Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I also wonder -- seriously -- whether democracy in the ME is such a good thing. If Iran's voters are a clue, then I really wonder. And worry.

Bluntly, I'm pretty fucking down today.

The inconvenient intrusion of realpolitik into the relentless advance of democracy.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I also wonder -- seriously -- whether democracy in the ME is such a good thing. If Iran's voters are a clue, then I really wonder. And worry.

Bluntly, I'm pretty fucking down today.

Call me naive, but I think that if people have good jobs, they're not as likely to sit around in the coffee house or marketplace all day and talk about how much their life sucks and start planning on how they're going to make everyone else's life suck too. They're at work, and then they're at home enjoying the fruits of their labor. And if the rewards for working are good enough, they don't want anyone else fucking around with their nice life.

I think stimulating the economy in a meaningful way for the average ordinary people in a community leads to stability. People want to get more involved in their communities if they are invested in those communities and have something to lose. If they have nothing, losing their lives in a suicide bombing or their rights in an election isn't that big of a deal. They don't think they had anything to lose in the first place.

I don't know how to go about getting the people to concentrate on their own communities and lives, but I think that, Sebby's rants aside, meaningful jobs are needed in the middle east more than anything else if we're looking for stability.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Call me naive, but I think that if people have good jobs, they're not as likely to sit around in the coffee house or marketplace all day and talk about how much their life sucks and start planning on how they're going to make everyone else's life suck too.

that the person who runs this forum could post this seemingly non-ironically is ironic.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Call me naive, but I think that if people have good jobs, they're not as likely to sit around in the coffee house or marketplace all day and talk about how much their life sucks and start planning on how they're going to make everyone else's life suck too. They're at work, and then they're at home enjoying the fruits of their labor. And if the rewards for working are good enough, they don't want anyone else fucking around with their nice life.

I think stimulating the economy in a meaningful way for the average ordinary people in a community leads to stability. People want to get more involved in their communities if they are invested in those communities and have something to lose. If they have nothing, losing their lives in a suicide bombing or their rights in an election isn't that big of a deal. They don't think they had anything to lose in the first place.

I don't know how to go about getting the people to concentrate on their own communities and lives, but I think that, Sebby's rants aside, meaningful jobs are needed in the middle east more than anything else if we're looking for stability.

I agree with you completely.

I was questioning whether democracy would be all that helpful, not capitalism, and not economic development. China is proof that you don't need democracy -- and not even real capitalism -- to have an active economy.

OTOH, there are a hell of a lot of wealthy Saudis who, while they may have no interest in blowing themselves up, are awfully willing to fund people who are.

[ltl/fb]

• As congressional aides consider the details of personal accounts legislation, they must choose between starkly different approaches. Employers could be required to treat the accounts like 401(k) plans, separating employee contributions from Social Security taxes each paycheck, earmarking those contributions to reflect employee investment choices and sending them either to the government or directly to an investment manager each pay cycle. Or the system can be kept simple, with employers calculating account contributions only when they calculate individual tax payments, once a year with employees' W-2 forms.
  
  The first option was chosen by Chile and other Latin American countries when they established systems of personal accounts for their state pension systems beginning in the 1980s. It offers employees a strong sense of ownership and the gratification of watching their accounts grow with each paycheck, but it comes at a price -- paperwork for employers and administrative costs for employees. Last year, insurance and commission costs ate up 18.5 percent of contributions to Chilean accounts, according to Chilean pension data.
  
  The second option was adopted by Sweden for its private accounts system in 2000. At a cost of 0.7 percent of an average participant's assets, the administrative burdens are low, according to a recent analysis by three Swedish economists. But because contributions are tabulated only once a year, after tax data is sent to the government, contributions on average are not credited to accounts for 18 months.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...070602004.html

[Gattigap]

Since we've covered much of the waterfront today already, why not re-cover CAFTA?

From Daniel Gross:

• DEPARTMENT OF BURIED LEDES
  In today's Washington Post, Jonathan Weisman writes that Democratic opposition, particularly in the House, may imperil the Central American Free Trade Agreement. It then goes on to analyze the Democrats' purported shift away from free trade--after all, plenty of Democrats supported NAFTA back in the 1990s--with quotes from plenty of New Democrats warning Old Democrats that their failure to vote for a trade pact they had no role in crafting could consign them to a permanent minority.
  
  But Weisman buries the lede. We wouldn't have such pieces, or have such conversations, if the Republicans -- who won the Congressional elections of 2000, 2002, and 2004 on free-trade platforms -- could maintain discipline on free trade. The House Republican leadership has been remarkably successful in strong-arming reluctant members to vote for items of priority to the White House about which they weren't passionate -- the Medicare drug bill, No Child Left Behind, all the budgets.
  
  But for too many members of the new Republican party's southern base, free trade -- at least as defined by CAFTA -- hits too close to home. Deep in the article, Weisman notes:
  
  "Dozens of Republicans in districts dependent on the textile industry, the sugar growers or small manufacturers have already said they will vote against the bill."
  
  That's dozens. Not a dozen, but dozens. At least 10 percent of the House Republican caucus. In the Senate, only 11 Republican Senators voted no on CAFTA--which means 20 percent of the Republican Senate caucus abandoned the party and its President.
  
  In other words, the problem for Bush and free traders isn't that they've lost erstwhile centrist Democrats on this issue. They lost them a long time ago. And they didn't even try to bring them along. As Weisman notes:
  
  “In a highly charged partisan atmosphere, Republicans intentionally marginalized free-trade Democrats during negotiations and then presented them with a take-it-or-leave it deal, goading them to oppose it, said the lobbyists, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid harming relationships on Capitol Hill. They contend that the Republicans set the trap into which the New Democrats are walking.”
  
  No, the problem for Bush and free traders is that they've lost Nancy Pelosi. It's that they can't win Susan Collins, Arlen Specter, Richard Shelby, Lindsey Graham, and John Thune.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I keep hearing that. But I also keep hearing about how we are thwarting dozens and dozens of attacks, and of course every once in awhile failing to thwart any attacks.

Yes.

I also keep hearing that Clinton left us utterly defenseless, which means he failed to thwart any attacks whatsoever, which can only lead to the conclusion that a whole lot more people are attacking us now than ever tried to do so under Clinton. I wonder why? But I guess this is neither here nor there.

Anyway -- if we are really thwarting so many attacks, then it seems that, on a net basis, the number of people otherwise being occupied or killed in Iraq is less than the growth in people who became willing to do us harm as a result of the war. Put differently, as I've said before, the war in Iraq was a big boon to the al Qaeda recruiting drive.

I don't know anyone who has said that about Clinton. The beef many have with him is that he did not heed the warnings (e.g., declaration by OBL, embassy bombings, 94 WTC bombing, Cole, etc.) although Ty will sure say that he did everything he could under the circumstances. I don't agree with Ty.

As for more people attacking us or trying to attack us, I think that's probably right, but I also I think that has more to do with the fact that we actually began to fight back after 9/11, then it does with Iraq in particular. And our fighting back probably did spur recruitment.

I would disagree, also, that they are not harming us just because they are in Iraq. I think 1500 dead American soldiers counts as harming us. Do you agree?

Of course. I should have said harming us at home or harming innocents. Soldiers in the mist of a war are not innocents.

I think I agree with that. I don't agree that going to war in Iraq was the way to promote democracy in the region. I'm not sure that I can suggest a better way, but we seem to have drawn closer to the Saudis than ever and they are hardly democratic, and hardly our allies against radical Islam.

You belief is certainly rational. The Saudis pose a problem for us given our need for oil - we need to keep them close. The administration has been applying gentle pressure, but there is only so much they can do and still expect the oil to flow freely.

I also wonder -- seriously -- whether democracy in the ME is such a good thing. If Iran's voters are a clue, then I really wonder. And worry.

The Iran vote was a sham.

Bluntly, I'm pretty fucking down today.

Me too. Fucking depressing world we live in today.

eft

[Penske_Account]

i am billing today. sidd, you should be too.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ltl/fb

• As congressional aides consider the details of personal accounts legislation, they must choose between starkly different approaches. Employers could be required to treat the accounts like 401(k) plans, separating employee contributions from Social Security taxes each paycheck, earmarking those contributions to reflect employee investment choices and sending them either to the government or directly to an investment manager each pay cycle. Or the system can be kept simple, with employers calculating account contributions only when they calculate individual tax payments, once a year with employees' W-2 forms.
  
  The first option was chosen by Chile and other Latin American countries when they established systems of personal accounts for their state pension systems beginning in the 1980s. It offers employees a strong sense of ownership and the gratification of watching their accounts grow with each paycheck, but it comes at a price -- paperwork for employers and administrative costs for employees. Last year, insurance and commission costs ate up 18.5 percent of contributions to Chilean accounts, according to Chilean pension data.
  
  The second option was adopted by Sweden for its private accounts system in 2000. At a cost of 0.7 percent of an average participant's assets, the administrative burdens are low, according to a recent analysis by three Swedish economists. But because contributions are tabulated only once a year, after tax data is sent to the government, contributions on average are not credited to accounts for 18 months.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...070602004.html

Now you're just wallowing in your self satisfaction. I can't get the chocolates there any faster than FedEx.

[Fair and Equitable]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
quick -- which of those countries has Bush allied us with?

This one:
Pakistani gang rape victim will get justice: Musharraf

[Pin the Tale on the Donkey]

"So much for Tony Blair's hope to "put Iraq behind us." The dustbin now awaits George Bush's argument that "we must take the fight to the enemy over there so we don't have to fight them at home." Imperial fantasies, as shattered as the London transit system. The G-8 leaders feign innocence while the innocents die.

At first we may see the militarist impulse. As the pompous Robert Kaplan has written, "in a world of tribes and thugs, manliness goes a long way." (imperial hubris, 240).

But reality will quickly sink in. Already Denmark and Italy are warned that they are next. The "coalition of the willing" has dwindled from 34 to 20, and will continue to disintegrate, leaving the US with 20,000 stateless mercenaries subsidized by America's tazpayers as the largest ally in Iraq.

The lesson should be that Bush has put the West, including the American people, at life-and-death risk by going to war for fabrications. We will never be "safer" as long as we invade and occupy Iraq, prop up the Saudi dictators, and crawl towards only a token Palestinian state. We will be safe when we no longer forcibly occupy Muslim lands in the oil-driven search for dominance.

Before more attacks and more deaths, it is time for Congress to take the initiative from the Bush Administration and hold hearings on an exit strategy from Iraq. It is not acceptable for Donald Rumsfeld to scorn an exit strategy in favor of a victory strategy any longer.

It is time for the peace movement and congressional allies to show solidarity with the British people by getting to the bottom of the Downing Street Memorandums scandal which the smug American media continues to downplay.

It is time for dialogue with the 82 Iraqi parliamentarians - one-third of the American-sponsored regime - who are calling for a timetable for American withdrawal.

When governments, through their march to folly, fail to protect their own citizens, it is time for those citizens to push their governments aside and become the peacemakers. "

-- Tom Hayden, July 7, 2005

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Now you're just wallowing in your self satisfaction. I can't get the chocolates there any faster than FedEx.

I think your remorse is bullshit intended to appease, and that you don't really believe. Possibly you also just don't care, which is why you are willing to appease, but it's appeasement. I'm being handled. You are humoring me.

But when I get the chocolate, I'll be happy. Actually possibly you could buy me something expensive and non-edible, depending on where you are working.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
but I think that, Sebby's rants aside, meaningful jobs are needed in the middle east more than anything else if we're looking for stability.

Actually, that was my rant. Ain't a half sensible man alive who won't drop that Islam fundamentalist silliness for a paying job and a cute woman. Rabid religiousity is what you have when you have nothing else. We need to help the decent people over there build an infrastructure and economy other than a natl oil trust.

Of course, the deeper issue is, some of them are so damned afraid of gender equality and losing their little patrirachal horseshit system that they'll never give up the Islamist shit. Never underestimate what a man who feels insecure about his place insociety might do to protect it. Imagine if one of the Jesus Nuts could point to a proverb in the Bible supporting the killing of infidels. We'd have a civil war on our hands.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Fair and Equitable
This one:
Pakistani gang rape victim will get justice: Musharraf

So I guess you love muslims after all. It's so hard to keep track....

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Actually, that was my rant. Ain't a half sensible man alive who won't drop that Islam fundamentalist silliness for a paying job and a cute woman.

Ain't a half-sensible man alive who has it to drop.