Ten Against Patriot Act Reauthorization

When Senator Russ Feingold opposed the original version of the Patriot Act in 2001, the Wisconsin Democrat was alone in his defense of the Constitution.

This year, as Feingold led the frustrating fight to block reauthorization of the Patriot Act in a form that continues to threaten basic liberties, he left no doubt that he was entirely willing to stand alone once more. To colleagues who suggested that it was appropriate to trade a little liberty for the White House's promise of more security in the war on terror, the senator declared: "Without freedom, we are not America. If we don't preserve our liberties, we cannot win this war, no matter how many terrorists we capture or kill."

When the key vote came Thursday, Feingold found he was not entirely alone. Along with Vermont Independent Jim Jeffords, eight Democrats joined Feingold in voting "no" to reauthorization. The eight were:

Hawaii's Daniel Akaka

New Mexico's Jeff Bingaman

West Virginia's Robert Byrd

Iowa's Tom Harkin

Vermont's Patrick Leahy

Michigan's Carl Levin

Washington's Patty Murray

Oregon's Ron Wyden.

While Feingold was not on his own this time, the vote was still lopsided -- 89-10 to renew and extend expiring portions of the Patriot Act, with Hawaii Democrat Dan Inouye not voting. Despite earlier talk by many members of both parties about the need to stand firm in defense of basic Constitutional protections, all Republicans and the vast majority of Senate Democrats sided with the Bush White House in favor of legislation that still, among other things, permits an administration with a penchant for warrantless wireatpping to obtain secret orders allowing it to search private records held by libraries, medical clinics, businesses and financial institutions.

The Patriot Act reauthorization also allows government agencies to issue national-security letters, which are for all practical purposes subpoenas, without the approval of the courts.

The increasingly lamentable Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, chirped that, "Our support for the Patriot Act does not mean a blank check for the president."

Reid was, of course, wrong.

One senator who got it right was the dean of the chamber, West Virginia's Byrd, who not only voted against resuthorization but also apologized for failing to join Feingold in 2001 to oppose the Patriot Act in its original form

"There is no doubt that constitutional freedoms will never be abolished in one fell swoop, for the American people cherish their freedoms, and would not tolerate such a loss if they could perceive it," explained Byrd. "But the erosion of freedom rarely comes as an all-out frontal assault but rather as a gradual, noxious creeping, cloaked in secrecy, and glossed over by reassurances of greater security."

Comments (101)

1. Rapid conservatives --- at once clownish and very dangerous ---are "radical losers", pathetically tilting against the tidal wave of modernity, pluralistic tolerance and secularism.

   The story below about Mohammed Bouyeri --- a conservaClown right-winger and radical loser --- speaks volumes about the depravity of right-wing ideology and its relationship to McVieghish violence and intolerance. By contrast, there is another story embedded within this one: this story concerns the right-wing grunt's sister, who availed herself of the GLORIES OF ENLIGTENMENT LIBERALISM IN ITS LONG SWEEP THROUGH HISTORY and is in touch with her humanity and potentiality for it.

   This story (reproduced from Ian Baruma, UK Guardian, 25-II-2006) also illimunates why we better hope and --- if so inclinced, in private --- pray that liberalism gets its full intellectual and moral force assembled in practice throughout the Islam belt, sooner rather than later.

   Pardon the length, I trust the content will reward your reading on...

   The German writer Hans Magnus Enzensberger recently wrote a brilliant essay about "the radical loser", the kind of person, usually a young man, who feels victimised by the entire world, and hates himself as much as the forces that oppress him. These men are walking time bombs. Anything can set them off, a social snub, the loss of a job. And the explosion will usually kill the bomber as well as his enemies. Circumstances dictate to some extent who the enemies are, but the categories tend to be limited. As Enzensberger says, the "usual suspects are foreigners, secret services, communists, Americans, big corporations, politicians, unbelievers. And, almost always, the Jews."

   ...(Recall) a very recent story: the murder in Amsterdam of the Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh. His killer, Mohammed Bouyeri, was born in Holland, though his parents were from Morocco. As a teenager he tried to conform to the culture of his native city. He got drunk, smoked dope, and tried to seduce Dutch girls. After all, everything in the culture, from pop music to TV commercials, promises sex. This is a world away from home, where the saintly mother and virginal sisters must be protected from lustful eyes.

   But things began to go wrong for Mohammed. The Dutch girls were not as easy as he thought. He lost interest in his studies. Subsidies for this and that failed to materialise. There were nasty brushes with the police. And his sister got a boyfriend. This enraged Mohammed. He felt dishonoured, useless, excluded. He was, in short, a radical loser, and Islamism promised righteous murder, martyrdom, and the feeling, however fleeting, of total power.

   The reason Van Gogh became Mohammed's target was a short film he made with the Somali-born politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who wrote the script. The film, Submission, showed Koranic texts projected on to the half-naked bodies of veiled women who had been abused by men. Hirsi Ali blames Islam for the sexual subjugation of women and the misguided and frustrated machismo of men. Her take on secular European society is the exact opposite of Mohammed's. Where she sees liberation - above all, sexual liberation - he sees dishonour, decadence, filth and confusion. The freedom of living in Holland allowed her to flourish, while it made him feel small and hateful. And that is why he wanted to destroy her, and with her the civilisation that made him feel like a radical loser.

   Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 03/03/2006 @ 08:28am

2. As Eric/MALCONTENT astutely pointed out at the end of the last thread, central to the glories of ENLIGTENEMENT LIBERALISM is its property of being rational and self-correcting. That is why the radical loser conservatives are strange and primitive creatures, stubornly enveloped in a time warp from another century as they stick bags over women's heads or lawlessly invade other nations to coerce the subject people and seize their resources, using threats and force as self-reflexive reason has failed them.

   LIBERALISM --- The Way, The Answer, The Truth.

   Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 03/03/2006 @ 08:34am

3. GLENN

   34 Democrats voted FOR the re-authorization. Why do you keep talking about "radical loser CONSERVATIVES"?

   Only 10 "enlightened liberals" in the WHOLE U.S. Senate? Or are there more, they're just political cowards?

   Keep talking about the religion, but when 80% of the "priests" aren't willing to stand up for "Church" doctrine....you can't keep blaming the "Satanists"!

   Posted by Mask at 03/03/2006 @ 08:38am

4. Here is an excerpt from a letter that Pauline Hickey presented to Tony Blair, printed in the UK Guardian on 2 March, regarding her son's death in Iraq.

   Normal human beings, touched by liberalism, will read this and feel empathy with the victims and revulsion toward the gangsters who unleashed the invasion. However, the ghoulish and grotesque radical loser, the illiberal conservaClown, will smugly and piously conclude that (like Mrs. Sheenan) Mrs. Hickey is merely a womb, a baby factory, whose function is to produce biomatter for the State's disposal in its backward illiberal campaigns at the behest of the "Great Men".

   Dear Prime Minister, Ref: Sgt Christian Ian Hickey of the 1st Battalion Coldstream Guards, who became 97th fatality of the Iraq conflict …Since the death of my son on October 2005, three days before his tour was to end, I have started to question why the invasion of Iraq occurred. My son's remit in Iraq was as a "peacekeeper", helping with the rebuilding of schools and the infrastructure, and training the Iraqi police to enable them to maintain stability in the future. At the time of his death, Chris was the platoon commander and was responsible for clearing a safe route for a large convoy. The Iraqi police have been implicated in the death of my son, from a roadside bomb. There will be no further investigation as they were spoken to, photographed and searched, then allowed to go as an Iraqi police service lieutenant colonel arrived and confirmed their identities. It makes nonsense of our involvement with them, as their own chief of police says that he can only trust 25% of his own men. This suggests that the remainder is made up of insurgents who would think nothing of killing coalition troops. My son was on foot patrol when the bomb exploded. This was to minimise casualties should they come in contact with an improvised explosive device. The only vehicles available to them were fibreglass Jeeps; there were no armoured Land Rovers. The British government had sent a consignment of armoured Land Rovers for the Iraqi police prior to my son's death. His commanding officer spoke out about this following my son's death, as he had requested the essential Land Rovers but was turned down on the basis that they were not suitable for the roads. Would the Iraqi police not have been using the same roads as the troops? I understand that your wife, Cherie Blair, has a government bulletproof vehicle. I would question who is at most risk: British troops in a war zone or your wife driving around London. Since the death of my son on October 2005, three days before his tour was to end, I have started to question why the invasion of Iraq occurred. My son's remit in Iraq was as a "peacekeeper", helping with the rebuilding of schools and the infrastructure, and training the Iraqi police to enable them to maintain stability in the future. At the time of his death, Chris was the platoon commander and was responsible for clearing a safe route for a large convoy. The Iraqi police have been implicated in the death of my son, from a roadside bomb. There will be no further investigation as they were spoken to, photographed and searched, then allowed to go as an Iraqi police service lieutenant colonel arrived and confirmed their identities. It makes nonsense of our involvement with them, as their own chief of police says that he can only trust 25% of his own men. This suggests that the remainder is made up of insurgents who would think nothing of killing coalition troops. …My son was on foot patrol when the bomb exploded. This was to minimise casualties should they come in contact with an improvised explosive device. The only vehicles available to them were fibreglass Jeeps; there were no armoured Land Rovers. The British government had sent a consignment of armoured Land Rovers for the Iraqi police prior to my son's death. His commanding officer spoke out about this following my son's death, as he had requested the essential Land Rovers but was turned down on the basis that they were not suitable for the roads. Would the Iraqi police not have been using the same roads as the troops? I understand that your wife, Cherie Blair, has a government bulletproof vehicle. I would question who is at most risk: British troops in a war zone or your wife driving …I would welcome the opportunity to meet you for such discussion. I personally find all forms of violence and aggression abhorrent. Conflict is rarely resolved though wars of aggression - negotiation is a much better tool to try to resolve issues. I am employed as a child protection social worker, and would be held accountable if a child was injured or died because I failed do my job adequately. There would be an inquiry. I accept this as part of my employment. However, if what I am reading about your involvement and the accusations in Philippe Sands' book are correct - and I note you are not in the process suing him - surely you too should be accountable for your actions, and there should be redress in the form of an inquiry at the very least. As far as I am aware, neither you nor any government representative has attended any of the soldiers' funerals or visited the many injured. (This was recently reported as 230, while in January 2005 the figure stood at 790. I am sure who does the figures, but perhaps they should be redeployed.) The true cost of this war in terms of wasted lives of both Iraqis and of coalition troops, and the true, undisclosed financial cost, far outweigh any gains. We cannot police the whole world because they do not agree with us or will not cooperate with us. I await your response with interest.

   Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 03/03/2006 @ 08:53am

5. MASK writes,

   Keep talking about the religion

   Actually, I keep talking about secularism. No doubt, there are some genuinely religious people who do not seek to impose their views and who make vast sacrifies for less fortunate people in part guided by spiritual convictions. Their example is their testimony.

   But I think that you and I know there are quite a few loudmouth fanatics who use religion as some kind of "trump card" to piously enforce their illiberal prejudices, cherry picking a sentence or two out of the a religious text (and trashing the rest) as they do so; religion as pretext, religion as excuse to fuck with other people's lives.

   Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 03/03/2006 @ 08:59am

6. Isn't the conceit of the current administration born ‘not' out of the misguided idea that our citizenry is a herd, but truly understands very clearly that we are individuals with all the variations and chaotic paths to logic and decision making that individuals have and knowing this, knows the only way to have us act as a herd is to manipulate-- lie, big time? In order for individuals to act as a herd the information has to be such that individual free thinkers draw the same conclusion, without room for doubt or variation, in the leader's proposed solution. To get that result the lie has to be big without contradictory information to fray the edges. Is it really that big a surprise that this administrative is unusually secretive, misleading, manipulative, arrogant, in need of power, and distrustful of it's marketed herd? And lastly, is it really that surprising so many are slow to call them on it-- isn't the responsibility of free thinkers having seen the box they've been placed in, to consider methodically whether to find another viable box, (not seeing that they already live in a bigger better box), before deciding to move on? There are lots of solutions to correcting the corrosion of lies, if there are lots of free thinkers.

   Posted by Bushfools at 03/03/2006 @ 09:09am

7. I think we are at a tipping point-- first 1, then 10, and soon 100.

   Posted by Bushfools at 03/03/2006 @ 09:19am

8. The story below about Mohammed Bouyeri --- a conservaClown right-winger and radical loser --- speaks volumes about the depravity of right-wing ideology and its relationship to McVieghish violence and intolerance. By contrast, there is another story embedded within this one: this story concerns the right-wing grunt's sister, who availed herself of the GLORIES OF ENLIGTENMENT LIBERALISM IN ITS LONG SWEEP THROUGH HISTORY and is in touch with her humanity and potentiality for it.

   This story (reproduced from Ian Baruma, UK Guardian, 25-II-2006) also illimunates why we better hope and --- if so inclinced, in private --- pray that liberalism gets its full intellectual and moral force assembled in practice throughout the Islam belt, sooner rather than later.

   Posted by GLENNC.LEMON 03/03/2006 @ 08:28am

   Glenn, let's not compare the likes of Mohammed Bouyeri with the Christian Conservative Right in the United States. Bouyeri and his friends are frustrated little children who will never be able to damage our system of justice, change our way of life or even seriously frighten us. I live in the heart of Amsterdam - the heart of Sin City. Our infamous Red Light District is only a few hundred yards from my home. We should be a prime target for a big terrorist attack. But I'm not worried. Not at all.

   And may I add that it was the death of Bouyeri's mother, more than anything else, that made him lose the plot. He isn't just a radical loser - he's also as human as the rest of us.

   On-topic: Bad, bad news. I fear for America.

   Posted by Amsterdam69 at 03/03/2006 @ 09:22am

9. Mask,

   The "priests" are representing their constituencies. And unfortunately many moderates and democrats have bought into the post-9/11 fear tactics, that anyone who doesn't support this particular Patriot Act has essentially summoned airplanes to fly into our buildings.

   The "enlightened" know this is not true. Most rational Americans know this is not true. But the fear tactics were and continue to be a powerful, successful tool for the Bush Administration. That and gay-bashing, but that's another topic...

   Posted by tkbe at 03/03/2006 @ 09:25am

10. any luck killing fear? maybe start with anxiety first - work way up to fear...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/03/2006 @ 09:40am

11. AMSTERDAM69,

    Hello to Sin City!

    Thank you for the additional info from your vantage point, close at hand to the sickening series of events. But I am sticking with my main plotline from this parable from real life; namely, in contrast with his sister, Bouyeri's conduct was illiberal in its origins (religious fanatacism) and its methods (crude and lethal force over rational dialogue or protest). Murder does not match the scale of terrorism (whether it is non-State or State terror) but increasingly, radical losers are consolidating a monopoly on the method, under various pretexts and banners, and normal people are caught in the crossfire ...

    Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 03/03/2006 @ 09:47am

12. Posted by BUSHFOOLS 03/03/2006 @ 09:19am | ignore this person

    15 Senate Democrats voted for the Bankruptcy Bill last year....28 did not (Sen. Clinton luckily missed the vote)....why wasn't the "tipping point" back then?

    Posted by Mask at 03/03/2006 @ 10:05am

13. Ibbleblibble,

    Killing fear. Maybe letting the voters see that their fear only takes away freedom and gives power to those who aren't delivering on promises to keep them safe and secure. Could it be that the Democrats actually have a sort of "give him enough rope to hang himself with" strategy here?

    Okay, you've got your Patriot Act, Mr. Bush. Now what about bin Laden, the failed war in Iraq, your inability to handle a domestic disaster, a sky-rocketing deficit, a warn out military, no immunizations for bird flu, etc. Patriot Act, Shmatriot Act, no one's delivering anything but fear.

    Posted by tkbe at 03/03/2006 @ 10:07am

14. Posted by TKBE 03/03/2006 @ 09:25am | ignore this person

    Not sure about who is or is not "enlightened"....but essentially you're right.

    My point was that GLENN seems to think that this is strictly a "radical loser conservative" thing, when you had 80% of the Senate Democrats supporting it too.

    Posted by Mask at 03/03/2006 @ 10:07am

15. Feingold supported S.1389, but opposed the bill that come out of the conference committee. What exactly were the differences between the bills?

    Posted by DRG9 at 03/03/2006 @ 10:14am

16. MASK writes,

    My point was that GLENN seems to think that this is strictly a "radical loser conservative" thing, when you had 80% of the Senate Democrats supporting it too.

    MASK is arguing with himself --- or, more drastic, attempting to put words in my mouth --- as I said nothing about the Pat-Act that Mr. Nichols discussed. As shocking and brazen as it may seem, I was going off topic and I have a hard time believing that MASK really failed to parse that.

    Posted by GlennC.Lemon at 03/03/2006 @ 10:45am

17. "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

    The Democrats are almost as bad, no they're worse than the Republicans, because the Dems know the right thing to do, and they're covering their political asses instead of doing what is best for this country. It's disgusting, and it's how Kerry lost the election (besides the campaign fraud). I'm so pissed and disappointed (although I'm not sure why I expected anything more from them).

    Posted by Turk33 at 03/03/2006 @ 10:56am

18. how unpatriotic of you ibble!

    did you not see the name of the act we're discussing here--the patriot act! how dare you point out that we're trying to kill fear. oh and u forgot, while u busy trying to kill fear, china busy buying world economy. china replace america as world bully.

    in case any of u haven't seen it yet:

    http://festival.sundance.org/2006/watch/film.aspx?which=402&category=DOC

    Posted by loveloki at 03/03/2006 @ 11:02am

19. It's been interesting to watch how Fear can be used by politicians, only to have it biting them in their asses when they least expect it. The hysteria that the Bush administration has fed about Islamic extremism (yes, yes, he told us that it's not about the religion even as Ashcroft was rounding up every bearded, brown-eyed man whose name had too many vowels) has served many well by ramming through such legislation as the Patriot Act and its renewal. At the same time, Bush's too cozy relationship with certain Arab countries is now viewed through the same Fearful lenses.

    It's not a pretty picture. Even when radical Islamists have helped shape the contours, we have colored it in using only pure black and pure white. We forget that gray occurs not only when black and white are mixed, but when all colors are mixed, theoretically at least. It's been a long time since our leaders have recognized that gray is actually a worthwhile and beautiful color.

    As for the enlightened, who are we talking about? The licked kittens I see preaching at me on Sunday morning talk shows seem to believe they have all the answers even as they accomplish nothing in reality. The problem is that those who have the power now believe themselves to know far more than they do. Jump on the I Hate Dubai Ports bandwagon before they have even located Dubai on a map. Toss out civil liberties protections because our freedoms mean nothing to them. Yet such rays of God's sunshine as our senators and representatives assure us they have thought things through and are fighting for all of us. At least for a moment, I can have good thoughts about 10 of these enlightened ones. For a brief moment anyway.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 03/03/2006 @ 11:06am

20. Yes, MASK, the other senators who did not take a stand withe 10 "enlightened" senators are cowards, through and through. If all our representatives were willing to take stands, the American public would be better off. If your only concern is reelection, and a large majority of our politicians are, then you are less concerned with your constituents and America and more about your political future. We need shorter term limits.

    Posted by k330k at 03/03/2006 @ 11:24am

21. Posted by GLENNC.LEMON 03/03/2006 @ 10:45am | ignore this person

    Gee, GLENN.....I'm sorry that I assumed you were actually discussing what Mr Nichols wrote in the very first response to it!

    Posted by Mask at 03/03/2006 @ 11:36am

22. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4769604.stm

    "They came in and read out an order. It said if you refuse to eat, we will put you on the chair [for force feeding]."

    He told how detainees were given "formulas" to force them to empty their bowels and were strapped to a metal chair three times a day, where a tube was inserted to administer food.

    "One guy, a Saudi, told me that he had once been tortured in Saudi Arabia and that this metal chair treatment was worse than any torture he had ever endured or could imagine," Mr Odah said.

    Mr Odah told the BBC that he felt like an old man despite being only 29.

    He described a regime where young military guards routinely beat detainees who caused problems.

    "If anything bad happens to the United States anywhere in the world, they immediately react to us and treat us badly, like animals," he said.

    "I'm always tired. I have pain in my kidneys. I have trouble breathing. I have pain in my heart and am short of breath. I have trouble urinating and having bowel movements.

    "Death in this situation is better than being alive and staying here without hope," Mr Odah added.

    Posted by Bushfools at 03/03/2006 @ 11:40am

23. It is amazing at how blinded that Bush's admin has us. No one bothers to read the news papers or follow the news report anymore because of fear that the media is being told what to say by Bush's officials. We must have faith not only in GOD but in publications like the Nation that give us an unbiased report on the going ons in our nation.

    Posted by jdavila at 03/03/2006 @ 11:42am

24. JDAVILA

    Here is an article that would interest you. I rarely do this but it is well worth the time.

    Myths the Beltway Journalists Peddle

    The White House Press Corps and journalists working the Capitol Hill beat are well versed in the ways of Washington. Yet, they also seem determined to keep the public in the dark about how our government works.

    When a Republican is president, they find it convenient to foster myths enabling negative conclusions to be drawn.

    The Beltway press corps has seen countless campaigns, wandered the corridors of powers, and observed how decisions are made and executed. While they may disdain real hunters (note their obsessiveness regarding the Cheney hunting accident and their focus on gun control), they do share a keen appreciation with them of the importance of knowing the lay of the land when they go hunting for their quarry (politicians). After all, journalists are experts at finding leakers, the suspect photo, the proverbial "smoking gun," the anomalous relationship or meeting, the disgruntled government employee ready to spill bile. They are magicians who can unravel a thread endlessly.

    Journalists routinely make incendiary attacks against Bush administration officials that generate a lot of heat and destruction, but scant light or information. Because the public is kept in the dark about certain mundane realities. Even worse, people rely on Hollywood to give us an idea about the practices and policies of government.

    The liberal biases of Hollywood and the need to make a movie "entertaining" result in a very cloudy, superficial and distorted view about the ways of Washington. For example, the movie Syriana shows the CIA operating in cahoots with oil companies to engineer succession (I think) in a fictional Arab nation. Conversations are elliptical, actions occur in dark places, and a general conspiratorial tenor persists throughout the movie. This genre of movie usually relied on a common set of tropes: big business conspiring with murky forces in the government to commit evil acts.

    The very first reporter-as-Republican-busting-hero movie, All the President's Men, gave far more credit than deserved to the journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein far uncovering Watergate. In reality, a variety of people played key roles in unraveling the scandal-among them Congressman and cooperative witnesses. There was far more reporting than just the investigating by Woodward and Bernstein. But this was one of those convenient myths the Beltway press is in no hurry to bust. Our journalists seem to do little better than scriptwriters in giving us a sense of how our government works for us and often craft a narrative that sometimes seems straight out of Hollywood.

    Here are several current myths the Beltway press pushes onto a gullible public.

    A plan is a serious indication of what might happen

    The aftermath of the Iraq War has lead to media attacks about the roads not taken. The criticism often takes the form of "If only Bush had followed or listened to ___ (fill in the blank with any of the ex-officials now making a fortune on book tours and the lecture circuit), we would have enjoyed a successful conclusion in Iraq by now. The tack is often to make it seem as if a binary decision was involved: Bush had two plans before him and consistently chose the wrong one.

    This scenario is foolish. Washington has as many plans floating around as Hollywood has scripts. The town is full of think tanks, agencies, departments, branches, divisions, ad hoc groups-all very busy making "plans" and charting scenarios. Most never see the light of day, are never shown the President, and are filed away in some filing cabinet-ready to be brought out as the political equivalent of hand grenades.

    A picture is worth a thousand words

    Sorry Kodak, no it is not, at least not always. While it may be an exaggeration to think that any John Q. Citizen can get his picture taken with a politician, it is probably not as difficult as many might be led to believe. Most political events have a "meet and greet" session that allows audience members to have a photo-taking opportunity with speakers. Attendees can wait in a "holding pen" until they are escorted for a quick snap with the celebrity-a very brief brush with fame.

    People can buy these pictures for wallpaper to bedeck their offices in order to impress clients. Journalists in DC know this, but seem to react with extreme agitation whenever a politician is found in the same frame as a disgraced figure. I am peripherally involved in politics and have had my picture taken with, among other, Rudy Giuliani and Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (arm in arm). Did they know who I was? No. Will they ever know who I am? Alas, no.

    Yet somehow George Bush is disgraced by being in the same picture as accused terror fundraiser Sami Al-Arian or lobbyist Jack Abramoff. In the Bush/Abramoff shot on a Newsweek cover, you might need glasses to spot Abramoff. He is the guy who is so far away from the President he looks like an elf. Close enough for journalistic work.

    Pictures may not lie, but they do not always tell the whole truth, either. They are certainly of little probative value – they do not prove anything. Journalists know this, yet continue to tar politicians with guilt by association. In a court of law, prosecutors are compelled to inform defense attorneys of mitigating circumstances or facts that might help defendants. In the court of public opinion, journalists feel no such responsibility.

    Presidential omniscience

    Press conferences have become abattoirs. Journalists come well-equipped to the battle, having developed a list of questions meant as much to score points among fellow reporters by embarrassing the politician, as they are intended to elicit information. Imagine yourself before the crowd of scalp-hunters: you have no idea what obscure questions await you (such as the ruler of one of the 200 plus nations out there). You are about to be ambushed by the howling and bleating multitude of reporters. Nevertheless, you soldier on, for you would be criticized if you avoided fielding questions. Mistakes are inevitable, malapropisms, momentary lapses of knowledge and stumbles are human and to be expected. After all, the fate of the free world rests on your shoulders. Journalists only have to concentrate on one thing: getting the gotcha moment.

    There is a related myth: that there must be something congenitally wrong with a President who does not read the daily papers. This criticism has been leveled against President Bush. Presumably, he should be reading the New York Times or the Washington Post to be a well-informed leader. This is absurd, of course. The President has many sources of information available to him in real time. They are of far greater import than day-old news (think of the situation room made famous in the television series West Wing). Every morning the President has on his desk a Presidential Daily Briefing that summarizes key news items of the day. Spending a couple of hours a day perusing the paper for old news would be a dereliction of duty.

    If the President is expected to read newspapers to get a sense for the pulse of the nation, he is unlikely to get an objective sense of this mood by reading the editorial pages of the major papers. After all, papers are run by people far more liberal in their orientation than the general population. If Bush needs to get a barometer of public attitudes, that is an area left to experts: Karl Rove or innumerable other professionals.

    Presidential omnipresence

    The Government is a Leviathan. Millions of people labor in thousands of federal agencies and departments. Can any President control all the levers of government and be held responsible for the acts of employees? Of course not. This would be beyond the capabilities of even a micro-manager like Jimmy Carter, who micromanaged the White House into a terminal state of decrepitude.

    Yes, delegations of power and responsibility are made, as they are in any modern corporation. Yes, mistakes in appointments can be made. There are certainly some grounds to believe that Mike Brown, former Federal Emergency Management Agency chief, was in over his head. However, the amount of abuse heaped on George Bush was clearly excessive and disproportionate, especially when compared to the gentle treatment given state (Democratic) officials.

    A more recent example of this willful unawareness is the failure of many in the media to explain the approval process behind the pending Dubai Ports World acquisition of terminal operations in several American ports. Critics have attacked Bush as if he had a hand in the approval process. Or alternatively (can he ever be seen to do anything right?) he should have had a hand but didn't bother himself.

    Wrong. The CFIUS is a multi-agency review panel that vets foreign investment in America for national security implications. It has done so in the past, involving other nations' (such as China's) purchase of port operations-with nary a whisper of criticism. As with those deals, proper procedures were followed. Yet Bush is attacked by political pundits and partisan journalists for not stopping the deal. Well there are thousands of decisions made every day by government officials-does anyone assume that Bush should be involved in those decisions. The right hand usually does not, indeed often cannot, tell the left hand what it is doing.

    Government officials have photographic memories

    Conservative government officials are not only expected to be omniscient and omnipresent but they are also expected to have photographic memories.

    The legend of President Johnson's ability to place names with faces, especially while campaigning, is enduring. Yet, little appreciated is that he had aides whispering in his ears the names of people he was approaching. This is because leaders, like the rest of us, can only retain so much information in their memory. Most people cannot recall the substance or details of conversations of a month ago. Journalists in DC should know that the typical politician must talk to dozens of people a day, passing in the hallways, in meetings, over lunches, on the phone.

    My personal political experience on Capitol Hill dealing with Congressmen has given me a deep appreciation of the demands of the office – juggling dozens of people a day and a myriad of issues. Journalists must witness this every day, yet somehow people such as Scooter Libby are supposed to remember the details of conversations from years ago. They ascribe sinister motives for his simple, and very human, inability to do so.

    The only sure way to capture conversations is to for people to wear wires and offices to be "bugged" (we know how well this worked for Richard Nixon). Such a Big Brother monitoring would have a very chilling effect on the free flow of ideas, especially when journalists can be all too keen to pull statements out of context to disparage people.

    Partisanship ends when one works for the people

    Early government reformers enacted civil service rules to help ensure that people who went to work for the government would put aside partisanship and work for the people. They were to concentrate on the tasks at hand and fulfill their job functions as they would be required to do if they worked in the "real world."

    During the Bush Presidency we have seen people who are fired or forced out (such as CIA employees) feeling free to express their ire for partisan purposes. They may be embittered employees, who are fired for incompetence or due to an overhaul of operations. Yet journalists rarely express any sense that vengeful motivation may cast doubt on the veracity of their claims.

    Joseph Wilson IV objected to Bush Administration policies, and instead of seeking redress in Congress, he sought solace in the New York Times. His partisanship became quite clear when he went to work as a paid consultant to John Kerry's campaign.

    The idea that former Presidents should be honorable and refrain from criticizing sitting Presidents has gone by the wayside, as Jimmy Carter has continued his meddling and damaging ways by continually attacking George Bush (most distastefully at the funeral of Coretta Scott King). Bill Clinton has also recently taken up the cudgels-no doubt to help enhance his wife's Presidential prospects.

    Criticism is the heart of a democracy, but the media thrives on attacking Bush officials for purported conflicts of interests and never examines any possible motivations that might tarnish or cast into doubt claims of Bush detractors.

    Admittedly, this is a very simplified version of the ecology of politics in Washington. When journalists compose a narrative of events, they all too infrequently omit the "methods behind the madness." Yet only by being aware of the constraints facing decision makers and leaders can the public fairly evaluate their performance. Leaders cannot have all the facts at their fingertips, they may find themselves in photos with people who are persona non grata, they are not God and cannot be at all places at all times, and they are far from perfect. Just like us.

    Ed Lasky is the News Editor of The AmericanThinker.

    Posted by CPT at 03/03/2006 @ 12:01pm

25. This is who America gave the autority to formulate our foreign policy. What a bunch of Sad Sacks.

    "I will meet with President Musharraf to discuss Pakistan's vital cooperation in the war on terror and our efforts to foster economic and political development so that we can reduce the appeal of radical Islam," Bush said. "I believe that a prosperous, democratic Pakistan will be a steadfast partner for America, a peaceful neighbor for India and a force for freedom and moderation in the Arab world."

    Later, White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters that Bush meant to say Pakistan would be a force for freedom and moderation in the Muslim world. Pakistan is not an Arab country.

    http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060303/bush.html?.v=8

    Or, maybe Scott McClellan meant to say that Bush would have meant to say that if he had known that Pakistanis aren't Arabs.

    Posted by fromredbird at 03/03/2006 @ 12:04pm

26. Ed Lasky is the News Editor of The AmericanThinker.

    Posted by CPT 03/03/2006 @ 12:01am

    At least most of the spelling is correct when you cut and paste. Can't say much else good for it.

    Posted by fromredbird at 03/03/2006 @ 12:06pm

27. FROMREDBIRD

    You prove the article that i posted to be true

    Posted by CPT at 03/03/2006 @ 12:06pm

28. Fromredbird,

    "At least most of the spelling is correct when you cut and paste. Can't say much else good for it. "

    Ironic......I have the same sentiment when I read anything you post.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 03/03/2006 @ 12:10pm

29. Perhaps there's a connection maybe?

    President George W. Bush - Job Approval Ratings

    Poll________________Date_____Approve____Disapprove___Spread

    RCP Average_____2/22 - 3/1_____38.7%______56.7%______-18.0%

    CNN/USA

    Today/Gallup_____2/28 - 3/1_____38%_______60%________-22%

    FOX News________2/28 - 3/1_____39%_______54%________-15%

    LA Times/

    Bloomberg_______2/25 - 3/1_____38%_______58%________-20%

    Rasmussen_______2/26 - 2/28____43%_______55%_______-12%

    Cook/RT Strategies_2/23 - 2/26____40%______54%_______-14%

    CBS News________2/22 - 2/26____34%_______59%_______-25%

    Direction of Country

    Poll_________________Date_____Right Direction__Wrong Direction__Spread

    RCP Average_______2/12 - 3/1______31.7%_________60.5%______-28.8%

    LA Times/

    Bloomberg________2/25 - 3/1_______30%___________64%________-34%

    Democracy Corps (D)_2/23- 2/27______32%__________62%________-30%

    Cook/RT Strategies_2/23 - 2/26_______34%__________59%________-25%

    Hotline/FD________2/16 - 2/19_______29%___________57%________-28%

    WNBC/Marist_____2/13 - 2/15_______34%____________61%________-27%

    Battleground_____2/12 - 2/15_______31%____________60%________-29%

    Posted by Bushfools at 03/03/2006 @ 12:16pm

30. cpt

    Find a real truth in Laske's artical, is it not just the same old rationalized retorics that comfort those who do not see beyound their rose colored glasses!

    Posted by dycel8r at 03/03/2006 @ 12:17pm

31. " (yes, yes, he told us that it's not about the religion even as Ashcroft was rounding up every bearded, brown-eyed man whose name had too many vowels)"

    This is a great formula for how we should be screening people trying to board airplanes, thanks for the idea!

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 03/03/2006 @ 12:23pm

32. opps BEYOND aint speeled that way. Probably shoud have said "those who REFUSE to see beyond their rose colored glasses

    Posted by dycel8r at 03/03/2006 @ 12:29pm

33. "Admittedly, this is a very simplified version of the ecology of politics in Washington."

    Ed Lasky is the News Editor of The AmericanThinker.

    Posted by CPT 03/03/2006 @ 12:01am

    You could've just posted the last paragraph. Apologist galore simplified to its circular and meaninglessness. A cartoon is also a simplification of an idea without nuance and substance; normally a characterization that is so slanted as to be like a cartoon thought bubble easily popped. The argument against the BC BS regime is not that they did not have all the information but rather that it is proven that they did have all the necessary information and choose the wrong path and as well as then lied to us about it, (and not to mention, but I will, all the numerous other lies concerning other important issues).

    Posted by Bushfools at 03/03/2006 @ 12:58pm

34. DYCLEAR

    Who has the TRUE glasses on? The ones who see, conspiracy and inpropiety around EVERY corner, or those like Lansky and others.

    To sum up Lansky's sentiment is fairly easy to do:

    Its all about "the man in the arena" as TEDDY remarked, its easy when you ONLY have to FOCUS your energies and concentration on what is wrong, you tend to focus SOLELY on the wrong, and not on the circumstances that lead there. Many here, simply dismiss those as irrelavent.

    I appreciate and have sympathy for those in positions of leadership, where their responsibilities are vast. This comes from my experience as a company commander.

    To project that onto political leadership or those who run large departments of govt, it is easy for me to understand or information flows upward and downward and sidways, and it gives me an appreaciation for gaffes and mistakes that are INEVITABLE.

    In a military organization, a Commander, though he/she may have more legal authority to enforce his/her position, will still have subordinates who fail to do an assigned tasks to the satisfaction of him or her. Who does it reflect on? the Commander, regradless.

    Lansky very ablely explains how this scenario plays out on a Presidential scale.

    So in light of my simple experience, i chose to take a more ENLIGHTENED approach to criticism, regardless of WHO or WHAT party is in the White House.

    Posted by CPT at 03/03/2006 @ 1:02pm

35. BUSHFOOLS

    And of course, you are the guardians of the REAL truth? According to?????????

    Posted by CPT at 03/03/2006 @ 1:03pm

36. To sum up Lansky's sentiment is fairly easy to do:

    Posted by CPT 03/03/2006 @ 1:02pm | ignore this person

    "Admittedly, this is a very simplified version of the ecology of politics in Washington."

    Posted by Bushfools at 03/03/2006 @ 1:05pm

37. BUSHFOOLS

    And you get your information from???????????????

    Posted by CPT at 03/03/2006 @ 1:09pm

38. BUSHFOOLS

    You prove that the article is correct.

    Posted by CPT at 03/03/2006 @ 1:11pm

39. Posted by CPT 03/03/2006 @ 1:03pm

    That is the problem for the narrow-minded with freethinkers-- they both are. 'Narrow' by it's definition seeks to limit vision and investigation; where as 'free' seeks open access. I grow suspicious when I'm told ‘not' to look for information or that more information is bad or that it's frivolous without the proof to the contrary, especially if it requires trust from a proven liar.

    Posted by Bushfools at 03/03/2006 @ 1:17pm

40. The American Thinker needs to rethink his name.

    Posted by tjbehrens1 at 03/03/2006 @ 1:19pm

41. CPT,

    Same old rationalizations absolving the commando in chief of any culpability - Washington's a big place; he can't possibly know everybody that he gets photographed with; journalists are just out to make a name for themselves; blah, blah, blah...

    While all the rationalizations may or may not have a variety of degrees of truth, it doesn't change the fact that the commando in chief has done very little to help the vast majority of Americans, but has done a great deal to help the very small minority of corporate buddies who own companies tha have done very well "rebuilding" Iraq and the Gulf Coast. And you of the Koolade Klub keep spinning things to keep the rosy glasses firmly ensconced on your nose. The spinning is getting so bad, we may have to consider investigating the impact it could have on alternative energy research.

    Posted by Turk33 at 03/03/2006 @ 1:27pm

42. We knew Bush couldn't do it when he whined during the debates in his pseudo drawl "But it's haard, realllly haaaaaard!" Boo fucking hoo! If this is just too much for him to handle, then he should just go back to Texas and clear some more brush. Let some of the intellectually capable thinkers work on the problems he has created.

    Posted by Turk33 at 03/03/2006 @ 1:29pm

43. BUSHFOOLS And you get your information from??????????????? Posted by CPT 03/03/2006 @ 1:09pm | ignore this person

    BUSHFOOLS You prove that the article is correct. Posted by CPT 03/03/2006 @ 1:11pm | ignore this person

    You obviously don't 'want' dialogue-- you want to tell people what to think. It just doesn't work that way. One doesn't expand dialogue by eliminating it, just as one doesn't grow trust by hiding the truth and lying to the public. Eventually our hard working public does find the time to pay attention and when we all do-- this administration better have an exit strategy or Iraq will look like a pleasant vacation to them...

    Posted by Bushfools at 03/03/2006 @ 1:38pm

44. It is all spin. Democrats don't "support" the Patriot Act, but many voted for it, because the spin machine says "If you vote against the Patriot Act, you're pro-terrorist." Republicans are holding out that carrot on a stick and daring Dems to bite it, so Dems will appear soft of terror.

    And Newsflash: The Patriot Act is not going to do anything to address terrorism in a real way. But what else does the GOP have? Social Security reform? The Medicare Drug Plan? The "American Competitiveness Initiative"? They'll spin terror and fear, hope it works again in 06.

    Posted by tkbe at 03/03/2006 @ 1:42pm

45. Posted by BUSHFOOLS 03/03/2006 @ 12:16am | ignore this person

    BF, a question....I realize the "theory" is, that Bush low poll numbers equate to "Democrat chances to take US House improve", but I notice two things-

    1. Every one who posts on Bush's low poll numbers, seem to think the primary effect of them is- they will "hurt Bush" politically....when the man is effectively a lame-duck, and out of office by January 2009 and cannot seek re-election again. And the 2006 midterms seem to be secondary, if not tertiary.

    2. Given that Clinton had HIGH poll numbers in 2000, and the stupidity of the GOP on his impeachment...shouldn't the Dems have won Congress back then?

    Posted by Mask at 03/03/2006 @ 1:46pm

46. Posted by TKBE 03/03/2006 @ 1:42pm | ignore this person

    Question....would the "spin machine" control the Democrats....

    if/when they were the majority?

    Posted by Mask at 03/03/2006 @ 1:47pm

47. Posted by MASK 03/03/2006 @ 1:46pm

    I believe they did. Er ok, we got to get rid of the voting machines that only count repub's and flush dem's from the rolls... Of course I forgot about that trick. Ha-- good one.

    Posted by Bushfools at 03/03/2006 @ 1:55pm

48. Mask,

    Short answer: no.

    Long answer:

    The "spin machine" is controlling Democrats, Republicans and the entire country. Granted, spin's been alive and well and has affected both sides whether in the minority or majority. That said, I don't believe we've ever seen a spin machine like this! This spin is necessary to make up for the absolute lack of agenda, substance and results (which I do not believe will be the case for Dems when they come into the majority). Paraphrased, this GOP has an unprecedented use of spin as a desperate attempt to influence the public because, despite the control they were given, THEY BLEW IT!

    Posted by tkbe at 03/03/2006 @ 2:18pm

49. It is all spin. Democrats don't "support" the Patriot Act, but many voted for it, because the spin machine says "If you vote against the Patriot Act, you're pro-terrorist." Republicans are holding out that carrot on a stick and daring Dems to bite it, so Dems will appear soft of terror.

    And Newsflash: The Patriot Act is not going to do anything to address terrorism in a real way.

    Posted by TKBE 03/03/2006 @ 1:42pm

    Feingold voted in favor of the Senate version of the Patriot Act bill, but then voted against it when it emerged out of the conference committee.

    The Patriot Act is a way for the government to collect information from suspected terrorists and those who associate with them. The wiretapping has already proven useful in deterring terrorist attacks. But I suppose that because nothing bad has happened yet, we don't need the use of surveillance.

    Posted by DRG9 at 03/03/2006 @ 3:09pm

50. Posted by BUSHFOOLS 03/03/2006 @ 1:55pm | ignore this person

    Well, then any discussion of elections is pretty moot, with you, isn't it, BF?

    I mean if Repubs have been "winning" the Congress for 6 years now on rigged machines....not much chance of any change THIS year, is there?

    Posted by Mask at 03/03/2006 @ 3:17pm

51. Posted by TKBE 03/03/2006 @ 2:18pm | ignore this person

    Not sure I understand HOW....if the Dems can be "controlled by the 'spin machine'" as a minority party (getting them to vote 80% in favor of the Patriot Act)...

    that they'll suddenly show all this "backbone" against it, when (or if) they become the majority party?

    No fear of being called "soft on terrorism", if you have a two vote lead in the Senate?

    Posted by Mask at 03/03/2006 @ 3:19pm

52. wow, cpt, is that lasky a moron or what?

    the president didn't have a binary decision on iraq? yes he did--to invade or not to invade? did they have wmd? maybe. the intelligence said maybe. if they did have wmd, were they any threat to us, at all? no. all of the intelligence said no. they were no threat to us. so wouldn't a reasonable person say, i have this binary decision before me. since there is no immediate threat to us, maybe we should examine this problem further.

    or, maybe, i'll just play the role of reckless cowboy, spout off an ultimatum and do what we want to do.

    so then lasky goes on to whine about the photo with abramoff. there was more than a photo there. there were meetings. and of all the scandals regarding illegality this administration is involved in, lasky chooses only to address the abramoff thing. and does a half-assed job at that.

    mr. lasky talks about press conferences and says bush has no idea what questions are awaiting him. is this true?

    he lambasts the hollywood effect on our understanding of government but then uses hollywood for his point on why bush doesn't look at newspapers.

    then mr. lasky goes on to describe the gov.t as a leviathon. millions of people in thousands of dept.s and agencies. and says poor georgie should be excused for his horrible mistakes re: katrina and shouldn't be educated on what's going on with our ports. these are our ports and a major catastrophe he's addressing, not how many stamps the forest service uses.

    he then goes on to say carter and clinton have become the first dishonorable presidents for questioning what in the hell bush is doing.

    i can't believe this guy has a job. his article is a joke.

    Posted by loveloki at 03/03/2006 @ 3:21pm

53. and, cpt, i'm still trying to figure out why you found this to be worthwhile reading. is it a feel-good thing for u?

    Posted by loveloki at 03/03/2006 @ 3:31pm

54. I mean if Repubs have been "winning" the Congress for 6 years now on rigged machines....not much chance of any change THIS year, is there?

    Posted by MASK 03/03/2006 @ 3:17pm

    We'll see how this works out:

    March 1, 2006 Supreme Court Weighs Texas Redistricting Matter The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a controversial case centering on the Republican-lead redistricting in Texas that gave the GOP control of six seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

    Mask,

    I get your snide reaction to my snide reaction to your slanted question. But really, the BC BS regime, the leaders screwing everything up are at the top. Think of it as the trickle down theory. Sure they're not running again, well not for re-election, maybe from the truth getting out and catching up to them, but it indeed adds up and for sure these are impeachable offences, perhaps enough outrage will accumulate to get the BC BS regime impeached and who cares if they can't run-- they're not continuing to run our country into the ground so far we end up in China-- literally, as indentured servants!

    Posted by Bushfools at 03/03/2006 @ 3:46pm

55. another funny thing about your lasky article cpt, is the fact that he never addresses the wire-tapping scandal. he doesn't neglect this issue altogether, though. he makes the attempt at humor?--hinting that maybe bush should be wire-tapping everyone so he can remember what they've said.

    Posted by loveloki at 03/03/2006 @ 3:47pm

56. and thanks bushfools, for always keeping us up to date with the latest news.

    Posted by loveloki at 03/03/2006 @ 3:48pm

57. Rio Loco

    You can't seriously believe the crap you are spewing right? The left doesn't WANT terrorism. However, we also don't want a huge-bloated, command-and control and illegal taking of civil liberties gov't...something you guys seem to relish. Is it that your tight adherence to the "supreme being" controlling your reality concept makes you more comfortable when the gov't is trying to do likewise?

    Posted by leftofcenter at 03/03/2006 @ 4:11pm

58. Mask,

    What makes me laugh (since you brought up the "backbone" thing) is how anti-Republican it is for the "less government", "less spending", "stay the hell out of our lives" GOP party to support the Patriot Act. 80% of Republicans should have had the backbone to vote against it, too, because it goes against the long-held principles of the conservative movement. Strong defense, strong intelligence, yes. But we now have Reagan-esque Republicans cheerleading to spend millions of dollars on carte-blanche wire-tapping and monitoring public library records. Huh?

    But we're stopping terrorists right?...spin, spin, spin. (Who's controlled by spin?)

    I think moderate America will realize, as the bumper sticker says, "If you want a Republican government, vote Democratic."

    Posted by tkbe at 03/03/2006 @ 4:15pm

59. Wow, Love Liberty, you sound like an accomplished economist or an out-of-touch, rich white guy...I can't tell which...let us know.

    Not gloom and doom on the left...reality and preservation.

    Spew your facts to the single mom whose minimum wage hasn't risen in 7 years. Or the "average Joe" whose can't afford the price at the pump or the heating bill. Or the confused senior who still can't get their medication. Or the majority of families who go more into debt each year.

    Maybe your follow up could include facts about how our record-breaking government spending and our astronomical deficit will actually HELP our children. I'm sure you have those facts...right?

    Posted by tkbe at 03/03/2006 @ 4:51pm

60. seems to me the courts have already ruled that Guantanamo is US territory for all practical purposes.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/03/2006 @ 4:53pm

61. LL:

    I was hoping Bushfools would respond since he provided a good link on this subject in another thread, so excuse me stealing his thunder. Basically, not all economists see such a rosy economic picture:

    http://www.bopnews.com/archives/006075.html

    Posted by Hman23 at 03/03/2006 @ 5:15pm

62. LL,

    First of, "who earns minumum wage", is misleading, as it ignores the fact that many make "more" than min. wage...say $6.00/hr. These people, by definition, are not min. wage workers, but also do not make, what most of us would actually raise the min. wage to.

    How can a stagnant income, in the face of 24% inflation since the last wage hike, be blamed entirely, on poor financial planning. (BTW, I defy you to make a budget, that allows you to "plan for your future" on a six buck an hour wage. Good Luck. I'd love to see it posted, if you do.)

    I'm sure all single moms w/low income jobs, will be thrilled to hear their problems are "hypothetical". I guess, so long as you're not a single mom, earning a decent wage is unimportant to you.

    Of course, you and other "holier than thou" types, probably think, anybody, who ever made a bad decision, should pay for it forever.

    I'm sure banning birth control/abortion for the ever increasing under class, along with stagnant wages, will only help the issue.

    And what does your moralizing self, think of congressmen who, while voting against min. wage hikes, because these workers aren't 'worth' more, vote themselves pay RAISES in excess of 2 yrs. min. wage take home pay? All the while working fewer hours, not even bothering to vote on, or read some bills and ignoring their employers (constituents) wishes.

    Eric

    Posted by malcontent3 at 03/03/2006 @ 5:35pm

63. Love of Liberty,

    I happen know a lot of "hypothetical examples" and "distortions". They live all around me. They're not the unambitious losers the GOP would paint them to be. They're just not the well-off beneficiaries of your rosy economic scenario.

    So facts are always good, and most of the time they'll say what you want them to say. I'd give you an A in Economics and a C- in Political Science...because your facts don't resonate with most Americans' experiences and are therefore not persuading. Oh and I'd give you and A for Cutting and Pasting, too.

    Posted by tkbe at 03/03/2006 @ 5:35pm

64. Zero, these guys have GOT to go

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/03/2006 @ 6:07pm

65. LL once again you are confused and being pious about that which you fail to know or bother to understand.

    1) Income taxes are up we must be taxing the CEO's bonus money now! If this is true why are we having to pay all of these special tax assessments to support our schools, police, fire, water, etc? Oh I got it they put thumb screws on the middle class while giving rebates to the top 5%.

    2) CBO report pg 2 graph / As a percentage change in previous year: Tax rate changed in 2003, receipt revenue in 2003 /-14%, 2004 /+20%, 2005 is a projected figure at +25% where do you come up with the doubled figure? Did you finish high school or do your math skills involve using your fingers & toesy. Historic highs hardly 96/36%, 97/33%, 2005 projected 25% not quite there as a historic high is it!

    3) The unemployment rate is another dubious figure, during the Clinton years unemployment was in the 3.3% range with a poverty rate of 3.2%. The bush years we have a 5.7 to 4.7 over 5yrs and the poverty rate is 12.7%. You and your conservo-buds crow about this, you know where those who ran out of unemployment funds went don't you! http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329415755-119093,00.html

    4) Home ownership is great unless you bought with an ARM remember these little time bombs based on treasury yields, they give a smaller guaranteed payment for the first 3-5 yrs but the accrued unpaid interest each month is rolled back to the principal as a negative amortization. Watch interest rates go up and the time bomb is ticking on the housing industry.

    5) Prove it!

    You're statement "One can count on the usual suspects denying the facts and simply restating their hatred of Bush, Cheney, and conservatives in general." reaffirms our observations that you are a truly clueless hypocrite.

    Watch the fall of the republican empire as the search for the truth comes at them faster than they can spin it, it will bury them all!

    Posted by dycel8r at 03/03/2006 @ 6:23pm

66. We should be a prime target for a big terrorist attack. But I'm not worried. Not at all.

    Amsterdam,

    Why would the Islamo-Fascists NOT attack Holland? They are at war with America in part because it is the leader of the Western world; however, they also hate the Western world in general, of which Holland of course is a part. So why do you feel so sure they would never attack your country?

    Because Holland was against the war?

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/03/2006 @ 6:25pm

67. Dycel, nice skewering of LL one of our own Taleban/Christoids

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/03/2006 @ 6:33pm

68. Posted by FRANK THOMAS 03/03/2006 @ 6:25pm

    Perhaps, because, as in America, there are many bigger things to worry about, than random violence by crazy radicals (Who cannot be stopped, once they are bred.)

    I always found it amusing (In that sick kind of way), that the most scared Americans live in places that would not be good targets. And those who know they are, like NYC for example, are more worried about preserving an America worth fighting over. Not worried about things, for which they have no control and their government blatently ignores.

    The truly sick irony, is in the attempts to paint anti-"patriot" act folks as against America. All the while, they breed more terrorists and then set about destroying America for them.

    (I still dream about meeting ari flescher in a dark alley and asking him to clarify, what it is, I can and cannot say.)

    Eric

    Posted by malcontent3 at 03/03/2006 @ 6:36pm

69. Just posted this earlier. May be better related here: Starting with the Boston Federal Reserve last spring, the New York Fed last fall and Stephen Roach of Morgan Stanley earlier this year, a large number of economists have questioned the rosy jobs figure the 4.7% unemployment rate presents. The essential problem with this number (the official unemployment rate) is it does not include people who have not looked for a job in the last 4 weeks. As the Boston Federal Reserve study points out, a large number of people have left the labor force for a variety of reason. As a result, the only age group to increase their labor participation rate during this expansion is the 55+ group of males and females. All other groups have decreased their respective labor participation rates. In other words, there are still a large number of people who would compete for jobs if they became available. This indicates the possibility of wage growth is lower than the official unemployment rate suggests. Rosenberg makes two other very important observations. First, household debt-to-income ratio rose as much in the last five years as it did in the preceding 15 years. This indicates – once again – that debt acquisition is a big reason for this expansions growth. Secondly, consumer spending on food, energy, interest payments and medical expenses as a share of disposable income rose from 48% to 54% over the last 5 years. This percentage vacillated between 44% and 48% for the preceding twenty years. This indicates the lack of meaningful wage growth is really starting to hit home with the average American.

    http://www.bopnews.com/archives/006075.html

    Posted by BUSHFOOLS 03/03/2006 @ 2:26pm | ignore this person

    Posted by BUSHFOOLS 03/03/2006 @ 4:29pm | ignore this person

    Posted by Bushfools at 03/03/2006 @ 6:46pm

70. Unemployment rates for states over 5% : Alaska 6.9, California 5.1, DC 6.0, Georgia 5.2, Illinois 5.5, Indiana 5.5, Kentucky 6.3, Louisiana 6.4, Michigan 6.7, Mississippi 9.9, Missouri 5.1, New York 5.1, Ohio 5.9, Oregon 5.7, RI 5.2, S. Carolina 7.0, Tennessee 5.4, Texas 5.1, Washington 5.3

    Bush has only 7 states attributed to him currently with historic low unemployment, none major industrial centers: Alabama, Florida (of course), Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, West Virginia. 35 states have historical low unemployment attributed to Clinton; 2 for Carter and 6 for Reagon.

    http://stats.bls.gov/web/lauhsthl.htm

    Posted by Bushfools at 03/03/2006 @ 6:48pm

71. seems that the level of discourse has risen again, go figure

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/03/2006 @ 6:52pm

72. seems that the level of discourse has risen again, go figure

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/03/2006 @ 6:53pm

73. not on my part, evindently

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/03/2006 @ 6:53pm

74. Posted by HMAN23 03/03/2006 @ 5:15pm |

    I can't do the page/blog hopping thing as I usually already have several programs open and any more would get rather hectic, but thanks for the plug-- just now saw it. Me needs new glasses.

    Posted by Bushfools at 03/03/2006 @ 7:05pm

75. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/03/2006 @ 5:06pm

    ah - the heritage foundation is your source for "information"? gee what is the heritge foundation? an acredited academic institution? a government agency? no the heritage foundation is a privately funded NEOCONSERVATIVE propaganda factory...it ignores all evidence that does not support the ideology of its supporters and selectively breeds and presents any information, often out of context, that does support its ideological purpose. and if u then back up your point with studies from such organizations as the american enterprise institute, the cato institute, or any of a plethora of other such privately funded ideological think tanks, all founded to refute the supposedly liberally biased real academic institutes and msm, i have the same problem...most conservative think tanks were founded within the last 30+/- years with the intended purpose of debunking any results of legitimate studies that do not fit into the ideological paradigm of conservatism, as defined by its least pragmatic followers. when conservatives of the 60's, 70's, 80's, etc, were exposed to a phenomenon that did not fit their ideology, they must have decided that winning the argument is preferable to acknowledging truth, so if reality is uncomfortable, it must be "liberal bias" at work, though of course, even prior to the media deregulation of bush sr., most owners and editors were identified by one of the last honest products of a conservative think tank, as...conservatives...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/03/2006 @ 7:21pm

76. Frei, welcome back. your post is opaque in the extreme, I don't know what you're talking about.

    I hope you will have an opportunity to share some of your impressions as time and topics permit.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/03/2006 @ 7:26pm

77. Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 03/03/2006 @ 7:21pm

    oh yeah - and sometimes it, like the other mercenary mind propaganda fatories, just outright lies - just like your precious god emperor moron president. of course all those other subtler methods of twisting the truth i mentioned above, as well as other truth twisting tricks, are also actually nothing more than fancy shmansy reach-around-your-head-to-pick-your-nose style lie spewing too - just more clever than good ole fashioned honest lying...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/03/2006 @ 7:29pm

78. Posted by FREIHEIT 03/03/2006 @ 7:09pm |

    "ha ha ha america" http://festival.sundance.org/2006/watch/index.aspx

    watcha think about it? u were there...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/03/2006 @ 7:42pm

79. Love Liberty,

    You speak of gloom and doom negativity, and yet this is the grounding force behind your ideological thinking. Your economic principles are founded on the myopic view that social considerations are impractical and we must proceed from the pursuit of individual selfishness and greed. To further insulate yourself within such abstract and dogmatic delusions, you isolate the individual behavior of those living impovershed lives and allude to poor decision making being made by the millions left out of your trickle-down-utopia, as the only significant rationale for such unfortunate circumstances. Socioeconomic conditions are ignored in favor of some described character flaw or personal deprivation. Of course, when the self-proclaimed icons of American capitalism are inconveniently exposed as crooks: the Ken Lays of Enron, are merely passed off as a few, unfortunate bad apples. Some will even offer such credible excuses as "the nasty government regulations were to blame." Yes, it was the government's fault for being in the way; for impeding the pursuits of reasonable and enlightened men trying to deliver greatness for the whole of humanity, and who also happened to be merely attempting to collect a few bucks for themselves along the way. Your selfish individualism is obnoxious, and yet you claim it is the people trying to address institutional poverty and oppression that are the cynics. Sorry, unregulated capitalism increases poverty and is ecologically unsustainable. It's not as if this stuff hasn't been observed for the past couple hundred years.

    Similarly negative and twisted principles are employed in foreign policy decisions. You support the worldview that there is great and unsupressable evil out there and only through strong, militaristic posturing can we deal with others not as pure as ourselves. It is this simplistic thought process that allowed you to look the other way throughout the Cold War, as our government supported the worst murderers, as long as they were not socialistic. Your postion creates fear and hatred, and limits the potential for our wealth and privilege to be used effectively and postively throughout the world. Your Orwellian proclamations and lofty rhetoric rings hollow here, as it does throughout the rest of the world.

    That being said, your source of information regarding progressive issues is pretty good. I would only suggest one more: Zmag.org

    You can read about a proposed alternative model to capitalism, if you're ever in the mood (just so you don't throw the old "what alternatives have you in mind?"). It's called participatory economics. The economist, Michael Albert has a great deal of information on the site concerning details.

    Posted by Oustbush at 03/03/2006 @ 7:49pm

80. Posted by FREIHEIT 03/03/2006 @ 8:38pm

    perfect - thanks for the feedback - i suspected as much...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 03/03/2006 @ 9:01pm

81. Lvliberty1 and Oustbush,

    I must compliment the both of you (particularly Lvliberty1), for (for the most part) maintaining the high road in your debate; it has been generally civil and free of name-calling and so on. Almost as if the two of you were sharing a public stage (in the physical sense) somewhere, and were thus debating in the (more than not) civil tones usually exhibited at such events.

    I disagree with both of your economic ideologies. Both represent extremes. Unlike Oustbush, I am not a socialist or quasi-socialist; I believe in capitalism, in the same way that Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson believed in it. That is, I am a liberal. That is, I reject both of your positions (anti-capitalism, and pro libertarian, laissez-faire capitalism) as extreme and unworkable.

    LVliberty1's views, that of the libertarian right, I characterize (and reject) in and for the following terms/reasons:

    They believe in totally unfettered Capitalism. (Very few literally, though many come very close.) Have little to no government interference or regulation or management of the market economy. Have little or no taxes (or if you must, regressive taxation is better-tax the poor at higher rates, proportionally). The market has some magic all its own-if Liberals and government and others would simply step out of the way, then it would bloom tremendously. (The fact that it likely results in the rich getting richer and richer, while the poor get poorer and poorer, doesn't really bother them much, if at all.) They think gross economic inequality under their type of capitalism is both fair and just-because they believe in the American myth that says we all have an equal chance and the same opportunities. Therefore, whatever one has, wherever one is economically, is what and where one deserves to have, and be. They are the diametric opposite of Radical Leftists-Leftists think Capitalism is to blame for all social and economic problems-they believe Capitalism is the problem. Rightists believe that (greater) Capitalism is the solution! They want a small Federal government, a small federal government role in the economy, a scaling back of environmental regulation, which they see as stifling free enterprise, etc. Reduce taxes, especially for the wealthy, "get government off their backs" (as Ronald Reagan used to say), and Capitalism will bloom and many will benefit (and those who don't will deserve their fate.)

    The evidence that embrace of right-wing, libertarian, trickle-down, capitalism in recent decades does not work, that is has tremendously hurt our nation, is overwhelming. I could give a hundred examples, but a few will suffice. In 1972, the top 1% of families possessed 21% of the nation's wealth. By 1992, the top 1% possessed 42% of the nation's wealth. Their share doubled in 20 years! In 1963, the richest 0.5% controlled 25.4% of national assets; this increased to 35.1% by 1983. In 1970, the chief CEO of a Fortune 500 Co. made 35 times more than an avg. manufacturing worker; today that CEO makes 150 times the avg. From 1990 to 2998, CEO pay rose 481%, while worker's pay rose only 28%. The proportion of men aged 30 earning a middle-class income dropped from 60% between 1977 and 1988, to 42% between 1988 and 1992. By one estimate, between 1983 and 1989, more than 60% of the new wealth created went to the top 1%, and 99% of it went to the top 20%! Between 1973 and 2000, the avg real income of the bottom 90% of American taxpayers fell by 7%. The income of the top 1% rose 148%, the income of the top 0.1% rose by 343%, and the income of the 0.01% rose by 599%. In 1973, three quarters of households in the center of the income distribution received 52.2% of the aggregate household income. By 1993, their share had slipped to 48.2%. These shifts may sound minor, but they represent a truly historic transfer of resources towards the wealthy. For example, the increase in the share of the top quintile involved an annual transfer of income from the middle class to the rich of about $275billion-or roughly $4,500 per middle-class household. As Paul Krugman says, "if calling America a middle-class society means anything, it means that we are a society in which people live more or less the same kind of life. In 1970 we were that kind of society. Today we are not, and we become less like one with each passing year."

    Oustbush's views (those of the radical left) are just as extreme and mythical-based, just as bad, as the right-wing mythos of Lvberty1. Their views can generally be characterized/summarized in the following manner: They range from strongly disliking Capitalism, to hoping to destroy it. Outright Socialists want to completely abolish Capitalism, and replace it with Socialism. Other radicals want to significantly or fundamentally corral Capitalism-some more than others-some perhaps to the point that it really is barely Capitalism anymore-you might call it "semi-Socialism" (perhaps something like what they have in Sweden). There are many gradations of thought on the subject. Generally speaking, the more anti-Capitalist one is, the more "to the left" that person is. Whether outright Socialists or merely radical Capitalist reformers, Radical Leftists believe that government should completely control and plan the economy, from top to bottom. Some want a classless society. Leftists of all stripes are obsessed with economics-they think economics are virtually the sole cause and explanation for all human history, and all social problems. Some radical leftists believe in using violence to change or even overthrow the existing social and economic and political order. If you had to sum up their attitude towards Capitalism (and Liberals), it might be: stop trying to reform something (Capitalism) that is inherently and completely rotten in nature and in outcome. Rather, do away with it all together (or virtually).

    Liberalism is the balance point between the two unworkable extremes. It incorporates the good aspects of capitalism, without embracing the bad aspects of extremist cut-throat capitalism. That is, it recognizes the great capacity of capitalism at producing vast amounts of wealth, while simultaneously, enables it to benefit a fairly large swath of the citizens. Unlike socialism, it actually produces wealth, because capitalism plays well on the natural condition of man, which is generally MORE selfish than selfless. At the same time, unlike Reagan type libertarian laissez-faire capitalism, it is does not give in to and celebrate excessive selfishness that results in excessive concentrations of wealth in the hands of a few at the expense of the many.

    Liberalism worked. It worked! It can work again! We MUST revive it! It produced the largest most prosperous middle class in the history of mankind, between 1945 and 1973. Tremendous wealth was produced and (unlike today) benefited a broad cross-section of the public, not just a few. Broadly speaking, all Americans' income DOUBLED in that time.

    Liberals believe that Capitalism works best when it is constrained, regulated, managed, monitored, channeled, guided, interfered with, by a strong and powerful Federal government. One that adjusts market outcomes in order to achieve more equal or equitable outcomes. One that promotes maximum employment, production, and purchasing power. One that reduces the most extreme disparities that fuel class conflict. One that manages economic growth so that all citizens will benefit and can have greater assurance in their material standard of living. In short, we Liberals want a government and economy that moderates the excesses of capitalist development. Thus, we believe in strong and vigorous unions for working-class people. We believe in a fair tax system, manifested in progressive taxation, and the closing of tax loopholes. Liberals want an economy that benefits as many as possible, not just a few. We want to shape the market to produce just results, to achieve prosperity for all. You could call it "Capitalism with a human face."

    In short gentleman, this country needs to return to the economic philosophy that made it great: LIBERALISM.

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/03/2006 @ 9:28pm

82. Frei, I took a look, some chapters are online.my first impression is that it is too ambitious. not everything can be explained by some kind of unified theory.

    have you been keeping up with our splendid little war? the consensus seems to be, we're almost at the civil war stage, they've been saying that for a year or two.

    I remember when the latest "turning point" was a handover of some kind, or an election of some kind. now the turning point is the greatest outbreak of violence of the whole shebang. how corrupt can they get.

    down is up, that is the core of the Bush regime. a country that was sold SUVs climbing Pike's Peak, when almost all trips are to the mall, a country that was sold that McDonalds is nutritious food, that is a country that can be sold retreads from the Nixon administration as statesmen, and a bumbling cheerleader as a CEO president. but even the deepest sleeper must wake up some time, and the giant that is the people is stirring.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/03/2006 @ 9:37pm

83. A return to economic liberalism is the only hope this country has left. We Liberals are the conservatives, in that WE want to return to the norm; that norm being economic liberalism that made this country great. The right-wing, libertarian, laissez-faire, trickle down, radical free marketeers, are the radicals; THEY have pushed a radical departure from the norm (liberalism), in the process, transforming the country into a quasi-plutocracy. A total disaster for our nation.

    Thus, we liberals are actually the conservatives. The great task of this generation is to revive economic liberalism.

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/03/2006 @ 9:38pm

84. Amsterdam,

    Why would the Islamo-Fascists NOT attack Holland? They are at war with America in part because it is the leader of the Western world; however, they also hate the Western world in general, of which Holland of course is a part. So why do you feel so sure they would never attack your country?

    Because Holland was against the war?

    Posted by FRANK THOMAS 03/03/2006 @ 6:25pm

    No, Holland wasn't against the war. We're part of the coalition of the willing. Many Dutchmen were against the war - the majority of Dutchmen, I'd say. But unfortunately the Christian Democrats, who are the majority party in our current government, will always follow America's lead blindly. And they did so in this case. We had troops in Iraq, we're now sending troops to Afghanistan.

    You're right: The Netherlands might very well be on the hitlist of some Islamic terrorist organisation. But in a way they already struck here, when they murdered Theo van Gogh. And, as I explained earlier, the muslim radicals we have over here are just a bunch of misguided children with attitude problems who are angry because society won't give them any respect. I refuse to let a bunch of wimps scare me. And I refuse to live in fear. I mean, what am I to do? Move to the countryside because I'm afraid of a terrorist attack in the city? Fuck that. This is my city. I was born here, and I'll be damned if I let those islamo-fascists scare me into leaving. And you know what? It doesn't take any effort not to be scared of these assholes - they're just pathetic.

    Posted by Amsterdam69 at 03/03/2006 @ 9:38pm

85. I think that the rich and the super rich had better watch their step. as the disparity between them and everyone else widens they may find themselves in a country that they won't like. they will have to hide their wealth, live and shop in fortified compounds. the open society may vanish.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/03/2006 @ 9:42pm

86. Oh, and Frank: the vast majority of Muslims don't have any problem with the American way of life, with America's freedom or even its leadership of the Western world. They do have a problem with America's continued support of Israel, for instance, because Arabs suffer as a result. Muslim radicalism is just as much about politics as it is about religion - if not more so. I have met Muslim fundamentalists in the Arab world and I've had good and honest conversations with them. They were willing to learn from me and I was willing to learn from them. Things aren't as black and white as they seem. There are many misconceptions in the West about the Islamic world, and vice versa.

    Posted by Amsterdam69 at 03/03/2006 @ 9:46pm

87. Posted by FREIHEIT 03/03/2006 @ 8:56pm

    "The American dollar has no intrinsic value. It is a classic example of fiat money with no limit to the quantity that can be produced. Its primary value lies in the willingness of people to accept it and, to that end, legal tender laws require them to do so. It is true that our money is created out of nothing, but it is more accurate to say that it is based upon debt. In one sense, therefore, our money is created out of less than nothing. The entire money supply would vanish into the bank vaults and computer chips if all debts were repaid. Under the present System, therefore, our leaders cannot allow a serious reduction in either the national or consumer debt. Charging interest on pretended loans is usury, and that has become institutionalized under the Federal Reserve System. The Mandrake Mechanism by which the Fed converts debt into money may seem complicated at first, but it is simple if one remembers that the process is not intended to be logical but to confuse and deceive. The end product of the Mechanism is artificial expansion of the money supply, which is the root cause of the hidden tax called inflation. This expansion then leads to contraction and, together, they produce the destructive boom-bust cycle that has plagued mankind throughout history wherever fiat money has existed."

    Now I know why a lot of what the BC BS regime does makes no sense.

    Posted by Bushfools at 03/03/2006 @ 9:48pm

88. Strong words Amsterdam. I respect them. Maybe you are braver than me. Maybe it's because I live in America, the prime target, and not far from New York City, the prime target within the prime target, but I AM a bit frightened of being hit. Not terrified mind you, not constantly living in fear, no; but, the fear is almost always there, just beneath the surface.

    Don't forget also, you Europeans know war more than we do. We aren't use to living with the fear of being hit at home, on American soil. When the greatest conflagration in human history (World War 2) was going on, we here in the American homeland were immune, were secure, were not hit at all. That is why the September 11th attacks were SUCH a big shock. We had been living in a cacoon for decades and decades, and now suddenly, we were experiencing that which the rest of the world has experienced much more often: the first-hand experience with the horrors of war, of purposely caused death -- of civilians yet. This shocked us SO much. It scared the HELL out of us Amsterdam. We are still uneasy; we know and realize that our cacoon, our womb, that we were so comfortable in, has been permenantly breached. We can't go home again. It is extremely unnerving. We are still adjusting to it.

    Posted by Frank Thomas at 03/03/2006 @ 9:51pm

89. It's a fiat administration with the ultimate tax in war, torture, and erosion of civil liberties.

    Posted by Bushfools at 03/03/2006 @ 9:54pm

90. http://antiwar.com/justin/

    words fail me

    Posted by johannesrolf at 03/03/2006 @ 10:01pm

91. I don't think I'm braver than you, Frank. 9-11 scared the hell out of me as well. It took me days to get my head straight and sort out my thoughts. But it taught me an important lesson: to always expect the worst, so I'll be able to think straight once it happens.

    I did a lot of thinking in the months after 9-11. And I realized one very important thing: these are just a bunch of amateurs. I mean, they hi-jacked those planes with boxcutters! Any moderately sophisticated organization would have had people working at the airports who'd have somehow provided the hi-jackers with firearms. No: boxcutters. Sure, it was a clever plan and it worked. Those people used their heads. But they had to, because it was the only thing they had. Don't worry: these people don't have any weapons of mass destruction - and even if they did, they wouldn't know how to use them. They're losers fighting a poor man's war with hardly any resources.

    Of course I understand the impact 9-11 had on the American frame of mind. I mean, American culture was always drenched in paranoia and then to have your worst fears come true...

    Posted by Amsterdam69 at 03/03/2006 @ 10:07pm

92. amsterdam69, could you please further explain your idea of "american culture was always drenched in paranoia." and also, do you have any opinions of why this situation exists?

    Posted by loveloki at 03/03/2006 @ 10:12pm

93. Loveloki, what I mean is that America was founded by those persecuted in other countries. That fear of persecution became manifest in American culture. Remember, for instance, Orson Welles' broadcast of 'War of the worlds' in 1938, which had New Yorkers running out into the street in a blind panic because they were convinced the Martians were invading. Remember also the Red Scare of 1919-1920, when the majority of Americans were terrified about an imminent Communist revolution in the United States (despite the fact that there were hardly any Communists in America).

    These irrational fears of non-existent threats - this paranoia, if you will - are an important part of American culture. And they have been there right from the beginning.

    Posted by Amsterdam69 at 03/03/2006 @ 10:24pm

94. JR,

    Speechless as well.

    Perhaps someone in this publication, should do a piece on it. (Peter Rothberg, comes to mind, as he did that other internet piece awhile back.)

    Here's what we're fighting for guys: http://antiwar.com/justin/

    Eric

    Posted by malcontent3 at 03/03/2006 @ 10:29pm

95. I have not seen any headlines showing that millions are freezing to death in the East either. Posted by LVLIBERTY1 03/03/2006 @ 5:06pm | ignore this person

    Thanks to Hugo Chavez.

    Posted by seattlescribe at 03/03/2006 @ 10:30pm

96. Make that 'largely non-existent threats' because the terrorism threat turned out to be all too real, alas...

    Posted by Amsterdam69 at 03/03/2006 @ 10:30pm

97. amsterdam, i hear ya about the fear and paranoia. i was curious about your ideas regarding the cause of this fear and paranoia. thanks for responding.

    the whole fear of persecution thing just doesn't seem like enough of an explanation to me. i don't know what causes it but the founder's persecution just doesn't seem to cut it. maybe we all have a huge subconscious cultural guilt for coming very close to commiting complete genocide and occupying a place that's stolen.

    Posted by loveloki at 03/03/2006 @ 10:35pm

98. Nah, man. It wasn't genocide, it was Manifest Destiny (a quaint political theory with a surprisingly long life). You had the right to steal all that land, because it was God's will. America was given to the Americans like Israel was given to the Jews.

    I don't known if my assumption of the root causes of America's paranoia is right. But I've studied American history very thouroughly, and the fear factor has always been there. Always.

    Posted by Amsterdam69 at 03/03/2006 @ 10:42pm

99. amsterdam, so has the murder of natives. still today, they are locked up more than any other group.

    Posted by loveloki at 03/03/2006 @ 10:44pm

100. I think that the rich and the super rich had better watch their step. as the disparity between them and everyone else widens they may find themselves in a country that they won't like. they will have to hide their wealth, live and shop in fortified compounds. the open society may vanish. Posted by JOHANNESROLF 03/03/2006 @ 9:42pm | ignore this person

     The neocon extremists who control American economic policy are destroying our middle class. In Daniel Altman's book, Neoconomy, he begins Chapter 13 with a prescient quote from Daniel Webster:

     In the nature of things, those who have not property, and see their neighbors possess much more than they think them to need, cannot be favorable to laws made for the protection of property. When this class becomes numerous, it grows clamorous. It looks on property as its prey and plunder, and is naturally ready, at all times, for violence and revolution.

     The neocon extremists' enablers in Congress may be sewing the same seeds of unrest by voting in liberty destroying legislation such as the Patriot Act.

     Posted by seattlescribe at 03/03/2006 @ 11:33pm

101. Nah, man. It wasn't genocide, it was Manifest Destiny (a quaint political theory with a surprisingly long life). You had the right to steal all that land, because it was God's will. America was given to the Americans like Israel was given to the Jews.

     Posted by AMSTERDAM69

     I suppose there's no history of warfare in Europe right? The 20th century alone was a pretty brutal one for you guys. Tell me exactly how did all those borders get drawn up again?

     No place in this world has a monopoly on brutality.

     Posted by Zeddmen at 03/03/2006 @ 11:33pm