Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Not Me
Kerrey, like Clinton, doesn't even think it is a war. Just a crime.

If you truly think this, you are a moron, but it's not without its uses as propaganda.

[Hank Chinaski]

Despite his background and experience in Law Enforcement, and contrary to his stump claims, cops are not for JFK.

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=38194

Police Call on Kerry to Stop Misrepresenting Their Support

10/14/2004 6:34:00 PM

WASHINGTON, Oct. 14 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Today Chuck Canterbury, the President of the nation's largest police labor organization, called on John Kerry to stop making misleading statements regarding his support from the law enforcement community. Both on the campaign trail and in Wednesday night's debate in Tempe, AZ, Senator Kerry has alluded that he has the support of the majority of these brave men and women.

Is this worse then saying you've never met a guy who clearly sat at the end of a table from you at breakfast one day?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
point of clarification.
I edited my post that this quotes due to seeing GGG had addressed the issue, and in his way made clear that he thinks the guy Ty quoted is an idiot, and implicedly that GGG believes Ty is an idiot. I was responding to a Taxwonk-like misuse of Orwellian.

Do you feel a strong breeze when you do that? Or is it just the catcher and the ump who have to brace themselves?

[Say_hello_for_me]

and sometimes I like the LA Times and Boston Globe. Today there are 3 stories I found worth reading on the front page alone, and none of them were the one I was looking for about some kid getting shot 19 times.

The stories are:
1.) An excellent piece on progress in Afghanistan (Ty, this addresses part of your recent post about what more should have been done in Afghanistan);
2.) An excellent piece on LAPD officers who have been involved in multiple shootings (BaltAssoc, this ties into that book you read); and
3.) And decent coverage of Fallujah yesterday, the fighting is described by the Times as being heavier than is being described by other publications.

Registration req'd, but www.latimes.com. At some point, the articles should be available via Yahoo or Google news if you don't want to register.

Hello

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Re: 2. Did the regulators take the position that the drugs won't be allowed at all in their jurisdictions, or just that the drugs will be provided in an extra-legal manner? This is really my fundamental question here... did someone threaten to violate patents of the U.S. pharamaceutical industry as a nation?

I am not aware of any threats to permit drugs in a non-legal manner if the pharma doesn't play along with a lower pricing scheme; in most cases, that would violate a number of treaties as well. But we're talking about why, globally, drugs cost less everywhere else, and there are certainly some countries out there where our patents are already not worth the paper they are printed on.

Re: Bottom line. Exactly. I'm told the same thing, and it offends me to no end that the risk/reward tends to overwhelmingly favor Amermican risk-taking companies, but at the expense of American consumers. Some of these countries have per-capita incomes almost equal to ours. It sounds entirely like a free-rider/strong-arm theft problem.

Hello

It is clear that Americans bear a disproportionate amount of the cost of drug development, but some of this appears to be the result of different supply and demand dynamics here (we simply demand more) and different cost structures here. Some of it is an unwillingness to adopt other strategies to lower drug costs (such as bulk purchasing). This is a case where we have to define an appropriate role for government to enable the lower of our costs and the sharing of costs with other countries, but where we probably do not want a government as interventionist as some of the foreign ones. Bush, however, has been completely hands off, letting a very unfree market do what it does.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
He has gotten Saudi Arabia to do next to nothing. I'm not saying that Kerry could have done better, but don't kid yourself. What happened with Libya started under Bush's father and continued under Clinton. Renouncing Arafat has done nothing to curb terrorism against us -- the Palestinians don't gun for us -- but it may make other Arabs resent us more. Not that I'm an Arafat fan. And when you talk about increasing intelligence capabilities, there was bipartisan agreement about that after 9/11.

Saudi Arabia, partly true (they drew up a list and then put their best people on removing names from the list);
Libya, no freakin way. These guys didn't even settle for Lockerbie until this year.
Arafat, a lot of Americans have been killed in Israel over the years. American victims of terrorism are down in Israel (I think) since 9/11.
Further, I could care less if renouncing Arafat makes anyone resent us more. There is no purpose in coddling those who tolerate terror, particularly in order to appease other non-democratic nations.
As described below, there are numerous other actions that Bush also took. The idea is, he views this war comprehensively, and not reactively.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


Unclear that Syria supports terrorism against us. Against Israel, sure, but Syria was actually helping us against Al Qaeda before the invasion of Iraq. And then we "isolated" them.

Unclear? Unclear that they tolerate and provide umbrella coverage for Hizbollah in Lebanon?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Like the Bushies, you see the war on terror as one of confronting rogue states. But some of these states (Syria, North Korea) have nothing to do with the Islamists. And other states (Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq) now are a haven for terrorists, not because the central government supports them but because the state's authority is limited. Failed states are a problem for us.

Our allies are with us in Afghanistan, which is a war Democrats were fully with. Gore or Kerry would have done something similar there after 9/11, but might have invested more in the rebuilding to get a government whose writ extends beyond Kabul.

Syria: Simply not true. See above regarding Hizbollah. Saying they have nothing to do with Islamists is about as true as saying the Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11/
North Korea: Not that its necessarily germane to addressing the North Korea issue, but the A.Q. Khan network, right? In any case, North Korea is a completely independent set of circumstances.
And yes, failed states are a problem for us. The trick is, I think the only people saying Afghanistan is a failed state (haven for terrorists) are occasional leftist mouthpieces. See the LA Times article today for contrary evidence.

As for our allies, my best guess is that the same people who are with us in Iraq are the ones who provided immediate military support (special ops forces) in Afghanistan in 9/01 and 10/01. Namely, Australia and Britain. The question for me is not who will come in with the UN later. The question is who will go in the first place when justified, with or without the UN, the US NATO or any other outside support. The UN is simply irrelevant when it comes to this war.

And I have no idea whether there is any basis to the suggestion that Gore or Kerry would have done the same thing post-9/11. THere is no indication in their political histories that either would show any military leadership.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Iraq is a different story, but many of us think it was a wrong turn in the war on terror.
...
I have no idea what you see in Kerry's record that seems germane to you to the war on terror.

1.) Fair enough.
2.) I have no idea what you see in Kerry's record that indicates he is willing and able to lead a war on terror.

ef clarification

[Replaced_Texan]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._redistricting

High Court Orders Review of Texas Seats

18 minutes ago

By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court on Monday ordered a lower court to reconsider a Texas congressional map that could give Republicans six more seats in Congress in upcoming elections and help the GOP protect its majority.

ETadd link to NYT article describing the Republican world-domination-through-redistricting plan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/18/po...tml?oref=login

[bilmore]

The votes are in, and it's not pretty for you Democrats:

- Republicans are happier with their sex lives.

- Republicans have more sex.

- Democrats fake orgasms more often.

(So many parallels, so little time . . . . )

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/News...=174461&page=1

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
The votes are in, and it's not pretty for you Democrats:

- Republicans are happier with their sex lives.

- Republicans have more sex.

- Democrats fake orgasms more often.

(So many parallels, so little time . . . . )

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/News...=174461&page=1

On point 2, that's not what the article says. We have to tune in to primetime to find out whether Republicans are just more easily satisfied or whether they actually have more sex.

Read, Bilmore, Read!

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Since we're all being so nice to each other --

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Oct15.html

Here is a link to an interesting article I read in Friday's WaPo about the election situation in Florida and the Hispanic vote. This addresses a number of issues discussed last week -- including some questions Bilmore asked.

Bottom line in that regard: Cubans break heavily for Bush, but the non-Cuban Hispanics are split almost 50/50. Non-Cuban Hispanic population is growing in Florida, but still a minority of he Hispanic population. Older Cubans support Bush by a much greater percentage than the younger ones. Most Cubans say that they aren't all that pissed off by the travel restrictions.

S_A_M

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
I have no idea what you see in Kerry's record that indicates he is willing and able to lead a war on terror.

He has directly engaged the enemy in combat. Among other things, I believe this gives him a healthier respect for who knows how to accomplish particular missions in the military and where deferral to the brass is advisable.

One of the major failures of the Bush Presidency has been the mindless pushing of the Rumsfeld doctrine over the objection of the brass. It is possible to do amazing things with our light and highly mobile forces, but at the end of the day when you have to put boots on the ground, hold territory, and keep it orderly you need heavier forces. The fact that Rumsfeld's broad plan going forward appears to be continued emphasis on light forces over heavy forces while Kerry is explicitly supporting the creation of two new divisions (as well as the expansion of special forces) tells me that our forces will be better prepared and equipped to do the job under Kerry.

Put this one in the category of learning from our mistakes - a second major problem of the Bush administration is that they do not seem capable of learning from mistakes such as the Rumsfeld Doctrine.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
He has directly engaged the enemy in combat. Among other things, I believe this gives him a healthier respect for who knows how to accomplish particular missions in the military and where deferral to the brass is advisable.

One of the major failures of the Bush Presidency has been the mindless pushing of the Rumsfeld doctrine over the objection of the brass. It is possible to do amazing things with our light and highly mobile forces, but at the end of the day when you have to put boots on the ground, hold territory, and keep it orderly you need heavier forces. The fact that Rumsfeld's broad plan going forward appears to be continued emphasis on light forces over heavy forces while Kerry is explicitly supporting the creation of two new divisions (as well as the expansion of special forces) tells me that our forces will be better prepared and equipped to do the job under Kerry.

Put this one in the category of learning from our mistakes - a second major problem of the Bush administration is that they do not seem capable of learning from mistakes such as the Rumsfeld Doctrine.

We are on the same page on tactics. My absolute doubt is on strategy and committment. Rummy sucks and needs to go so that our soldiers are allowed to fight the way they were trained. But I'm not sure that Kerry puts them into the fight in the first place, except as a limited reaction to events. I hate to keep harping on the "reaction" vs. "preemption" thing, but its really a core issue now.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
We are on the same page on tactics. My absolute doubt is on strategy and committment. Rummy sucks and needs to go so that our soldiers are allowed to fight the way they were trained. But I'm not sure that Kerry puts them into the fight in the first place, except as a limited reaction to events. I hate to keep harping on the "reaction" vs. "preemption" thing, but its really a core issue now.

Preemption is a really nice doctrine if you are in control around the world and ready to engage on mulitple fronts. But are we ready to let Russia loose with preemption?

It's not difficult to justify going into a country where bad things are happening without arguing preemption -- for examples of a Democrat doing just that, you need look no further than Clinton in Somalia and the Balkans. I'd anticipate Kerry to actually be more focused on foreign policy than Clinton was -- Clinton very much ran on and felt most comfortable with domestic issues, while foreign policy has always been Kerry's more comfortable arena.

[Replaced_Texan]

There was an editorial on Sunday in the Houston Chronicle (and, I assume, other papers) about abortion rates and the Bush administration. The authors were a professor of Christian ethics (who, with his wife, chose not to terminate a pregnancy after she had contracted Ruella in the first trimester and consequently had a blind child) and an investigative journalist.

They found that abortion rates, which had been falling steadily in the 1990s began to increase (in Colorado, dramatically) since Bush went into office. They cite a few reasons for this: decline in income, increase in unemployment, lack of health insurance, and lack of social services. Ultimately, they conclude that economic factors are heavily tied to abortion rates and people who care about abortion should not consider it separately from other domestic issues.

They just stop short of endorsing Kerry, but they certainly reference him:

What does this tell us? Economic policy and abortion are not separate issues; they form one moral imperative. Rhetoric is hollow, mere tinkling brass, without health care, insurance, jobs, child care and a living wage. Pro-life in deed, not merely in word, means we need a president who will do something about jobs, health insurance and support for mothers.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...utlook/2851283

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
There was an editorial on Sunday in the Houston Chronicle (and, I assume, other papers) about abortion rates and the Bush administration. The authors were a professor of Christian ethics (who, with his wife, chose not to terminate a pregnancy after she had contracted Ruella in the first trimester and consequently had a blind child) and an investigative journalist.

They found that abortion rates, which had been falling steadily in the 1990s began to increase (in Colorado, dramatically) since Bush went into office. They cite a few reasons for this: decline in income, increase in unemployment, lack of health insurance, and lack of social services. Ultimately, they conclude that economic factors are heavily tied to abortion rates and people who care about abortion should consider it separately from other domestic issues.

They just stop short of endorsing Kerry, but they certainly reference him:



http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory...utlook/2851283

Is there a "not" missing in the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph of your post? Or am I still germ-infested, and missing something?