and to actually give him a chance before I become morose about the elelction.
there's plenty of time for Obama to be attacked by a rabbit.
I deny all allegations.
"Obviously, that wasn't this year's election. It was 1976, the very first presidential election in which I was eligible to vote, and the candidate was Jimmy Carter, a man I still think was probably the most honorable and decent president of the 20th century."
Please tell me you're joking. You think he's more honorable than the Roosevelts (either Franklin or Teddy), Clinton, Wilson or any of the others?
"What followed Carter's election was well-meaning bumbling, a dismal and unaccomplished presidency..."
You can say that again. I'd say that he was the biggest failure of the 20th century (Hoover is a close second). The economy went to hell, we had a horrible recession, gas prices went through the roof and he allowed the Shah of Iran to be deposed. I know that the Shah was an oppressive piece of garbage, but at least he didn't want to start a nuclear war with Israel and destroy the "Great Satan." At the very least, he could have certainly stopped Iran's "glorious revolution."
"and Ronald Reagan, the catastrophe that paved the road to our current state."
Reagan made quite a lot of mistakes, but at least he helped bring down the Soviet Union. I remember growing up thinking that the world will end as soon as some asshole decides that he's had enough of the capitalist/communist pigs and starts a gigantic nuclear war. I'm proud of Reagan's bluff, and I think it's only a shame that "Star Wars" did not become a reality.
"I think Obama could be a great president, especially since greatness in that office is measured by the magnitude of the challenges faced (which are off the scale), and the ability of the leader to rise to them. There is reason to have hope, but hope doesn't get the job done."
I hope that he will be a great president too. Who doesn't?
Anyway, I think like your opinion on the sciences, but I strongly disagree with many of your political ideas.
Your post reminds me why I was glad to hear Obama's victory speech speak of all the hard work to come, and how it is too premature to celebrate.
"the Eighties was a new dawn"
Having lived through them, I would call the 1980s a false dawn indeed: the dawn of a new (or not) level of heartlessness, mulishness and greed; the dawn of a meaner, smugger, more egotistical America; the dawn of a rolling wave of empty consumption that ended in civilians driving Hummers. I don't see that they heralded anything I could hold to my chest as true, meaningful or great, and they were were shepherded forth by a barking, hollow embarrassment of a President: a "great communicator" with no ideas, shellacked hair and a fucking lump of sour, shit-wrapped coal where his heart should have been. Disgusting.
But hey, some people made money, so of course Reagan was great! Jesus is really made of money, you know!
The main difference between Obama and Carter, and the best trait that Obama brings to the position, has been his ability to fire the political passions of his supporters. The passion and dedication that he has stirred won't go away, his supporters won't just crawl back into the woodwork. Yeah, we need to keep our elected officials on their toes, but the proverbial "Sleeping Giant" is now awake, alert, and fighting back.
As for a more odious right-wing backlash to an Obama presidency, the Internet caches full of hateful comments being spewed by the Freepers and their ilk will be accessible to mainstream "live and let live" types (which are more common among the younger members of the electorate), making right wing positions less tenable.
I can sympathise with you. Here in Britain, back in May 1997, we all celebrated the election victory of Tony Blair, who promised a welcome change from the corruption, economic ruin and screwing the poor which characterised the previous 18 years of Conservative Party governance under Thatcher and Major.
Alas, it soon emerged that Blair's political agenda was little better than what went before: tax breaks for the already-wealthy, obsessive use of spin doctors, fawning to religious pressure groups, and in 2003, an obscene eagerness to join Bush's disastrous invasion of Iraq, which Blair justified by lying to Parliament and the British people about non-existent weapons of mass destruction.
Blair's latter years in power were marked by increasing paranoia and control freakery.
Many of us who celebrated Blair's election victory on that May 1997 morning now look back with a far more cynical eye.
I mostly agree with PZ, too, from my vantage point in Canada. First The schadenfrude is understandable. The previous administration and the GOP in general seemed to be particulalry rife with hypocritical perverts, psychopathic warmongers and power-mad sadists. They deserve the scorn that is being heaped upon them.
Obama is certainly intelligent and cosmopolitian. He seems to be a decent man, and an energetic and competent one. The fact that an African-American won the office of POTUS is a cultural achievement of great significance.
The fact that his campaign was issue-oriented and appealed to the positive emotions is not a little thing. That he achieved a cult following based on hope and inclusiveness is no small feat, especially considering that this was in service of phenomenally successful and meticulously planned and executed political campaign.
We cannot diminish these cultural achievements.
I don't share the belief that liberal religion is a problem. I think it has little effect on actions and the use of reason by its adherents, so I will say no more about that.
The negatives are as follows, and while they outweigh the good for me, I am thrilled that McCain and many of House and Senate GIOP bids failed.
Obama, like most Americans, regardless of education or intelligence, stills buys into the idea of exceptionalism and Manifest Destiny expanded to the Earth. His postions on Afghanistan, Venezuala and Pakistan make this clear. A good part of this may be political necessity, but it is a systemic disease of the US polity which requires this, just as it requires affirmations of religiosity.
Presidents are subject to the larger economic interests of the US and the world, not the other way around.
The US is in debt to or owned in part by many governments such as Saudi Arabia and China. These obligations limit policy options.
Obama voted for FISA and other measures eroding the rights of US citizens under the Constitution.
The current financial crisis and the gradually worsening effects of climate change, overfishing, pollution, etc., etc. will not go away because we say we "Think we Can" do something. There needs to be a drastic philosophical re-orientation. Maybe it will happen in time and Obama will help it happen fast enough. I am sceptical.
So, the glass may be half full, but the beer is flat.
For those who question "Ronald Reagan, the catastrophe that paved the road to our current state." I offer a concise summary from the editors of The Nation of the debacle that was Reagan's America:
Judging by Obama's acceptance speech he realizes how much he has on his plate. I hope that this realization will keep him from being a repeat of Jimmy Carter. He also recognized and had the wisdom to say, that changes will not be revolutionary which showed great poise and foresight in my mind. I'm excited because for once young people got involved and with any luck my generation will start to get more representation in our government.
Do any of you guys realize that if Sen. Stevens from Alaska gets reelected and then resigns or gets tossed out of office by the senate, that his replacement will get picked by the current gov. of Alaska. I wonder who she will pick? Get ready for Senator Palin of Alaska!!!
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
I think we can be certain she won't pick A Moose.
Hey wait, doesn't her daughter's "fiance" need a job? "Senator Levi" has a ring to it.
(sorry I can't be bothered to look up the dude's last name)
Ben did have some good quotes. He's like the Yogi Bera of founding fathers..
or something like that.
By way of general agreement, let me say that ever since Obama looked like he had a pretty solid chance at the presidency — once Palin opened her mouth and pictures of suicidal stockbrokers started to go viral, in other words — I've been thinking of a line from James Burke's The Day the Universe Changed. To nick his phrase, it seemed that the country might take an encouraging turn for the so-so.
I'm willing to let people have the day off. Hell, those of you not immediately concerned with recounts and handling the damage from the various "we don't want gays to fuck each other so we'll fuck all of them ourselves" propositions — you guys can take yourselves a long weekend. Just be back next week, since that cattle prod will need testing, you know.
My wife is convinced that now that Palin is mostly out of the national spotlight, that Levi is going to bail on that whole arrangement.
Thank goodness Clinton was not Carter, the Nineties were actually good to me.
From where I'm sitting, better 100 Carters than another Bill Clinton. The late 1970s were a good time here (massive infrastructure projects, national pride on a scale never seen since Confederation, public-mindedness at an all-time high, decent economy); the '90s offered nothing much except recession, joblessness, homelessness, and neocons assuring us that if we'd just cut social spending even more to service our insignificant debt, everything would be nifty like magic. Oh, yeah, and no thanks at all to the first idiot President Bush who thought NAFTA was a good idea, and Clinton for not doing anything whatsoever economically to the left of him.
I'm feeling rather like you are, PZ; it's nice, but get real. I ought to check my LiveJournal and see how many flames my pissing in people's Wheaties has attracted.
There seems to be some disagreement about whether Ben made this quote or not, Rev. But Its sound to me like his words.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
I did not know that.
The Internet tends to do that sort of thing, to the Founding Fathers especially.
PZ,
1. what's the rush ?
You could have at least waited a few days. Why spoil the celebration ? You claim that you want to "goose" the Obama administration into actually getting something done in the next few years, but frankly, who from there is listening right now ?
2. It's not because Carter was a spineless wishy washy leader that the risk that Obama will be one is higher.
Of course there's a risk, there's always a risk, like with every new president, we haven't seen him yet governing, all we know from him is from his campaign and from his past political carreer (which is already quite a lot, but not sufficient to predict how well he will do as a president).
3. You say that there is reason to have hope, but can evaluate the value of that hope to so many, can you imagine the contrast it would be today if McCain/Palin had been elected instead ?
I was excited last night that Obama won. For about a minute. Then I saw how prop. 8 (Eliminates Marriage for Same-Sex Couples) was doing. I felt sick. I must have been incredibly naïve. I was under the impression that my fellow Californians were good people. I was wrong. Then I felt even worse. I had earlier voted for and helped elect a man who would have happily voted "yes" on 8. I had voted for a person who I considered to hold evil, amoral beliefs; someone who I realized was a bad person. Forgive me for not celebrating.
And nominated Robert Bork.
This is why personal anecdotes should be banned from intelligent political discourse.
Carter-Honorable?
pffffft
A few hundred thousand dead Guatemalans full of free American made lead, Brezinski's Grand Chess Game? That worked out great, thanks for the Taliban, assholes. Boycotted the Olympics because the Russians were behaving like the US. He had the political skills of Red Skelton, and was worse than Nixon for filling the White House with cronies, and personal friends instead of competence.
There are two primary assholes responsible for REAGAN'S Election, a third rate hack reporter by the name of Walter Cronkite, and a third Party Republican schill, by the name of Jon Anderson (who went on to sing for YES).
Obama is a master politician who out maneuvered Clinton, who was probably the most crafty politician of the 20th Century. Comparing Carter to Obama is like comparing Sarah Palin to Margaret Thatcher.
However, I support the subtext of the discussion. Giving any politician or power figure the benefit of the doubt is the most un-american act of all
Either way, I'm going to be paying attention in late December to see if young Bristol actually gives birth.
Sarah Palin will not be nominating the next senator from Alaska if Stevens wins up there and then is forced to resign. There will be a special election. Some states let the gov name replacement senators, but Alaska isn't one of them.
You say that there is reason to have hope, but can evaluate the value of that hope to so many, can you imagine the contrast it would be today if McCain/Palin had been elected instead ?
What's that you say? Don't take people's religion away, or they'll have nothing left to live for? Haven't we heard that one before? (Pardon if I misunderstand you.)
Don't we have a purpose in helping and getting along with our own family, friends, and neighbors? Do we really need to get our hope from the emotional appeals of the popular prophets of politics?
Taking your assertion at face value, yikes! I'd be very surprised if even Palin had the audacity to appoint herself to the Senate, but if there's going to be an election, she very well might run and win.
PZ: Very well-said. Keep up the good work!
From the Belly of the Oil Beast.
Obama took Harris County, which contains Houston, and George/Barbara Bush, and big oil, and a lot of diversity, so the Latinos went with Barack.
My daughter just got home from High School, which was an unofficial day long celebration, Obama T-Shirts everywhere.
Take that, TEXUS !!!
@78: do you have any reason to think that Obama supports or would have voted for CA Prop 8? Or are you just expressing bitterness?
Incidentally I gather there are some millons of absentee and early ballots not counted yet. The status of Prop 8 is not yet known.
Speedwell,
my comment is in response to PZ's :(with which I agree btw)
"I think Obama could be a great president, especially since greatness in that office is measured by the magnitude of the challenges faced (which are off the scale), and the ability of the leader to rise to them. There is reason to have hope, but hope doesn't get the job done."
All I'm saying is can you evaluate the value of that hope that Obama is giving to so many in opposition to what would have happened if McCain/Palin had been elected ?
I share the feelings of Myers.
8 years ago, In Mexico we have a Candidate for presidence, he was against a polical party that had stayed in power for 50 years.
He was carismatic, he made a very long campain, he atracted both left and righ wings, and get millions of pesos to spend in publicity, and multitudes followed. He won with the highest rankigs and aproval ratings any mexican president would had.
But he was at best a mediocre lider and today his 6 year of term are dubbed the lost years... for those who want to remember them...
Yet i fell Obama has the rigth stuff to start. While our president Fox was probably what you would call a redneck (we were so hopefull, that we tried to no to be bother by it). Obama seems a man that values inteligence and knowledge.
I wish the best for him and your people.
Whatever.
"Progressive zionist" Richard Silverstein cautiously suggests that President Obama and a possible Prime Minister Tzipi Livni could make great progress towards Arab-Israeli peace.
Posted earlier:
"Reagan made quite a lot of mistakes, but at least he helped bring down the Soviet Union."
That was, and apparently still is, a common mantra for conservatives. The problem is that after the Soviet Union fell, and records were opened, it became obvious they had fallen on their own. "
"I remember growing up thinking that the world will end as soon as some asshole decides that he's had enough of the capitalist/communist pigs and starts a gigantic nuclear war. I'm proud of Reagan's bluff, and I think it's only a shame that "Star Wars" did not become a reality."
Not quite a bluff - a full blown lie, as the idea never had, and still does not have, even in its current version, a chance of working. Note that two reviews of the missile systems used in the first Iraq war, the "offspring" of star wars research, concluded that NO SCUD MISSILE was shot down by our defenses.
So yeah, Reagan did a great job of fibbing, laying waste to the economy, allowing criminals to do his dirty work for the contras, and referring to the worst elements of the Nazi army as "victims" (however, I think I understand what he was getting at: he may have just botched that one), and being a good showman (that seems to be what he really was, a master of illusion).
Carter: decent human being, completely out of his league in the White House.
@#87
He has stated publicly many times that he is against marriage for same-sex couples (If you want I can try and find a quote but it has come up several times). He says he if for "civil unions" for gays. That's like saying that only white people can be married, everyone else gets segregated and has to accept civil unions. It is despicable.
If prop 8 actually passes I hope that marriage itself is outlawed in California. The fact that marriage is discriminatory hasn't changed. All that has changed is that now marriage cannot be made to fit the rest of the constitution. Just like the fact that slaves are worth 3/4ths of a person, marriage will be discriminatory but it won't matter because the practice itself would be gone. Lets see how those evil "Yes on 8" people feel when they can only get civil unions and are told that they are not allowed to be married.
PZ, I am in wholehearted agreement with you.
I recall vividly having an argument, back in 1972, with a very conservative guy at work who was going to vote for Nixon, despite all the obvious implications of Watergate by the time Election Day rolled around. "How can you possibly vote for that guy?" I said. "It's clear that he's a criminal!" The guy's answer was, "That's good, it means he knows how to get things done."
That said, of course we now desperately need someone who can get things done. I admit I didn't vote for Obama in the primary, but given the alternative, I had no hesitation voting for him as the chosen candidate. And yes, I am willing to suspend my disbelief, at least for the moment, that he just might be someone who can make some headway. Although I'm also happy enough that we haven't placed a ghoul like Palin a heartbeat away from the Presidency.
BTW scooter,
"There are two primary assholes responsible for REAGAN'S Election, a third rate hack reporter by the name of Walter Cronkite, and a third Party Republican schill, by the name of Jon Anderson (who went on to sing for YES)."
you're joking, right? That's a pretty narrow interpretation of a complex series of events that, along with a well-directed propaganda campaign, worked in Reagan's favor, don't you think?
"Jon Anderson (who went on to sing for YES)."
This may have been a joke on your part, but Jon Anderson the (British) Yes singer (Yes had been around for quite a while already in 1980) and John B. Anderson the 3rd party candidate are ... two distinct people.
@93: I know that he's said he's opposed to establishing gay marriage in general. What I'm asking is whether you know his position regarding CA Prop 8 specifically, which is a different question. There's a difference between not planning to introduce federal legislation pushing gay marriage, and actually supporting a constitutional amendment to ban it in states where it currently exists. I worry that you say you're feeling bitter over having worked to get Obama elected, and that bitterness may not be necessary.
You ain't pissin' in my cornflakes, PZ, but you are pissin' up a rope if you're going to wait until you get everything you want before you allow yourself a little joy. Sure, a tenured prof like you can afford the luxury of holding out for perfection, but those of us with a little more to lose might enjoy taking a break from the struggle to savor a bit of good news. It's just something us proles like to do now and then; I guess it's might be hard for you to relate.
When you write about science or your vigorous defense of atheism, you are entertaining and enlightening, but when you write about politics you really do come off as a sheltered, pedantic academic. If you can find the time to stop pissing (either on cornflakes or your own shoe) and moaning , I suggest you take your hands off your pecker long enough to wave them in the air, move your legs, and DANCE, brother, dance! It'll make you feel good and we'll still respect your mind in the morning!
Seriously though, keep up the good work, but DO try to lighten up! =0)
Zalman @ 95
I wasn't joking, oversimplifying perhaps.
Remove Walter Lunkrite's daily COUNTDOWN bullshit from the news, and Anderson running on a platform very close to Carters, taking 12 percent of the vote, and Reagan would NEVER have been elected.
Of course there were many other factors, but Carter and Reagan were both considered third rate by the public, there was no great Conservative revolution going on.
By the way. It amazes me that Steve Bechtel ran the United States for 8 frickin years, and nobody even knows who he is.
Amazing.
Wilson may have been honorable in his own mind, but he had several character flaws. Possibly the worst was that he was convinced of his own rectitude. If he had not made up his mind on a particular question, he would listen to anyone. However, once he had made up his mind, he stopped listening. He believed that his opinions were not only right but moral. Therefore, if someone disagreed with Wilson, they were not only wrong but wicked.
Wilson segregated the federal Civil Service and fired almost all Blacks not in custodial or other menial government jobs.
@97
You are right. It may indeed be that even though he thinks it shouldn't exist he wouldn't vote to make it so (I finally found his GLBT section of his site, which is conspicuously NOT in the civil rights section, and this is indeed his stance).
I think though, that whether or not he would do anything about it, he is on the wrong side. He may not vote to ban gay marriage but he certainly isn't voting to allow it either. I think that this might be even more dangerous in the long run. Passive bigotry tends to hang around. It isn't talked about and it is just accepted, never being brought out into the light to be ridiculed and shamed as it should be.
Obama has said that he doesn't think homosexuality is a choice. Therefore he believes that it is okay to tell people that they should not marry for reasons that they have no control over. At least the far right religious zealots believe that they are not persecuting people for who they are and just who they choose to be.
Bernard @ 96 : Jon Anderson the (British) Yes singer (Yes had been around for quite a while already in 1980) and John B. Anderson the 3rd party candidate are ... two distinct people.
How easily people are fooled by a little plastic surgery. It was TOTALLY the same guy, and Bill Buford is also Reagan's Nephew, and David Eisenhauer got a sex change operation and changed his name to Robert Fripp.
Also, Stewart Copeland's dad was in the CIA. The ties to secret gov't worldwide conspiracy and the British Rock scene are obvious.
Don't get me started on the Sex Pistols.
Wow - Eugene V. Debs. They just don't make 'em like that anymore. ;)
I came across a fundie web site once that claimed the Beatles were created by a British secret service conspiracy to undermine American morals. It failed to suggest a motive.
It's easy to point out some similarities between things, ignore the differences, and conclude that they are the same. Easy, but not insightful, and that sums up this post.
People here tend to pride themselves on being educated, informed, smart, etc., but when it comes to politics, there's a lot of intellectual laziness. For instance:
What I'm asking is whether you know his position regarding CA Prop 8 specifically
It is trivial to determine the answer to that question, and anyone who takes a position on Obama and Prop 8 should already know the answer:
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1051404.html
@101: I hope it's clear now that it's unjust to say that Obama would support Prop 8. You now have a president-elect who disagrees with you but is open to persuasion, which is better than one who thinks you ought not to exist.
He may not vote to ban gay marriage but he certainly isn't voting to allow it either. I think that this might be even more dangerous in the long run.
It's more dangerous to oppose banning gay marriage than to favor banning gay marriage? Wow, I guess I'm on the wrong side too, but at least I'm in good company (like Obama's).
@truth machine: I know that; I was trying to get Joshua to look it up and stop accusing Obama of a policy position he doesn't hold.
Sorry Stephen, that context was too subtle for me, but that's moot as my comment applies directly to Joshua and his low-information-generates-stupidity comment @78. It's really quite amazing how he managed to conclude that Obama is an evil person.
You now have a president-elect who disagrees with you
That's a tautology; everyone disagrees with everyone. But Obama and Joshua agree that gay marriage should not be banned by law, which is a rather important agreement in a discussion about Prop 8.
You campaigned for Carter? LOL - that was my first vote in a presidential election too, but I voted for some 3rd party candidate - Carter was way too right wing back in those days, much more so than Obama in today's environment.
But really, spend some time celebrating, even if it's only for the triumph of the lesser of two evils, the end of "The monster years."
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/05/the-monster-years/
Then roll up your sleeves and get back to work.
As other posters have noted, also look at Obama's campaign and what it took for him to get elected. He may not do what we want, but don't expect his administration to be bumbling and incompetent like Carter's.
On prop 8, I knew I lived in a cesspool of hatred and bigotry in OC, but I didn't expect the rest of the state to go for the lies, too. So it's certainly back to work there!
Thank you very much for the historical perspective. It is especially helpful to me and those of my age group (and younger) as I was not yet born for the election of '76.
Therefore he believes that it is okay to tell people that they should not marry for reasons that they have no control over.
Obama has not said that he believes that it is okay to tell people they should not marry because they're gay -- and if he did say that, it would amount to defending freedom of speech (it extends even to bigots and other assholes). If you could manage to accurately characterize Obama's actual position, instead of spouting such nonsense, you might learn a few things -- about him, about you, and about political discourse.
Maybe this will help: http://www.lgbtforobama.com/why-yes-to-obama
Thank you very much for the historical perspective. It is especially helpful ...
Would you depend on a history blog for a perspective on biology?
Read widely.
Rooter, re #99, I'm not sure I'm convinced, but I'm always willing to be educated.
Not that I doubt you hated Reagan completely, but I consider him to be far below Carter on the evolutionary scale, and his reign was a far longer and greater catastrophe, especially if you want to count people killed in other countries (as you did for Carter). I also don't think everyone agrees Reagan was third rate. It's rather alarming, but a lot of people seem to think Reagan was good-to-great and give him all kinds of credit he doesn't deserve, and forget how many criminals and crazies he brought (occasionally it was prevented) into his administration (e.g., #92 I'm with you 100%).
WRT to Steve Bechtel, the company has a long history, and there were/are two Steves. But I assume you mean the 8 year period just coming to an end? I don't think there's any way to deny the tremendous influence the company has had. Doubtless there's a huge body count to be laid at their doorstep, but who is most to blame, the CEOs of these companies or the people who keep electing and re-electing (much worse) their most loyal servants?
Well, in the end I don't think we really disagree too much.
When you write about science or your vigorous defense of atheism, you are entertaining and enlightening, but when you write about politics you really do come off as a sheltered, pedantic academic.
Careful, you could be banned for showing that you detest this site by saying something like that.
But it's oh so true.
BTW,
Speaking o' things in and out of context, I payed a little visit to those unrepentant idiots at FreeRepublic and LittleGreenGoofFootballs, just to see how they were taking the news.
Anyone got a barf bag?
I already said that his position was to not vote to ban gay marriage (I looked it up after I was rightfully told that I was being a jackass and needed to know for sure, though not in those words). I apologize for taking his words at face value and not in combination with everything else he has said at different functions and forums.
I do not believe I severely fucked up the rest of it though. Here is my reasoning about "Therefore he believes that it is okay to tell people that they should not marry for reasons that they have no control over."
Premise 1: Obama believes that being gay is not a choice.
Premise 2: Obama believes that gays should not marry (he is for civil unions but opposes marriage, he has said so himself)
Therefor: He believes that gays, who have no choice but to be gay, should not marry. They should not marry for the sole reason of a trait they have that was not of their choosing and that doesn't harm anyone else.
How is that a mischaracterization?
I am utterly unable to comprehend how this is not viewed in the same light and general disgust as saying that there should be no interracial marriage (where once upon a time it was illegal to marry the one you loved just because of some trait that you possessed [skin color] and had no control over)
My point about maintaining the status-quo being more dangerous has to do with the fact that public, outrageous, explicit bigotry is much easier to stop in the long run. An example, Jack Thompson was a very loud and ludicrous lawyer who fought to enact censorship of video games. He was very useful to the anti-censorship crowd because he presented an easy target to showcase the wrongness of his position. Without him the anti-censorship people will have to now contend with soft spoken, seemingly rational people who, by the very nature of them not being lunatics, could have a real shot at passing pro-censorship legislature. That's why I think that the casual acceptance of the bigotry that exists today, that is being lost in the noise, is more dangerous than the blatant easy to see, easy to ridicule, easy to put down forms of bigotry.
When Two Ewes (G "W" Bush) was elected I decided to cut him some slack despite the fact that his dad was not a leader or very bright. I figured that it would only be fair to withhold judgment until sufficient time had passed to have a reasonable familiarity with his presidential style before clouding up and raining on his parade. In the case of Two Ewes, I first shook my fist at him just about seven years ago. Haven't stopped since. My arm is so tired.
I will give Obama the same amount of slack because I cannot tell the future. Sure, we have clear and present dangers but those are always present. Unexpected challenges will test not only our new president but us as well. And not something as simple as "terrorism." Idiots have been slaughtering each other long before explosives and will continue to do so with whatever weapon falls to hand. There are certainly more dangerous threats.
The things I most want to see from this new administration is an emphasis on personal accomplishment rather than entitlement; quality of education, from preschool to death; honesty and transparency in politics and business; a more clearly defined wall of separation and much more.
This is a bright day for America. And a tremulous one. My hope is that the boldness of new leadership will be manifest in the will and purpose of the population at large. We, each of us, are single bricks in the great edifice that is our country. It is the hardness and long life of each brick that makes the building secure and foursquare. Most things always devolve to the participation of the individual.
If we do not hang together, we will most certainly hang separately.
E Pluribus Unum
Aman
He seems to be setting the right tone and he has the organation skills and the intelligence (I think) to get things it done, but time will tell
Obama believes that gays should not marry (he is for civil unions but opposes marriage, he has said so himself)
First, you said that he believes it's ok to tell people they shouldn't marry because they're gay -- that's different in significant respects from your latter statement. But your latter statement is also a very sloppy characterization. Do you suppose he has ever said to a gay couple "you shouldn't marry"? Do you suppose he has told churches that they shouldn't marry gays? What he has said is that "marriage is between a man and woman". Who the heck knows what he means by that -- it seems to be stupid semantic quibbling about the word "marriage", because he supports every other aspect of gay rights. Perhaps it's just political pandering. He doesn't favor changing the law to explicitly extend marriage to gays, but he also doesn't favor changing the law to explicitly exclude them. And he favors extending all the legal benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. So his position on marriage seems rather dumb, a matter of semantics and/or pandering, but he's not telling gays not to marry.
I am utterly unable to comprehend how this is not viewed in the same light and general disgust as saying that there should be no interracial marriage (where once upon a time it was illegal to marry the one you loved just because of some trait that you possessed [skin color] and had no control over)
Yes, your inability to comprehend -- and your intellectual dishonesty -- is evident. That opposition was against interracial unions -- but Obama supports same-sex unions. His "marriage is between a man and a woman" statement may be a stupid semantic thing but it's nothing like the opposition you refer to. The California Supreme Court modeled its decision on the overturning of laws against interracial marriage and Obama opposed the amendment to reverse that decision. Sheesh.
My point about maintaining the status-quo being more dangerous has to do with the fact that public, outrageous, explicit bigotry is much easier to stop in the long run.
Obama has not displayed any "outrageous, explicit bigotry", quite the opposite. See again that GLBT For Obama link.
being lost in the noise
There's certainly a lot of clarity being lost in the noise of your sloppy thinking and goalpost shifting. Obama is not "even more dangerous in the long run" to gays and it's idiotic to say so.
Hey! Screw you! It's our country. I've been tempted over the last few weeks to vote for McCain SOLELY because everybody in Europe and South American and Russia seems to have such a strong bloody opinion about how I should vote. Well, it's really easy to criticize when you haven't been spending 20% of all tax moneys collected on protecting the free world, isn't it? How about England, France, Germany, and Australia get together, put together a military force that could defend against Chinese or Russian aggression, and then get back to us about who we should elect president. That sound fair to you foreigners floating around here?
And this is not to say mistakes haven't been made, and this is certainly not a voice for neoconservativism. I would just appreciate it if the rest of the world would either offer solutions or STFU.
Obama has not displayed any "outrageous, explicit bigotry", quite the opposite.
Sorry, I muffed that, you didn't say he had. But neither has he displayed "casual acceptance of the bigotry that exists today".
Hey! Screw you! It's our country.
Ad hominem much? I happen to be an American who thinks Andrew's comments are factually accurate.
I've been tempted over the last few weeks to vote for McCain SOLELY because everybody in Europe and South American and Russia seems to have such a strong bloody opinion about how I should vote.
So you've been tempted by your xenophobia to be a blithering idiot who acts against his own interests, much like those Clinton supporters who considered voting for McCain because Obama supporters had been rude to them on some blog?
Yes, China or Russia are teh big scary nations we should be afraid of and that's enough to just continue to let the US go unchecked in it's global agenda... I see it worked so well in Iraq. I feel so much safer since 2003 *roll*
The problem isn't that the US is playing a role in the rest of the world, it's that it's playing whatever role it feels like and that is putting people in other nations offside. To most people the US isn't the protectors of the free world, it's just another form of tyranny. People wanting the US to work with the EU is because there needs to be some balance brought to the US agenda; playing world police and isolationist nation at the same time leaves the rest of the world very disenfranchised.
And really, who uses the pejorative "foreigners" any more?
I hear you PZ and I have had the exact same concerns for a while. However, even though he has no previous executive experience on which to judge him, I think the stunning effectiveness and organisation shown in his campaign suggest that he will not suffer from the managerial ineptitude that dogged Carter's administration.
Still, enjoy the moment. The BushCheney nightmare is coming to a close. And while we will be suffering the hangover of their misdeeds for years to come, you will soon at least have a president who will not be embarrassing or enraging you with every word and deed.
Truth Machine - It's furriners.
One of the problems of American politics is that the ability to get elected is not the ability to govern effectively and efficiently. I offer Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush as Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 in support of this contention.
I'm going to cut Obama some slack in the first part of his presidency. He's inherited several messes from Bush and the economic disaster looks more and more catrostrophic by the day. The president's power over the economy is not as great as many people seem to think. Bush's $5 trillion debt doesn't leave much room for Keynesian economic solutions to the recession. However, Obama needs to be seen doing something to fix problems, not only the economy but the results of eight years of neocon misrule.
And you mumble it, like this:
guldam furrners. meddlin wid are own dam gummint.
By cracky CJO, sounds like you know how to play 'pretty pig'.
While we may be celebrating a bit today, we know that it is only a step towards the way we want things. Two words, and this is what was won:
Supreme Court.
@121
Now you are just twisting my words. I was comparing not letting gay couples be married and to only be allowed civil unions to not letting interracial couples be married and only be allowed civil unions. I was simply substituting a tolerated bigotry for one which is no longer tolerated. I may have phrased it badly but I assumed it would be taken into context with my previous statements just as you have demanded that I take Obama's statement that I heard about gay marriage in context with his other statements on the same thing.
I am quite aware (now) that Obama doesn't favor banning gay marriage and just doesn't favor legalizing it. I actually stated that fact, which you would know if you had bothered to read what I wrote.
You say that saying that marriage "is between a man and a woman" is different from saying that gays should not marry, but I disagree. He may have not said that exact phrase but it is easily deduced from his position. He believes that marriage is M/F only. Since humans control what marriage means to us (otherwise women would still be virtually or literally property of their husbands), stating that marriage IS one way is really stating that it SHOULD be that way (since gay marriage is legal in other places, it cannot be taken as a statement of fact). If men and women should be the only ones to marry then it follows that any couple that is not M/F shouldn't marry. How am I wrong on this point?
I did not mean at all to imply that Obama was the outrageous, explicit bigot. I was implying that he was the rational, soft spoken, articulate, likable kind of bigot. It is not that I think he will actively harm gays (in fact probably the opposite) but I think his type of bigotry is the kind that becomes pervasive and comfortable and is very difficult to remove and in the end that kind of bigotry will cause the most long-term harm.
Also, what goalposts? As far as I know this started with me expressing an opinion, someone calling me on it and forcing me to evaluate it deeper, after which I revised and defended my position.
The US spends more than the rest of the world combined on defence. This may be excessive. Meanwhile, the UK, France and Germany combined spend more than Russia and China combined.
Numbers.
The EU's problem isn't lack of funds. In the 1990s the EU spent 2/3rds the US budget on defence, but whereas the US had a win two hold two doctrine the Europeans were unable even to intervene in the Balkans. Europe's problem is that there are many separate defence agencies, so it cannot benefit from the economies of scale that the US can. The development of the European Defence Agency, which is intended to allow these economies and which includes non-NATO nations, has always been resisted by American politicians.
Dan L.,
We'll stop being interested in your politics when you stop intervening in other countries' politics, assassinating their political leaders, and starting illegal wars.
We furriners have the inalienable right to express an opinion, just have you have the inalienable right to be a douchenozzle.
"I would just appreciate it if the rest of the world would either offer solutions or STFU." - Dan L.
Here's a solution. Transfer the disproportionate balance of power from the hands of a single nation to an international body that represents the interests of all nations. Let's call it... international democracy.
Until the world is directed by a legitimate international body, the U.S. will always be held responsible for the state of the world (until the top-dog spot moves to someone else). With power, comes responsibility. If you don't want the responsibility, don't clutch to the reigns of power.
You jammin' Jams. I mean you ain't just whistlin' Dixie.
"""We'll stop being interested in your politics when you stop intervening in other countries' politics, assassinating their political leaders, and starting illegal wars.
We furriners have the inalienable right to express an opinion, just have you have the inalienable right to be a douchenozzle."""
I agree. The US gained hubris in WW2 and it refuses to let it go. The US IS NOT morally qualified to have the strongest army in the world and use it like a shovel poised over everyone's heads. If you are a true "progressive" anti-war liberal, you'll ask Obama to dismantle the American military empire.
""Until the world is directed by a legitimate international body, the U.S. will always be held responsible for the state of the world (until the top-dog spot moves to someone else). With power, comes responsibility. If you don't want the responsibility, don't clutch to the reigns of power.""
The world doesn't need a unity government. It needs less government all around, with power distrubuted to local communities and not gathered in one place. There is not another soul on earth I would trust to solve any of my problems other than me. Why grant that concession to some "other"?? You have alot to learn about liberty.
(Alas. So too, Americans who are giving it up by the shovel full daily and are about to see more of it go to "international" banking elites...
What is wrong with you people who think government is good at "controlling things"?
The mind boggles.
so annoying
And there goes SfO again.. always on about big government.
Blockquote failure #140. Meaning can be figured out.
That dang Nerd of Redhead broke my sub-atomic Irony Meter today, so I'm going to shut down my Boggler in self defense if Scott From Oregon is going to stick around and bore us back to the stone age.
I was wondering when a libertarian would show up. Tell me, just for curiosity's sake, how large can a community get before it starts to be too large? 5 people, 100 people, 1000 people, 100,000 people, a million, two million, 300 million? What is the cutoff point? Oh, and please justify your number.
As for not having other people solving your problems, that's fine if you're McGiver who can fix any problem with a wad of gum and a Swiss Army knife. If my teeth hurt, I prefer to have a dentist solve my problem rather than do it myself. If I need to take a drug for a medical problem, I'd rather have it tested by a competent person or persons than test it myself. If my house is burning down, I welcome the attentions of the fire department. If I want to travel by car to visit Mummy and Daddy who live 1,500 miles away, I like the idea of having reasonably well engineered and maintained roads to get me from hither to yon. Unlike you, I am not a master of all trades, competent to deal singlehandedly with anything that might happen.
Scott proclaims, "The US IS NOT morally qualified to have the strongest army in the world and use it like a shovel poised over everyone's heads." He is half right.
The US is not morally qualified to hold its strongest army in the world like shovel poised over everyone's head. No argument there, but, NB:
He is wrong to assume that the US is not morally qualified to have the strongest army in the world. The US has had such an army for over sixty years and Scott and his loved ones are still here. Mine too. It would be silly for he or I to say that this was not a morally satisfying state of affairs.
Dan L @ 122 : it's really easy to criticize when you haven't been spending 20% of all tax moneys collected on protecting the free world, isn't it?
It's 50 percent, moron.
Let's ask them if they want our help, then we can cut it way back.
For those states like Israel, Columbia, Turkey, etc who decide they would like to continue to receive our help, perhaps a go fuck yourself policy would be in order.
If they are invaded smashed or nuked, as always, I can't smell it from my house, so fuck them, and fuck NATO, and Fuck Dyncorp, and Raytheon, and Northrup Grumman and Lockheed Martin, and Haliburton. Let the whores get real jobs.
Problem solved.
"The world doesn't need a unity government." - SFO
There's only one internet. That doesn't prevent it from being distributed. You're trapped in a false dichotomy.
"You have alot to learn about liberty. " - SFO
Which type? Liberty to, or liberty from?
#145 : The US has had such an army for over sixty years and Scott and his loved ones are still here. Mine too.
Brilliant fucking logic.
It is also true that the rings of Saturn are billions of years old, and your precious little loved ones are still here.
In real terms, protecting your little bo peep american dream only requires about twelve nukes.
I hate to appeal to authority but George Washington stated a standing army was the greatest threat to liberty. and Gore Vidal points out that historically it is impossible to maintain both a Republic and an Empire.
I think PZ is right, our enthusiasm should be tempered... next week. What's wrong with a little celebration?
As for Obama being religious, forgive me if its been said, but it's well known that his mother was an atheist, and that she was his greatest influence (and his father figures were also not religious).
"Obama explains how, through working with black churches as a community organizer while in his twenties, he came to understand "the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change."
His church-attending might be just for political purposes, as that statement seems to imply. Even if it's not, his having grown up around a non-religious family bodes well for separation of church and state. I wouldn't look for Obama to be imposing religious views on science.
I agree with much of what Andrew@65 said, but have a more optimistic take on the likely outcome: I think the very gravity of the problems will oblige Obama to be radical. Whether he'll be the kind of radical I want is another matter! My hunch is he doesn't yet know himself what the main themes of his policy will be - and that's not necessarily bad, as he will have access to enormous amounts of information and expertise he didn't have before. My regard for his intellect and strength of character have increased greatly over the course of the campaign. He's beaten the Clintons, he's beaten the Rethuglican lie machine, and he's done it by mobilising previously disengaged people by the million into the political process. My hunch (again) is that you'd have to go back to FDR to find a President of comparable calibre; and he faces comparable challenges. He's not going to be easy to push, in any direction, by anyone. He will have enormous political advantages when he comes in, both at home and abroad: almost everyone will want to be his "friend".
However, economic and political events and forces will push him. There, the comparison with Carter is an interesting one. As Carter did, he's coming into power at a time of economic crisis (partly caused in both cases by ruinously expensive wars), and threats to US hegemony. Unlike Carter's case, however, the wars are ongoing. More positively, Carter came in at a time the post-WWII welfarist consensus was breaking down: the economic difficulties meant that the social truce between capital and labour in rich countries was not sustainable: the pie could not continue to be expanded, so fighting over shares was almost inevitable. As we know, capital won. Obama comes in at a time when the neoliberal orthodoxy in turn is crumbling, due to the financial crisis. 2008 is a "big" year: not just the financial crisis, but the failure of the Doha round (because China and India refused to knuckle under) and Obama and the Dems' clear victories themselves show the exhaustion of the right. It has run out of ideas; the tide has turned. (Note to self: must take another look at "Kondratiev cycles"!)
What I'd like to see him do is disengage from Iraq and Afghanistan as fast as possible, scrap son-of-Star-Wars, slash military spending, and invest a large proportion of the money saved in energy efficiency and renewables, in cooperation with as many of the main energy using (and energy producing) countries as he can persuade to join him; simultaneously reforming the global financial system and international institutions. I don't have much optimism he will do this, but I don't rule it out.
Incidentally, on Carter and Reagan. Blaming Carter for the fall of the Shah, as someone did, is daft. What could he have done? The Iranian people were sick of him, any attempt to prop him up by force would have led to another Vietnam. Conversely, apart from his role in establishing the trend to radical concentration of wealth in the US, and murdering large numbers of people abroad, Reagan's brinkmanship nearly got us all killed at least twice (in 1983 - google "Stanislav Petrov" and "Able Archer"). "I admire his bluff" - pah!
Yo! Scoot! @148!
I did not submit brilliant fucking logic. I instead made a brilliant fucking observation.
After he left office it is generally agree that Carter became a more effective force for good in America and the World. You see the difference here is that Obama started out as a community organizer and therefore is trained to be a great statesman. Carter was a statesman that became a great community organizer.
On the more actual side, Obama is different on this regard, He has a guide to build from, namely Clinton and Carter. He can see the failures of the Carter presidency and the success of Clinton as a working playbook to begin his presidency, which Carter did not have. I also doubt that Carter was as intellectual curious as Obama nor was he as active a student of history.
Can anyone tell me how Reagan paved the road to our current state? I don't particularly know much about Reagan, so I would appreciate it if someone informed me.
"""As for not having other people solving your problems, that's fine if you're McGiver who can fix any problem with a wad of gum and a Swiss Army knife. If my teeth hurt, I prefer to have a dentist solve my problem rather than do it myself. If I need to take a drug for a medical problem, I'd rather have it tested by a competent person or persons than test it myself. If my house is burning down, I welcome the attentions of the fire department. If I want to travel by car to visit Mummy and Daddy who live 1,500 miles away, I like the idea of having reasonably well engineered and maintained roads to get me from hither to yon. Unlike you, I am not a master of all trades, competent to deal singlehandedly with anything that might happen."""
You've just described the free market. Well done. No central government necessary for any of those problems. And no "world" government. Just you and a few good folks in your community.
"""#145 : The US has had such an army for over sixty years and Scott and his loved ones are still here. Mine too."""
If you love humanity than you would have to include a few million Vietnamese peasants and hordes of assorted "enemies" over the years, not to mention victims of American bombings and bystanders of American foreign political engineering (mostly designed to protect and promote American corporations which went international and belong to the same people who own the banking cartels...)
Plus there is Iraq... The taunting to war of the Iranians...
Add nausea...
"""In real terms, protecting your little bo peep american dream only requires about twelve nukes."""
This should explain most of it...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics
Scooter, you went on to say, "I hate to appeal to authority but George Washington stated a standing army was the greatest threat to liberty."
First of all, you do not hate to appeal to Washington. That is, I've never met a patriot that did.
Second, men will always find a way to make doctrinal discord echo in the halls of justice, much to our dismay.
Lastly, with all respect to you and Gore Vidal, America is the best example of balancing a Republic and an Empire that has ever come down the pike. Yet. Not perfect but way ahead of whatever is in second place.
Peace, man. Support your president and your neighbor.
"""The world doesn't need a unity government." - SFO
There's only one internet. That doesn't prevent it from being distributed. You're trapped in a false dichotomy."""
Huh? The internet is not a governing body.
To DAN L. at post 122:
Dan L. you should've voted for McCain, and straight after you should have gone out to your sandpit and smashed your best toy because mommy said you had to share it with the other kids.
The reason the rest of the world has such a strong bloody opinion about how you should vote is because your vote has a disproportionate effect on us. You have no conception, do you, of what it really means to be on wrong side of the US? Your type worries because your gas will go up--thousands (actually millions) of your fellow humans, simply by virtue of being born in different parts of the planet, worry that at your leaders' capricious whims they could be attacked, isolated or bankrupted. We in other countries know very well that many of your fellow citizens don't give a rats arse about us, that you don't care if your consumption habits and self-interest place the other humans on the planet directly at risk.
NZ has been relatively lucky, we only pissed you off mildly by saying we didn't want your Nuclear weapons in our harbours. For that we got shut out and cold-shouldered for a decade or two, but thankfully never invaded or had a regime change (no oil you see). And before you feed us the party-line crap argument about the protection of the US nuclear umbrella, be sure we know it better than you do, and that it has as many holes in it as an argument made by a young earth creationist.
Dan, you valiant protector of the free world, bend over a bit further and we'll try to lick a bit harder. But if you (aka the US administration) stick that nuclear missile back up your arse, and considered engaging in dialogue instead of threats and bullying for a change, you might discover that the world isn't such a scary place, and spending trillions to find better ways of killing people isn't something to be proud of. There's nothing like living on small islands at the back end of nowhere, with no military and all of Asia above you, to develop a sense of perspective.
To all you non-Dan-Americans, I'd also like to say that I think that the best of America is what makes you great, and that's why I like your country and people so much. For every stupid thing you do, you seem capable of doing two or three other things that no one else could have managed. I hope Obama does deliver. I think a good President and a great America are what the world needs if my kids are to get through to 2100. I agree with Arundhati Roy that American Liberal democracy is still our great hope.
Oh, and Dan, the rest of the world has been offering solutions for decades--trouble is you, and so many Americans like you, would rather talk than listen.
Glad to see you're not backing down. You're exactly right on everything you said. And, while I too am pleased to see so many people so ebullient, it's a little disturbing that eyes-wide-open commentaries like yours are being met with such vitriol. I've had people snap at me for mentioning things like Obama's record. And the right will surely attack with more venom than they did during the Clinton years so we have that to look forward to.
"But optimism and good intentions were not, are not enough. What followed Carter's election was well-meaning bumbling, a dismal and unaccomplished presidency...."
Well, what did you expect? Carter was an engineer. Like Herbert Hoov---- uh oh.
Right on all counts. I've felt this way all day. Last night too, to a lesser extent - but really, I was just so goddamn HAPPY that McCain lost that I was basically walking on air until I fell asleep. It's the first presidential election I've been able to vote in, though, so that's my excuse.
#158:if you ... considered engaging in dialogue instead of threats and bullying for a change, you might discover that the world isn't such a scary place, and spending trillions to find better ways of killing people isn't something to be proud of.
Great point. The main danger in the world is the US military, but Americans tend to believe their military is protecting the entire world from harm. As you say, the world isn't really such a threatening place, despite Dan's (and many other Americans') belief that China and Russia and Venezuela and Cuba are "threats." I've had Americans tell me the reason we have military bases all over the world is because various countries' populations asked us to put them there to protect them. No evidence for that whatsoever, but beliefs have nothing to do with facts. Americans' admiration for their military has metastasized into something like worship, completely impervious to reason and shared by Democrats and Republicans.
I see that others already took you to task for this, but how fucking oblivious do you have to be to respond to a criticism of US interference in other countries with "screw you, it's our country"???
The combined EU military spending is over 300 billion in peacetime, not exactly peanuts. A lot of European countries still have compulsory military service for men. Did you think they just sat around eating cheese?
At the moment, I don't think you have one either. How about you stop doing stupid stuff like fomenting Russian aggression through your Georgian stooges. What was your brave stance against Russian aggression there again? "Waah! They stole our Humvees!"
"Jimmy Carter--- probably the most honorable and decent president of the 20th century."
PZ. I agree with you 100%.
Larry
"Huh? The internet is not a governing body. " - SFO
Either is the planet.
(hint: the internet is a strictly defined system that governs the exchange of messages - and it's distributed)
Obama makes his first mistake with Rahm Emmanuel. Expect no progress for peace in the Middle East in the next four years at least. Instead we get four years of Israeli apologetics.
F'in great.
Dan L., #122, wrote:
Speaking as an Australian who lost a brother thanks to the conflict in Vietnam - a war we went to in order to suck up to the US - feel free to go fuck yourself with a pineapple.
i remember the hope we had with carter in 1976, i piercingly remember the bumbling fool, r.reagan, initiating a downward spiral for the u.s.
i'm hoping that this time, people won't depend on their president -- that they'll depend on themselves.
Fuck Carter. His useless sanctimoniousness is the reason we can't recycle nuclear fuel.
"It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error."
- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson - 1950
I don't think he will turn out to be a generous carpenter, after all isn't he supposed to be the Antichrist? So he's probably going to be remembered as a selfish lousy carpenter.
Wait a moment? So when the democrats win the presidency, the house and the senate you are still finding something to gripe about. I've previously enjoyed reading your blog and even agreeing on most of the points you've made, but this is too hard to swallow. You seemingly can't enjoy a victory if it's not a *total* victory over *everything* that's wrong in this world. So prop 8 won? We just have to keep fighting it, but can't we at the same time ejoy, even celebrate the other things that did go right in this election?
hint: the internet is a strictly defined system that governs the exchange of messages - and it's distributed
Your own example defeats your argument. The internet is a collection of Autonomous Systems with pairwise agreements for data exchange; it is neither strictly defined nor does it govern anything. (The TCP/IP protocol is strictly defined and "governs" the format of messages, but it would be a huge category mistake to confuse that with "the internet".)
Did that libertarian upthread try to claim that the interstate highway system was created by the free market?
...not so much.
Now you are just twisting my words.
It may seem that way to someone so stupid, but in fact I did not.
Did that libertarian upthread try to claim that the interstate highway system was created by the free market?
Not really. He seems to be saying that the highway system is analogous to a free market.
That doesn't really work either, does it? Unless the message is "creating free markets requires massive levels of government investment and regulation," which is probably true but not very libertarian :)
There are similarities between creationists and Libertarians, allthough the two categories do not always overlap. They both hold to dogmas that contradict the facts.
I mean it's quite obvious isn't it ? If there's ONE fact that this financial crisis has made absolutely clear it's that a completely deregulated market, the shadow banking system (hedge funds, broker-dealers, derivatives, CDSs) was completely incapable of self-regulating itself and reaching an equilibrium, despite the dogma of the "invsible hand" theory. It exploded.
Despite this fact, Libertarians will continue to call for mimimum government intervention and deregulation, exactly like creationists will continue to deny the reality of Evolution, whatever discoveries have been made.
Strange, but both creationism and Libertarianism are mainly nowadays products of American imagination, it must be something in the water that people drink over there.
If there's ONE fact that this financial crisis has made absolutely clear it's that a completely deregulated market,
What completely dereglated market could you possibly be referring to? We just had an implosion of a very highly regulated market, where a quasi-governmental organization with the sole power to set interest rates held them below the rate of inflation for many years.
In a free market with sound money, there's a feedback mechanism to indicate scarcity of capital, which is rising interest rates as money to lend becomes more scarce. When interest rates are set by bureaucrats who can create currency simply by editing a record in a database, that feedback is lost, and the result is massive malinvestment (like building more houses than people need to live in, or buying shares in companies that have no prospects of generating revenues to justify their valuations.)
The fact is, it was Libertarians who were sounding the alarm for the last couple of decades about the bubbles that the Fed was creating by inflating the money. Don't take my word for it, go and look up what Ron Paul had to say five, ten, and twenty years ago.
This crash, and the coming depression are just one more in a long line of failures of central planning, just like the first great depression, and the collapse of the Soviet Union. It turns out that the Fed board of governors is no more competent to pick the right interest rates, than the soviet production planning boards were at picking the right prices for consumer goods.
-jcr
Fuck Carter. His useless sanctimoniousness is the reason we can't recycle nuclear fuel. Wonk
Highly dubious. No-one anywhere else has managed to make nuclear fuel recycling economically viable.
Despite the caterwauling on the right, Obama really wasn't a particularly liberal Senator.
That's objectively untrue. Obama's voting record is similar to that of Teddy Kennedy. Most publications rate him as one of the most liberal senators.
The platform on which he was elected this year isn't particularly left-wing, admittedly. But what mainly worries me is his tendency towards protectionism and statism.
I want to see an America based on the twin freedoms: free minds and free markets. The Bush administration wasn't great on the "free minds" part, and, sadly, the Obama administration will probably not be great on the "free markets" part. But this is the sad state of American politics.
He and his wife Rosalynn left the White House in search of meaningful ways to contribute in these areas. - From Jimmy Carter's website
And there's me thinking they left because he lost an election!
Just want to say that I completely agree with John Randolph at #180 supra.
jcr,
I thought my post was clear : the shadow banking system (hedge funds, broker-dealers (Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers,...) , derivatives traders, etc...) ie non banks that function like banks but aren't regulated like banks.
This was the least regulated market ever, a Friedmanian paradise.
jcr you are looking completely at the wrong problem. When the DJIA is going up at a rythm of min. 15% p.a. between 1990 and 2002, it's not because interest rates would have been 1 or 2% higher that it would have changed anything.
What really fucked up the system is that these non banks created instruments which enabled them, without any regulation, to arrive at leverage ratios of up to 200 to 1 like Long Term Capital, and on average 30 to 1. That's where the REAL problem was. And that borrowed money was pumped in the market and the real economy, helped to artificially grow the DJIA, everybody was happy, it also artificially grew the economy, and the only thing that kept it going was the promiss that the market would keep going up at a rythm higher than the credit rate. Of course, one day, this had to stop, this moment, the Minsky moment, happened in 2007, after 17 years and the biggest credit bubble ever. The subprime mortgages do not even represent 2% of that bubble !
Alltogether, we're talking of $ 15 trillion of overvaluation, which now we're going to have to pay back. Count $1.5 trillion per year for the next ten year, that's -10% on the GDP growth of the USA for the next ten year. That's a real long protracted recession. Think min. 15% unemployement by 2010 in the USA.
And in the UK and most other advanced economies the situation is not much better.
So yes, that's what happens when you don't have anybody to regulate the shadow banking system, they borrowed, and borrowed, and borrowed, .... they borrowed our future !
I thought my post was clear negentropyeater
Of course it was, neg. But "libertarians" are experts in not understanding things that threaten their dogma.
By the way, jcr, if you study US financial history, you'll find that bank panics and crashes happen periodically whether there is a body setting interest rates or not.
Walton,
Doesn't suprise me, both of you have just decided to put a blinfold and completely ignore reality.
But what do you think happened, are you really that naïve, you believe in miracles ?
Where do you think the hyper growth of the American and british economy in the 1990s comes from ? Do you think these were real productivity gains ?
You're completely and utterly MAD !
What happened is that when the shadow banking system started in the 1990s borrowing huge amounts of money, and pumping it into the market, this grew the DJIA, and the economy, the more they did this, the more it grew both. The DJIA grew by a factor 14 in 14 years !
I mean it was perfect, by pumping more money in, that guaranteed the market was going up at a frenetic rythm, so it continued, like a self fulfilling proficy. Everybody was happy. Except of course the middle classes of course which didn't get a iota of that growth, but that, nodody cared.
And that continued until 2007. No productivity gains, but the economy grew at above average rates because the rich got really very much richer, so did the DJIA. All because the shadow banking system was allowed to borrow at leverage ratios which were completely unbelievable. And nobody cared because everybody in power was happy.
they borrowed, and borrowed, and borrowed, .... they borrowed our future!
Exactly my point. What made it possible for them to borrow ad infinitum? Infinite credit from the Fed (and to a lesser extent, from other central banks), offered at rates below the rate of inflation.
When banks were limited to lending out their depositors' money, interest rates rose and fell as savings rose and fell. Higher interest rates provided an incentive to save. Lower interest rates enable more borrowing. The feedback is automatic and self-correcting.
What screws it up, is when a counterfeiter enters the picture, and provides currency out of thin air. That breaks the information flow, and creates bubbles. Eventually, the bubbles have to collapse.
-jcr
*FAIL BUZZER*
Read Glenn Seaborg's autobiography sometime, you know him right? The co-discoverer of Plutonium and Chairman of the AEC? The failure of the nuclear industry started with a grassroots movement. Every president after TMI has gone along with public sentiment. In case you haven't noticed, have amnesia, or are just too damn young to remember, favorable views of nuclear power are on the rise compared to just ten years ago.
Nick,
I have studied financial history, and that is what convinced me that central banking and fiat currency are bad things. The fed isn't the first central bank to inflate our currency and cause bubbles, and the state banks did the very same thing that the central banks have, although they weren't able to do it on the same scale.
This was the least regulated market ever, a Friedmanian paradise.
What's your next guess?
I can tell you from direct personal experience in the investment banking industry, that you're full of crap. I worked on back-office accounting systems for several Wall Street firms in the early 90s, and if they were as unregulated as you claim, we'd have had far less work to do.
I mean it was perfect, by pumping more money in, that guaranteed the market was going up at a frenetic rythm, so it continued, like a self fulfilling proficy.
the shadow banking system was allowed to borrow at leverage ratios which were completely unbelievable.
Why do you insist on ignoring where that money (and credit) came from? Greenspan was inflating like crazy, and my point is that the Fed's inflation is what enabled all the excesses pyramided on top of it.
You're completely and utterly MAD !
Right back at you, sunshine.
-jcr
jcr,
Is this the Libertarian solution now ?
When was the last time this was implemented ?
jcr,
Still, they were probably the least regulated market that existed.
Read :
"Risk and regulation - What went wrong"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/14/AR20081…
Never claimed that the fed's irresponsible laissez-faire policies didn't share part of the blame. Hey, the whole chain of power in the US was laissez faire, govt, fed, nobody cared, just open the valve, let go, have fun, and be happy.
That's anglo-saxon Libertarian economics 101 ! "economic freedom" as they say.
Never claimed that the fed's irresponsible laissez-faire policies
That is an oxymoron. The existence of the Fed itself is a departure from laissez-faire.
"economic freedom" as they say.
Not even close. If we had economic freedom, we wouldn't be forced to accept Federal Reserve notes as payment.
-jcr
'Your own example defeats your argument. The internet is a collection of Autonomous Systems with pairwise agreements for data exchange; it is neither strictly defined nor does it govern anything. (The TCP/IP protocol is strictly defined and "governs" the format of messages, but it would be a huge category mistake to confuse that with "the internet".)' - Truth Machine
The internet is just the name of a single implementation of TCP/IP. It's not a category mistake at all, much less a "huge" one. And TCP/IP isn't just the format for messages (though that would be enough to prove my point). That's the IP part, the TCP part is something entirely different. You should read about it. It's interesting.
But, even if that were a category mistake, it still doesn't defeat my argument. It would just be a bad example.
More clearly this time: TCP/IP is a global policy, governed by a central authority (IETF). My argument was that distributed power and centralized policy do not necessarily need to be mutually exclusive, and that the internet demonstrates this.
See, this is exactly the kind of counterproductive nonsense I was talking about. It's just the blame game with no hint of pragmatism in sight.
John C. Randolph at #190: Interesting. I agree fully with your analysis of the causes of the current problems, and you certainly have more experience in the financial world than I do.
So, existing central banking and monetary policy being so flawed, what would you advocate as an alternative?
I just watched a video of a British journalist interviewing Fukuyama about how much change Obama will bring about, available here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/2008/11/morphing_ame…. I'm astonished to say Fukuyama was actually talking sense! His take on the voting patterns of the US working class can be summed up as: "When times are bad, they vote the Dems in to sort the economy out; once it gets better, their religious beliefs lead them to vote against their economic interests until the Reps screw things up again". Quite insightful! So, Obama, if you want to keep your party in power indefinitely, set about spreading atheism!
Right on PZ! I wish he'd change his "affordable health care" to "universal single payer". Someday... someday...
When banks were limited to lending out their depositors' money - jcr
You damned socialist! How dare you suggest such an oppressive limitation on the bankers' freedom!
Since a completely free market has never existed anywhere, anytime, you will always be able to blame any economic problem on that. It's what's called a reinforced dogmatism. Very like those Maoists who insist that if concessions had not been made to the class enemy after Mao's death, the workers' paradise would infallibly have appeared.
Another slight problem: since all the economic growth of the past few centuries has taken place while there have been "interferences" in markets, financial and otherwise,you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the approach you advocate could function at all, let alone avoid the problems that have occurred. The current financial crisis, like the Great Depression, comes at the end of an era when the nearest thing to your views that has ever actually been tried was the ruling ideology. Why on Earth should anyone believe that if we went further in the same direction, suddenly everything would be hunky-dory?
You and Walton live in a dream world, jcr - but the real world bypassed you on Tuesday. Your views are a complete irrelevance. But go on blethering - I guess everyone needs a hobby.
jcr,
Typical Libertarian logic. Because we've had authorities that have been mishandling the instruments we've got, let's destroy these instruments and go back to the way we did banking prior to 1917 (when we perfectly know that will irremediably lead to a catastrophe), rather than impose the discipline to use these instruments properly !
"When times are bad, they vote the Dems in to sort the economy out; once it gets better, their religious beliefs lead them to vote against their economic interests until the Reps screw things up again".
Sheer nonsense. From an economic standpoint, the worst post-war president was Carter. Reagan, on the other hand, presided over a period of economic growth, success and job creation. So it's simply ludicrous to allege that ordinary Americans have no rational economic reason to vote Republican.
Republicans are too statist for my liking - and I find the likes of James Dobson cringe-inducingly insane - but the party as a whole is, on balance, slightly more pro-freedom than Democrats.
You and Walton live in a dream world, jcr - but the real world bypassed you on Tuesday. Your views are a complete irrelevance.
I don't think most of the votes for Obama were votes against the free market, free trade and economic liberty. A lot of people were, legitimately, fed up with Bush's overzealous and poorly-planned foreign policy adventures, and were concerned (wrongly, in my view) that McCain would deliver more of the same; and many more were put off by Palin, who was, indeed, an entirely unqualified and unsuitable candidate. Many more were captivated by Obama's rhetoric. But I doubt very much that ordinary Americans considered their vote to be a vote against free market policies. Economic factors may have influenced their decision only insofar as they (wrongly) blamed Republicans for the present crash (not realising that it's mostly due to monetary policy and government intervention, going back many years). But that doesn't mean economic libertarianism is "out" politically.
Funny that most analysts are attributing the loss to the economy, Obama's numbers surged while wall street plunged... but there's no correlation, it was all about foreign policy and people didn't vote to ease the stress of home foreclosures and a destabilised economy...
Kel,
Get used to it. If people can't agree on the causes, how can they agree on the remedies ?
We'll see in the following months how much of this discussion is influenced by Libertarians. As I mentionned several times, the first real test for Obama is going to be this G20 meeting mid November. The Europeans (Sarkozy, Brown, Merkel) are pushing for much stronger regulations and a new architecture for the international financial markets, a kind of Bretton Woods II. The Chinese have conveniently kept on the sidelines. IMHO, their interest is that the mess in the West actually gets bigger. Let's see what Obama and the new administration will do.
"Markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent." Was that Keynes? True, anyway.
An unregulated market is like an undamped oscillator. Sure, there exists an equilibrium position. The system will not stay there.
Haven't you read what he wrote ?
1. Abolish central banks.
2. Only allow banks to lend an amount equal to what they have in their deposits.
Marvelous !
Let's wind the clock back a few hundred years. That's what I call conservatism.
That's the Libertarian ideal, if you simplify sufficiently the rules of free trade, if you eliminate all kinds of possibilites and abolish all kinds of loopholes, you can eventually get to a situation that that market becomes so simple, so perfect, that it really works.
It's a bit nonsensical, but that's what these people seem to strive for.
The election was about us. We need to decide now what WE are going to do. We all have OUR first 100 days to account for. Obama cannot change our country by himself. He's not a personal or collective savior.
From an economic standpoint, the worst post-war president was Carter. Reagan, on the other hand, presided over a period of economic growth, success and job creation. So it's simply ludicrous to allege that ordinary Americans have no rational economic reason to vote Republican. - Walton
As I've pointed out before, Carter came into office in the wake of the Vietnam War, with the vast deficit it generated, and of the first oil shock. The second oil shock occurred while he was in office. Reagan's policies of huge tax cuts for the rich and union-bashing initiated the era during which the average American has struggled to stand still economically, while the rich have gained vast additional wealth. And you seem not to have noticed that I am quoting Fukuyama, a well-known prophet of the "free market". You are also, undoubtedly, ignorant of the fact that polls consistently show that the American electorate trust the Democrats more on the economy, the Repubs more on "national security". And you have still failed to respond, other than with content-free blether, to my repeated point that the current crash, like the Great Depression, comes at the end of a long period of "free market" ideology in power. Why is that, Walton, why is that?
Sorry, inaccurate to say in my #208 that I was quoting Fukuyama: I was summarising him, probalby not quite in the way he'd have summarised himself. But you can watch the video and hear for yourself what he said. (The sound is rather poor.)
It's a bit completely nonsensical, but that's what these people seem to strive for. - negentropyeater
Fixed!
Well, especially that now we're starting to understand that all the 2 to 3% extra-growth per annum that came from Reaganomics and Thatchernomics was based on nothing, no productivity gains, just paper money, pure bullshit, just borrowed growth on the future. And that's $15 trillion in the US alone that just dissapeared in one go. Problem of course is that most of that money has either been spent or sits in the accounts of some very rich people who exited the markets on time, so that we, the rest of the people, are going to have to pay it back in the years to come.
Thank you Mr Reagan and Mrs Thatcher, you were indeed the greatest conmen in history.
I'm sorry you lost your brother, but this is exactly my point.
Everyone responding to my original point has been making a lot of assumptions about what sort of person I am and why I would say such a thing. I'm going to ignore all of those because they were clearly knee-jerk responses. Some people have corrected me as to Europe's military capability -- fair enough.
Look guys, I was 17 when Bush was elected and since then, I've watched my whole country shit themselves in fear and give up on every ideal I had learned to love about America as a child. I watched powerlessly as congressional democrats caved in to Bush's demands -- this was their opportunity to be courageous, to sacrifice their careers on the altar of country, and they failed. The American people were even worse, content to sacrifice liberty for "safety."
When Australia supports the U.S. in an illegal and pointless war, that's the same sort of cowardice at work (on the part of your government, certainly not the part of your brother). No one with good relations with the US has ever bothered to stand up to us and that is the problem.
I would like a smaller government in this country, and any time I have the opportunity, that's how I'm going to vote. This includes the military -- while I think the US military is a great institution, I think it's too easy for the idiots in Washington to abuse. All I was saying is that I don't need any help voting. If you want a say in the US election, move here, naturalize, and vote. Otherwise, it's my responsibility to try to reign in the abuses of my government -- and it's your responsibility to elect people to your government who will stand up to the US and make the case for an international body that is actually capable of resolving international disputes.
But frankly, if the rest of the world isn't doing anything to solve the problem, then I don't want to hear their opinions on how I should be using my vote. Like I said, I'm doing what I can and I don't need any help deciding.
And I wouldn't have voted McCain to "break my toy because my mother said I had to share it." I would have felt OK doing voting for him because a) I don't actually think Obama is going to be that much better (based onand b) my state only has 4 electors.
Sorry, but both France and Germany (who have had good relations with the US in the past) stood up against the Iraq war. This ensured btw that this war has always been considered illegal from the United Nations point of view. Of course, most Americans have always conveniently chosen to ignore this fact, and chosen to piss on the French instead.
This seesm to be some kind of dogma by a category of people in the United States. But why ? And for sure you must have some idea of what you'd consider as an optimum % of GDP that should be in the hands of government. 1% ? 5% ? 10% ? 20% ? 30% ? What is the reasoning behind it, what are the criterias, or is it really, as I think it is, some kind of irrational dogma ?
Thus spake Stephen Wells:
The libertarian free-market ideal seems to be expressible in terms of a fundamental misunderstanding: that the economic system can be accurately modeled as, at least, a linear system, if not an intrinsically stable system. They like to talk about "feedback" and "self-corrective markets", but I wonder how many of them actually know how counter-intuitively feedback behaves, even for low-order linear systems. In reality, you can't guess or reason the feedback parameters that will stabilise such a system: you have to estimate them pretty accurately, which requires an accurate model.
The salient point is then that an economic system is, in reality, somewhat like a "black box" system where our understanding is very limited indeed: we only partially understand the relationship between some of the inputs and some of the outputs. In a few cases, and under certain conditions, we have partial transfer functions, a bit like a linearised non-linear system that we know behaves linearly in a small neighbourhood around a certain point. The libertarians extrapolate from this that the entire system is not only linear, but inherently stable, if only we would let all the inputs float. This is, to be charitable, extraordinarily naïve.
The theory that a finite money supply (e.g. a gold standard) makes an economy stable is, it seems to me, analogous to saying that a battery-powered system cannot be unstable because the energy stored in the battery is finite. This is simply false.
The evidence seems to show pretty clearly that unregulated markets are highly likely to be astable (boom-crash-boom-crash), since that is how "almost unregulated" markets appear to behave: this is the oscillator that Stephen refers to above. The libertarian notion that unregulated markets become stable is premised on the belief that the removal of all controls will behave much differently from the removal of most controls. This belief is evidence-free and, while we cannot strictly rule out this behaviour because we haven't tried it, it seems so vanishingly unlikely that to attempt it would be grossly irresponsible.
Shorter Dan L.: "How dare you be sufficiently interested in international affairs that you have formulated an opinion on politics outside your own country. It offends me that you're not a parochial asshole like me."
negentropyeater@214,
I'm not sure even your very clear formulation captures the full craziness. After all, all real markets are part of larger physical systems, even if you disregard all the human-imposed rules. Suppose we take jcr's advice, and go back on the gold standard. Then someone finds a huge new gold deposit, or a viable way to extract gold from seawater (this has been proposed for uranium as a way round supply limits) or to get it from Earth-crossing asteroids. Suddenly, the money supply goes through the roof. This actually happened in 16th century Europe (silver rather than gold, mainly) as mines in Mexico and Peru were opened. The result was indeed inflation - first and fastest in Spain, which lost out as its products became more expensive than those from other countries - along with a boost to trade with the far East.
Nick @#216
Not to mention the fact that the Earth's core is ~1ppm gold. There's 10 orders of magnitude more of the stuff there than has been mined. What happens when/if technology allows the core magma to be accessed and gold extracted from it? Even if only 0.00001% of could be extracted, it would still multiply the total amount of gold in the world by 1000.
Walton:
I think if you asked most mainstream voters, they would agree that their votes for Obama were not votes against "the free market, free trade and economic liberty"... but if you then carefully explained what you (and your libertarian-leaning friends) actually mean by those terms, they'd quickly change their answers (unless they fainted dead away from shock before they got the words out).
There are no rigid criteria. Based on the sort of "competence" I've seen in American government since being old enough to vote, I want to limit the amount of power available to anyone my country happens to vote into any sort of office. Judging by everyone's reaction to my original post, I would think this viewpoint would go over pretty well.
Shorter Emmet Caulfield: "Anyone who has a different opinion from mine is a parochial asshole!"
Hey man, I live here, so I have an opinion on American politics. While I find international politics interesting, I don't formulate too many opinions because I don't feel I have a very good perspective on what actually motivates people in many countries. A good example is the Georgia war -- I had an opinion as soon as it happened; then, as soon as I got to work and talked to a few Russian coworkers, I found I had to completely change my opinion because I just didn't have a good perspective on what was motivating the Russian invasion of Georgia.
So I don't judge Russians (or anyone else) based on their political views. Any time I do, I find out that the situation is much more complex than I had ever considered. You seem to think you have me completely figured out, but I would say you're making this same mistake of judging who and what I am based on a few comments I made and conflating me with everyone else who might say that same thing.
Well, I'm more complex than that. Americans are, in general, more complex than you asshats seem to give us credit for. So of course you're entitled to an opinion on American politics. And I'm entitled to tell you to STFU. Like I said, if you want to influence an American election, move here and naturalize first and then vote like everyone else. Until then, worry about your own goddamned country.
Well, I'm more complex than that. Americans are, in general, more complex than you asshats seem to give us credit for. - DanL
I get it. It's wrong to generalise about or judge Americans, but it's fine for you to call all non-Americans "asshats".
As soon as your country stops interfering in the internal politics of other countries with coups, assassinations, and illegal wars, I'll consider stopping "interfering" in your internal politics by exercising my right to free speech.
Gobshite.
No, non-Americans who generalize about or judge Americans are asshats. I'm fine with everyone else.
Dan L.
Sorry, but you wrote @212 ;
Not exactly a huge sample to base such overiding conclusions on the general competence of government. And not exactly the best President America has ever known either.
A good example is the Georgia war -- I had an opinion as soon as it happened; then, as soon as I got to work and talked to a few Russian coworkers, I found I had to completely change my opinion because I just didn't have a good perspective on what was motivating the Russian invasion of Georgia.- Dan L.
And if your coworkers had been Georgians, then you would be of the opposite opinion now, I suppose. Indeed, you do not have a very good perspective of the world outside the U.S.
I agree that categorizing all Americans the same is ridiculous in the same way i fucking can not stand it when everyone assumes the south is a homogeneous group of KKK members who fuck their sisters and yank one out to Jesus every Sunday morning. It's patently not true.
However The US and its policies hold huge implications for the rest of the world. If the last 8 years let along the last month doesn't tell your that, you aren't fucking paying attention. People who are affected by a force have every right to want to influence that force. Granted they can't vote, but they with out a doubt can send support where they want. We sure as hell have to problem influencing other countries elections.
When they are concerned over our political affairs, they ARE WORRYING ABOUT THEIR GODDAMNNED COUNTRY.
Dan L, you are proving Andrew's point. You apparently don't see anything strange about Obama telling Afghanistan, Venezuela and Pakistan what they should do and even using/threatening force, but get all huffy when someone makes a suggestion about your election.
So you don't have much of a clue about what's happening over there, but you do know that we need a massive military to defend against 'Russian aggression'?
So if Afghanis, Iraqis, Iranians, Venezuelans or anyone else is worried about the US occupying or threatening those countries, they should move to the US and naturalize and vote against it or otherwise STFU? "Let them eat cake!"
DanL@222,
OK, according to you I'm certainly an asshat, since I judge George W. Bush to be a mass murderer.
Myself, I don't recognise that moral and political judgements can't cross national boundaries.
The Rev is right. I once knew a southern guy who preferred to fuck his cousin.
(I kid, because I love.)
Absolutely !
They also do it on Saturday morning ;-)
You fucking liar. You essentially told all non-Americans to STFU about American politics.
Please don't project your own ignorance on to me, your asinine "I'm pitifully uninformed about Georgia, therefore you are pitifully uninformed about the US" is cretinous.
What Georgian TV station are you watching right now? I'm watching MSNBC.
Secondly, Georgia doesn't affect you. Your "interest" in Georgia is purely academic, since the situation in Georgia is entirely irrelevant to your life. The US, on the other hand, affects everyone in the world: US fiscal policy can put many of my friends (thankfully not my family) in the poorhouse.
So, you can STFU until you understand the global ramifications of your "internal" politics, you painfully ignorant tool.
Note that is not a generalisation. I'm calling you alone a painfully ignorant tool, not "all Americans". For example, AFAICT, the vast majority of Americans on Pharyngula accept that people overseas can have, and express, a legitimate and informed interest in US politics.
Dan, your right to tell everyone else to STFU does not mean that we actually have to STFU. As several posters have pointed out already, so long as the USA has an influence on our countries- which it does- we get to have opinions.
Dan L,
I'm quite certain that as a non German, you have no opinion about Adolf Hitler. Following your principle, or you move to Germany and naturalize and then you can express an opinion about him, or you STFU.
Is that it ?
"""The evidence seems to show pretty clearly that unregulated markets are highly likely to be astable (boom-crash-boom-crash), since that is how "almost unregulated" markets appear to behave: this is the oscillator that Stephen refers to above. The libertarian notion that unregulated markets become stable is premised on the belief that the removal of all controls will behave much differently from the removal of most controls."""
I'm personally happy to see monetary policy debated as an "issue" rather than hidden away in back rooms and high places.
The gold standard is not a perfect system but it is a far more HONEST system than printing money at a whim. I don't claim to hold a strong belief in any particular system, but I do know that the current system has run its course and a national conversation on the issue needs to take place.
While many Europeans enjoy getting involved in US politics (and rightly so, as our government won't stay out of your affairs) I am loathe to accept any controls for our system OUTSIDE of our system. Tying monetary systems together through unelected banking heads is not my idea of "government by the people"- something as an American I am not willing to relinquish. That's just the way we roll.
China and Russia and the ME have entered into talks about creating a new currency backed by gold, leaving the dollar out of their dealings, because America has abused their printing presses and their credit and have stopped producing wealth in favor of living off of Asian labor and borrowed money (not a bad gig when you can get it).
The banksters are gathering to discuss how to have outside control of American financial systems, and this will be touted as the "fix" to the current economic calamity.
Unelected "internationalists" will have more control over the US than Barack Obama, and all of this will be touted as a "good" thing.
Meanwhile, every US citizen will be removed that much further from their own governance, and the two hundred year old experiment will finally fail due to American apathy...
(No wonder the Liberty Bell cracked)...
boggle boggle boggle...
PZ: I hope your cattle prod is warmed up! Robert F. Kennedy Jr., antivaccination pseudoscientist extraordinaire, is apparently being considered for a high position in the administration. Fellow SB'er Orac explains:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/11/why_did_someone_have_to_kill_…
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/11/say_it_aint_so_barack_say_you…
Please, get the word out with a full post. This would be a catastrophe on par with any antiscience the Bush administration espoused, due to the lives at stake.
Oh great, another youthful fool spouting off, with his head up his ass.
And hey, Conan O'Brien intervened in our last election. All in good fun but payback must come sometime. So until Mr Lordi the Monster Rock Vocalist surpasses Joe the Plumber as a political commentator, please STFU.
"""As soon as your country stops interfering in the internal politics of other countries with coups, assassinations, and illegal wars, I'll consider stopping "interfering" in your internal politics by exercising my right to free speech."""
EXACTLY RIGHT!!!
The US system has been used by banking interests to tie governments together in ways that are as harmful as they are beneficial.
The US is not morally justified in holding this position, and yet its government claims that authority, sending not very bright ideologues abroad to try and protect what are touted as American interests, but which are actually international banking interests.
Non Americans have every right to complain about American interference, as our military has been strategically placed over time to control the flow of the world.
A smaller, less powerful US government will result in less meddling and hubris around the world, which is why I strongly advocate changing the jurisdictional lines back to state control. Delaware has never tried to nation build in a foreign land, as near as I can tell...
Thus spake Rev. BDC:
Exactly! Thank you. Couldn't have put it better.
Thus spake windy:
Bingo! The naked hypocrisy is probably the most annoying thing. While the US backs coups against and assassinates democratically elected leaders, supports murderous despotic regimes, and invades other countries, we don't get to express a fucking opinion?
Really, Dan L. is exactly the kind of ignorant, arrogant, parochial, hypocritical asshole who annoys the shit out of the rest of the world every time he opens his stupid xenophobic piehole. Note, for the hard-of-thinking, that that isn't an unfair generalisation about Americans; the (predominantly American and predominantly non-asshole) commenters on Pharyngula are collective existential proof that such a generalisation would be unjustifiable, and I'd be just as critical of a similar British, French, or German asshole.
Wait... Is that wrong?
Clearly. You can have any opinion about any stupid thing you want. I wasn't saying you're not entitled to your opinions. I'm saying that your opinions don't rate as far as I'm concerned.
I never said I approve of Obama's stances on these countries.
I didn't say I don't have much of a clue about what's happening over there. I said I didn't understand Russians' attitudes about it, and that any opinions I form without taking that into account are not particularly valid.
Sounds like a personal problem.
I try, you painfully arrogant blowhard. Unfortunately, I was born into this mess and I have to deal with the situation as it is now. The absurd thing about this argument is that we'd probably agree on a lot of changes that should be made in my country; politically, we're probably pretty close to each other on the spectrum. But if you have any well-meaning advice along these lines, I'm telling you to go ahead and cram it. I have my own opinions and I'm doing what I can. If you have a problem with the US, maybe you should elect a government in your country that would actually stand up to the US in a meaningful way (this is a development that I would welcome, despite whatever sort of redneck caricature you've already decided I represent). If you can't do that and you're not willing to become a US citizen for the right to vote here, I don't see any particular reason why I should listen to you.
And calling me a fucking liar isn't a great way to convince me that I should listen to you in the first place.
bob @#234,
They're also talking about Colin Powell for the education post, which seems like an "interesting" choice. I think Eugenie Scott would be a better choice.
I'm not going to respond to Dan on exceptionalism (Palin didn't know what it was either) as I am after all, a "furnur", and others have been masterful in pointing out the realities of US foreign relations.
That being said, every nation has its own set of National Myths, Canada included, it's just that when we beat our little fists against a foe, it's not like the serious ass-whupping that the US military lays on, though the aggression is the same. We are morally superior to the US only insofar as we are less powerful, IMO, "Peace-keepers of the World" rhetoric notwithstanding.
As to the Libertarian current that runs through a lot of these discussions, I encourage True believers to look up the term "externality" and then tell me again how it's none of my business what countries you invade, which democracies you topple or how you make your money when you don't clean up the mess you created in my backyard getting rich.
But I don't want to go there. These things are old news to most of the posters here and for those who think this is "radical-lefty" talk, dream on.
There are a couple of positives to the Obama victory that suggest there's some fizz left in tho old beer. I write this in the context that many very smart people have been predicting global calamities for a long time now.
Bertrand Russell, whose "Authority and the Individual" has found it's way into the "small library" in my house, predicts in 1947 that 50 years from then, that the whole world will be engulfed in a famine and multiple wars and that civilized society will be essentially gone unless unbridled individualistic consumerist capitalism is tempered by recognition of global interdependence. Throw in Rachel Carson and Paul Erlich, among others and we should, by all rights, be dead.
Clearly things are bad, but none of us knows how bad. we may have more time than we fear.
Given that the US is/can be still the world leader.
Obama's victory did many things. Even though it's still a bad word, it brought "socialism" back into the US conversation.
It showed that the racism that has divided the working class so the whites side with the corporations who fuck them over is losing traction as a stick for the GOP to get people to vote against their own interests.
The "socialism for the rich" bailout, working class Americans, whose pride has led them to reject their taxes actually being used on their own behalf, are seeing that the Conservative rhetoric of "earning your keep" only applies to the not-rich.
Many minority voters have been not only registered but, at least for now, had their understandable cynicism with the Democratic process shaken a bit. Change only comes from people who have had the shit end of the stick for a while.
Obama is the only person in either party who has lived in a non-Western culture. His presidency may be the start of an American multi-lateral consultative foreign policy. At least, if he can't get the ball rolling, no one can.
It took 200 years to end slavery, without the internet or democracy (women, non-Europeans). Maybe Obama's presidency represents the first act of the coming generation of Americans, who will replace all the Cold War, Jim Crow detritus that still pollutes the US political landscape.
I may myself have lusted after one or two of my cousins in my youth...
I also lived for a while in Birmingham, Alabama. Coincidence?
If you expect me to forego my right to free speech, you can cram it sideways, but you can always 'killfile' every non-American commenter on this blog. Otherwise, suck it up.
Dan L.
I fail to understand why you wouldn't want to exchange ideas and opinions about US policies with people and judge these ideas purely based on their merits, independentely from the nationality of those who express them.
What are you so afraid of ?
Andrew, I think you missed Dan L.'s point: you're not a US citizen, therefore not only does your opinion not count, but you should not express it.
Bullshit! You said we should "STFU", i.e. that we should not express our opinions, not that our expressed opinions didn't matter to you. Distinctly different.
Hey Dan,
Who's enough of an American to qualify? My (very)great-grandfather was a "Founding Father." I'm an anarchist. Can I tell you to STFU? I hope so, given that you're a moron.
(BTW, I have a large family, and had a couple of cousins hit on me in our youth. Happens even in Yankee-land.)
Emmet: I know. I don't care. His ignorance doesn't move me to STFU. Besides, for you thoughtful, intelligent Americans, I'm sure he has a suggestion that you move to Cuba or Iran or some such...*yawn*
He doesn't even know the history of his own country fer cryin' out loud...
Congratulations! You've completely misrepresented what I was saying!
You're a PR rep, aren't you? Just a guess.
You know nothing about me. Judging by your characterization here, you'd be surprised if you met me and talked to me for an hour. I agree that there's too much arrogance and nationalism in my country. I agree that Bush was a terrible president -- and I'm glad that the world made their displeasure with that choice clear. But then all I hear is negative shit about Americans for six years. Guess what? That takes all that nationalism and jingoism that's already pissing me off and makes it worse. Well done. Aren't you glad your opinion was registered?
I understand that you're angry at what has been happening in my country for the last eight years, and I'm sorry. I'm angry too. I'm probably angrier about it than you are. But your whining isn't helping. It just makes all those assholes who want a cowboy in the white house feel more justified in their beliefs that everyone's out to destroy America.
It's clear to me that you haven't at all tried to understand what I'm saying -- you read a little bit, got mad, and decided I was some sort of Palin lovin' redneck who wants to 'Mericanize yer country. No, I'm just fed up with people like you who think you know better than Americans how America should be run. You run off your mouths, rile up the rednecks, and make it that much harder for the more rational Americans to get consensus. It's counterproductive for you and it's counterproductive for me. If you can't understand that you're shrieking makes the situation worse, then keep it up. And if you'd rather make me into a character to argue with then actually try to reason on what I'm saying, then I'm done talking to you, Emmet.
You don't approve of his stance but is he allowed to have an opinion? Or should he just move to Venezuela or STFU?
Fuck's sake. It was already pointed out to you that much of Europe stood up to the US on the Iraq war. You went ahead anyway, would you rather we started a war with the US to stop the invasion? See, since you apparently don't consider opposition meaningful if it's not backed by threat of force, it's a Catch-22: governments that try to do something that would allow them to stand up to the US in a "meaningful way" are immediately branded evil by the US. (They probably are all less or more evil, but consider that this could be because the US just ignores or browbeats opposition from friendly countries. It's not "meaningful".)
Emmet: I know. I don't care. His ignorance doesn't move me to STFU. Besides, for you thoughtful, intelligent Americans, I'm sure he has a suggestion that you move to Cuba or Iran or some such...*yawn*
He doesn't even know the history of his own country fer cryin' out loud...
neg:
Or better, Osama bin Laden. Unless you naturalize to... wherever the fuck he is, don't express an opinion.
Or even democratically elected leaders: Is the rest of the world allowed to express an opinion on Hamas winning the election? Or Chávez?
Dan:
How is he misrepresenting you? Perhaps you aren't making yourself clear.
Dan L.,
I never suggested that you were a Republican, a redneck, or anything of the kind.
I took grave exception to your expressed desire that I forego my right to free speech because I am not American, and I characterised you as ignorant, arrogant, parochial, hypocritical, and xenophobic.
I consider those characterisations entirely fair: ignorant, since you think US politics is a purely internal matter; arrogant, because you seem to think you get to decide who gets to express an opinion and who doesn't; parochial, because you think a non-American knowledge of the US is comparable to your knowledge of Georgia; hypocritical, because you get to express opinions about China and Russia, and interfere directly in other countries, while we may not express an opinion about yours; xenophobic, because you seek to deny rights to people based on them being from a different country from you.
None of these characterisations is based on anything other than what you said.
PAKISTAN!
Pakistan? That's so 2004. Maybe he is in Imaginationland!
Thus spake SC:
Now now, SC, be careful you don't step over the Dan line: you're allowed to say the name of other countries, OK, but no more. Maybe you're allowed say "Musharraf", even, but if you were to suggest that, for example, Musharraf stepping down was a good idea, or, perhaps, that the assassination of Bhutto was bad, that would be completely unacceptable unless you go to Pakistan and become a Pakistani citizen.
Sorry about the double-post, I got impatient...
Another thing that struck me bout Obama night:
While I have always admired the US protest movement of the 1960s and 1970s, the people who were championing the causes of racial equallty, anti wars of aqggression, economic justice etc, were considered (and many were) drugged-out utopians with little grasp on reality and virtually no traction with the powers-that-be. The "reasonable, moderate" media Cronkite et al pointed out how whacked-out many of their spokepeople e.g. Tim Leary, were.
Nov. 4, 2008:
The people who were championing the causes of racial equallty, anti wars of aqggression, economic justice etc were people working within The System, and pointing out a mainstream media that was filled with whacked-out or drugged out(e.g. Limbaugh, Oreilly, Kristol, Scarborough) utopians. Oh, and the "protesters" succeeded in electing a president.
am much more optimistic about Obama being elected president, and you should be too!!!
First, a black man has been elected president. Should I pinch myself, repeat myself - a black man has been elected president. I think it is callous to understate this simple fact. Is Obama the "messiah" the right seems to want to suggest he is - of course not. Is he going to bring about "utopia" - well you know what that means - no where.
Second, all I expected out of this election was to elect someone who wouldn't get us into another war - such as Iran. Even though there is all this talk about Afganistan, it is clear to me that Obama will not be tempted to get us into another war, as might have happened with "bomb bomb bomb Iran" McCain. In short, if Obama does nothing but avoid adding new disasters to the ones we already have - he will be a success.
We also avoided the specter of Palin - which is a relief only equivalent to the Cuban missle crisis when you take a moment to reflect upon it. Palin is finished. I don't think the right or the majority of conservatives will nominate her the head of her party even if she does try to win Iowa. You don't think Romney or Giuliani or Gingrich won't bring up the fake-Sarkozy tapes, lack of knowledge about Africa, etc. etc. if she were to run. Do you honestly think that any amount of doctoring couldever make her into a viable candidate? She is history. I will be a shock if she is even elected Governer again - apparentlyshe has really pissed off alot of people in Alaska but look at Uncle Ted?
Third, at least what I have seen, Obama is no Carter. He may land up bombing some pharmaceutical plant ala Clinton to prove his cudos to a portion of the electorate - that just reality. Even though it is regrettable, the alternative of electing another "conservative" through perceived weakness is unfortunately a certain political calculus.
Fourth, we must remember that what a president does is largely a product of what circumstances permit. Abraham Lincoln was very cautious about slavery, only limiting his talk to not permitting new states to get slaves when he became president. He was far from an abolishionist, and said some appalling things about blacks, but compared to the times he existed in, he was enlightened.
The same can be said of FDR. I've read that he was also cautious when he started, but the circumstances such as the depression and Nazi Germany, allowed him to consider much bolder things than he could imagine when he needed to e.g the New Deal.
I believe that Obama is a very smart man, who will proceed cautiously at first, but will earn the respect of the country and given the chance if more radical so-called "socialist" policies become necessary.
Finally, I am optomistic, because in this election, the issues were fought on our terms- the economy, health care, global warming, etc., rather than culture war issues, like abortion and gay marriage. This is because, like it or not, there is a financial crisis, there is a crisis in trying to find alternative sources of energy because oil is unsustainable even if we drill baby drill, global warming is real, we have lost our manufacturing base, and if we don't educate people, we don't vigorously protect American jobs in a global economy, our economic future is at stake. So even if Obama is unsuccessful, I don't see boneheaded ideas like every economic problem is answered by a corporate tax break, or renewing the culture wars will be considered legitimate solutions in the future.
Lest you think I contradict myself, in California the gay marriage initiative only narrowly passed. A few years ago it would have been a slaughter. I think most Americans accept civil unions and full rights for gays, but they can't get themselves to use the term "gay marriage." Of course this is unfortunate. But I think the tide is in the direction for more progressive policies, as younger people
push the boundaries. These things just take time, be patient. There are many evangelicals who believe in global warming.
There will always be Michelle Backman's and Saxby Chambliss's in certain pockets of the country- but guess what - he still may not win.
In short, in electing Obama we not only elected the first non-white president, we avoided a third Bush term and new protracted engagements. Yes the future will be rocky, and Obama will stumble. But he is intelligent, and can talk in complete sentences, that should count for something. And circumstances might require more radical progressive things to come about, even if Obama starts out cautious. Last, even if Obama is a bust, the fundamentals of the problems we face will demand that even conservatives consider
other things other than tax breaks and culture wars if they hope to be a viable party in the future. At least let's hope so.
I'm not opposed to exchanging ideas and opinions about US policies with people from other nations, though I see where people would get that impression from my rant.
The rant was specifically about shrill know-it-alls like Emmett who want to tell me what my opinion should be rather than try to reach consensus. I'm sorry that I got carried away and wasn't more explicit about this.
I agree that Americans are in many ways very arrogant when it comes to politics. But we don't have a monopoly on arrogance, and it bothers me when people like Emmett can't see that they're not that much different from the so-called "ugly Americans" that they're decrying.
Anyway, I apologize to any "furrners" I may have offended by generalizing. My rant was really intended for anyone who would rather complain about how stupid, fat, lazy, and irresponsible Americans are than try to cooperate on finding solutions. (So just to be clear, my apology excludes Emmett.)
SC:
Of course you can tell me to STFU. No qualifications required. In fact, anyone can tell anyone to STFU. That's why I felt justified in doing it before.
Just to be clear -- I don't have any clandestine police authority. I can't deprive anyone of his or her right to free speech. You can't deprive me of the right to express displeasure at what you're saying. If you think telling someone to shut up is the same as robbing them of their free speech, then you're an idiot.
I accept that I was shrill in my criticism of you, but my criticism was very pointed and solely about your assholery in telling non-Americans to STFU. Where did I seek to tell you what your opinion should be?
You can add "disingenuous" to my list of characterisations, since you're now claiming to be open to discussion with anyone after opening the conversation with: "you shut the fuck up".
You know nothing about me. - Dan L.
Oh, I think we've learned quite a bit from your comments here, Dan.
Emmett, Emmett, Dan L. did NOT open the conversation with "Shut the fuck up." He opened it with "Hey! Screw you! It's our country. I've been tempted over the last few weeks to vote for McCain SOLELY because everybody in Europe and South American and Russia seems to have such a strong bloody opinion about how I should vote. Well, it's really easy to criticize when you haven't been spending 20% of all tax moneys collected on protecting the free world, isn't it? How about England, France, Germany, and Australia get together, put together a military force that could defend against Chinese or Russian aggression, and then get back to us about who we should elect president. That sound fair to you foreigners floating around here?"
Dan L.
How am I misrepresenting what you are saying ?
Weren't you suggesting that citizens from a country should only listen to political opinions expressed by citizens from their own country. The rest doesn't mateer, and as far as you're concerned, they should STFU ?
Well, according to this logic, opinions about Hitler should only be expressed and listened to by citizens from Germany. The rest should STFU.
Clear isn't it.
I'm flattered.
I'm also pretty confident that every regular that I have the slightest respect for will see what I said for what it was -- robust and on-target, if angry and intemperate, criticism of a specific point -- and see yours for what it was -- ignorant blather that studiously avoided addressing a single substantive point, followed by a mealy-mouthed nonpology.
I admitted that I was ranting and generalizing and that I didn't make myself clear and then apologized. Do you need me to grovel before you can get over yourself?
Plus, you guys seem to take STFU a little more personally than most people I know. Why can't you just respect my culture? [/sarcasm]
Nick Gotts:
If you think you actually got some insight into my character from some random rant I posted onto a comments page on a random blog and the ensuing argument with Emmett, then I think you're taking this thing a little too seriously. But think whatever you want, man. That's the Christian thing to do.
Dan, have you noticed how your wanting people to shut up has not in fact caused anyone to shut up?
Funny how that works.
Nick Gotts,
I stand corrected!
Kind of my point in the first place, Stephen. Notice how telling Americans that they're stupid doesn't make them any smarter? Or how telling them that they're unreasonable doesn't make them any more reasonable?
"Notice how telling Americans that they're stupid doesn't make them any smarter? Or how telling them that they're unreasonable doesn't make them any more reasonable?"
I have.
You quote me, yet you explicitly excluded from your nonpology:
I'm sure everyone else has accepted your nonpology and moved on. I don't expect you to grovel; in fact, I don't expect much of anything. If you were to say that you understand that non-Americans can have an informed and legitimate interest in US politics and have the right to formulate and express an opinion about it, you'd immediately stop copping flak from me, but it would be the direct opposite of what you've been saying heretofore.
I take it to be an initialism for "shut the fuck up", which I see as a personal, dismissive, and somewhat offensive imperative.
fyi I thin they just officially called NC for Obama.
You thin? I'll do the thinnin' around here!
@270: I'm pretty sure that read differently in your head from the way it actually came out on the page; you're not making yourself look any better.
This isn't about "Americans", it's about what you said. You alone. Don't try to make this about unfair generalisations about Americans: I'd be the first to agree that there are some, but this is about you alone telling non-Americans to STFU, no more, no less.
Who are Americans again?
k
stupid fingers not doing what i tell them
Boo, Jac Straw.
To be fair to Dan, he didn't tell me (us) to STFU, he said "offer solutions or STFU". I offered a solution (implicitly), which was to dump the exceptionalism and the religiosity requirements as preconditions for political rhetoric in the US.
I admit too, that as a Canuck, I feel we have just seen a replay of your 2004 election in my country with our re-election of Harper as PM, with no "Obama" to root for. For those who don't know, Harper is a right-wing Friedmanite (a Calgary School economist), with latent theocratic tendencies and the good political sense not to let them be too obvious, at least until he has a parliamentary majority. He's never seen a war he didn't like and as the USA is moving to make health care better and more accessible, Harper is moving in the other direction. Our "Democrats" are Liberals, but not liberal and include a torture supporter and a party-hopping political opportunist who is forever trying to show how well he can sneer at the progressives who handed him his biggest political triumph.
Anyway, I congratulate the people who put Obama into office and hope your new president proves me to be a grumpy middle-aged cynic.
Exactly why I ranted in that other thread about discussing politics on here.
AFAICT, and if memory serves (I don't keep track of the nationality of posters) about half the people who took exception to Dan L.'s original "Screw you! ... STFU" remark, and understood immediately that it had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with unfair stereotypes of Americans, a red-herring introduced much later by Dan L. in an attempt to muddy the waters and distract people from what he actually said, the thing we actually disagreed with.
What makes it a "nonpology"? Did I forget to put in "sincere" tags or something? I admitted that my original post was a rant, that it generalized unfairly, and that I didn't make the sentiments that brought me to write it clear in the least. And I apologized. What's not an apology about that?
somenon-Americans can have an informed and legitimate interest in US politics and have the right to formulate and express an opinion about it. Not all non-Americans have an informed interest in US politics, and this is the point I SHOULD have made initially.
Anyway, I excluded you from my "nonpology" only because of my immediate emotional reaction to your invectives. I'm sorry that I was not clear about what was making me mad in my original post and cast a wide enough net to offend you.
But do you think it's maybe possible that there are some non-Americans who shoot off their mouths as badly as I did before, and with whom I could be justifiably angry, just as you have been justifiably angry with me? People who might actually deserve a "personal, dismissive, and somewhat offensive imperative"? This attitude, which I see as just the European form of American jingoism, is what made me angry enough to make the (indefensible) first post I made on this thread.
Sorry again that I was not clear. I hope I have clarified what I was bitching about and that we can discuss things more civilly in the future.
An understandable conclusion, but incorrect. Unfair generalizations of Americans IS part of what made me mad in the first place, but I did nothing to make this clear until later.
Emmet,
That was exactly my point. There's no one on this planet who hasn't a right to participate in this dicussion. The idea that only official citizens of the US can take part is absurd.
So again Dan L., where's the line between Americans and non-Americans? 'Cause by my measure you're a relative newcomer. You have more of a right than others to decide US policy? How so?
I really don't get your original comment DanL. Do you genuinely believe that the only reason we aren't all speaking Russian or Chinese is that your tax dollar is staving off mutually assured destruction? If not, then I really don't see what the fuck you were on about in the first post.
If Sarah "Is Africa a country?" Palin can run for VP, EVERYBODY gets to have an opinion on US politics. If we know the place exists we're ahead of the game.
I have more of a right than non-citizens to decide US policy because I have the right to vote in US elections. This is a fact, not some opinion that I have.
As far as whether non-Americans have a right to be part of the dialog, please see 283. But then, I never said anything about anyone not having any particular rights in the first place. "STFU" was supposed to be an indictment of a particular class of opinions, not a weapon with which I could threaten you and thus deprive you of your rights.
OK, one more time: my first post was indefensible. I didn't clearly state what was making me mad and as a result, ended up casting a much wider net than I ever should have. I apologize humbly and sincerely for doing so. I will try to do better in the future.
I suppose I should directly address Dan, so I will:
Dan,
That you've been spending 20-50% of your tax money to line Haliburton and Blackwater's pockets killing ~1000000 civilians and invasion resistors in Afghanistan and Iraq is hardly my problem or responsibility. I have voted against Canadian involvement in Afghanistan and decried it at every opportunity. That your tax money has been spent torturing and imprisoning innocent people is not my problem and I am no more grateful for it than I am for the Israeli tax money that was used to kill Lebanese people or Iraqi tax money that was used to kill Kuwaitis. Don't bitch about misuse of your taxes to me. I would rather you used that money to heal your sick, educate your Christians or pay down your foreign debt. or you might petition McCain to use some of it to actually support your misused troops by giving them some health care when they got back from Bush/Cheney war crimes.
Clear?
But that's the way it is, that's reality, partisans of small government and deregulation, Libertarians, are still going to try to influence government policies in this country, even with this new adminstration This is the US of A afterall, not Europe. It's going to be a difficult battle.
I don't know, seems to me that when everybody is of the same opinion, the threads are not as much fun, nor do I learn as much through the debate or the arguments of the participants.
So for example, I mostly disagree with jcr and Walton, but I'm glad they're here.
This is valid btw with the Evolution/ID threads, the days are long gone since there hasn't been some real quality IDiot with whom to have a good battle.
What SC said at #248 makes a good point - I'm Australian but my great great grandfather was American. Does that mean I'm entitled to make comments about US foreign policy one-sixteenth of the time?
It's a historical artifact, and the product of the victory of some groups over others. Nothing more. Gives you no moral rights whatsoever to participate in that discussion. Fading, in any case, but the losers will cling to it.
No, you're still not getting it. Everyone has that right. You, a citizen (bleh) of the US, may not - and likely do not - have an informed and legitimate interest in either global politics or the role of the US therein. To the extent that you do not, you should, in accordance with your own criteria, STFU.
Absolutely: it's not only "maybe possible", but it's undoubtedly true that some people are guilty of extremely simplistic thinking about US society, resulting in, inter alia, grossly unfair stereotypes, which characterise "Americans" as ignorant, arrogant, gun-toting, fundamentalist Christian rednecks. But, in all fairness, nobody once suggested that such a characterisation was even remotely fair.
Now that we're trying to be constructive, my point here is this: the US economy and US foreign involvement are legitimate concerns for me and most small countries. In practical terms, the government of the US makes a much bigger difference to the day-to-day lives of people in my country than our own government, which tends to pursue much the same policies no matter who gets elected. My country was turned into a giant aircraft carrier for an illegal war, massively against the democratic wishes of the people, because of fear that the US would brand us "enemies" if we didn't cooperate, which would destroy our economy overnight. The French were only able to defy the US because they are bigger, and they have been hugely demonised for it. As another example, a currently proposed US economic initiative could potentially put most of my friends out of their jobs and utterly annihilate the one remaining sector of our economy that is economically productive after the recent economic meltdown, which, incidentally, exactly parallels the US economic problems, and that's no coincidence: US economic dominance of the global financial markets means that it's utterly futile for small countries to adopt a financial regulatory regime that is incompatible with the US. If you have lax regulation, we have a choice: lax regulation or an economy like Cuba. Our banks bought financial instruments that were connected with the US subprime market. When it collapsed, our banks were badly hurt. That's not the entire story, of course, but it's a massive contributory factor. In short: your government affects me more than my own.
Now, the reality is that that I don't get a say in the election of the government that, in practical terms, most affects my life and the lives of the people I love. It's very frustrating, but I just have to accept it.
Then you come along and say that I should STFU: now, not only do I not get a say, but someone who does get a say is telling me that I can't even express an opinion about it? Now, not only am I disenfranchised, but gagged too.
That's why it was about free speech. That's why I was so angry.
OK. Me too.
EVERYONE is informed? WTF? You missed my point, buddy. Everyone has an interest, but not everyone has an INFORMED interest, and that was all I was trying to say. You're pissed off when uninformed Americans run off their mouths (as is all too obvious from this thread). I shouldn't be mad when uninformed non-Americans run their mouths?
Look, I've already admitted that everything I said in my first post was wrong. And apologized. I really don't know what else I can do for you.
Emmett@294:
Sorry for getting posts crossed with 295. I agree with everything you said in 294. I guess part of what makes me mad about this is that no other country has done anything to challenge US military or economic hegemony. This is, I realize, a historical accident to some degree, and I certainly don't hold the world responsible for the US' behavior.
But the fact that my country hasn't been challenged however far my government steps out of bounds coupled with the fact that everyone seems to have an opinion on how we should run our country is a little galling. There's only so much I can do about the US government where I am now, and sometimes I feel I'm being unfairly criticized by the world for not doing for them what they haven't done for themselves.
As I've said before, I WELCOME challenges to US hegemony. I hope that we can elect some politicians with spines here (that is, spines to stand up to executive overreach), but I also hope that everyone else can elect governments that will stand up to America for the sake of moving towards a more equitable global economic and military situation.
Sigh. Dan L., people have a right to participate in this discussion regardless of how informed they are. Most people in the US haven't the faintest clue about what's happening in Venezuela, Bolivia, or Ecuador, but they still believe they have more of a right to participate in the making of policy that will affect the people in these countries than the citizens of these countries themselves. Outrageous.
I'm annoyed when anyone - US citizen or no - spouts nonsense, and I argue with them.
Stop trying to defend indefensible arguments. Other than that, I'm happy to let it pass. :)
Dan L.
As I said earlier, like most Americans, you seem to have most conveniently forgotten what happened in the UN prior to your government invading Iraq, in a war which was clearly illegal.
But what did you expect the rest of the world to do ? When a country like the US already spends more than 50% of the total planet's military expenditure, it kind of makes any retaliation a bit dodgy, doesn't it ?
Please don't be so naïve.
"""That you've been spending 20-50% of your tax money to line Haliburton and Blackwater's pockets killing ~1000000 civilians and invasion resistors in Afghanistan and Iraq is hardly my problem or responsibility. I have voted against Canadian involvement in Afghanistan and decried it at every opportunity. That your tax money has been spent torturing and imprisoning innocent people is not my problem and I am no more grateful for it than I am for the Israeli tax money that was used to kill Lebanese people or Iraqi tax money that was used to kill Kuwaitis. Don't bitch about misuse of your taxes to me."""
Don't forget that the US dollar being the world's fallback currency allows the US government to spend far more than it has or its country makes. If we need a new set of bombs and can't afford it, we print the money, buy the bombs, and then let the world absorb the dollars printed down the line. Bomb makers get rich, those who own shares in bomb makers get rich, and the US remains a shovel held over everyone's head...
This is the great charade being exposed by those pesky Ron Paul types, those who see the Printing of Money as a means of control, not prosperity, What baffles me about foreign opposition to the Americans who want to reduce American hegemony and simply be a brotherly nation in a world full of nations is that this printing of money is the key to the power structure. I find it odd that so many want the system to remain intact for weird and nonunderstandable reasons...
"""But what did you expect the rest of the world to do ? When a country like the US already spends more than 50% of the total planet's military expenditure, it kind of makes any retaliation a bit dodgy, doesn't it ?"""
That's because the world absorbs out inflation. The ability to dominate the planet militarily is directly tied to being able to print dollars and have the rest of the world buy them.
China and Russia and the ME are now talking about changing that in a unified fashion, and this will crush America's ability to be dictatorial.
Are you doing this just to be contrary? I haven't said anything about rights at ALL. EVER on this thread. Of COURSE you have the right to spew whatever kind of nonsense is on your mind. Once again, "STFU" is an indictment of opinions that don't rate because they're uninformed, not as an attempt to deprive anyone of their rights (and I would expect the same to go for me, which is what this thread has been all about). If you think me saying "shut up" deprives you of your rights, then you are an idiot. You have a right to tell me what you think. I have a right to say "go screw yourself" if I disagree. What's the problem here?
Okay, here is what's making me mad as an Australian.
The US presidential election is the most important election in the world, the result is only secondary to our own election and even then the power that the US exhibits in the world means that we are in the end affected by it. On the issue of climate change, we are ultimately powerless without US involvement. On the issue of security and foreign policy, as an ally of America we face the wrath of US foreign policy decisions. On the global market, a recession in the US spells global financial disaster. So on that, the citizens of the world move to the tide of the US but wtihout any representation in the process. If you wonder why the world right now is brimming with excitement at the election of Obama, it's that he has teh real potential to change the shape of US foreign policy and bring a less fascist and more democratic action to global affairs.
So that's why it matters to people in Australia, to people in Europe, in Asia, in Central and South America and in Africa. Your election affects us like none other in the world because the American system is very much the world's sherrif. And that cowboy approach to the rest of the globe where it claims to be the world's leader is nothing more than a spoilt child that either wants it's own way or will pack up and go home. So DanL, can't you grasp that the only voice the rest of the world really has is to talk about what they hope for America? It affects them much much more than any foreign election result affects you.
I can understand that perspective. I'm uncomfortable with simplistic external analysis of my country and her myriad problems, thankfully now fewer and less serious than in the past, particularly by those whose knowledge of her is a media caricature formulated by three news items is as many years. I put that discomfort down to my emotional involvement, irrational though I know it to be. Occasionally, though, I meet someone with real interest, real knowledge, and their analysis is interesting and incisive precisely because they lack my irrational emotional involvement.
So, of course, I understand that you're emotionally close to the problems of the US, but, for a lot of us, our interest is not purely academic: its very real and pragmatic, and we're so exposed, and have such easy access, to US media that it's not at all safe to assume that we're ill-informed.
I share your wish that more people would stand up to the US, and I take my hat off to France for being one of the few countries who have done, but the realpolitik is that it would've been economic suicide for a small country as dependent on US favour as Ireland. Much as in the UK, the people wanted to stand up to the US and damn the consequences, but the government decided otherwise. By the time our election came around, it wasn't a big issue any more, in much the same way that it eventually polled very low as a critical election issue in the US. We can have no claim to moral superiority: our political attention span was no longer than yours.
My own experience of Americans in Europe is that the majority are strongly critical of the Bush doctrine and American foreign policy, and are suffering a great deal of emotional fatigue from people constantly unloading on them about it. I feel great sympathy for them.
No, Dan - I'm trying to understand at this point in the conversation what exactly your point(s) is/are. Could you make it/them more clear? Thank you.
What evidence have you given that your own opinions (on what subjects, specifically?) are informed, or more informed than those of the non-US-citizens posting here?
Oh, boo hoo. What bullshit. People in Latin America have been challenging US hegemony for fucking decades, and getting killed in the process. They're doing it now, and only with the election of Obama do they stand less of a chance of being murdered. We, as Americans, share the guilt in what has been done in these countries by the US government. We should be ashamed, and the last thing we should do is get fucking defensive when someone who has suffered from our government's actions expresses an opinion. Get over your fucking blindly-patriotic self, asshole.
Thus spake SC:
In fairness, I think we're into the territory of understanding Dan's explanation of the emotional motivation for what he originally said, rather than the actual content as understood and explained by the rest of us. He's already retracted that.
In short, unless I'm very much mistaken, I don't think that there really is a point for you to understand.
Others have pointed out that Europe spends MORE on defense than the US. Regardless, I didn't expect the rest of the world to jump in to stop the US invasion of Iraq per se. The US has been making unilateral decisions and ignoring international law for decades and no other nation has ever mounted any significant challenge at any point.
So the problem is and has been obvious for decades, but no other nations seem to be in a rush to face the challenge. If you have some substantive advice on how those of us Americans who actually want to play fair at the global level can do something about it, fire away. If all you have is "US -- yer doin' it wrong!" then you might be better off not saying anything at all.
If all you think is that people are just criticising the US without doing anything, then you are better off not saying anything at all. In case you haven't noticed there are several multinational bodies that exist for such purpose as what you are reporting. The problem is, as I specified above, is that the US doesn't want to play by those rules and is more than willing to go it alone if it thinks it is doing the right thing. Just look at the climate change protocols, the US refused to enter into any multinational agreements and only in recent times has decided that it will engage in talks - provided they are on American terms.
Er, no.
The US spends around double the EU, and the EU's budget is split 27 ways.
Fucking liar. You don't even welcome verbal challenges to US hegemony, you dishonest asshole.
What a disingenuous scumbag you are. There are movements in the US who are working to do something about it, and we're cooperating with people in other countries. Several of the commenters here are involved with these struggles in the US and in other countries. In contrast, you've offered no suggestion of any action on your part. You need to get a fucking clue and stop being such a whiny little dickhead.
That's probably offensive to men. Hadn't realized before. Will stop using. Sorry.
No, amk pointed out quite the opposite in #134: the US spends more than the rest of the world combined, about 623 gigabucks per year compared to 500 gigabucks for everyone else combined. Here's the link again: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm
Unfortunately, not only does the US spend more, but the vast economies of scale mean that the the US gets much better value for money than anyone else. There is simply no international coalition that could plausibly defeat the US militarily. During the Cold War, the USSR provided a check on the US exercising that vast power freely, after the collapse of the USSR, that check declined to the point where the US now has unchecked and indefeasible military power.
The President of the US has Sauron's ring, and Bush43 is wearing it. Let's hope Obama has the wisdom to leave it in his pocketses.
Another point that most contributors to this forum don't need reminding of, but does seem to be a sticking point for patrotic types (of the "last refuge of a scoundrel" ilk), is that no sane person takes criticism of their government's actions personally.
Anyone who tells you that you are racist/bigotted, a "hater" or some such tripe for critcizing the actions of a government is a fascist or fascist stooge. those of us who believe in democracy --with all its warts-- know that it is the duty of a citizen to become informed about their country and the world and to criticize anti-democratic actions of any state.
To quote the great philosopher, Stan Lee, "With great power comes great responsibility."
I don't think so (it doesn't offend me in the slightest), but if you want to be strictly consistent about not using gender-specific epithets to avoid charges of hypocrisy if you were to complain when someone says "cunt", then it's probably best avoided. I know someone complained about "douchbag" the other day, which is a pity, since I simply love "douchenozzle" as an epithet.
Nah.
Childish, maybe. Offensive, only to prudes.
Emmett @314, I know I'm digressing, but I did recently state that if "cunt" was misogynistic, then "douchebag" was too* - only to be corrected in no uncertain terms. I was forced to accept I was arguing from ignorance.
Opinions on these matters are rather subjective, I think.
* The person objecting to the former on those grounds in the same comment implied the latter was fine.
Dan L, thanks for trying to clarify your remarks, but I think you are still being kind of oblivious:
Still not clear what you would prefer. Why wasn't the clear diplomatic opposition to Iraq War a "significant challenge"?
Would you rather have challengers like North Korea? They get nukes and the US backs away. Iran challenges US authority and wants nukes too. Russia called the US's bluff in Georgia.
So it seems that challenges do exist, but the diplomatic kind you don't think are significant, and the latter kind you think are dangerous military aggression. So if you want less of the latter kind, I would suggest that you start rewarding diplomacy more than ruthlessness.
See the links at the last several posts on the "Sarah Palin: Ignorant and Anti-Science" thread - support for my position. No one will take "douche" or its variants from me.
windy, I believe that Dan's position can be more or less summed up in the immortal words of Otter from the film Animal House:
In other words, it's your fault for not stopping us.
OT
Don't forget to listen to Jesus on the radio tonight. Troy Conrad has been around for awhile and was at the Queen Mary. He helped put me in touch with Jesus Christ, who will be taking calls on air this evening.
10:15-11:00 PM Central, Thursday Nov 6
direct streaming link:
http://stream.kpft.org/streamkpft.m3u
call-in number 713 526 5738
John Morales #316, SC #318,
Yep, I followed the start of that thread at the time, but I didn't say anything much except at the very beginning. TBH, I'd almost completely forgotten the details of it other than the recollection of an objection to "douche". Subconsciously, I think I choose single epithets for aesthetic fit -- for alliteration, assonance, or rhythm -- more often than for their actual meaning.
Emmet,
Please note that on one or two occasions on that thread I pointed to you (among others) as an example of an entertaining and non-misogynistic insulter.
Thank you SC, I appreciate the consideration. And no, and I don't think that saying "dickhead" indicates hatred toward males. For reasons I've already expressed.
I don't get what the big fuss about 'dickhead' is, it's a stock standard insult here. It's even used as a term of endearment among friends "Did you bring the beer ya dickhead?" There doesn't seem a male equivalent of the word 'cunt' just as there is no male equivalent of the word 'bitch'. We've been in a patriarchal society for so long that there is no gender equality among insults and indeed in Australia probably the most offensive thing you can say to a guy is to call him gay (this country is the bastian of tolerance!)
Questioning a man's sexual prowess or function is really a low blow...
Kel @324, yeah, when I was at school (1970's) I recall that the ultimate insult to a bloke was "poofter" - "dickhead" barely rated. Sad, really.
On topic, I was amused watching Christopher Hitchens disputing our pundits on local TV during the aftermath of the election.
Why Emmet you ol' hound dawg. Flattery being poured on you by two of the ladies tonight.
Watch it SC, he's getting mighty slutty tonight.
Kel et al.,
No fuss, and I don't see it as the equivalent of those other terms - just don't want to be at all hypocritical.
Questioning a man's sexual prowess or function is really a low blow...
Which is why I reserve such comments for the likes of VD (well, for that reason and because I suspect they're accurate in his case).
Thus spake SC:
Yes, I just reread that part of the thread, and I noticed that.
*blush*
Thus spake Patricia:
Which makes tonight no different from any other... maybe I should change my moniker to "Emmet, KoS".
Watch it SC, he's getting mighty slutty tonight.
He's so cute when he's slutty. ;)
You should go for it Emmet! *goose*
If only VD would have the guts to post his argument for the existence of God. Surely if the argument is solid it can stand on it's own merits.
Well said Kel. Vox Day's followers are a bunch of spineless sissies, just like their hero.
My, my, what have I done to deserve such compliments? Cute and slutty!
That's why I find his call for a debate so vapid, he won't even present his arguments unless it's in a form where there's no time to analyse it and he gets equal time to present it. In that respect it will never be about being right on the existence of God, rather it's a validation of his debating skills. Whereas if he posted it here, or on his blog, or anywhere that people could view it at leisure, then if it had merit it would be worth discussion. While he won't post it, he's nothing but an attention-seeking intellectual coward.
Nobody with any self-respect would descend to argue with him. He's as stomach-churning a lump of mouldering duck vomit as you'll ever find, and his sniveling mouth-breathing minions are just as bad. His brand of vile flaming bigotry feeds on publicity, an oxygen that we deprive him of when we simply ignore him.
And you wonder what you've done to deserve our compliments.
Um.
If he's willing to be open and civil, surely he deserves the chance to state his case.
If only the women I meet in bars appreciated such things.
Mmmmm, that Emmet. He's just pourin' on the charm tonight.
Do tell us more about mouldering duck vomit, darlin.
You haven't read his blog then. One visit is usually enough. When you get through the "if the Nazis could ship 6 million Jews to gas-chambers, we can ship 2 million Mexicans to the border" diatribe, try some of his gross misogyny on for size. Then after you've cleaned the vomit off your keyboard, see if you feel the same way. He just wants publicity to promulgate his vicious hatred of everything that isn't exactly like him. There's no more reason to entertain him than the Imperial Wizard of the Klan, whom he probably despises as excessively tolerant.
That, I have to say, is not something I ever expected someone to say to me.
Yeah, I braced myself and went over to his blog to see how he'd explain away the Rethug loss - hilarious really; he was calling a McCain victory the day before the election and now he's saying he'd predicted it all along.
His scum-crusted, forelock-tugging, pissant worshippers were mostly discussing such realistic scenarios such as how soon it will be that the police will be coming to take their guns and bibles away; others were commenting on how hard it is to get ammunition, and which are best guns to buy; some other idiot was blaming the election result on satan. I kid you not.
Schadenfreude amongst the mentally competent in the USA must be at record levels.
I have not.
The proposition was not if he has the capacity to be open and civil, it was a precondition for dialogue. If he can't meet the criteria then there's nothing to worry about. If he can sit down and work under a spell of coherence and relevance for enough time to lay out his argument, then maybe it's worth giving him a chance. It all depends on him really. But he's definitely an intellectual coward for not being able to bring that argument yet complaining about people not engaging him.
That must be because you've never met someone quite so, interesting, as me before.
Do tell us more about mouldering duck vomit, darlin.
Mmm yeah, talk dirty to me. ;)
Do ducks vomit? I see a Mythbusters episode in the making.
I dunno, I've met some pretty interesting people, although interesting and slutty is better than either alone.
Emmet is on a rampage. I like it.
Go! Baby! Go!
My point is that his motivation is not honest discourse or exchange of ideas, it's garnering publicity for his brand of racism, xenophobia, religious bigotry, misogyny, and outright fascism. No good is served by providing a platform for him to spew hatred or elevating the platform he already has.
Hum, I actually don't know if ducks vomit. I've never seen my chickens vomit. They squeak stuff out their nasal slits sometimes.
While I was working at the veterinary hospital, for 13 years, one of the horse docs said that if a horse vomits it's a clear sign of imminent death.
Wowbagger,
Well, he's as good a pundit as he's an apologist.
I guess you mean the Nov. 3 post titled Presidential prediction - McCain wins: "... I am forced to conclude that despite the way things superficially appear, John McCain will win the election." and the Nov. 5 post titled And now the fun begins: "As for my failed political predictions, do keep in mind that I batted .250 this round. Incorrect on Pataki, incorrect on Clinton, correct on Palin, incorrect on McCain. Not impressive, but not exactly bad when you consider that most of these predictions were made months in advance".
Hee hee. Taking him at his word*, 1/4 is worse than chance, and he's proud of it. Wow.
* yeah, I know, but I'm not going to suffer pain to validate his claims.
Fair enough Emmet
Let's stop the online sex and get back to the real issues that burn in the minds of concerned citizens today.
Who, what, why and how is a DoucheBag, can it really be followed to the garden of delights, and in terms of endearment or degradation, contrast and compare doucheBag with skumBag, which refers to a used male prophylactic, swarming with life, that has not yet been washed out for re-use in certain areas of Texas or Oregon.
The skumbag is a revered icon in the Church of the Subgenius, referred to as a Prairie Squid, an odd coincidence, considering where I have chosen to squirt this message.
We have just begun to scratch the surface as far as Latex appliances, so please reply before the batteries run out.
Praise BoB
Yep, you're right Janine. When was the last time you saw the cougars purring?
Ol' Emmet is on a slutty roll of duck vomit.
Course his red goatee is kinda hairy and cute too.
Scooter, #354 - huh? That's just...weird.
I want some of what you're smoking/drinking/snorting!
Hey, I though I was on for a foursome there for a minute, apart from the minor geographical inconvenience of being more than 10,000km away from any of these interesting slutty women.
Scooter, are you drunk again?
Put down your kick stand before you hurt yourself man.
That's quite an old photograph :)
John Morales,
To be fair to VD, I believe his predictions about a McCain victory was based on what he considered inflated polling data in favour of Obama. And using the baseball metaphor he does admit he got it wrong.
What I'm referring to is in the comments on at least one of the threads, where he makes a point of writing 'this is what I've been telling people for years...' and so forth. I don't know what they get called in the US but in Australia we refer to that sort of person as a 'Monday's Expert', waiting until after something's occurred before claiming to have had accurate knowledge of it beforehand.
Not that that matters, since it's all posturing to try and pretend he's not royally pissed that the christofascists* didn't win.
*not that they're either christo or fascist enough for him, but close enough
Wowbagger - Yep, you're right. Scooters flyin' to close to the ground. I'm gonna pull a plug outta one of his jugs.
He can kick all he wants, but that sled isn't going to start.
I'll walk you to your tent Scooter.
For some reason, the first insult I thought of when I was read about the scumbucket is to call a person a bucket of chum.
Yeach!
358: Scooter, are you drunk again?
the appropriate inquiry would be, "Scooter, are you sober?" after all, the glass by the keyboard is always half full so it's a parama-dama-doxiphorical metafix on opti-pessimism. Sorry to get scientifistic on you.
I am slamming my first beer, as I just got off the air with Jesus Christ, and you didn't even listen because you were getting all horny with your secular humanist online three-way with Emmet and SC, so I'm hurt, but you can make it up to me by sending a video.
is always half full
Thus spake Kel:
He's pretty well the only person I'd be so dismissive of: I'm very much in favour of hearing arguments and judging them on merit rather than their source, but that guy has never had anything original to say, and has always had a lot of really vile shit to promote. In his case, it's just not worth it.
Well, as long as you're being slutty, you should have something else for show and tell that's red and hairy.
Unless you want to stick with the mouldering duck vomit, that has the ladies attention riveted on you.
I meant Janine, not SC, you females all look alike to me
So, Wowbagger writes
and is fair to VD. It's refreshing (and not too surprising) to see honesty and charity on this side of the fence.
As for Scooter,
I totally get his point. It probably helps that I've downed 1/3 of my birthday (5 nov!) Jameson's and a bunch of rollies during this stint at the computer.
Unfortunately, I have to give up this high-toned conversation for a function at the Art Gallery - with alcohol, of course - so I'll bid you all adieu.
Oh, I do beg your pardon Scooter. I'm sorry.
I should have called in to talk to Jesus, but I was dazzled by Emmets naughty sluttiness.
You will have to admit, there isn't too much naughty about ol' dickless jezus. Well, except for his buggering that 'youth'. I could have asked him about that.
Bye Wowbanger,
things are getting pretty sticky around here, and I usually draw the line at people pissing on my cornflakes or being fair to VD.
I may have to feed my aquarium of mutated giant spirochetes soon, since Patricia was insulted by my reference to her kinfolks re-using condoms, but if that weren't the case, she probably wouldn't even be here.
God Bless America
Scooter, how could you confuse SC with me? SC is much more articulate.
Also, it seems I am covered with duck vomit. Getting that duck to drink that much was not easy. I would have been better served if I was served.
And in case you want to know what it look liked, you ever seen Pink Flamingos. The seen with the man, woman and chicken? It was kind of like that but with more people and a different fowl.
Where is Peter Rooke when you need a perv?
Yes Scooter, we know all of us females look the same to you. You never saw a pair of tits you didn't like, and you have no idea if women have eyes and ears - cause you've never seen them. *grin*
But I like you anyway, asshole.
The man rode a colt and an ass at the same time! That's all kinds of naughty.
Never mind the bit about getting nailed, staying up for three days, then rising again when an angel got his rock off.
Patricia, you'd be amazed how often people remark on that, how obvious it is that they're curious about that one particular thing. I never tell. Let 'em find out for themselves ;)
I thought that anything that attracted ladies' attention was a good thing. Now that it's "mouldering duck vomit", I'm not so sure.
Whoa! Scooter! How dare you besmirch the good name of such a refined slut? Methinks Patricia should repeatedly slap your face with her bosom!
Scooter - If I was somewhere (?) insulted that you referred to my kinfolks as reusing condoms, you damn right I was! Because my kinfolks are true christians and they are using sheep and camels.
Women really love ambergris.
Anton. I want to know about the angels rolling Jesus' rock when he rose up.
He even got laid in a tomb during all that.
Mmmmm, now looky here girls, Anton is all slutty too.
Are you a french slut Anton?
Has this just turned into a daisy chain?
Janine @ 371 Where is Peter Rooke when you need a perv?
He's an amateur, perversion is something to be shared, not imposed.
Patricia: You never saw a pair of tits you didn't like I am guilty of that, as a pair of big bombers are really no more sexy than some hot pimples.
As a rule of thumb dealing with active healthy males, we do not have fetishes, the thing that turns us on is whatever is different from the last romp, and eventually you get around to all the wonders of femininity. I was 40 when I got married so I'm speaking in historical terms, I'm just too worn out to be cheating on my wife, and too stupid to get away with it, if I tried.
Ha, ha, I don't know what this has degenerated into Janine. But it has been fun. It isn't everyday us big girls get to purr.
So I think Emmet deserves KoS.
But on the other hand, what the fuck do I know? *grin*
Yes, thank you Scooter. You rest my case.
Alrighty Emmet! Old Police tune.
I'll always be King of Sluts
I'll always be King of Sluts
(Fill in the blank)
That's my ______up there.
""I don't get what the big fuss about 'dickhead' is, it's a stock standard insult here. It's even used as a term of endearment among friends "Did you bring the beer ya dickhead?" There doesn't seem a male equivalent of the word 'cunt' just as there is no male equivalent of the word 'bitch'.""
I actually had the nickname "dickhead" for about four months from a crew of chippies I worked with in Weipa and Arakun years back. I get Christmas cards to this day that say "Merry Christmas dickhead"...
Can't say I mind it at all...
SfO: I actually had the nickname "dickhead" for about four months
No way, that's hard to believe.
Anyway, dichheads are incredibly usefula as they keep your hand from slipping off
And when he comes again, it'll be with a long sword in his mouth, while he dominates the nations with his rod.
(Turning the bit about the multi-headed mutant zombie lamb into something naughty, rather than just horrifying, is left as an exercise for the reader.)
How did you know I was born in Lahore?
Humm, he might of been called dickhead.
Only men are called asshole.
Like you Scooter.
Oh now being born in Lawhore is just plain slutty. And french sluttiness too!
Look out Emmet, there's another rooster in the the hen house. Being the King of Sluts is not going to be an easy title to hold.
Suppose we take jcr's advice, and go back on the gold standard.
Actually, what I advocate is making the government follow the constitution. That would limit the government's role in the monetary system to minting coins. The reason that the constitution has the gold and silver clause is that its authors had just lived through the hyperinflation of the continental dollar, and were determined to prohibit a repeat of that collapse.
The constitution places no restrictions on private issuers of currency, so if someone wanted to strike coins in platinum or irridium, or issue tickets redeemable in kilowatt-hours, or what have you, that's just fine. People will choose the money they like to transact their business, and the issuers of that money will prosper or decline based on the market's choices.
All we need to restore sound money is to repeal the legal tender laws that keep the federal reserve in business, and enact a plan to remove the federal reserve notes from circulation the same way the civil war greenbacks were retired.
As for your scenario of what happens if there's a discovery of a massive new gold deposit, I'd have to ask you how the resulting inflation could possibly be as bad as what we already have, knowing that the dollar has been depreciated over 94% since the Fed was created?
-jcr
Scott from Oregon wrote:
Gee, Scott, I wonder why that would be?
No, it's actually a pretty mild insult in Australia, but it really depends on a few factors, like how close you are to the person, and how you intone it when it's said - prefacing it with 'fucking' is usually indicative of negativity. But most of the time it isn't meant to be offensive.
For example, the speed dial for me on my parent's home phone has 'LD' written next to it - for 'little dickhead', since I'm the younger of two brothers.
I've got to say I'm actually impressed, Scott - those are some shitty places to live, and (no doubt) even shittier to work. I've spent some time in some of Australia's less hospitable areas, but haven't ever been that far out.
Wow, I've been fair to VD and been impressed by SfO, all in one thread. Scary!
China and Russia and the ME have entered into talks about creating a new currency backed by gold, leaving the dollar out of their dealings,
A couple years back when I was working at KPMG, I wrote up a proposal to pass around to the partners in the electronic commerce practice, suggesting the idea of a digital Krugerrand. Essentially, it was the same idea that E-gold came up with a bit later, but my idea was to propose it to the government of a country with a substantial gold-mining industry, with South Africa being the obvious choice.
Basically, the digital Krugerrand would be a 100% reserve-backed bearer bond, and the first person to present a given number at any branch of a South African bank (or any of their agents, etc), would be handed the coin. The number would be a cryptographic hash of a suitable length, 2K bits or so should make it more expensive to crack than the coin was worth. This would be supported by an online system where anyone presented a DKR for payment could ping a server and validate it before accepting the transaction.
I think that sooner or later, some government is going to restore sound money in their country, and they will see an inflow of capital like the United States used to enjoy. Could be China, could be Russia, could be Switzerland or Lichtenstein... Whoever breaks away from the worldwide fiat system first is going to get very rich.
-jcr
jcr,
isolating money supply from govt or institutonal influence has already been tried. This is what Friedman advocated in his doctrine "A programme of monetary stability and bank reform" published n 1959.
However, when both the US and the UK tried to put in place these monetarist policies at the end of the 70s, results were very deceiving. Imposing a constant money supply growth as recommended by Friedman did not manage to stop periods of recessions, and more importantly, unemployement grew steadily during that period, which caused both govts to eventually abandon monetarist policies by 1984.
Nowadays, most economist understand that monetary policy needs to be carefully balanced with the cycles of the economy, when it slows down, interest rates need to be lowered and supply increased, when it accelerates, the other way round. It is this careful balancing act that can provide a sustainable growth, associated with proper regulation of the markets, and not simplistic assumptions and laissez faire policies.
John C. Randolph @393:
Wow, what a coincidence. That's pretty much like the electronic money in Cryptonomicon (1999, Neal Stephenson)!
But perhaps I misremember, and I don't have the book at hand.
Wow, what a coincidence. That's pretty much like the electronic money in Cryptonomicon (1999, Neal Stephenson)!
Well, E-gold predates us both. My idea was based on my expectation that E-gold would get squashed like a bug if it got big enough to annoy the US government, and that pretty much proved to be the case. I thought that for a system like e-gold to survive, it would have to be done by a sovereign power, which would be far more difficult for US government agencies to intimidate.
-jcr
negentropyeater,
The entire purpose of a central bank is to enable inflation. The first Bank of the United States, and the second, and the third (which we now call the Federal Reserve), have always inflated the money for the benefit of the banks that they ostensibly regulate.
Friedman's biggest mistake was to believe that the Fed could actually operate in the public interest, against the interest of its member banks, which after all, own it. His second biggest mistake was his belief that a balance of payments deficit wasn't a problem, as if foreign holders of dollars and dollar-based securities would just keep on absorbing them until the end of time.
What happened in the 1970s was merely tinkering with interest rates that remained under the Fed's control. It was in no way a lassiez-faire policy. There was (and still is) a centralized bureaucracy that fixed the price of credit, instead of a market in which lenders and borrowers adjusted their pricing decisions based on supply and demand.
-jcr
During the Cold War, the USSR provided a check on the US exercising that vast power freely, after the collapse of the USSR, that check declined to the point where the US now has unchecked and indefeasible military power. - Emmet Caulfield
I disagree. At the level of nuclear weapons, there are at least three states (Russia, China, France) that could effectively destroy the USA (while of course being destroyed themselves). Hence the hankering for a missile shield. Perhaps more important, any large-scale use of nukes would collapse the global economy, and possibly cause a "nuclear winter" (the original TTAPS study on this has been strongly disputed, and I don't know enough to have a strong opinion). At the level of conventional weapons, war is expensive, economically and politically. The last few years suggest that the USA cannot win two medium-sized wars at once.
The constitution places no restrictions on private issuers of currency jcr
Believe it or not, jcr, the US constitution does not apply to the whole world. If you really think US businesses are going to voluntarily refuse to accept, for example, loans in yen or Euros, and/or from foreign banks that don't obey your rules about lending, you're literally mad. If you force them not to accept, you will be both breaking your own rules about non-interference with markets, and cutting the USA off from foreign trade.
As for your scenario of what happens if there's a discovery of a massive new gold deposit, I'd have to ask you how the resulting inflation could possibly be as bad as what we already have.
It would depend on how much gold became available. Moreover, this is simply a non-answer: you're the one putting forward a panacaea, I raised an objection, you have implicitly admitted, by the form of your answer, that the objection is valid. The psychological mechanisms which allow you to do this without apparently feeling the faintest tremor of doubt are worthy of study. Even having your multiple types of money would not help: a sudden increase in the supply of gold would cause massive instability as everyone rushed out of gold and into iridium or kilowatt-hours.
I think that sooner or later, some government is going to restore sound money in their country, and they will see an inflow of capital like the United States used to enjoy.
So why have none of them done it? After all, they can all read the works of the "libertarian" pantheon, which are freely available. Could it be because they have to live in the real world, not your fantasies? During the 1930s, different countries came off the gold standard at different times - by and large, it was the ones that came off first that recovered first from the Great Depression.
In an all-out nuclear war, the US and Russia certainly have enough nukes for MAD. China and France, though? IIRC, their respective stockpiles are relatively small. I'm not sure that I would count a Pyrrhic victory as defeating the US -- with the possible exception of Russia, the other country would unquestionably be much worse off -- the US has functional delivery systems to dump about 5GT of instant sunshine in ~0.5MT increments, enough to vitrify France, and utterly destroy every city in China.
In a limited nuclear exchange where the objective is to disable the other belligerent, rather than annihilate their population, who would disable the other first? I would argue that, based on their superior technology, the US's delivery systems are likely to be more accurate and reliable.
But, nuclear war aside, I fail to see how anyone could plausibly "square off" against the US. The US is numerically superior in every significant respect. What would China or Russia field against a half-dozen Nimitz class battlegroups?
While we might have voted for change, don't hold your breath. Rahm Emanuel isn't being hired as head enforcer to keep the Liebermanns (prediction, nothing really happens to him, maybe a light slap on the wrist) in line but the liberals like Kusinich, McDermott, Starks etc who want "too much" change in the middle.