🚀 go-pugleaf

>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew  <SEE_BELOW_TO_REPLY@bizaveNOSPAM.com> writes:

Andrew> The election of 2000 was a tie - someone had to win.  I wish
Andrew> it had been Gore.  The Supreme Court isn't as non-partisan as
Andrew> everyone supposes they are, so it's not a huge surprise that
Andrew> they voted as they did.  Admit it: if things had been
Andrew> reversed, you'd be telling us how the Supreme Court was only
Andrew> doing the "right thing."

The "Right Thing" was to just count the votes, which is what I said at
the time.  If Bush had won, then the argument would be over.  They
decided the votes didn't matter, that what mattered was what Harris
said the votes said.  Turns out, Bush didn't get more votes.  Oops.

Andrew> [...]  If Americans had been as informed about
Andrew> world affairs as they are about basketball and the week's top
Andrew> movies, they would have pressured their representatives and
Andrew> executive to be more responsive to such threats.

Or perhaps they would have been able to: a) ameliorate; and b) stop
creating the conditions that led to the terrorists (read "people who
want to kill me") existing to begin with.

Andrew> I didn't like the "axis of evil" remarks either - they made
Andrew> Bush sound like a Sunday school teacher than a president.  At
Andrew> the same time, it's foolish and dangerous to be thinking about
Andrew> being a "leader for peace and not war" after somebody flys
Andrew> three jetliners into our nation's economic and military
Andrew> symbols and kills a lot of people.  We had already marched
Andrew> down the road that led to 9/11 - retreating with our tail
Andrew> between our legs would have been a disaster to US interests
Andrew> around the world.

I wonder, just what _are_ "US interests" around the world.  This
expression is used so often as a placeholder without ever examining
what it represents.

Andrew> What we really need is some presidental leadership to get rid
Andrew> of our dependence on Arab oil over the long term (you can't do
Andrew> it in four years), so that a huge US presence in the middle
Andrew> east is no longer in our urgent national interest.  

Ironically, we had that kind of leadership at the beginning of the
Clinton administration (an energy tax, I don't recall the specifics),
but Congress wasn't buying it and so he dropped it.  Too bad.

The thing that we Americans don't seem to be conscious of is that this
"Land of the Free" is holding a rather large gun to the heads of the
Oil Producing States and asking them politely to hand over their oil
for our convenience.  One of them gets a little out of line, like Iraq
or Iran or Venezuela, and watch out.

Andrew> What makes you think we're not trying as best as we can to
Andrew> have more effective intelligence agencies and a more coherent
Andrew> foreign policy?  

Sorry, milk just shot out my nose.  What part of our foreign policy
_is_ coherent???  Is Israel supposed to do what we tell them to or
not?  Bush said he "expected" Israel would do what we asked.  Sharon
decided otherwise, Bush says, "Oh, okay."  We tell people that
democracy is "the way", then tell the Palestinians, the Venezuelans,
et al, that "no, your choices are not acceptable."  etc, etc, etc.

Andrew> Getting bin Laden was *not* the "stated mission" - the mission
Andrew> was to eliminate the Al Qaeda threat, as the Taliban were
Andrew> actively supporting them.  Getting rid of the Taliban, a
Andrew> horrible regime worthy of overthrow even without their support
Andrew> of Al Qaeda, was a big improvement in that region.

As I understand it, the Taliban were a big improvement over what came
before them.  Whether what comes after them is better or not remains
to be seen.

Andrew> You've been listening to too many conspiracy theories and not
Andrew> using your noggin enough.  Has it ever occured to you that
Andrew> Islamic terrorists need money - and who has money, an Islamic
Andrew> country that sells oil or an Islamic country that just has a
Andrew> lot of camels and sand?  If you were a terrorist, which
Andrew> countrys aid would *you* seek out for aid?

Hell, _we_ give billions of dollars to terrorists.  We train them at
our military bases.  What were you saying about "coherent"?

Andrew> So you believe one former weapons inspector and not the
Andrew> overwhelming contrary opinion that states the opposite - that
Andrew> Saddam Hussein is trying to re-acquire these weapons?  

The overwhelming contrary opinion is pretty much uniformily from
people who want to attack Iraq whether they have weapons of mass
destruction or not.  Hell, _we_ have got weapons of mass destruction.
_We_ have actually _used_ them.  Who the /sbin/fsck is putting the
hammer down on us?  To me, _that_ is the frightening thing.  There is
no obvious brake on the extent of our power.

Andrew> I'm guessing you already had this belief and looked for a
Andrew> voice to support it, instead of weighing all the evidence of a
Andrew> possible threat from Iraq and then reaching a conclusion.

As far as I know, there is _no_ publicly accountable evidence to weigh
on this question.  Furthermore, possession of weapons of mass
destruction, even if it exists, is not evidence that they will be
used.  Russia, England, France, China, India, Israel, and Pakistan
also have nuclear weapons.  Only we have used them.  What Iraq's
possession of them _might_ mean is that we could possibly be deterred
from attacking them.  Apparently that is unacceptable in some circles.

Andrew> We also need to change how we educate kids, not just throw
Andrew> more money at existing problems.  Bureaucracy in the schools
Andrew> can be as wasteful as sy the defense department.  I'm in favor
Andrew> of spending (investing) more money on public education if
Andrew> sweeping reforms are made in the existing system - reforms
Andrew> that will make many (some teachers and parents) unhappy, so no
Andrew> one in public life has the courage even to suggest them.

You aren't in "public life", so fire away.  Frankly, the clich� about
"throwing more money" at problems is a little tired and hard to
support in this context.  My understanding is that per pupil funding
has been pretty static for a while now (at least up until this year).
The major opportunity for savings comes from "reducing enrollment",
according to the Cascade Policy Institute.  Sounds like a long-term
winner to me.


-- 
Russell Senior         ``The two chiefs turned to each other.        
seniorr@aracnet.com      Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible       
                         profanity, which, translated meant, `This is
                         extremely unusual.' ''