Posting Towards Gomorrah

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
No worries. Don't forget Ty's questions, also.

That's not a question. That's the LSATs. Besides, he knows exactly what names would be in my answer already.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
That's not a question. That's the LSATs. Besides, he knows exactly what names would be in my answer already.

I had no idea what was behind that crack-addled post, but figured I'd let you confirm that you wanted to smear and move on. And now you have.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Why are people fed up? The endless partisan shenanigans of the Rs . . .

And of the D's, equally, I think. It's been pointed out that people are, by and large, fed up with incumbents. There are more incumbent Rs than Ds, so it falls more to us, but this isn't a "those damn corrupt Republicans" thing - it's a "those damn corrupt politicians."

Yes, forcing the President to go through Rangel to get a budget approved would be a damn good thing -- it will force compromise and force accountability. And putting Rangel instead of Thomas or his R successor between the Republicans and another round of pork for Alabama is also a good thing.

Oh, gawd, this one is going to make my stomach hurt. Best analogy I can come up with is, forcing me to go through Fat Albert to get to a pie will, almost certainly, cut down my pie intake.

But the pie'll be gone, probably even faster . . .

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Is the role of the media to be a cheerleader during wartime, or is it to provide information? Seeing as how we live in a democracy, I would have thought the former.

Wow. That is quite a statment. Are not the members of the American media U.S. citizens? Shouldn't they want to aid the American military and not provide aid and comfort to the enemy?

This reminds me of one of those Harvard seminars they showed on PBS where they had all these important people and some Harvard Law professor posed difficult questions. The Law professor asked Peter Jennings if he was imbedded with a North Kosanese Unit (Kosanese were the mythical enemy at war with the US) and they were approaching an American unit for an ambush, would he warn the American unit. At first Jennings said he wouldn't becuase his job was just to report, not get invovlved. But when the other panelists explained what an absurd position that was, he relented and said he would do whatever he could to warn the American unit of the coming ambush.

He realized that (even though he is from Canada) as an American citizen (or resident) his first loyalty is to the United States and second came performing the duties of his job.

Do you disagree with that.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
Wasn't German monitary policy really tight after the war and didn't they still have high growth? What about the German miracle? Were not Germany and Japan the highest perfornimg economies after the war and they both had the tightest monetary policies?

When Singapore performed its miracle, didn't it have a tight monetary policy? Same with Hong Kong?

Did the Asian Tigers during their massive expansions have rampant inflation?

I'll try to regurgitate what I remember from that paper; note I was not writing on Japan and don't consider myself particularly knowledgable about Japan, Singapore, China, etc..

This was being written in the early 80s - the German miracle was history and Germany was struggling with the rest of the industrial west. They had a relatively conservative (I don't mean politically conservative, just careful) economic policy that maintained a steady growth level and minimized inflation - it was a keep what you've got policy for the largest economy in Europe. France was playing catch up, and taking a fair bit of monetary risk, and suffering heavy inflation comparatively.

Immediately post-war, Germany was a disaster, and disaster relief came. Whenever a hole is deep, the climb out of it is fairly steep, and with all the Marshall Plan help, it was even steeper. So, the late 40s were a boom, as were the early 50s -- but by a number of measures the German economy was barely getting back to where it was in 1940 in the early 50s. Once Germany gets back to a level commensurate with the rest of the West, they keep going a bit - probably because they have a newer, more efficient industrial plant (very helpful in the automotive industry, for example) than others do. But they never leave France, England or Sweden in the dust.

From a monetary perspective, Bretton Woods overshadowed everything, and the US was dominant in establishing pegged rates - Bonn had virtually no real influence over monetary policy, which was decided for it. The Budesbank had not yet been formed, and its predecessor had vastly less in the way of authority or influence. Comparitive monetary policies became more interesting (and so the divergence of the German and French models more meaningful) in the late fifties and early sixties.

In many ways, the German economic miracle is comparable to that of the US in the mid-to-late 30s -- you see a phenomenal level of growth coming out of the depths of the depression, but its still growing back to the level of the late 20s, at least until the wartime economy roars in.

So, that's the story as I understand it. I'll let you fill me in on Japan.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore

Oh, gawd, this one is going to make my stomach hurt. Best analogy I can come up with is, forcing me to go through Fat Albert to get to a pie will, almost certainly, cut down my pie intake.

But the pie'll be gone, probably even faster . . .

It's difficult to follow precisely what you mean here, but as a purported fan of divided government, I thought you'd at least appreciate the merits of this approach, especially given how well unified rule has worked in allocating those pieces of pie you deem worthy.

Bush does own a veto pen. Right?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
Wow. That is quite a statment. Are not the members of the American media U.S. citizens? Shouldn't they want to aid the American military and not provide aid and comfort to the enemy?

This reminds me of one of those Harvard seminars they showed on PBS where they had all these important people and some Harvard Law professor posed difficult questions. The Law professor asked Peter Jennings if he was imbedded with a North Kosanese Unit (Kosanese were the mythical enemy at war with the US) and they were approaching an American unit for an ambush, would he warn the American unit. At first Jennings said he wouldn't becuase his job was just to report, not get invovlved. But when the other panelists explained what an absurd position that was, he relented and said he would do whatever he could to warn the American unit of the coming ambush.

He realized that (even though he is from Canada) as an American citizen (or resident) his first loyalty is to the United States and second came performing the duties of his job.

Do you disagree with that.

I would expect Peter Jennings to report about how seriously our military is in trouble if it needs to find out about enemy troop movements from Peter Jennings.

[SlaveNoMore]

Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Very good - a bit of the old distort combined with the distract.

He has said both numerous times.

The only was this is a "distraction" is that it will distract otherwise annoyed GOP voters from pulling a Dem lever.

[SlaveNoMore]

Gattigap
Bush does own a veto pen. Right?

He should. I mailed him one - via the RNC - in '04.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Gattigap
It's difficult to follow precisely what you mean here, but as a purported fan of divided government, I thought you'd at least appreciate the merits of this approach, especially given how well unified rule has worked in allocating those pieces of pie you deem worthy.

Bush does own a veto pen. Right?

Not any longer. It's used for signing statements.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Guys, I really love the beating up on the media stuff, really I do. After Bilmore's responsive post to my question about the R's failure to achieve anything they can run on, though, it's clear you've all decided you don't like talking about the Republican record and it's time to Distract.

But I ask you to remember the Rove Mantra: Distract, Distort, Deny.

Please, don't forget to spend some time denying things today, and distort a few Dem's records (distorting media reports doesn't qualify). To help, I give you the latest GOP Radio Salvo on the Democratic Party's Advancement of the Homosexual Agenda -- remember, though, Spanky's been advancing the homosexual agenda, too, so be careful.

The link didn't work for me, which really bums me out. I thought I was going to finally find out what the agenda is that I have been pushing.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Wow. That is quite a statment. Are not the members of the American media U.S. citizens? Shouldn't they want to aid the American military and not provide aid and comfort to the enemy?

This reminds me of one of those Harvard seminars they showed on PBS where they had all these important people and some Harvard Law professor posed difficult questions. The Law professor asked Peter Jennings if he was imbedded with a North Kosanese Unit (Kosanese were the mythical enemy at war with the US) and they were approaching an American unit for an ambush, would he warn the American unit. At first Jennings said he wouldn't becuase his job was just to report, not get invovlved. But when the other panelists explained what an absurd position that was, he relented and said he would do whatever he could to warn the American unit of the coming ambush.

He realized that (even though he is from Canada) as an American citizen (or resident) his first loyalty is to the United States and second came performing the duties of his job.

Do you disagree with that.

I don't disagree with that. But I also think that U.S. media ought to be in the business of reporting hard truths rather than softpedaling or avoiding bad news because it might "provide aid and comfort to the enemy." The reasons for this are both principled and pragmatic.

Suppose -- hypothetically -- that the country was at war in, say, Vietnam, under an incompetent Democratic president. We -- our country, our troops -- would be better off if the press was reporting on the president's incompetence, rather than covering it up for fear of giving aid and comfort to the Vietnamese.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
The link didn't work for me, which really bums me out. I thought I was going to finally find out what the agenda is that I have been pushing.

You can link to it through the Talking Points Memo.

But it doesn't give any details of H.A., just notes that Pelosi, with the help of the local Dem should he win, would be advancing it.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Sleepovers!?!? Frankly, bilmoore, I wouldn't fuck Pelosi with Hillary's dick.

Penske, why do you hate homosexuals? Why?

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by bilmore
The last few months of September . . .? Okay, I think I know what you mean, but . . .

What I remember is, they played constantly for about three or four days, and then - bang - gone - once someone decided that viewers might be mad inappropriately, when what we really ought to have been doing was contemplating what we did to them to make them so justifiably mad at us. Heck, Sidd, there were national talk shows the very next week with people arguing about whether the networks were right to have pulled them so quickly.

CNN was playing the same vids for weeks on end. I suppose that wasn't long enough, though -- right? I mean, people have forgotten that we were attacked on 9/11, right?