🚀 go-pugleaf

In pdx.general Name withheld by request <anon5c6c@nyx10.nyx.net> wrote:
:                                       
:    Call Me Liberal
:                                       
:    by Rebecca Knight
:                                       
:    I believe that George W. Bush re-invented himself and his Texas record
:    in order to gain the presidency.

OK.  Gore re-invented himself, too.  So did Clinton.  So did most
successful politicians in the 20th century.  And your point is - ?

:    I believe that the United States Supreme Court selected our president
:    in 2000 through partisan prejudices and personal interests. They
:    stated that their decision had no precedent and could not be used as a
:    precedent in the future.

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

:    I believe that George W. Bush meant what he said about wishing he were
:    a dictator and Congress makes it easier for him to behave like one.

Every president feels pretty much the same way.  It sucks dealing with
congress - ask any ex-president.  Sadly, our congresspeople often act
like spoiled children who worry more about getting re-elected and
pleasing lobbyists than doing what's best for the country.  It's
completely expected that Bush would feel that way about congress, but
I don't think he truly wanted to be a "dictator".

:    I believe that the Bush administration is responsible for failing to
:    protect American citizens by connecting the dots of intelligence
:    information and warnings given about impending terrorist attacks on
:    U.S. soil. Why else would Bush wait eight months to acknowledge that
:    he had been given a briefing on the possibility?

The GOVERNMENT (Republicans and Democrats) is responsible for the
egregious lapse that let this attack happen.  But it's hard to blame
them too much, considering how complacent our society had become by
9/11/2001.  The government usually reacts to the people.  If Americans
had been as informed about world affairs as they are about basketball
and the week's top movies, they would have pressured their
representatives and executive to be more responsive to such threats.

:    I believe that Congress is complicit in knee-jerk reactions to the
:    attacks of 9/11 that have given too much power and authority to the
:    president and the justice department. The Patriot Act is a threat to
:    our civil liberties. The Joint Resolution enacted by Congress on Sept.
:    15, 2001 allows Bush to determine which nations, organizations, or
:    individuals are connected to the 9/11 attacks and also determine what
:    is the necessary force to use against them.

OK, you might have a point here - at least this one is debatable.

:    I believe that while a new cabinet level department for homeland
:    security may be necessary, it is much more critical to uncover and
:    correct shortcomings of the CIA, the FBI, and the NSA.

These are huge bureaucracies.  "correct[ing]" their "shortcomings" is
a huge task, one that every president since Kennedy has really failed
to achieve.  Don't underestimate the difficulty of moving these huge
organizations to make sweeping changes while they are all working mega 
overtime reacting to the threats (old and new) since 9/11.

:    I believe that the United States should be a leader for peace and not
:    war. When a president speechifies about an "axis of evil" without
:    documented evidence of specific evils, it is he who is responsible for
:    heightening the dangers of violence against America.

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

What we really need is some presidental leadership to get rid of our
dependence on Arab oil over the long term (you can't do it in four
years), so that a huge US presence in the middle east is no longer in
our urgent national interest.   But it's hard to plan long-term with
the American form of government, plus Americans are not very
forward-thinking to support or demand such change anyway.  And of
course, we do have two oil men at the top of the executive branch...

:    I believe that the United States already spends enough money on
:    defense, if managed efficiently. Our defense budget is already larger
:    than all other nations throughout the world combined.

Agreed.

:    I believe that the missile defense system is a boondoggle that will
:    never work and will waste money better spent on more worthwhile
:    projects. Oh, but it will accomplish the goal of enriching the defense
:    industry.

Agreed again.

:    I believe that diplomacy, a coherent foreign policy, and efficient
:    intelligence agencies combined with military strength is the right
:    path to dealing with terrorists. A show of military strength alone
:    makes us bullies.

What makes you think we're not trying as best as we can to have more
effective intelligence agencies and a more coherent foreign policy?
Just because the military action of the day is what makes the evening
news each night doesn't mean these other things aren't happening, too.
Not everything that is happening now is being reported by Dan Rather.

:    I believe that the military actions taken against the Taliban and Al
:    Qaeda resulted in unnecessary civilian death and destruction. The
:    stated mission to get bin Laden was not accomplished.

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

:    I believe it highly suspicious that most of the areas the Bush
:    administration believes harbor terrorists also control vast oil
:    supplies.

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

:    I believe that former weapons inspectors, such as Scott Ritter, who
:    spent seven years in Iraq, have the best insight into the true danger
:    posed by Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Mr. Ritter recently stated this:
:    "The Bush administration has provided the American public with little
:    more than rhetorically laced speculation. There has been nothing in
:    the way of substantive fact presented that makes the case that Iraq
:    possesses these weapons or has links to international terror, that
:    Iraq poses a threat to the United States of America worthy of
:    war."

So you believe one former weapons inspector and not the overwhelming
contrary opinion that states the opposite - that Saddam Hussein is
trying to re-acquire these weapons?  I'm guessing you already had 
this belief and looked for a voice to support it, instead of weighing
all the evidence of a possible threat from Iraq and then reaching a
conclusion. 

:    I believe that going to war against Iraq would be a gigantic mistake
:    and increase the instability of the entire Middle East region.

The Middle East region is unstable NOW.  If the loss of Saddam
Hussein would lead to a regime that at least isn't a threat to US oil
interests, the US would have less of a need for a strong military
presence there, and this would make the Islamic terrorists a lot
happier, too.  They want the US *out* of their region.  American
support for Israel isn't the *only* thing they're mad about. 

:    I believe that the United States should lead by example in treatment
:    of prisoners of war. Our standards should be based on fair and humane
:    practices.

OK.

:    I believe that the father of the sitting president should not be
:    connected in any way with corporate conglomerates that profit from
:    war.

Why?  Bush the Elder may have a lot more influence with his son than
either would like the public to believe, but it's Bush the Younger's
choice to listen to his dad or not.  Bush could choose to listen to
any private citizen as a close adviser.  Should we disallow *anyone*
George W. happens to trust (even someone not elected or in government)
from investing as a private citizen in any industry, in a way that
does not break insider trading laws?

:    I believe that Bush and Cheney allow energy companies too much power
:    in determining U.S. policies and this will be proven through the
:    lawsuits against Cheney.

I don't think anything will be proven, honestly.  I do think the
energy companies have too much pull with the executive branch.

:    I believe that Bush and Cheney practiced unethical, possibly illegal,
:    chicanery while involved in the private business world.

And your evidence of this is - ?  This sounds more like speculation
and wishful thinking based on a few reports that have come out.
Innocent until proven guilty, remember?

:    I believe that there is more than enough information available about
:    Bush administration corruption to warrant a detailed investigation
:    leading to possible impeachment.

And the ratings-hungry news media and the Democratic Senate haven't
been pushing this in an election year because - ?

:    I believe that were the current president a Democrat and circumstances
:    involving corruption were identical to Bush's, the Republicans would
:    already have just such an investigation under way.

You're right - the Republicans did a remarkable job of disrupting the
Clinton administration with such investigations, preventing such
endevours as universal health care from getting much air time and
wasting millions of taxpayer dollars in the process.  And you think
the Democrats should be doing the same thing, just because they're on 
your side?

:    I believe that the Democratic Party is being far too lenient in
:    questioning actions by the Bush administration. However, I also
:    believe that there is enough trouble for the Republicans on the
:    horizon to shift control of Congress to the Democrats this fall.
:    Perhaps it is politically expedient to focus on that goal right now
:    and leave the investigating until after the elections.

As said above, such investigations are disruptive to the effectiveness
of both the executive and the legislative branches of government and
cost too much money anyway - and they are politically-based not
legally-based.  An "investigation" by the congress isn't going
to do much good, as it didn't in Whitewater or Iran-Contra.  Even
Watergate was mostly dug up by the news media at first.  Believe
me, if the media could dig up enough dirt to force the congress to
act, the media would...

:                                       
:    I believe that both major political parties are too closely associated
:    to corporate conglomerates that lobby to influence legislation.

True.

:    I believe that corporate corruption is rampant and is in large part
:    due to the relaxing of government oversight as promoted by the
:    Republican Party, which overrode the Clinton veto of a
:    securities-industry bill that made it more difficult for investors to
:    sue corporations, stopped Clinton's Treasury secretary from cracking
:    down on offshore accounts, and stopped Clinton's Securities and
:    Exchange Commissioner from barring accounting firms from working as
:    both accountant and consultant.

Corporate corruption has *always* existed throughout the last 150
years of American government.  Read some history - there have been big
scandals in almost every administration and congress in American
history (see especially the administrations of U.S. Grant and Warren
Harding).  It's probably much less rampant today than it was 100 years
ago. 

:    I believe that corporate corruption is directly responsible for the
:    decline in the stock market and Bush's attempts to encourage stability
:    in the market has caused exactly the opposite due to his own alleged
:    corruption with Harken Energy.

You truly Bush's ties to Harken Energy have made the slightest impact
on the stock market?  You must be kidding.  It's fairly obvious that
the decline in the stock market is due to several factors, including
corporate corruption, for which no reasonable person would blame an
administration not even in office while it was happening (Enron,
Worldcom).  Of course, the other big impacts on the stock market are
the bubble of the Dot-Com's bursting still, as higly overvalued stocks
have finally tanked, as well as an the energy crisis in 2000-2001 that
helped drive the US economy into a recession and a loss of economic
confidence.  How again is this Bush's fault? 

:    I believe that the expense of corporate welfare is far more
:    detrimental to the U.S. budget than social welfare.

Probably true.

:    I believe that corporate conglomerates do not need nor deserve more
:    tax breaks. It is a fallacy that these tax breaks result in the
:    creation of more jobs.

Not a "fallacy" at all.  You're assuming that all the companies do with
tax breaks is pocket the savings and give themselves bigger bonuses
with it.  But that's a cliche shown in a few exceptions unearthed by
Michael Moore more than it's the norm.  The more typical case is:  if
you give a tax break to some corporation, they'll have more money to
invest in expanding their business, which would probably create more
jobs.  In the process the company might make more profit for its
shareholders, who are private citizens (like you and me) paying taxes
to the US government - and will pay more taxes if stock goes up in a
company that made more profit due to a tax break.  People's 401K's go
up when companies make more profit and their stock goes up.  Why is
making more profit (more jobs, more tax revenues, higher stock values)
such an evil thing?  

:    I believe that "trickle down" economics has never and will never work.

It does "work" in the sense that the rich get richer, but as the rich
get richer, they also put more money into the economy, so the less
wealthy see the results of that spending.  The wealthy do benefit
greatly from "trickle down", but that doesn't mean it "doesn't work".

:    I believe that the Bush tax cut enacted last year was truly created
:    through "fuzzy math" and merely a pay back to his rich buddies for
:    supporting his campaign. It used up 43% of the surplus and helped
:    return deficit spending and national debt.

The short-term tax cuts were crucial to keeping the economy afloat in
2001 - pretty much perfect timing considering the rebate checks came
smack in the middle of a recession, the absolute best time to give
taxpayers more spending money to put into the economy.  Tax rates
weren't cut for the rich very much in the 2001 tax year.

About the longer-term cuts, I wholeheartedly agree:  these are huge
tax cuts for the rich at a time when we need to be paying off the
national debt or at least avoiding deficit spending.  Until the debt
is paid off, taxes should only be cut to stimulate the economy in a recession

:    I believe that it is wrong to pile up national debt that our children
:    and grandchildren will some day have to pay off.

I agree.  Forget about our grandchildren - what about how the debt
affects *us*?  The interest on the national debt is another tax I have
to keep paying in my lifetime. I'd rather pay off my "share" of it
rather than keep paying interest on it for the next 50 years.  

:    I believe that racism and sexism still exist in America and that we
:    must teach our children more about cultural diversity and acceptance.

Yes, racism and sexism will continue to exist, but I think the
government has already done what it is supposed to do by getting rid
of most of the institutionalized racism and sexism so long prevalent
in the private sector and public sectors.  What we have left is more
like individual racism and sexism except in the minds of the
conspiracy-paranoid who see racism/sexism everywhere.  And individual
racism is just a fact of life.  Even if we teach our kids the best we
can to respect people of all races and both sexes, you're always going
to have racism/sexism regardless.  The government's role to stamp this
sort of thing out in a free society reeks of social engineering I
don't want.

:    I believe that the government has no right to tell a woman what she
:    can or cannot do with her body. Reproductive choices are hers alone
:    and should be based on her beliefs and faith.

Agreed.

:    I believe that we should spend more on public education, not less. We
:    should hire more teachers, invest in technology, and invest in
:    modernized school buildings.

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

:    I believe that vouchers for private schooling are simply welfare for
:    the rich and will siphon funds from public schools.

Agreed.

:    I believe that the minimum wage should be raised and executive pay
:    should be lowered. Why is it that those who oppose raising the minimum
:    wage have no problem with outrageously high executive compensation as
:    if a corporation cannot afford to pay employees fairly, but the
:    salaries of executives are necessary expenditures?

We live in a capitalist economy.  I'd shudder if the government
started enacting laws limiting anyone's income.  Instead, investors
and boards of directors should finally start to see the folly of how
executives have been compensated in the past and how it has led to
financial ruin for more than a few.  If investors don't have
confidence in companies that pay their executives too much, investors
should put their money into other companies they *do* trust.  That's
how the private sector works.

:    I believe that all Americans should have access to affordable health
:    care and that funding for medical research should be a priority.

I agree on the first part wholeheartedly.

:    I believe that establishing a federal repository for nuclear waste is
:    a disaster waiting to happen.

Besides shutting down the nation's nuclear plans, what's your
alternative?

:    I believe that rational environmental policies should be a priority,
:    especially when for the benefit of public health.

True - but there's not a consensus as to what constitutes "rational"
policies.  

:    I believe that corporations should be held financially responsible for
:    correcting environmental problems they cause.

Agreed.

:    I believe that the United States is facing a leadership crisis of
:    unparalleled proportion.

Our leaders come from our society, and they have always looked to the
people to see which way the winds of public opinion are blowing
(despite what you might read, our leaders bowing to "public opinion" is
not something that started happening in the last 20 years).  You can
blame a disinterested electorate that struggles to get half of the
citzens even to vote in elections for part of our problems.

:    I also believe that were the rightful man, Al Gore, sitting in the
:    White House circumstances would be vastly different and for the
:    better!

I think Al Gore would be a better president than George W. Bush has
been, but I don't think things would be much different except in
a few areas (i.e. no John Ashcroft).  I think 9/11 would still have
happened.  As said above, don't overestimate the ability of one man to
move huge entrenched bureaucracies they supposedly control in the
executive branch... 

:    And there you have it! Call me whatever you like -- a dreamer or just
:    plain crazy -- but these are my beliefs and I stand behind them.

Too bad some of your beliefs are unfairly partisian and not owing much
to reasoning or being reasonable.  It's also too bad you won't see
this response... 

:    If you must call me a name for my beliefs, I would be most honored for
:    you to just call me liberal!

Unfortunately, too many other so-called "liberals" will agree with you
without much critical thought.

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=cddzcasduac66084644041805@bizaveNOSPAM.com