30-May-10 The rise of left-wing violence around the world

[ridgel]

You know, there's a very odd feeling surrounding the Gulf of Mexico
oil spill. It's such a huge disaster, that it actually seems like
something out of the Old Testament.

What surprised me when I tuned into the 24 hour news outlets lately is the lack of footage of oil-soaked beaches or creatures. There was plenty of footage of griping parrish presidents and of the wellhead, but the oil-soaked stuff was all narrow-angle, and was looped - suggesting to me that there just isn't that much oil-affected area at this point. That doesn't mean the disaster wont still hit a huge area, but it does suggest that out of thousands of miles of marshes and beaches very little has significant oil.

I'm not a religious person,... I would probably wonder if God was punishing
America for praying to a false god -- someone who claimed that Katrina
wouldn't have been so bad if he had been President, and someone who
claimed that he would heal the earth when he became President.

This is just needlessly offensive to anyone who is religious, and it doesn't even make sense. Anyone who knows the story of Job knows that suffering happens to good people as well as bad. And for those that pretend to divine God's motives, let them try to explain why He is punishing shrimp and oyster fishermen for the sins of the whole country.

[Oakwood]

John wrote: I'm not a religious person, but
if I were, then I'd be wondering how the people of the U.S. had sinned
so much that God had decided to inflict this disaster on the country.
If I were a religious person, and given my view of what's happened in
the past couple of years, I would probably wonder if God was punishing
America for praying to a false god -- someone who claimed that Katrina
wouldn't have been so bad if he had been President, and someone who
claimed that he would heal the earth when he became President. This
would truly be Old Testament revenge against someone...

Likewise, I'm not a religious person, but back when Katrina occurred I wondered if God had decided to punish a President and a country who had decided to embark on a pointless war and kill innocent citizens of another country and kill thousands of Americans (more than died on 9/11) and maim tens of thousands, and to make the U.S. the pariah of nations, almost in a biblical sense. But then I thought, why would he mainly punish New Orleans (even though I know it's full of sinners--gay people and harlots, and women who take off their tops and men who bare their bottoms.) But then I guess it's a pretty lame and transparent device to use the notion of "if I were a religious person" to criticize a president you don't like. You don't have to be religious to dislike a President who appointed an incompetent cronie like Michael Brown head of FEMA.

Brownie, not knowing the south shore of Lake Pontchartrain from the south end of a horse, let New Orleans drown. Bush's response was to give his buddy Brownie a "way to go!" thumbs up.

While the media (even the "liberal" media) are happy to call this Obama's Katrina, let's not forget that Bush himself played a big part in contributing to that disaster.

[John]

I was specifically referring to the "heal the earth" claim.

John

[Oakwood]

John wrote: I would probably wonder if God was punishing America for praying to a false god {Obama]

George Bush has claimed he was on a mission from God when he launched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, according to a senior Palestinian politician in an interview to be broadcast by the BBC later this month...."God would tell me, 'George, go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

John, you seem particularly obsessed with the lies, inaccuracies, absurdities, and exaggerations Obama told to get elected. Any worse than what Bush told while in office?

My plan reduces the national debt, and fast. So fast, in fact, that economists worry that we're going to run out of debt to retire.
* Presidential Radio Address (24 February 2001)

I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. We had a very good dialogue. I was able to get a sense of his soul; a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country. And I appreciated so very much the frank dialogue.
* On Russian Federation President Vladimir Putin, in a press conference with Putin (16 June 2001)

My administration has a job to do and we're going to do it. We will rid the world of the evil-doers.
* As quoted in "[http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/g ... terrorism/ "Bush vows to rid the world of 'evil-doers" at CNN (16 September 2001)

Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.
* speaking aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, May 1, 2003 ["Mission Accomplished"]

We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories....and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them. -George W. Bush, May 29, 2003

I'm asking Congress to pass my Zero Down Payment Initiative. We should remove the 3 percent down payment rule for first time home buyers with FHA-insured mortgages. * Remarks to the National Association of Home Builders, Columbus, Ohio, October 2, 2004

And, again, I don't know where he [Osama Bin Laden] is. I — I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.
* White House press conference, March 13, 2002
I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations.
* 3rd Presidential Debate, October 13, 2004

And as a result of the United States military, Taliban no longer is in existence. * Speech in Springfield, Ohio, September 27, 2004

I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees. They did anticipate a serious storm. But these levees got breached. And as a result, much of New Orleans is flooded. And now we are having to deal with it and will. — September 1, 2005.

There was no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the attack of 9/11, I’ve never said that and never made that case prior to going into Iraq.
One of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq with the war on terror. * September 7, 2006 interview with Katie Couric [YouTube]

Both those men are doing fantastic jobs and I strongly support them.
* In reference to Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney in an Oval Office interview, one week prior to accepting Rumsfeld’s resignation (November 1, 2006)

I thought an interesting comment was made when somebody said to me, I heard somebody say, where's Mandela? Well, Mandela is dead, because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas. * White House Press Conference (September 20, 2007)

The United States is committed to the worldwide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example. * 26 June 2003
No President has ever done more for human rights than I have. * Ken Auletta "Fortress Bush", The New Yorker, January 19, 2004
We do not torture. * November 7, 2005
The bill Congress sent me would take away one of the most valuable tools in the war on terror -- the CIA program to detain and question key terrorist leaders and operatives. * President's Radio Address, regarding the President's veto of a bill that would have banned waterboarding as an interrogation technique (March 8, 2008)

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_W._Bush

[John]

A lot of these are silly. Are you seriously claiming that "I looked [Putin] in the eye" is a lie, or that his sucking up to Putin is comparable to "heal the earth"?

Probably the only comparable one is "We will rid the world of the evil-doers." But that was said in nationalistic fury after 9/11, and was not a campaign promise. In fact, none of your quotes are campaign promises.

However, I'll repeat a point I've made before in other ways. What really bothers me is the obsequiousness of the NY Times and other mainstream media (except FNC). If the NY Times ever criticized his "heal the world" claim, then I wouldn't have to bother. If the NY Times showed even 1% of the contempt for Obama that they did for Bush, that would reflect a very different world, and I would be writing quite differently.

John

[Oakwood]

John wrote: I was specifically referring to [Obama's] "heal the earth" claim.

John, I trusted you and just assumed that Obama had made some self-aggrandizing claim that he would heal the Earth. What did he actually say (during his inauguration speech)?

I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people… I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal… This was the moment — this was the time — when we came together to remake this great nation…

http://article.nationalreview.com/36008 ... mark-steyn

It's typical lofty Obama rhetoric: inspiring, vivid imagery, ambitious, optimistic, and likely to induce nausea in those who can't stand him. But what is there in his words that makes him sound like he is deifying himself? If anything, he sounds humble, even if you think it is a false humility. But before you call him a liar, John, look closely at his words. He's started to fulfill one-third of his plan (even if we can't pay for it)--health care. And like a good politician he has left himself plenty of wiggle room: "generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began..." As long as he puts forth some effort he has honored his commitment to "begin." As for job creation, he's already signed a number of bills and will have signed many more before leaving office (as do all presidents). (Notice he's not promising to get good jobs for all the jobless, just that we are going to begin to try).

As for the environment, same thing. At the start of his Presidency, Obama was trying to implement ambitious plans to decrease greenhouse gases and slow global warming. Slowing the rise of the oceans? I suppose it's a statement both the left and the right can hate. If you believe Al Gore, it's too little too late. If you believe Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, etc, then there is no global warming to worry about so we don't even need to worry about rising oceans or healing the planet and the statement is irrelvant.

Although obviously Obama's original plan is not on track, the Gulf spill will likely make him a key champion of environmental issues. While the right hopes the Gulf spill is going to lead to his political downfall, I think the opposite is more likely; Obama's plans for more industries and jobs based on alternative energy are going to be jump-started. In fact, ironically, the Gulf spill may galvanize both the economy and his eventual popularity.

[Oakwood]

John wrote: A lot of these are silly. Are you seriously claiming that "I looked [Putin] in the eye" is a lie, or that his sucking up to Putin is comparable to "heal the earth"?

No, my list of modifiers of the quotes included "absurdities." Forgive me, but I thought that one was particularly "funny" because it made him look rather naive. (In reality it's not funny, because I'm sure Putin had the last laugh). While you talk about how the media are always giving Obama a break, everybody criticized Obama for bowing to the Japanese PM, but nobody thought it odd when Bush held hands with the King of Saud.

I noticed you didn't comment on Bush's duplicity about torture, the national debt, or the pseudo Iraq--9/11 connection.

As for what you see as the obsequiousness of the NY Times, I'm sure you must realize it is more than balanced by the weight of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing talk shows as well as conservative print media and blogs. So I find it more than amusing when the right talks about the biased "liberal" media. Is that the 30% of the media (my estimate) that they don't control ? Why do you get so upset by a newspaper that so few people read (Sunday: 1.4 mil and declining; weekday <1mil) vs. FNC (2.8 mil Prime Time)?

[aedens]

John wrote: A lot of these are silly. Are you seriously claiming that "I looked [Putin] in the eye" is a lie, or that his sucking up to Putin is comparable to "heal the earth"?

No, my list of modifiers of the quotes included "absurdities." Forgive me, but I thought that one was particularly "funny" because it made him look rather naive. (In reality it's not funny, because I'm sure Putin had the last laugh). While you talk about how the media are always giving Obama a break, everybody criticized Obama for bowing to the Japanese PM, but nobody thought it odd when Bush held hands with the King of Saud.

I noticed you didn't comment on Bush's duplicity about torture, the national debt, or the pseudo Iraq--9/11 connection.

As for what you see as the obsequiousness of the NY Times, I'm sure you must realize it is more than balanced by the weight of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing talk shows as well as conservative print media and blogs. So I find it more than amusing when the right talks about the biased "liberal" media. Is that the 30% of the media (my estimate) that they don't control ? Why do you get so upset by a newspaper that so few people read (Sunday: 1.4 mil and declining; weekday <1mil) vs. FNC (2.8 mil Prime Time)?

Gentlemen Just as Socrates was dead wrong in believing that in a Democracy Justice would always prevail in the debate with Thrasymachus he argued in Plato’s Republic the truth is far cry from a certitude that any Beltway agenda will admit. Thrasymachus correctly stated that justice is the same in all forms of Government from dictators to democracies. He pointed out that all laws were passed in the Self-interest of the state. Thus justice is the same in all forms of government, it is only the self-interest of the state. Logic suggest left and right is only a Aptitude in time we ignore to our peril not to convey to others. The State of affairs is also conveyed in the Old Book as blessing or curse and your belief that hinges your conviction as a medium as we, as I assume the people of the letter we consider American Politic’s. The old Greek defines “Politic” as blood sucking vermin so social acrimony in groups is never a thought is it? In my 1858 Scripture I keep handy Dueteronomy 28 which conveys my context for obedience and disobedience then. Since I have worked
in the Corporate may decades I linger in innovation and intellectual contrasts which are very difficult to convey as command and control are carried out in issues I cannot convey given the topical issues and numerous time constraints we all have in our life. I do understand the left or right other than the obvious concealment of intended meaning in communication and making communication confusing, intentionally ambiguous, and more difficult to interpret.
So if a old farmer is heard to say you cannot see a tic until its full of blood the above is his contextual meaning.

[Oakwood]

John wrote: So if a old farmer is heard to say you cannot see a tic until its full of blood the above is his contextual meaning.

In all territories of thought which science or philosophy can lay claim to, including those upon which literature has also a proper claim, no one who has something original or important to say will willingly run the risk of being misunderstood; people who write obscurely are either unskilled in writing or up to mischief. --Peter Medawar

[aedens]

Aeden wrote: So if a old farmer is heard to say you cannot see a tic until its full of blood the above post is his contextual meaning.

In all territories of thought which science or philosophy can lay claim to, including those upon which literature has also a proper claim, no one who has something original or important to say will willingly run the risk of being misunderstood; people who write obscurely are either unskilled in writing or up to mischief. --Peter Medawar

Further conveyance to generational Dynamic's
Only saints and fools approach certainty with reckless disdain; the experienced hedge with caution I did read.

Thrasymachus' current importance derives mainly from his being a character in The Republic. He is noted for his unabashed, even reckless, defense of injustice and for his famous blush at the end of Book 1, after Socrates has tamed him. The meaning of this blush, like that of Socrates' statement in Book 6 that he and Thrasymachus "have just become friends, though we weren't even enemies before" (498c), is a source of some dispute.

This reminded me to conversations that the bent of minds at times divert future good terms in life.
=============================================================================
Shadow Army of the Consumer:
A true solution, it seems to me, is still to be sought other than means of evasive dialectics. The problem is to gain a clear and correct insight into the extent and nature of the influence of "control" against the natural course of economic phenomena. It is behavior that establishes the "price law," namely the conditions of the amount offered at a given price level, but to counteract the laws of price refers to an important distinction that should be made in this connection between the influence of economic "control" and "non-economic motives. Not so long ago by Schumpeter, who attacked a vague statement by Professor Lexis in his theory of distribution, referring to the influence of power, with these words:
The reference to the relative strength of economic power in itself does not explain anything. For if one asks what constitutes economic power the answer can only be: the control over certain goods. And it is only from the economic function of these goods and the subsequent formation of value that a real explanation can be derived.[6]
Is this not just as if somebody were to argue that the speed of a steamship depends not upon the power of her engines in relation to the resistance to be overcome, or the weight to be propelled, etc., but on the number of rotations of the propellers, which, in turn, of course, depends exclusively upon the power of the engines?[6]
Review in Vol. 21 of Zeitschrift für Volkswirtschaft, Sozialpolitik und Verwaltung, 1912, p. 284; similarly also Oswald versus Liefmann in Zeitschrift für Sozialwissenschaften, N.F.
http://mises.org/daily/2674