That reminded me of what I was thinking of earlier this morning...When does it officially become a hostage situation as opposed to diplomatic wrangling?
15145. labwabbit - 4/10/2001 5:19:14 PM
China has been well documented as selling/buying military equipment and technology with Iran. Perhaps Iran has given them an "inside" technique for how to bring a democracy to shame and capitulation using a minimum amount of ... leverage.
15146. jexster - 4/10/2001 5:50:48 PM
The Senate needs to leave enough money in the proposed budget to not only reduce all marginal rates, but to eliminate the death tax, so that people who build up assets are able to transfer them from one generation to the next, regardless of a person's race."--Washington, D.C., April 5, 2001
"Most of you probably didn't know that I have a new book out. Some guy put together a collection of my wit and wisdom--or, as he calls it, my accidental wit and wisdom. [Laughter.] But I'm kind of proud that my words are already in book form."--Radio-Television Correspondents Association dinner, Washington, D.C., March 29, 2001
15147. bbb - 4/10/2001 5:56:37 PM
Notice most of our EP-3 crew's questions to the visiting General Sealock have been the sport news about Tiger Woods,Aikman,and the possible return of Michael Jordan to NBA.
At least,it seems that they are well-fed enough to NOT losing interests in sports.
15148. labwabbit - 4/10/2001 5:58:28 PM
...perhaps they should be more interested in the health and events of Chinese atheletes. At least know some of their names. Ha.
15149. bbb - 4/10/2001 6:10:14 PM
The BEST/STRONGEST argument for the immediate release our EP-3 crew to the Chinese is releated to the keyword "apology".
Colin Powell can tell the Chinese that we are ready and willing to apologize ONLY IF we have the chance to fully debrief our crew in the U.S. soil AND to determine if it were actually the fault of our pilot who caused the collision accident.
Look,how can we apologize to you if we don't get our crew back FIRST to have a chance to debrief them? Do you want an apology? Return our crew back to us immediately! We just can NOT make any apology to you,even if we want to,WITHOUT our crew be released back FIRST.
15150. DaveM - 4/10/2001 6:39:05 PM
1. Re: JJ's Message # 15128, and the idea that Bush and his administration's reticence to face the camera is a wise avoidance of "window dressing."
Executive branch transparency is necessary for accountability. If the American citizenry can't tell who is orchestrating the negotiations with the Chinese over hostage release, we can't know who to blame for the fuck ups. It might be "manly" to not care about informing the public, but it isn't very democratic.
2. Re: Ronski/JJ's assertion that "it is considered a virtue to take what is not yours and it is evil to try to keep what you have earned."
The other side is obviously: the American economic system doesn't reward people directly in accordance with their contribution to society. There is a lot of play in the system. People don't "earn" everything they take home. Especially, for instance, inheritances, which the recipient hasn't really done shit to "earn."
15151. labwabbit - 4/10/2001 6:39:47 PM
The BEST/STRONGEST argument for the immediate release our EP-3 crew to the Chinese is releated to the keyword "apology".
I disagree bbb. It is very much a "feeling out process" by the Chinese to determine just what gambit has been achieved toward obtaining their goals of preventing modern technological equipment from reaching Taiwan from the US. But, the one true thing that has been said between governments is "the longer this goes on the better the chance of severely damaging diplomatic relations. In other words, when does it stop being an investigative process and cross the line to becoming a hostage crisis?
15152. ycmeehan - 4/10/2001 7:08:00 PM
Message # 15138
The statistics in respect to the redistribution of wealth in the US are clear. The top 5% of the population gain an increasing percentage of the national wealth almost every year. I believe this trend has been in place for a considerable time.
I cannot believe that anyone considers this to be good for a democratic society. In effect, the results of this trend is that the US is becoming more like the banana republics of South-America some years back where 5% of he population owned or controlled 95% of the wealth. They have made significant progress in the last twenty-five years during which period the concentration in the US has continued unabated.
This tax-bill is the most flagrant attempt to redistribute the wealth of this country from the bottom upward. It should be condemned by all segments of this society. It establishes an hereditary elitist class and affects the mobility within same. The only groups that can possibly gain from this redistribution are the neo-fascist elements in our society who are financed by misguided elements within established wealth.
By the way, I am an independent and voted for Reagan and Bush elder, once for Clinton. However, since we differ so much on this issue, I'll leave it alone.
15153. jexster - 4/10/2001 7:15:22 PM
DENVER, April 9 — As California and other Western states gird for a summer of energy shortages and rising electricity costs, the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said today that the Bush administration would do everything possible to ease the problem — except give California what it wants most: price caps on wholesale fuel costs.
Because What Ken Lay Wants, Monkey Boy Gives
15154. Cellar Door - 4/10/2001 7:41:10 PM
Don't leave it alone, yc!!!
15155. wonkers2 - 4/10/2001 7:52:01 PM
yc, As you may know, Ronski is a libertarian, as is stumbo. You may as well argue with a stump.
15156. Stumbo - 4/10/2001 8:32:03 PM
No, you heard the lady, Wonk. Don't you trust her to know a neo-fascist when she sees one?
15157. Stumbo - 4/10/2001 8:32:46 PM
(Or two, for that matter)
15158. wonkers2 - 4/10/2001 8:49:27 PM
Stumbo, ??? Sorry, I don't follow you. Please draw me a picture. Excuse me if you aren't a libertarian. Somehow I got that impression. I wasn't intending to insult you or Ronski, for that matter. It's just that I find arguing with a libertarian, for example, on the merits of the federal budget to be a waste of time for both of us. Sort of like arguing abortion with the Pope.
15159. Stumbo - 4/10/2001 9:05:24 PM
Wonk:
I was referring to the last sentence in the 3rd paragraph of YCM's post.
(My views are indeed fairly libertarian-ish; and no, I didn't interpret what you had written as necessarily meant to insult.)
15160. Stumbo - 4/10/2001 9:07:11 PM
But isn't that what we're all here for -- to waste time in pointless arguments?
15161. jexster - 4/10/2001 9:25:03 PM
California will spend $65 Billion on electricity this year ten times what the state spent just 2 years ago.
Price gouging????
Sen. Larry Craig (R- Idaho) thinks so. Sen. Craig joined a deafening chorus of requests from Western States that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission do its job and regulate but the silence from the Bumbling Bushies was just as deafening for as we all know.....
Whatever Ken Lay Wants...the Chimp-in-Chief Provides!
15162. jexster - 4/10/2001 9:27:27 PM
Now if OPEC engaged in the same behavior - 1,000% price increase - what would happen?
Probably nothing come to think of it. Because Bush's Erl 'n Gas buddies in Bugtussle, Texas would make a killin!
15163. JJBiener - 4/10/2001 9:45:47 PM
DaveM - Executive branch transparency is necessary for accountability.
When you play poker, do you play with your hand open while your opponents keep their cards close to their chest? There is plenty of time for accountability. Now is not the time.
The other side is obviously: the American economic system doesn't reward people directly in accordance with their contribution to society.
No, it doesn't and it shouldn't. The economic system rewards people in accordance with their contribution to the people who pay them. Society doesn't pay them
People don't "earn" everything they take home.
They do or they don't get paid. Whether you think they earn it or not is irrelevant. They aren't getting paid with your money.
Especially, for instance, inheritances, which the recipient hasn't really done shit to "earn."
To the person who owned the money before he died believed the recipient deserved the money. Whether you agree with his opinion is irrelevant because once again it isn't your money.
15164. JJBiener - 4/10/2001 9:55:42 PM
YC - The top 5% of the population gain an increasing percentage of the national wealth almost every year.
The national wealth is not a fixed sum. The top 5% produces an increasing share of the increasing national wealth. That is how they got to the top 5% to begin with.
I cannot believe that anyone considers this to be good for a democratic society.
The distribution of wealth has nothing to do with the health of the democracy. It isn't for the Democratic society, but that is something entirely different.
This tax-bill is the most flagrant attempt to redistribute the wealth of this country from the bottom upward.
This is pure nonsense. Either you don't understand the tax bill or you don't understand what it mean to redistribute wealth. In either case you are completely mistaken.
The only groups that can possibly gain from this redistribution are the neo-fascist elements in our society who are financed by misguided elements within established wealth.
You really are a nice woman but you need to be more selective in your reading materials. Repeating this nonsense just makes you look silly.
15165. JJBiener - 4/10/2001 10:01:12 PM
YC - Equity simply means fairness, no more no less.
I don't think it is fair for the government to take money from people who work to give to those who refuse to work. Do you?
If there is any redistribution of wealth in this bill, it is a redistribution from the bottom to the top and you know it and if you don't know it, you should know it
Since there is no redistribution of wealth from the bottom to the top in this bill, I don't think you should be lecturing others.
15166. wonkers2 - 4/10/2001 10:51:36 PM
JJ, I think you had better look closer at the details of the bill. Taking the starting point as the present, if the President's approach were followed, the result would be redistributing income from the poor or lower income groups to the highest and higher income groups. Fortunately, it doesn't look as if the ultimate bill will be as extreme as Bush is proposing.
15167. wonkers2 - 4/10/2001 11:01:34 PM
Welfare, social security, medicare and other forms of social insurance are not taking money from people who work and giving it to those who don't any more than any other insurance is doing so. Lot's of people buy life insurance. Some drop dead the next day and others live until they are 90. The ones who live until they are 90 pay for the benefits that go to those who die prematurely.
The only difference is that one is private insurance and the other is required by the government so that we aren't like Bangladesh where we have to walk around sick and old and crazy people and children begging on the sidewalks. Having a reasonable safety net is what keeps a free enterprise system like ours from self-destructing.
15168. Stumbo - 4/10/2001 11:18:48 PM
Wonk:
"Taking the starting point as the present..."
The starting point is 12:00:01 A.M. on Jan. 1, when Peter and Paul each have earnings of $0. If, by 11:59:59 on Dec. 31, Peter has earned more money than Paul, and you take some money from the former and give it to the latter -- then we all know in which direction you're redistributing.
The "well, we took $X from Peter last year, so surely we're entitled to take at least as much from him this year" argument is a moral non-starter. If Peter worked all year to earn this brand new amount of money, the least you can do is come up with a brand new argument to justify taking it. In other words, you have to start from scratch, just like he did, and not from a guaranteed baseline.
15169. wonkers2 - 4/10/2001 11:21:14 PM
Under Bush's plan we will be taking less from Peter.
15170. Stumbo - 4/10/2001 11:26:04 PM
"Lots of people buy life insurance. [...] The only difference is that one is private insurance and the other is required by the government..."
Heh. I do hate to go libertarian on your ass, Wonk, but how would you react if someone applied the "some people do A voluntarily, therefore it's OK for the government to require all people to do A" line of reasoning to, I dunno, say, religion?
15171. wonkers2 - 4/10/2001 11:29:31 PM
I wouldn't like it. And it would be unconstitutional. Social insurance was declared constitutional after a bit of kicking and screaming by Corporate America and the filling of a few vacancies on the the Supreme Court.
15172. Stumbo - 4/10/2001 11:30:52 PM
#15169: The operative word being "from."
15173. wonkers2 - 4/10/2001 11:32:39 PM
It's all quite legal and proper and democratic, small d.
15174. wonkers2 - 4/10/2001 11:36:19 PM
I trust you are a believer in the democratic process, even though you don't like the results.
15175. Stumbo - 4/10/2001 11:37:00 PM
The point isn't whether you would personally like that particular application of this argument or not, nor whether that application is (judged to be) constitutional or not.
The point is that the argument itself is clearly wrong, and that therefore you shouldn't be using it.
15176. wonkers2 - 4/10/2001 11:42:02 PM
Are we arguing about the amount or the principle? [Like the woman who said she'd go to bed with a man for $1 million, but not for $10 which would make her a whore.]
15177. Stumbo - 4/10/2001 11:47:29 PM
Um, which particular principle? We've mentioned several, here.
15178. CalGal - 4/11/2001 12:07:59 AM
Samuelson piece on CFR
First, campaigns are supposedly too expensive. Are they? In 2000, all spending for Congress and the White House (including money spent by nonparty advocacy groups) approached $3 billion, estimates Michael Malbin of the Campaign Finance Institute. Perhaps another $1 billion was spent on state and local elections. In a $10 trillion economy, the $4 billion is not 1 percent of national income ($100 billion) or even one-tenth of 1 percent ($10 billion). It's four one-hundredths of 1 percent. In 2000, about 105 million people voted. This works out to about $38 a vote. It's not exorbitant.
Next, we're told that the rich run Washington through campaign money. Well, if they do, they're fairly inept. In 2001 the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans will pay 52 percent of federal taxes, estimates the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. Meanwhile, federal programs benefit mainly the middle class and the poor. In 2000 the government spent about $400 billion on Social Security, $300 billion on Medicare and Medicaid and about $105 billion on "means-tested" programs for the poor (food stamps, child nutrition). Similarly, most environmental and health regulations impose restrictions on business.
I'm not particularly concerned about CFR because I can't see it working. The money will find a way to be spent as long as TV is out there--if you want to fix the problem, reduce TV costs. But it's interesting to think we're only spending 38/vote. The Japanese get much more for their vote, if PE is right (see International).
15179. JJBiener - 4/11/2001 12:09:30 AM
wonkers - Taking the starting point as the present, if the President's approach were followed, the result would be redistributing income from the poor or lower income groups to the highest and higher income groups.
This is bullshit, Wonk. In order for wealth to be redistributed, it has to be taken from one group and given to another. There is nothing in the tax bill that takes money from lower income groups and gives it to higher income groups. From your "Taking the starting point as the present" I am pretty sure you are going to launch into same kind bullshit argument that Cal has been giving me in Health. It is bullshit when she does it, and it is bullshit when you do it. I am not buying into that crap.
15180. JJBiener - 4/11/2001 12:13:18 AM
Wonk - [Like the woman who said she'd go to bed with a man for $1 million, but not for $10 which would make her a whore.]
I believe the punch line was, "We've established what you are. Now we are just negotiating on price."
15181. CalGal - 4/11/2001 12:15:00 AM
There is nothing in the tax bill that takes money from lower income groups and gives it to higher income groups.
True. The money is largely taken from the rich and distributed to, well, you, not to put too fine a point on it. And everyone making less than you, too.
However, within the middle class and slightly above, there is no question that some get more money from the rich than others.
15182. JJBiener - 4/11/2001 12:21:43 AM
Cal - I pay taxes. I don't receive payments from the government. Once you get this simple fact through your head, we might be able to have a conversation on this subject. As long as you persist in your delusion that government is subsidizing me with my own income, I don't see how we can have a meaningful dialogue.
15183. CalGal - 4/11/2001 12:31:54 AM
I don't receive payments from the government.
No--I meant "distributed to" in a variety of ways. It's certainly true that the cost of government is borne disproportionately by the rich and that almost no one making less than about $100K with a family is paying their portion of the government costs.
The fact that some people get literal checks and others get figurative ones--and still others just get schools, roads, and the likes for a lot less than what they cost--is not all that big a difference.
I certainly agree that you give more than the welfare mom to the government. But it's entirely possible you get more, too--and that you get disproportionately more than others of your income, for no particularly compelling reason.
All of the middle class gets a great deal from the government. There are more of them to bitch and moan if they're not happy.
15184. JJBiener - 4/11/2001 12:43:59 AM
Cal - It's certainly true that the cost of government is borne disproportionately by the rich and that almost no one making less than about $100K with a family is paying their portion of the government costs.
It is not certainly true. This is just another of your pet beliefs. In any case it doesn't apply to me.
But it's entirely possible you get more, too
Really? If we made the assumption that everyone benefited equally from government spending, that would mean that each person gets roughly $6600 in government services. With three people in my family that would come to $19,800. Our federal tax bill was more than this. As I said before, we pay more than enough to keep a family of four above the poverty line and plenty left over.
Now if figure in the fact that there are huge government programs I do not benefit from, it is clear that I am paying far more than I get in benefits.
All of the middle class gets a great deal from the government.
There may be some who get a great deal, but there are many more who are getting it in ass and they don't even realize it.
15185. JJBiener - 4/11/2001 12:46:40 AM
Wonkers - It's all quite legal and proper and democratic, small d.
So were the Nuremburg laws and Segregation. That doesn't make them right. It does however make them Democratic, big D.
15186. joezan - 4/11/2001 12:53:04 AM
Can this guy get a gig anywhere (outside of China)? 
Did Stanford dump Bill and Hillary?
15187. CalGal - 4/11/2001 12:55:11 AM
It is not certainly true. This is just another of your pet beliefs. In any case it doesn't apply to me.
Sure it's true. The last time Rask did the number, it was around $9k, not 6600. Also, I don't know how much your family income is, but if it isn't over $100K, it's pretty close. So if it doesn't apply to you personally, it's probably because your income is over my starting point.
If you pay much more than that, then you get to start figuring how many other people you're paying for.
There are two different issues: whether or not one pays their way, and whether or not one benefits disproportionately in comparison to others in similar income brackets. My comment about you was based on the latter. Even if you "pay your way", you are getting more income through expenditures and other subsidies than others in your income bracket. That's the point I was making.
There may be some who get a great deal, but there are many more who are getting it in ass and they don't even realize it.
Not true. Your income puts you in the top 5-10% (hence my use of middle class and slightly upwards of it). "Middle class" is that amount or less, and under any circumstances the middle class is not taking it up the ass. They pay nothing approaching the cost they represent.
15188. JJBiener - 4/11/2001 1:53:16 AM
CalGal - The last time Rask did the number, it was around $9k, not 6600.
I am not sure what numbers Rask was using. The budget is about $1.9 trillion. Their are about 285 million people according to the 2000 census. Grab a calculator or Excel and do the math.
whether or not one pays their way, and whether or not one benefits disproportionately in comparison to others in similar income brackets.
Yes I do pay my way and then some, and no, I do not benefit from the government disproportionately compared to others in my income bracket.
Even if you "pay your way", you are getting more income through expenditures and other subsidies than others in your income bracket.
Even using your perverse definition of expentitures they are no different from others in my income bracket. Your comments have no basis in fact or reason. Until you can deal with this subject honestly, I see no point in continuing. Be warned that I will expose your dishonesty on this subject every time you post on it.
15189. bubbaette - 4/11/2001 7:39:24 AM
It's not an easy exercise to try to place a monetary benefit on all government work to determine who gets the most back for their tax dollar. You could argue that middle and upper class get more from police and military protection than do the poor. Grocers derive benefits from the foodstamp program as do those receiving the stamps. Doctors benefit from Medicare and medicaid --not just the elderly and impoverished. Who gets the most from the air traffic control system -- the impoverished or the well-to-do.
It's easy to say that you don't derive any benefit from government services if you're only counting direct transfer payments.
15190. wonkers2 - 4/11/2001 8:07:52 AM
JJ "I pay taxes but I don't receive benefits from the government."
Do you drive on roads, fly on planes, feel more secure because of the U.S. Army, etc., do you have a child in public school, check the weather occasionally, expect to draw Social Security or Medicare benefits, etc.?
15191. wonkers2 - 4/11/2001 8:11:48 AM
stumbo,"Which principle?
The principle that government serves a necessary and useful purpose(s). And we are only arguing over which services and laws are necessary and useful.
15192. Indiana Jones - 4/11/2001 8:18:00 AM
Wonkers: Unless you're quoting a post further upthread or I've overlooked it, what JJ said was, "I pay taxes. I don't receive payments from the government."
"Payments"--not "benefits."
He also said, "I am paying far more than I get in benefits," and "I do not benefit from the government disproportionately compared to others in my income bracket."
So I don't think you should really "quote" him as saying, "I don't receive benefits from the government."
15193. wonkers2 - 4/11/2001 8:18:52 AM
JJ, you are quibbling. Under Bush the rich will have more disposable income and the poor and all Americans will lose services and benefits.
15194. Indiana Jones - 4/11/2001 8:22:21 AM
The poor and all Americans will lose services and benefits.
How is this so if the tax refund comes out a surplus? Also, are you saying Bush's first budget will be less than Clinton's last?
15195. JudithAtHome - 4/11/2001 8:28:38 AM
So I guess Bush got our people back with his letter, huh? Good for him...
15196. Dusty - 4/11/2001 8:37:41 AM
wonkers2 Message # 15190
That was sleazy.
15197. Dusty - 4/11/2001 8:39:27 AM
wonkers2
Under Bush the rich will have more disposable income and the poor and all Americans will lose services and benefits.
Even if true, you haven't explained why it would be unfair.
15198. bubbaette - 4/11/2001 8:49:23 AM
How is this so if the tax refund comes out a surplus?
Ha! Famous last words. Asshole Virginia Governor Gilmore's car tax relief was supposed to come out of the state's "surplus". What happened when the surplus didn't materialize in the out years as Rosy Scenario had promised? The car tax relief is now being taken our of my COLA, my health insurance, my retirement fund, diverted from federal TANF funds, taken away from services to individuals in state mental hospitals, reduced funding to schools and colleges and a host of other sources.
15199. MsIvoryTower - 4/11/2001 9:15:04 AM
Dusty,
I don't understand why you think Wonkers Message # 15190 is sleazy. The only thing slightly off is that public school expenditures are mostly paid for at the state or local level, the rest mainly come out of federal tax dollars.
I'd also add other items that are of the greatest benefit to the middle and upper classes, like regulatory activities monitoring securities, banking and the Federal Reserve System. Then there are all those diplomatic and trade agreements that allow the predominately upper classes to engage in capitalistic activities in other countries, and to allow other countries to do the same.
15200. MsIvoryTower - 4/11/2001 9:18:06 AM
Then, of course, there are the billions of federal dollars spent on R&D in medicine, science and technology, all of which becomes available to businesses for little or no direct cost, and which has provided a source of ever expanding economic growth for the (already) privileged.
15201. Dusty - 4/11/2001 9:22:58 AM
MsIvoryTower
Dusty,
I don't understand why you think Wonkers Message # 15190 is sleazy.
Putting a statement in quotes that he did not say is sleazy.
15202. MsIvoryTower - 4/11/2001 9:29:53 AM
Ah, I see, JJ said he doesn't receive payments from the government, not benefits, at least in that statement. Later on he denied he received as much in benefits as he paid in taxes.
15203. JadeGold1 - 4/11/2001 9:30:39 AM
What a difference a week to 10 days makes.
Since 1 April, Curious George has maintained we have nothing to apologize for regarding the P-3 incident.
Yesterday, Curious George had a change of heart (he likes that word). He found plenty to apologize for.
What changed?
What changed were the polls.
While Curious George watched his poll numbers go into a downward spiral, our P-3 crewmen were taking a bit of forced R&R, courtesy of Curious George's insecurities.
It only took Curious George almost two weeks to do what he should have done in the first day or two.
I don't wish to repeat Curious George's mistake; therefore, on behalf of the US, I apologize for this president*.
15204. Dusty - 4/11/2001 9:32:19 AM
MsIvoryTower
If JJ had said that he received no benefits from the Federal government, I'd disagree with him also. He (and I) receive many benefits from the federal government. You've identified some of them. I basically agree with everything on your list.
I'm happy to be able to say that government benefits accrue to me more than the average person. But I also pay far more. Perhaps I'm more attuned to it at the moment because I just paid more in one day in taxes than the average family "owes" for a year (based upon JJ's 1.9 trillion, population of 285 million).
Under a tax system I would consider fair, I would pay more than the average person. Far more. I'm in favor of a system that has a progressive structure. But I still think I pay too much.
15205. JadeGold1 - 4/11/2001 9:35:55 AM
By the by, notice how muted Curious George's announcement of the return of the P-3 aircrew was?
Aside from the obvious embarassment of apologizing after repeatedly maintaining we never would, there are other factors at play.
Buzz in DC says Curious George made some not insignificant concessions to China.
15206. rubberducky - 4/11/2001 9:39:04 AM
who here honestly thinks they don't pay 'too much' in taxes (state, fed, local, luxery, sales, etc)?
15207. bubbaette - 4/11/2001 9:43:44 AM
I don't necessarily think that I pay "too much" in taxes. I might take issue with spending in certain categories, but so might others take issue with the areas I think should be funded.
15208. MsIvoryTower - 4/11/2001 9:45:01 AM
Dusty
I generally remember that JJ believes he doesn't receive much in the way of benefits, that he pays far more than he receives. I think this is simply wrong. The progressive tax structure pretty accurately captures ability to pay with benefits received. I think a strong argument can be made that the wealthiest receive the most in benefits, because otherwise they'd be spending all their time defending their property, their businesses and their wealth, which, they clearly do not.
In fact, one could argue that paying taxes by the wealthy is the cheapest way for them to go wrt protecting their economic and physical interests.
For the middle classes, the argument is a bit shakier, their benefit streams typically are indirect, and aren't as clear as are either the poor or the wealthy. That doesn't mean the total costs of the benefits they receive wouldn't be higher if they weren't subsidized by everyone else's taxes, I believe they would.
15209. JadeGold1 - 4/11/2001 9:45:12 AM
I don't. I get a good deal, RD. I'd even argue we're undertaxed.
I pay a ton of taxes. I also understand the services and benefits I receive enable me to derive an income which puts me into a high bracket.
If you own a Bentley, you should expect to pay more in insurance than if you own a Hyundai. FritoCheese is in the insurance business; he should understand this issue better.
15210. RosettaStone - 4/11/2001 9:45:28 AM
Bush gets our spys back and wins another one.
This time against the ChiComs. Is this guy a god, or what? Just in time for Easter.
Dusty: I was asked to email you. I don't think it went through. Email me directly at Ram3@georgetown.org.
We're leaving Saturday AM for a week vacation. In Williamsburg at the Fairfield resort. Be there, or be square.
15211. JudithAtHome - 4/11/2001 9:49:38 AM
Rosie:
You'd die if we all showed up demanding introductions to your wife...
15212. bubbaette - 4/11/2001 9:52:29 AM
So much for the two week hiatus we were promised.
15213. rubberducky - 4/11/2001 9:55:03 AM
i dunno. i still think that all of you who say you don't think you are being overtaxed simply aren't fully aware of all the taxes currently being paid by you and yours. overtly and covertly. think about all the layers of tax you pay just to buy ordinary items at the store for example. this is not even bringing into account the sales tax on top of it. think how much cheaper things would be if not for taxes upon taxes levied on everything at all points in the supply chain.
Jade: undertaxed?? as a young, single, white, non-spawned male i say to hell with that.
15214. Francis Urquhart - 4/11/2001 10:00:20 AM
Jade
It seems that the apology, extended after 10 days, is exactly what you were prescribing the second the incident occurred. Your position was as foolish as those who were screaming to treat China like Iran, replete with yellow ribbons. Or those who wanted to establish a commission, complete with Kofi Annan at the Hyatt. Thankfully, cooler, more intelligent and less hackacious heads prevailed.
But no matter whose policy was followed, from Jade's "Who cares what happened? Damn the facts! Apologize! We velly, velly sorry!" to The Weekly Standard's "Hostage crisis - day 7! We must fight China on the shores, the mainland, the beaches . . . they won't respect us!" to whoever suggested the cockamamie commission, two things have been established. First, our personnel were destined to spend a little extra time with the Chinese no matter the early policy - that's what happens when you bomb an embassy and a surveillance plane gets knocked down. Some folks want to make you squirm. Second, the country has reached a certain status with regard to foreign affairs that is both discomfiting and heartening.
While the level of sophistication is high (most people thought China was being unscrupulous), they simultaneously so over-value the lives of American military personnel that there is little they won't do to save them. This is Bosnia and the three wandering serviceman all over again. We have reached such dizzying heights of power that we are incapable of suffering casualties abroad.
As for his concessions, I understand that Bush agreed to remove nuclear missiles from Turkey.
15215. CalGal - 4/11/2001 10:05:44 AM
Actually, I think all Americans get about the same amount in benefits from the government. It just differs in form. Certainly the rich pay far, far more than their direct cost to the government. I don't object to that, but it's silly to pretend it's not true. Everyone benefits from infrastructure, defense, public schools and the cops--even the poor.
Given that their benefits are about the same, I see no reason not to assume that everyone's cost to the government is about the same, even if it takes a different form.
So JJ's declaration that he doesn't benefit as much as he puts in is nonsense. Given the cost of government and the fact that the rich pay more, he is at best about breaking even.
I think the middleclass gets more direct and indirect entitlements than any other group.
15216. Dusty - 4/11/2001 10:07:17 AM
JadeGold1
If you own a Bentley, you should expect to pay more in insurance than if you own a Hyundai. FritoCheese[sic] is in the insurance business; he should understand this issue better.
In the insurance business, the cost of insurance (to a first order of approximation) is based upon the expected costs for the class. Insurance for a Bentley would cost more than for a Hyundai. Let's, for arguments sake, say that the average cost of insurance is $1000. The insurance industry might charge $500 for the Hyundai, $2500 for the Bentley. (there are more Hyundia's then Bentley's if you are wondering why those numbers don't seem to average to $1000.)
But if we followed the federal government approach to taxation, we would send a check for $400 to the Hyundai owner, and a bill for $10,000 to the Bentley owner.
The Bentley owner should pay more in insurance and taxes. No one disputes that. It is the magnitude of the differential that is in dispute.
15217. jexster - 4/11/2001 10:09:15 AM
apologize, British and Australian usually -ise verb to tell someone that you are sorry< i> for having done something that has caused them inconvenience or unhappiness
15218. PsychProf - 4/11/2001 10:09:34 AM
Perhaps we should shoot the Bentley owner, sell the vehicle, and distribute the funds to some, each according to their needs.
15219. jexster - 4/11/2001 10:09:53 AM
kowtow
15220. PsychProf - 4/11/2001 10:09:58 AM
toys
15221. rubberducky - 4/11/2001 10:10:12 AM
sigh
15222. PsychProf - 4/11/2001 10:12:05 AM
Jex...never could get my boys to put their toys away either.
15223. jexster - 4/11/2001 10:13:24 AM
I have to chuckle. China can do whatever it pleases because of the stake that US business has in trade with that country.
But when it comes to Cuba, a country with the GDP of Humble Texas, its demonstrations...the Ace of Spades has one of his psychotic episodes posting messages on the Mote at 3 am EDT....
15224. jexster - 4/11/2001 10:14:10 AM
I don't kowtow
15225. Dusty - 4/11/2001 10:14:27 AM
CalGal
Actually, I think all Americans get about the same amount in benefits from the government.
I've heard you say this before, but I thought it was just to provoke discussion. It is clearly untrue.
I derive far more in benefits than the average person for many of the functions of government. The police protect my property and my person. I won't get into the philosophical discussion of whether my person is worth more than anyone else's so let's call that even. But I do have more property than some people. So the protection of my property is worth more to me than to others. As a check, if police protection of private property were privatized, I'm sure I would pay more than someone with almost nothing.
Similarly, the national defense costs create more of a benefit. Defense protects both my person and my property, and the same argument holds.
When the Federal reserve is doing its job, it provides more benefits to me than to people with smaller 401k's.
I don't personally get much benefit from welfare programs, but I get indirect benefits, even if I think those programs are woefully mismanaged.
15226. Francis Urquhart - 4/11/2001 10:17:56 AM
Jexster had Bush been less diplomatic
"That crazed Bush shit-eating PoooPStain has done It again, and now the fact That We have a No Good Thief in the WhiTE House means the Chinese own us. Poopstain."
Jexster now
"That kowtowing Bush shit-eating PoooPStain has done It again, and now the fact That We have a No Good Thief in the WhiTE House means the Chinese own us. Poopstain."
15227. JadeGold1 - 4/11/2001 10:21:55 AM
Niner:
I have explained this to you before. As a new parent, I'm used to having to repeat myself.
Indeed, Curious George should have apologized in the first days after the incident. The aircrew would have been home a week ago and damage to US/China relations would have been minimal.
Instead, Curious George put on his cowboy hat and boots and strutted like a peacock, making "tough guy" noises.
I can't address your friends at the Weekly Standard, they are fringe players who won't be content until every Godless heathen, everywhere, is brought under heel.
Ultimately, Curious George did what he had to do. He needlessly prolonged the incident and it will wind up costing the US more than if he had acted wisely to begin with.
15228. jexster - 4/11/2001 10:25:27 AM
Anaheim -- San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown brought down the house this weekend at the state Democratic convention with a sharp-tongued riff about George W. Bush.
Noting that the president recently said critics had "misunderestimated" him, Brown daadpanned: "They elected the symbol of ebonics to the presidency of this nation.
"There ain't no brother in Oakland, or anywhere else, that would run the phrase or mix up the words the way this cat does," said Brown, with his trademark Cheshire Cat look. "It raises serious questions about whether he's really white."
15229. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 4/11/2001 10:27:16 AM
15230. jexster - 4/11/2001 10:27:17 AM
I don't kowtow
15231. joezan - 4/11/2001 10:27:23 AM
Well, apparently GWB's letter contained language which appeases the commie Chinese.
But he did not apologize for the US plane's causing the collision, as China had demanded. Which means that China will not be able to use said apology as leverage in halting routine surveillance missions, or the various Taiwan issues, etc, etc.
AND, I can still get my kids some pretty nifty free toys, merely by ordering a Happy Meal.
Sounds like a victory to me.
Unfortunately, he has still not completely appeased the much more demanding Jade, though my sources tell me officials at the highest levels are, as I type, working with Chinese export officials to allow limited imports of Chinese crow, to be delivered monthly only to Jade's DC hovel.
15232. jexster - 4/11/2001 10:27:59 AM
ahh Wiz..kowtow
15233. jexster - 4/11/2001 10:29:22 AM
Elian Be Free!!!!!!!!!!!!!
15234. jexster - 4/11/2001 10:31:37 AM
Yes indeed Jade, the Chimp did what he had to do and what I said he would do in answer to Dusty's interrogatory last week
kowrow
15235. Francis Urquhart - 4/11/2001 10:33:02 AM
jexster
He sure did kowrow.
jade
I'm impressed by your policy of ingratiating fealty and humility first, ask questions later.
15236. CalGal - 4/11/2001 10:35:17 AM
Dusty,
Infrastructure is infrastructure. The poor not only benefit from it indirectly (it hires them), they benefit from it directly, in that were there not people who did pay for it, they would never get it in the first place. And, because the infrastructure exists, it gives the poor far more of an opportunity to become rich as a result.
Then there is the fact that we are a very fluid society, in terms of income. A poor kid might grow up to be rich. But if the rich people hadn't paid for the infrastructure that kept the kid alive, and if he hadn't had access to the same infrastructure in order to go to school, grow his income, and so on, would he ever have been rich? You have to take the equation over a lifetime, not at any point in time.
The military argument in particular is extremely weak. (I know it didn't originate with you).
Taken as a whole, everyone benefits from the government equally. The differential, to the extent it exists, is in the hundreds of dollars, not thousands, once you spread it out over the wohle population.
15237. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 4/11/2001 10:36:58 AM
Money interests trump everything else with "number one son, BusherooJr.!"
15238. JadeGold1 - 4/11/2001 10:37:01 AM
"We have nothing to apologize for."
Guess that depends on the meaning of 'nothing,' huh, JZ?
We could have had the aircrew home over a week ago.
We're getting them home, shortly. We also made significant concessions. And US/China relations are damaged.
I don't think we can afford any more such "victories."
15239. joezan - 4/11/2001 10:42:04 AM
What "concessions"?
The Chinese received no new guarantees, and we will continue to fly surveillance missions. The Taiwan question is where it was before the incident. China's trade status is unchanged.
What are your "sources" down at the laundry telling you, Jade?
15240. Francis Urquhart - 4/11/2001 10:43:51 AM
Jade's correct.
We had to throw in the military contract for berets AND ascots to the Chinese.
And isn't it worth a lost week of "Survivor" for our brave guys and gals to adopt, as policy, a "We so sorry, we really are, we're so sorry, oh, we are so so so sorry" even before we know what's up? My goodness. Had we simply rolled over properly without inquiry, these kids could have seen the Blockbuster Awards. As it was, they were "hostage" so long that Vince Gill had almost penned a tune.
The Chinese would sure have respected that and delivered our folks to us lickety-split. Because, as jade infers, by nature, the Chinese are rather stupid and they will take nothing else into consideration but a rapid, automatic apology. I can see the meeting:
Chinese 1: What do we do?
Chinese 2: Well, we must assess the situation?
Chinese 3: Just come in on fax. Bush apologizes.
Chinese 1: Send them back. Now. We must discuss this no further.
Chinese 2: I concur. American dog has apologized. We must move quickly. The canny curs!
15241. Dusty - 4/11/2001 10:49:59 AM
The Economist doesn't think the retuen could have been engineered quickly, but surely Jade knows better?
It was probably always expecting too much to think that the Chinese would do what Mr Bush asked and return immediately both the crew of 24 Americans and their aircraft, which had been forced to make an emergency landing on China’s Hainan island. Nothing in bureaucratic China, especially when it involves foreigners, gets sorted out quickly and, to be fair, it is hard to imagine the Americans sending back a spy plane by return had they been the recipients.
15242. MsIvoryTower - 4/11/2001 10:50:15 AM
Everyone benefits from infrastructure, defense, public schools and the cops--even the poor.
I think many of the poor would disagree with you. A strong case can be made that they benefit the least from our government and the economy it works so hard to maintain, regardless of the direct transfers they receive. Certainly a case can be made that their level of social services, police, education, medical, all pale in comparison to that provided to the middle and upper classes.
15243. MsIvoryTower - 4/11/2001 10:52:05 AM
And what Dusty said in Message # 15225
15244. jexster - 4/11/2001 10:52:27 AM
ah so Frances!
15245. jexster - 4/11/2001 10:58:16 AM
Meanwhile back at the Armadillo Ranch
Senate and Bush Budgets Differ By Hundreds of Billions
15246. ycmeehan - 4/11/2001 10:59:07 AM
In fact, one could argue that paying taxes by the wealthy is the cheapest way for them to go wrt protecting their economic and physical interests.
I agree with you.
I have read very interesting posts on this topic. I was challenged on the so-called social contract. For me the essence of the social contract is: The rich and powerful guarantee economic mobility within the society through an equitable system of taxation and safety nets. The underclass, in return, guarantees safety of property and person. If this social contract is abrogated, the whole structure of the society is fractured. Unfortunately, for the future of this country, elements within the present power structure are quite willing to take that risk. That is the tragedy of the Bush's administration
15247. jexster - 4/11/2001 11:00:38 AM
And What Ken Lay Wants, His Monkey Delivers
BOISE, Idaho--With a California-born electricity crisis spreading like a range fire throughout the West, there were signs of softening Tuesday in opposition to a federal cap on wholesale power prices.
A second member of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which has steadfastly opposed wholesale caps on electricity, said she might be willing to discuss a price ceiling--a significant breakthrough for California officials, who have been pleading for price caps for months. And regional officials from other Western states said they might support some short-term form of price controls.
Up to now, FERC Commissioner William Massey was the lone voice on the panel favoring wholesale price caps on electricity, which could rein in the runaway prices that have sent one California utility to Bankruptcy Court and put another on the brink.
FERC Chairman Curtis Hebert has staunchly opposed any form of price controls. But at a hearing before officials from across the West, Commissioner Linda K. Breathitt, a Democratic appointee to the panel, said she would be open to considering price caps.
15248. jexster - 4/11/2001 11:01:13 AM
15249. Francis Urquhart - 4/11/2001 11:03:37 AM
"I think that for 10 days ... we have acted powerless, unduly passive and in the process I think we are emboldening the worst elements of the bureaucracy in Beijing while demoralizing our allies in Asia," he said.
Gary Bauer
15250. jexster - 4/11/2001 11:04:34 AM
And when the Division leading SF Giants return home to PacBell Park this week, Ken Lay is giving us Enron Pin Day!!!!
GO GIANTS!!!!!!!!!!
15251. Francis Urquhart - 4/11/2001 11:05:51 AM
"We should, in my judgment, say we are sorry."
Jesse Jackson.
15252. rubberducky - 4/11/2001 11:11:05 AM
Fran:
what is your point?
equating Jade & Jex with Jackson & Bauer?
15253. ButterfieldSwire - 4/11/2001 11:11:40 AM
We should in my judgement say we are sorry for having voted for Bush. What an asshole.
15254. Francis Urquhart - 4/11/2001 11:12:28 AM
Jexster is Bauer.
Jade is Jackson.
Bush is Baueckson.
15255. ycmeehan - 4/11/2001 11:13:09 AM
The reason the stock market goes up with Bush's failures and down with Bush's successes is because the majority of established wealth in this country is more interested in the protection of their assets than what they know to be only a temporary tax advantage. On the other hand, the nouveau rich who are still on the make will be found allied with the DeLay faction.
15256. JadeGold1 - 4/11/2001 11:22:12 AM
Lessons Learned:
There exists a huge split between the Pentagon and the State Department. Rumsfeld is itching for a return to the Cold War. Powell knew what had to be done but was too timid and primarily concerned with the reputation of Powell, Incorporated.
Not an aupicious beginning for Condi Rice. Oh, well. National Security isn't really her function; photo ops are.
Curious George demonstrated, again, that figureheads may suffice for American political theater. They are a detriment in foreign policy.
Power of the polls.
15257. CalGal - 4/11/2001 11:25:58 AM
Certainly a case can be made that their level of social services, police, education, medical, all pale in comparison to that provided to the middle and upper classes.
Several points. One, that's not anywhere near all the infrastructure--toss in transportation, utilities, tax collection and redistribution, communications and a host of other things I just haven't thought of yet.
Two, while the quality of those services is certainly less, I'm not sure the cost is less in all cases. But that's just a btw, since you've just singled out the services--that they don't benefit from equally.
A strong case can be made that they benefit the least from our government and the economy it works so hard to maintain, regardless of the direct transfers they receive.
But I think a much stronger case can be made that they benefit the most from our government. In many cases, the benefits are equal. In other cases, you can't only look at the money they get directly, but the money it takes to provide it. Administration costs alone boost the poor a long way up the government consumption chain.
Also, as I've said before, you have to look at it over a lifetime. Suppose a poor person becomes rich, or at least well off, which happens a fair amount even now. Do you look at the services he gets as a rich person and say he's not paying enough, or the services he got as a poor person and say he paid too much? Likewise, what about rich people who become poor in their old age?
If the government infrastructure supports such an evolution--which it clearly does--then I don't see how it can be argued that its costs and benefits aren't spread out evenly over the entire population. I think focusing on how much money the rich make from it or how much they would have to pay otherwise misses the point.
15258. Francis Urquhart - 4/11/2001 11:26:08 AM
Lessons Learned:
There exists a huge split between the Pentagon and the State Department. Rumsfeld is itching for a return to the Cold War. Powell knew what had to be done but was too timid and primarily concerned with the reputation of Powell, Incorporated to apologize as soon as humanly possible for any and everything.
Not an aupicious beginning for Condi Rice. Oh, well. National Security isn't really her function; photo ops are. She's on E! next week. Victoria's Secret. Underwire thing. Not too shabby.
Curious George demonstrated, again, that figureheads may suffice for American political theater. They are a detriment in foreign policy. They rock for NASCAR. Chicks dig them.
Power tohe people.
15259. CalGal - 4/11/2001 11:28:05 AM
Besides, if there was no infrastructure and the rich had to pay for everything themselves, they'd be getting labor at dirt cheap rates, because the poor wouldn't have any other options at all and no government to make or enforce employment law. There would be no welfare, or anything else. So the rich would probably be paying a hell of a lot less for the construction of roads, the protection of property, and so on.
This is not to say that I think we should have a flat tax, or that the rich pay too much. It's just that I think the notion that the rich benefit disproportionately is incorrect. I certainly think it's wrong to say that the poor and middle class put in more than they get. Every argument I just made for the poor is tripled for the middle class, who I think gets the best deal in town.
15260. JadeGold1 - 4/11/2001 11:41:16 AM
I will give credit to Curious George's handlers, however, for keeping a tight lid on Curious George's cage.
A bad situation and outcome could have been much worse with Curious George expounding his opinion.
Damage was limited to comments like this, yesterday:
Uh, this administration is doing everything uh we can to end uh the stalemate in an efficient way. Wa..we..we're making the right decisions to uh to bring the solution to an end.
15261. Francis Urquhart - 4/11/2001 11:48:48 AM
And a self-serving, muddled, and uneducated criticism of Bush's handling of the matter and his foreign policy team culminates in a negative evaluation of what?
Diction.
Another bravura performance of Me Know Little About Lot.
15262. greystoke - 4/11/2001 11:50:08 AM
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON -- Judicial Watch, a conservative group that gained prominence by repeatedly suing the Clinton White House, is taking legal action against House Republican leader Tom DeLay over allegations he tried to raise political donations by promising meetings with Bush administration officials.
"It is improper and illegal to sell official public office for political campaign contributions," said Judicial Watch chairman and general counsel Larry Klayman. "When Clinton did this, Judicial Watch acted. We cannot look the other way when Republicans do the same thing."
Klayman said Tuesday that he had filed complaints with the Federal Election Commission and the Justice Department, asking them to investigate DeLay, R-Texas, and the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) for fund-raising violations. He said he also would ask the House ethics committee to look into the matter.
"This whole thing is ridiculous," said Emily Miller, DeLay's spokeswoman. "Tom DeLay has done absolutely nothing wrong."
The Associated Press reported this month that DeLay, the House's third-ranked Republican, was promising meetings with senior Bush officials to small business owners who made donations to underwrite a GOP ad campaign promoting President Bush's tax plan.
DeLay, in a taped telephone message sent to businessmen, asked them to serve as "an honorary member of our new Business Advisory Council." As a member, he said, "you will be invited to meetings with top Bush administration officials where your opinions on issues like tax reform will be heard."
Both Miller and Steve Schmidt, spokesman for the NRCC, said DeLay was seeking donations in the $300 to $500 range for people interested in attending a tax relief summit in Washington next month where administration officials, members of Congress and others will speak.
15263. Indiana Jones - 4/11/2001 11:54:37 AM
If big government benefits the rich more than the poor, is the Democratic Party the party of the rich?
Are both rich and poor voters stupid and have no idea what's in their best interest?
15264. JadeGold1 - 4/11/2001 12:10:35 PM
It was a sincere compliment, Niner.
This incident could have been made far worse by Curious George making some off-the-cuff comment about the situation. His handlers are to be commended for having the discipline to keep Curious George under wraps.
15265. bubbaette - 4/11/2001 12:20:02 PM
Are both rich and poor voters stupid and have no idea what's in their best interest?
Yes -- but the issue isn't couched in terms of rich and poor so much, but as sound bites and emotional appeals to single issue voters. Farmers tend to vote Republican even though Democrats seem to fight harder to see that farmers keep getting their goodies.
DH has a friend who is on the margins of the economy whose wife is disabled and they're living from hand to mouth, paycheck to paycheck. Yet he votes Republican. Why? Because the Republicans have convinced him that the Democrats will soon be pounding on his door to take away his guns.
So it's not that people are too stupid to vote their own self interests, it's that politics has been dumbed down to the extent that voters often base their votes on emotional appeals to single issues that are pretty bogus in the final analysis.
15266. JadeGold1 - 4/11/2001 12:23:14 PM
I'm surprised William Kristol is taking Curious George to task.
After all, he, better than most, must understand how difficult it is to be a handler for a complete idiot.
Kristol was Danny Quayle's handler and he couldn't stop Quayle from saying the most ridiculous things. And Quayle was only Veep.
Curious George is the president*. And he is far dumber than Quayle. Keeping the lid on Curious George was a tour de force.
15267. CalGal - 4/11/2001 12:23:56 PM
Farmers tend to vote Republican even though Democrats seem to fight harder to see that farmers keep getting their goodies.
There was an article in the TNR that mentioned this disconnect--it's fairly recent.
So it's not that people are too stupid to vote their own self interests,
Well, yes, it is. It's either that or the guy defines his self-interest differently than you do. Take your pick. But how can you deny that it's stupidity if "dumbing down" works so well?
15268. Ronski - 4/11/2001 12:24:22 PM
I suspect that gun-owners understand the concept of the slippery slope better than most people.
As for farmers, note that they will send to the Senate anybody who keeps sending them goodies, witness the success of Daschle and Conrad, Democrats.
15269. Indiana Jones - 4/11/2001 12:25:47 PM
Yes [the voters are stupid].
bubbaette: Haha. Your example is strange, however. If your friend is on the margins he ought to be voting Republican. Remember, government benefits the rich more than the poor, so the down and out should be in favor of cutting it.
15270. Ronski - 4/11/2001 12:27:25 PM
Kristol has implanted himself firmly among the loonier ranks of the anti-freedom, pro-military right, probably because Murdoch wants him there.
I'm delighted that he is beating up on W, and hope that W will tell the Kristol wing where to place it.
15271. Indiana Jones - 4/11/2001 12:31:46 PM
Cheney (on Meet the Press):
Key fact to get across, the ANWAR — the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge—19 million acres, roughly the size of South Carolina. The amount of land that needs to be disturbed on the surface to develop that resource, 2,000 acres, roughly half the size of Dulles Airport. The notion that somehow developing the resources in ANWAR requires some sort of vast despoiling of the environment up there is just garbage. It’s not true.
Editorial
WHY doesn't President Bush just go ahead and take a soccer mom and a waitress mom out to a suburban mall and pistol-whip them in the food court? That couldn't inflict much more unnecessary political damage on our narrowly elected leader than some of his actual policy decisions.
While the new administration's actions on a string of environmental issues may please the president's corporate sponsors and anti-government conservatives, the rollbacks on global warming, drinking water and industrial emissions are not likely to sit well (nor should they) with the suburban women who may hold the fate of Republicans in the 2002 congressional elections and the 2004 presidential contest.
15272. bubbaette - 4/11/2001 12:34:11 PM
But how can you deny that it's stupidity if "dumbing down" works so well?
Most people get their news from television. Television really sucks at presenting complex issues that don't lend themselves to visuals, so the issues that affect people the most in their pocket books don't get the coverage they need to explore the issues in depth. Frankly, most people are not going to do a whole bunch of independent study to find out about these issues. Instead they chose a hot button issue that gets lots of attention and base their votes on that.
I don't necessarily think people who base their votes on single issues are stupid. Maybe uninvolved, incurious, lazy, or easily swayed, but not stupid.
15273. Cellar Door - 4/11/2001 12:39:14 PM
Nah, they're stupid.
15274. bubbaette - 4/11/2001 12:41:56 PM
Stupid when it comes to politics -- which most people don't perceive as having much to do with their "real" lives.
15275. Cellar Door - 4/11/2001 1:02:58 PM
Stuoid is as stupid does.
15276. Cellar Door - 4/11/2001 1:03:44 PM
Now wasn't that stupid?
15277. concerned - 4/11/2001 1:07:24 PM
15278. jexster - 4/11/2001 1:13:01 PM
Kowtow
15279. concerned - 4/11/2001 1:14:07 PM
Hey jex -
Ongoing surveillance flights, baby. Bore would have blown it big time.
15280. jexster - 4/11/2001 1:14:55 PM
Bush Seeks to Renegotiate Trade Pact With Jordan
Fresh from groveling before the Chinese, the toady to his corporate masters is "vexed" by provisions in the pact to protect the environment and the rights of workers.
15281. jexster - 4/11/2001 1:17:32 PM
Hey concerned
apologize, British and Australian usually -ise verb
to tell someone that you are sorry for having done something that has caused them inconvenience or unhappiness
He apologized publicly to me for his mistake. [I]
Trains may be subject to delay on the northern line - we apologize for any inconvenience caused. [I]
She apologized profusely for having to leave at 3.30 p.m. [I]
He apologized that the statistics had been inaccurate. [+ that clause]
SLIGHTLY FORMAL I do apologize if my voice is a little low - I've got rather a bad cold. [I]
15282. jexster - 4/11/2001 1:19:06 PM
hey concerned
A National Humiliation - The Weekly Standard
kowtow
15283. jexster - 4/11/2001 1:21:40 PM
This just in from the Conintern
Kowtow
15284. jexster - 4/11/2001 1:23:07 PM
defeat and humiliation...the shame...the shame
15285. concerned - 4/11/2001 1:23:58 PM
The word 'apologize' is not evident in our diplomatic lexicon, judging by the letter we sent the Chinese leadership which is causing them to release the 24 'detainees'.
Merely 'very sorry'. Bush could just as well, in the letter, have added that he was 'very sorry' that the Chinese dictators are lying maggots. But he is too diplomatic for that.
15286. jexster - 4/11/2001 1:25:10 PM
I am very *concerned* this morning
15287. Cellar Door - 4/11/2001 1:25:22 PM
Face it, connie, Bush is nothing more than a boot-licking Communist toadie. What kind of a message is he sending to our children?
OH, THE HUMANITY!
(Cue Kate Smith)
15288. concerned - 4/11/2001 1:25:43 PM
once again, jexster leaves his toys in the attic.
15289. jexster - 4/11/2001 1:26:23 PM
apologize, British and Australian usually -ise verb
to tell someone that you are sorry
But Bush is VERY sorry.
hehehehe
15290. jexster - 4/11/2001 1:26:55 PM
and as an American I, along with Billy Kristol, am VERY ashamed
15291. jexster - 4/11/2001 1:27:27 PM
and concerned
15292. jexster - 4/11/2001 1:28:27 PM
at least Elian is free!
15293. Dusty - 4/11/2001 2:30:36 PM
Very sorry2 does the trick!
15294. Wombat - 4/11/2001 2:46:38 PM
We are really, really sorry, so very sorry, absolutely sorry, I mean really sorry.
15295. Ronski - 4/11/2001 3:40:07 PM
In fact, we are so sorry we are going to arm Taiwan to the teeth.
15296. CalGal - 4/11/2001 3:53:38 PM
First woman governor of Massachussetts is also knocked up and due to pop in June.
She's the one who got in trouble for using the helicopter and having employees babysit, as I recall.
15297. Wombat - 4/11/2001 4:00:46 PM
Ronski:
It will take 4-6 years for AEGIS destroyers to come on line and for the Taiwanese to be ready to use them. What do you think China might do during that time?
15298. Ronski - 4/11/2001 4:01:33 PM
Bluster.
15299. jexster - 4/11/2001 4:06:01 PM
15300. jexster - 4/11/2001 4:06:31 PM 15301. jexster - 4/11/2001 4:11:14 PM WRT the BUSH-begotten idea of selling AEGIS destroyers to Taiwan, what would sale of this equipment add to Taiwanese security? 15302. jexster - 4/11/2001 4:14:19 PM But right now I cannot think of such nonsense. I am so ashamed and humiliated at our national defeat and humiliation, so very concerned that our great nation is, as Mao said we were, a paper tiger. 15303. jexster - 4/11/2001 4:15:29 PM Oh the shame...the shame... 15304. jexster - 4/11/2001 4:21:27 PM Our national honor sold for a bunch of cheap suits and cell phones. 15305. joezan - 4/11/2001 4:27:29 PM Jex truly believes by continuing to post his fantasies, which run entirely contrary to actual events (NO apology for hitting the Chinese jet, no halt to surveillance flights, not an inch of capitulation on any Taiwan, trade, or Olympics issue - which is, after all, what the hostage-taking was all about) that he will make it "true". 15306. JJBiener - 4/11/2001 4:28:55 PM Joe - Who is Jex trying to convince? 15307. joezan - 4/11/2001 4:30:37 PM Either that, or he is one of Jade's "sources", let out of the bag, and now gone amok. 15308. jexster - 4/11/2001 4:35:46 PM Our national humiliation is detailed in an editorial of the same name appearing in this week's Weekly Standard 15309. jexster - 4/11/2001 4:36:17 PM Its a sad day to be an American 15310. joezan - 4/11/2001 4:38:21 PM Only if your name happens to be jexster. 15311. joezan - 4/11/2001 4:39:17 PM ...in which case, every day since Jan. 20, 2001, is a very, very sad day. 15312. Wombat - 4/11/2001 4:42:01 PM Ronski: 15313. Cellar Door - 4/11/2001 4:42:06 PM What happened on January 20th? 15314. jexster - 4/11/2001 4:42:42 PM Oh that the Bastard Imbecile had heeded the words of our btsve fighting men and women instead of the voice of his big business masters who want cheap chips 15315. rubberducky - 4/11/2001 4:44:20 PM then take your meds like the doctors tell you to 15316. Ronski - 4/11/2001 4:44:52 PM Bush: "Swinging Both Ways" 15317. joezan - 4/11/2001 4:45:23 PM THE LOONY LEFT, YESTERDAY: 15318. Ronski - 4/11/2001 4:47:12 PM Wombat, 15319. jexster - 4/11/2001 4:47:58 PM Glad you mention Billy Kristol JoeZ! 15320. Ronski - 4/11/2001 4:48:26 PM That "highly-regarded" part is pretty funny. 15321. jexster - 4/11/2001 4:48:54 PM But if the Chicoms DON't have the stomach for an invasion Ronski, why sell AEGIS? 15322. Ronski - 4/11/2001 4:50:04 PM jexster, 15323. jexster - 4/11/2001 4:50:33 PM But it is the appeasers who wind up leading us into war. ...Billy Kristol 15324. jexster - 4/11/2001 4:51:52 PM hehehee..Ronsk! 15325. Ronski - 4/11/2001 4:52:24 PM I agree we should not hand the Sudetenland over to the Germans ever again. 15326. jexster - 4/11/2001 4:53:03 PM Were you there when Bush laid US in the tomb? 15327. jexster - 4/11/2001 4:53:34 PM I am too shaken to contine... 15328. glendajean - 4/11/2001 4:57:21 PM Ronski -- thanks for the Salon link about Bush's openly gay appointee. Very interesting story. 15329. JJBiener - 4/11/2001 4:57:34 PM Jex - I am too shaken to contine... 15330. jexster - 4/11/2001 5:03:56 PM and what abiut our AEGIS plane? Did you see what they did to our plane! 15331. joezan - 4/11/2001 5:11:20 PM Chinese officials said Wednesday it would free the detained crew after receiving a letter from President Bush saying he was “very sorry” that a Chinese pilot had been killed and that the aircraft had violated Chinese sovereignty when it made an emergency landing. 15332. bbb - 4/11/2001 5:22:06 PM Here is my proposed "resolution" of the spy plane incident posted YESTERDAY: 15333. bbb - 4/11/2001 5:23:41 PM "sorry" is the right word sandwiched between "regret" and "apology". Now both governments can spin it the way they see fit. 15334. bbb - 4/11/2001 5:25:21 PM GW Bush passed the "test" and brought back our 24 crew members from China................and the liberals are pissed off. 15335. bbb - 4/11/2001 5:31:08 PM Winners : Colin Powell,Hainan (future resort hot spot) 15336. Cellar Door - 4/11/2001 5:32:55 PM 15337. joezan - 4/11/2001 5:34:23 PM Not really, bbb. 15338. AceofSpades - 4/11/2001 5:37:58 PM 15339. JJBiener - 4/11/2001 5:43:41 PM Actually I think we have Jesse Jackson to thank for the Chinese releasing the crew. Once the Chinese government realized that they would have to put up with his whining and arrogance and tolerate his incessant posturing at endless photo ops, they realized that it wasn't worth the hassle. They took the easy way out and decided to release the crew and drop the demands. Bush was brilliant. He told them that Jackson would stay in China until the crew was released. The Chinese quickly gave up. Who would have thought that Jesse Jackson would be Bush's secret weapon. 15340. bbb - 4/11/2001 5:43:45 PM "The crew's release is a victory for Chinese President Jiang Zemin's moderate line 15341. bbb - 4/11/2001 5:45:08 PM The speed of resolution ,in this context, is measured in HOURS. 15342. bbb - 4/11/2001 5:52:49 PM Will Wang Wei resurface AFTER the release of our 24 crew members? 15343. concerned - 4/11/2001 6:05:09 PM 15344. bbb - 4/11/2001 6:11:11 PM concerned, 15345. bbb - 4/11/2001 6:11:55 PM 15346. JJBiener - 4/11/2001 6:16:25 PM bbb - Will Wang Wei resurface AFTER the release of our 24 crew members? 15347. jexster - 4/11/2001 6:36:01 PM 15348. jexster - 4/11/2001 6:38:39 PM What do you expect of someone who sold YOUR democratic birthright to get elected? 15349. Cellar Door - 4/11/2001 6:46:20 PM My God do you realize what just happened a moment ago? 15350. jexster - 4/11/2001 6:47:36 PM Meanwhile, back at the state zoo, we still have an agenda dominated by George W. Bush, but it's Bush-in-reverse. 15351. bbb - 4/11/2001 6:55:40 PM Wang Wei maybe well and alive under the Chinese "witness protection program " from day one. 15352. concerned - 4/11/2001 7:04:29 PM Nader's got big plans for 2002 & 2004 15353. jexster - 4/11/2001 7:05:22 PM YOU better HOPE so...be concerned be very concerned 15354. jexster - 4/11/2001 7:28:47 PM "This administration is doing everything we can to end the stalemate in an efficient way. We're making the right decisions to bring the solution to an end." 15355. jexster - 4/11/2001 7:32:39 PM What Ken Lay Wants, Ken Lay Gets? 15356. jexster - 4/11/2001 8:23:23 PM So if you're keeping score at home and of course you probably aren't because God knows these sort of political sucker-punches are often just 15357. jexster - 4/11/2001 8:33:54 PM Happy Enron Pin Day Giants Fans 15358. concerned - 4/11/2001 8:36:31 PM 15359. Cellar Door - 4/11/2001 9:20:47 PM Connie, I didn't know you were Al D'Amato! 15360. jexster - 4/11/2001 10:56:26 PM LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - California was urged on Wednesday to fight back against a ``sellers cartel'', blamed for driving up wholesale electricity prices in the state, and form a ``buyers cartel'' with energy-starved neighbors Oregon and Washington. 15361. joezan - 4/11/2001 11:23:26 PM Ace: 15362. bbb - 4/12/2001 12:26:28 AM One interesting aspect in the translation department: 15363. bbb - 4/12/2001 12:27:28 AM 15364. joezan - 4/12/2001 12:39:08 AM bbb: 15365. CalGal - 4/12/2001 12:45:26 AM "You have to wonder what point there is in being a super power anymore." 15366. bbb - 4/12/2001 12:49:44 AM The moderates from BOTH sides have prevailed. 15367. thoughtful - 4/12/2001 9:58:05 AM Crew departs.... 15368. Francis Urquhart - 4/12/2001 10:04:54 AM thoughtful 15369. rubberducky - 4/12/2001 10:08:15 AM just think... 15370. jexster - 4/12/2001 10:08:23 AM Condo Rice 15371. jexster - 4/12/2001 10:08:49 AM Social conservatives, in a significant break with the administration, are mobilizing to try to kill President Bush's selection of Scott H. Evertz, a gay Republican, to run the White House Office of National AIDS Policy. 15372. Francis Urquhart - 4/12/2001 10:11:08 AM duck 15373. jexster - 4/12/2001 10:12:44 AM 15374. Francis Urquhart - 4/12/2001 10:12:57 AM I have a prediction. 15375. jexster - 4/12/2001 10:13:36 AM At least we're "natural" now..... 15376. Francis Urquhart - 4/12/2001 10:14:11 AM You remember her. Close personal friend to the Clintons. The social conservatives began to squawk. But Clinton would not yield. 15377. jexster - 4/12/2001 10:14:50 AM Bill Kristol and Gary Bauer speaketh the truth 15378. jexster - 4/12/2001 10:17:08 AM Oh perhaps Hormel might be a better example... 15379. rubberducky - 4/12/2001 10:20:08 AM Fran 15380. Francis Urquhart - 4/12/2001 10:21:30 AM jexster 15381. joezan - 4/12/2001 10:22:01 AM What about Homel...er, uh, Hormel? 15382. Francis Urquhart - 4/12/2001 10:23:09 AM ducky 15383. Francis Urquhart - 4/12/2001 10:26:20 AM The tanking of Hormel was egregious. But those who tanked Hormel remained consistent. No knife entered his back. It was full-on, in his throat. The Bush appointment of Evertz (and I expect him to hold firm) is the signal, at least from this Administration, that the Hormel litmus test is on the way out. It is a difficult balance but with the hard right so hopped up that we aren't killing Red Chinese by the score, the announcement was well-timed. Lump all your bad news in one sack. 15384. jexster - 4/12/2001 10:28:35 AM Way to Go Antonio! 15385. jexster - 4/12/2001 10:29:41 AM pronounced VEE-yah-ray-GO-suh,Frances 15386. jexster - 4/12/2001 10:31:23 AM JoeZ I am still to shaken by our national dishonor to pay attention to your piss poor humor 15387. Cellar Door - 4/12/2001 10:43:38 AM 15388. jexster - 4/12/2001 10:46:53 AM EDGEFIELD, S.C. -- Talking about Strom Thurmond's health around here is a little like sticking your finger in a bowl of grits: It ain't polite... 15389. joezan - 4/12/2001 10:48:59 AM jex: 15390. jexster - 4/12/2001 10:49:21 AM SAN JOSE--The wholesale power price cap California politicians sought will not be included in an upcoming federal plan to stabilize the state's electricity market, the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission said Wednesday 15391. ycmeehan - 4/12/2001 10:52:40 AM Off topics, sorry. 15392. jexster - 4/12/2001 10:56:13 AM Beijing -- The Chinese must be satisfied with the spoils of their latest run-in with the United States. 15393. Cellar Door - 4/12/2001 10:58:50 AM My website is www.ehrensteinland.com 15394. Ronski - 4/12/2001 11:07:01 AM Another Attack on Bush from the Murdoch Minions 15395. Ronski - 4/12/2001 11:43:04 AM George Will: Roll Call Has a Surprise for Congress 15396. Ronski - 4/12/2001 12:27:01 PM Bastiat Backs Up Bush 15397. CalGal - 4/12/2001 12:55:39 PM Keerist. You'd think these guys had spent several years in combat rather than a few days intaking unusually high amounts of MSG. 15398. JudithAtHome - 4/12/2001 1:03:16 PM Oh I'm sure they had the requisite number of bamboo shoots shoved under their fingernails... 15399. Ronski - 4/12/2001 1:07:44 PM But they were canned bamboo shoots, which are real soft and squishy. 15400. Dusty - 4/12/2001 1:12:59 PM Ronski: 15401. Ronski - 4/12/2001 1:13:54 PM On his website today, Andrew Sullivan notes that Jonah Goldberg, now of National Review, has annoyed Asian Americans by saying something really stupid about his anger at Chinese menues being stuffed under his door. 15402. Dusty - 4/12/2001 1:14:15 PM I'm happy to see that Will agreees with me: 15403. Ronski - 4/12/2001 1:15:12 PM Dusty, 15404. Ronski - 4/12/2001 1:17:12 PM Dusty, 15405. Ronski - 4/12/2001 1:18:32 PM (15403 to 15400) 15406. JudithAtHome - 4/12/2001 1:23:14 PM See Sullivan's link in the B-Bar for more 15407. Dusty - 4/12/2001 1:36:35 PM JudithAtHome 15408. JudithAtHome - 4/12/2001 1:42:05 PM Dusty: 15409. jexster - 4/12/2001 1:47:57 PM "Chinese Twins 15410. JudithAtHome - 4/12/2001 1:59:34 PM Whatever the outcome, it all rests on Bushs shoulders for, as Dick Cheney stated yesterday, GWB was in charge. On NPRs Diane Rehm show, she asked Mr. Cheney just who was running the show; was it he, the Vice President or was it Colin Powell or Ms Rice or Mr. Rumsfeld...just who was in charge of whole thing? Cheney didn't miss a beat and said " The President!" So now we know... 15411. jexster - 4/12/2001 2:00:02 PM 15412. AceofSpades - 4/12/2001 2:04:33 PM DID BEIJING BLINK?: Fascinating story in the British Daily Telegraph, suggesting that the Chinese people have interpreted Bush's "very very sorry" as something way short of a real apology. The Telegraph reporter asked people on the street what they thought as they pored over the government's latest expla
The answer is NOTHING directly at least. The destroyers would NOT add measurably to the electronic intel already available via the US and as far as improving command and control of Taiwanese defenses does anyone really think the Nationalist regime would be able to sucessfully resist a determined Red invasion?
Of course not. What AEGIS destoyers MIGHT add is trip wire deterence but because it would be deterence of an highly unstable and uncertain kind, it would be dangerous deterence.
Better to station 50,000 US troops if we want to defend Taiwan.
I am OUTRAGED!
Shame and disgrace!
Meanwhile, the Bush administration is receiving kudos from both sides for its masterful handling of the situation.
Who is Jex trying to convince?
Himself, mostly.
Why should we apologize for anything?
You'd better be right, or hope that the political and economic "contradictions" in China topple the current system. Of course, a recourse to nationalism is always a good safety valve...
DO NOT APOLOGIZE the last words from these brave Americans
Sometimes it causes me to tremble, tremble, tremble.
(I especially like the line about "stemming the tide of homosexual activism." Not just stemming gay rights per se, but the political activity. Yup, they're gonna stem that free expression, political organizing, seeking the redress of grievances, and all those other bad things. Stuff 'em back into the closet and slam the door. Perfectly in tune with the times and the Senate's vote to stem the tide of free speech in the last few weeks of the campaign cycle.)
Bill Kristol and his VRWC buddies, led by Ruppert Murdoch, are hell-bent on pulling American foreign policy, especially wrt the Chinese, to the extreme right. They want to fight the cold war all over again - hell, they will not be satisfied until we start WORLD WAR III!!!
THE LOONY LEFT, TODAY:
Even the highly-regarded Republican Bill Kristol is outraged that the Bush Admin. would sink so low as to apologize for having to land a plane crippled in a scrap with their jets in Chinese territory.
We'll see, of course. I don't think the Chinese have the stomach for an invasion, unless the Taiwanese declare an independent state, which they are unlikely to do.
the dhame..oh the shame...our "Presidunce" crawling on his belly ...a yeller bellied sap sucker to the Chicoms
Sometimes it causes me to tremble, tremble, tremble....
I explained that: to show how truly sorry we really are.
Were you there when Bush laid USA in the tomb?
Oh!
Sometimes it causes me to tremble, tremble, tremble.
Were you there when Bush laid US in the tomb?
This would be great new if true, but I suspect it isn't.
China’s Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan said the crew was being released on “humanitarian grounds” and expressed hope that the dispute would not damage relations between the two governments.
Slight change from a few days ago - eh jex? - when the Chinese were insisting we "apologize for crashing our plane into theirs...violating their airspace during the surveillance mission (NOT merely by landing our crippled plane in their teritory)...and saying that Bush's failure to apologize for same could only result in straining relations between the two countries.
Now, who blinked?
-Both sides agree with a joint-commission investigation of the incident. The
party (parties) at fault WILL APOLOGIZE based on the investigation results
and conclusion.
-Release the E-3 crew IMMEDIATELY . Crew member(s) will be made
available and be cooperative with the joint-commission investigation,if
needed.
-Put E-3 plane in an "escort account" in Hainan during the investigation and
ONLY the joint-commission appointed staff can have access to the plane.
The plane will be returned to the U.S. as soon as the joint-commission's
investigation NEEDS are satisfied.
-Without admitting any guilt nor taking any responsibility for the
accident/incident,the U.S. government agrees to "donate" $1 million dollars
to the Chinese pilot family for the child's education fund purely on the
humanitarian basis.
-the U.S. government can tell the American people that we get our 24 crew
members and the plane back home WITHOUT formally apologizing to the
Chinese.
-the Chinese governemt can tell PLA and the Chinese people that the $1
million "payment" is a form of apology and the resolution pays respect to the
Chinese dignity.
A win-win situation.
Losers: Jesse Jackson,Wang Wei(maybe)
We kicked their little yellow asses.
The whole point of them holding our men and women hostage was to get concessions -"To apologize, and then accept the consequences."
Specifically, we were to apologize for directly causing the death of their pilot.
No such apology came. No consequences are forthcoming. They only hope that the dispute would not damage relations between the two overnments.
George W. Bush had Peking Duck for breakfast, lunch and dinner today.
This administration kicks ASS!
Eh... nobody won. We issued an "aplogy" which could be contrued as a blanket apology and acceptance of liability. We did this deliberately.
On the other hand, we didn't actually apologize for the incident.
This is pretty much what was to be expected. No one actually goes to the mattresses over stuff like this; diplomacy is the careful fudging such differences.
Anyone who is "surprised" or "shaken" by this perfectly predictable resolution is both a moron and a blindly-partisan hack.
toward the United States and could lead to a new set of rules governing ties
between the two countries, analysts said"
The speed of resolution is a pleasant small surprise,IMO.
Will our E-3 pilot have LONGER and HARDER debriefing sessions in Hawaii than
in Hainan?
Fortunately,the moderates in China prevailed.
It depends how long he has been under water. He may be fish food by now.
Will our E-3 pilot have LONGER and HARDER debriefing sessions in Hawaii than in Hainan?
No, thankfully for the women Clinton isn't President anymore. 
Duh-bya Receiving Payment for Betraying US Honor - Giotto (1304-06)
Truly there is no honor among theives!
And what about our brave plane?
The bastards made chop suey of that!
George W. Bush breathed!
No Democrat so-called "President" could possibly breathe like that. It was a heoric breath. A breath filled with confidence and pride in America. It was a breath guarateed to show those lily-livered Europeans that America STANDS TALL IN THE SADDLE.
It was a breath that Ronald Reagan -- SAINT RONALD REAGAN HIMSELF -- would have been proud of!
MY GOD, BUT THIS COUNTRY DOESN'T DESERVE A BREATH LIKE THAT.
How wonderful of George W. Bush to forgive us all after our long eight-year Clintonian nightmare and actually breather in out presence. We can scarcely hope to ask for more.
Pretty much whatever George W. stood for, the Legislature is now undoing as fast as it can, and whatever he was against is now getting done.
Texas's gain...our loss!
Taiwan has some rumors about it circulating for several days.
He brought the solution to an end all right!
Fed Judge Orders Enron To Comply With Contracts to CA Universities
too excruciating and debasing and soul-debilitating to be reminded of on a daily basis, the latest laundry list of Bush-enacted sociocultural bitch-slaps and impending humanitarian insults goes something like this:
Bush Thinks UR an Imbecile TOO!
Bush Backer Bilks Billions
The call was made in a report co-authored by economist Peter Navarro of the University of California-Irvine and Michael Shames of the San Diego-based consumer group The Utility Consumers' Action Network (UCAN).
Fight Against Bush and His Bandits!
Eh... nobody won. We issued an "aplogy" which could be contrued as a blanket apology and acceptance of liability.
Wrong.
We let the Chinese do the spinning, dude. But we know better, they know better, and it looks like their people know better, despite the spin.
From concerned's link:
Closer inspection revealed that the story was a re-hashing of a statement three days ago, with key phrases translated more positively. It seemed that China was trying to manufacture something resembling an apology to prepare the public for an imminent deal...
Gen Powell's original comments were made on Sunday, when he said he was sorry that the pilot of the F-8 fighter had died in a mid-air collision with the spy plane over the South China Sea. China's strictly controlled media had already reported the comments, but initially translated them using the term yihan, which can sound dismissive.
But yesterday's Hainan Daily, Beijing Morning Post and Beijing Youth Daily newspapers reported that Gen Powell had "said sorry" for the loss of the pilot and for the plane's intrusion. Propaganda chiefs chose a new translation - bao qian.
In Mandarin bao qian means sorry, but does not necessarily admit fault. China had originally demanded that America must agree to the stronger term dao qian, which admits guilt. When the American letter was published last night, diplomats had chosen a third way, rendering "very sorry" as shen biao qian yi, a strong apology but not necessarily an admission of fault.
As I said, we kicked ass.
we had used "very sorry" phrase twice in two occations. One for the loss of life of Wang Wei. The other one for the landing inside China without verbal clearance. The Chinese translated the first one as "regret" while translated the second one as "apology" .
I dunno...the WP certainly seems to want us to believe that this is but a tiny victory. I think Bush will get much more mileage out of this than they seem to think - and do it without 1,000 photo ops and sound bytes, as his predecessor would have.
Now Bill Krystol can have a WWF match with the Chinese hardliner military generals.
What do you guess....Continental let them have an extra packet of peanuts?
Peanuts are no longer served so as not to impact the allergic.
i coulda known that about the peanuts a week and a half ago if Bush only woulda done right!
Sorry means never having to apologize
Leaders of the right attacked Evertz, 38, a fundraising executive with a religiously oriented senior citizens' program in Milwaukee and formerly a development official for an AIDS ministry. They contend that he opposes the Boy Scouts' refusal to allow gays to be scoutmasters and that he wants black ministers to stop describing homosexuality as a sin.
"We are very concerned about the fact that he is an activist, that he opposes the Boy Scouts, supports homosexual marriage -- all the homosexual agenda," said the Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values Coalition.
"Evertz's whole approach is homosexuality is a viable life alternative . . . that it's part of God's design in humanity. Bible-believing Christians don't believe that for one second."
No question. A colossal failure. Imagine. Having our personnel unavailable to us for so long. And de plane. De plane!!!!!!!!
I would have much prefeered the launch of cruise missiles into a Chinese aspirin factory.
This is another case of Republicans trying to ingratiate themselves with natural opponents, and a thumb in the eye of supporters," said Richard Lessner, executive director of American Renewal, an arm of the Family Research Council. "President Bush may think the Log Cabin Republicans [a gay group] delivered him the election. If that is the case, he is sorely deluded.
Bush will stick with Evertz with significantly greater resolve than, oh, let's see . . .
Clinton with Guinier.
"Bush has humiliated America"
more ON POINT..if you remember what that means Francine
i personaly blame Bush for my not knowing that until today when i could easily have known a week ago.
Poor you. Gore relegated to Middle Tennessee State. Without some force around which you can orbit, your tongue is unfocused, lapping at any ass, be it that of Mr. Kristol or Mr. Bauer, so long as it is critical of this Administration. What hatred must lurk within to reduce you to such a pathetic heap? What love you must have had for the Lothario from Tennessee?
It's all really, terribly awful.
I don't blame you. As I said, the release of the personnel, the lessening of the tensions, it all pales in comparison to the fact that you and I were so egregiously inconvenienced.
Villaraigosa Finishes First, Confounding Pre-election Polls
LOS ANGELES, April 11 — For years political experts have talked about the day when this city's surging Latino population would shape the outcome of local elections. In Los Angeles this morning, there was an unavoidable feeling that that moment had arrived.
More
LAT
If you're still shaking, perhaps it's homonal.
Better get that checked.
What Ken Lay Wants, His Chimp Provides!
Cellar,
I lost the link to your web site. New computer and all...Please, give it to me. I want to order some of your books through Amazone. Thank you.
They have gleaned not just secrets from the downed spy plane but something far more coveted: attention from the new Bush administration plus a bit of respect
Yea I'll say....
Our brave plane sits on a Chinese runway while our craven Bastard Imbecile munches his favorite PB&J's....
KowTow
As for my book. . .
In your Bastiat link, can I assume the sentence:
Only last year, for example, the website of the World Sociologists complained that...
contains a typo?
There are some people on the right, like Goldberg, like Buchanan, like Helms, who cannot get it through their thick skulls that Americans come in all colors and ethnic derivations and always have. (Remember Helms' tirade against reparations for the Americans of Japanese descent who had their property seized by the Government and who were interned during WW2? Helms said we should not give them back any money since they started the war.)
See Sullivan's link in the B-Bar for more.
The realistic way to reduce the amount of money in politics is to reduce the amount of politics in money - the importance of government in allocating wealth and opportunity. Does the Post advocate less government as a path to less political money? No.
Not necessarily.
All smart people agree with you. Wills may not always demonstrate smarts, but does in this case.
Does this link load correctly for everyone? It only half-loads for me...I've tried it 3 times.
It only half-loads for me...
I suspect there is a joke in there.
Ronski Message # 15403
Now that's funny.
I figured any way I phrased it would result in a joke so...
By William Saletan
Every time the United States negotiates with China, a war of words breaks out. On one side are Americans who demand a "principled" hard line against China's aggression. On the other side are Americans who advocate "constructive engagement" to coax China toward economic and political freedom. In the spy plane standoff that ended this morning, the hawks and engagers were at each other's throats again. But their enmity was, as always, dishonest. They need each other. Without the hawks, the engagers would have no sticks to wave at China. And without the engagers, the hawks would have no carrots to withdraw.
The latest charade began Friday, when the Weekly Standard editorial, co-authored by editor Bill Kristol, denounced "the profound national humiliation that President Bush has brought upon the United States" by expressing his regret at the death of a Chinese pilot in the spy plane incident. Calling advocates of engagement "appeasers," the editorial assailed Bush's "weakness," "fear," and "capitulation." On the weekend talk shows, the engagers fired back. Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell excoriated the Standard editorial. Cheney called it "one of the more disreputable commentaries I've seen in a long time" and warned that such rhetoric might "inflame" the U.S.-China standoff."
Someone on this thread blasted a few of us who doubted Bush was in charge by claiming we were stupid to expect him to be...he did what Presidents do, he delegated the job to those who knew China policiy, yada yada yada....well, looks like we were all wrong.
According to Cheney, that is.