Required Reading
June 16th, 2004 - 1:13 am
The New York Times has scored a first-ever Required Reading trifecta on today’s op-ed page. No, I’m not off my rocker. No more so than any other weeknight, that is. Don’t believe me? Here are samples to get you started.
The still-deceased Richard M. Nixon tells Bill Safire that
Schr
The Juan Williams piece is interesting. I’ve been saying for many years that Republicans need to get out and stump in the black churches. They are the real foundation of much of the black political world.
Some advice from a kid who grew up in south Alabama: Don’t pander! Don’t change anything from a speech that you’d give to any other religious audience. There’ll be a lot of soreheads who’ll fuss and/or tune you out, but a lot of people will listen, and respect you for talking straight with them.
There’s nothing to lose, and the upside is staggering. If any GOP candidate ever does capture 20% or more of the black vote, the Democratic Party might as well file for electoral bankruptcy.
I like Safire, but I still find these columns in which he holds imaginary conversations with the deceased to be incredibly pretentious and self-serving.
It’s one thing to speculate on what someone who’s dead might think of current events; it’s something else altogether to put your thoughts on what their thoughts might be into print as if they’re still around. Thoughts that just somehow always dovetail nicely with the beliefs of the writer. It’s only a little better than the antics of a kid who tells his parents that his teddy bear or imaginary friend is taking his side in an argument.
I think Safire probably knew Nixon well enough to pull this one off.
That’s amazing–Karl Rove better jump on it!
Deborah Orin, Washington Bureau Chief of the New York Post, has a must-read column in today
The genocide that’s ongoing in Sudan is a horrible tragedy. I hear one argument against the invasion of Iraq: “Yes, Saddam is evil, but there’s lots of evil in the world”. Right. So, the US took care of one evil, and we’re pretty busy right now with it. Perhaps it’s Europe’s turn? Even with their weakened military state, is there any doubt that they could stop the genocide from going on any further pretty darn quickly?
Is that the Nixon who still appears on Imus?
About Bush getting 20% of the black vote, we have been hearing that for years. Unfortunately, for many, the GOP (and as a republican, I say wrongly) is still tarred with the “racist” brush.
The only way the GOP gets that much is that they get about 10% of the normal black vote, but balck turn out is very low.
I wouldn’t say “wrongly” so much as “narrowly.” There’s no question that when something boneheadedly racist happens (see Lott, Trent), a Republican will likely be at the heart of it. As long as black America sees itself as narrowly holding on to the tiny piece of the action that it has– in short, as long as it sees America as a zero-sum game– then it will be natural for blacks to see the Democrats as their protectors.
The opportunity is not “Hey, we can cut you a slice too!”– the Republicans will never be credible on that because they can always be outbid– but “It’s not a zero-sum game any more.” When Republicans can sell themselves as the party of opportunity– the party in which a Caribbean immigrant rises to be Sec’y of State and the president’s best friend and closest advisor is a sister– then the appeal of the Democrats as the party of grievance begins to be lessened. Frankly, I think the Powell-Rice opportunity has already been lost. I would have loved to have seen somebody out in the black churches saying “Which party put Colin and Condi in power, and which one can’t manage to produce a single black figure of more accomplishment than a one-term senator and a crazy preacher? If you’re a smart, ambitious young black person, which one do you really believe offers you more chance of going as far as you can dream?”
Williams has been working at Fox for too long. There is no way in hell that this President is getting more than 10% of the African-American vote.
The Republican party built its Southern base by appealing to the Strom Thurmond Democrats. It can’t keep them and woo African-Americans at the same time.
Maybe Woodward can find out from Bill Casey if Safire’s on the money with his Nixon interview.
As for racist stuff involving the GOP; the last one I heard about was a Democrat praising a former Klansman in the Senate; but Senator Byrd is still there.
Mike G, I think it has been obvious for a good number of years that when a Democrat makes a boneheadedly racist comment (um, like Robert Byrd would have made a great Civil-War era Senator for instance…) that
a) The Media doesn’t cover it (Media = ABCNBCCBSCNNNYTWaPo, etc)
b) It is downplayed if it is covered.
That is, the charge of racism is used as a stick to beat those poor unfortunate people who happen to be the political enemies of the Democratic Party. Why is this the case? One could write volumes on it.
No Republican will get much of the Black vote so long as corrupt leaders of that community are bribed by the Democrats. African-Americans have been so effectively propagandized that they think Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton care about them.
Mike G: “There’s no question that when something boneheadedly racist happens (see Lott, Trent), a Republican will likely be at the heart of it.”
Geek, Esq: “The Republican party built its Southern base by appealing to the Strom Thurmond Democrats. It can’t keep them and woo African-Americans at the same time.”
Mike, I think your statement would be more accurate if worded “when something boneheadedly racist happens and gets hounded on by the press“. There are plenty of Dems who do and say stupid stuff that can be interpretted in a racist way (gratuitous example being Byrd’s “white nigger” comment), but I honestly think they are often given the benefit of teh doubt because “everyone knows their heart is really in the right place.”
Geek, comments like yours are very insulting and prejudiced. Without examples of GOP candidates courting White Southerners with anti-Black platforms your statement in little more than standard invective I see being used on a regular basis predominantly by Black politicians to feed and stimulate mistrust among their constitency.
Having spent 5+ years in South Carolina, I got to hear a now former Democrat state party chair say “I don’t want to buy the Black vote, I just want to rent it for a day.” Of course this was pretty much ignored by the media. I forget the guy’s name.
It’s not the first time Safire has had one of these published “conversations” with Nixon…I am beginning to worry about him.
Are people denying that folks like Jesse Helms consciously race-baited to win reelection?
Do people really think that the strident anti-affirmative action stance taken by the Republicans has NOTHING to do with the racial resentment?
The reason that Robert Byrd gets off easily compared to Trent Lott is that Trent Lott has strong ties to white supremacists and has a horrendous voting record regarding civil rights.
When the Republican national leadership repudiates people like Sonny “Confederate Flag” Perdue, then the argument can be made that it doesn’t target white racists.
Ken Hahn: “No Republican will get much of the Black vote so long as corrupt leaders of that community are bribed by the Democrats.” A pretty loaded charge against the Democrats, especially when the current Republican administration doles out no-bid contracts to Halliburton and has been extremely cozy with Ken Lay. This double-standard is what infuriates many African-Americans.
Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton aren’t the only black leaders, by the way: and if Mr. Hahn spent some time in “that community”, he would know. He would also refrain from sweeping generalizations about people of whom he is ignorant. Just because you have seen “that community” on TV doesn’t mean you know it. Perhaps “that community” has individuals who actually think on their own.
To assume that African-Americans blindly follow whatever dark face is in power is itself racist. Would you automatically choose a white candidate over a black candidate, Mr. Hahn?
And the pandering to Bob Jones University crowd doesn’t help.
I have a dream (a fantasy?) that someday a leader will surface within America’s black community and realize, as well as explain to the community he serves, that there were no Republicans in the Jim Crow south that drove so many blacks into the northern cities and that, once they got there, they found precious few, if any, Republicans in the political machines there. Which party controlled the Jim Crow south and which party has had a stranglehold on all of the major cities is an incontrovertable matter of history. Sooner or later the black community will realize that the Democratic party is not now, and has never been, their friend.
Knucklehead:
The Jim Crow Democrats all joined the Republican party. The Democrats lost the South when they passed the national civil rights legislation.
In 1980, St. Ronald Reagan kicked off his campaign by going to a notorious hotbed of white supremacism in Mississippi, where three civil rights workers were murdered in the 60′s, and pledged his support for “states’ rights.”
Nope, no pandering to racists there.
Okay, I was wrong with my sweeping statement but there is truth to what Geek says to the extent that the Republicans have been the party of white racial resentment very recently (which is a polite way of saying parts of it still are). What I’m saying is, there’s a great opportunity to change that right now and heck, when you start with near zero support from a group any improvement looks huge. I find it pathetic that after all this time, the Dems cannot field a black person more impressive than Carol Moseley Braun to run for president, and look at how desperately people glom onto a Harold Ford (or a Barack Obama who isn’t even elected yet!) as vice presidential material, just because they seem reasonably intelligent and don’t immediately start spouting about the Mossad causing 9-11. That’s a clear sign that the business of being pandered to by a party does not produce, in itself, great black leaders– it mainly produces scuzzy opportunists. That’s why the Republican party has such an opportunity now to say to black America, no favors, but a fair shake, the same kind Colin and Condi got– and at least some black candidates and voters will look at that and think it sounds better than Democratic condescension.
“The Jim Crow Democrats all joined the Republican party.”
Really? So far as I know Grand Kleagle Byrd is still a Democrat….
Dear Casandra,
“To assume that African-Americans blindly follow whatever dark face is in power is itself racist.”
Who is assuming ? When is the last time blacks DIDN”T vote 90+% for the Democrats?
If I make a statement that sheep will follow their leader over a cliff – and they do – is that speciesism ?
You speak of affirmative action as if it is some sort of justice. People look at well educated and qualified black leaders as social cripples leaning on the state mandated crutch of affirmative action. It is damaging to their credibility. Insulting and demeaning to their drive and character.
The modern democratic party was founded by the worst racist to ever darken the halls of Government. His face is on the twenty dollar bill to this day. If you want to see what the democratic party is about look at their history.
I have a national map which has Indian reservations clearly marked in the color pink. State parks are a light blue. national parks are tan, and national forrests are green. A quick glance shows that all areas of the country possess light blue , tan, and green areas, but only western states which entered the Union just prior to or after the Civil War have any appreciable Indian lands. This is directly the result of the democrats. How they treated the Indians is directly applicable to how they treat other minorities.
The GOP doesn’t need to pander to the black caucus, all they need to do is give history lessons.
I can’t take Nick Kristof seriously. He wrote the most painfully naive stories when he was based in Japan. I even met him at dinner once, when he interpreted a sarcastic remark from a friend as a serious comment, and used it as a kicker quote in his next story.
Geek said: “The Democrats lost the South when they passed the national civil rights legislation.”
Only they didn’t. The Civil Rights Act was passed by a vote of almost all Republicans and the support of a small minority of Democrats. This broke the filibuster by such prominent Democrats as Al Gore, Sr., Robert Byrd, and Strom Thurmond. Affirmative Action was initiated and pushed by Richard Nixon. Because of the Civil War, the Black vote had been solidly Republican until Barry Goldwater, who did not support the Civil Rights Act as a Presidential candidate. This was due to his libertarian belief that it was unneccessary, if the Fourteenth Amendment was enforced properly.
“The Jim Crow Democrats all joined the Republican party.”
Wrong. The GOP didn’t get significant local, state, or congressional representation in the South until the mid/late 90s. The GOP didn’t start winning in the South until the Jim Crow Democrats started retiring/dying.
In fact, we’re still seeing “first Republican elected to {southern office} since the 1870s”.
I don’t know if Bush will get that much of the black vote this time around, but Democrats are increasingly ignoring the black vote in favor of unions and radical enviro-loonies.
With Dems on the wrong side of school vouchers and treating gay marriage like a civil rights issue, they already have two strikes against them. Add into the mix absolutely no representation in party leadership and political rhetoric that is increasingly hostile to successful conservative blacks and you’ve got a recipie for a schism.
The Democratic stranglehold on the black vote is over. It’s just a question of if the migration will be gradual or an avalanche.
Geek, Esq.:
Don’t forget Fritz “Flew the Confederate Battle Flag from the Capitol Dome in Columbia” Hollings, Al “Voted Against the Civil Rights Act” Gore, Sr., and Robert “Sheet-Wearing Klansman” Byrd.
Contrary to your unsupported assertions, looks like there are still some Jim Crow Democrats in the Democratic Party.
Lets assume Bush does indeed get a higher portion of the black vote. Will this change the electoral map at all? If the core of his support comes from successful reachout efforts to black churches, is this constituency concentrated in states Bush already holds a strong hand? I’m guessing (really really guessing) inner city blacks don’t have strong ties to black churches and it is the large urban areas of LA and New York that form parts of the Demo recent strangle hold on California and New York electoral votes.
I know may people say the Demo’s are toast if they don’t carry 90%+ of the black vote and I think it’s true for anything but a national election. It’s the electoral map s…………
A point I made, ignored by the Republicans here, is that Lott’s voting record and current relationships with white supremacists are what did him in. Bob Byrd has a very good civil rights voting record and made a clean break from the white supremacist organizations with whom he associated. Lott had an atrocious record, and he continued to suck up to the vile bigots at the Council of Conservative Citizens.
Fifty years ago, there’s no doubt that people like Thurmond, Helms, Barr, and Lott belonged in the Democratic party. It’s equally clear nowadays that there home is the Republican party. The Republican party pursues policies which almost universally disadvantage African-Americans while catering to the Confederate racists in Mississippi, Alabama, etc.
Don’t tell me y’all are also going to be puzzled when homosexuals refuse to consider voting Republican too.
To Steve Raines and Papertiger:
Perhaps African-Americans vote more for Democrats because, whether you see them as corrupt or not, the Dems are perceived to have more to offer TODAY than the Republicans. Example: George W. Bush himself is the biggest argument why affirmative action is still necessary – a white man of modest achievements and mediocre intelligence makes it to the highest office in the country. Could a more qualified black man or a more exceptional woman of any race do so? Not likely, Papertiger. Yet the Republican party thinks the playing field is level enough to do away with mechanisms to rectify CURRENT injustices.
The Republican party of TODAY panders to white resentment – and thus loses credibility with many African-Americans. Rather than dismiss the reasons for blacks voting for Democrats, both of you would do well to examine how the Republicans forfeit the black vote.
Cassandra: “a white man of modest achievements and mediocre intelligence makes it to the highest office in the country”, this white man happened to run against another white man of modest achievement and mediocre intelligence, (Al flunked out of divinity school). And this white man has two highly qualified blacks holding two most powerful positions in the country, while the other white man’s party elected an old regressive white woman instead of a highly qualified young energetic black man (H. Ford) to the leadership position.
IC: You’re right – Bush does have Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice WORKING FOR HIM. That’s the point. Many African-Americans (and many Europeans, as I happen to live abroad) find Mr. Powell much more qualified to be president than the current occupant of the White House. But the Republican party just isn’t ready for that.
Don’t get me wrong: the Dems are not as progressive as I’d like them to be. But while Colin Powell is sent to clean up the mess made by Bush, Rumsfeld et. al. in the international community, the Republicans can’t crow (pardon the expression) about how wonderful they are to black people. This isn’t about tokenism, IC: Powell is more qualified for Bush’s job, regardless of his skin colour.
The policies of the Republican party happen to be more distasteful to African-Americans than the policies of the Dems. It’s that simple.
And two other things: IC may have forgotten that business in Florida in 2000, but African-Americans haven’t. And Gore’s two terms as vice president as well as time in the Senate may be modest achievements to you, IC: but they impress me more than holding the ceremonial position of governor of Texas and owning a failing oil business.
Stephen, thanks for the link. I dig those Nixon columns; Saphire should write more of them.
I see Nixon’s still handing out rotten advice: “…his real problem, which is … the damned poppies. We have to help him eradicate the huge opium trade before that place becomes a criminal state. Only then can we have a Muslim model for democracy in Iraq.” Do for Afghanistan what we’ve done for Colombia? No thanks. Better to end narcotics Prohibition and deny terrorists their next big source of funding.
To Jay Manifold, above: yes, it would not be in anybody’s interest for Afghanistan to become Columbia – a fragile Democracy struggling to fight both the armies of narco-millionaires on the one hand and terrorists on the other. So long as there is money to be made from the illicit drug trade, warlords will rise and carpe diem. It’s been said before in the blogosphere, but the war on terror and the war on drugs are at cross-purposes. Given the abject failure of prohibition (see: 20th century), allowing it to continue simply provides a guaranteed source of income for terrorists.
As to the guy who didn’t leave a real email but wrote “The Republican party built its Southern base by appealing to the Strom Thurmond Democrats. It can’t keep them and woo African-Americans at the same time.” This stark, simplistic view of the south is insulting. What about the Glenn Reynolds south? The south of educated, urban, hard to categorize (sometimes Democrat, sometimes Repulibcan) conservative libertarians? Are they racists if they vote Republican (and a majority surely does)? All those people running professional organizations or high tech companies in Raleigh/Durham, Atlanta, Charlotte, Knoxsville, Baton Rouge, Huntsville, etc.? Over the past ten years a very new kind of south has grown up, one that doesn’t fit into the comfortable preconceived cubbyholes of northerners.
Greek,
If Lott is the worst example of Republican racism, the party doesn’t have much to worry about.
The problem with your argument is that Republicans are increasingly on the right (and correct!) side of issues important to blacks. School vouchers to escape the ghettoization of urban schools is a big one that Democrats are staunchly opposed to. Universal tax cuts and taking the poorest taxpayers off the rolls entirely is another.
Aside from affirmative action and government handouts, the Democrats have very little to offer the black voter anymore. Nothing to promote a color blind society. Certainly nothing in the way of significant representation. The Democrats have cast their lot with a Green-lite adgenda and really show no signs of coming back.
And the “catering to confederate racists” comment was just cute. Judging by recent election results you must think the South is reeeeeally racist…
1. I didn’t say that it’s only the rednecks who vote Republican in the South. But, they are a constituency. David Duke once received 65% of the white vote in Lousiana when he ran for governor. White racists in Louisiana also cost the Republicans the governorship when they voted for the Democrat because the Republican was non-white.
Why do the Republicans pander to the white racists instead of trying to include African-Americans? If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
2. Lott isn’t the worst racist–only the most high profile. I don’t recall any public rebukes to Jesse Helms. And nowadays they’re smart enough to use words like “welfare,” “illegal aliens,” and “affirmative action.” Black folks and white racists know what they mean when they use those words. The Glenn Reynolds Republicans don’t, but they really don’t understand racism from either end.
White racists in Louisiana also cost the Republicans the governorship when they voted for the Democrat because the Republican was non-white.
This is the Republican party pandering to racists how, exactly? By giving them a candidate they wouldn’t vote for?
Cassandra:
I think your argument would have a little more validity if Powell had run (and lost) to Dubya. Or if a qualified black man (or woman) had a shot at winning the Democratic nomination.
Who were the highest level position black officials in the Clinton Administration? Which black folks got nominated for high court positions during his Admin? And, no, I don’t happen to buy the idea that Bill Clinton was the first “black President,” which I found to be an appallingly pandering statement going to the worst stereotypes about black men.
Sergio is on the money. It appears that if large numbers of white people do something, like vote for Republicans, they are racist. But if large numbers of black folks all vote a certain way, like Geek wants them to, they are battling racism.
“Lott isn’t the worst racist–only the most high profile. I don’t recall any public rebukes to Jesse Helms.”
Helms is no longer in office or active in party politics, Greek. He’s not exactly part of the present or future of the Republican party.
You profess to know a lot about southern politics, so how about some names? Who are all these Republican racists that no one but you seem to know about?
And if you have time, I’d love to hear how “welfare”, and “illegal alien” suddenly became racist code language. You may also want to inform Prof. Reynolds that he’s no longer credible to speak on issues of race. I’m sure he would welcome such an email.
What’s up with all the junk about how Bush has black people working for him? He has Powell and Rice and others on his team because they are good at what they do, and he respects them. Mr. Kerry doesn’t have a single black person in his inner circle, but no one calls him racist. Why? Because he’s a Dem and gets a free pass. Bush follows Martin Luther King Jr., who would prefer people don’t think about race at all. The Dems and the modern day black leadership stress race in every issue they can, and that is racist.
The Republican party pursues policies which almost universally disadvantage African-Americans while catering to the Confederate racists in Mississippi, Alabama, etc.
>>>>>
Would you mind giving us some specifics? I’m getting really tired of unsupported assertions about this stuff.
Dean and Ben:
The fact that Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz trumped Powell when it came to Iraq shows where the real power lies here. In the lead-up to this fiasco, Powell, the only one of the above who actually knew war firsthand, was ignored while Rumsfeld and company got us into this mess. And Powell is the one who has to rebuild bridges burned by the Bush administration when they alienated our allies. That Powell was so disrespected by the Bush administration speaks volumes.
Appointing Clarence Thomas or Condi Rice to positions of responsibility does not automatically make the Republican party a friend of the African-American community. Policy matters. Black people aren’t gullible enough to be bought off that way. It would be great if the Dems appointed more people of color (all qualified, of of course) to positions of leadership and responsibility – but right now the Dems represent a better hope for the lot of most African-Americans at the moment than the Republicans do.
And Dean, seriously: if the Republican party chose a man who had only traveled aboad twice in his life before becoming president and could not name the leaders of four of the world’s most populous nations when running for president, do you seriously think they would ever nominate Powell?
“Appointing Clarence Thomas or Condi Rice to positions of responsibility does not automatically make the Republican party a friend of the African-American community.”
And appointing nobody to positions of power makes the Democrats friends of the African-American community?
“but right now the Dems represent a better hope for the lot of most African-Americans at the moment than the Republicans do.”
Why? How? What has any Democrat done policy-wise for the black community in the last decade?
Democrats are abandoning the black vote in favor of pandering to hispanics and the radical green adgenda. The growing black middle class is growing weary of the subversive racism of affirmative action and ghettoized urban schools. They don’t want a helping hand from white Democratic politicians, they want a color blind country that grants them equal access to the institutions that can bring them success. Schools, banks, colleges, businesses, etc.
Give us some examples, Greek and Cassandra. Debating hollow rhetoric isn’t fun or challenging.
Cassandra, your statements about Powell’s qualifications to be President, while possibly true, become irrelevent when you consider the fact that many Republicans practically begged him to run in 1996, but he turned them down so that he could retire to private life and spend time with his family. (It’s in his autobiography. I recommend that you read it.) I would have voted for him. I thought that he was the Republicans’ best chance to defeat the incumbent Clinton.
And as for “affirmative action”, I recommend reading Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Larry Elder, and Jesse Lee Peterson (all black). Doing so will give insights into how “affirmative action” perpetuates the problems faced by the black community by continually presenting blacks as victims who cannot succeed without external help.
Affirmative action does not mean that idiot minorities and women are getting jobs and positions that should go to more qualified white males. Affirmative action does not mean “any black face or woman will do”: if that were they case, then all criteria except for race or gender would be thrown out the window when hiring someone. As for Larry Elder, Walter Williams, et al: I’ve read them, and the arguments they present are often specious. (Give me a specific argument, and I’ll show you the holes)
For Mike D. – Drug-sentencing policy is one area where Republican policy has been most heinous to minority communities, with Democrats (at least in Detroit, where I hail from) being the only ones speaking out against it. Enacted during the Reagan era, mandatory federal drug-sentencing guidelines require a minimum five-year sentence for a first-time offense of possessing more than five grams (about a teaspoon) of crack, while one would have to have 500 grams of cocaine to get the same sentence. Which drug afflicts the black community more? And would you feel 100 times less upset if a family member was strung out on cocaine instead of crack? A decade after mandatory minimums went into effect, Whites accounted for just over thirty percent of all convicted federal drug offenders, while Blacks and Hispanics each accounted for over thirty three percent, according to William B. Moffitt, President of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. Blacks and Hispanics each make up 10 to 12 percent of the US population.
What this
Oh boy Cassandra, now you’re stepping into big time.
Did you bother going and looking at who passed those mandatory minimum guidelines that are so racist in your estimation?
You’ll find an awful lot of D’s next to the names. The whole thing was driven as an overreaction by the Dem’s after Dukakis got creamed because of some of his decisions like the prison furlow program.
Rob Crocker: The Sentencing Reform Act, whence mandatory minimums sprang, was passed in 1984. Dukakis lost in 1988. So much for your “over reaction by the Dems after Dukakis got creamed” argument.
Regarding Dems voting for mandatory minimums: yes, they were wrong. But some Dems are talking about rectifying the policy. Let me know how many Republicans are.
Your comparison to proportions of the general population ignores many of the social problems rampant in the black community. 70% illegitimacy, the disintegration of the family, teen mothers, absent fathers. The only male role models for many black boys in the inner city are the older boys who are gang members. They learn their “social values” from these “role models” and grow up to be absent fathers themselves, and the cycle continues. Meanwhile, “leaders” like Jesse Jackson blame all of these ills on racism, convince blacks that the problems are caused by racism and can’t be solved from within the black community, and extort huge sums of money from large corporations by crying “racism”. Jesse Jackson doesn’t want the problems solved, because it would be the death of his cash cow.
These points are being made by people like Jesse Lee Peterson and Star Parker. In fact, Reverend Peterson was physically assaulted by Jesse Jackson’s son and other thugs for arguing these points.
Colin Powell grew up as a poor inner city black, the son of immigrants – even more disadvantaged than today’s inner city blacks, because racism really was rampant when Powell was a child. Powell’s parents instilled in him a solid work ethic, honesty, and plenty of self reliance. Powell grew up into the success he is today because of his family and upbringing, his father as a role model.
Mike D.: Please don’t assume that a black person has to be either for Jesse Jackson or Star Parker. (Jesse Jackson lost credibility ages ago with many blacks, so you’re a bit behind the times). We are capable of nuanced thinking, you know. And not every argument is (pardon the expression) black or white. Colin Powell is an exceptional person who deserves to be lauded for his achievements. The current president, who commands the respect of a large swath of the non-minority public, is a dullard. That someone that incurious and (from the looks of our adventure in Iraq) incompetent could even be considered by whites to be a worthy leader boggles the mind. Black folks have long thought that the majority gives its own a pass while it holds black people to a higher standard. Dubya is proof.
When people mention Robert Byrd’s past or Al Sharpton in trying to denigrate the Democratic party, remember that neither of these people is the leader of his party. George W. Bush is the leader of his party, and thus should be seen as its standard bearer. Honestly, I have Republican friends – and I myself like John McCain’s stance on many issues. Is Bush really the best the Republicans have?
Oh, and regarding societal ills in the black community: We’re busy nation-building in Iraq, building schools and hospitals and trying to instill democracy – but schoolchildren in DC don’t even have paper to write on and an Iraqi can get medical treatment courtesy of the US government that many Americans can’t. What’s a government’s purpose in the end?
Where is the proof that Bush is a dullard? Did you give him an IQ test? Yes, everyone in the mainstream press takes it as a matter of fact that Bush is an idiot, yet the people who knew him at Yale, and that includes Kerry, consider him to be an intelligent and likable guy. Yes, he’s flubbed some speeches. I never got less than an A on an essay, but put me in front of an audience, and I sound like I never finished middle school. Good thing that we elect Presidents to run the country, not makes speeches. And good thing we elected a man who has helped restore our economy after the Clinton bubble burst.
What is the evidence cited that Bush is a dullard? I hear people say that, but they are always parroting what they are told. Specifics? For example, Bush doesn’t know what you know about Iraqi society? Bush doesn’t know what you know about the terrorists and their objectives and methods? Bush doesn’t know what you know about our “allies” and their selfish interests that made them oppose our efforts in Iraq? Bush doesn’t know what that he’s supposed to know? About the environment? About the economy? About what?
Do the parents of DC students know that there is something wrong with their district? What is preventing them from doing anything about it? The Republicans aren’t allowing them vouchers? The Republicans are denying them accountability standards for funding and educating? The Republicans are preventing them from voting out an ineffective school board and putting one in to their liking? The Republicans are preventing any library millages from passing? If the Republicans are guilty of those sins, what are the Democrats doing to rectify it? (it seems like that would be an election issue, somehow) What are the parents of these kids doing to rectify it?
What medical treatment are Iraqis allowed that Americans can’t get?
“What’s a government’s purpose in the end?”
Mainly to ensure that the country can continue to exist. How many terrorist attacks have been prevented because of Bush’s strong response to 9/11? How many 9/11s do you think this country could take before the economy comes to a screeching halt…simultaneously bringing to a halt all the happy social programs the government needs tax income for?
Liberals called Reagan “stupid”, “incurious”, and “incompetent” too. He beat the Soviet Union, turned the USA into the worlds’s only hyperpower, and is remembered as one of the country’s most popular and beloved Presidents. Sound like good company to me.
Funny you should mention DC schools. DC spends over $9000 per pupil on public schools, highest in the country. They also have the worst results in the country. You say students don’t even have paper to write on. Where is all of the money going?
You should read about what happens to people like Larry Elder when they say something that goes against the Jackson/Sharpton orthodoxy. They are called oreo, Uncle Tom, and many things far worse. Clarence Thomas even has NPR’s Nina Totenberg wishing on the air for his early death. According to Reverend Peterson, the orthodoxy is preached from the pulpits of black churches by preachers, many of whom are as corrupt as Jackson. Conservative thought in the black community is actively suppressed by liberals, black and white. You may say that blacks are more nuanced, but they sure don’t show it at the polls.
You say, “Black folks have long thought that the majority gives its own a pass while it holds black people to a higher standard.”
But affirmative action actually is a lower standard. Because of this, blacks who truly are highly capable (and I am sure that there are many), like Powell and Thomas, are seen (incorrectly) as having achieved what they have only with the help of affirmative action, and (also incorrectly) seen as not deserving of being lauded for their accomplishments.
Oh, and as for Bush’s alleged low IQ, that is also part of the liberal orthodoxy. The media pushed the same thing during Reagan’s presidency, that he was an “amiable dunce”, a puppet controlled by his advisors, etc. They have been proven enormously wrong about Reagan, and will also be proven wrong about Bush.
The other side of that coin, is that liberal leaders are always highly intelligent. It was claimed in 2000 that Gore was too intelligent to be understood by us flyover voters. The same thing is already starting about Kerry, that he is too nuanced for us everyday dunces to understand. Since he is so much smarter thatn the rest of us, he should be put in charge to do the right thing for us, since he knows what that is better than we do.
Pure liberal elitism.
As I stated before, Bush is a man who, before becoming president, had been abroad only twice in his life. He was 52 years of age. His family obviously had the means for him to travel. His father was vice president for eight years, president for four. Don’t you find it odd that a man who wanted to be leader of the free world had little or no interest in the world beyond his borders – or, at least, parts of the world that did not have oil?
As I also stated before, in 2000 while campaigning George Bush was asked to name the leaders of four of the most important countries in the world (not populous, as I misstated before). The countries were India, Pakistan, North Korea and Indonesia. Bush could not name one.
He was applying for the job of president, which does mean making sure more 9/11s do not happen. All of these countries are now major players in the war on terror: North Korea is now a nuclear power, India and Pakistan are poised for nuclear conflict, and Indonesia is the most populous Muslim country in the world. North Korea we had inklings about before 9/11; but the situations in Pakistan, Indonesia and India were known. The journalist knew enough to ask about them. But Bush could not be bothered to know about them until something happened.
Perhaps I overstated the case by calling the man a dullard. But a man who wants to lead the world but knows so little of it (and is not curious about it) is not the person I trust in such a position. John McCain, I would.
And as someone who was living in New York on 9/11 and still has contacts there, I can tell you that most people in the city do not feel that Bush had made them any safer. The federal government has stiffed the city on paying for security fly-overs. Where is the Republican outrage about that?
Oh, and about medical treatment: uninsured Americans cannot get treatments and operations that are performed on Iraqis. Living outside the US, my sources of media are Spanish, French and British as well as American…so I think I have a wider view that what’s on the nightly news in the US.
Cassandra:
First: George Bush passed out of Harvard Business School with an earned MBA. As a Harvard graduate, I assure you that that degree is awarded on work, ability, and merit. If Harvard wants to suck up to a family, they grant an Honorary Doctorate at Commencement. It’s been known to happen…to local Democrats, mostly.
Second: Al Gore flunked out of Divinity School. Fact. Teddy Kennedy was expelled from Harvard for cheating on a Spanish I exam (he hired a guy to take the test for him). Another Fact.
One hallmark of the B-School is an ability to delegate and surround oneself with competent people. In fact, Machiavelli remarks – in THE PRINCE – that you can judge a ruler by the quality of men around him. Compare and contrast Clinton with Bush in this regard. Madame Albright, Janet Reno???
I take it from your remarks above that you are a black female from Detroit area. I respectfully submit you are somewhat prejudiced yourself.
Consider, Cassandra, the fate of your namesake: cursed to never be believed, no matter how correct.
Cassandra, your examples are fairly weak. You figure he can’t name the leaders of these countries you say are significant, therefore he is incurious? Hell, what do you know about Indonesia’s troubles with the terrorists there? Can you say with confidence what the recent elections in India means for that country?
You acknowledge that the prez’s job is to prevent more 9/11′s. I will leave aside that 9/11 hadn’t happened when he took office, and (therefore the countries you rate as important because of that, wouldn’t have seemed so previously) and that Osama’s declaration of war occurred on Clinton’s watch. Right at the start of Bush’s term, Rice outlined exactly what the administration planned to do:
First, the American military must be able to meet decisively the emergence of any hostile military power in the Asia-Pacific region, the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, and Europe — areas in which not only our interests but also those of our key allies are at stake. America’s military is the only one capable of this deterrence function, and it must not be stretched or diverted into areas that weaken these broader responsibilities. It is the role that the United States played when Saddam Hussein threatened the Persian Gulf, and it is the power needed to deter trouble on the Korean Peninsula or across the Taiwan Strait. In the latter cases, the goal is to make it inconceivable for North Korea or China to use force because American military power is a compelling factor in their equations.
Unless you imagine that she was just speaking for herself, with no prior input from Bush, it kind of sounds like (this was published in the Jan/Feb issue of 2000, Foreign Affairs) that Bush had some notion that these things were important. Did you read that issue? Did you go looking for any info from Bush or his administration to see if everyone saying he had no idea what to do was speaking accurately?
I asked you earlier what he doesn’t know about terrorism that you know. The man has met with the likes of Daniel Pipes on this topic. Do you have any other suggestions? Do you have any evidence he’s unaware of Qtub’s influence on the terrorists? (Do you know who Qtub is? Do you know his influence on the terrorists?) Any evidence he’s not aware of who the key players are? Any evidence he doesn’t know how to handle North Korea? Any evidence he’s handling the Pakistanis the wrong way?
I am widely read on the foreign press – my intention is to become a foreign correspondant – believe me, reading newspapers ain’t special. The ability to find sources and determine their validity and accuracy is a lot more useful.
Exactly what medical treatments Iraqis get that Americans can’t? Be specific, it looks like you just repeat what you are told without checking up on it.
Still would like to know in what way the Republicans or Bush is responsible for the state of DC schools.
Maybe Bush didn’t travel because he was you know, running his businesses and caring for his family…and governing the state of Texas. Why should we be more impressed with the idle rich that can waste time jet-setting around the world?
The real problem so many liberals have with Bush is his confidence and belief in the United States. He doesn’t grovel in front of the UN and beg our allies for help…he takes action and shames reluctant countries into backing up their own rhetoric (UN 1441 anyone?).
But hey, if you want to call a fighter pilot, major league baseball team owner, Harvard graduate, governor, and President of the United States a “dullard”, be my guest. Just don’t hold us responsible for how it makes you look…
Good Ole Charlie: Disparaging Clinton and Gore to defend Bush is weak. Clinton and Gore had their faults, but getting us into the mess that is now Iraq is not one of them.
My reservations about Bush you do not address – because you can’t? An MBA from Harvard is a wonderful thing: but the presidency of the United States is a bit different than running a corporation (which, from the evidence of Arbusto, he didn’t do particularly well, either). One does not develop an international outlook overnight, which I think is necessary for a president. Unless we want to bankrupt ourselves fighting the war on terror alone, we do need the cooperation of other countries. And Bush, business degree or no, has dealt poorly in the international arena. I know this: I live in the international arena.
Given the mess that Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, Cheney et al have wrought, I think it unwise for you to choose Machiavelli to support your argument.
Rather than cast unsubstantiated aspersions on my character, please address my argument. I don’t know you from Adam, thus I would not be so disrespectful as to assume that you’re prejudiced. But the remark linking my race, gender and hometown making me “somewhat prejudiced” seems beneath the intelligence of the Harvard graduate you are.
Oh, and Mike M: The business Bush ran was not a success, he became a father in his mid-thirties (ample enough time to travel beforehand – and, hey, I know people who have children and do travel), and becoming governor of Texas – well, Clinton was elected president twice and still managed to be despised by the far right. And owning a sports team means that one has enough money: it’s not necessarily a reflection on one’s intelligence.
He had the money to travel, he had the time to travel, he just wasn’t that curious about the world. Please stop making excuses for him.
JC: If you’re planning on becoming a journalist, I hope that you get better at verifying dates: 9/11 happened in 2001. Bush was president.
As Clinton spent the majority of his presidency fending off Travelgate, Filegate, Whitewater and other attacks by the far right (which resulted, finally, with the blue dress), could he really devote his full attention to addressing Afghanistan? Every decision he made was politicized by the far right. He was fighting for his political life from the moment he was inaugurated the first time. (And the whole Paula Jones civil case: that a sitting president would be dragged into court for a civil case is ridiculous. Don’t you think Bush would have better things to do than testify in court on such a case? He was reluctant to even testify before the 9/11 commission).
As for the medical treatments: I know of an American who has a tumour that he cannot get removed because he has no insurance. Tumour operations are performed in Iraq.
Cassandra, read carefully:
You claimed that those countries whose leaders he couldn’t name were important because of 9/11. I pointed out 9/11 hadn’t happened yet, therefore the criteria you gave for their importance would not have existed prior to Bush’s taking office, and he had no reason to consider those countries important at the time. You follow? You are willing to excuse Clinton for allowing his bjs to put the handling of terrorism on the backburner, surely you can excuse Bush for not being concerned about 9/11 before it had happened, can’t you?
I think it’s clear from the excerpt I posted that Bush knew exactly what was important when he did take office. I notice you do not attempt to refute that. Or do you think he should not have cared about the Korean Peninsula and protecting our allies? Do you still insist he had no notion of what foreign policy should look like? Do you still insist he had no idea what the issues were?
By the way, what do you think about the way Indonesia is handling their terrorism problem? Are they any better at it than Bush?
Cite some sources that Iraqis can get operations Americans can’t or drop the point. You “know someone” who can be The Little Prince from B6-12 for all I know. I did tell you that a journalist’s job was to gather valid sources and be able to assess their validity. Your “someone” is not a source.
Re: the Clinton point, let me be clear: you cannot say that Bush is a dunce for not anticipating that these countries would be involved terrorism on our soil. If, as it looks like you believe, that terrorism is a matter that can be put on the back burner even though it happens at least four times on your watch, then it seems like you would cut someone some slack for something that hadn’t happened yet, and be excoriating the one who had been in place to do something about it instead. A couple terror events predated the Lewinsky scandal, so now what is the excuse for Clinton not handling it? If Bush was supposed to have a crystal ball, surely Clinton should have been able to deal with the situations as they arose, right? Right?
Note: I am not concerned about Clinton, but it looks to me like you have sloppy standards you’re using to judge the current president.
JC:
Again – if the journalist asking Bush these questions about the leaders of these foreign countries knew enough to ask about them, shouldn’t Bush have known that these were important countries? The most populous Muslim country in the world – Indonesia? The second most populous country in the world – India? Unstable nuclear threats – Pakistan and (on the verge) North Korea? Again, please stop giving the man a free pass for willful ignorance. It seems that you demand more substantiation from me than you do from him, and he’s a lot more powerful.
By the way, terrorism was not created on 9/11. Having lived in countries that have dealt with it, I know this. Europe has dealt with terrorism for years, and thus finds current US policy hamhanded and – at worst – brutish. Thinking oneself above the Geneva Convention does not endear oneself to the international community. And alienating your friends only helps your enemies.
I do want to respect the person I know with this medical condition, thus no name. But my source for Iraq is BBC World and the French daily Le Monde. You’ve heard of them, oui?
JC – By the way, I don’t have much love for Clinton, but he did have good enough relations with our allies not to make us the pariah that we are becoming…
if the journalist asking Bush these questions about the leaders of these foreign countries knew enough to ask about them, shouldn’t Bush have known that these were important countries?
This is what I mean about going by what you are told, rather than what you know. You are assuming that reporter wasn’t playing the gotcha game that reporters are famous for, and just picked them at random because he didn’t care what Bush knew about our allies, like Australia (to give an example). You are assuming that the reporter knew anything about these countries. I have been observing the press, the latter assumption is not justified at all. Here is a test for proving that this reporter “knew” anything to speak of when he asked that question: Can you tell me any pre-9/11 details about these countries that made them “the most important countries”? Give some details, because I’m sure the reporter gave some, right? Did they hold true, or do they go in the dustbin with the “brutal Afghan winter?”
Again, observe: the Foreign Affairs magazine I quoted to you, which substantially refutes the silly assertion that Bush didn’t have a clue about what was really important. Or do you believe incurious men care much for what goes on in the Korean peninsula enough to want to deal with it? Yes or no? The fact that Indonesia has a large Muslim population is fairly insignificant in most contexts, in what context did this reporter find this fact interesting? In your investigation, what did you find interesting about this fact? Did the reporter’s assertion hold up? Did yours? Do you have proof that Bush was unaware of what mattered? Read the article I did cite and get back to me about his ignorance.
I have little respect for your sources, “the sexed up BBC” is not what I would hold up for truth and accuracy, and yes, I do know about the others. Interestingly, I note that you can’t cite any evidence for any of your sources regarding the Iraqi healthcare over that of the Americans. You will have to forgive my skepticisim – journalist’s training, capisce?
For the record, my advice to you is forget the BBC and learn to go directly to sources. Learn not to assume that the press operates out of intelligence, curiosity, and purity of motive, and you may find yourself better informed.
If you want to know about Iraq, you might start with some Iraqi blogs. The writers are in their country, they might know something about it that a reporter who sits in a hotel chatting with their former minders from Saddam’s regime would even dream of wondering about.
Quick addition: if you are familiar with foreign news sources, then I’m sure you know why I called it the “sexed up BBC,” and why I am doubting that you truly know if the prez is lacking in knowledge, if you are using resources like that, with the motives that they have for “sexing it up.”
You ought to be able to go on more than what the press tells you. You ought to be able to cite facts that you have verified from the original sources. You ought to have something more to offer as evidence than an anonymous friend.
Cassandra said, “But my source for Iraq is BBC World and the French daily Le Monde.”
Two sources even more pro liberal and anti-American than even the NYT.
I second the suggestion on reading Iraqi blogs. You’ll learn things the liberal media don’t want you to know.
Cassandra:
You postulate that Iraq is “a mess”. What gives you this insight? Have you any first hand details that you have observed yourself? Or do you rely on the ever-even-handed BBC or the marvelous NYTimes of Howell Raines?
I rather think that, given enough time, the Iraq ship of state will right itself.
Have you seen the AEI “Saddam Torture Clip”? It’s not to hard to find on the Net. Have your international friends seen this exhibit?
I think a business person has just as much chance of successfully running the government as a professional politician or an academic. This is a job where you learn on the job.
And, sweetie, do we really need foreign allies like Germany and France? I submit we should haul ourselves out of a collapsing Europe and go our own way. Let them defend themselves with their own resources – if they have any left.
And FYI, honey, I’m a registered Democrat…Surprise!
“Please stop making excuses for him.”
I’m not making excuses, I’m telling the truth. Bush is a man of intelligence, vision, and astounding success. All you’ve proven is that you can parrot the talking points of the DNC and liberal press.
And your defense of Clinton that he was “too busy” dealing with Monica, getting impeached, and Whitewater (all of his own making), to deal with Afghanistan and terrorism is as pathetic is as it false. Bush has dealt with a hostile press, obstructionists in Congress, and a coordinated media war against him since before he took office, but yet he hasn’t made any excuses and continues to prosecute a successful war against our enemies.
Maybe he’s just a more capable President…
Oh Cassandra:
The Geneva Conventions do not apply to insurgents in Iraq. They are disqualified since they do NOT: 1) have/wear a unifrom that is recognizable from a reasonable distance; 2) do not have a known chain of command; and 3) have violated the provisions themselves.
Point 3: Establishing ammunition dumps within protected facilities (mosques/hospitals); engaging in combat by firing from same; using civilian population as hostages and shields; and use of ambulances (perhaps not now, but ‘then’) as ammo carriers. Surely those marvelous, non-prejudiced sources you use have mentioned these little details?
Perhaps not, now that I think of it…
And note, once having not complied with The Convention, they can be treated – under international law – as partisans, subject to courts-martial and summary execution. Sorry, C., they are known outlaws under The Convention.
Shed no tears for the nut cases, baby…
Oh no, Bush only left the country twice before being elected President. What does that mean, exactly? To me it means that he loves his country and doesn’t want to leave. Good for him. I’d rather have someone like that running America than someone who would rather spend their time travelling the world. After all, we elected Bush to run the United States, not France, or even the “free world.” I want a President that looks after our interests first and foremost. While Kerry brown-noses his foreign leaders, Bush stays home and does his job. And Kerry misses all but 14 of the last 120 Senate votes. He’s not doing what he’s paid to now, why should we believe he will in the future?
Let’s remember why Clinton spent much of his term fending off attacks from the right. He lied, he cheated on his wife, he broke the law. He got attacked from the right because the left let him do all the illegal and immoral things he wanted, and applauded him for it. The left is more vicious against Bush’s character than the right was agaisnt Clinton, but they have less to work with. Whatever the left has said about Bush, him being stupid, incurious, greedy, whatever, they can’t say he lacks integrity. The left likes to say he lied about WMD, but the facts prove he didn’t, and character assasination loses its shimmer when the left’s hero has shamed himself again and again.
Good Ole Charlie and JC:
Just because someone does not agree with you does not make them anti-American – and name-calling does not contribute to an illuminative debate. Or wasn’t that taught at Harvard?
Secondly, the International Red Cross has stated in their report that the vast majority of detainees at Abu Ghairib were arrested by mistake. So not all of these prisoners were “nut cases”. But you can be rest assured that their treatment has given them anti-American feelings and fanned the flames of our enemy.
I passionately love my country and feel sorrow over lives wasted for WMD that – if they ever were there – have now been dispersed because of our clumsy handling of the situation. The world is not safer now than it was on 9/10/2001, Afghanistan is a mess, we have squandered the international good will that did exist following our national tragedy three years ago. Servicemen and women – as well as many innocent Iraqis – have died for dubious reasons. Perhaps you don’t mean to impugn my patriotism, but it comes off that way.
Additionally, the president’s astounding vision had our soldiers being welcomed with sweets in the streets of Baghdad, the invasion paying for itself with oil revenues and (I would hope) Abu Ghairib never happening. With a ridiculous deficit that our grandchildren will be paying off, our allies questioning their alliance with us, our military under fire by Iraqi civilians and no WMD found, I do wonder how Bush qualifies as a success.
JC, other sources you might want to cross-check for information (as a good journalist does) are France’s Le Monde Diplomatique (excellent for in-depth analysis: not to be confused with Le Monde), Belgium’s De Morgen (used to be lefty – now centrist), the Netherlands’ NRC Handelsblad (the establishment paper), and the UK’s The Guardian (an excellent alternative to the Times of London). France’s La Liberation is also good, but might be too “liberal” for you…Before you dismiss them, read them: then you might actually be talking from a position of knowledge rather than ignorance.
You boys do need to think beyond your borders…
Cassandra,
I never called you any names or said you were anti-American. I said you believed what you were told without bothering to find out for yourself the quality of your sources. That is quite a bit different than name calling. If you wish to believe that travel confers discernment, that it grants you special knowledge, do so, but I have not yet seen the evidence from you. Travel may broaden the mind, but that doesn’t put any knowledge in it if you don’t even know what questions to ask. I have asked you several times about India’s elections and Indonesia’s terrorism troubles, and so far no bite. I have not seen any hint you actually know what the real issues are about US foreign policy in general. I have not seen any special insight mentioned about the relevance of Indonesia’s Muslim population coming from you. And that’s just for starters.
Not once have said anything you can back up. Not once have you made any claim that you can give a shred of proof to. Every last one of your claims comes from media sources that you wish me to respect in spite of the obvious habit of lying and obfuscantion about someone you dislike. I have higher standards of sources than that. I find it hilarious that you want people to have a “thinking beyond borders” attitude when you show no knowledge yourself of anything in this country, and we (I am not a boy, I think my e-addy makes that clear) are the ones who let you know that first hand sources in Iraq are telling a very different story than your own newspapers.
Don’t you wonder why you didn’t know what Bush’s foreign policy strategy was when he entered office before I told you? Do you believe Ms. Rice wrote that article for the sheer hell of it? Do you believe she was writing of her own plan only, that Bush had nothing to do with it? Didn’t it occur to you to stop and wonder if it was true that he knew nothing of the world and find out for yourself before pliantly accepting it as true?
You make yet another round of claims, but Cassie, unlike your namesake, you have no credibility – I am not going to bother to ask you for any proof, because you have shown a complete inability to give any. You, if you like, keep believing what you read. You, if you like, keep being incurious about what’s really going on in the world and at home. You can keep your blind acceptance of what you’re told about what you don’t know about if you like. Just understand that that path has no wisdom in it: you are merely being led around by the nose.
It will be a while before I can reply, so keep that in mind with your next response.
JC: You asked me to cite my sources, I did. Have you ever read Le Monde, Le Monde Diplomatique, De Morgen or NRC Handelsblad? If not, then you can’t really pass judgment on what they write as anti-American or liberal, can you? To do so would be paranoid. Reading various sources means that one can calibrate what the truth might really be – that’s why journalists confirm through various independent sources before going with something as fact. I’ve not denigrated your source because I have not been exposed to it. Being informed normally makes one’s argument stronger: I believe Good Ole Charlie probably learned that at Harvard.
Regarding India’s elections, Sonia Gandhi won but declined the prime ministerial role – widely thought because of family pressure (with her mother-in-law and husband victims of assassination, the family probably did not want a third death by this). A journalist in the Italian daily Correia della Serra noted that there would have finally been an Italian woman prime minister – albeit, she would have been the prime minister of India. I believe the gentleman who did take the position is Singh.
In Indonesia, Americans have been recommended to leave because of its instability. Chinese have long been the scapegoat for economic woes in Indonesia (as they happen to have a large merchant class), but, guess what? Now Americans are (and for those who think that the entire Muslim world is sexist, do note that Indonesia does have a female prime minister).
You allege I know nothing of the US – bizarre, since you don’t know me or my resum
Cassie:
If I might get familiar…
Remember the start of the legend…
But I digress. I do read some of these papers, albeit on the Net. When I have time…keeps my French up. Don’t read Dutch. Also read German: FAZ, an occasional Stern, sometimes Isvestia.
I also have traveled abroad quite a bit and have friends. My first visits were when I administered a research contract in what was then the CSSR. The Czechoslovakian Soviet Socialist Republic. The post-”Socialism-with-a-human-face” society I saw was enough to turn me off from socialism forever. But that’s another story.
Europe is in deep trouble, largely of its own making. Low GDP growth, an unassimilated imigrant population [Muslim, and especially in France], and an aging population. You can add high structural unemployment and a rigid class system to the mix.
What’s there to envy or emulate in a society like that? They’ll make beautiful corpses to use a German expression. Wisdom? Don’t particularly have it.
Low rates of patents granted don’t help things. The EU is in trouble: a backlash against the EU is starting in England and the EU is not supported very strongly in Eastern Europe. And a telephone book sized constitution is not a positive step.
As far as France goes, DeGaulle had it right: “I did everything for La France, nothing for those greedy francias”. He knew his fellow citizens.
Culturally, right now we have EuroTrash. Designer this and thats really don’t advance a civilization. Upper classes with “culture” are basically parasites awaiting a revolution “apres moi”. Let them burn.
Good Ole Charlie: There is a saying in Europe, which is largely unfair: “America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without passing that phase most cultures call civilization.” While I don’t agree with that, I do think that my home country the US – which is younger than the house I live in in Europe – might have something to learn from older countries.
Europe offers centuries of literature, art, philosophy, music: surely your Harvard education exposed you to some of it.
The ironic thing is that the US, which wants to bring democracy to the Arab world, has more in common with the Arab world than it does with many of its European allies – the death penalty and the role of religion in government being two of the best examples. Although the church is extremely strong in Germany, elsewhere in Europe there is a definite separation: the idea of a pledge including “under God” is anathema to most Europeans. Faith-based initiatives aren’t necessary in states that care for their poorest. And no country I can think in Western Europe practices the death penalty.
The one European country which is most similar to the US is, another irony, France: no other country has such passionate patriotism (or “chauvinism”). The British stand apart from continental Europe, but they’re not really flag-waving and chest-thumping like the French (given, most soccer matches do bring out the nationalist in a certain segment of all countries). Jacques Delors, former head of the European Union, remarked about Europe vs. the US regarding unemployment: “Europe has higher unemployment than the US largely because a higher percentage of Americans are in prison, so they’re not on the unemployment rolls.” Snide, but true: a higher percentage of Yanks are behind bars than citizens of any Western European country.
The European Union, while far from perfect, has done something that centuries of war have not been able to do: it has unified Europe. While far from perfect (that would be the understatement of the epoch), it is now the United States of Europe. Whether that’s better than separate states is a matter that is up for (a very long) discussion.
A good French friend of mine compared the US to Europe saying that America was an adolescent: full of verve, spark, energy and drive. Europe is an old man: wise, aware of the limits of life but seasoned with experience. The adolescent strikes out to try new things, and when they don’t succeed, they try again. The old man is circumspect. Both are great to be, but have pitfalls: the selfishness and recklessness of youth and the being too cautious side of being old. We need each other – we need not be enemies, because we both have too much too lose (yes, this relationship has been beneficial to the US, too).
Cassandra,
What I said about your namesake is that you are not like her, that is, you have no credibility. You might want to read the Iliad, it’s a good tale, too. Cassandra was gifted by a goddess with accurate prophecy, I see no hint of the divine in your posts, let alone accuracy. This is an observation, not a personal attack.
Here is an example of citing a source, since apparently you have a different notion: I tell you what Ms. Rice herself (when I say herself, I mean that I am not relying on a reporter to interpret what she says, but rather looking at precisely what RICE said. Do you get it?) said. I tell you where she said it, I tell you when she said it, and you still have no comment on how it proved you wrong – decisively wrong. I am not asking you to denigrate it, I am asking you to acknowledge that her own words show your ignorance.
Your idea of a source is 1) a person who may or may not exist,
2) newspapers that may have said what you claim they said, but no date, no article, no excerpt to prove this. You want me to take your word for it when I have no reason to believe your word is worth anything.
You keep insisting, in spite of my telling you several times, that I have to read your papers – duh – I am familiar with them. And yet I am holding them in contempt. Is this a clue? You may believe I am disagreeing with you because I know nothing about the foreign press, but I have repeatedly told you that you are in error to think so.
Here is what I asked you about Indonesia: what is it that Bush was supposed to know about the Muslims there pre-9/11? What did you want him to know about India? They have nukes. Yes. And you think he didn’t know that, why? Their one stand off with Pakistan indicates there was no point in obsessing about this. Come and tell me exactly what your reporter who asked about them had to say. Tell me what you knew that was relevent. You still cannot say. You offer no comparison of how Indonesia handles terrorism vs. the US. (this is what I asked you). In other words, you offered no proof that you have any sophisticated knowledge about India or Indonesia beyond the news scroll on CNN. Sorry, but I remain unimpressed that you or any other critic of the admin/prez actually attempts to know about these places for their own sake.
Your comment about the EU is pretty laughable. I’m sorry, but how do you think Germany and France were able to come together except as a result of a peace imposed by war? How do you think Belgium was able to trust the Germans (you see, they were twice invaded by the Germans), except for that the Germans had been militarily crushed and they were occupied by people who would not let them go to war again? How did you miss the revelance of the war bringing peace? How did you miss the fact that the EU would not exist either in its present form or at all if there had not been a hot war to put down a serious aggressor, and a cold war to put down another expansionist power? Or are you proposing that a Hitlerian/Stalinist peace would have also brought about the EU, that it was destined?
Geeze. Do you see why no one here thinks you know what you are talking about? Really, do tell why you think the Belgians would have felt safe throwing in their lot with Italy and Germany without a war and an occupation to destroy those worrisome nazi and fascist influences. Do tell, I want to know.
For the record, I only said you knew nothing about what was going on the US because of 1)your claim that Clinton could not deal with terrorism because he had the Lewinsky scandal, even though several important terrorism events predated Lewinsky (here’s a clue, the first WTC bombing, that was in 93); 2)your inability to explain what’s up with the DC schools that makes the Republicans to blame, 3) your lack of knowledge about the foreign policy direction of the administration when they took office.
To be familiar with the foreign press is not the same as to read it. Et si tu savais lire Le Monde Diplomatique ou La Liberation, tu saurais mieux ce que tu parles. Le fait que Condoleeza Rice a dit quelquechose
Cassie,
I don’t have rage. I have amusement that you can never address an issue honestly. Would it help you to know I am only half American? That I too have left this country? Apparently reading the “furrin” papers doesn’t confer the fairy dust of knowledge and intelligence and wisdom, but I trump you my dear: I have dual nationality as a result of my gene pool and birth. There, my fairy dust is stronger than thou. I promise you I say the fairy dust part as facetiousness: I do not believe in fairies. I spend an inordinate amount of time taking testimony from magical thinkers, it makes me impatient to deal with them, but I am otherwise amused when I am speaking to them, as I am with you. I have a deadpan humor, really. If you need to believe it is rage, do so. People believe what they need to protect the ego. You needed to believe some fairly odd things about newspapers and those who write in them to justify what you think, and having someone who has worked in that industry tell you that you know little if the press is all you go on was perhaps a shock to you.
I told you that traveling does not relieve you of obliviousness, and you have done nothing to contradict that. In the meantime, would you stop and consider the source of your demonstrably false claims about Europe, the president, the US? Do you not wonder why I needed to point out what actually brought about that peace you earlier claimed is responsible for the EU? Did you not stop and ever ask yourself what made the Belgians confident they could trust a union with Germany in it? Did you not stop and wonder why the Greeks could consider joining a club with Italians in it? I do notice that you have now dropped the idea of a magically occuring peace being the cause of the EU and taking up the economic/sex angle instead. But do you believe people join their economic fortunes with people they do not trust? That they fear may try to take them over and destroy them? Does that happen often?
I have long known your type, I simply hold out hope that the specific instance of your type (you) were the rare kind who truly did have an interest in the foreigners you use to prove your exceptionalism. By interest I mean knowing about their history, I mean knowing about their culture, I mean knowing about that which motivates them and interests them on their terms beyond what the Lonely Planet Guide Book tells you. (Resisting, I am resisting the urge to ask you what you really thought motivated France to oppose Iraq. I am giving up on the idea that you know what the economic benefits that motivated France to tell their ally Turkey not to help us or else they would not defend Turkey if Iraq attacked them. Nope. Not gonna hope you can explain why an ally does that to another ally. I will just assume that you never included France in our allies list when you were speaking of who Bush alienated).
Anyway, good luck. I am sorry if you prefer to remain benighted. But forgive me, I have written for newspapers (they were business oriented the other web designer oriented), so you must understand when I tell you that you are kidding yourself if you think newspapers leave you well-informed. My advice to you to learn to go to the original sources instead of just going by what you’re told was not in jest. Consider it the same as if, back when the Firestone tires were coming apart on the Explorers, the people of Firestone and Ford had warned strangers ahead of time that this could happen and buy Pirelli or Michelin instead.
Cassie:
One thing that does strike me is the following sentence can be said to a “Good European”. To wit: “So Long, Thanks for all the fish. We don’t need you.” Really, when you come down to it, we don’t. We’re strong enough – not infinitely strong, but strong enough – that now we don’t ultimately need Europe.
Oh yeah, we view the art, history, culture, etc., etc., but when the chips are down, we can do it ourselves.
The Europeans can’t.
I also remember another European – Neitzsche (probably mis-spelling his name – you know the guy) – saying that morality was the revenge of the weaker on the stronger. The only way that the weaker could influence the stronger was to induce a ‘guilty’ conscience: hence a priesthood: hence a ‘moral stance’.
Strikes me the present Europeans are pulling the same shtick. Can’t compete economically or militarily, hence – like a nagging wife – nag about moral superiority (theirs) over an immorality (ours). Standard technique for a debater: shift the ground fought over.
The decadence you refer to my dear, is found also in Europe. The young man knows – deep down – that he will outlive the old man. What can the old man do? Take refuge in a ‘moral superiority’ stance: biology is against him from the get go.
The old man’s culture, etc. will die with him. All cultures eventually die: how much of the Medieval remains with us? A small fraction.
Living well is the best revenge. And an even better revenge is just outliving. Europe is dying now: still ambulatory but its prognosis is not the greatest.
If I were an extreme Freudian, I would say it’s analogous to a sex drive. Fading now for Europe and become a source of frustration and rage. The impotent ending is coming into sight.
Enjoy!
Both Good Ole Charlie and JC:
The concept of Europe as one entity is relatively new – so the concept of it fading so quickly is interesting. Yes, France is no longer the world power it once was. Nor is Britain or Spain. Italy’s pre-eminence went out with the Holy Roman Empire. All of these countries have colonial pasts, some quite recent. But empires are a tricky thing to manage – and, even with centuries of experience, the sun set on all of them. Yes, America is more powerful than any one of these one countries.
But together they are a larger market than the US. Militarily, they will probably never have the cohesion to be a threat to the US. But they have the manpower that our over-committed military could use – hey, France has been helping us out in Afghanistan since we went there. Europe also has the intelligence resources to help root out foreigners wanting to attack us at home and abroad. What does going it alone mean, Charlie? Having the world close its doors to our goods and services, and us closing ours to theirs? Being self-sufficient for our energy needs? Building Fortress America where no one comes in and no one goes out?
JC, I don’t know your origins. But I have lived in countries that know war firsthand. I’ve talked with people who have survived Rwandan massacres, Pinochet’s Chile, Nazi occupation, the diamond wars in Sierra Leone: people who have lived through hell that most Americans fortunately will only have to imagine. So war means more to me than it does to you. Lives of people who never signed on to get into a conflict – your mother, your sister, your child – are lost. One person I know survived the massacre of his whole family by hiding behind a sofa. I did not read about these people in a magazine, JC. I know them. But perhaps their experiences are not valid enough for you and must be corroborated by sources you trust.
Other than 9/11 and Pearl Harbor, the US has been blessed enough not to have been attacked on our own soil by foreign powers. Europe knows war firsthand, it has experienced occupation, it has felt the hatred engendered – hatred that can last centuries. So when its people weigh the wisdom of entering a conflict, they do so with the benefit of experience. War is not abstract to them. To Americans, because most of our wars have taken place on foreign soil, war happens somewhere else – and can be forgotten about as we go on with our daily lives, tuning in to the next reality show. For Europe, war is reality. The intelligence the US presented did not show Iraq as the clear and present danger that France and Germany thought necessary to send troops. (Remember, Germany’s recent history makes them extremely critical about joining military adventures).
They’ve been there and done that. They know that they’re no longer the center of the universe (well, except for France – but again, they are the most like Americans). And they know the cost of making large segments of the world hate them – and they’ve concluded that it’s not worth it.
As for the US living well, that depends on which American you’re speaking of. Yes, we have more millionaires per capita than any developed country – but we also have more abject poverty. We work more hours per annum than any Western country, but the Germans and Dutch outdo us on worker productivity. The Europeans often say the Americans live to work, while Europeans work to live – and that seems to be so.
With the euro and pound rising in strength against the dollar, I don’t think Europe’s quite on its last legs, Charlie.
Cassandra:
Your arguments about Europe somehow being more knowledgeable about war, etc., would be more credible, but for two small problems:
Kosovo.
Rwanda.
Rwanda, b/c Europe is also quite familiar w/ genocide in this century, and yet did nothing about it when it occurred elsewhere.
Kosovo, b/c Europe chose to become involved in the whole Yugoslavian break-up (precipitated by German recognition of Slovenian independence), failed to commit sufficient forces w/ sufficient vigor, then allowed its own intelligence to fail in terms of Kosovar atrocities.
One would think, given your assessment that Europe fears war, being hated, etc., that Europe would have acted more vigorously to stop genocide elsewhere, and/or that Europe would have acted more carefully in places like Yugoslavia where the key states (e.g., Germany) are both remembered AND hated.
BTW, the Germans and the Dutch do not outdo the US in terms of productivity. For a while in the 1980s, their rate of increase in productivity was outpacing us, but, iirc, neither Germany nor Japan ever outpaced us on GDP per worker.
And a strong euro may or may not be a blessing. Stronger currencies may make states appear stronger, but it hampers exports—something that Asian states know full well. Indeed, in most categories (job creation, patents filed, etc.), it would be hard to argue that the European economy now, or in the foreseeable future, is likely to outpace the US (not to say it’s on its last legs).
“…neither Germany nor Japan ever outpaced us on GDP per worker.”
Thats’ only due to more working time in the US. In terms of GDP per hour worked France beats the US.
Don’t believe it? See http://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/nojournal/Feb_ICP.pdf
I also don’t mind if the US outpaces the Europeans in terms of budget deficit increase.
Yup, TOE.
Unfortunately, that study only looked at the major European states. The most productive workers (GDP per hour worked) is, get this, Norway and Belgium. The UN’s ILO documented that back in September.
Guess you’ll be speaking Norwegian or Flemish in a few years, eh?
And as a European, I’m surprised you have the temerity to lecture US on budget deficits. Unless you’re French or German, of course—after all, EU regulations don’t apply to you.
Feh.
Nearly forgot to ask:
Sell any of those sleek Eurofighters yet?
Thank’s for additional material that the European economy is not yet on its last legs. Norway is easy to understand: it’s their oil. But what do you make of Belgium?
You should start Flamish AND French language courses in the US soon.
Re:
“Nearly forgot to ask:
Sell any of those sleek Eurofighters yet?”
Have you seen any of your fabled new fighters come out of the factory yet?
TOE:
I, for one, have never said the EUropean economy is already on its last legs. I’d venture, however, that it is mediocre and weak, and getting more so.
Why would smaller economies have higher productivity, measured in GDP per hour worked? Look at it this way: If all you have are jewelers, you’re going to have a VERY high GDP per hour worked. Throw in just 2-3 janitors, and that average number declines precipitously.
Notice that if you broke the US figures up into states, some would probably do quite well, and others (agricultural areas, frex) would probably do fairly poorly.
If Europe is to become the EU, then its figures are going to have to be aggregated, to be meaningful.
As for “fabled new fighters,” you mean like the F-22? You know, the aircraft which began initial production in 2001, and for which the initial test and evaluation aircraft were delivered in 2002? You mean those physical airplanes?
I don’t see how the European economy is going to be at a comparative disadvantage. The bad economy of Germany cited so often is due to the GDR they have taken onboard and not been able yet to integrate successfully. The EU gives the European nation states a program with concrete goals that further competitiveness. Add to that all the new member countries that will all show (have already shown in the past) above average growth rates in the decade(s) to come – due to EU money and EU rules. So I don’t see why one should worry about the EU economy.
Your argument with respect to smaller economies sounds good, but doesn’t fit reality. France has one of the larger agricultural sectors in the developed world and the Belgian economy consists of more than a few diamond traders.
With respect to the fighters:
You know quite well I didn’t mean the F-22. There is another one – on paper so far. BTW How many F-22 do exist physically? Do they make a dozen already.
TOE:
In reverse order, I’m supposed to be a mind-reader? You said “fabled new fighters.” There are two fighter programs currently underway in the US: the F-22, which is low-rate initial production (and over a dozen produced), and IOC in 2005, and the JSF. (Are there any “fabled new fighters” underway at all in Europe?)
The diamond setters was what in English is called an example. Belgium, of course, makes other things. Lace and chocolates, for example. And bureaucrats. The point was merely that a small economy can reflect a larger GDP per hour worked for a variety of reasons. Bill Gates working one hour, frex, might well outweigh the entire work output of Costa Rica.
As for the French example, it is a good one, and I wonder what the explanation(s) might be. Are you suggesting that France is an economic powerhouse?
Finally, as to the EUropean economy, who’s worried? EUrope will survive or not. It will stay together or not. I notice you never address demographics, although it is often raised. You have in the past confidently proclaimed that your pension (or is it pensione?) will be paid in full, w/o addressing exactly how/why that should be the case.
As for productivity among EU states, one wonders how much is due to EU rules. Or is the length and curvature of bananas really a competitive advantage?
And those “concrete goals” you mention, do those apply to France and Germany?
To: Dean
OK, this is rather long.
Yes, I was alluding to the JSF which exists so far mainly on paper. It’s said to be full of wonders. Until it arrives hopefully the existant F-22s will be good enough to repel future Al-Quaeda jet attacks.
With respect to economic policy:
The French have indeed shown for quite some time a good hand in mixing state intervention with big business. And they have an excellent infrastructure (at least by US standards).
I don’t see the demographics problem as a technically difficult to solve problem. Immigrants are waiting at the European borders (and quite a few already illegally entering). It’s still a political problem, but voter preferences can change quickly. You just have to show them that the immigrants will pay their pensions.
What many people in the US don’t seem to see is that European economic integration in itself is still a positive sum game. The US has already an internal market and a currency union while the EU is on a advanced stage with regard to the first and has not yet all states taking part in the second. Now ten new member populations have been added which will give economic growth an additional boost.
The curvature of banana rule is often mentioned to ridicule Brussels but it should be easy to see that for companies the EU common market rules applied across all member states, even if they are quite detailed, are the lesser ‘red tape’ problem than different national regulations applied in a dozen different small markets.
The majority opinion among economists is that the self-imposed EU budget restrictions as they exist right now are too straight a jacket and should be amended. Germany and France were among the first ones to disobey them, which is a pity. On the other hand, if the policy is not good, I don’t care that much about that issue.
TOE:
What, the F-22 isn’t fabled enough for you? Supercruise, stealth, and already in production. Two fighters in the time that EUrofighter was supposed to show up.
Immigration: Ah, just let ‘em in, eh? Didn’t the Dutch recently pass a new rule in this regard? Expelling them, aren’t they? How well have those Turks assimilated in Germany? And are the Muslim immigrants in the various ring arrondissements a net gain or drain for the French?
BTW, if there’s such a need for immigration, what’s w/ the high structural unemployment? 9-11%?? Methinks that there’s something amiss in that rosy picture you’re envisioning.
Not to mention that there’s always easy “technical” solutions. The devil, of course, is always in the politics. I’m sure that you can conceive technical solutions to just about anything….
Positive sum games. Certainly, it’s possible. But if it were that simple, why is Germany having such trouble integrating a region that speaks the same language and with which it has long-standing cultural ties?
Yes, it’s certainly possible integration will help, and having a single set of rules and regulations will help, too. Remind me, though, is there a common European tax policy to go w/ that common Euro currency?
And if breaking the rule b/c it doesn’t fit for one state is good, exactly what is the basis for assuming that ANY of these regs will last to bring about your putative benefits, since some oxen are going to be gored by those same regs??
And does increased regulation really bring about a better market? If it did, remind me again, does Europe have a single standard for electricity, or are there multiple standards still for outlets and voltages?
Certainly, some common regs do help, but one has to wonder whether EUro regulators are more entranced w/ regulating everything they can, or whether they are more interested in bringing about a single market (no, the two are not the same). We laugh at the banana reg precisely b/c it brings no benefit for competitiveness, but seems to be an exercise in Strasbourg/Brussels muscle-flexing.
(Stephen, sorry for the bandwidth.)
I have an expression, Dean.
“Never apologize for the good stuff.”
Use all the bandwidth you like.
To: Dean
You can make the F-22 as “stealthy” as you want. Since the invention of passive radar it’s detectable anyway. Pretty expensive bird you got there BTW.
Have you seen serious problems with regard to Turkish immigrants in Germany? There is nothing on a scale comparable to what happens in the US.
Ah, the high structural unemployment. Well, that has also something to do with the ways of counting people. If you don’t count your people when they whithdraw from the labour market, just to have nicer statistics …
Germany and the GDR:
The German Chancellor Kohl back then opted for a political solution first and an economic solution later. Re-unification was a higher goal to him than economic reconstruction, so he didn’t want to jeopardize it by economic shock policies. They got their re-unification and will have to live with the pains of economic reconstruction for some time to come.
Common tax policy: No, there isn’t. Is there one in the US? The Federal Reserve doesn’t have much to do with tax policy, does it?
You critizice regulation and cite an example where there is no common legal framework. Where’s the logic?
On a more basic ground: Have you ever heard of the concept of market failure? At least you have had some practical experiences with it in the last years in the US.
The banana example is not as laughable as it seems. You know that the devil in politics can hide in the details. If a supplier doesn’t conform with the rules he’s out. So tinkering with the rules is an easy way to ensure that. Shouldn’t be too unfamiliar regarding your own controls on entrance to your agricultural markets.
TOE:
Sigh, so much ignorance, so little time.
Stealth was always detectable. The question was detection ranges. Or did you really think the planes were invisible?
Ah, but passive radar! Uh-huh. And which is worse off in such an environment: the stealth aircraft, or the non-stealthy aircraft (like the EUrofighter)? But keep digging, I find this amusing.
Turkish immigrants and American counterparts. What the heck are you talking about? Are Turks in Germany (third generation in some cases) citizens?
Unemployment and statistics. So, European unemployment figures are simply a matter of different counting, eh? Well, the last refuge of scoundrels, I would guess. Or is that lies, damned lies, and statistics? Care to provide some evidence of this?
(PS: The BLS does keep some track of those who withdraw from the labor force. Are you suggesting, OTOH, that Europe doesn’t have this same problem?)
Common tax policy: Why, yes, there is one in the US. The Federal income tax, frex. The absence of a VAT.
But congratulations, you asked the right question (for once), which is the relationship between tax policy and central banks. The answer is that they are all part of the levers for the central government to influence the economy. Which is why the US Fed is fairly independent. What happened to the very first head of the ECB? Did he serve a full term?
And tax policy and monetary supply are linked (although not centrally directed). If you think you have a single currency and not have some common tax policies to support the money supply decision-making, I’d refer you to Econ 101.
Market failures, regulations, etc. Market failures as in Parmalat? How much did that cost? And in a system that is already over-regulated, it would appear that more regulations does not equal more efficient business.
Why mention electricity which has no common regulations? To point out that hard decisions that might be amenable to regulatory influence are ignored, while areas that are NOT especially important (curvature of bananas) ARE subjected to additional regulatory impact. Apparently, this makes sense to you.
And if the banana issue were mostly affecting imports, I’d be a little less skeptical. But what of the controls on EU-produced items? I believe the Scots are now up in arms.
Look, TOE, it’s clear you have your opinions. Mostly untainted by reference to facts (figure out what the EUropean space capabilities are, yet?). Live happily in them.
“Look, TOE, it’s clear you have your opinions. Mostly untainted by reference to facts (figure out what the EUropean space capabilities are, yet?). Live happily in them.”
A compliment I happily return.
Your half-wisdoms would give a nice boost of expertise to your current administration who sent a twenty-something to try to establish an independent central bank in Iraq.
Found out already why the first ECB head served only a half turn? It’ all in the news.
BTW:
Neither the practices of counting nor accounting seem to be well understood by your government. But at least you have Powell as a good apologizer.
TOE:
Is this another example of your famous “EUrope would do better if it only had those assets (oops, they do, never mind)” approach?
Which European intelligence agency (national or pan-European) indicated that Iraq did not have WMD? France? Germany? Russia? Belgium? Provide a citation or two?
YOU dare bring up accounting? What has been happening to various members of the EU commissions? How many bribery and corruption charges have been revealed?
YOU dare bring up accounting? I notice you ignored Parmalat, a ten billion euro example of non-existent cost-accounting. What a simplisme solution!
YOU dare bring up accounting? How many Europeans are listed on the oil-for-vouchers scandal that starved Iraqi children to death? How many Americans?
The US has things to apologize for, and I’m glad we have Colin Powell to do that. What is sad is that EUropean duplicity has at least as much, yet one never sees hide nor hair of an apology from the likes of you.
BTW:
Since it would seem that we are not the only ones w/ trouble in counting and accounting:
Enron cost about $1 billion dollars.
That’s about 821 million euros.
Parmalat cost about 10 billion euros.
That’s about $12 billion.
In MY world, $12B>$1B. Or, in euro terms, 10,000,000,000>821,000,000.
Does that look like a bigger or smaller scandal to you, TOE, with your European math?
To: Dean
Which European intelligence agency claimed it was “slam-dunk case”? Have you heard about the UN weapons inspectors wearing T-Shirts ridiculing the US intelligence “information” that had sent them to yet another chicken farm they mistook for a WMD silo? If YOU make mistakes and need a scapegoat, look among yourselves.
You forgot to mention a few other companies like WorldCom and Tyco that can be added to the list. Don’t forget Halliburton. I’m also referring to the way your government tries to hide the costs of the Iraq War as well as of its tax reforms from public view.
With all that ducking and weaving, TOE, you must be dizzy!
Question: Which European intelligence agencies disagreed w/ the assessment that Iraq had WMD. It’s really a very simple question. Since it’s “obvious” that they didn’t have any, you’d think among the EUropean agencies (for example, BND, Deuxieme Bureau) one would have said, “They don’t have any.”
Question: What was the corporate scandal (as opposed to personal scandal) involving Tyco? What was the corporate scandal involving Halliburton? Please provide at least a thumbnail, since the personal malfeasance of a corporate executive is not the same as the corporation going down the toilet.
That, of course, doesn’t even address whether, adding up all three “examples” you list comes close to just the ONE of Parmalat. I suppose European models of capitalism lead in one respect!
And let us not forget: TotalElfAquitaine, Credit Lyonnaise, and Canary Wharf?
And isn’t it funny how our efforts to “hide” the costs of the Iraq War and the “costs” of tax reform wind up w/ even EUropeans being fully aware of them?
Please, TOE, stop embarrassing yourself.
After all this, not one link, not one actual FACT (do they teach you what those things are over in Europe?), simply innuendo and assertion. That may be enough, these days, to get a baccalaureate degree, but, as one American once observed, “Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life.”
Show me any European intelligency apart from the British with their famous “intelligence report” aka student paper that claimed more than what the UN inspectors said. It was your government and agencies that said “We know better. We have the evidence” that led to nothing else than visitations of chicken farms.
What makes Parmalat different from the other companies cited? You’re a bit short on your argument there.
It’s your budget deficitit and your war costs your next president will have to cope with. So I am happy to place that in your lap. Can you think of a comparative economic advantage for the US there? Will it ensure that the US keeps leading in GDP per worker.
On the last sentence:
Is that more or less the state you were in when you wrote that post?
TOE:
The European intelligence agencies were remarkably silent during the entire episode. No government in EUrope concluded that the Iraqis did not have WMD during the run-up to war. Not one. If you have evidence, cite it.
How is Parmalat different from other companies? Parmalat is bankrupt. Tyco is not. Halliburton is not.
Parmalat is comparable to Enron, except it’s an order of magnitude bigger. How does a company lose $12 billion and have no one notice?
Despite accusations, no one has shown any major scandals in Halliburton’s numbers. Not so Credit Lyonnaise. Which, of course, is what delayed Wim Duisenberg’s stepping down early from the ECB. You never did address that, btw. Why didn’t he serve a full term? Just how independent IS the head of the ECB?
And just how high did the TotalElfAquitaine scandal actually reach? Do you know yet? Does anyone?
As for our deficits and the like, how good of you to leave it to us to deal w/. As though that wasn’t going to be the case, regardless. Feel free to boycott T-bill sales, if you wish.
And deficits, for your information, are just as “technically solveable” as the demographic problem.
But here’s the deal, TOE. I’ve tried to answer your questions. Do us the courtesy of answering a few of ours, all of which are from comments YOU’ve made:
1. Which European intelligence agencies were on the record in stating prior to 2003 that Saddam Hussein had no WMD programs?
2. What is the European unemployment rate (or, to make it easier, the unemployment rates in France and Germany)?
3. You blithely assert that US unemployment is counted differently than in France and Germany. How? What would be the rates, if they used identical counting rules?
4. Why did the first head of the ECB serve only half a term?
Speaking of central banks, here’s an interesting story about that “twenty-something’s” efforts in establishing a central bank in Iraq.
http://www.economist.com/finance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2792407
Not bad for a young whippersnapper, especially in the middle of a war zone. Although, to be frank, I’ve no idea who TOE’s talking about.
The current senior advisor to the Iraqis on financial matters is Kevin Woelflein, and as a ’54 MIT grad, I’d say that, if he’s in his twenties, he’s gotta be the most brilliantly trained child prodigy ever.
Or does he mean Sinan Shabibi, the head of the CBI, who was born in ’66? (Pssst: 2004-1966=38, hardly a twentysomething.)
It would be ironic, wouldn’t it, if the CBI wound up being a more independent financial authority than the ECB? With wunderkind like that at the helm, how could it but succeed?
But at least they’re not operating with EUro-math!