Forums Index >> General >> Thanks Democrats
Page : 1 . . . . . 14 : 15 : <16> : 17 : 18 . . . . . 23
@Chief
Hell yes those questions were actually asked. And before you assume that reporters were "pre-judging the answers", go read the full transcript...
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001055403
They were not prejudging -- simply responding to a series of pitiful attempts to dodge accountability and sweep this thing under the rug until later.
Wow - I suppose the difference is that I was looking for the state and local gov't to get off their ass and do something while it appears most liberals went looking to the federal gov't.
Appears to be a "state's rights" difference in views upon objective afterthought.
Sound right?
Also - it appears as though folks are starting to figure out the mid-level bureacrat thing:
Plenty of Blame to Go Around
The Feds may have fallen down on funding for levee maintenance, but New Orleans officials could have issued bonds to make up the difference
WEB-EXCLUSIVE COMMENTARY
By Charles Gasparino
Newsweek
Updated: 12:30 p.m. ET Sept. 7, 2005
Sept. 7, 2005 - President Bush, Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff and a host of federal officials deserve much of the intense criticism they've been under for failing to leap into action when Hurricane Katrina's destruction brought on human misery and lawlessness, especially in New Orleans.
But the finger-pointing ignores a massive local failure. Yes, FEMA Director Michael Brown moved painfully slowly. But the flooding that has nearly wiped New Orleans off the map was rooted in years of infrastructure neglect—and now state and local officials also need to be held accountable.
Not long after the levees broke last week and Lake Pontchartrain began flowing into New Orleans, a local businessman phoned me to say that a local agency is supposed to keep up the levees. The Orleans Parish Levee Board, appointed by the mayor and state governor, is supposed to watch out for exactly the weaknesses that brought on the chaos. I was amazed. All the more so when the businessman added that instead the levee board has been busy recently with other matters—investing in local casinos.
New Orleans is known for its inept, and at times corrupt local officials. From the 1950s to the 1970s, Leander Perez ran a notoriously corrupt political machine in Plaquemines Parish. But the charge took me by surprise. So I pulled the following description of the Orleans Parish Levee Board from the local newspaper, The Times-Picayune in 2004:
"Responsible for building and maintaining the flood walls and embankments that make up local flood control networks, the state's levee boards historically have provided governors with an easy way to reward financial supporters. In New Orleans, there is the added benefit of overseeing a police department and an expansive inventory of real estate that includes an airport, two marinas, a riverboat casino complex, dozens of parcels of commercial property and hundreds of acres of park land along Lake Pontchartrain."
Then there's an Associated Press story from earlier in the year, which announced that the "Orleans Parish levee board is dusting off a thick but long-dormant report on a grandiose public works project: a proposal to build a 4-mile-long island on Lake Pontchartrain with beaches, camping areas and possibly hotels, restaurants and an amusement park.
"Just imagine a 4-mile stretch of sandy beaches that doesn't directly impact traffic, curtails pollutants in the lake and maybe provides tourist attractions like hotels and museums," Eugene Green, a levee board commissioner, told AP. "That's something that needs to be explored seriously."
You get my point. The levee board appears to be doing everything but devoting its time to the maintenance of the levees in recent years—and the city is now paying the price. I wanted to ask Louisiana's governor, Kathleen Blanco, about the levee board, but a spokesman never got back to me. Mayor Ray Nagin is understandably tied up with more pressing matters, like getting those remaining to leave his city, so I don't expect he's going to get on the telephone with me anytime soon either.
The levees, as we've all heard, were built to withstand a Category 3 hurricane. Katrina was a Category 4. Congress recently has underfunded the Army Corps of Engineers, the federal agency primarily responsible for building levees on the Mississippi, in spite of the agency's requests for more money. Former U.S. Congressman Bob Livingston, who represented the suburbs surrounding New Orleans for two decades, had his own take on who should get the blame. Livingston told NEWSWEEK that regional rivalries prevented more federal money flowing to the levees in the lower Mississippi. He added that "environmentalists who didn't want to build levees so we can live like Indians did with the buffalo roaming" also thwarted building bigger and better levees.
State and local governments could have made up the difference by issuing municipal bonds. There's a simple reason why the federal government gives buyers of bonds issued by state and local governments massive tax breaks (they are free from federal, state and local taxes). The object is to promote the building of infrastructure, like roads, bridges and yes, when the Feds can't provide all the funding, local levees.
In the coming weeks and months, you'll be hearing a lot about how municipal bonds will rebuild the infrastructure of New Orleans and the entire area affected by Hurricane Katrina. Just last Friday, NEWSWEEK reported the opening salvo. The state treasurer told a Wall Street rating agency about very tentative plans for a massive municipal bond offering to spur the rebuilding of roads bridges and I presume, better levees. Better late than never.
© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.
© 2005 MSNBC.com
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9232666/site/newsweek/[/quote]
@Chief
My anger is focused at the Federal level. Political bias? Probably.
But, here's my thinking...
Could have state and local prepared better and responded better? No question.
Did every model, even those that premised perfect state and local preparation and response, still dictate need for a much better federal response than received? Absolutely.
It's a chain of command and accountability issue. I'm seeing poor command at the top and zero accountability.
Uh huh
New Orleans is known for its inept, and at times corrupt local officials. From the 1950s to the 1970s, Leander Perez ran a notoriously corrupt political machine in Plaquemines Parish...
Last edited: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 at 10:36:15 AM
The term "Preparedness and Emergency Relief Auditor" is one that I think fits the federal government.
All the squawking by the White House press corps?
"...never, ever waste valuable energy and time analyzing failure and assigning blame while people are still in danger."
Last edited: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 at 11:21:03 AM
"...never, ever waste valuable energy and time analyzing failure and assigning blame while people are still in danger."
Think of the countless lives lost because Scott McClellan was behind a microphone instead of piloting a helicopter. Come on -- shouldn't this administration be able to do two things at once?
You gotta admit McClellan's got the equivalent of the drive-thru job up in DC......
Speaking of which - another gem for the ages.
(Before I post - I probably need to eat some crow regarding mainstream media coverage of the bureacracy thing. But then again - hell for all we know Fo Fo is an MSNBC editor.....)
;)
Anyways - here goes:
Governors appalled, galvanized by response
Chief execs fear that in next disaster bungling could plague their states
The Associated Press
Updated: 5:41 p.m. ET Sept. 7, 2005
WASHINGTON - No strangers to bureaucratic bungling and turf wars, the nation’s governors watched in horror as government agencies handled Hurricane Katrina with glaring incompetence — and now worry that the next disaster could deal their states the same ugly fate.
The fear is bipartisan. Republican and Democratic governors agree that the response to Katrina was deplorable, and many ordered reviews of their own state emergency strategies to root out problems they’re witnessing in the Gulf Coast.
Their top priority: Avoid the bureaucratic red tape that tripped up state, local and federal authorities at every step of the Gulf Coast crisis. Thousands of lives may be at stake after the next natural disaster or terrorist strike.
“Every one of those government levels could have done better,” said Colorado Gov. Bill Owens, a Republican. “The great thing about this country is we usually learn from these tragedies. There is some accountability. Some heads will roll.”
“This certainly gives me great pause,” said Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat. “We have to look at emergency response in a new light with the lapses down there.”
A dozen governors were interviewed for this story, and most had a bureaucratic horror story about Hurricane Katrina.
‘It rained people on us’
In Arkansas, state officials were first told to expect 300 evacuees. Nobody came. Then the state was told to prepare 4,000 meals for a fleet of buses. No buses arrived. Suddenly, in the wee hours of Sunday, more than 9,000 refugees showed up at a National Guard post. “It rained people on us,” said Gov. Mike Huckabee, a Republican.
In West Virginia, Gov. Joe Manchin dispatched several planes to the South to ferry refugees to his state. Most of the aircraft sat empty until he ordered them back home in frustration. “The waste that goes on because of a lack of coordination... ,” he said. Too angry to finish that sentence, Manchin spit out a new one: “To bring five planes back empty is a crying shame.”
In New Mexico, Gov. Bill Richardson said he authorized National Guard troops to leave for New Orleans early last week, but paperwork delayed their departure for days.
While Democrats were a bit more likely to blame President Bush and Republicans tended to question the actions of Democratic leaders in Louisiana, the governors as a whole were far less partisan than politicians in Washington.
Failure from top to bottom
From top to bottom, all forms of government failed Katrina’s victims, they said.
“I think it’s unfair to blame President Bush here,” said Richardson, a Democrat who is mulling a presidential bid in 2008. “What I would blame is the bureaucratic red tape throughout the system that is out of control with little credibility and way too turf-conscious. Rather than point fingers in blame, the state and the federal governments need to develop a new emergency system.”
Why isn’t one already in place? It’s been nearly four years since the Sept. 11 attacks, which buoyed Bush in political terms and temporarily united both parties behind a promise to protect the nation from the next calamity. Together, Democrats and Republicans created the Homeland Security Department — an enormous, clumsy bureaucracy responsible for handling natural disasters and terrorist attacks.
“What is potentially harmful about this whole situation is that people lose faith in the fact that the government can be a protector,” said Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat. “I’m hopeful that we can use this as an opportunity to demand more of government.”
Spurred to action by Katrina
Taking a lesson from New Orleans, Sebelius ordered state emergency planners to identify residents of Kansas’ major cities who would be unable to evacuate after a terrorist strike or natural disaster, whether due to a physical handicap or lack of transportation.
Republican Gov. Matt Blunt of Missouri said it’s a good time to review how state and federal governments would coordinate emergency efforts in the wake of an earthquake along the New Madrid fault, a looming danger that draws little attention outside the region. Democratic Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa, a potential presidential candidate in 2008, raised a rare partisan note, taking a soft jab at the Bush administration. “Some anguish could have been avoided and I think it’s the job of the federal government to make sure this never happens again,” he said.
Nobody got the job done. While Bush and New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani showed true leadership four years ago, several governors said, Katrina’s deadly winds produced no political heroes.
“However it was supposed to work, it didn’t,” Manchin said from West Virginia. “I don’t know if it’s a territorial thing, which we all deal with as governors; everybody hunkers down and protects their turf, and somebody has to cut through that for the people’s sake.”
“Clearly, nobody did that on Katrina,” he said. “Nobody led.”
© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
© 2005 MSNBC.com
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9244376/[/quote]
Wasn't it on the radar the whole time?
The "answer-our-questions-while-you-fix-the-problem!"
About as much fun as watching Nancy Pelosi.
How about this one for political angles while suffering goes on. From a Democratic blog:
"Notice how Bush, et al., are shipping evacuees from New Orleans et environs to Texas? It practically amounts to gerrymandering of a sort. Since many, if not most, of the evacuees -- certainly mostly Democratic voters -- will remain in Texas, get jobs and homes, and never return to the Big Easy, Louisiana, a purple state (Clinton '92 and '96, Bush '00 and '04) becomes redder, and Texas, a huge very red state, gains yet more population while turning only slightly less red.
Is it possible these effects are the result of deliberate design on the part of the White House political office and, namely, one Karl Rove? Otherwise, why wouldn't they be evacuating people to Memphis in purple Tennessee? Or Little Rock in purple Arkansas?"
It's Karl Rove! He's been seeding clouds in the Gulf! To rig the voting in Texas!
At some point, ideology drops back and the bare problem that needs resolving is completely visible. Unless someone shows up and lights a fire. Who's smoking now?
But leave it...
Breakee, breakee, Chef.
Last edited: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 at 4:45:48 PM
^ I hear you. Homeward bound........
Bumped for da Ho's perusal.
HARpers.org/ExcerptNoneDare.html
SANKS.
@ Flea
I actually have no issue with doing whatever it takes to prevent another terrorist attack - whether it be in the US, UK, Australia, where ever.
@ All
I also find it interesting that a great number of the banners in Cindy's march on Saturday were for the communist and socialist parties - right up front with the bigwig marchers (got the newspaper right here.....)
@ Rabby
You ain't right.
@ Flea
"Would that also include gasoline and oil conservation? Cause I can almost imagine a muslim cleric in a mideast country saying something very similar. "
I am missing your point...
Just curious…with recent high profile cases involving bungles, botches, or outright crimes perpetrated by your boys Brown, Delay, Frist, Abramoff, Bush and Rove, is it safe to assume your republican revolution is really more of a morally bankrupt, corrupt, incompetent, greed mongering pageant more closely akin to a failed business like Enron or Worldcom, then say…oh, an enhanced modern democracy?
Is this the republican revolution you’ve all been promising us? A return to moral values? …and economic prosperity???
You really prefer this vision? You really think this is the right direction? Is this perhaps the most bungled, botched, and undemocratic administration of all times? Your guys finally get the reigns…all of the reigns…and all we have to show for it is one debacle after the next.
Could it be….that business interests and public interests aren’t always the same thing? That a government isn’t a business after all? That not everything must be evaluated by the tenets of the market?
And isn’t it obvious that republican failure to understand this is exemplified by this administration’s almost innumerable fuck ups? I say fuck ups…but, things are working out for certain segments of society…isn’t that right? Wink wink to the rich!(chief) nudge nudge to the fundamentalists! (JJ).
Exactly what was the point of your “revolution” for the rest of us…I’d like to know.
I do know this: that the gap between rich and poor has increased. That for three years in a row, the number of people in the US living below the poverty line has increased, that wages have not kept up with inflation, that this government is the biggest spender since LBJ's administration, that we’re losing on average 3 soldiers a day in Iraq with no sign of an end to it, that consumer confidence is at a 15 year low, that fuel costs are skyrocketing, that we have a tremendous trade imbalance and record deficits. Yeah, there were catastrophes…but a government can be evaluated by how well it responded to them…
So, is this what you’ve been promising? And in 2006, and 2008, can we expect more of the same?
Or following that logic...maybe your revolution was really just another name for a war on the poor and middle class, science, civil liberties, education and the environment.
Well, in that case, your revolution is winning. Congrats.
Last edited: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 at 4:00:27 PM
^Revolution? Gimme a break... Why do I continue to read crap? I guess that's why I watched the evening news with Dan Rather. I guess why that's why we watch soap operas. I guess that is why some people watch WWF. Hmm... I am no better than all the other morons out there. Call me a crap addict.
Btw I never watch tv unless it pertains to certain sports, history, science or a "good" movie(very few and far between). God help us all.... ;)
<--------eating crow....for now. Pass the butter.
Yo Stinky! Long time no see.
For the record, I am by no means "rich". I suppose it's all objective, but statistically I am solidly middle class.
You can't see it, but I have a blank stare on my face. I'm lost. Iraq notwithstanding, I'm trying to think of any profile legislation that has been passed in the last 5 years that had an impact on the topics on your next to last paragraph.
(We agree on the spending thing by the way).
Hope all's well with you.
Define middle class! Define "solidly." legislation?
What about tax policy? What about unfunded mandates? Legislation...doesn't apply to government spending increases. Yet spending has increased dramatically. The gap between the rich and poor...hasn't been legislated, but then again, it hasn't been...addressed. Like...at all. And yet, there it is. Sky-rocketing fuel costs...same thing. No-brainer. There has been legislation which has weakened environmental protection. There has been legislation which has restricted civil liberties. Point was, this administration's pro-corporate approach to governing has harmed the middle class and lower classes (as a whole) but its been making the rich that much richer, and the zealots, that much wing-nuttier. The larger point was: these guys are colossal failures to the majority of the country...and my question to you was...is this what you had in mind when you envisioned a republican revolution?
I'm assuming it wasn't.
And I'm great, thanks for asking. You?
I'll get you my pretty, and your little dog too!
I can't tell if I should be surprised or not. Someone help me out.
I wouldn't be surprised by this, Prof. It just is another example of the kind of power grabbing methods Bush uses.
The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 bans the military from participating in police-type activity on U.S. Soil.
But Dr. Irwin Redlener, associate dean of Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health and director of its National Center for Disaster Preparedness, told The Associated Press the president's suggestion was dangerous.
(from your link)
Dangerous, hell yeah! Remove that barrier from the military, install the right kind of megalomaniac as President, and we'll all be moaning and whining. It's a good example of what stink referred to...
Just another name for a war on the poor and middle class, science, civil liberties , education and the environment.
On the other hand, wasn't the complaint that too many military forces were in Iraq and not helping Katrina victims?
Make up your minds.
: :
Edit comment:
BUMP
So how does Kanye West's comment "George Bush doesn't care about black people." compare with the “The Book of Virtues" authors Bill Bennett saying "But I do know that it’s true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down.”
I bet he's one of W's bestest buddies. Probably going to the Supreme Court next.
{WalMart free for over 24 months!}
Uh, how do they compare? I'll take a stab at that...they're both...true???
Is that the answer?
And there I was thinkin that bennett was against abortion....
R u stinkfingers? If ur not then who are you?
^^ Don't know about you Stink, but retroactive birth control would be something I could get on board with.
{WalMart free for over 24 months!}
Bennett's remarks, as ill-conceived as they were, were taken hilariously out of context.
Catch up.
Taking bets here on whether Rove get a "special letter."
Oh, Chief, I am feeling the urge to be philosophical...
From Jeff Goldstein .
Follow the link to Franke-Ruta.
Then enjoy Jonah Goldberg's response to it.
Hee-haw
P.S. I throw in this too.
Last edited: Thursday, October 06, 2005 at 11:06:18 PM
@ stinky
Doing pretty well. Have been quite busy.
@ Prof
As long as you don't choke your chicken you should be okay.
@ Prof, LGM, Flea (sorta), and stinky (just for the hell of it)
Bush federalizing the Nat'l Guard accomplashes the same goal and circumvents Posse Comitatus. The "high water vehicles" are actually transport trucks. Didn't matter if they had a thousand of them - they didn't use what they had to begin with until public opinion swung against them.
BTW - "Kanye West doesn't care about black people." CNN here I come!
@ Ice Dawg
No - that is not Stinkfingers. That, my friend, is the Stinkmeister. While ideaologically confused, he is really a good guy and a hell of an intellectual. Should you decide to travel to his temple in the Orient seeking wisdom, you would be well advised to pack a couple of fish tacos. He may even share his secret of "scrum Zen" with you, "grasshopper."
@ JJ
I would bet you but I am still crapping feathers from the crow Flea served up to me a few days ago. Seems like the only one I can bet and win with is Fo Fo.
And if it weren't Bennett it would be someone else. At times the Democratic party reminds one of the paparazzi after the Republican movie stars.......
Bennett's remarks, as ill-conceived as they were, were taken hilariously out of context.
@JJ
Enlighten me. Provide a context which makes Bennett's statement less offensive. While you're at it, tell me why it's hilarious, too.
Lastly, have you cooled down about Miers yet? Or are you still hopping mad? You got sold out....again.
@IceDawg
Earlier this year, Stinkfingers was killed in a freak car accident in the parking lot of a Japanese grocery store -- he bumped his little car into a shopping cart and was crushed. Tragic.
Thereby the "over and out" thing.
His spirit lives on....and I would imagine it's scaring the hell out of his neighbors.
Said a mouthful there JJ. The Republican party has deep roots of racism. I'd classify your retort as definite proof that it is a taproot. Some of the outer leaves may have been pulled off put it still lives. Personally I'd be tempted to delete that post or change my name. But I'm just a bleeding-heart liberal...
{WalMart free for over 24 months!}
:)
Dunno why anyone is getting their panties in a wad about this bennett thing. Isn't it just par for the course? Haven't we covered this ground before?
My reply to flea: but they are both (at least partly) true: abort every white baby and the crime rate goes down also. Bush doesn't care about black people...well, he doesn't care about poor people. So, it kinda follows he doesn't care about a large percentage of blacks. Don't take it personally. Its a GOP thing.
Bennett just said what many people in america think but wouldn't dare say. On a scale of outrage its far less outrageous to say something like that than to do some of the things coming out in more recent GOP scandals, blunders and botches. Djs in hate radio land say that crap all the time. Don't take it personally. Its a GOP thing.
What is more telling to me is that these wingnuts think that the political climate has changed in their favor. And it hasn't. Sorry GOP, but overt racism still doesn't play in the mainstream. Sorry Wing-nuts, you don't get a bull goose looney into the supreme court because the american public aren't ready for your backward ass ideas. You guys got your imbecile in chief into the whitehouse twice (primarily through nefarious means) but it doesn't mean anyone really likes him (see recent polls). Its more because the democrats are limp dicks of unparalleled limpness.
No one answered my GD question from way up there ^^^^^^ though. Is this the republican revolution you were all talking about? Because I'm not seeing any brave new ideas. Just a lot of incompetence, cronyism, failure, nastiness, greed and shitty economics. Or is that what you had in mind?
"It is absolutely hypocritical of people who call themselves pro-choice to criticize William Bennett for his comment when they have been pushing abortion down the throats of the black communities for years. If a news agency plays only a part of Bennett's speech to paint him as a racist, it is a desperate attempt to fan the flames of racial uneasiness in this nation at the expense of black children. Bennett stated that it is 'morally reprehensible' to abort black babies to reduce crime and that statement was ignored. What is also ignored is the fact that Planned Parenthood, following the agenda of its racist founder, Margaret Sanger, does consider aborting blacks to be helpful to society. Which is worse, one who talks about the wrongness of aborting black babies or the one who aborts black babies?" --Rev. Dr. Johnny M. Hunter, DD, National Director of the Life Education and Resource Network, L.E.A.R.N., the nation's largest African-American pro-life group
Rabbid, come on now. Could you please summarize that for us in an intelligent way, and give us an opinion of your own?
I bet you can't.
See, you want it both ways. I give you a quote that counters what the media is playing concerning Bennett's remarks and you want to disregard it since it doesn't fit within what you want to think about Bennett. If I give you an opinion, then you want sources and whatnot to back it up since I'm just talking. Summarize? Can't you read and understand Hunter's remarks yourself?
Basically Hunter is defending Bennett's comments because he knows Bennett was speaking hypothetically and not sharing a personal belief. He's castigating the media for intentionally leaving out Bennett's description of the hypothetical as being "morally reprehensible" and attempting to paint him as a racist. He then goes on to point out the Planned Parenthood, following their founder's agenda, considers aborting black babies good for society and that it is hypocritical to jump on Bennett's misconstrued comments while supporting the practice of Planned Parenthood.
Hmm, opinion on my own...the media is once again trying to tarnish someone's reputation and discredit their message by distorting that message and you're being smugly obtuse.
And whatever happened to don't attack the messenger and listen to the message? (see Sheenan).
Oh, ok, I'll read the links to you. Gather round. Daddy JJ is going to read to you.
David Cohen explains it in the Wash Post:
Actually, it is Reid and the others who should apologize to Bennett. They were condemning and attempting to silence a public intellectual for a reference to a theory. It was not a proposal and not a recommendation -- nothing more than a possible explanation. But the Democrats preferred to pander to an audience that either had heard Bennett's remarks out of context, or merely thought that any time conservatives talk about race, they are being racist. The Democrats' obligation as politicians, as public officials, to see that we all hear the widest and richest diversity of views was suspended in favor of partisan cheap shots.
The trouble is lefties like Franke-Ruta don't get it. She wants to make political hay??!!
OUTRAGE VERSUS CLEVERNESS. One of the reasons the left has such a difficult time moving public opinion is that, all too often, it reacts with cleverness to situations where outrage would be a more appropriate response. Bill Bennett yesterday offered left bloggers a golden opportunity to make political hay, and what do we have? The spectacle of them explaining his remarks away in order to prove... What exactly?
Then there are those on the left who object to Franke-Ruta's style and still keep things in context, like leftie Brad Delong:
Bill Bennett is a hypocrite, a loathsome fungus on the tree of American politics, a man who has worked unceasingly to make America a worse place--when he's not publishing the work of others under his own name, or rolling the dice at Las Vegas while claiming that America's poor would be rich if only they had the righteousness and moral fiber than he does.
But Bill Bennett is not afflicted with genocidal fantasies about ethnically cleansing African-Americans. The claim that he is is completely, totally wrong.
Then Jonah Goldberg points out the real problems of Franke-Ruta at Tapped:
The upshot of Franke-Ruta's position seems to be that deliberately distorting Bill Bennett's intent and meaning is a small price to pay to villify him unfairly...
And if you haven't heard of a "silly book called Freakonomics" then all this won't matter to you anyway. And I am not explaining it to you. Instead, go look up the word "context".
Ok, here's a hint. "...as a reductio ad absurdum showing that all such extremist extrapolations are ridiculous and tend to be morally reprehensible."
All this brings us merrily to a current tread of thought for the Democrats.
Captain Carville, Hard Right Rudder NOW!!!
The Captain on the right thinks it may be too late...
Can I get a Blog Roll!!!!!
Last edited: Friday, October 07, 2005 at 3:59:11 PM
{WalMart free for over 24 months!}
BTW Chief, I just thought you were being silly when you remarked;
For the life of me I am trying to figure out why people hate Christians and Christianity so much.
Please feel free to point one out for me and I'll give you my real call on that.
It's a fairly well defined term and I can tell you I haven't seen one here.
{WalMart free for over 24 months!}
As long as it makes sense to you JJ...
The whack-jops at the political extremes are trying to debate what WB "really" meant with his obvious racist statement 44.
WB was prompted by comment by a fellow pro-life zealot during an on the air radio show. In trying to counter an even more over the top comment WB showed his bigotry.
The ridiculousness of it is trying to make something logical out of a totally irrational statement.
What these whacks are really proving is that a women's reproductive decisions should be left to her.
I know I don't want to stand on the moral high ground Bennett is on. The racist creep.
{WalMart free for over 24 months!}
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/shame.mov
shaaaame. Baaaaaaah.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/10/08.html#a5277
Maher is on fiya. JJ, you's crazay. There actually are lifeboats on your ship, btw...
Last edited: Saturday, October 08, 2005 at 10:30:26 AM
This is just so obvious I just HAD to point this out. This is taken from the "hard right rudder" link posted above by "da JJ":
Since Kerry's defeat, some Democrats have urged that the party adopt a political strategy more like one pursued by Bush and his senior adviser, Karl Rove -- which emphasized robust turnout of the party base rather than relentless, Clinton-style tending to "swing voters."
But Galston and Kamarck, both of whom served in the Clinton White House, said there are simply not enough left-leaning voters to make this a workable strategy . In one of their more potentially controversial findings, the authors argue that the rising numbers and influence of well-educated, socially liberal voters in the Democratic Party are pulling the party further from most Americans.
Gee.....you think maybe they picked up on the "there are simply not enough left-leaning voters to make this a workable strategy" factoid when the Dems started losing elections?
@ Flea
I need to go and find what caused me to say that - may be tonight doing it (leaving work in a few).
@ JJ
You're a helluva mariner....
Thankee, Skipper.
Too good to pass up mentioning these two:
Second, can you believe that Howard Dean is still around after this hoof in mouth on MSNBC. I heard it. I heard it and I still don't believe it.
Howard is asked, "Will Bush hide Harriet Miers views behind executive privilege?"
DEAN: Well, certainly the president can claim executive privilege. But in the this case, I think with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, you can't play, you know, hide the salami , or whatever it's called. He's got to go out there and say something about this woman who's going to a 20 or 30-year appointment, a 20 or 30-year appointment to influence America. We deserve to know something about her.
Think he lost the Aussie vote anyway.
@ Bennett, the ill-conceived part of his quote was not qualifying his repeat of the Freakonomics theory at all . Just, I admit, dumb. He should have said white babies. Since statistics would have stood him better. But never mind, let the wind fill the sails and let us, as a nation, sail on and leave the flotsam float.
Last edited: Saturday, October 08, 2005 at 8:06:36 PM
Hide the salami = abort black babies
(if you're keeping score at home.)
@JJ
What is it with you and other right neocons that you keep trying to tie 2 unrelated events into a conclusion that has nothing to do with either one?
Know what will reduce crime? Some logical thinking to address the causes.
But maybe it's because the sky is blue. No, it's because grass is green. Let's stop watering it an kill all the grass.
Or maybe Bennett's a bigot. Oh wait... That one is true...
{WalMart free for over 24 months!}
Trying to tie 2 unrelated events into a conclusion
In the context of Bill Bennett's comments what is the meaning of his conclusion: "So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky."? Please don't spew the party line, read the full context of the original interchange between Bill and the Caller, and draw your own conclusions.
But you probably won't. So I will paraphrase my take.
Caller: Hey stop abortion because it's killing social security.
Bennett: I read a book that says we should keep abortion 'cause it's lowering crime.
Caller: I don't agree.
Bennett: Neither do I, but your argument is just as stupid.
Meh, that's how I read it in context and it ironically dovetailed well with flea's comments... Do I get the `tally ho independent thinker` award, even if I didn't come to the same conclusion as the ho?
Meanwhile, in other parts of the world:
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/09/D8D4HSV80.html
http://reuters.myway.com/article/20051009/2005-10-09T070953Z_01_DIT752882_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-WEATHER-STAN-DC.html
Well, I heard the radio segment, saw him repeat what he said on TV, and read the transcript. Let me paraphrase it correctly for you and include exactly what he said.
Caller: I don't really trust or understand the arguments for or against abortions.
Bennett: Neither do I.
But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.
Fleabiscuit: Racist ass!
What is it with you and other right neocons that you keep trying to tie 2 unrelated events into a conclusion that has nothing to do with either one?
Crawl back under your rock.
BTW; feel free to quote me out of context.
{WalMart free for over 24 months!}
Last edited: Sunday, October 09, 2005 at 5:52:42 PM
Yeeeeeeeep, that's right. It ain't over 'til the fat lady has sung...and waffles are served for all.
First up - Social Security.
I bring you the following from an email I rec'd earlier today. Slightly partisan, but I though "What the hey...what's not lately?"
SO:
Subject: Social Security
We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like
a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the
handle.--Winston Churchill
SOCIAL SECURITY:
Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the
Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
1.) That participation in the Program would be
completely voluntary,
2.) That the participants would only have to pay
1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into
the Program,
3.) That the money the participants elected to
put into the Program would be deductible from their
income for tax purposes each year,
4.) That the money the participants put into the
independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the
General operating fund, and therefore, would only be
used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program,
and no other Government program, and,
5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees
would never be taxed as income.
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and
are now receiving a Social Security check every
month -- and then finding that we are getting taxed
on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal
government to "put away," you may be interested in
the following:
Q: Which Political Party took Social Security from
the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the
General fund so that Congress could spend it?
A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the
Democratically-controlled House and Senate.
Q: Which Political Party eliminated the income tax
deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
A: The Democratic Party.
Q: Which Political Party started taxing Social
Security annuities?
A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
"tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the
Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.
Q: Which Political Party decided to start giving
annuity payments to immigrants?
MY FAVORITE :
A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic
Party. Immigrants moved into this country, and at
age 65, began to receive SSI Social Security
payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments
to them, even though they never paid a dime into it!
Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and
violation of the original contract (FICA), the
Democrats turn around and tell you that the
Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens
believe it!
I haven't had a chance to fact check yet - I'm sure someone will. I deleted the "pass this on" part of the email.
Well? Agree? Disagree?