Politics As Usual

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Now that Chalabi's fallen out with the neo-cons, have we heard the end of that scandal?

I highly doubt it. But I'll help spread that false suggestion as well, if you promise to give me a cut of the money Kofi's people are throwing you.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
In the hopes of distracting us from the spinning of the UN loop before Gatti vanishes into some time vortex, did anyone watch Bush's speech last night? There wasn't much new besides the proposal to bulldoze Abu Ghraib, so I kind of found myself watching Bush's mannerisms more than concentrating on the words he was saying.

I don't know if the strain is getting to him or the military audience wasn't applauding at the right times or what, but he seemed to be more off-balance than usual. For instance what we lefties usually deride as his smirk kind of morphed into an amiable half-smile, almost a "you guys believe me, right?" But the half-smile would come out at weird times, like when he was describing Brahimi's work. And it seemed like he kept leaning over the podium as if to make sure that there were people in the front row and they were paying attention. Did anyone else notice this?

This really isn't a rip-on-Bush's-speaking-style rant; I save those for DU and my repartee with the baggers at the whole foods coop. On the plus side for Bush, I will say that he certainly looks better giving a prepared speech than he does taking inpromptu questions, and his first look away from the teleprompters into the camera for the "we will not fail" line at the end was good theater too. I guess I'm just curious if someone who has watched him more often got the same impression I did.

I heard portions of it but did not see it, so I can't speak to his mannerisms.

What surprises me, though, is the announcement of a series of 5-6 speeches leading up to the transfer. Speech #1 covered essentially no new ground. Except for repeating the name of whomever Brahimi picks (which will probably be a full speech in itself), what on earth to they plan on having Bush say for so many more speeches?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
1. I never blamed the UN. I blamed the individuals involved. I don't do group think or group blame.

You already said that the only reason you posted the article was to take the UN down a notch or two since it is held in such high esteem.

2. It appears to me from the article that the UN has enough food to give out. It's just that the INDIVIDUALS were using it as sexual currency, rather than humanitarian aid.

If there was enough food there, you wouldn't have people prostituting themselves to avoid starvation. Or are you going to pretend now that the UN is responsible for the famine and poverty there?

3. Cutting the NEA is very relevant to the discussion. The conceptual point is that raising taxes is not necessary to provide foreign humanitarian aid. It is a matter of prioritizing the allocation of our resources. I could have just as easily chosen ethanol subsidies. Would that change your mind?

You and I agree that there is government waste, though not necessarily about what it is. But that's not the question I asked -- I asked whether you'd pay more in taxes to support more food aid to these people. Your answer is "no, I wouldn't pay more in taxes, but I would take money away from someone else to whom other citizens have decided to give tax money." In other words, this sort of exploitation bothers you so much that you're willing to spend other people's money to stop it, but not your own.

The whole UN angle really threw you off your game here. Usually you'd be reaffirming the sanctity of the contracts formed between the poor Congolese and the peacekeepers, and saying that all we need is some tax cuts in the Congo to set the stage for job creation.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I highly doubt it. But I'll help spread that false suggestion as well, if you promise to give me a cut of the money Kofi's people are throwing you.

It was a question, not a suggestion. And unless you work for Chalabi, you don't know whether there's any truth to his allegations either.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I heard portions of it but did not see it, so I can't speak to his mannerisms.

What surprises me, though, is the announcement of a series of 5-6 speeches leading up to the transfer. Speech #1 covered essentially no new ground. Except for repeating the name of whomever Brahimi picks (which will probably be a full speech in itself), what on earth to they plan on having Bush say for so many more speeches?

Saw today in the Chron that Brahimi is getting resistance to his picks for ministry leaders from the gov council and other politicos so he might not have the full govt together by 6/1 as promised. Maybe one of the next speeches will explain that any such delay is Brahimi's fault, not ours, and the 6/30 date still stands unchanged.

Aside from that I have no idea what else could be talked about. Maybe it's just a way of seizing one news cycle a week with the buildup to and postgame analysis of his speech...

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You already said that the only reason you posted the article was to take the UN down a notch or two since it is held in such high esteem.

The reason why I posted the article was to make clear that just because something is done under the auspices of the UN does not make it righteous or beyond reproach.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop If there was enough food there, you wouldn't have people prostituting themselves to avoid starvation. Or are you going to pretend now that the UN is responsible for the famine and poverty there?

If there is not enough food there, how are the soldiers using it as sexual currency?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop You and I agree that there is government waste, though not necessarily about what it is. But that's not the question I asked -- I asked whether you'd pay more in taxes to support more food aid to these people. Your answer is "no, I wouldn't pay more in taxes, but I would take money away from someone else to whom other citizens have decided to give tax money." In other words, this sort of exploitation bothers you so much that you're willing to spend other people's money to stop it, but not your own.

The whole UN angle really threw you off your game here. Usually you'd be reaffirming the sanctity of the contracts formed between the poor Congolese and the peacekeepers, and saying that all we need is some tax cuts in the Congo to set the stage for job creation.

My statement that I would not pay more taxes should not be viewed in a vacuum. If I believed that there was zero to little waste, an increase in taxes would be more palatable, though I would much prefer charitable donations as those are voluntary and would likely guarantee that more net dollars were used for their intended purpose.

Your statements as to ownership of tax dollars are inherently inconsistent. I'll let you figure that one out on your own.

The UN angle did nothing to my game. I have already stated that in general freedom to contract would be my position, but in this case there is no real choice in the matter - the women can either prostitute themselves or starve and I do not see this as a policy the merits freedom of contract protection.

[sgtclub]

Comprehensive testing has confirmed the presence of the chemical weapon sarin in the remains of a roadside bomb discovered this month in Baghdad, a defense official said Tuesday . . .

Saddam's government never declared any sarin or shells filled with sarin remained . . .

Some trace elements of mustard agent, an older type of chemical weapon, were detected in an artillery shell found in a Baghdad street this month, U.S. officials said previously. The shell also was believed to be from one of Saddam's old stockpiles.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...s_iraq_sarin_2

Tip of the iceberg or sloppy controls?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The reason why I posted the article was to make clear that just because something is done under the auspices of the UN does not make it righteous or beyond reproach.

The only person who might disagree with you on this point, so articulated, is that Thotham fellow, and he hasn't been around lately.

If there is not enough food there, how are the soldiers using it as sexual currency?

Huh? Its scarcity is what gives it value.

My statement that I would not pay more taxes should not be viewed in a vacuum. If I believed that there was zero to little waste, an increase in taxes would be more palatable, though I would much prefer charitable donations as those are voluntary and would likely guarantee that more net dollars were used for their intended purpose.

In other words, I beat on you and you're changing your answer.

Your statements as to ownership of tax dollars are inherently inconsistent. I'll let you figure that one out on your own.

I know what you're saying, but it's hooey. No matter who "owns" the tax dollars, you want to take them from the NEA to give them to poor African prostitutes, but not from your pocket.

The UN angle did nothing to my game. I have already stated that in general freedom to contract would be my position, but in this case there is no real choice in the matter - the women can either prostitute themselves or starve and I do not see this as a policy the merits freedom of contract protection.

And yet you're not willing to have the UN spend more on famine relief -- at least not unless someone else pays for it but you don't have to -- and you are only using this situation to bash the UN, which is the only institution -- so far as I know -- actually there doing something to help these people.

'nuff said.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
If there is not enough food there, how are the soldiers using it as sexual currency?

If there is enough food there, then people would not prostitute themselves for it. The situation seems to be one of the soldiers controlling a scarce but necessary commodity.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...s_iraq_sarin_2

Tip of the iceberg or sloppy controls?

Yes. These little discoveries constitute the Rorschach tests of political profiles, don't they?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Huh? Its scarcity is what gives it value.

It is scarce to the women becuase they do not control it. There is obviously enough food there, it is just being withheld for sex.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop In other words, I beat on you and you're changing your answer.

If that's what you need to validate yourself, go right ahead.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop I know what you're saying, but it's hooey. No matter who "owns" the tax dollars, you want to take them from the NEA to give them to poor African prostitutes, but not from your pocket.

It is from my own pocket, that's the point.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop And yet you're not willing to have the UN spend more on famine relief -- at least not unless someone else pays for it but you don't have to -- and you are only using this situation to bash the UN, which is the only institution -- so far as I know -- actually there doing something to help these people. 'nuff said.

The UN does not have independent taxing power and therefore does not have independent sources of revenues. It is primarily dependent on $ from the US, which get is money from you, me and other tax payers. So I am spending on famine relief. The question is how should additional relief, if necessary, be funded. My position is that, given the vast amount of governmental waste, it should be funded from existing revenues, rather than revenues resulting from increased taxes.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
It is scarce to the women becuase they do not control it. There is obviously enough food there, it is just being withheld for sex.

How is it obvious that there is "enough food"? It is only obvious that the soldiers have some food.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
How is it obvious that there is "enough food"? It is only obvious that the soldiers have some food.

I just reread the artcle. You are correct. On my initial reading, I took it to mean that available food was being withheld, but that is not clear on a second reading.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...s_iraq_sarin_2

Tip of the iceberg or sloppy controls?

Either way, it hardly seems an "urgent threat."

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Either way, it hardly seems an "urgent threat."

How could you say that if it's just the tip of the iceberg?