Eclectic Views

    
Politics and current events can be areas of strong feelings
and "hot" discussion.   It's easy to find political flamewars
on the web.   What we seek here is more reasoned discussion
of politics and current events, providing more light than heat.

The primary rule of the Well's internal politics conference
is -- No Personal Attacks.   It's a guideline we should do
our best to follow here as well.    Public figures are 
somewhat exempted from that rule here, as they are in real
life.  

We live in interesting times, so let's talk about them.
  

    
The current administration seems to have tied its political 
fortunes in large part to a war with Iraq.  Due largely to 
the efforts Sec'y of State Powell they were hammered into 
seeking UN auspices for such an enterprise.

Now, however, it appears that major allies - some possessing
Security Council veto power - are charting a more cautious
course than Mr. Bush would like.   They want to give Hans
Blix and the UN weapons inspectors quite a bit more time 
before the troops go charging in.  

Meanwhile North Korea, which in many ways provides a more
immediate threat of manufacturing WOMD, is being soft-pedaled
while the administration tries to buy it off with food and
oil.   India and Pakistan, both known to possess nuclear
weapons and the missiles to deliver them, are seething just
below the boiling point.

On the third hand, the American public is becoming much
more focused on the economy here at home than it is on
an ill-defined "preventative" war abroad.

On the fourth hand,  Osama appears to be alive, if not
well, and still fomenting terrorism from someplace other
than Iraq.

How will be ever find a way out of this mess?
  

    

Recount in Florida?
  

    
That's like looking up the magician's sleeve a week after the show.
  

    
Democratic candidate who isn't less popular than his policies?
  

    
Slowly.
  

    
>>>Democratic candidate who isn't less popular than his policies?

Prompts me to repost this, which I originally wrote in another conf:

Between now and '04, the SINGLE BIGGEST JOB of the Dems is to get out
of their supplicating, simpering, wanna-be-Repubs pose and FORCE their
philosophical differences into the limelight. Stand up for their
liberal leanings, emphasize them, stop apologizing for them.  Enough
with their watered-down Republicanism. If they can't show that there IS
a convincing difference, convincing enough to make those of us with
third-party sympathies vote for them, a convincing difference THAT THEY
WILL THEN ACT ON - then we'll all suffer the results.
  

    
What do you imagine might be the consequence of their failing to do so?
  

    
Can we talk about Nader now?
  

    
Wait, let me fetch my lawn chair.
  

    
No, wait, don't start the Nader thrash before I get to hear what Angie (and
others) imagine might be the consequence if the Dems FAIL to do what is
prescribed.

I agree with Angie's prescription for the Dems.  Does Nader in any way
foretell the future if they don't step up to the plate, or if they try and
fail?  By that I mean:  will we see what may or may not be the emergence of
a viable third party?  Will see crackpot megalomaniacs rise up to exploit
the fragmentation among the left-of-center (here's where the lawn chairs
come in handy)?  Will nothing happen: the dems and repubs continue to morph
together until there's only one "party" and it's not even functional as a
public sphere because it's bought and sold by moneyed interests?
/
  

    
BTW, has anyone created "Don't blame me -- I voted for Nader" bumper
stickers yet?
  

    
One would hope not.
  

    
I saw one!
  

    

>  Wait, let me fetch my lawn chair.

For those that are reading this and not familiar with the well, the 'lawn
chair' is designed to indicate a 'trash' - a recycling with great heat of
well-worn arguments over and over and over and over. Sort of like watching
a WWE wresting bout, I suppose.

Certain topics such as Ralph Nader's affect on the 2000 election, anything
related to Israel, guns and the like are almost perfect examples of the
genre.
  

    
thrash?
  

    
Your cache ain't nothing but thrash.
  

    <scribbled by kyee Fri 30 Dec 05 10:37>
  

    
clmyers, late responding to your earlier question:

My contention is that UNLESS the Demos are willing to thus sharply
delineate themselves from the Repubs, the wisdom that "both candidates
are essentially the same" will continue to have some reality, and the
liberal vote will split again in '04. 

If we as a country want:

- funding restored for overseas family planning, including condom
distribution and information on abortion;
- a liberal voice appointed to the next Supreme Court opening;
- administrative support for Roe v. Wade;
- restored support for the CDC to do its job of distributing the best
health information we have, including AIDS prevention measures, condom
info, and alternatives to abstinence-only birth control;
- an affirmation of our right to privacy as free citizens;

and many, many more points which I'm sure you can all sing along with
by now ...

Then the Presidency MUST be taken away from Bush in 2004.

He stays in power, and we can kiss all of the above goodbye.
-
  

    
Not only that, but we can kiss any semblance of freedom of speech,
personal privacy, etc we thought we enjoyed as American citizens
goodbye. 

I agree completely, Angie. 
But time is running short, damn it.

Though I DO take some heart with the realization that many people in
this country are NOT going for the Deceitful Powermongers game, are not
fallimg for this administration's bullshit; this is a hopeful sign,
anyway. Still, we've got to do something ABOUT it, other than
disapprove. 
  

    

I'm guessing Tuesday's State of the Union address will be the stating of the
case to the jury where Shrub will try to explain "this is why the guy is bad
bad bad and this has nothing to do with my daddy, no it doesn't, Saddam's an
evildoer, and everyone who disagrees with me (and my daddy, though I didn't
say that) is a bad person, neener neener neener"

And then as the applause dies down in the House chamber you'll be able to
hear the engines revving and the cruise missiles' targetting software
dialing
in to their targets.

These are frightening days we're living through.  I despair for the next
three to six months.  I find myself deeply ashamed to be living in a country
led by a man with such limited intellect, imagination or understanding of
leadership.
  

    
I hear that. He IS an embarrassment, as well as a coldhearted bastard.


I thought I was embarrassed to have Ronald Reagan as president, when I
travelled on other countries. Feh. 
  

    
I just heard someone refer to tomorrow evening's speech as "the state
of the empire" address.  Heh.
  

    
OK ... Hans Blix has spoken, and said (in essence), that the 
Iraqi's are cooperating in form but not in substance.  Nonetheless,
he wants more time to complete the inspections.   It seems a 
majority of the world's citizen feel much the same way.

Bush - who was saber-rattling like mad a couple of weeks ago - 
now seems inclined to back off for a month while he and Tony Blair 
try to either strongarm or (more likely) buy off the French, who
have a Security Council veto.  The Germans and the Pakistanis are 
also on the Security Council but are a lesser priority since they 
don't have a veto.   

The Russians and the Chinese - who *do* have a veto - are harder
to read, though we must bear in mind that the Russians just 
concluded a couple of oil deals with Saddam.

Presumably whatever deal is struck in the UN to justify the US
attack on Iraq will center around oil.  The US has generously
offered to keep Iraq's oil fields "in trust for the Iraqi people"
after Saddam is booted.   "In trust" most likely means that US
oil companies will get the lion's share of the spoils.  Given 
the size of Iraq's oil fields, however, there should be plenty
left over for the Europeans.

No one denies that Saddam is an evil man, and deserves whatever
punishment his oppressed citizenry chooses to mete out to him,
but Bush's war talk still smacks mightily of (1) we want the 
oil, and (2) we need a distraction from the dismal state of 
the US economy.

Today the Dow Jones closed down 141 points.  All the averages
are now down for the year.   Unemployment is up.   Industrial
capacity utilization is down.   Interest rates are at historic
lows without lifting the economy.   The DJ has not seen four
down years in a row since 1929-1932 -- the start of the 
Great Depression.

The Onion (www.theonion.com) was indeed prescient in Jan of
2001 with their headline of:

  "Bush:  Our Long National Nightmare of Peace
   and Prosperity is Finally Over"
  

    
Just received the following on a mailing list:

http://ridabu.net/fun/this_man_is_about_to_start_a_war.jpg

Can anyone come up with a decent explanation of the photo?  Other than
that Bush is an idiot?
  

    

I recently saw email from someone who asked a bunch of us (a cc list of
friends) if it were possible that Bush & co wanted to wreck the economy 
in order to roll back and dismantle government support and agencies 
helping individuals and/or protecting the commons for all of us.  We 
just can't afford clean air and water or school lunches for poor kids,
in other words.  This helps the conservative social agenda, and if they 
are not stupid -- they're not -- it must not be hard for insiders to 
notice this, either.  The not-insane version is "skillfully maipulated 
the misfortune they could not prevent," rather than "made the economy
tank," of course.   

Tax breaks and subsidies for corporations, meanwhile, can still be
supported by the administration since in the minds of those who 
control resources, those fountains of prosperity also flow into the 
gutter and trickle down to where those people whom God has seen fit 
not to bless with material wealth suffer and repent their sins.  Or 
that's an excuse, and the real motivation is to help friends, family, 
contributors and investors.  

Bad times are good for the wealthest individuals and corporations if 
certain policy changes increasing the gradient between the rich and 
the poor can be engineered. A faltering market helps the old Reagan 
doctrines and formulae get back to work again.  In the slightly 
paranoid observation of that letter, anyway.  

Is this silly, a little bit silly, not at all silly?