Politics: A new beginning

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Ty is now up to about 20K words on this subject and he still can't explain how a drop in unemployment doesn't equalu more new jobs than more new workers.

You haven't been paying attention if you think he hasn't explained it. NTIAWH.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
the WMD's are in Syria.

That, plus the fact that it's a repressive dictatorship, clearly means we should be invading right now. What are we waiting for? The Syrian people are waiting for democracy, and surely will meet us with flowers and parades.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
Wasn't that coming out of OUR $87B?

(Haven't had a chance to read about this one yet, so can't even get snarky about it. The humanity . . . )

I can't tell if I'm whiffing here, but it was a joke, in the hope that it would illustrate that keeping the French and Germans out isn't in the best interest of taxpayer dollars, if Halliburton is at all illustrative of the patriotism and efficiency of U.S. companies in fleecing the taxpayers.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
That, plus the fact that it's a repressive dictatorship, clearly means we should be invading right now. What are we waiting for? The Syrian people are waiting for democracy, and surely will meet us with flowers and parades.

The Syrian people aren't as oppressed as the Iraqis were, so I don't predict the flowers and parades. Syria's day will come, but it likley won't be with an invasion. Just because Syria may be harboring the WMDs doesn't mean that they will use them. The eye doctor isn't as crazy as SH was/is.

Iran and N. Korea are bigger threats right now.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I was hoping to come back and see you and your cohorts admitting that the "evidence" of WMD was trumped-up, that the suggestion that the war would be cheap and that Iraq would pay for its own reconstruction was humiliatingly false, and that your early claims of a "cakewalk" had proven about as intelligent as the celebrations of Patriots' fans when they scored the first field goal in the Superbowl against the Bears.

But, as I said, I'm willing to set all that aside to acknowledge that it's okay for the US to spend US postwar reconstruction money in a way that rewards countries that supported the war.

Given how our contracting has worked out so far (hey Cheney, spare some change for gas?), not to mention our reconstruction efforts, I have to wonder why France or Germany would want to touch those contracts with a ten-foot Pole.

Changed your mind yet?

Not on WMD, I'm waiting for Kay's final report. I don't remember ever suggesting that Iraq would pay for its own reconstruction, but Wolfowitz' claims that oil revenue would pay for most were clearly wrong (though I think a certain amount of leeway should be given because they didn't know what they would find on the ground. Nonetheless, the assessment was off). It was a cake walk - major military action is over. Seriously, as war's go, even given the injury and death toll, it has been an easy war.**

But I still appreciate your objectivity on the contracts issue.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Not on WMD, I'm waiting for Kay's final report.

Yes, I'm sure it will be an excellent compilation of every broken vial and latex glove they dig out of the sand. And it will be read, and parsed, and exegisized in typical Leo Straussian style --- with a patient study of hints and silences, in order to determine the text's esoteric meaning to the elect. We will be reminded, as usual, of what it doesn't say as primary proof of what it meant.

I, for one, cannot wait.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Stephen Roach of Morgan Stanley, on the employment picture:

• There seems to be a real disconnect between the actual numbers on the hiring front and the impressions that have been formed in financial markets. Total nonfarm payrolls have expanded by only 328,000 workers over the August to November 2003 period -- an average of 82,000 per month. That's far short of the pace of job creation that normally occurs at this stage in a business cycle recovery -- somewhere in the range of 250,000 to 300,000 per month. Yet many have been quick to interpret the recent modest pickup in hiring as a sign that Corporate America is finally breaking the shackles of risk aversion and emerging from the funk of recent years. The mix of recent hiring trends tells a very different picture. It turns out that fully 84% of the total increase in nonfarm payrolls over the August to November period is traceable to hiring in four segments of the labor market -- the temporary staffing industry, health, education, and government -- where combined jobs have increased by 68,000 per month. In other words, the bulk of the so-called hiring turnaround since August has been concentrated in either the contingent workforce (temps) or in those industry groupings that are least exposed to global competition. This hardly speaks of a US business sector that has consciously made an important transition from downsizing to expansion. It merely reflects the fact that scale is increasing in the most sheltered and least productive segments of the economy.
  
  Those trends stand in sharp contrast to employment conditions in those segments of the economy that are most exposed to tough competitive pressures. Over the past four months, jobs have continued to decline in manufacturing, the information sector (i.e., telecom, publishing, data processing, and broadcasting), wholesale distribution, and finance and insurance. Moreover, at the same time, employment growth has been anemic in transportation and warehousing and in a broad array of professional and business services other than temps (i.e., legal, computer systems design, management consulting). Collectively, these "exposed" segments of the economy employ about 47 million workers, or 36% of the total nonfarm workforce. Over the August to November time period, jobs in this large collection of industries have contracted, on average, by 20,000 per month...

link, courtesy of Semi-Daily Journal

yes there is a disconnect.
there are:
68K new jobs per month (bad kind)
20K lost each month (good kind)
150K new workers each month
how did unemployment drop?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
how did unemployment drop?

For the last time: Because the official unemployment rate is a function of the number of people who report that they have been looking for work and unable to find it, not a measure of the percentage of people in society who do not have work.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
The Syrian people aren't as oppressed as the Iraqis were.

Not sure why you say this. Plus, the Syrian regime is oppressing Lebanon, too, unlike Iraq and Kuwait.

Just because Syria may be harboring the WMDs doesn't mean that they will use them.

Wait, "may be" harboring? Shouldn't we be sure before we invade?

Iran and N. Korea are bigger threats right now.

Here's a prediction: Influenza will kill many more Americans this year than Saddam Hussein would have, but we will spend much less than $87 billion on the problem.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Jesus Christ. Pay my hourly rate if you want things on a timeframe.

Oh, so sorry Mr. Google. I had this impression that you posted some far-fetched "scenario" and then returned, what, two hours later, to ask if anyone had any comments! Gee, I hate to think that I troubled you to provide details of your scenario within 3 days, especially when it seems like it was the only part of my posts you previously weren't attempting to answer.

Anyway, as to substance, I'll stipulate to the first few points about a change in the Sup. Ct and *some* state's reaction. I thought that was inherent in the scenario, and I was only really asking about how this happens in Congress.

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch [*]Politicians in states allowing no abortions rail against the Sodoms and Gomorrahs allowing abortions; candidates for President are asked whether fetus is a person in all future presidential debates (because candidates will no longer be allowed to use Roe federalism as a euphemism for the moral issue).[*]Congress stages weekly debates on whether there is a national policy to "favor" carrying a fetus to term. Findings are entered into the legislative record about birth rates and fetal development stages and all the same shit that came in during the partial birth abortion ban.

Skipping 600 words to the chase here. Roe federalism? What is that, the "we make shit up" type?

OK, so we have Congress staging weekly debates. Are we premising this on the idea that pro-lifers (mild or extreme) are the majority of the electorate and the majority of congress? Don't tell my crowd this, but I'm pretty sure that this is demonstrably not true. Cf. anything but the PBA ban. The only truth I've seen is that pro-lifers are far more likely to be single issue voters (relatively and in absolute numbers) than pro-choicers. But, I think we are going to an "America is a pro-life majority" argument here. We'll see.

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch [*]The states banning abortion elect single-issue House reps who will be the Dana Rohrbachers and Bob Dornans of abortion policy, repeatedly introducing legislation to end the holocausts of abortions being performed in NY, CA, MA and elsewhere.[*]It will begin to be seen as a legitimate policy goal at the federal level to "encourage" birth, and it will be seen as a legitimate means of achieving that goal to employ coercive funding conditions (like what federalized drinking age and basic speed law) to coax states to standardize "personhood" law.

As to the first, no doubt. There probably already are reps that can be characterized as "single issue". If not, I'd agree that there will be. How many districts do you think that would be though. 5? 10? I'm not seeing where this is going yet.

As to the second, uhm, you skipped a few dozen steps here. How do the 5 or 10 reps coopt the federal government into adopting a legitimate federal goal of "encouraging birth", at least insofar as that implies it is discouraging abortion? I mean, there are reasons why this nation needs to encourage a healthy birth rate, but how do 168 (well, really, 163 or 158) reps get coopted into adopting this goal? What do they get in return without totally galvanizing their respective pro-choice constituents?

I'm no mathematician (actually, I am), but 5 or 10 leveraging 163 or 158 on the most galvanizing issue in America today seems like something I wouldn't allow a high school freshman to assume. But maybe you are addressing it below. We'll see.

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch [*]States banning abortion will enact anti-travel provisions, which will be struck down in the courts, further inflaming the voter base. State legislatures there will instead do things like revise medical profession regulations to ban doctors from informing patients of their right to travel across state lines. States will also be free to enact laws banning insurance coverage for abortion and contraceptive-related medical care, which affect even the provision of out-of-state abortions. States free to enact laws that require insurance companies to report and publish names of covered women who've obtained abortions. Congress is asked to step in, but no idea how this plays out.[*]With no constitutional right to privacy in the doctor-patient relationship, Congress enacts federal controls on interstate travel for the purpose of procuring abortion. Maybe favoring; maybe restricting --- depends on how the elections go.[/list=1]

As to the first... anti-travel? Anti-speech? Ahh, I see why your avatar is smirking now.

Seriously, the banning insurance coverage argument could be interesting. Anyone know how realistic this one is?

I'll deal further with Congress below.

In short, I think the people who think it's simply going to be a matter of the states making up their own minds once, and the nation becoming comfortable that American babies are put to death depending solely upon which side of a state border the mother resides, is hopelessly naive. I must say I'm a little surprised that the conservatives on this board all think abortion is a states' rights issue. I surmise that those people have never lived in a Southern state. It's a matter of morality, and it will not stop with ending abortions in a 100, 200, or 500 mile radius. Hell, Bilmore can say it's a state's rights issue at the same time he's describing how anguished his friends are to think of babies being slaughtered. You think it's just Minnesota babies that keep them up at night?

I'm sure a much smarter person with more time on a Thursday night can think of other messy little open issues that will arise once there's no constitutional limit to what State A can do to State A residents.

OK, so you've raised an interesting insurance issue from the state legislative viewpoint.

But really, I was asking about horsetrading at the federal level. But that explanation is still lacking. And, of course, the congressional involvement somehow seems to miss the premise that the Sup. Ct. has already tossed it out of the Federal arena. How do we get it back in?

I mean, I appreciate the snarky "hopelessly naive" comment, and the accolades on your "analysis" from your Minnesota sock (jk), but I think you've skipped a few steps here.
---
How do your "single issue" pro-life congresspeople coopt the country? And how does congress step back in after the Sup. Ct. explicitly tosses the ball back to the states.

I also don't buy your argument about who you think we worry about. Why worry about California but not Canada? Why worry about California but not Ireland? I mean, are you willing to recognize only the U.S. borders as the boundaries of my concern?

Where does this leave us?

Well, the insurance question is an interesting one, as is anything related to the extension of state legislative authority. But the rest? Well, I just don't see how the electorate suddenly starts electing 51% single-issue pro-lifers to both houses, or how congress suddenly gets to start ignoring the Sup. Ct.

Sheesh, I'm almost sorry I asked now, seeing as how the only satisfying response I got, that actually raises an issue, is one that relates to insurance regulation.

Hello

[Not Me]

"This is an Islamic way of doing justice," the judge wrote in his verdict.

Pakistani Judge Orders Blinding by Acid
By KHALID TANVEER Associated Press Writer

MULTAN, Pakistan (AP) - A judge has ruled that a Pakistani man convicted of attacking his 17-year-old fiancee with acid be blinded with acid himself, police said Friday.

Mohammed Sajid, 19, poured acid on the face of his fiancee Rabia Bibi on June 24 in Bahawalpur, a city in the eastern Pakistani province of Punjab. His two brothers were also convicted of taking part.

The woman lost both eyes and her face was burned in the attack, which police said followed a minor dispute between the couple.

Judge Afzal Sharif ruled Thursday at a court in Bahawalpur that Sajid and his brothers were guilty of the attack and be jailed for seven years, and that Sajid be blinded by acid, said Rana Riaz, a local police official.

The judge ordered that a doctor perform the punishment publicly at a sports stadium.

"This is an Islamic way of doing justice," the judge wrote in his verdict.

Police said the defendant was likely to appeal his conviction and the sentence.

Violence against women, including acid attacks, are common in Pakistan, particularly in rural and deeply conservative tribal regions.

2003-12-12 15:13:01 GMT

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Not Me
"This is an Islamic way of doing justice," the judge wrote in his verdict.

What is your objection? That someone is getting punished, or that they are getting punished in a manner that is likely to deter them and others from engaging in despicable behavior?

I swear you could have come up with a better example than this one.

Hello

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
What is your objection? That someone is getting punished, or that they are getting punished in a manner that is likely to deter them and others from engaging in despicable behavior?

I think this article illustrates a barbaric and primitive culture. And unfortunately, we need them as our allies because they have nukes and for other strategic reasons like the war on terrorism.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Wait, "may be" harboring? Shouldn't we be sure before we invade?

I never said to invade Syria. And as for Iraq, it was well documented that SH had WMD, he used them on the Kurds for JFC's sake. The only question was what did he do with them. And the answer is, sent many of them to Syria. Mark my words and butter up your hat.

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Here's a prediction: Influenza will kill many more Americans this year than Saddam Hussein would have, but we will spend much less than $87 billion on the problem.

Influenza will kill many more Americans this year than Al Queda killed in 2001. Should we have stayed out of Afghanistan, too?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Wait, "may be" harboring? Shouldn't we be sure before we invade?

actually Syria admits to having chemical weapons. it hasn't used them on other country's people