Politics: A new beginning

[Atticus Grinch]

Grover Norquist, on NPR's Fresh Air:*

NORQUIST: The argument that some who played at the politics of hate and envy and class division will say, 'Yes, well, that's only 2 percent,' or as people get richer 5 percent in the near future of Americans likely to have to pay that tax. I mean, that's the morality of the Holocaust. 'Well, it's only a small percentage,' you know. 'I mean, it's not you, it's somebody else.'

GROSS: Excuse me one second. Did you just compare the Estate Tax with the Holocaust?

NORQUIST: No, the morality that says it's OK to do something to do a group because they're a small percentage of the population is the morality that says that the Holocaust is OK because they didn't target everybody, just a small percentage. 'What are you worried about? It's not you. It's not you. It's them.'

*You'll have to decide which 23% is misperception.

Edited to correct misconception/misperception rate, lest it become a further self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Grover Norquist sez
NORQUIST: No, the morality that says it's OK to do something to do a group because they're a small percentage of the population is the morality that says that the Holocaust is OK because they didn't target everybody, just a small percentage. 'What are you worried about? It's not you. It's not you. It's them.'

Cf. Rush Limbaugh about blacks ("They're 12% of the population -- who cares what they think?").


Not sure I have that quote exactly right, and the research involved to do so would be distasteful.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Grover Norquist, on NPR's Fresh Air:*



*You'll have to decide which 23% is misperception.

Edited to correct misconception/misperception rate, lest it become a further self-fulfilling prophecy.

What's Godwin's law? What was wrong with what he said?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Surreal?!

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Grover Norquist, on NPR's Fresh Air:*



*You'll have to decide which 23% is misperception.

Edited to correct misconception/misperception rate, lest it become a further self-fulfilling prophecy.

There appears to be new data on the misinformation/misperception:



http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/new...aq/6918170.htm

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
There appears to be new data on the misinformation/misperception:



http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/new...aq/6918170.htm

People whose primary source for news is this board were misinformed 86% of the time.

[bilmore]

Israel has bombed Syria in its pursuit of Hamas. Israel is about to target Lebanon. Is this good?

(Ty can pretend he hasn't read any of this. Atticus can do his basic snide, sarcastic, insubstantive response. SAM will have to uphold the "answer substantively" role, or anyone else is welcome.)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Israel has bombed Syria in its pursuit of Hamas. Israel is about to target Lebanon. Is this good?

On the margin, or the entire situation? Bombing Syria and Lebanon may escalate and widen the conflict, to the detriment of everyone involved. Or it may prompt Syria to clamp down on its support for Hamas, which could dampen the conflict. I can't believe that Israel has discovered something that leads it to believe that Syria had something specifically to do with the most recent bombing (and isn't talking about it). I take Israel's airstrike as a sign that its government is growing frustrated with the lack of attractive military options to address what Hamas is doing. I don't think the ultimate solution to what Israel facts is going to be military, but I also don't think they have anyone to bargain with right now. Getting rid of Arafat will only make things worse, but you could get old waiting for him to die of old age.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
Israel has bombed Syria in its pursuit of Hamas. Israel is about to target Lebanon. Is this good?

I think probably not -- although Isreal is hoping to increase the cost to the supporters of those groups to choke off funding and support because they can't stop them 100% in the West Bank of Gaza. The strategy is understandable as a near-desparation mov by the Sharon government -- although I think it is very dangerous to the region as a whole.

The abject failure of the Israeli government to take even the most basic steps to address the settlement issue over the past few years has convinced me that Isreal, as much as the PA, lacks the strength and will to do the right thing in pursuit of peace. Both entities are hostage to the escalating cycle of violence and hatred, and radicalized domesric contituencies.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
Cf. Rush Limbaugh about blacks ("They're 12% of the population -- who cares what they think?").

Here is a better quote from Rush from some years back -- as reporte in the mainstream media. [to African-American caller: "Take that bone out of your nose and call me back."]

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I keep waiting for someone to suggest that we invade Zimbabwe, but I haven't heard it yet.

There is nothing immoral about regulating our policy choices and expenditures of resources and lives according to our national interests. Iraq matters to us -- for many reasons -- while Zimbabwe (as with much of Africa) is meaningless to us except as a purely moral question.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
So essentially you want Bush to do the things that require true leadership and balls and which the DEMS currently running probably wouldn't have done, but still can him? Is it primarily the economy and if so, would your vote change if it turns?

Basically yes. I have always been more of a foreign policy hawk.

It is not paricularly the economy for me. It is issues like environmental policy, tax policy, collective international action against global warming, trade policy (I'm for free trade), and Supreme Court justices -- as well as a deep and abiding sense that we are quietly leaning way too far in favor of large corporate intrests behind the policy scenes.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
There appears to be new data on the misinformation/misperception:



http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/new...aq/6918170.htm

Sorry for 5 posts in a row --

Is there anyone here who could honestly disagree that the answers to both those questions are not just "No." "But, Hell, No!"

If so, please identify the WMD found, and the evidence of 'close" connections to al Qaeda.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
There is nothing immoral about regulating our policy choices and expenditures of resources and lives according to our national interests. Iraq matters to us -- for many reasons -- while Zimbabwe (as with much of Africa) is meaningless to us except as a purely moral question.

S_A_M

Well, let's not pretend then that we invaded Iraq because Hussein was a bad man.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
Israel has bombed Syria in its pursuit of Hamas. Israel is about to target Lebanon. Is this good?

(Ty can pretend he hasn't read any of this. Atticus can do his basic snide, sarcastic, insubstantive response. SAM will have to uphold the "answer substantively" role, or anyone else is welcome.)

Pre-emptive dissing?

What is going on is precisely what we should have expected. Our foreign policies adventures stand for the general principal that unilateral military action is justifiable, and that the various international entities set up to help keep the peace can be ignored. I suspect there will be a renewed impatience with diplomacy around the world in the coming years, and that the world will thus be a more dangerous place.

The hawks in Israel are generally on the ascendancy. Expect the hawks and radicals in neighboring countries to find renewed vigor as the battle is engaged, and so the spiral begins.