Politics: A new beginning

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
I was under the impression that Bush attending funerals would be a really bad idea during war time. Bad for national morale, bad for troop morale, bad by giving publicity to any damage done by enemies, bad by advertising that the US is so casualty intollerant that the President goes to troop funerals, so killing more troops is a good way to pressure the US to cut it out. Presidents don't go to soldiers' funerals during conflicts. They just don't.

Or: anything that calls attention to or highlights troop casualties is, strategically, a bad thing. Meaning strategically in terms of military/war on terrorism strategy. That this also might serve Bush-reelection strategy is a perhaps unwelcome side-effect, but a side-effect nevertheless. I am pretty surprised Clark is the one saying this, but much of the distaste for him in the military runs along the line that he was politically, not militarily, motivated.

I don't think it is a made-up bush bash, but I think (i) it has been a long time since the US has been in any serious longer-term military adventures and people have forgotten how they happen and (ii) the US really has become pretty casualty intollerant and a lot of people think that every soldier death should occasion a national day of mourning. Not that every one of them isn't horrible, but the big picture gets missed.

After some thought, I don't have any objection to the President not attending the funerals of SMs. After all -- how would be choose which ones to attend? I understand the morale/politics issues too. Attending would make each funeral seem like a huge deal to the nation -- which it is not.

I mean, heck -- Spain declared a National Day of Mourning when they lost the 7 intelligence agents -- as Italy did for their 19(?) policemen/troops. We can't go that far [/sarcasm] -- or we'd never get any work done [/sarcasm] , so the best policy may be not to attend.

I have more beef with the Bush administation rigorously enforcing the policy of no pictures/news coverage of the coffins at Dover.
That strikes me as more objectionable news manipulation.

P.S. How about that US Forest Service? Emmet Sullivan handed them their ass the other day! (Regarding the incomplete and "results-driven" analysis reversing the Clinton-era limits on snow-mobiles in Yellowstone .)

S_A_M

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
P.S. How about that US Forest Service? Emmet Sullivan handed them their ass the other day! (Regarding the incomplete and "results-driven" analysis reversing the Clinton-era limits on snow-mobiles in Yellowstone .)

I missed that. Do you have a link?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by B_R_C
Or: anything that calls attention to or highlights troop casualties is, strategically, a bad thing. Meaning strategically in terms of military/war on terrorism strategy. That this also might serve Bush-reelection strategy is a perhaps unwelcome side-effect, but a side-effect nevertheless.

This view of our strategic is, I think, incompatable with our democratic form of government. We presume that we are competent to govern ourselves, and that citizens should be educated and well-informed and involved in order to do so. This "strategy" involves managing information and expectations so that democratic self-government is an impediment to government. It also expects too little of the people. When there is a war worth fighting, it has gotten popular support. World War II being the classic example. Vietnam also fits into this, IMHO, although I know bilmore thinks that if the people had just shut up and trusted the generals, Saigon would still be called Saigon (and presumably Hanoi would be called Nixon City). In a democracy, we have to trust the citizenry. This strategy is founded on the premise that our military leaders can't trust the citizenry.

And with this Administration, it is just asking too much of us to think that the benefits to the Bush-reelection strategy are just a "side-effect," as opposed to an integral part of the its raison d'etre. If Bush really wanted to mobilize popular support for his wars, he wouldn't work so hard to use them for personal and partisan ends.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
When there is a war worth fighting, it has gotten popular support. World War II being the classic example.

Where do you get this shit from? Substantial parts of this country were against our being in WWII, thought it was a war the "Jews" started, etc. (read Focus before you start talking) 80% of the country supported going into Iraq, I bet the % who wanted us to take out Hitler was smaller. The Japanese attacked us Ty, Hitler was attacking others. Hitler was no imminent threat to our security, etc.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop

And with this Administration, it is just asking too much of us to think that the benefits to the Bush-reelection strategy are just a "side-effect," as opposed to an integral part of the its raison d'etre. If Bush really wanted to mobilize popular support for his wars, he wouldn't work so hard to use them for personal and partisan ends.

and I don't mean to keep harping on your viewpoints, but this is just circular.
The only people who think not showing up for funerals is for re-election are the people who think he does everything for re-election. you're in the same solar system as McDermott, just not as far out there. think you're Mars he's Pluto. Dean? Uranus!

[sgtclub]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20031218/D7VH0F104.html

[prediction: this will be the fastest reversal in history]

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Where do you get this shit from? Substantial parts of this country were against our being in WWII, thought it was a war the "Jews" started, etc. (read Focus before you start talking) 80% of the country supported going into Iraq, I bet the % who wanted us to take out Hitler was smaller. The Japanese attacked us Ty, Hitler was attacking others. Hitler was no imminent threat to our security, etc.

Then I guess there's no reason to worry that public support for the war is going to falter, and Bush can go to all the funerals he wants to.

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
The only people who think not showing up for funerals is for re-election are the people who think he does everything for re-election. you're in the same solar system as McDermott, just not as far out there. think you're Mars he's Pluto. Dean? Uranus!

I think my point was a little different, but don't tax yourself.

[sgtclub]

NEW YORK — Stocks rose Thursday after a better-than-expected report on jobless claims confirmed investors' belief that the labor market is improving.

In early afternoon trading Thursday, the blue-chip Dow Jones industrial average (search) was up 63 points at 10,209 while the technology-packed Nasdaq Composite Index (search) was up 26 points at 1,947. The broader Standard & Poor's 500 Index (search) was up 7 points at 1,084.

First-time claims for state unemployment aid, a rough guide to the pace of layoffs, plunged more than expected to 353,000 last week, falling to the 2-3/4 year low they hit in early November, the Labor Department (search) said.



http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,106103,00.html

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sgtclub
First-time claims for state unemployment aid, a rough guide to the pace of layoffs, plunged more than expected to 353,000 last week, falling to the 2-3/4 year low they hit in early November, the Labor Department (search) said.

The unemployment stats are meaningless at this point, as most of the long-term unemployed have either been shipped to Guantanamo, or have been killed and eaten by right-wing religious fanatics.

There is no true recovery.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
Me, probably fifteen times at least, mostly pre-teen in great parts of LA.

Whoa. I've been reading your stuff for a while now, and somehow this didn't fit into the mental profile.

(Though, come to think of it, that of a shorter Danny DeVito probably would bridge that gap.)

I'll be there out of simple tribalism/spawn-protection, while acknowledging the utility of armed cops.

Agreed. I believe in the cops' value, but were one to draw on a Gattispawn without colorable justification, I'd be beyond pissed.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
I missed that. Do you have a link?

It was the U.s. Park Service, sorry:

Here is a link to a news article sort of outlining the issue:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...owstone12.html


I heven't found a link to any opinion yet -- just heard it on the news yesterday. It was NPR -- so, in your heart, you know its right.

S_A_M

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
It was the U.s. Park Service, sorry:

So, you're saying 'da judge reinstated the Clinton phase-out?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
So, you're saying 'da judge reinstated the Clinton phase-out?

We're trying to preserve the air quality in and around an enormous caldera volcano that's about 100,000 years overdue for a giant explosive fart that will wipe out all life on earth, at worst, or end life as we know it, at best?

I feel somewhat like the young Alvy Singer who decided he didn't need to do his homework when he found out the universe was infinitely expanding.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
We're trying to preserve the air quality in and around an enormous caldera volcano that's about 100,000 years overdue for a giant explosive fart that will wipe out all life on earth, at worst, or end life as we know it, at best?

Screw it. I'm throwing these nicotene patches away right now.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by bilmore
The unemployment stats are meaningless at this point, as most of the long-term unemployed have either been shipped to Guantanamo, or have been killed and eaten by right-wing religious fanatics.

There is no true recovery.

I know this post is just another example of your special way of making us lefties feel loved, so please don't take me as someone stubbornly trying to argue with what was meant as a sarcastic zinger.

But I'm curious: do you (or sgtclub or anyone else on the "things are getting better" side of the argument) find it at all significant that to date the economy has not once generated the monthly number of jobs projected to be created by the admin as it pushed for the latest round of tax cuts?

To me this mismatch would seem to indicate that the tax cuts were poorly crafted to address the jobless recovery we've been having. Or maybe it's just attributable to the fuzziness inherent in predicting economic effects of policy decisions, which itself would raise the question of why these types of projections are given any airing at all.

It just seems funny to look at a downtick in unemployment as a positive for the admin when there is no standard to judge it against. If you have a fairer yardstick (I'm not joining the "metric" crowd - I'm old school) I'd be interested to hear it.