🚀 go-pugleaf

In pdx.general Russell Senior <seniorr@aracnet.com> wrote:
:>>>>> "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.

Unfortunately, the Gore side blew it (easier said in hindsight I know)
by not insisting on uniform recount standards across the state,
immediately after the election.  This opened the door for equal
protection argument down the road that wound up prevailing in the
Supreme Court.  And to be fair (and believe me, I was rooting for
Gore), they had a point.  How can you count a hanging chad in one
county but not in another?  And how can you have a recount in only
four counties?  They may have been within their legal right to go that
way, but it had an appearance of not being fair.  The Gore team 
gambled big that they'd pick up enough votes in the few counties that
did recount to pull ahead before certification - and they lost the
bet.  The more conservative bet would have been insisting up front on
a state-wide recount with uniform standards (when ballots are of the 
same type) and hoping they'd wind up winning.  How could the Bush team
have been against THAT? 

Without uniform standards and a statewide recount, it was fairly easy
to argue that the recount the Gore team pushed for was unfair.  I
don't see how a fair and accurate recount could have been done
otherwise.  This is sort of what the Florida supreme court tried to do
late in the game, but by then it was too late.

: 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.

Well, our economic interests are some of "US interests" for one.
Obviously, we sell to countries all over the world, so we need to keep
those markets safe and open so we can keep selling.  And we need to
import oil because, as of today, our economy is dependent on it.  We
also have interests in promoting American values (e.g. human rights),
though these are often pushed asside for the sake of expediency and
lead to inconsistencies (i.e. we trade with a big human rights
violator, China, but won't trade with little old Cuba 90 miles from
our shores).

: 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.

Well, you can thank Gore for pushing that - he was one of the few
supporters of the energy tax - but when it became clear the Senate 
wouldn't support it (Clinton's final economic package passed by ONE
VOTE as it was), Clinton had to drop it, even after a lot of House
members stuck their necks out to vote for the energy tax.  That
created a lot of bad blood right away between Clinton and the
Democratic congress.

I don't think the energy tax was designed to get rid of our dependence
on oil, anyway - they were looking for ways to lower the deficit, and
it also fit into Gore's pro-environment agenda.  It was just
convenient, but it wasn't part of a coherent plan to reduce oil
consumption in the US.

: 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.

But the Saudis *want* us in their country, to help prop up their
regime.  And Iraq and Iran have demonstrated their support for
terrorism and expansionism.

: 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.

Come one, now - the Middle East has always been a tough dance for
American foreign policy, since 1948.  It does sound silly the way the
Bush administration seems to be talking out of both sides of its mouth
regarding Israel, but I kind of understand why they act that way.

I wasn't suggesting that the Bush admin. truly has a coherent (or even
very good) foreign policy today, only that we don't *know* that much
about it today.  We won't know until some time has passed what is
really going on behind the scenes and how effective their foriegn
policy is.  Few have been very successful at predicting results of
certain policy initiatives ahead of time...

: 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.

It sounds like we're talking different degrees of "horrible" in
Afghanistan since the Soviets invaded in 1979.   Obviously, in
particular to the US, any regime that allows terrorists to train so
they can organize flying planes into our buildings and blowing up our
ships is worse than one that doesn't.

: 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"?

The US Government certainly didn't organize the plot to fly planes
into buildings...

: 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.

If there was evidence that they HAD no weapons of mass destruction and
were not supporting anti-American terrorists, no one would have any
footing to demand military action against Iraq.  I for one do not
believe conspiracy theories about trumped up charges against Iraq for
the sake of controlling their oil...

:  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.

We used two nukes in a brutal war in which both sides committed
horrible atrocities against each other.  That's really not the same as
using chemical weapons on your own people, as Saddam Hussein did in
the late 80's, or invading another country, as he also did in 1990.
Unchecked, he probably would have invaded Saudi Arabia, too.  This guy
has demonstrated that he'll use brutal tactics to achieve his ends
whenever he has the strength to do so.  Do you think he's a changed
man now?  I don't.

The US doesn't drop chemical weapons on people and hasn't dropped
nukes since 1945 in its last war, despite numerous opportunities to do -
so I don't see how you have much ground to worry about our crushing
neighboring nations with our weapons of mass destruction.  This is no
longer the same country that wiped out the Native Americans or allowed
slavery.  I think you worry too much about this US "threat" to the rest
of the world.

: 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.

Well, when one particular leader (Saddam Hussein) has demonstrated in
the past that he *will* use such weapons, why do you think he wouldn't
in the future?  How has this man changed, Russell?

: 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.

Not unacceptable as much as makes no SENSE.  The US pieced together a
pretty impressive coalition against Iraq in 1990-91, and Desert Storm
pretty much wiped out the Iraqi military then.  If we were going to
"attack them", why didn't we do it then (get rid of Saddam Hussein)
when conditions were the most favorable?   It's much harder now
because the former coalition Middle East nations don't support us as
much against Iraq as they did in 1991.  Plus, Iraq has rebuilt since
then, while our own military has downsized a lot.  It would be much
harder to attack Iraq now than in 1991...

Your premise seems to be that the US wants to attack Iraq over oil and
is exaggerating claims about weapons and support for terrorism as a
cover for such an attack.  I just don't buy it - sorry.

: 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.

I'm no expert on the subject, but in general, I think teachers should
be paid more, so that we attract the best minds into public education
instead of treating teachers like second-class citizens.  At the same
time, we need to hold teachers more accountable for their
performance.  Sadly, teachers and their unions must spend too much
time worrying about their own jobs and benefits because too often they
aren't treated well or paid enough - and when teachers threaten to
strike and such they come off looking badly (and the public holds them
in even less esteem).  If we paid teachers as well as, say, engineers
and computer programmers in high tech, they wouldn't need a union.
You don't see engineers and programmers striking or even forming
unions, do you?  Lawyers?  Doctors? 

Education is an investment in our future.  Too many people don't look
at it that way.

Andrew
--
----> Portland, Oregon, USA <----
*******************************************************************
----> http://www.bizave.com/photos/  <---- Andrew's Photography
----> http://www.moviepundit.com/    <---- Andrew's Movie Website
*******************************************************************


To respond by EMAIL, please DO NOT hit "reply".  Email address
scrambled for security.  Instead, please visit the web page:

http://www.bizave.com/cgi-bin/contact.cgi/subject=Re:%20Re:%20Call%20Me%20A%20Liberal/newsgroup=pdx.general,seattle.general,ba.general,la.general/messageid=axcaczcasdladd46264041805@bizaveNOSPAM.com