Still Hating America.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by ironweed
I'm reading Goodwin's book Team of Rivals and the first part of it deals extensively with how people like Chase, Seward and others who ended up in Lincoln's cabinet got their starts in politics, almost all of them through the law. They thought the idea of an accountable, democratic government that could improve the lives of its poorest citizens (of whom Lincoln, though not the others, was one) through public works and deal with seemingly intractable issues of universal concern, like slavery, was something of a holy grail and worthy of dedicating their lives to.

It seems quaint now. But as unresponsive and insulated as our late 20th / early 21st Century government is in practice, it draws its legitimacy from the idea of accountability to all the people, not just customers or shareholders. Once you boot that model out the door in favor of market efficiency at all costs you're at the mercy of folks out to make a buck from you. Some of them are going to be good, and some of them are going to be very bad. And when the very bad ones sell your kids poisoned food or set off a Bhopal-style poison gas cloud down the street, who are you going to complain to? Is the boycott going to be the only means of regulating corporate conduct?

I'm not sure which particular regulations are pissing you off right now, but I for one don't give a fuck if the Clean Air Act makes my electricity twice as expensive, or EPA regulations mean I pay twice as much for my tap water, or gasoline costs twice as much because of taxes designed to make people like me think twice before I jump in the car, which I don't right now.* I want competent, dedicated professionals in the government because government regulation is the only realistic hedge against private sector abuse (or just benign neglect) in the name of short-term gains.

*this makes me a big fat rich elitist right? Let's see who's predictable.

I've tried to sel him on this for years. It's like talking to a brick Penske

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This sounds plausible:

• The story of Jessica Lynch being a hero was not made up by the Army, indeed from the very first, the day after The Washington Post used a single anonymous source as the foundation for their dramatic front-page (3 April 2003) story, the Army denied that it had happened as the Post described it. In all the hoopla, people forget that, but it's true. One of those Pentagon reporters specifically mentioned that on that morning, when they asked the Army Public Affairs Office about what happened, the PAO shrugged and said words to the effect of, "We have no idea where this story comes from, and we have no information about anything like what the Post is reporting." But in the frenzy of media reporting, that denial did not matter, and the echo-chamber went into effect despite what the Army said. It is, therefore, ironic that the Army is now being blamed for trying to manipulate public opinion on this one.
  
  On the Tillman/fratricide side of the house, however, the Army is 100 percent to blame. Army officers at the battalion level at least, the brigade level for sure, and apparently some general officers, all did their bits to stupidly try and "protect" the reputation ... but not the reputation of the Army or the Administration -- that would be giving these officers too much intellectual credit. I know that the developing thesis, and apparently the belief of the Tillman family and some on Capitol Hill is that this was a conspiracy to bring good news to the fore at the time Abu Ghraib was breaking, but really, that gives the Army way too much credit for intellect. No, what these naïve officers were trying to do (and here we are into my personal opinion) was to protect the reputation of the 75th Ranger Regiment.
  
  Understanding why -- or, more accurately, explaining why -- each of these men would attempt such a lame-brained thing would take me about 50 pages of text. Suffice it to say that the 75th Ranger Regiment is our most elite infantry unit. The three battalions of the Regiment are our crème-de-la-crème, the perfect examples of soldierly skill, and only the best are accepted into this Airborne Infantry elite. As has happened time and again, in "elite" groups as disparate as the Peace Corps (whose members covered up a murder of one volunteer by another, in Tonga, for decades), and various fraternal organizations, when "insiders" have news that they believe might "hurt" the group, they try and suppress it and spin it, and because of the personality type that is both attracted to the Regiment, and which the Regiment creates, they were one and all, hopelessly naïve about the media and the process of journalism.
  
  In other words, it wasn't the "Big A" Army that was trying to spin this situation, it was a couple of majors, a couple lieutenant colonels and colonels, and a couple of generals, all of whom did a small part, all of whom were desperately hoping that the whole thing would blow over and not be a big deal, and all of whom thought that the good of their showcase particular unit outweighed the truth.

link

eta: The Lynch thing sounds a little dubious. It was more than a one-day story. But the Tillman points sound right.

This is why nobody in Skull and Bones had the temerity to warn the American people about George W. Bush.

Originally posted by taxwonk
I've tried to sel him on this for years. It's like talking to a brick Penske

I only did it so the chicks would dig me.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by ironweed
I only did it so the chicks would dig me.

<sniff> They used to dig me.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by taxwonk
<sniff> They used to dig me.

Start citing the CFR, see if that helps.

[captain marvelous]

Help!!! America is in grave danger. Three hundred million American lives are in danger.

I listened to the criminal in chief who stole our presidency tonight. He is a confirmed idiot. He is unable to speak with any sense of coherency. He seems drunk, which for a “dry drunk” is not a surprise. He is a moron who has become a drunken power wielding maniac. Maybe he is a drunken puppet, I don’t know, but I know he is a supposed human without a shred of humanity or common decency. He long surpassed his bete noir, bin Laden, as the world’s most dangerous man.

While I have some faith left that we may survive him but I doubt we can ever make our country right again. Tonight’s veto was a sad sad night for America and the world.

At this point I exhort my fellow Americans to take action. Our world is a more dangerous place than it has ever been and our nation is on the verge of ruin because we let this maniac steal two elections and hijack our military for egoistical folly. Somehow this chimp even got to the main stream media as they obviously ignore the 800 pound elephant in the room, i.e. that this fool is obviously drunk and Cheney is running the nation as a dictator,

Help! Someone! Anyone! Let’s get rid of him now, IMPEACH!

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by taxwonk
<sniff> They used to dig me.

who/when?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by captain marvelous
Help!!! America is in grave danger. Three hundred million American lives are in danger.

I listened to the criminal in chief who stole our presidency tonight. He is a confirmed idiot. He is unable to speak with any sense of coherency. He seems drunk, which for a “dry drunk” is not a surprise. He is a moron who has become a drunken power wielding maniac. Maybe he is a drunken puppet, I don’t know, but I know he is a supposed human without a shred of humanity or common decency. He long surpassed his bete noir, bin Laden, as the world’s most dangerous man.

While I have some faith left that we may survive him but I doubt we can ever make our country right again. Tonight’s veto was a sad sad night for America and the world.

At this point I exhort my fellow Americans to take action. Our world is a more dangerous place than it has ever been and our nation is on the verge of ruin because we let this maniac steal two elections and hijack our military for egoistical folly. Somehow this chimp even got to the main stream media as they obviously ignore the 800 pound elephant in the room, i.e. that this fool is obviously drunk and Cheney is running the nation as a dictator,

Help! Someone! Anyone! Let’s get rid of him now, IMPEACH!

would you like to go on a blind date with a good friend of mine who recently broke up with her beau? Are you near the west Coast?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I get to use it all 'cause I'm not at the alter of either the market or government.

But, if given a choice, I want the drugs that God created, and to hell with both the market and the government.

Common ground for all.

[captain marvelous]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
would you like to go on a blind date with a good friend of mine who recently broke up with her beau? Are you near the west Coast?

I'm near Santa Cruz, but no interest in "dating" your nutjob friends or any doing any frivolous activity until Bush is removed from office.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by ironweed
I'm reading Goodwin's book Team of Rivals and the first part of it deals extensively with how people like Chase, Seward and others who ended up in Lincoln's cabinet got their starts in politics, almost all of them through the law. They thought the idea of an accountable, democratic government that could improve the lives of its poorest citizens (of whom Lincoln, though not the others, was one) through public works and deal with seemingly intractable issues of universal concern, like slavery, was something of a holy grail and worthy of dedicating their lives to.

It seems quaint now. But as unresponsive and insulated as our late 20th / early 21st Century government is in practice, it draws its legitimacy from the idea of accountability to all the people, not just customers or shareholders. Once you boot that model out the door in favor of market efficiency at all costs you're at the mercy of folks out to make a buck from you. Some of them are going to be good, and some of them are going to be very bad. And when the very bad ones sell your kids poisoned food or set off a Bhopal-style poison gas cloud down the street, who are you going to complain to? Is the boycott going to be the only means of regulating corporate conduct?

I'm not sure which particular regulations are pissing you off right now, but I for one don't give a fuck if the Clean Air Act makes my electricity twice as expensive, or EPA regulations mean I pay twice as much for my tap water, or gasoline costs twice as much because of taxes designed to make people like me think twice before I jump in the car, which I don't right now.* I want competent, dedicated professionals in the government because government regulation is the only realistic hedge against private sector abuse (or just benign neglect) in the name of short-term gains.

*this makes me a big fat rich elitist right? Let's see who's predictable.

A lot of people have a lot of views on what they ought to dedicate their lives to. That a few lionized through history selected govt as their religion doesn't mean they were right or that govt is as good as they thought it was (particularly given the difference between what govt was then and what it is now). You carefully ignore the fact that those men, alive today and viewing the monstrous govt we presently have, would likely be horrified by the industry-unto-itself-and-reaching-to-control-all-others it has become. Contrasting Lincoln's time and now is wonderful rhetoric, but little else, as you stated.

You've also accidentally touched on part of my argument - that what we have today as a "govt" is so appalling compared to what was intended that suggesting govt acts as a sort of divine handicapper between the power of business and the common man, rather than a profiteering middleman beholden to businessmen and special interests, is far more "quaint" than the notion of devoting one's life to govt today. You do realize I am advocating killing as much of the govt as possible because it is an unfairly utilized arm of big business, don't you? You seem to think business and the govt are separate. At best, they're operating in concert, with a tattered to ribbons Chinese Wall between them.

We've never given the market the power to self regulate. It was gelded with regulation in the late part of the 19th century and has since been saddled year in year out with newer and newer regulations and constraints to the point that lawyers and accountants will probably surpass manufacturing revenues in the near future, if they don't already. What we have now is business abusing govt to its own ends, using lobbyists to build itself statutory hedges to avoid the consequences of its own bad decisions. Coupled with the crowd who think a regulation should be passed every time a new danger emerges, we've got a Nanny State everybody's shaking down for cash. When govt becomes an essential go-between in every level of commerce (save the necessary taxation function) we're doomed. I have to vet everything I do in my present business to make sure I'm in compliance with so much junk it's insane. It detracts from so much other revenue producing activity and to what end? To keep some bureaucrat in a sweet health plan? To feed a lawyer? It's gone too far.

Competent dedicated professionals will never stay in the govt because the govt cannot pay them what they are worth and has a structure which frustrates any initiative or change in favor of "what's best for all." The govt workers is in a form of soft socialism, and in that arena, nothing but sloth is fostered. I deal with a considerable number of them now. They're friendly, nice and utterly unambitious. The smart ones run for office and get themselves on the money track, to the revolving door between private companies that feed off the govt and high level bureaucratic jobs. Back and forth and back and forth. Nobody thinks this will change. They all assume its terminal and we as voters shrug and agree and let it roll along. That's your govt.

I'd rather see the private sector take a shot, and see if maybe, allowed to do as they like, the competing incentives to do good and bad wouldn't cancel each other out at exactly the same statis we have, with a whole lotta govt payroll checks given back to the people who pay them.

Do we need regs? Sure. About 1/10th of those we have.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
We've never given the market the power to self regulate. It was gelded with regulation in the late part of the 19th century

God help me, but here I go.

Are you fucking nuts? I can see a sane person arguing that, once the New Deal went into effect, combined with the growth of federal government during WWII, the market was "gelded" -- but what, exactly, regulation are you talking about here? Because in my view, there was none.

The Supremes held that the freedom of contract protected the rights of 8 year olds to work in textile mills. There was no central bank -- private enterprise almost bankrupted the federal government by a market corner on gold during the late 19th Century, and JP Morgan -- out of the goodness of his heart (and enlightened self-interest) bailed the government out of a panic (as depressions/recessions used to be called). Henry Frick used machine guns on his workers.

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Do we need regs? Sure. About 1/10th of those we have.

That's a different argument. Which ones fall into the 9/10th?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Do we need regs? Sure. About 1/10th of those we have.

Do you think we have enough regulation of dog food, or do you own a dog?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Bob
The Supremes held that the freedom of contract protected the rights of 8 year olds to work in textile mills. There was no central bank -- private enterprise almost bankrupted the federal government by a market corner on gold during the late 19th Century, and JP Morgan -- out of the goodness of his heart (and enlightened self-interest) bailed the government out of a panic (as depressions/recessions used to be called). Henry Frick used machine guns on his workers.

in about 1932 the government put my grandpa in jail for selling opium. that was government regulation.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by captain marvelous
I'm near Santa Cruz, but no interest in "dating" your nutjob friends or any doing any frivolous activity until Bush is removed from office.

wait a minute. if all liberals start thinking like this, maybe, just maybe, she'll go out with a conservative after all. and once she's used to it, maybe she'll accept me. maybe it could work out