Politics: Where we struggle to kneel in the muck.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Telling that you're making a case based on fantasy, while the reality-based community is voting for Kerry.

Keep in mind that the likely root of "reality" in that context was "reality TV". The staffer meant that Suskind watched what were, to him, episodes of which he was no part, while the Bush people produced it all. Doers v. watchers.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by bilmore
Only if you think that (a), Bush caused the recession, and (b) Kerry would fix the recession.

Their conclusions were every bit as far-reaching as saying that increasing poverty results in more crime. Of course it does. Duh. But that fails to address anything deeper, like causation.

Another problem with the piece is that it rushes to explore what caused the "problem" and does not address the assumption in its article: that a decrease in abortion rates is "good" and an increase is "bad".

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Keep in mind that the likely root of "reality" in that context was "reality TV". The staffer meant that Suskind watched what were, to him, episodes of which he was no part, while the Bush people produced it all. Doers v. watchers.

That's certainly one interpretation, albeit one that does violence to what the staffer actually said:

• In the summer of 2002, after I had written an article in Esquire that the White House didn't like about Bush's former communications director, Karen Hughes, I had a meeting with a senior adviser to Bush. He expressed the White House's displeasure, and then he told me something that at the time I didn't fully comprehend -- but which I now believe gets to the very heart of the Bush presidency.
  
  The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''

If you've read Woodward's last book, you know that Bush believes that if you act forcefully, the public will follow. This is another way of expressing things attributed to Bush in that book. The only thing that's new is the phrase "reality-based community," which in this White House seems to be pejorative.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
That's certainly one interpretation, albeit one that does violence to what the staffer actually said:

I was comporting with my own sense of reality only. I've found that life is more fun that way.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Not Bob

And the administration does want to privatize Social Security. Calling them on it is not a false scare tactic. (I haven't heard any specific KE 04 comments about the draft, other than the "back-door draft.")

Responding more to Bimore here than Not Bob, the fact is that privatizing Social Security does threaten the system. The SS trust fund is currently largely made up of USG IOUs. Privatization will reduce even further the projected reductions in inflow to the system. This guarantees that in the future, keeping SS around as an entitlement is going to require a massive bailout.

Personally, given my high level of skepticism that it will be around in its current form when I reach retirement age, I'd actually favor privatizing future contributions, provided that payments become means-tested immediately. But then, I'm honest about wanting to bury Caesar.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by bilmore

- Democrats fake orgasms more often.

They should have broken it down along gender lines within the party affiliation groups. Men don't fake orgasms. Men are more likely to be Reps and Women are more likely to be Dems. So, duh, does it come as any surprise that Dems fake orgasms more often? All that tells you is the women are more likely to be Dems.

They should have broken it up according to income, too, because I think that would explain some of the results. Dems as a group have lower average incomes. If you are male in particular, how much money you have can affect your satisfaction with your sex life. You can buy access to women who you are more sexually interested in if you have the money. Take Trump for example. So some of the results just confirm what we already know - men with money can buy access to better looking women and men on average are more satisfied with sex with better looking women. Take Tiger Woods for example.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Kerry keeps saying Bush will start a draft, but in fact Kerry had a mandatory service plan for HS students included on his webpage until the time he realized he wanted to start saying Bush will have a draft. Fair? Don't know, but it sure shows he's one sleazy fuck.

Okay, Hank. Please explain how a program requiring HS kids to plant trees or work in soup kitchens equates to getting your leg blown off by an RPG in Iraq?

If you can't, you're one sleazy fuck, to quote a regular poster.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Not Me
They should have broken it down along gender lines within the party affiliation groups. Men don't fake orgasms. Men are more likely to be Reps and Women are more likely to be Dems. So, duh, does it come as any surprise that Dems fake orgasms more often? All that tells you is the women are more likely to be Dems.

They should have broken it up according to income, too, because I think that would explain some of the results. Dems as a group have lower average incomes. If you are male in particular, how much money you have can affect your satisfaction with your sex life. You can buy access to women who you are more sexually interested in if you have the money. Take Trump for example. So some of the results just confirm what we already know - men with money can buy access to better looking women and men on average are more satisfied with sex with better looking women. Take Tiger Woods for example.

And I thought it was just the R men buying viagra that did it!

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Responding more to Bimore here than Not Bob, the fact is that privatizing Social Security does threaten the system.

I think there are some large period-of-transition cash requirements that would need to be faced, but that's really the only true cost inherent in the idea.

My problem with it is, yeah, we'll get great retirements in a boom economy. But, when our private SS investments trash in another bubble burst, and the basic SS benefit isn't enough to sustain life (because it's predicated on an additional bump from the private investment portion), are all the oldies then gonna go on welfare for the gap?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Me
Men don't fake orgasms.

Speak for yourself.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Not Me
They should have broken it down along gender lines within the party affiliation groups.

Okay, I'll predict that women married to rich older men fake more orgasms than anybody else.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
Now, read that, and be fair. What he said was, if Kerry is elected, and we're attacked (and we will be attacked), the danger is that Kerry will treat it in the old, failed crime-scene way.

Of course, two weeks later, Kerry said that electing Bush puts us at heightened danger of nuclear attack.

So many glass houses, so little time . . .

Not quite, Bilmore. What he said was that Kerry's election would create an atmosphere in the Us that would be more conducive to a terrorist attack. Given that one is likely no matter who is President, Cheney said, a vote for Kerry is a virtual guarantee that an attack will occur and that it will be worse than if Bush is re-elected.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Not quite, Bilmore. What he said was that Kerry's election would create an atmosphere in the Us that would be more conducive to a terrorist attack.

I think you only read the edited quote that so many of the big papers and sites put out. If you read the actual transcript (including before and after what they all quoted), I think you'll agree with me.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I ain't smart like alot of you, so maybe this is dumb, but what I don't get is this....you say Bush will need to draft because we won't get all the soldiers we need through enlistment, but Kerry won't need a draft because he'll get more guys to enlist. How? By raising salaries? Remember, once Kerry comes in the economy will start roaring and they'll be civilian jobs every which ways......

Kerry has said he plans to raise pay and standards of living in general, both for troops and for their families at home, which I would imagine means increasing not just pay, but also improving housing and providing for additional family support.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I think there are some large period-of-transition cash requirements that would need to be faced, but that's really the only true cost inherent in the idea.

Isn't this like saying that there's a big sticker price, but that's really the only true cost inherent in my buying a Maserati?