Sinfest (12/07) "Govern like it's 1933"?
Eric S. Harris
<http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=3015>
I certainly hope not. A decade of Depression and a World War, complete
with shortages and internment camps? No thank you.
That's probably not what Ishida meant. But governments, like genies
from lamps and magic fish from the sea, don't give you what you want,
they give you what you ask for. (At best.) -Eric
--
Replace the "w" with a "y" when replying via e-mail.
Mike Beede
"Eric S. Harris" <eric_ha...@wahoo.com> wrote:
> That's probably not what Ishida meant. But governments, like genies
> from lamps and magic fish from the sea, don't give you what you want,
> they give you what you ask for. (At best.) -Eric
I'd refine that. They give "someone" what they asked for--but
it often isn't *you*.
Mike Beede
aemeijers
> Song lyrics from today's (12/07) Sinfest: "Govern like it's 1933".
> <http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=3015>
>
> I certainly hope not. A decade of Depression and a World War, complete
> with shortages and internment camps? No thank you.
>
> That's probably not what Ishida meant. But governments, like genies
> from lamps and magic fish from the sea, don't give you what you want,
> they give you what you ask for. (At best.) -Eric
>
The Saint Obama from Chicago/Rock Star/ drink the KoolAid aspects of our
new president bother me (although, aside from the Uncle Sam as Dirty
Harry strips, IMHO,the artist nails it pretty well.) And the Republicans
HAD to go. But I sure don't have a warm fuzzy about the next four years.
Time to hunker down and try to stay below the ridgeline, methinks.
--
aem sends...
Joseph Nebus
>Song lyrics from today's (12/07) Sinfest: "Govern like it's 1933".
><http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=3015>
>I certainly hope not. A decade of Depression and a World War, complete
>with shortages and internment camps? No thank you.
Yeah, that whole ``taking useful, effective action against a
calamity'' thing is *so* liberal.
You know, I hear if you chant ``efficient market hypothesis''
three times Michael Keaton in makeup will appear.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jym Dyer
> That's probably not what Ishida meant.
=v= Ya think? Yeesh.
=v= Well, to complete the willful tortured attempt at bad
pattern-matching, I could always point out that the Uncle
Sambot looks a lot like President Nixon when he returned
to the White House in the year 3000.
http://www.things.org/~jym/y3k/2ACV03.html
Just think about it. A lot.
<_Jym_>
Antonio E. Gonzalez
<eric_ha...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>Song lyrics from today's (12/07) Sinfest: "Govern like it's 1933".
><http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=3015>
>
>I certainly hope not. A decade of Depression and a World War, complete
>with shortages and internment camps? No thank you.
>
Getting out of a Depression the *right* way (not the right-wing
way), *winning* a World War, now that's something to get behind! Nice
try at the FDR revisionism, still a fail . . .
Oh, and that internment camp of our time (Gitmo) seems on it's way
to the dustbin of history . . .
>That's probably not what Ishida meant. But governments, like genies
>from lamps and magic fish from the sea, don't give you what you want,
>they give you what you ask for. (At best.) -Eric
Sure, whatever that means . . .
Dann
@vcmr-86.server.rpi.edu.
> "Eric S. Harris" <eric_ha...@wahoo.com> writes:
>
>>Song lyrics from today's (12/07) Sinfest: "Govern like it's 1933".
>><http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=3015>
>
>>I certainly hope not. A decade of Depression and a World War, complete
>>with shortages and internment camps? No thank you.
>
> Yeah, that whole ``taking useful, effective action against a
> calamity'' thing is *so* liberal.
"doing something" != "doing something productive"
--
Regards,
Dann
blogging at http://web.newsguy.com/dainbramage/blog.htm
Freedom works; each and every time it is tried.
cryptoguy
Saw this in a grocery store checkout line this weekend - it
sent a shiver down my spine:
http://www.amazon.com/2009-Barack-Obama-wall-calendar/dp/1402219172/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1228750099&sr=8-1
When was the last time we say this level of personality cult? Reagan?
JFK?
Peter Trei
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
> On Dec 7, 1:28 pm, aemeijers <aemeij...@att.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Eric S. Harris wrote:
> > > Song lyrics from today's (12/07) Sinfest: "Govern like it's 1933".
> > > <http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=3015>
>
> > > I certainly hope not. A decade of Depression and a World War, complete
> > > with shortages and internment camps? No thank you.
>
> > > That's probably not what Ishida meant. But governments, like genies
> > > from lamps and magic fish from the sea, don't give you what you want,
> > > they give you what you ask for. (At best.) -Eric
>
> > The Saint Obama from Chicago/Rock Star/ drink the KoolAid aspects of our
> > new president bother me (although, aside from the Uncle Sam as Dirty
> > Harry strips, IMHO,the artist nails it pretty well.) And the Republicans
> > HAD to go. But I sure don't have a warm fuzzy about the next four years.
> > Time to hunker down and try to stay below the ridgeline, methinks.
>
> Saw this in a grocery store checkout line this weekend - it
>
> When was the last time we say this level of personality cult? Reagan?
> JFK?
>
I fear the Obama's actual performance and accomplishments will fall
far short of the unreasonable expectations that are being built up- I
think people are expecting the President-Elect to heal lame lame and
walk on water after his inauguration.
No matter how Obama performs, too many people are going to be
disappointed with the results.
Mike Marshall
>On 07 Dec 2008, Joseph Nebus said the following in news:nebusj.1228676502
>@vcmr-86.server.rpi.edu.
>> "Eric S. Harris" <eric_ha...@wahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>>Song lyrics from today's (12/07) Sinfest: "Govern like it's 1933".
>>><http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=3015>
>>
>>>I certainly hope not. A decade of Depression and a World War, complete
>>>with shortages and internment camps? No thank you.
>>
>> Yeah, that whole ``taking useful, effective action against a
>> calamity'' thing is *so* liberal.
>"doing something" != "doing something productive"
shhh!
-Mike
Mike Marshall
>sent a shiver down my spine:
>d_bbs_sr_1?ie=3DUTF8&s=3Dbooks&qid=3D1228750099&sr=3D8-1
>When was the last time we say this level of personality cult? Reagan?
>JFK?
Are they running the "layered in 24 karat gold" Obama coin commercials
on TeeVee in your area?
-Mike
nickelshrink
It's too soon to call it a cult. Usually, a cult centers around
a person who has a god complex himself, or sets out to
convince followers that he's a god, though i'll concede (for
argument's sake) that one could form around a genuinely
good guy, based on unrealistic expectations.
BUT either way, the other thing that proves it a cult is that
he has to be exposed as a failure or a fraud first. If followers
rebel at that point, then it's not a cult. A cult is what you've
got when they let him use and control them and they
*keep* praising and following anyway.
Personally i'd like to see a US politics calendar called
"Words of Exaggeration and Vague Generality."
pax,
ruth
Save trees AND money! Buy used books!
http://stores.ebay.com/Noir-and-More-Books-and-Trains
deto...@hotmail.com
IMO, the latter explanation covers the phenomenon that Tatsuya is
addressing.
> BUT either way, the other thing that proves it a cult is that
> he has to be exposed as a failure or a fraud first. If followers
> rebel at that point, then it's not a cult. A cult is what you've
> got when they let him use and control them and they
> *keep* praising and following anyway.
Where did you find that requirement for a movement to be labeled as a
"cult"? It seems like a prominent feature of several cults, but how
did it become a requirement?
A skim through this entry from the ever questionable Wikipedia doesn't
suggest that a failed leader is a requirement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult
--
Regards,
Dann
deto...@hotmail.com
> >When was the last time we say this level of personality cult? Reagan?
> >JFK?
>
> Are they running the "layered in 24 karat gold" Obama coin commercials
> on TeeVee in your area?
We have commemorative plates being sold in the paper and on the idiot
box.
--
Regards,
Dann
Antonio E. Gonzalez
>On 07 Dec 2008, Joseph Nebus said the following in news:nebusj.1228676502
>@vcmr-86.server.rpi.edu.
>
>> "Eric S. Harris" <eric_ha...@wahoo.com> writes:
>>
>>>Song lyrics from today's (12/07) Sinfest: "Govern like it's 1933".
>>><http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=3015>
>>
>>>I certainly hope not. A decade of Depression and a World War, complete
>>>with shortages and internment camps? No thank you.
>>
>> Yeah, that whole ``taking useful, effective action against a
>> calamity'' thing is *so* liberal.
>
>"doing something" != "doing something productive"
Hmmm, must've missed the *effective* part . . .
--
- ReFlex76
- "Let's beat the terrorists with our most powerful weapon . . . hot girl-on-girl action!"
- "The difference between young and old is the difference between looking forward to your next birthday, and dreading it!"
- Jesus Christ - The original hippie!
<http://reflex76.blogspot.com/>
<http://www.blogger.com/profile/07245047157197572936>
Katana > Chain Saw > Baseball Bat > Hammer
racs...@gmail.com
Eight years ago, I had occasion to pass through a Washington DC
airport ... they've renamed one of them after some cult leader, the
other is named for some other righwing icon, but I can't remember
which one I was in ... and I promise you, there was no shortage of
George W. Bush shirts, coffeemugs, key rings, bumperstickers and
assorted plastic commemorative crap for sale.
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
> JFK?
>
Though I was just a wee lad when JFK was elected, I am under the
impression that he reached cult status, at least among Catholics. Well
into the '70s in, pictures of JFK were often prominently displayed
along side the Pope's picture many Catholic homes. My late grandmohter-
in-law collected anything and everything featuring Jack or Jackie,
often adding them to her little shrine.
nickelshrink
I was responding to Peter's remark that it looks like one is
forming around Obama. I may be making an assumption
-- based on his experiencing a "shiver down his spine" -- that
he sees this as deluded people attributing godlike powers to
someone who's not going to come through. So i was
addressing that type of cult, and, Hey, i admit it! not giving a
thought to the other types and meanings of the word.
For that type of cult, the leader's exposure as a fraud simply
provides good evidence that the followers were delusional,
rather than astute observers who recognized a visionary leader.
According to wiki, i guess (?) they can be non-delusional, just
"greatly devoted" [1] and still be a cult, but it implies
(or maybe i infer) that that's the point at which it loses the
"cult" label.
[1] Webster: 5. Great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or
work (as a film or book).
--
Mike Marshall
>On Dec 8, 12:51=A0pm, detox...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Dec 8, 10:56=A0am, Mike Marshall <hub...@clemson.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > >When was the last time we say this level of personality cult? Reagan?
>> > >JFK?
>>
>> > Are they running the "layered in 24 karat gold" Obama coin commercials
>> > on TeeVee in your area?
>>
>> We have commemorative plates being sold in the paper and on the idiot
>> box.
>peterman:
>and I promise you, there was no shortage of
>George W. Bush shirts, coffeemugs, key rings, bumperstickers and
>assorted plastic commemorative crap for sale.
That's pretty clever, selling knick-knacks at tourist traps...
-Mike
nickelshrink
>
> That's pretty clever, selling knick-knacks at tourist traps...
>
> -Mike
It sure is. This place has a gift shop too:
http://www.shermanhouse.org/shermanhouse.htm
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
> Eminem wrote:
>
> > That's pretty clever, selling knick-knacks at tourist traps...
>
> > -Mike
>
> It sure is. This place has a gift shop too:
>
> http://www.shermanhouse.org/shermanhouse.htm
Here's another favorite gift shop:
Mike Marshall
>Eminem wrote:
>>
>> That's pretty clever, selling knick-knacks at tourist traps...
>>
>> -Mike
>It sure is. This place has a gift shop too:
My computer burned up right after that URL was displayed on my screen.
-Mike
Peter B. Steiger
> Getting out of a Depression the *right* way (not the right-wing
> way),
Not everyone agrees with that assessment, either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal#Prolonged.2Fworsened_the_Depression
Would you say that it's a good idea at this point to leave millions of
crops to rot in the fields so that food supply goes down, prices go up,
and farmers make a bigger profit?
I don't know diddly about macroeconomics; I have no way of knowing
whether the New Deal solved or aggravated the depression. I'm just
saying, calling FDR's approach the right way doesn't make it so.
--
Peter B. Steiger
Cheyenne, WY
If you must reply by email, you can reach me by placing
zeroes where you see stars: wypbs.**1 at gmail.com
Eric S. Harris
Not necessarily. Because of the way cognitive dissonance works, they're
more apt to see failures as failures and be disappointed if they haven't
made substantial commitment.
The classic example cited in "Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me)" is
some millennialist cult, whose end-of-the-world scenario did not occur
on the appointed day. Those who sold or gave away all their worldly
goods were more apt to retain their faith and buy into the leader's
explanation that the date was miscalculated or the end had begun, but
the transition wasn't conspicuous, etc. Those who didn't buy into it as
strongly (and thus were not in such a bad position after the failure)
were more skeptical.
You'd think that the reverse would be true -- if believing in the cult's
predictions got you burned, you'd be resentful and abandon it -- but it
isn't. It's about self-justification. "Either I made a terrible
mistake, and was quite foolish to believe this, or I was right all along
and it just looks like a mistake. As I don't (like to admit that I can)
make mistakes, I was right all along."
So if you want to minimize the risk that people will dig in their heels
and continue to believe even after the evidence says "Oops! That worked
out badly", do what you can to dissuade them from committing their
wealth or their egos to BHO. (Or anyone or anything else.)
It will make mid-course corrections so much harder for them. -Eric
--
Replace the "w" with a "y" when replying via e-mail. If I haven't
replied to an alleged rebuttal (yet), it may not be the most deserving
of correction; it's a big Internet: http://xkcd.com/386 Void where
prohibited by law. Close cover before striking. Slippery when wet.
Eric S. Harris
> On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 12:55:48 -0800, Antonio E. Gonzalez sez:
>
>
>> Getting out of a Depression the *right* way (not the right-wing
>>way),
>
>
> Not everyone agrees with that assessment, either.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal#Prolonged.2Fworsened_the_Depression
>
> Would you say that it's a good idea at this point to leave millions of
> crops to rot in the fields so that food supply goes down, prices go up,
> and farmers make a bigger profit?
>
> I don't know diddly about macroeconomics; I have no way of knowing
> whether the New Deal solved or aggravated the depression. I'm just
> saying, calling FDR's approach the right way doesn't make it so.
Well, not knowing about macroeconomics is probably a good thing. Most
of what most people "know" about macroeconomics isn't so. Which means
you're ahead of the game.
The classic Paul Samuelson macroeconomics text used in many college
intro economics courses was revised many times over the decades. Some
of Samuelson's revisions were to remove or alter conclusions, assertions
and predictions that didn't hold up well.
If I had a link to the article, I'd provide it. I don't recall many
particulars and nothing with the kind of clarity I'd want, before
posting, but they were pretty obvious objective ones. -Eric
Eric S. Harris
The article was "The Poverty of Samuelson's Economics", by Lanny
Ebenstein and appeared in the April 2003 issue of Liberty magazine, but
apparently isn't available on-line. If anyone can find it on-line,
please let me know. -Eric
http://www.libertyunbound.com/search/contents.php?m=120
Jym Dyer
> Reagan? JFK?
=v= I guess it takes a village to forget that Bush 41's stupid
*dog* wrote a book of "hope and inspiration."
<_Jym_>
Jym Dyer
> commercials on TeeVee in your area?
=v= Brought to you by the same people who came up with umpteen
million "Wave a flag and obey whatever George W. Bush says,
it's just like having Jesus in the White House!" trinkets.
<_Jym_>
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
Problem is that the public seems to building up its expectations far
beyond anything Obama even promised. It's hard enough to keep the
faithful on-board when you don't deliver, but they can quickly turn
into a snarling pack if you fall short of what they want you to be.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
<see...@for.email.address> wrote:
>On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 12:55:48 -0800, Antonio E. Gonzalez sez:
>
>> Getting out of a Depression the *right* way (not the right-wing
>> way),
>
>Not everyone agrees with that assessment, either.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal#Prolonged.2Fworsened_the_Depression
>
There are also people who still insist Apollo 11 was done in a
movie studio . . .
>Would you say that it's a good idea at this point to leave millions of
>crops to rot in the fields so that food supply goes down, prices go up,
>and farmers make a bigger profit?
>
Livestock was also bought from farmers simply to be slaughtered;
to answer the question, yes, desperate times call for desperate
measures, especially when the measures *work*.
>I don't know diddly about macroeconomics; I have no way of knowing
>whether the New Deal solved or aggravated the depression. I'm just
>saying, calling FDR's approach the right way doesn't make it so.
History says otherwise; nothing *remotely* resembling the Great
Depression after FDR . . .
Peter B. Steiger
(after I said)
>>Not everyone agrees with that assessment, either.
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
New_Deal#Prolonged.2Fworsened_the_Depression
>>
>>
> There are also people who still insist Apollo 11 was done in a
> movie studio . . .
Please, use your straw men as festive lawn ornaments and don't let them
clutter up otherwise civil discussions. Unless you're suggesting that
the 27% of polled economics PhDs and 27% of polled history PhDs are
fringe kooks - raving lunatics like Milton Friedman, who recanted his
initial support of the New Deal and observed that it was the wrong cure
for the wrong disease?
http://eh.net/lists/archives/eh.res/feb-1997/0010.php
> Livestock was also bought from farmers simply to be slaughtered;
> to answer the question, yes, desperate times call for desperate
> measures, especially when the measures *work*.
See, that's where I can't agree. You're establishing a cause-and-effect
that I'm not so sure exists. The banks failed. FDR cut the food supply.
The economy recovered. If nothing else, ship the wasted food off to fill
any of the numerous sites of massive famine anywhere in the world;
destroying food in the face of poverty and famine is just stupid no
matter how fast it helps banks get back on their feet. Great, you've
helped prop up food prices so farmers (now FarmerCorp, Inc., a subsidiary
of Global BehemothCo) can see better profits... how does that help the
guy who already couldn't afford a loaf of bread before the prices went up?
>>I'm just
>>saying, calling FDR's approach the right way doesn't make it so.
> History says otherwise; nothing *remotely* resembling the Great
> Depression after FDR . . .
Again, I question the direct correlation. Note that I'm also not saying
I know for a fact that his approach was wrong - more likely, there were
some brilliant actions that saved the world, and some not-so-brilliant
moves that caused as many problems as they solved. We need to learn from
those past events and not just repeat FDR's methods, but improve on them.
aemeijers
--
aem sends...
racs...@gmail.com
> cryptoguy wrote:
> > On Dec 7, 1:28 pm, aemeijers <aemeij...@att.net> wrote:
> >> Eric S. Harris wrote:
> >>> Song lyrics from today's (12/07) Sinfest: "Govern like it's 1933".
> >>> <http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=3015>
> >>> I certainly hope not. A decade of Depression and a World War, complete
> >>> with shortages and internment camps? No thank you.
> >>> That's probably not what Ishida meant. But governments, like genies
> >>> from lamps and magic fish from the sea, don't give you what you want,
> >>> they give you what you ask for. (At best.) -Eric
> >> The Saint Obama from Chicago/Rock Star/ drink the KoolAid aspects of our
> >> new president bother me (although, aside from the Uncle Sam as Dirty
> >> Harry strips, IMHO,the artist nails it pretty well.) And the Republicans
> >> HAD to go. But I sure don't have a warm fuzzy about the next four years.
> >> Time to hunker down and try to stay below the ridgeline, methinks.
>
> > Saw this in a grocery store checkout line this weekend - it
> > sent a shiver down my spine:
>
> > When was the last time we say this level of personality cult? Reagan?
> > JFK?
>
> > Peter Trei
>
> Lordy. I wouldn't pay that much for a nekkid women calendar.
And apparently, you wouldn't get one for that price:
<http://www.amazon.com/Playboy-Girls-Next-Door-Calendar/dp/1436002346>
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
Sherwood Harrington
> And apparently, you wouldn't get one for that price:
> <http://www.amazon.com/Playboy-Girls-Next-Door-Calendar/dp/1436002346>
Out of stock, damn. Did you notice that the used copy price is three
times the new price? I'm not sure I want to think about that too much.
By the way, Mike's link is actually SFW, at least as far the the images
go.
--
Sherwood Harrington
Boulder Creek, California
Mark Jackson
Of course those are being sold by socialists. No way capitalists could
be responsible for such a thing.
--
Mark Jackson - http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~mjackson
Think how hard physics would be if particles could think.
- Murray Gell-Mann
racs...@gmail.com
<wkharrisjr_i...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I fear the Obama's actual performance and accomplishments will fall
> far short of the unreasonable expectations that are being built up- I
> think people are expecting the President-Elect to heal lame lame and
> walk on water after his inauguration.
>
> No matter how Obama performs, too many people are going to be
> disappointed with the results.
I'm wondering if this isn't something from the echo chamber. I was
uncomfortable in 1968 with people who thought Bobby Kennedy was going
to have the boys back home by, oh, March. But, on the college campuses
and in many other places, that was a one-issue election. I haven't
heard that kind of unabashed optimism, and I think the election was
about more complex issues -- not just Iraq but also the economy, oil
and some other things.
I do think there are a lot of people who expect Obama to bring a
fresher attitude to government and who will be unhappy if he retreats
into business as usual and starts buddying up to the good ol' boys.
But I think a lot of the "Chosen One" dialogue was coming out of the
enemy camp -- It's like the people who can't distinguish between the
stupid things Sarah Palin actually said and the jokes Tina Fey made on
SNL. They are conflating the criticism with the reality.
Look at the way the dialogue is going on this thread alone -- It's the
sign of a cult to have all this junk on the market, but it wasn't a
cult when the exact same thing happened eight years ago with Bush's
election -- that was just a case of tacky tourist junk.
I wonder if we aren't cutting the evidence to fit the theory.
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
Invid Fan
<mjac...@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> deto...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > On Dec 8, 10:56 am, Mike Marshall <hub...@clemson.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>> When was the last time we say this level of personality cult? Reagan?
> >>> JFK?
> >> Are they running the "layered in 24 karat gold" Obama coin commercials
> >> on TeeVee in your area?
> >
> > We have commemorative plates being sold in the paper and on the idiot
> > box.
>
> Of course those are being sold by socialists. No way capitalists could
> be responsible for such a thing.
Is there an Obama Civil War Chess Set yet?
--
Chris Mack *quote under construction*
'Invid Fan'
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
wrote:
Perhaps you are right, but I really don't remember this type of
euphoria after Bush's election - more of a sigh of relief that the
whole ordeal was over. Granted, there was gloating by the winners and
moaning by the winners- but every election has that dynamic. And the
"Chosen One" does seem to be emanating from the GOP camp as a form of
sour grapes, but the pure euphoria and "everything is going to be
alright now" seems to be greater than anything I can remember. Sure,
Obama's election is historical in that a non-white male is finally
leading our country, but too many people, at least young people, I
have spoken with seem to think that fact in itself means that things
will be different now. This is the group that will be most
disappointed when the realities of governing trump their expectations.
Paul Ciszek
In article <3cc3b0ce-10eb-4fcc...@q30g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
Blinky the Wonder Wombat <wkharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> Look at the way the dialogue is going on this thread alone -- It's the
>> sign of a cult to have all this junk on the market, but it wasn't a
>> cult when the exact same thing happened eight years ago with Bush's
>> election -- that was just a case of tacky tourist junk.
>>
>> I wonder if we aren't cutting the evidence to fit the theory.
>>
>
>Perhaps you are right, but I really don't remember this type of
>euphoria after Bush's election - more of a sigh of relief that the
>whole ordeal was over. Granted, there was gloating by the winners and
Not right after the election, but later:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWvIOPiKFrs
--
Please reply to: | "One of the hardest parts of my job is to
pciszek at panix dot com | connect Iraq to the War on Terror."
Autoreply is disabled | -- G. W. Bush, 9/7/2006
George W Harris
<see...@for.email.address> wrote:
>On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 12:55:48 -0800, Antonio E. Gonzalez sez:
>
>> Getting out of a Depression the *right* way (not the right-wing
>> way),
>
>Not everyone agrees with that assessment, either.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal#Prolonged.2Fworsened_the_Depression
Most of this FDR revisionism can be traced to the
works of Amity Shlaes, which rely on a couple of dubious
interpretations to justify the opinons.
1) They focus on the recession of 1938. This was
actually the result of FDR abandoning the stimulus-heavy
policies of his first term for a more fiscally conservative
approach of cutting taxes and reducing the deficit. This
change of course caused the economy to go into a big
slump, whereas during his first term the economy was
making up a lot of lost ground..
2) They use deceitful unemployment figures which
count WPA workers as unemployed, despite the fact that
they were working, getting paid, and creating public
works projects which in many cases are still in use today.
So, to the extent that FDR extended the
Depression, it's that he didn't go far enough with the
New Deal. It should have been bigger. Paul Krugman
has written a lot of interesting (and very topical) columns
and blog entries about Depression economics lately (what
happens when interest rates drop so low that most
monetary tools have no traction).
--
Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
>
> 2) They use deceitful unemployment figures which
> count WPA workers as unemployed, despite the fact that
> they were working, getting paid, and creating public
> works projects which in many cases are still in use today.
>
Not debating whether WPA and CCC workers should have been counted in
the employment ranks, but wasn't one of the primary purposes of these
programs was to give he idle workers something to do and less with
actually stimulating the economy? Akin to modern-day China, there were
means available to do the work more efficiently but it was was more
important to give the men something constructive to do, lest they find
some less socially-acceptable outlet for their time.
Dann
@mid.individual.net.
> For that type of cult, the leader's exposure as a fraud simply
> provides good evidence that the followers were delusional,
> rather than astute observers who recognized a visionary leader.
I was thinking that there are times when a cult forms around a person
that does not seek such a following. As mentioned elsewhere, Reagan,
Kennedy, and King all fit that description.
IMO, Mr. Obama does as well. Not because he has purposefully fostered
such a following, but because some of his followers have exhibited cult
like behavior.
I think Blinky is right. There are some people that are in for a rude
awakening when they realize that Mr. Obama is not going to transform the
US into socialist state, withdraw our armed forces from around the world,
and defenestrate Mr. Bush for "war crimes".
--
Regards,
Dann
blogging at http://web.newsguy.com/dainbramage/blog.htm
Freedom works; each and every time it is tried.
Dann
news:6q5rj0F...@mid.individual.net.
> deto...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Dec 8, 10:56 am, Mike Marshall <hub...@clemson.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>> When was the last time we say this level of personality cult?
>>>> Reagan? JFK?
>>> Are they running the "layered in 24 karat gold" Obama coin
>>> commercials on TeeVee in your area?
>>
>> We have commemorative plates being sold in the paper and on the idiot
>> box.
>
> Of course those are being sold by socialists. No way capitalists
> could be responsible for such a thing.
Look. I don't need this sort of temptation tossed my way. I'm tryin' to
play nice and you go tossing this nice...juicy....flavorful....mmmmm....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...where was I?
Dann
news:01urj49bju8r6tj12...@4ax.com.
> 1) They focus on the recession of 1938. This was
> actually the result of FDR abandoning the stimulus-heavy
> policies of his first term for a more fiscally conservative
> approach of cutting taxes and reducing the deficit. This
> change of course caused the economy to go into a big
> slump, whereas during his first term the economy was
> making up a lot of lost ground..
Some of the criticism I have read focused on the stock market and
business activity. The authors pointed out that the introduction of the
NRA caused a fall back in the economy. After the SC struck down the NRA,
the business climate improved until the introduction of the New Deal.
Whereupon it immediately headed back south.
Another point of interest is that past recessions and depressions
typically lasted less than two years. It was asserted that the market
corrected itself far more quickly than FDR's policies.
One final point of interest is that the Great Depression is only
remembered as "Great" in the US. It lasted a much shorter period of time
in the rest of the world that wasn't laboring under some quasi-socialist
reformer.
None of which should be taken to mean that all of FDR's policies were
counter productive. Some were very productive. Some caused far more
harm than they resolved.
Only the cult of FDR would have a problem with such a nuanced position.
Dann
news:f11b3c75-8fd3-466b...@l39g2000yqn.googlegroups.com.
> On Dec 8, 10:53 am, Blinky the Wonder Wombat
> <wkharrisjr_i...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> I fear the Obama's actual performance and accomplishments will fall
>> far short of the unreasonable expectations that are being built up- I
>> think people are expecting the President-Elect to heal lame lame and
>> walk on water after his inauguration.
>>
>> No matter how Obama performs, too many people are going to be
>> disappointed with the results.
>
> I'm wondering if this isn't something from the echo chamber. I was
> uncomfortable in 1968 with people who thought Bobby Kennedy was going
> to have the boys back home by, oh, March. But, on the college campuses
> and in many other places, that was a one-issue election. I haven't
> heard that kind of unabashed optimism, and I think the election was
> about more complex issues -- not just Iraq but also the economy, oil
> and some other things.
Depends on which echo chamber you are talking about. It could be a
reasonable observation. Mr. Obama has changed his plans on several
fronts:
-canceling Mr. Bush's "tax cuts for the rich"
-creating a windfall profits tax for bit oil
-closing Gitmo
-16 month retreat window for Iraq
Those things will not happen. Yet they are the kinds of policies that
Mr. Obama's more enthusiastic supporters wanted.
IMO, Blinky has a valid point about Mr. Obama failing to meet the
expectations of some of his supporters.
> Look at the way the dialogue is going on this thread alone -- It's the
> sign of a cult to have all this junk on the market, but it wasn't a
> cult when the exact same thing happened eight years ago with Bush's
> election -- that was just a case of tacky tourist junk.
>
> I wonder if we aren't cutting the evidence to fit the theory.
That's always a possibility. In this case, it is the coupling of tacky
tourist junk with the unquestioning [by some] support for Mr. Obama that
suggests the existence of a cult.
In defense of your position, I will point out that Mr. Bush was elected
in part because of his professed desire to change the D.C. political
culture and work with everyone on capitol hill. And there were some
folks that were mighty upset when he let Ted Kennedy have a prominent
role in writing the NCLB bill/law.
Perhaps one's perspective might have a bit to do with one's conclusions
on the matter.
deto...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>
> I'm wondering if this isn't something from the echo chamber.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20081208/pl_politico/16292
--
Regards,
Dann
Mike Marshall
>million "Wave a flag and obey whatever George W. Bush says,
>it's just like having Jesus in the White House!" trinkets.
Got a web link for even *one* thing similar to what you described?
-Mike
Ted Goldblatt
I don't know how you came to such firm conclusions, but most of those
things _will_ happen - the only question is when.
The "tax cuts for the rich" will go away - the only question is whether
they will go away right away or not until they expire in 2010. There is
no chance that they will be renewed or made permanent.
A windfall profits tax on big oil is admittedly less likely given the
drastically falling price of oil and therefore (one assumes) drastically
falling profits for the oil companies (this latter being at least partly
their own fault, since it is due to their pricing/profit model).
However, I would not be surprised if numerous items in the recent energy
bills are still re-examined, at least with respect to support for
petroleum vs alternative energy sources.
Gitmo _will_ close (even Bush said that), it's only a matter of when. I
don't think anyone on Obama's team (perhaps as opposed to some
supporters) ever claimed it would close on Jan 20, but I wouldn't be
very surprised if there are no prisoners there by the end of next year.
(There will still be prisoners, just not there...)
And I'm not sure why you are already dismissing the 16 month withdrawal
timeframe ("retreat"? I thought we won...) since Obama has said he will
listen to the ground commanders, not that he will blindly do what they
want. Again, it wouldn't surprise me if we still have people there by
the end of 2010, but I would be surprised if it were a significant
combat force.
Obama cannot be blamed for what extremists say or want, any more than
Bush could be held responsible for some of the extreme views or desires
of some of his supporters (no, that doesn't get him off the hook for
Cheney...)
> IMO, Blinky has a valid point about Mr. Obama failing to meet the
> expectations of some of his supporters.
Obviously, but that is always the case.
>> Look at the way the dialogue is going on this thread alone -- It's the
>> sign of a cult to have all this junk on the market, but it wasn't a
>> cult when the exact same thing happened eight years ago with Bush's
>> election -- that was just a case of tacky tourist junk.
>>
>> I wonder if we aren't cutting the evidence to fit the theory.
>
> That's always a possibility. In this case, it is the coupling of tacky
> tourist junk with the unquestioning [by some] support for Mr. Obama that
> suggests the existence of a cult.
Any charismatic leader is going to have "cultist" supporters - certainly
Reagan did (and still does - look at how many in the recent Republican
primaries claimed to be the reincarnation of Reagan to appeal to them).
Bush still has some (though far fewer) as did Clinton. Again, that
isn't the fault or responsibility of the leader unless they encourage
it, and none of these did.
Tacky tourist junk is just a fact of life - I think tacky tourist junk
was sold during the Crusades...
> In defense of your position, I will point out that Mr. Bush was elected
> in part because of his professed desire to change the D.C. political
> culture and work with everyone on capitol hill. And there were some
> folks that were mighty upset when he let Ted Kennedy have a prominent
> role in writing the NCLB bill/law.
True. Unfortunately, this bipartisan/collegial approach didn't survive
9/11 (if it lasted even that long), so we can't really tell if the
culture would have changed had it persisted.
> Perhaps one's perspective might have a bit to do with one's conclusions
> on the matter.
As always...
ted
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
>
> Tacky tourist junk is just a fact of life - I think tacky tourist junk
> was sold during the Crusades...
>
"My Father Sacked Constantinoble and AllI Got Was This Lousy T-Shirt"
Ted Goldblatt
You got one of those too?
Dann
news:6q7jlcF...@mid.individual.net.
> Dann wrote:
>>
>> Depends on which echo chamber you are talking about. It could be a
>> reasonable observation. Mr. Obama has changed his plans on several
>> fronts:
>>
>> -canceling Mr. Bush's "tax cuts for the rich"
>> -creating a windfall profits tax for bit oil
>> -closing Gitmo
>> -16 month retreat window for Iraq
>>
>> Those things will not happen. Yet they are the kinds of policies
>> that Mr. Obama's more enthusiastic supporters wanted.
>
> I don't know how you came to such firm conclusions, but most of those
> things _will_ happen - the only question is when.
>
> The "tax cuts for the rich" will go away - the only question is
> whether they will go away right away or not until they expire in 2010.
> There is no chance that they will be renewed or made permanent.
It is an article of faith among some of Mr. Obama's supporters that those
tax cuts were morally wrong and definitely unfair. They believed that
voting for him would result in an immediate repeal plus new taxes on the
rich, and potentially the beheading of any Fortune 500 CEO that earned
more than minimum wage.
None of that will happen.
> A windfall profits tax on big oil is admittedly less likely given the
> drastically falling price of oil and therefore (one assumes)
> drastically falling profits for the oil companies (this latter being
> at least partly their own fault, since it is due to their
> pricing/profit model). However, I would not be surprised if numerous
> items in the recent energy bills are still re-examined, at least with
> respect to support for petroleum vs alternative energy sources.
Mr. Obama has unequivocally stated that the windfall profits tax is dead.
The rest is prevarication and obfuscation.
> Gitmo _will_ close (even Bush said that), it's only a matter of when.
> I don't think anyone on Obama's team (perhaps as opposed to some
> supporters) ever claimed it would close on Jan 20, but I wouldn't be
> very surprised if there are no prisoners there by the end of next
> year.
> (There will still be prisoners, just not there...)
I won't be surprised if it is still open....albeit with a much smaller
population....when Mr. Obama begins his re-election bid. There are just
too many detainees that are demonstrable threats to the US that cannot be
convicted in a court of law.
It must be true! I heard it on NPR!!
> And I'm not sure why you are already dismissing the 16 month
> withdrawal timeframe ("retreat"? I thought we won...) since Obama has
> said he will listen to the ground commanders, not that he will blindly
> do what they want. Again, it wouldn't surprise me if we still have
> people there by the end of 2010, but I would be surprised if it were a
> significant combat force.
I know we have won in Iraq, based on the facts. Some folks refuse to
acknowledge the facts. Thus the scare quotes.
As with Germany, Japan, S. Korea, and Bosnia, we will need to be engaged
in Iraq for some time to come. [Which I think you acknowledged.]
Some of the loonier moonbats on the left think that any American presence
outside of our borders is offensive. Even the modest force you [and I]
envision would be unacceptable to them.
In any case, he promised a 16 month timetable for the full withdrawal of
forces and has since shifted to the position you suggested above. That
won't be acceptable to some on the far left.
> Obama cannot be blamed for what extremists say or want, any more than
> Bush could be held responsible for some of the extreme views or
> desires of some of his supporters (no, that doesn't get him off the
> hook for Cheney...)
I think the point is that if the far left abandons Mr. Obama, he may have
a harder time getting things through Congress.
I'm generally encouraged by Mr. Obama's behavior as President-elect.
It's the first time he's given me any hope in the last two years.
>> IMO, Blinky has a valid point about Mr. Obama failing to meet the
>> expectations of some of his supporters.
>
> Obviously, but that is always the case.
>
It may be a little different this time around. Some factions shouldn't
be allowed anywhere near the levers of power. Mr. Obama's base includes
more than a couple of those factions[1]. If he doesn't do what they have
imagined him doing, then it could result in no end of trouble if he has
to fend of rhetorical attacks from both the left and the right.
[1] I'm sure that someone will mistake this for meaning that all of Mr.
Obama's supporters shouldn't be allowed to run a government. Notes and
disclaimers won't do anything to dissuade them.
> Bush still has some (though far fewer) as did Clinton. Again, that
> isn't the fault or responsibility of the leader unless they encourage
> it, and none of these did.
I agree. My point wasn't to suggest that any of the above were cult
leaders. My point was to suggest that some of their followers have a
devotion that, IMO, crosses over into cult like behavior. As you
suggested....and I thought I suggested it as well....that isn't Mr.
Obama's fault.
>> Perhaps one's perspective might have a bit to do with one's
>> conclusions on the matter.
>
> As always...
In case it wasn't clear when I posted the above, I certainly include my
own perspective as potentially affecting my conclusions.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
>On 09 Dec 2008, George W Harris said the following in
>news:01urj49bju8r6tj12...@4ax.com.
>
>> 1) They focus on the recession of 1938. This was
>> actually the result of FDR abandoning the stimulus-heavy
>> policies of his first term for a more fiscally conservative
>> approach of cutting taxes and reducing the deficit. This
>> change of course caused the economy to go into a big
>> slump, whereas during his first term the economy was
>> making up a lot of lost ground..
>
>Some of the criticism I have read focused on the stock market and
>business activity. The authors pointed out that the introduction of the
>NRA caused a fall back in the economy. After the SC struck down the NRA,
>the business climate improved until the introduction of the New Deal.
>Whereupon it immediately headed back south.
>
>Another point of interest is that past recessions and depressions
>typically lasted less than two years. It was asserted that the market
>corrected itself far more quickly than FDR's policies.
>
Those way-too-quick "corrections," and the frequency of said
recessions and depressions, should be seen as huge symptoms of flaws
in the pre-New Deal system, reminicent of bipolar disorder, or even
diabetes; as pointed out (and apparently ignored) repeatedly, there
was never anything remotely resembly the Great Depression after 1945;
we've only been seeing hints of a return as more and more New Deal
regulations are foolishly removed . . .
>One final point of interest is that the Great Depression is only
>remembered as "Great" in the US. It lasted a much shorter period of time
>in the rest of the world that wasn't laboring under some quasi-socialist
>reformer.
>
No, the rest of the world (usually) had *fully* socialist
reformers; a huge hint as to how they got out of it quicker!
>None of which should be taken to mean that all of FDR's policies were
>counter productive. Some were very productive. Some caused far more
>harm than they resolved.
>
>Only the cult of FDR would have a problem with such a nuanced position.
Nice way of admitting New Deal policies helped out . . .
Antonio E. Gonzalez
If they were getting paid, wich I have a weird feeling they were,
then they were employed by definition . . .
Antonio E. Gonzalez
<see...@for.email.address> wrote:
>On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 13:26:31 -0800, Antonio E. Gonzalez sez:
>
>(after I said)
>>>Not everyone agrees with that assessment, either.
>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
>New_Deal#Prolonged.2Fworsened_the_Depression
>>>
>>>
>> There are also people who still insist Apollo 11 was done in a
>> movie studio . . .
>
>Please, use your straw men as festive lawn ornaments and don't let them
>clutter up otherwise civil discussions. Unless you're suggesting that
>the 27% of polled economics PhDs and 27% of polled history PhDs are
>fringe kooks
So, the number of specific PhDs who have a negative opinion of the
New Deal is close to the number of the general population who think
Neil Armstrong is just a good actor. Those numbers also imply 73% of
mentioned PhD's have a positive opinion of the New Deal, further
bolstering that aspect of the FDR legacy . . .
- raving lunatics like Milton Friedman, who recanted his
>initial support of the New Deal and observed that it was the wrong cure
>for the wrong disease?
>http://eh.net/lists/archives/eh.res/feb-1997/0010.php
>
The same Milton Friedman who saw Kartina as a "great opportunity"
to "reform" (i.e. dismantle) the New Orleans public school system?:
<http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/resources/part7/chapter20/friedman-promise-vouchers>
<http://preview.tinyurl.com/6rcjhu>
>
>> Livestock was also bought from farmers simply to be slaughtered;
>> to answer the question, yes, desperate times call for desperate
>> measures, especially when the measures *work*.
>
>See, that's where I can't agree. You're establishing a cause-and-effect
>that I'm not so sure exists. The banks failed. FDR cut the food supply.
>The economy recovered. If nothing else, ship the wasted food off to fill
>any of the numerous sites of massive famine anywhere in the world;
Yup, 'cause shipping all that food would incur no expenses at all!
Oh, wait . . .
Ummm, 'cause all that food would be guaranteed to not waste away by
the time it reached its destination, especially with the
refrigeration/preservation technology of the time! Oh, wait again . .
.
Ummm, 'cause . . . it would make us feel good, even at great
expense and little result?
>destroying food in the face of poverty and famine is just stupid no
>matter how fast it helps banks get back on their feet.
Considering what I just mentioned, it's actually very smart, even
if cruel in appearance . . .
This is actually based on a question I asked my Economics 300
professor, quite a "free market" guy, when he pointed out surplus
grain was usually destroyed.
Great, you've
>helped prop up food prices so farmers (now FarmerCorp, Inc., a subsidiary
>of Global BehemothCo) can see better profits... how does that help the
>guy who already couldn't afford a loaf of bread before the prices went up?
>
Let's see: work from the WPA, or the CCC, or the TVA (where
applicable), or quite a few others . . .
>>>I'm just
>>>saying, calling FDR's approach the right way doesn't make it so.
>
>> History says otherwise; nothing *remotely* resembling the Great
>> Depression after FDR . . .
>
>Again, I question the direct correlation. Note that I'm also not saying
>I know for a fact that his approach was wrong - more likely, there were
>some brilliant actions that saved the world, and some not-so-brilliant
>moves that caused as many problems as they solved. We need to learn from
>those past events and not just repeat FDR's methods, but improve on them.
I have a feeling the new guys know a thing or two about history,
and may well know to separate the wheat from the chaff . ..
George W Harris
<wkharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Perhaps you are right, but I really don't remember this type of
>euphoria after Bush's election - more of a sigh of relief that the
>whole ordeal was over.
It's a matter of contrast. Bush was replacing
the most popular president since FDR. Obama is
replacing the least popular president ever.
George W Harris
The goal of the WPA was to employ the unemployed.
It wasn't pointless busywork, although not all WPA projects
were greatly needed. Since the basis of Keynesian economics
wouldn't be written until 1936, it would be presumptuous to
claim that the primary purpose was economic stimulus,
although that was a happy side-effect.
But that's a digression. WPA and CCC workers were
employed by any sane definition.
Stephen Graham
> Another point of interest is that past recessions and depressions
> typically lasted less than two years. It was asserted that the market
> corrected itself far more quickly than FDR's policies.
There had been other lengthy depressions, such as what's now known as
the Long Depression, starting in 1873 and running through 1896. That's
been in the news of late, as well.
> One final point of interest is that the Great Depression is only
> remembered as "Great" in the US. It lasted a much shorter period of time
> in the rest of the world that wasn't laboring under some quasi-socialist
> reformer.
Things varied from country to country, of course, but Great Depression
is a fairly well known term in world history. And for most countries in
Europe and North America, recovery from the depression in general
coincided with the ramp-up for World War Two.
Exactly what the general mode of recovery was is open to debate. What do
you want to call the state-directed capitalism of the NSDAP?
> None of which should be taken to mean that all of FDR's policies were
> counter productive. Some were very productive. Some caused far more
> harm than they resolved.
Well, yeah.
George W Harris
>>typically lasted less than two years. It was asserted that the market
>>corrected itself far more quickly than FDR's policies.
>>
In the period between the end of WWI and the
Stock Market Crash, the economy was in recession more
than 50% of the time. Having an eighteen-month
recession every three years is less desirable than
having a thirty-month recession every seven years.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
<AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>On 9 Dec 2008 12:54:57 GMT, Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 09 Dec 2008, George W Harris said the following in
>>news:01urj49bju8r6tj12...@4ax.com.
>>One final point of interest is that the Great Depression is only
>>remembered as "Great" in the US. It lasted a much shorter period of time
>>in the rest of the world that wasn't laboring under some quasi-socialist
>>reformer.
>>
>
> No, the rest of the world (usually) had *fully* socialist
>reformers; a huge hint as to how they got out of it quicker!
>
Speaking of actual socialism, since there seems to be some confusion
here: Socialism is Hugo Chavez nationalizing Venezuela's oil
industry; socialism is Salvador Allende nationalizing Chile's copper
industry; socialism is Mohammed Mossadegh nationalizing Iran's oil
industry; socialism is Guatemala confiscating United Fruit Company's
plantations and distributing their land amongst peasant farmers.
Socialism is not higher taxes, much less mildly higher taxes, no
matter what the excuses or whining.
Mike Marshall
> It's a matter of contrast. Bush was replacing
>the most popular president since FDR. Obama is
>replacing the least popular president ever.
Rosie O'Donnell is pretty popular.
-Mike
aemeijers
has always been one of the standing nightmares of the Powers That Be,
throughout history. One of the current programs over in the sandbox is
to get as many of them as possible on the payroll doing
what-the-hell-ever, and offering higher pay than the local warlords. It
is amazing how much financial self-interest reduces the urge to start
shooting people.
--
aem sends...
Dann
news:19mtj4hkeaethaa7q...@4ax.com.
> I have a feeling the new guys know a thing or two about history,
> and may well know to separate the wheat from the chaff . ..
Only because they recognize the failings of Keynesian economics and the
benefits of free markets....because those are the kinds of people Mr. Obama
seems to be listening to these days.
racs...@gmail.com
The general historical chestnut is that, if all the pieces of the True
Cross sold to Crusaders were put in one place, you could build a six
foot fence around the globe. Tears of the Virgin were also a big
seller.
You can get anything you want, at Saladin's restaurant.
Returning Crusaders did produce a burst of children named Tiffany and
Jordan, many of them christened with water from the latter, which was,
at the very least, genuine, being as easy to come up with as the fake
and often gathered by the father himself. Actually, I would think
christening your child with water from the Jordan, brought back over
that many miles at that time in history, is pretty cool.
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
Andrew Ryan Chang
>I think Blinky is right. There are some people that are in for a rude
>awakening when they realize that Mr. Obama is not going to transform the
>US into socialist state, withdraw our armed forces from around the world,
>and defenestrate Mr. Bush for "war crimes".
Are you talking about the left wing fringe, which presumably wants
these things and imagines Obama will do them, or the right wing fringe,
which hates those things and imagines Obama will do them?
I suppose you must mean the former, because the latter are so deep
in fantasy* and/or apocalypse bunkers that they won't notice either way.
* example: there are bitter dead-enders still insisting Obama wasn't born
in the US and thus is not eligible for the Presidency.
--
"That's the world Bush's key policymakers come out of: they've made their
careers by circumventing the free market. Why expect them suddenly to
embrace it?"
- James Surowiecki, "Bush's Buddy Economy", New Yorker, Oct 2 2002
Dann
news:ghnmtn$bls$1...@morgoth.sfu.ca.
> Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>I think Blinky is right. There are some people that are in for a rude
>>awakening when they realize that Mr. Obama is not going to transform
>>the US into socialist state, withdraw our armed forces from around the
>>world, and defenestrate Mr. Bush for "war crimes".
>
> Are you talking about the left wing fringe, which presumably
> wants these things and imagines Obama will do them, or the right wing
> fringe, which hates those things and imagines Obama will do them?
>
> I suppose you must mean the former, because the latter are so
> deep in fantasy* and/or apocalypse bunkers that they won't notice
> either way.
Yup, I meant the former.
> * example: there are bitter dead-enders still insisting Obama wasn't
> born in the US and thus is not eligible for the Presidency.
Yup, I knew about that, too. Kind of silly stuff.
But did you hear about how Obama conspired with the governor of Illinois
to sell his former seat in the Senate on eBay?? With a little luck, we
might have him impeached by MLK Day! That would be truly historic.
racs...@gmail.com
>
> But did you hear about how Obama conspired with the governor of Illinois
> to sell his former seat in the Senate on eBay?? With a little luck, we
> might have him impeached by MLK Day! That would be truly historic.
Worse than fantasy: Blago was tied in with Rezko. And I'm sure anyone
in Illinois politics -- certainly in Chicago politics -- knew them
both, which is enough to "prove" a conspiracy.
Well, after all, it IS the holiday season. Only difference this year,
is that the fruitcakes are the ones getting the present.
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
deto...@hotmail.com
wrote:
Did I set the hook or are you just playing with the bait?
--
Regards,
Dann
nickelshrink
Get 'em while they're ...um ... hot!
--
pax,
ruth
Save trees, money, AND corruption charges!
http://stores.ebay.com/Noir-and-More-Books-and-Trains
deto...@hotmail.com
> > But did you hear about how Obama conspired with the governor of Illinois
> > to sell his former seat in the Senate on eBay?? With a little luck, we
> > might have him impeached by MLK Day! That would be truly historic.
>
> Get 'em while they're ...um ... hot!
>
> http://tinyurl.com/6zfvoh
> http://tinyurl.com/6ol9qp
> http://tinyurl.com/5kxd8y
Day-um! I thought I had a good spoof. And then there are the folks
over at craigslist.org....
http://chicago.craigslist.org/search/sss?query=senate%20seat
--
Regards,
Dann
Eric S. Harris
> On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 14:07:48 -0600, "Peter B. Steiger"
> <see...@for.email.address> wrote:
>
>
>>On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 12:55:48 -0800, Antonio E. Gonzalez sez:
>>
>>
>>> Getting out of a Depression the *right* way (not the right-wing
>>>way),
>>
>>Not everyone agrees with that assessment, either.
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal#Prolonged.2Fworsened_the_Depression
>>
>
>
> There are also people who still insist Apollo 11 was done in a
> movie studio . . .
They are relatively few in number, and do not support their contentions
with facts and reasoning. A substantial fraction of economists don't
buy into the traditional FDR-saved-America view of the Great Depression.
To the extent that their theories are falsifiable (yet not falsified
when put to the test), their numbers will increase.
Time will tell.
An interesting exercise: watch for specific, objective predictions about
the consequences of policy alternatives from people who supposedly have
an analytical basis for their predictions -- especially those that cover
all the alternatives under consideration.
Those who do the best job of predicting the consequences of policies are
probably ones to pay attention to.
Good ones to consider for the short list are those who said that
encouraging (or ordering) lenders to make high-risk loans would lead to
disaster. Etc.
>>Would you say that it's a good idea at this point to leave millions of
>>crops to rot in the fields so that food supply goes down, prices go up,
>>and farmers make a bigger profit?
>>
>
>
> Livestock was also bought from farmers simply to be slaughtered;
> to answer the question, yes, desperate times call for desperate
> measures, especially when the measures *work*.
Could you explain what "work" means, in the previous sentence? I know
you think it's obvious, but obviously it's not obvious to everyone. I'm
pretty sure I know, but if we hear it from you, I'll be even more sure.
I'm kind of hoping I'm not on the receiving end of some of those
"desperate measures", whether they "work" or not. Ditto for my loved
ones. I'm not an absolute absolutist about the ends never justifying
the means, but more exceptions are found than actually exist. Desperate
people do desperate things, politicians especially.
>>I don't know diddly about macroeconomics; I have no way of knowing
>>whether the New Deal solved or aggravated the depression. I'm just
>>saying, calling FDR's approach the right way doesn't make it so.
>
>
> History says otherwise; nothing *remotely* resembling the Great
> Depression after FDR . . .
The century's young, folks.
All banking panics and associated economic downturns were relatively
mild and short-lived prior to the Great Depression. With good luck
(because it sure won't be due to good sense or good leadership) it may
set the high-water (low-water?) mark for such things, at least for the
next century or so. -Eric
--
Replace the "w" with a "y" when replying via e-mail.
Eric S. Harris
Nobody in the army is "unemployed", no matter how they spend their days
or what good (or bad) effects that activity has on the world.
If Beetle Bailey (to use an on-topic example) were on Welfare instead,
with comparable cash and non-cash benefits, would his economic impact be
any different? He's not making the United States any safer (or less
safe) by his actions in the U.S. Army -- and it could be argued it would
be better if Sgt. Snorkel let him sleep in -- so what's the diff? He's
be just as irrelevant on Welfare.
The same might be said for ineffectual and irrelevant federal
bureaucrats (the best kind). -Eric
Mike Beede
"Eric S. Harris" <eric_ha...@wahoo.com> wrote:
> If Beetle Bailey (to use an on-topic example) were on Welfare instead,
> with comparable cash and non-cash benefits, would his economic impact be
> any different? He's not making the United States any safer (or less
> safe) by his actions in the U.S. Army -- and it could be argued it would
> be better if Sgt. Snorkel let him sleep in -- so what's the diff? He's
> be just as irrelevant on Welfare.
Is a fireman making the city safer when he isn't putting out a fire?
Would the city be just as safe if he was on welfare?
Mike Beede
cryptoguy
<wkharrisjr_i...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 8, 10:31 am, cryptoguy <treifam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > When was the last time we say this level of personality cult? Reagan?
> > JFK?
>
> Though I was just a wee lad when JFK was elected, I am under the
> impression that he reached cult status, at least among Catholics. Well
> into the '70s in, pictures of JFK were often prominently displayed
> along side the Pope's picture many Catholic homes. My late grandmohter-
> in-law collected anything and everything featuring Jack or Jackie,
> often adding them to her little shrine.
I've seen that too. Its more or less what I was thinking
of.
I found the calendar disturbing, I think, because it was
not election hoopla ephemera; rather some marketeers
thought there were enough people out there who wanted
to keep Obama's image around for an entire year, to
justify creating, printing, and distributing a calendar.
I don't find politicians (of any stripe) inspiring. I would
have been even more disturbed to see straightforward
portraits on sale. Pictures of the Maximum Leader
hang in homes in dictatorships, not democracies.
I judge politicians on what they do, not what they
say. So far, BHO's behaviour since the election
has been quite promising. OTOH, he has a very
low bar to hurdle to improve on his predecessor.
Peter Trei
Mike Beede
<230727b6-ce81-4a80...@q36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
cryptoguy <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't find politicians (of any stripe) inspiring. I would
> have been even more disturbed to see straightforward
> portraits on sale. Pictures of the Maximum Leader
> hang in homes in dictatorships, not democracies.
A friend at work has had a picture of Mr. and Mrs. Shrub
up for the last five years. And it's . . . *drum roll* . . .
autographed!
I doubt it's a holograph though, if that makes you feel
better.
Mike Beede
racs...@gmail.com
> I found the calendar disturbing, I think, because it was
> not election hoopla ephemera; rather some marketeers
> thought there were enough people out there who wanted
> to keep Obama's image around for an entire year, to
> justify creating, printing, and distributing a calendar.
Why do you think there was that level of thought going into this? Do
you imagine them figuring out how long people tend to own their cars
before putting out a bumpersticker that says "Who farted?"?
Walk through any mall today. You will find a kiosk of calendars.
Examine them and tell me that every darned one of them reflects deep
thought and consideration. Tell me that every one of them that ends up
under a tree in two weeks will be hanging on a wall in six.
> I don't find politicians (of any stripe) inspiring. I would
> have been even more disturbed to see straightforward
> portraits on sale. Pictures of the Maximum Leader
> hang in homes in dictatorships, not democracies.
I certainly liked the one on Major Major's wall in the movie version
of Catch-22.
But, yes, there were straightforward prints of JFK available before
and after his death, and they were bought, and they were hung on
walls, and America is still a democracy, even if you don't always
agree with the demos.
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
Eric S. Harris
I specifically used Beetle Bailey -- a fictional character with rough
counterparts in reality -- because his presence or absence in the armed
forces matters not in the slightest. If he took a week off due to a bad
appendix or to visit Hi and Lois, nothing important would go undone, and
no one would have to pick up the slack. The same could not be said of a
firefighter.
Sorry that wasn't clearer. -Eric
Eric S. Harris
> deto...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> On Dec 8, 10:56 am, Mike Marshall <hub...@clemson.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>> When was the last time we say this level of personality cult? Reagan?
>>>> JFK?
>>>
>>> Are they running the "layered in 24 karat gold" Obama coin commercials
>>> on TeeVee in your area?
>>
>>
>> We have commemorative plates being sold in the paper and on the idiot
>> box.
>
>
> Of course those are being sold by socialists. No way capitalists could
> be responsible for such a thing.
Speaking of which ... -Eric
http://www.thoseshirts.com/checap.html
Eric S. Harris
> On 09 Dec 2008, Antonio E. Gonzalez said the following in
> news:19mtj4hkeaethaa7q...@4ax.com.
>
>
>> I have a feeling the new guys know a thing or two about history,
>>and may well know to separate the wheat from the chaff . ..
>
>
> Only because they recognize the failings of Keynesian economics and the
> benefits of free markets....because those are the kinds of people Mr. Obama
> seems to be listening to these days.
>
Dare I ask it? Sure. The subject of who Obama is listening to came up,
so ...
If only "Nixon could go to China", what could only Obama do?
One thing obvious but rather improbable one comes to mind: an exit
strategy for "affirmative action".
Most supporters of the various forms of racial preferences seem to be of
the opinion that they will be with us forever. They will never be so
successful that they can be retired, because the ongoing problems are
greater than the declining benefits derived.
An exit strategy for "affirmative action" seems rather improbable to me,
but it's certainly more likely than, say, any education choice program,
even for for students in the worse schools. You don't want to P.O.
labor unions that have their own cabinet secretary and whose members are
a major -- the major? -- bloc in your party's coalition.
Maybe I'm missing something else. What is a traditional Democrat's
sacred cow that BHO might be willing to sacrifice -- or at least put on
a diet? Something that no Republican would dare try to address, lest
vicious name-calling begin? -Eric
Mark Jackson
> Most supporters of the various forms of racial preferences seem to be
> of the opinion that they will be with us forever.
Do we give a "man of straw of the year" award on racs?
--
Mark Jackson - http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~mjackson
Think how hard physics would be if particles could think.
- Murray Gell-Mann
Mark Jackson
You misspelled "and now, for something completely different. . ."
Dann
news:z-idncs9_YFqXtzU...@earthlink.com.
> Mike Beede wrote:
>> In article <49409065...@wahoo.com>,
>> "Eric S. Harris" <eric_ha...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>If Beetle Bailey (to use an on-topic example) were on Welfare
>>>instead, with comparable cash and non-cash benefits, would his
>>>economic impact be any different? He's not making the United States
>>>any safer (or less safe) by his actions in the U.S. Army -- and it
>>>could be argued it would be better if Sgt. Snorkel let him sleep in
>>>-- so what's the diff? He's be just as irrelevant on Welfare.
>>
>>
>> Is a fireman making the city safer when he isn't putting out a fire?
>> Would the city be just as safe if he was on welfare?
>>
>
> I specifically used Beetle Bailey -- a fictional character with rough
> counterparts in reality -- because his presence or absence in the
> armed forces matters not in the slightest. If he took a week off due
> to a bad appendix or to visit Hi and Lois, nothing important would go
> undone, and no one would have to pick up the slack. The same could
> not be said of a firefighter.
You also implied that he was representative of everyone in the army
before you narrowed it down to Beetle specifically.
"Nobody in the army is "unemployed", no matter how they spend their days
or what good (or bad) effects that activity has on the world."
The thrust of the thread up to that point was "make work" projects in
China and in the US during FDR's Presidency and whether or not
participants in such programs should be classified as unemployed since
they didn't hold real jobs.
I would agree in general that Beetle's specific contribution to national
defense is pretty minimal. I object to the suggestion that the entire
army is a "make work" program.
Jym Dyer
=v= No kidding. I think we've got a contender for Lifetime
Achievement here.
<_Jym_>
Mike Marshall
>Why do you think there was that level of thought going into this? Do
>you imagine them figuring out how long people tend to own their cars
>before putting out a bumpersticker that says "Who farted?"?
It will be 10,000 years before I get one. Did you have the dealer
put yours on before you picked up the car?
-Mike "Sinfest is an awesome comic strip"
Eric S. Harris
> Eric S. Harris wrote:
>
>> Most supporters of the various forms of racial preferences seem to be
>> of the opinion that they will be with us forever.
>
>
> Do we give a "man of straw of the year" award on racs?
>
Maybe I just hang out in with the wrong crowd, then, and listen to the
wrong shows on NPR. But that's been my experience.
What has yours been?
Or better still, is there a survey that provides a less subjective and
more representative assessment of opinions on the subject? -Eric
Eric S. Harris
> On 11 Dec 2008, Eric S. Harris said the following in
> news:z-idncs9_YFqXtzU...@earthlink.com.
>
>
>>Mike Beede wrote:
>>
>>>In article <49409065...@wahoo.com>,
>>> "Eric S. Harris" <eric_ha...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>If Beetle Bailey (to use an on-topic example) were on Welfare
>>>>instead, with comparable cash and non-cash benefits, would his
>>>>economic impact be any different? He's not making the United States
>>>>any safer (or less safe) by his actions in the U.S. Army -- and it
>>>>could be argued it would be better if Sgt. Snorkel let him sleep in
>>>>-- so what's the diff? He's be just as irrelevant on Welfare.
>>>
>>>
>>>Is a fireman making the city safer when he isn't putting out a fire?
>>>Would the city be just as safe if he was on welfare?
>>>
>
>
>>I specifically used Beetle Bailey -- a fictional character with rough
>>counterparts in reality -- because his presence or absence in the
>>armed forces matters not in the slightest. If he took a week off due
>>to a bad appendix or to visit Hi and Lois, nothing important would go
>>undone, and no one would have to pick up the slack. The same could
>>not be said of a firefighter.
>
>
>
> You also implied that he was representative of everyone in the army
> before you narrowed it down to Beetle specifically.
That was not my intention. Beetle is not typical even of everyone at
Camp Swampy, much less the real army.
While I'm struggling to come up with a specific example that definitely
fits -- it's been a while since I read it much -- I'm pretty sure that
there is at least once character who does their job well and that job
matters. (Didn't Lt. Fuzz acquire a nemesis a couple decades ago, one
who might fit the bill?)
> "Nobody in the army is "unemployed", no matter how they spend their days
> or what good (or bad) effects that activity has on the world."
>
> The thrust of the thread up to that point was "make work" projects in
> China and in the US during FDR's Presidency and whether or not
> participants in such programs should be classified as unemployed since
> they didn't hold real jobs.
Agreed.
> I would agree in general that Beetle's specific contribution to national
> defense is pretty minimal. I object to the suggestion that the entire
> army is a "make work" program.
Me too. -Eric
Eric S. Harris
> Eric S. Harris wrote:
>
>> Mark Jackson wrote:
>>
>>> deto...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>>> We have commemorative plates being sold in the paper and on the idiot
>>>> box.
>
>
>>> Of course those are being sold by socialists. No way capitalists
>>> could be responsible for such a thing.
>
>
>> Speaking of which ... -Eric
>>
>> http://www.thoseshirts.com/checap.html
>
>
> You misspelled "and now, for something completely different. . ."
My spelling has improved in recent decades, but I do still tend to get
those two confused from time to time. -Eric
Eric S. Harris
> On 8 Dec 2008 12:02:14 GMT, Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On 07 Dec 2008, Joseph Nebus said the following in news:nebusj.1228676502
>>@vcmr-86.server.rpi.edu.
>>
>>
>>>"Eric S. Harris" <eric_ha...@wahoo.com> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Song lyrics from today's (12/07) Sinfest: "Govern like it's 1933".
>>>><http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=3015>
>>>
>>>>I certainly hope not. A decade of Depression and a World War, complete
>>>>with shortages and internment camps? No thank you.
>>>
>>> Yeah, that whole ``taking useful, effective action against a
>>>calamity'' thing is *so* liberal.
>>
>>"doing something" != "doing something productive"
>
>
> Hmmm, must've missed the *effective* part . . .
The "effective" part is open to question in some quarters, with
"counterproductive" even under consideration, at least for parts. And
that questioning and consideration being questioned.
As there's already a branch of this thread (Threads has branches? Am I
maxing metiphors badly here?) I'll say no more, but to nudge folks
towards it (wink, wink) if they've not already found it. -Eric
--
Replace the "w" with a "y" when replying via e-mail. If I haven't
replied to an alleged rebuttal (yet), it may not be the most deserving
of correction; it's a big Internet: http://xkcd.com/386 May 2008: The
yahoo.com address has technical difficulties. Dec: Yahoo is fixing ...
Eric S. Harris
> On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 15:48:35 -0600, "Peter B. Steiger"
> <see...@for.email.address> wrote:
>
>
>>On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 13:26:31 -0800, Antonio E. Gonzalez sez:
>>
>>(after I said)
>>
>>>>Not everyone agrees with that assessment, either.
>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
>>
>>New_Deal#Prolonged.2Fworsened_the_Depression
>>
>>>>
>>> There are also people who still insist Apollo 11 was done in a
>>>movie studio . . .
>>
>>Please, use your straw men as festive lawn ornaments and don't let them
>>clutter up otherwise civil discussions. Unless you're suggesting that
>>the 27% of polled economics PhDs and 27% of polled history PhDs are
>>fringe kooks
>
>
> So, the number of specific PhDs who have a negative opinion of the
> New Deal is close to the number of the general population who think
> Neil Armstrong is just a good actor. Those numbers also imply 73% of
> mentioned PhD's have a positive opinion of the New Deal, further
> bolstering that aspect of the FDR legacy . . .
>
>
> - raving lunatics like Milton Friedman, who recanted his
>
>>initial support of the New Deal and observed that it was the wrong cure
>>for the wrong disease?
>>http://eh.net/lists/archives/eh.res/feb-1997/0010.php
>>
>
>
> The same Milton Friedman who saw Kartina as a "great opportunity"
> to "reform" (i.e. dismantle) the New Orleans public school system?:
>
>
> <http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/resources/part7/chapter20/friedman-promise-vouchers>
>
> <http://preview.tinyurl.com/6rcjhu>
Well, it looks like Katrina took care of the physical facilities.
The school district's administration had already taken care of its
ability to accomplish its nominal mission -- educating children well, or
at least adequately, or at least (for half the schools in the district)
to standards -- right?
There's not much left to dismantle.
In places where the education the public schools provide is terrible,
their primary mission is to be a jobs program for administrators and
teachers. The nominal mission is educating children.
The ads in support of higher public school taxes or increased school
district debt or teachers unions are about the quality of education "for
the children". They are about the nominal mission.
The union contracts are about a lot of things, but not the quality of
education. They are about the actual mission.
That's not entirely true.
Some contracts explicitly prohibit any connection between educational
achievement and teacher compensation.
OOTC. In "Frazz", learning seems to occur as much despite Mrs. Olsen's
efforts as because of them. Perhaps more so.
And the learning that does occur is, um, "orthogonal" to the lesson
plan. ("Not that there's anything wrong with that.") -Eric
Eric S. Harris
>>>Another point of interest is that past recessions and depressions
>>>typically lasted less than two years. It was asserted that the market
>>>corrected itself far more quickly than FDR's policies.
>>>
>
>
> In the period between the end of WWI and the
> Stock Market Crash, the economy was in recession more
> than 50% of the time.
That can't be right, can it?
The creation and operation of the Federal Reserve System was going to
prevent business cycles, and it was created in 1913. So it would have
been in operation the entire time. -Eric
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve
http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/faq/faqfrs.htm
deto...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> George W Harris wrote:
> >>>Another point of interest is that past recessions and depressions
> >>>typically lasted less than two years. It was asserted that the market
> >>>corrected itself far more quickly than FDR's policies.
>
> > In the period between the end of WWI and the
> > Stock Market Crash, the economy was in recession more
> > than 50% of the time.
>
> That can't be right, can it?
>
> The creation and operation of the Federal Reserve System was going to
> prevent business cycles, and it was created in 1913. So it would have
> been in operation the entire time. -Eric
>
According to the ever questionable Wikipedia, WWI ended in 1918.
There was an inevitable post-war recession that resulted in a
declining GDP in 1918, 1919, and 1921. 1920 had a slight increase in
GDP.
Those are the only documented reductions in GDP for the time from 1918
to 1929. The last time I checked 100*(4/11) was not greater than 50%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roaring_Twenties
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-WWI_recession
--
Regards,
Dann
George W Harris
<eric_ha...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>George W Harris wrote:
>
>>>>Another point of interest is that past recessions and depressions
>>>>typically lasted less than two years. It was asserted that the market
>>>>corrected itself far more quickly than FDR's policies.
>>>>
>>
>> In the period between the end of WWI and the
>> Stock Market Crash, the economy was in recession more
>> than 50% of the time.
>
>That can't be right, can it?
Actually it looks like it's not, maybe more like 1/3,
although it depends on how you measure it. Although it's
also not true that recessions are longer now than
previously; from 1901-March 1933, there were nine
recessions lasting a total of 178 months, an average of
nearly 20 months, and totaling 46% of the time. Since
April 1933, there have been twelve recessions (not
counting the current one) lasting a total of 125 months, an
average of less than 11 months and totaling less than 15%
of the time. So, since the New Deal, recessions are shorter
and much less frequent.
http://www.princessunicorndoll.com/
--
Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
Antonio E. Gonzalez
Well, that's a nice thought . . .
>The school district's administration had already taken care of its
>ability to accomplish its nominal mission -- educating children well, or
>at least adequately, or at least (for half the schools in the district)
>to standards -- right?
>
As far as as their budget can take them . . .
>There's not much left to dismantle.
>
Especially when "rebuild" is a better word . . .
>In places where the education the public schools provide is terrible,
>their primary mission is to be a jobs program for administrators and
>teachers. The nominal mission is educating children.
>
I have no problem with targetting administrators (LAUSD's could use
a good cleaning), but it takes a special kind of moron to blame
teachers; for teachers, educating children is not just job one, it's
the *only* job!
>The ads in support of higher public school taxes or increased school
>district debt or teachers unions are about the quality of education "for
>the children". They are about the nominal mission.
>
Hmmm, union-bashing, how . . . robber baron-ish!
. . . and yes, when I become a teacher, I will be a *very* proud
member of the California Teachers Association; the only way to stand
up to management is as a group, especially when management is corrupt
administrators; if that's not an argument for 100% union membership of
the US workforce, I don't know what is . . .
>The union contracts are about a lot of things, but not the quality of
>education. They are about the actual mission.
>
>That's not entirely true.
>
>Some contracts explicitly prohibit any connection between educational
>achievement and teacher compensation.
>
Yup, 'cause there are no other factors in a child's performance,
certainly not parents, or quality of life. Of course, it takes a
special kind of asshole to believe the last sentence . . .
>OOTC. In "Frazz", learning seems to occur as much despite Mrs. Olsen's
>efforts as because of them. Perhaps more so.
>
>And the learning that does occur is, um, "orthogonal" to the lesson
>plan. ("Not that there's anything wrong with that.") -Eric
As many teachers would say, usually to administrators, "just shut
up and let us do our job!"
--
- ReFlex76
- "Let's beat the terrorists with our most powerful weapon . . . hot girl-on-girl action!"
- "The difference between young and old is the difference between looking forward to your next birthday, and dreading it!"
- Jesus Christ - The original hippie!
<http://reflex76.blogspot.com/>
<http://www.blogger.com/profile/07245047157197572936>
Katana > Chain Saw > Baseball Bat > Hammer
Eric S. Harris
> On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 09:59:16 -0600, "Eric S. Harris"
> <eric_ha...@wahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 15:48:35 -0600, "Peter B. Steiger"
>>><see...@for.email.address> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 13:26:31 -0800, Antonio E. Gonzalez sez:
>>>>
>>>>(after I said)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Not everyone agrees with that assessment, either.
>>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
>>>>
>>>>New_Deal#Prolonged.2Fworsened_the_Depression
[snip]
>>>>initial support of the New Deal and observed that it was the wrong cure
>>>>for the wrong disease?
>>>>http://eh.net/lists/archives/eh.res/feb-1997/0010.php
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The same Milton Friedman who saw Kartina as a "great opportunity"
>>>to "reform" (i.e. dismantle) the New Orleans public school system?:
>>>
>>>
>>><http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/resources/part7/chapter20/friedman-promise-vouchers>
>>>
>>> <http://preview.tinyurl.com/6rcjhu>
>>
>>Well, it looks like Katrina took care of the physical facilities.
>>
>
>
> Well, that's a nice thought . . .
Unfortunate. In the hands of an organization with appropriate
incentives, rather than perverse incentives, those buildings, undamaged,
could have been put to good use.
>>The school district's administration had already taken care of its
>>ability to accomplish its nominal mission -- educating children well, or
>>at least adequately, or at least (for half the schools in the district)
>>to standards -- right?
>>
>
>
> As far as as their budget can take them . . .
As far as I know, New Orleans public schools were not under-funded by
public school standards. Which is to say, they were spending about
twice as much per pupil as schools in the voluntary sector.
If you know otherwise, please let us know.
>>There's not much left to dismantle.
>>
>
>
> Especially when "rebuild" is a better word . . .
As "dismantle" was the word used in the text I was responding to, I
continued to use it.
There's no reason to believe that the New Orleans public schools would
be any better after the schools were repaired/replaced, as the
underlying incentive situation would be unchanged.
>>In places where the education the public schools provide is terrible,
>>their primary mission is to be a jobs program for administrators and
>>teachers. The nominal mission is educating children.
>>
>
>
> I have no problem with targetting administrators (LAUSD's could use
> a good cleaning), but it takes a special kind of moron to blame
> teachers; for teachers, educating children is not just job one, it's
> the *only* job!
And I am not THAT kind of moron. The teachers -- the good ones, anyway
-- are often as much victims of the situation as the parents and the
children.
So are the bad ones. They are denied the feedback that tells them they
aren't doing the job, which prevents them improving or finding work
where they CAN feel at the end of the day like they've done something
that matters.
>>The ads in support of higher public school taxes or increased school
>>district debt or teachers unions are about the quality of education "for
>>the children". They are about the nominal mission.
>>
>
>
> Hmmm, union-bashing, how . . . robber baron-ish!
Are you saying the quoted text is not true? Or just the second sentence
of it?
> . . . and yes, when I become a teacher, I will be a *very* proud
> member of the California Teachers Association; the only way to stand
> up to management is as a group, especially when management is corrupt
> administrators; if that's not an argument for 100% union membership of
> the US workforce, I don't know what is . . .
Impressive levels educational achievement by the students of unionized
teachers? (Impressively GOOD levels, I mean.)
Other ways: forming a teacher-owned school, working where the management
isn't corrupt. Those are outside the "education is a vital service
which is best performed by government" world view, so they tend to not
occur to people
>>The union contracts are about a lot of things, but not the quality of
>>education. They are about the actual mission.
>>
>>That's not entirely true.
>>
>>Some contracts explicitly prohibit any connection between educational
>>achievement and teacher compensation.
>>
>
>
> Yup, 'cause there are no other factors in a child's performance,
> certainly not parents, or quality of life. Of course, it takes a
> special kind of asshole to believe the last sentence . . .
And I am not THAT kind of asshole. Nor am I the kind who would propose
that 100% of a teacher's compensation would depend on educational
achievement. Nor am I the kind who would propose that teacher's
compensation be completely independent of educational achievement.
If a teacher consistently (or even frequently) has students with
exceptional levels of educational achievement, that should tell you
something, and that something probably should be reflected to some
degree in the teacher's pay. (Back to the "nominal mission" versus
"actual mission".)
And what would be wrong with a bonus of 3 or 5 or 8 percent of base pay
for a year in which students' education achievement is exceptionally
good? Nothing that I can see.
Plus, it would be nice if teachers who were unsuited to the classroom
(owing to legal problems of a relevant nature, for instance) could be
fired, rather than doing nothing for their workdays. New York public
schools have a building for teachers like that. (Around minute 31 in
this video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4pN-aiofw> is a reference
to "the rubber room" where unsuitable-but-unfireable teachers spend the
school days.)
> Katana > Chain Saw > Baseball Bat > Hammer
Rock < Paper < Scissors < Lizard < Spock
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
>
> . . . and yes, when I become a teacher, I will be a *very* proud
> member of the California Teachers Association; the only way to stand
> up to management is as a group, especially when management is corrupt
> administrators; if that's not an argument for 100% union membership of
> the US workforce, I don't know what is . . .
>
But who stands up for the membership when the union management is
corrupt administrators?
racs...@gmail.com
>
> And what would be wrong with a bonus of 3 or 5 or 8 percent of base pay
> for a year in which students' education achievement is exceptionally
> good? Nothing that I can see.
>
Assuming that all kids are the same, this cookie-cutter approach to
pay bonuses will work quite well.
If, on the other hand, some kids are easier to teach than others and
some have different personalities, needs and abilities, then it's a
pretty powerful message to teachers that they shouldn't take on those
tough-to-teach kids, and that whatever progress they are able to make
with those kids will simply result in a lower paycheck. So the senior
teachers will cherry-pick the honor students for themselves and to
hell with the kids who actually need a little extra attention from
someone with experience.
But, hey, all kids ARE exactly the same, right? Some students fail
because teachers have unions. The rest are on the honor roll.
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
Dann
news:197426e9-7d98-4fe6...@n41g2000yqh.googlegroups.com.
> If, on the other hand, some kids are easier to teach than others and
> some have different personalities, needs and abilities, then it's a
> pretty powerful message to teachers that they shouldn't take on those
> tough-to-teach kids, and that whatever progress they are able to make
> with those kids will simply result in a lower paycheck. So the senior
> teachers will cherry-pick the honor students for themselves and to
> hell with the kids who actually need a little extra attention from
> someone with experience.
When isn't that the case?
Sherwood Harrington
> On 14 Dec 2008, pete...@SPAMnelliebly.org said the following in
> news:197426e9-7d98-4fe6...@n41g2000yqh.googlegroups.com.
>> If, on the other hand, some kids are easier to teach than others and
>> some have different personalities, needs and abilities, then it's a
>> pretty powerful message to teachers that they shouldn't take on those
>> tough-to-teach kids, and that whatever progress they are able to make
>> with those kids will simply result in a lower paycheck. So the senior
>> teachers will cherry-pick the honor students for themselves and to
>> hell with the kids who actually need a little extra attention from
>> someone with experience.
> When isn't that the case?
As a "senior teacher" by almost any definition, I sincerely hope that
you're joking here, Dann.
--
Sherwood Harrington
Boulder Creek, California
Dann
$1...@blue.rahul.net.
> Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 14 Dec 2008, pete...@SPAMnelliebly.org said the following in
>> news:197426e9-7d98-4fe6-84b5-1a46ce14ce09
@n41g2000yqh.googlegroups.com.
>
>>> If, on the other hand, some kids are easier to teach than others and
>>> some have different personalities, needs and abilities, then it's a
>>> pretty powerful message to teachers that they shouldn't take on those
>>> tough-to-teach kids, and that whatever progress they are able to make
>>> with those kids will simply result in a lower paycheck. So the senior
>>> teachers will cherry-pick the honor students for themselves and to
>>> hell with the kids who actually need a little extra attention from
>>> someone with experience.
>
>> When isn't that the case?
>
> As a "senior teacher" by almost any definition, I sincerely hope that
> you're joking here, Dann.
>
Nope. I'm pretty serious. When school administration rules....or the
personal ethics of the "senior teacher".....don't otherwise prevent such
cherry picking, when doesn't that sort of thing happen?
It seems to be less of a problem in smaller school districts where it is
hard to avoid those tough-to-teach kids.
To be fair, I don't think that this is particularly unique to education.
Anyone in a situation where they have the opportunity to coast while
others work hard is going to be tempted to do so.
The Deacon seems to think that performance bonuses will create this sort
of problem. I'm just trying to point out that the problem already exists
to a certain extent.