NYT Brooks and the PNAC.pdf; How many Sarah Palins have read it?
Mort Zuckerman
Durlan...@yale.edu, Aa...@columbia.edu, gary_w...@nymc.edu,
scientifi...@ostp.gov, pkru...@princeton.edu,
Stanle...@fiu.edu, emcsw...@niaid.nih.gov, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
Spin...@yahoogroups.com, kshe...@calea.org, fit...@gmail.com,
patrick.f...@usdoj.gov, model...@sbcglobal.net,
jdr...@nejm.org, let...@courant.com, Jgerb...@cdc.gov,
michae...@po.state.ct.us, con...@po.state.ct.us, executive-
edi...@nytimes.com, managin...@nytimes.com, news-
ti...@nytimes.com, biz...@nytimes.com, for...@nytimes.com,
nati...@nytimes.com, dv...@cdc.gov, brigidc...@optonline.net,
tr...@hotmail.com, illino...@aol.com, jle...@courant.com,
tinaj...@yahoo.com, jhorn...@fff.org, thomas...@usdoj.gov,
thoma...@po.state.ct.us, kur...@washpost.com,
georg...@washpost.com, p...@allegorypress.com,
commissi...@po.state.ct.us, brans...@comcast.net,
vts...@comcast.net, o...@po.state.ct.us, freet...@charter.net,
scott....@po.state.ct.us, govern...@po.state.ct.us,
attorney...@po.state.ct.us, randall...@usdoj.gov,
Robert....@yale.edu, edi...@greenwich-post.com,
harol...@yale.edu, sedm...@nswbc.org, rrmcg...@aol.com,
fr...@nytimes.com, dpr...@stmartin.edu
Cc: fra...@ucia.gov, dr-ahma...@president.ir,
eugener...@washpost.com, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
bmi...@newstimes.com, tr...@hotmail.com, rast...@aol.com,
billc...@gmail.com, amcg...@rms-law.com, rjmu...@aol.com,
paulcrai...@yahoo.com, sidney_b...@yahoo.com,
criminal...@usdoj.gov, karla.d...@usdoj.gov,
christophe...@usdoj.gov, richar...@yale.edu,
harol...@yale.edu, james.p...@yale.edu, inq...@aldf.com,
ly...@idsociety.org, meganm...@theatlantic.com
Subject: NYT Brooks and the PNAC.pdf; How many Sarah Palins have read
it?
Date: Jan 22, 2010 8:17 AM
ARTICLE BELOW
==============================
PNAC:
"After 2010 – seemingly a long way off
but well within traditional defense planning
horizons – the outlook for increased military
spending under current plans becomes even
more doubtful. ***In the coming decades, the
network of social entitlement programs,
particularly Social Security, will generate a
further squeeze on other federal spending
programs.*** If defense budgets remain at
projected levels, America’s global military
preeminence will be impossible to maintain,
as will the world order that is secured by
that preeminence."
http://www.actionlyme.org/PNAC.pdf
page 71, ^^^ bottom left.
TRANSLATION: "If we spend money on Americans
who are sick, disabled or elderly, we won't
have as much money to spend on the AmerIsraeli
Fascists' (like Brooks') wars!!!"
How many Sarah Palins and Jodi Rells
have read the PNAC? Even if someone
read it to the likes of these Retarded
Repugs and Evangelitards, they wouldn't
understand it. They have some kind
of a brain-block where if it's not
"ALL ABOUT MEEeee" - a popularity contest -,
it's all about "DON'T GIVE ANYTHING TO LAZY
or BLACK PEOPLE!!!"
"Because Bad Stuff only happens to Bad
People. Bad People picked Bad-People
Genes before they were born. That's how
you can tell Bad People apart from
Good People, who should not have to
pay for Bad People, who chose the Bad
Genes before they were born."
This is why Repugs vote against
Healthcare reform or Single Payor.
Some little PNAC-Israeli-Fascist demon
whispered in their little pinheaded ears
and said: "This means more free stuff for
people who don't deserve it."
The truth is that the Bigs *OWN* Health
and by virtue of their various RICO
tactics: 1) managing whole diseases,
http://www.actionlyme.org/ALDF_BOARD.htm
says Wendell Potter, and of course,
the 2) ever popular blame-the-victimology
of "Shaken Baby"
http://www.actionlyme.org/100120.htm
or "Munchausens"
http://www.actionlyme.org/MUNCHAUSENS.htm
http://www.actionlyme.org/MCSWEEGAN_AND_MUNCHAUSENS.htm
as the false cause of vaccines damage - deploying
The Most Reliably Stupid "social-worker" DCFtards,
deny the world access to the actual
*science* of the Non-Health we all have.
Brooks blames the Dems and says they
have no leadership abilities.
Well, that's true, but for the wrong
reasons. The real reason is the likes
of Brooks and his "Death Becomes Her"
walking corpse of a newspaper, the Also-
Owned (by the Bigs), The Gray Lady.
The likes of the fascist Brooks are
pulling the strings of the Dead
Marionettes.
What a scene.
What a show.
The Silence of the Lambs.
KMDickson
http://www.actionlyme.org
=======
January 22, 2010
Op-Ed Columnist
Politics in the Age of Distrust
By DAVID BROOKS
In November 2008, William A. Galston and Elaine C. Kamarck wrote a
report called “Change You Can Believe In Needs a Government You Can
Trust.” Galston and Kamarck, who served in senior positions in the
Clinton administration, threw up some warning flags for the incoming
Obama administration.
Despite the Democratic triumph that month, they noted, public distrust
of government remains intensely high. Historically, it has been nearly
impossible to pass major domestic reforms in the face of that kind of
distrust. Therefore, they counseled, the new administration should
move cautiously to rebuild trust before beginning a transformational
agenda.
The Obama administration interpreted the political climate in an
entirely different way. As John F. Harris and Carol E. Lee wrote in a
smart piece in Politico on Wednesday, the administration interpreted
the 2008 election as a rejection of not only George W. Bush-style
conservatism, but also Bill Clinton-style moderation. The country was
ready for a New Deal-size change. It had a leader in Barack Obama who
could uniquely inspire a national transformation.
As happens every four years, hubris defeated caution, and the
administration began its big-bang approach.
As always, it backfired. Instead of building trust in government, the
Democrats have magnified distrust. The country already believed
Washington is out of touch with its core concerns. So while most
families were concerned about jobs, Democrats in Washington spent nine
months arguing about health care. The country was already tired of
self-serving back-room deals, so the Democrats negotiated a series of
dirty deals with the pharmaceutical industry, the unions and certain
senators. Americans already felt Washington doesn’t understand their
fears and insecurities. So at the moment when economic insecurity was
at its peak, the Democrats in Washington added another layer of
insecurity by threatening to change everything at once.
Instead of building a new majority, the Democrats have set off a
distrust insurrection (which is not the same as a conservative
insurrection). Republicans are enraged. Independents are furious.
Democrats are disheartened. Health care reform is brutally unpopular.
Even voters in Massachusetts decided it was time to send a message.
The Democrats now have four bad options. The first is what you might
call the Heedless and Arrogant Approach. A clear majority of Americans
are against the Congressional health care reform plan. Democrats could
say: We know this is unpopular, but we think it is good policy and we
are going to ram it through and you voters can judge us by the
results.
The second route is what you might call the Weak and Feckless
Approach. Democrats could say: We have received and respect the
message voters are sending. We are not going to shove the biggest
social transformation in a generation down the throats of a country
that has judged and rejected it. We are not going to concentrate
immense new powers in a Washington the country detests.
Instead, we will regroup and reorganize. Perhaps we will try
incremental reforms. Perhaps we will use federal money to support a
series of state reform efforts — like the one in Massachusetts — which
are closer to the people. (In 2007, Russ Feingold, a Democrat, and
Lindsey Graham, a Republican, co-sponsored the State-Based Health Care
Reform Act to spark this kind of local experimentation.)
The third approach is the Dangerous and Demagogic Approach. This
begins with the presumption that what Americans really want is a bunch
of pseudopopulists to tell them they can have everything for free.
This would mean stripping the health bills of anything that might be
unpopular — like Medicare cuts and tax increases — and passing the
rest regardless of the cost.
The fourth approach is the Incoherent and Internecine Approach. This
would involve settling on no coherent policy but just blaming each
other for cowardice and stupidity for the next month. Liberals, who
make up 20 percent of the country, could complain because they didn’t
get their version of reform. The Senate and the House could bash each
other. The intelligentsia could bash the public.
Right now, Incoherent and Internecine is winning, but the hard choice
is between the first two approaches. Galston, ironically, now supports
Heedless and Arrogant. It was a mistake to rush into health care, he
believes, but now that the party is down the road it would be suicide
to turn back. Democrats should stand for what they believe in. If the
policy works, then public trust will follow.
I support the Weak and Feckless Approach. Trust is based on mutual
respect and reciprocity. If, at this moment of rage and cynicism, the
ruling class goes even further and snubs popular opinion, then that
will set off an ugly, destructive, and yet fully justified popular
rebellion. Trust in government will be irrevocably broken. It will
decimate policy-making for a generation.
These are the choices ahead. Have a nice day.
"[Real] scientists are *fiercely* independent. That's the good
news."-- NIH's Top Fool, Anthony Fauci