ATTN: JMS: Re: Off-topic from jms re: campaign 2000
scarabz
I REALLY want to debate the previous two posts.
But that discussion doesn't belong here.
I've just found an interesting political BBS, though it
already has a pretty good amount of traffic... perhaps
some of us can take up some of these things there, where
there seem to be a good number of well-informed people.
Not plugging the place for any reason other than it's the
first online place I've found to have reasonably intelligent,
free political discussion (not that I've looked much).
It's over at:
http://bbs.msnbc.com/bbs/msnbc-Matthews/index.asp
(BBS related to the program "Hardball" with Chris Matthews,
airs for 1 hour every weekday).
If anyone has any other suggestions, feel free, I'll likely
give them a try too.
--SCarab
"Not The One."
James Bell
> Well-spoken and very thought-provoking. Thank you.
>
> I also have a gut-instinct liking for McCain, but his stance on
> environmental issues worries me: it seems to me that we're at a time
> in history when we need to put the environment above all else. Because if
> we don't, the consequences will be far more severe and far-reaching than
> the consequences of anything else we could do or fail to do. We tend to
> think only of ourselves and our children and grandchildren, but I believe
> that the time has come to think of our grandchildren's grandchildren's
> grandchildren. Community breakdown is, in the end, short-term. A
> trashed earth is permanent.
That's an interesting viewpoint. There are those who would say the opposite:
community breakdown is long-term and a trashed earth is short-term. Earth is
self-repairing like a Whitestar (keeping on topic). Extinction of humanity is
irreversible.
I don't know if I would go that far but I certainly think the hype over the
environment is mostly hype.
Jim
> On 18 Feb 2000, Jms at B5 wrote:
>
> > This isn't B5, it's just me on this one, so feel free to ignore.
> >
> > You have to understand where I'm coming from on this. The first time I voted
> > in a Presidential election I couldn't *wait* to vote because it would give me
> > the opportunity to vote against that creep Nixon in 1972, for whom I'm sure an
> > entire section of hell has been set aside.
> >
> > I'm 45 years old, and in the 28 years since then, I have never once voted for a
> > Republican for president. Not Ronald ("Just Tell Me What To Say Boss") Reagan,
> > not George Bush, not Dole, not *one* of them because I couldn't find any of
> > them that was worth a damn in my book.
> >
> > As much to my consternation as anyone else's, I find to my astonishment that I
> > will be supporting McCain in this election.
> >
> > Take it as read that I disagree with some of his positions. I think he's too
> > conservative on some pro-choice and environmental issues.
> >
> > But at the same time, whenever I see a prospective Supreme Court justice being
> > grilled by conservative senators on the abortion issue, trying to make it a
> > litmus test for eligibility, I find I'm grinding my molars into powder with
> > frustration...so how can I then turn around and do the same thing? I'm not
> > supporting him because I agree with everything he says, or because I think he's
> > liberal, or any of that. I think the courts will be more influential on those
> > issues in the long term than a president in any event (though I'm fully
> > cognizant that he will be appointing some of those judges).
> >
> > For me, this isn't a left- or right-wing thing, lliberal or conservative; from
> > where I sit, the American Eagle has to have a right and a left wing in good
> > working order or it ain't gonna get off the ground. So I don't play that game.
> > Never have.
> >
> > To me, it's an issue of who's the best *person* for the job. I think Gore
> > would be okay, I think Bradley would be okay...GWBush would be an unmitigated
> > disaster, this guy is a mean, venal, manipulative guy who, as one publication
> > put it, "was born on third base and thinks he hit a triple," who thinks the job
> > is his by default, who got here only because the massive money guys in the
> > Republican party want someone they can own and control....
> >
> > Then I look at McCain, and I have to confess that despite my reluctance to ever
> > vote Republican, he's the best *person* for the task in my view. I like his
> > forthrightness, his attitude, the way he conducts his business, the ideas he
> > brings to the table, and his background. I think he comes from the same mold
> > of presidents as Truman, or Teddy Roosevelt.
> >
> > I think he can be a bridge between generations. I believe that he can return
> > to the nation a sense of mutual responsibility and community and self-sacrifice
> > that has been noticeably lacking of late.
> >
> > Now, I'm in the most trivial and ephemeral of professions: I make TeeVee shows.
> > So I've got no business preaching to anybody about anything. So I put this
> > out there only as a thought, to those fans of B5 in South Carolina and Michigan
> > and Arizona and elsewhere: if you've made up your mind on anybody else, I think
> > that's great, go and do. But if you're on the fence and not sure, for whatever
> > small value it has, I would ask you to consider taking a chance on McCain.
> >
> > If the show has had merit for you, if the ideas and values the show has put
> > forth have had value, then I ask that you give this guy the benefit of the
> > doubt.
> >
> > I know this is a small breach of protocol, but as far as I can remember, I
> > don't think I've used this pulpit much to advocate for anyone during a
> > political election. I hope you understand that I don't do this lightly, and
> > will probably never do so again. My perspective has always been to stay the
> > heck out of these things and not to abuse the voice that producing a show can
> > provide by advocating personal causes. (Though as always anyone who wants to
> > contribute to the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, or a local battered woman's
> > shelter, is always on my A-list of people.)
> >
> > It's just that something deep in my gut says this is the right man, in the
> > right place, at the right time, for what's ahead, and to not say that would be
> > irresponsible.
> >
> > Joe Straczynski
> >
> > jms
> >
> > (jms...@aol.com)
> > B5 Official Fan Club at:
> > http://www.thestation.com
> > (all message content (c) 2000 by
> > synthetic worlds, ltd., permission
> > to reprint specifically denied to
> > SFX Magazine)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Maia Bernstein
> mb...@columbia.edu
> ********************************************************************************
> "At the still point, there the dance is"
> --T.S. Eliot
> ********************************************************************************
ImRastro
>The first time I voted
> in a Presidential election I couldn't *wait* to vote because it would give
>me
>the opportunity to vote against that creep Nixon in 1972, for whom I'm sure
>an
> entire section of hell has been set aside.
I couldn't wait to vote in my first election because it gave me the opportunity
to vote against Reagan who, I have no doubt, will be joining Nixon in hell. I
was devistated when he won. I could not understand what I considered the
wilfull ignorance of the majority. Ah well.
As a life-long leftist, I don't know if I can vote for a republican. I am too
concerned for the supreme court. I would note, however, that the majority of
my family (life long politically active democrats since Grandpa and Grandma
came off the boat) are seriously considering McCain.
Oddly, I think that is McCain's biggest problem (that and the fact that he
"went negative" in S. Carolina), the majority of his supporters are moderate to
conservative democrats and he can't make inroads into the the conservative
republican camp.
He shoulda switched sides.
Iain Rae
: Maia Bernstein wrote:
:> Well-spoken and very thought-provoking. Thank you.
:>
:> I also have a gut-instinct liking for McCain, but his stance on
:> environmental issues worries me: it seems to me that we're at a time
:> in history when we need to put the environment above all else. Because if
:> we don't, the consequences will be far more severe and far-reaching than
:> the consequences of anything else we could do or fail to do. We tend to
:> think only of ourselves and our children and grandchildren, but I believe
:> that the time has come to think of our grandchildren's grandchildren's
:> grandchildren. Community breakdown is, in the end, short-term. A
:> trashed earth is permanent.
: That's an interesting viewpoint. There are those who would say the opposite:
: community breakdown is long-term and a trashed earth is short-term. Earth is
: self-repairing like a Whitestar (keeping on topic). Extinction of humanity is
: irreversible.
Hmm don't know if I'd go for self-repairing (that implies a return to a
particular state) but the Earth is clearly fairly stable when it comes to
life friendly environments as it can survive fairly cataclismic effects
(the dinosaur meteor strike and the dark ages Krakatoa eruption for example)
Whether we can survive these disasters is another matter.
I keep saying to "green" friends that life on Earth doesn't need to be
protected, it's been around for a lot longer than we have been and it'll be
around long after we're gone, it's humanity that we've got to worry about.
: I don't know if I would go that far but I certainly think the hype over the
: environment is mostly hype.
Some of it is, some of it isn't I suspect a lot of it comes from the fact that
we don't have a lot of historical information about what happens in some of
the places involved.
What annoys me most is the Nuclear/fossil fuel=BAD, wind/hydro/wave/solar
power=GOOD brigade. Any power generating plant is going to have some sort
of environmental impact.
<big snip> Oooohhh please don't do that, think of the megabytes of wasted
space on servers across the globe
WWS
ImRastro wrote:
>
> JMS wrote:
>
> >The first time I voted
> > in a Presidential election I couldn't *wait* to vote because it would give
> >me
> >the opportunity to vote against that creep Nixon in 1972, for whom I'm sure
> >an
> > entire section of hell has been set aside.
>
> I couldn't wait to vote in my first election because it gave me the opportunity
> to vote against Reagan who, I have no doubt, will be joining Nixon in hell. I
> was devistated when he won. I could not understand what I considered the
> wilfull ignorance of the majority. Ah well.
Even with all the evidence in, you still can't bear to admit that Reagan
was the best president America had in the last 50 years. Not only did
the country end up in far better shape than it was when he took over,
his policies were directly responsible for the collapse of the Soviet
Union and the death of communism as a serious political movement.
And the left can never forgive him for that.
Proud to say the first vote I ever cast in my life was for Reagan, in
1980, and he lived up to everything I ever hoped for from him.
>
> Oddly, I think that is McCain's biggest problem (that and the fact that he
> "went negative" in S. Carolina), the majority of his supporters are moderate to
> conservative democrats and he can't make inroads into the the conservative
> republican camp.
>
> He shoulda switched sides.
The democratic party just isn't a home for anyone who respects the
military, or this country's position in the world anymore. That's
why it's not only going to lose the presidency, but both branches
of Congress as well.
And I actually think McCain's position on National Security is
much more well thought out than GeeDubyah's - he would make
a great defense secretary. If you recall, he was one of the
only senators who said the bombing in Serbia didn't go nearly
far enough.
--
__________________________________________________WWS_____________
Maia Bernstein
> Maia Bernstein wrote:
>
> > Well-spoken and very thought-provoking. Thank you.
> >
> > I also have a gut-instinct liking for McCain, but his stance on
> > environmental issues worries me: it seems to me that we're at a time
> > in history when we need to put the environment above all else. Because if
> > we don't, the consequences will be far more severe and far-reaching than
> > the consequences of anything else we could do or fail to do. We tend to
> > think only of ourselves and our children and grandchildren, but I believe
> > that the time has come to think of our grandchildren's grandchildren's
> > grandchildren. Community breakdown is, in the end, short-term. A
> > trashed earth is permanent.
>
> That's an interesting viewpoint. There are those who would say the opposite:
> community breakdown is long-term and a trashed earth is short-term. Earth is
> self-repairing like a Whitestar (keeping on topic). Extinction of humanity is
> irreversible.
Two cases in point:
1.)The Roman Empire. Social problems get completely out of control,
Vandals come in, civilization collapses. A few hundred horrific years of
the Dark Ages, and then human beings do what we always do: start over.
2.)The dinosaurs. Environmental catastrophe. Dominant species is wiped
out, and it takes millions of years for evolution to catch up.
And no, I am not arguing that social problems should be ignored. But the
earth is only self-repairing over millions of years. Humanity is
self-repairing over hundreds of years. Hence, the environment should be
#1 priority.
Patrick MARCEL
> (the dinosaur meteor strike and the dark ages Krakatoa eruption for example)
"Dark ages"? That was in 1883!! And I doubt people were even *aware* of
Krakatoa's existence in the Dark Ages.
Patrick
--
"We are all born as molecules in the heart of a billion stars; molecules
that do not understand politics or policies or differences. Over a
billion years, we foolish molecules forget who we are, and where we came
from. In desperate acts of ego we give ourselves names, fight over lines
on maps, and pretend our light is better than everyone else's. The flame
reminds us of the piece of those stars that lives on inside us, the
spark that tells us, 'you know better'." JMS
scarabz
Maia Bernstein wrote:
>
> On 20 Feb 2000, James Bell wrote:
>
> > Maia Bernstein wrote:
> >
> > > Well-spoken and very thought-provoking. Thank you.
> > >
> > > I also have a gut-instinct liking for McCain, but his stance on
> > > environmental issues worries me: it seems to me that we're at a time
> > > in history when we need to put the environment above all else. Because if
> > > we don't, the consequences will be far more severe and far-reaching than
> > > the consequences of anything else we could do or fail to do. We tend to
> > > think only of ourselves and our children and grandchildren, but I believe
> > > that the time has come to think of our grandchildren's grandchildren's
> > > grandchildren. Community breakdown is, in the end, short-term. A
> > > trashed earth is permanent.
> >
> > That's an interesting viewpoint. There are those who would say the opposite:
> > community breakdown is long-term and a trashed earth is short-term. Earth is
> > self-repairing like a Whitestar (keeping on topic). Extinction of humanity is
> > irreversible.
>
> Two cases in point:
>
> 1.)The Roman Empire. Social problems get completely out of control,
> Vandals come in, civilization collapses. A few hundred horrific years of
> the Dark Ages, and then human beings do what we always do: start over.
>
> 2.)The dinosaurs. Environmental catastrophe. Dominant species is wiped
> out, and it takes millions of years for evolution to catch up.
>
> And no, I am not arguing that social problems should be ignored. But the
> earth is only self-repairing over millions of years. Humanity is
> self-repairing over hundreds of years. Hence, the environment should be
> #1 priority.
OK, since the debate seems to have taken off on this board anyway...
The environmental catastrophe which wiped out the dinosaurs wasn't
caused
by any earth creature. It was caused by an impact many, many times more
devatating than all the weapons we could ever hope to produce, combined.
That's the sort of thing which takes a long while to repair (though
millions of years, even in that case, is a gross overestimate for Earth
getting back on track... but of course, the dinosarus never recovered ;)
Next: ever hear of the "little ice age"? 1600's, and worldwide temperatures
dropped. That's when a lot of the old tales concerning skating on frozen
over canals, and the frozen Thames come from. People had nothing to do
with it. Most likely cause: decrease in solar activity. (Look around on
the web for "Maunder Minimum" and "little ice age.") If you try to track
the average sunspot number over a decade or so versus the worldwide
temperature average, they track each other reasonably well, looking at the
last 300 years or so. More convincing to me than the under 50 years worth
of carbon dioxide data. Looking at long-term trends, many
climatologists
think the earth may very well be headed into another ice age in the next
few thousand years. Also, in the 1300's, there was a big warming trend
(global average temps rose a little under 5 degrees)... again nothing to
do with humans. The earth is not static: it fluctuates on its own.
Anything we mere humans can do, we can adapt to pretty darned easily.
Pick an environmental issue... most are blown way out of proportion for
political purposes. Are there problems? Sure. Are there some that
are as bad as are portrayed? Sure, a few. But none are of truly "earth-
shattering" proportions.
You want references or more debate? Let's find an appropriate forum for
this discussion. I'm a news junkie, and a scientist. I've become
conservative by devouring information. You have facts, show them to
me... I want to know what there is to know about these things.
Good luck to all seeking truth.
--SCarab
"Not The One"
Jms at B5
>was the best president America had in the last 50 years. Not only did
>the country end up in far better shape than it was when he took over,
>his policies were directly responsible for the collapse of the Soviet
>Union and the death of communism as a serious political movement.
He did this in part by spending them into the ground on military projects, and
along the way almost did the same thing to *us* by ringing up the biggest
deficit in history, which we are *still* trying to pay off.
And let us not forget his administration's attitude toward education and the
environment (good old Watt who declared that in school food programs, catsup
could be considered a vegetable for dietary purposes).
Now it's Reagan who can be considered a vegetable. I find something most
appropos about that.
Pelzo63
<snip all political content in an attempt to lighten up this thread>
>(good old Watt who declared that in school food programs, catsup
>could be considered a vegetable for dietary purposes).
FWIW, growing up just a few miles from the Heinz plant in Pittsburgh, it's
ketchup, not catsup, anything that's labeled as catsup is just watered down
tomato paste ;-)
and i do believe i read last year that Salsa is now a "vegetable", so i see no
reason why tomato paste with salt and vinegar is not a vegetable. :-)
---Chris AOL/AIM--Pelzo63
http://members.aol.com/pelzo63/welcome.html
"a blast from alaska hit the southland today" more like a blast from seattle...
Corun MacAnndra
>
>Two cases in point:
>
>1.)The Roman Empire. Social problems get completely out of control,
>Vandals come in, civilization collapses. A few hundred horrific years of
>the Dark Ages, and then human beings do what we always do: start over.
THis is a severe misconception. There were no "Dark Ages". If you actually
look at the art and culture that came from many parts of post-Romano
Europe and Britain you will see marvels. Serious historians are trying
desparately to remove the term "Dark Ages" from the history texts and
the minds of those who would learn something of history.
Also, no one "started over" after the fall of the Roman Empire (which
never really fell in the truest sense but went on to become first the
Holy Roman Empire then the Roman Catholic Church will survives today),
they continued and grew and built new marvels and expanded culture.
As for "horrific" let me remind you that the 20th century has seen
as much horror as ever occured throughout hundreds of combined years
of the Middle Ages.
>2.)The dinosaurs. Environmental catastrophe. Dominant species is wiped
>out, and it takes millions of years for evolution to catch up.
What are you talking about when you say evolution had to catch up? What
do you know of evolution that you can make such a generalization?
Corun
J. Potts
JMS wrote:
>The first time I voted
> in a Presidential election I couldn't *wait* to vote because it would give
> me the opportunity to vote against that creep Nixon in 1972, for whom I'm
> sure an entire section of hell has been set aside.
ImRastro wrote:
> I couldn't wait to vote in my first election because it gave me the
> opportunity to vote against Reagan who, I have no doubt, will be joining
> Nixon in hell. I was devistated when he won. I could not understand what
> I considered the wilfull ignorance of the majority. Ah well.
In article <38B0592E...@tyler.net>, WWS <wsch...@tyler.net> wrote:
>Even with all the evidence in, you still can't bear to admit that Reagan
>was the best president America had in the last 50 years. Not only did
>the country end up in far better shape than it was when he took over,
>his policies were directly responsible for the collapse of the Soviet
>Union and the death of communism as a serious political movement.
Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha!
I'm sorry. But that's just *too* funny. Hell, it was obvious to me from
reading books I'd read on what life was like in the Soviet Union prior to
the Reagan administration that the USSR was doomed. It was simply a matter
of time before it would piss off it's own people sufficiently for them to
over throw it. The only thing the US did was act as a target to vent the
populace's frustrations over their own life.
You're comments remind me of Bush taking credit for the fall of the USSR.
Sorry, but he just happened to be on duty when it happened.
Try reading "Mig Pilot" or "Two Worlds of Childhood - U.S. and USSR"
People complain about the legal troubles of Clinton and his appointees.
They seem quick to forget how many of Reagan's appointees got into legal
hot water as well. I also well remember the the jokes being made about
Secretary of Interior James Watt. Thanks, but no thanks. As much as I
dislike many of the things done by Clinton, I still think he made a better
president than Reagan.
--
JRP
"How many slime-trailing, sleepless, slimy, slobbering things do you know
that will *run and hide* from your Eveready?"
--Maureen Birnbaum, Barbarian Swordsperson
Nathan Shafer
>
> Now it's Reagan who can be considered a vegetable. I find something most
> appropos about that.
Joe, shame on you. Whatever your disagreements with RR on policy, to
make that kind of cruel joke is simply abysmal, and I am very disappoin-
ted. I've never seen you that needlessly cruel before, and have to say
I don't like it.
Nathan Shafer
Nathan Shafer
>
> I was devistated when [Reagan] won. I could not understand what I considered
Reminds me of all of the Communist apparatchiks in East Germany who
simply couldn't understand how the Volk could have decided to reject
scientific socialism in favor of crass, decadent capitalism.
- Nathan
Sean L Mclane
Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Now it's Reagan who can be considered a vegetable. I find something most
>appropos about that.
>
>
All politics aside, I find this comment to be particularly crude, Joe.
I don't regularly read newsgroups due to time limitations, but I receive
digests of the articles you post through a mailing list. Over the past several
years I've marveled at the information you've provided, the insight you've
shown, and the integrity you've maintained. I have not always agreed with
you, but I've respected you for the person you are, and the strength with
which you hold to your beliefs and convictions.
In one sentence, Joe, you have caused me to lose all of my respect for you.
After years of lurking, I was moved to search out this post on the newsgroup,
and reply to you to tell you this. I will still remain a fan of Babylon 5,
as it was a great show, but I cannot justify continuing to follow your posts
any longer. I will be unsubscribing to that mailing list, as anything I read
in the future from you will be tainted by the above comment you made.
Why am I so sensitive? My grandmother had Alzheimer's. She died from it.
It was horrible.
I wish you a good life, and a good future Joe.
Good Bye.
--
Sean L. McLane | I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed,
| briefed, debriefed, or numbered.
My life is my own!
-The Prisoner
Tammy Smith
has Alzheimers. My grandmother died of it, & my father may have it. So
the "vegetable" comment seemed a bit harsh to me.
Tammy
J. Potts
: along the way almost did the same thing to *us* by ringing up the biggest
: deficit in history, which we are *still* trying to pay off.
In article <d_4s4.1$lF....@news.pcnet.com>,
John Dutka <jdu...@pcnet1.pcnet.com> wrote:
>I don't see the problem there. It's a good thing, IMO, that Reagan built up
>our armed forces. It's very obvious now that we've fallen behind and suffered
>in the Clinton era. The armed forces and military platform programs have been
>cut so far that they can't retain or recruit enough people to fill the severe
>shortages, there are shortages in parts and maintenance and the armed forces
>can't even fill its mandated duties, shown by Kosovo. If Saddam or North
>Korea (or China...or a militaristic Russia) decided to call our bluff, we'd
>be hard pressed to have handled both conflicts. We lucked out.
Hate to break it to you, but they were doing some severe resource (as in
personnel) cutting prior to Clinton. I know, I was there. There were
incentives right and left to rid the military of as many people as possible.
That was during the Bush administration. You can't lay all the blame at
Clinton's doorstep.
Kurtz
> Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha!
>
> I'm sorry. But that's just *too* funny. Hell, it was obvious to me from
> reading books I'd read on what life was like in the Soviet Union prior to
> the Reagan administration that the USSR was doomed. It was simply a
matter
> of time before it would piss off it's own people sufficiently for them to
> over throw it. The only thing the US did was act as a target to vent the
> populace's frustrations over their own life.
>
Wasn't there some book out, in the late 70's or early 80's, about the
next World War? I vaguely recall it set in the early 90's, with an alternate
scenario where the Russian people basically revolt.
Again, this is from memory, but I recall from Gorbachev's book
("Perestroika"?) that he felt that the U.S. economy depended so heavily
on the 'military-industrial complex', that the harshest blow they could
deal to the U.S. was to offer peace. Of course, it was because they
could no longer sustain or justify their huge military expenditures after
so many failed efforts around the world.
I do think Reagan spent them into the ground, speeding up a process
that was already in the works. In the process, they nearly spent the U.S.
into the ground. I also think that Gorbachev miscalculated - unlike Russia,
the U.S. economy is a LOT more flexible, and the lack of a Cold War or
arms race not only did NOT break us, but allowed our economy to flourish
in different directions.
> You're comments remind me of Bush taking credit for the fall of the USSR.
> Sorry, but he just happened to be on duty when it happened.
>
Yes and no. No more than Clinton can take credit for the economy. The
smartest
thing he did with that was to leave Greenspan in office, and to basically
leave
it alone. Crediting our present economy to some paltry economic stimulus
package in '93 (when the boom itself began in '91) is every bit as
laughable.
Sorry, but he just happened to be on duty when it happened. Balancing the
budget helped a lot too, but I seem to remember not agreeing to balancing
the budget was precisely the reason he would not sign a continuing
resolution
back in '95 - both times. At that time he was fairly sure it could not be
done in
seven years, as he was requested to pledge to.
> Try reading "Mig Pilot" or "Two Worlds of Childhood - U.S. and USSR"
>
> People complain about the legal troubles of Clinton and his appointees.
> They seem quick to forget how many of Reagan's appointees got into legal
> hot water as well. I also well remember the the jokes being made about
> Secretary of Interior James Watt. Thanks, but no thanks. As much as I
> dislike many of the things done by Clinton, I still think he made a better
> president than Reagan.
>
>
>
I'm no fan of Reagan, and I never voted for him. Out of protest in '80 I
wrote
in Nixon, just to let people know how pissed I was over my choices. And my
friends can well attest that I used to brag that I'd leave the country
should he
get elected (I didn't). I detested Watt - the Republicans have an abysmal
record
on the environment (I'm a registered Democrat, but I tend to vote
conservatively).
But I don't think the scandals of Reagan compare to that of Clinton, and I
still
respect the character of those men, something I can't say for Clinton (I
voted
against him the second time around). For all the hoopla about the length and
cost of Starr's investigation, everyone seems to forget that Walsh's cost
about
as much and lasted about as long. That they implicated Bush as an
'unindicted
co-conspirator' (did I get that right?) on nearly the eve of the election.
Politics
is dirty.
I think this time around, I'm solidly for McCain. I think I can respect him
and
trust his integrity. The last several elections kept weeding out candidates
I
*liked* (Brown and Tsongas come to mind). Bush has no charisma, is a little
slow on the draw, and is too much of a waffler - plus the religious right
likes him
too much. Bradley hasn't a chance, but I will vote for him in my state's ele
ction.
I'd vote for a dead cat before I'd vote for Gore - but who would notice? His
little
stunt on Meet the Press a while back convinced me beyond anything he's a
weasel, and I loved how Bradley slam-dunked him.
J. Potts
> Bwa ha ha ha ha ha ha!
>
> I'm sorry. But that's just *too* funny. Hell, it was obvious to me from
> reading books I'd read on what life was like in the Soviet Union prior to
> the Reagan administration that the USSR was doomed. It was simply a
> matter of time before it would piss off it's own people sufficiently for
> them to over throw it. The only thing the US did was act as a target to
> vent the populace's frustrations over their own life.
>
In article <ODfs4.24927$Zp1.8...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
Kurtz <mal...@erols.com> wrote:
>Wasn't there some book out, in the late 70's or early 80's, about the
>next World War? I vaguely recall it set in the early 90's, with an alternate
>scenario where the Russian people basically revolt.
It's possible. However, the texts that I cited in my earlier post
were not works of fiction. One was a memoir of a Soviet Mig pilot who
defected to the west and the other was a sociological comparison of the
U.S. and USSR. It was published in 1970. The one about the Mig pilot,
Belenko, was published in 1980. It recounts Belenko's life in the USSR
and shows how miserable life was for him and the average citizen of the
Soviet Union.
>Again, this is from memory, but I recall from Gorbachev's book
>("Perestroika"?) that he felt that the U.S. economy depended so heavily
>on the 'military-industrial complex', that the harshest blow they could
>deal to the U.S. was to offer peace. Of course, it was because they
>could no longer sustain or justify their huge military expenditures after
>so many failed efforts around the world.
I can't help but wonder if Gorbachev knew that perestroika (sp?) would end
up causing the fall of the Soviet Union and that he saw this as a Good
Thing (tm). When I first heard about it, my first thought was, "Gee,
without the U.S. as an enemy, the soviet people will have no one to vent
their frustrations over how lousy life is in their country. That's gotta
be the beginning of the end for the USSR. What is Gorbachev thinking?
Doesn't he realize it's in the USSR's best interest to go on hating the
U.S.?" Maybe he did.
>I do think Reagan spent them into the ground, speeding up a process
>that was already in the works. In the process, they nearly spent the U.S.
>into the ground. I also think that Gorbachev miscalculated - unlike Russia,
>the U.S. economy is a LOT more flexible, and the lack of a Cold War or
>arms race not only did NOT break us, but allowed our economy to flourish
>in different directions.
Long before Reagan, things were pretty bad in the USSR. I doubt that having
more money freed up from military spending would have necessarily slowed
down their demise.
>But I don't think the scandals of Reagan compare to that of Clinton, and I
>still respect the character of those men, something I can't say for Clinton
>(I voted against him the second time around). For all the hoopla about the
>length and cost of Starr's investigation, everyone seems to forget that
>Walsh's cost about as much and lasted about as long. That they implicated
>Bush as an 'unindicted co-conspirator' (did I get that right?) on nearly
>the eve of the election. Politics is dirty.
Frankly, I doubt that had it been a republican in Clinton's place that
there would have been as much effort put in to the investigation. I
certainly don't condone what Clinton did. However, other presidents have
done things equally as smarmy as Clinton and either were very good at
keeping it hidden or no one felt as compelled to expose it. Most of the
folks from Reagan's administration that had legal troubles seemed to have
them in the area in which they were suppose to be working, which, in some
ways, is perhaps worse than getting caught with your knickers around your
knees. One's more of a private matter while the other is violating the
public trust.
C/1Lt. Joe Biles
that Hinckley fellow couldn't get closer. Oh well, at least the crook
will suffer longer this way. However bad Reagonomics may have been,
it's nothing on October Surprise and Iran/Contra. As far as JMS, the
only thing I can say is that Nixon is going to have company in his
private little corner of hell.
On 21 Feb 2000 07:16:44 -0700, Nathan Shafer <sha...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
>Jms at B5 wrote:
>>
>> Now it's Reagan who can be considered a vegetable. I find something most
>> appropos about that.
>
Iain Reid
"Patrick MARCEL" <mant...@wanadoo.fr> wrote in message
news:38B05751...@wanadoo.fr...
> Iain Rae mentioned:
>
> > (the dinosaur meteor strike and the dark ages Krakatoa eruption for
example)
>
> "Dark ages"? That was in 1883!! And I doubt people were even *aware* of
> Krakatoa's existence in the Dark Ages.
>
> Patrick
I bet the people who lived nearby were...
Iain Reid
Iain Reid
Politics - however surely after the fall of the Soviet Union it makes sense
to cut down on the US Military. The Armed forces were built up during the
cold war precisley because of the Cold War, and now that is over it makes
political, economic and military sense to decrease those troops.
America is facing no paticular "big" enemy just now (despite half-hearted
attempts to turn the Islamic religion into a "New Communism") and I would
think that spending money that would have been used to fight the Cold War if
it had ever warmed up a bit to improve things like education, social
welfare, health, law and order and other services would be a good thing.
Again, from a outsiders point of view, it seems to me that America needs to
realise even more than it does that there is no more Cold War - and that
means it can look inwards to solving it's own society's problems rather than
constantly looking in paranoia for outside threats to its society.
Iain Reid
"J. Potts" <nav...@xnet.com> wrote in message
news:88ruc1$keb$1...@flood.xnet.com...
Jms at B5
>that Hinckley fellow couldn't get closer. Oh well, at least the crook
>will suffer longer this way. However bad Reagonomics may have been,
>it's nothing on October Surprise and Iran/Contra. As far as JMS, the
>only thing I can say is that Nixon is going to have company
You know, it's funny that we all like to say we support freedom of speech and
differing opinions until someone actually *uses* same, at which point one is
pilloried for saying such things (though on the other hand it's enlivened the
conversation a bit).
I'm sorry, but I can have no soft spot in my heart for Reagan. He's been a
quisling ever since he was president of the Screen Actors Guild and cooperated
gleefully with HUAC in rooting out all those supposed commies in the film biz.
He ran a heartless administration, which saw retreats in many necessary social
areas, and created a meanspirited "me first" generation that gutted the heart
of this country. He allowed, even encouraged the closure of plants and the
shifting of the very *heart* of this country's manufacturing basis to other
countries because it was good for share holders, no matter how many people were
thrown out of work after decades of loyal service.
You want to talk mean and cruel, nothing I said here compares in the
*slightest* with the tens of thousands of people who have suffered lost jobs
and incomes and even lost lives because of the policies and programs he
implemented.
But that's the way of things...get outraged about the *word* and not the
*thing*...and the *thing* here vastly outweighs a few pixels and phospher dots.
Tammy Smith
the guy. I would never make light of his having Alzheimers, though.
I'm sure you didn't mean to insult people here who have family-members
with the disease, but it seems to have come across that way to some.
Tammy
JBONETATI
differing opinions until someone actually *uses* same, at which point one is
pilloried for saying such things (though on the other hand it's enlivened the
conversation a bit).>>
With all respect, JMS, I think that what people are reacting to is that
somebody as thoughtful and mindful as you are should wish the absence of
mindfulness on *anyone*. That was my reaction, at least. To lose mental acuity
and not even know it is my greatest nightmare and I'm sure I'm not alone.
This latest post, at least illustrates why you despise him and the fact that
you are aware of his entire career as a basis for your opinion. That makes
sense, whether or not any of us agree. The other, I'm afraid, simply seemed
beneath you and needlessly offensive.
Jan
Susan Phillips
>>Needlessly cruel like violating the democratic process, maybe. Pity
>>that Hinckley fellow couldn't get closer. Oh well, at least the crook
>>will suffer longer this way. However bad Reagonomics may have been,
>>it's nothing on October Surprise and Iran/Contra. As far as JMS, the
>>only thing I can say is that Nixon is going to have company
>
>You know, it's funny that we all like to say we support freedom of speech and
>differing opinions until someone actually *uses* same, at which point one is
>pilloried for saying such things (though on the other hand it's enlivened the
>conversation a bit).
You're free to dislike Reagan's policies. You're free to dislike the man.
You're free to say so. But I have to agree with the person who said shame on
you. Reagan is a human being who's ill and can't defend himself now.
Sue
who will probably be pilloried for this
"How can you be anal-retentive if you don't have an anus?"
Bartleby, "Dogma"
norv...@sirius.com
(Sean L Mclane) wrote:
> In article <20000220230103...@ng-fk1.aol.com>,
>>appropos about that.
>
I've heard worse.
> I don't regularly read newsgroups due to time limitations, but I receive
> digests of the articles you post through a mailing list. Over the past several
> years I've marveled at the information you've provided, the insight you've
> shown, and the integrity you've maintained. I have not always agreed with
> you, but I've respected you for the person you are, and the strength with
> which you hold to your beliefs and convictions.
> In one sentence, Joe, you have caused me to lose all of my respect for you.
I guess he'll live, what?
> After years of lurking, I was moved to search out this post on the newsgroup,
> and reply to you to tell you this. I will still remain a fan of Babylon 5,
> as it was a great show, but I cannot justify continuing to follow your posts
> any longer. I will be unsubscribing to that mailing list, as anything I read
> in the future from you will be tainted by the above comment you made.
>
> Why am I so sensitive? My grandmother had Alzheimer's. She died from it.
> It was horrible.
Sean, it's life. My own grandmother had Alzheimer's; I watched her "leave"
for years. I have this gorgeous old photo of her when she was young,
grinning, with her eyes glowing... she was never as happy as that photo
suggested, but Alzheimer's wiped out even that. Yes, it was horrible,
because she lived for years and was *gone* -- and "vegetable" is what I
thought. While I don't wish Alzheimer's on anyone, because of what I saw
for years, "vegetable" is not an inappropriate description at the end (and
death is all too much of a mercy).
I'm probably going to enrage people by saying that I thought that Reagan
was a case *in office*; I always laughed when I thought about a quote from
him saying something like "If I start going senile, I'll resign." My reply
was "How would you *notice* and who would *tell* you?" I've read enough
comments about the way his eyes glazed over if anyone tried to explain
anything complicated to him. I wasn't impressed, though I am sorry for the
way he is now; I don't want to wish it on anyone.
> I wish you a good life, and a good future Joe.
> Good Bye.
Whatever.
Susan Phillips
You're a lot nicer about it than some, Tammy.
WWS
Jms at B5 wrote:
>
> You know, it's funny that we all like to say we support freedom of speech and
> differing opinions until someone actually *uses* same, at which point one is
> pilloried for saying such things (though on the other hand it's enlivened the
> conversation a bit).
>
> I'm sorry, but I can have no soft spot in my heart for Reagan. He's been a
> quisling ever since he was president of the Screen Actors Guild and cooperated
> gleefully with HUAC in rooting out all those supposed commies in the film biz.
Read the news yesterday? Fifty-eight historians were asked to rate the U.S.
presidents based on a variety of leadership qualities. Following are the
overall rankings: (cut to the top 11)
1. Abraham Lincoln
2. Franklin D. Roosevelt
3. George Washington
4. Theodore Roosevelt
5. Harry S. Truman
6. Woodrow Wilson
7. Thomas Jefferson
8. John F. Kennedy
9. Dwight D. Eisenhower
10. Lyndon B. Johnson
11. Ronald Reagan
Given that JFK is the most pathetically overrated President in
the history of the nation, Eisenhower did little but preside
over the status quo, and even Johnson himself considered his
presidency a dismal failure, it seems certain that Reagan's
stature is going to keep on rising and rising long after he's
dead.
>
> He ran a heartless administration, which saw retreats in many necessary social
> areas, and created a meanspirited "me first" generation that gutted the heart
> of this country. He allowed, even encouraged the closure of plants and the
> shifting of the very *heart* of this country's manufacturing basis to other
> countries because it was good for share holders, no matter how many people
> were thrown out of work after decades of loyal service.
Don't cry for me Argentina, his economic policies were what fueled
this economic boom that Al Gore is trying to say he single handedly
is responsible for. Economic trends get set 10-20 years in advance,
and Reagonomics started the boom that has gone on for nearly 19 years
now, and thanks to that America now has the lowest unemployment
rate in the post WW2 era. Reagan was right, and all the pseudo
intellectuals who dreamt of Big Government and Big Programs were
wrong. And that cuts to the heart of why he is so hated by Certain
Groups, just as Churchill was always hated - He Proved Them Wrong.
Forever.
Don't you remember Jimmy Carter, crying and wringing his
hands, saying that America would just have to accept a permanent
loss of influence in the world, and that our economy was never going
to get back on track, and that there was nothing anyone could do
about it? He was a nice man, but an idiot. Very much of a
Neville Chamberlain. And like Neville, a large intellectual
establishment backed him, and they never ever could give any credit
to the man who proved They Were Fools. (In fact, Churchill only
proved his enemies wrong vis a vis foreign policy, Reagan beat
his critics in both foreign policy AND economics)
>
> You want to talk mean and cruel, nothing I said here compares in the
> *slightest* with the tens of thousands of people who have suffered lost
> jobs and incomes and even lost lives because of the policies and programs
> he implemented.
Wait, what's our unemployment rate today? Oh, but right, we would
be so much better off if rather than working at building up a
worldwide information industry all our young people still had
the glorious opportunity to sew tennis shoes together for 12
hours a day.
But if you want an intellectual take on it, Schumpeter in the
first half of this century described how capitalism works in
waves of creative destruction. Old industries have to be
cleared away to make place for the new ones to grow and thrive,
and the country that does this the most efficiently will not
only dominate the world's economy but also end up providing
the highest possible standard of living for its citizenry.
If you want to see a place where this was never allowed to happen,
just look at Moscow.
--
__________________________________________________WWS_____________
The funniest part of all of this is that John McCain agrees
100% with everything I've said. Some of it is from some of
his old campaign speeches.
ImRastro
>You're comments remind me of Bush taking credit for the fall of the USSR.
>Sorry, but he just happened to be on duty when it happened.
But we can sure blame him directly if the soviets go back to communism, which
is looking more and more likely. Its a direct result of his administration's
apathy towards supporting the new government. I'm not saying whether going
back to communism (thet're version of at least), is good or bad, just that it's
probably gonna happen. Sure there are other factors (don't jump me WWS for
simpleminded analysis), I realize that, but Bush's failure to show leadership
early on for political reasons undermined the russian publics faith in the new
government's ability to respond to basic needs and they have never gotten past
that.
ImRastro
Well, I thought that over and, sorry, not a good analogy. See, I wasn't
surprised by the public choosing a different political/social/economic
experiment for which there are numerous subject, hell even emotional,
justifications. Nope. I was surprised that the vast majority of the
population could swalow the double-think propositions spewed by Reagan and his
administration. Nucs are peacekeepers and the claim that, gee, if we only have
enough shovels we can all surive nuclear war immediately come to mind. I was
blown that otherwise intelligent people could pridefully claim that Reagan had
lowered unemployment when in fact, by the second term election all indicators
clearly demonstrated that PRIVATE SECTOR jobs (remeber, the area Reagan claimed
was the focus of growth as oppossed to "big government") was growing at under 2
million jobs per year. (sounds like alot until you recall that private sector
jobs under Carter were growing at an over 2 million per year rate). Reagan
pumped his numbers by adding employment in the military (a group never included
by previous administrations) to the statistics and claimed false victory. Oh,
and that was in every newspaper and magazine at the time. Yet voters still
wandered around wide-eyed procaliming that Ron was putting us to work.
Or, we could talk about Reagan's claims that he was giving tax cuts to the
populace when in fact 40% of the population's taxes were raised during the
first term of his administration.
Heck, I could go on and on. See the diff here is that during the Reagan years
a good portion of our population revelled in deliberate misinformation and
ignorance. Apparently, from these posts, some of us still do. I am still
amazed.
Amy
If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention.
Jms at B5
>somebody as thoughtful and mindful as you are should wish the absence of
>mindfulness on *anyone*.
I absolutely agree.
I want him to *remember* all the things he did -- closing down mental health
facilities and throwing old or mentally dysfunctional people into the streets
(including many with alzheimer's) so we could spend billions on corporate
welfare, including millions of bucks spent to promote the Pillsbury Dough Boy
in South America -- so that one day, right before the end, he might finally
realize how much pain he caused, and have just a flicker of regret.
Not that I hold a grudge, mind.
John David Watker
news:20000222032710...@ng-fz1.aol.com...
You've been hanging around Harlan too long...
WWS
"J. Potts" wrote:
>
> People complain about the legal troubles of Clinton and his appointees.
> They seem quick to forget how many of Reagan's appointees got into legal
> hot water as well. I also well remember the the jokes being made about
> Secretary of Interior James Watt. Thanks, but no thanks. As much as I
> dislike many of the things done by Clinton, I still think he made a better
> president than Reagan.
A shame that 58 of the top historians in the country disagree with you,
as does a vast majority of the electorate.
--
__________________________________________________WWS_____________
But hey, everyone has the right to be irrelevant.
Kurtz
<<You know, it's funny that we all like to say we support freedom of speech
and
> differing opinions until someone actually *uses* same, at which point one
is
> pilloried for saying such things (though on the other hand it's enlivened
the
> conversation a bit).>>
>
I do support freedom of speech. As Yakov Smirnov used to say, I even
support freedom *after* speech. I don't care much for the behavior that
suggests that while everyone is entitled to their opinion, only *my*
opinion is the enlightened one. I think it tells MORE about a person
when they suggest that a special place in hell is reserved for someone
they don't like, or somewhat gleefully observing that Alzheimer's has
turned someone they don't like into a mental vegetable. You can't throw
stones willy-nilly and expect that someone might not throw them back.
JBONETATI
Okay, this may turn the conversation in a different direction but it's a
serious question:
Do you really think that a President actually has the power to *do* the things
you've said? Yes, perhaps he allowed them to be done and perhaps had an
obligation to say something, but actually to instigate them as you make it
sound? I don't think a President has had that kind of power for at least
several decades.
Thanks,
Jan
Corun MacAnndra
>
>A shame that 58 of the top historians in the country disagree with you,
>as does a vast majority of the electorate.
58 out of how many? That's the great thing about statistics. You can make
them say whatever you want.
And who is the "electorate"? Do you mean the Electoral College? That body
of politicians who elect the President above and beyond what the voting
public really wants?
Corun
Frank McKenney
>>Needlessly cruel like violating the democratic process, maybe. Pity
>>that Hinckley fellow couldn't get closer. Oh well, at least the crook
>>will suffer longer this way. However bad Reagonomics may have been,
>>it's nothing on October Surprise and Iran/Contra. As far as JMS, the
>>only thing I can say is that Nixon is going to have company
>
>differing opinions until someone actually *uses* same, at which point one is
>pilloried for saying such things (though on the other hand it's enlivened the
>conversation a bit).
>
Joe,
I'm wandering into this a bit late, and I'm not sure I caught the thread
properly. The words above sound like you're interpreting the above
(initial) quote as an attempt to prevent/dissuade you from using your
own "freedon of speech"? If so, I'm confused, since from here it just
looks like the usual "give and take" (okay, the "give and Take That!
amd give and Take That!...) that results from tww... um, three... um,
"some number" (;-) of people all making use of their "freedom of speech"
to disagree, exhort, rant, and (occasionally) communicate.
Or did I miss a critical part of the conversation? Wouldn't be the
first time I did that (;-), and I realize it's hard to carry on an N-way
conversation(*) - especially if you have to keep stopping in the middle
and explaining everything all over again to each person who chooses to
jump into the fray... er, "conversation".
As for the "vegetable" controversy I've seen elseqhere (not quoted
here), I can only offer the following quote from a person whose work
I've come to know and respect:
"When others do a foolish thing, you should tell them it is a
foolish thing. They can still continue to do it, but at least the
truth is where it needs to be."
-- Dukhat / Babylon 5: Atonement
--
Frank McKenney, McKenney Associates
Richmond, Virginia / (804) 320-4887
E-mail: frank_m...@mindspring.com
--
(*) As opposed to an "M-way conversation", which usually involves
commissions and distributorships (;-).
Nathan Shafer
>
> You know, it's funny that we all like to say we support freedom of speech and
> differing opinions until someone actually *uses* same, at which point one is
1. There's a difference between protecting the existence of differing
opinions, and *liking* those different opinions.
2. There's a difference between dictating that you *can't* say
something (and having the power to enforce it), and offering the
opinion that you *shouldn't* say that thing.
3. Finally, there's a difference between hating the sin and hating
the sinner. I hate what you said, Joe; I still respect and admire
*you*. You, however, cannot see past your disagreements with
Reagan on policy, and feel you must condemn the man himself as evil.
I've often thought that "judge not, les ye be judged" meant that the
same measure will be used to judge us that we use to judge others. The
merciful get a very forgiving curve; the self-righteous will be broken
on the wheel of their own pride.
Of course I could be wrong.
- Nathan
John W. Kennedy
>
> I am speaking as a total outsider, who is not paticuarily up to speed on US
> Politics - however surely after the fall of the Soviet Union it makes sense
> to cut down on the US Military. The Armed forces were built up during the
> cold war precisley because of the Cold War, and now that is over it makes
> political, economic and military sense to decrease those troops.
The real problem is not the fact of cutting back, which is fairly
sensible, but that our corrupt politicos will not cut back on the things
the military want to cut back, because those things represent huge
profits for the industrialists who have Congress bought and sold.
Instead, they cut back on things that are really needed, but which are
less profitable.
To be fair, at least some members of Congress would be less corrupt than
they are if it were not for the following two facts:
Most Americans are aliterate, and can be reached only by
television advertising.
Television advertising is monstrously expensive.
Things being as they are, it is no longer possible to be an honest
politician above the municipal level in America without being
independently wealthy (and we all know what Jesus said about the rich).
--
-John W. Kennedy
-rri...@ibm.net
Compact is becoming contract
Man only earns and pays. -- Charles Williams
John W. Kennedy
> You're free to dislike Reagan's policies. You're free to dislike the man.
> You're free to say so. But I have to agree with the person who said shame on
> you. Reagan is a human being who's ill and can't defend himself now.
Neither can John Wilkes Booth.
John W. Kennedy
> And who is the "electorate"? Do you mean the Electoral College? That body
> of politicians who elect the President above and beyond what the voting
> public really wants?
No, I'm sure he means the Amazing Average Clods who put a Hollywood star
into office in the first place.
John W. Kennedy
>
> <<You know, it's funny that we all like to say we support freedom of speech
> and
> > differing opinions until someone actually *uses* same, at which point one
> is
> the
> > conversation a bit).>>
> >
>
> support freedom *after* speech. I don't care much for the behavior that
> suggests that while everyone is entitled to their opinion, only *my*
> opinion is the enlightened one.
"There is some truth in everything", as St. Lukewarm of Laodicea
remarked while the anthropophagi boiled him in the sacred cooking pot he
had had erected for them at vast public expense. (Dorothy L Sayers:
The Pantheon Papers)
> I think it tells MORE about a person
> when they suggest that a special place in hell is reserved for someone
> they don't like, or somewhat gleefully observing that Alzheimer's has
> turned someone they don't like into a mental vegetable. You can't throw
> stones willy-nilly and expect that someone might not throw them back.
Oh, heaven forbid that villainy should ever be criticized.
Pfaugh!
I can criticize JMS's remark, I suppose, but only on the principle
stated by "The Fox" in "Till We Have Faces": "Would you like to _be_
[Reagan]? No? Then [he]'s pitiable."
--
-John W. Kennedy
-rri...@ibm.net
After this I seemed to hear the great sound of a huge
crowd in heaven, singing, "Alleluia! Victory and glory
and power to our God! He judges fairly, he punishes justly,
and he has condemned the famous prostitute who corrupted
the earth with her fornication; he has avenged his servants
that she killed." They sang again, "Alleluia! The smoke of
her will go up for ever and ever."
-- Revelations 19:1-3
WWS
Corun MacAnndra wrote:
>
> In article <38B24EE8...@tyler.net>, WWS <wsch...@tyler.net> wrote:
> >
> >A shame that 58 of the top historians in the country disagree with you,
> >as does a vast majority of the electorate.
>
> 58 out of how many? That's the great thing about statistics. You can make
> them say whatever you want.
The survey was done by C-Span and published by the New York Times. They took
a very cautious stance, since they knew the results would be criticized,
and they selected a group of historians from around the country and from
all political persuasions, then averaged up their opinions. Of course this
is subjective, it's all about politics. But it is, as well as could be
done, an accurate portrayal of consensus opinion among most people who live
in this country. You can check out C-Span or the New York Times if you want
to learn more about their selection process.
Meanwhile, here's more of the original article, from the New York Times:
this is only a partial quote, view the complete article at:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/w/AP-Ranking-Presidents.html
(for those keeping track of such things, this is only a partial quote,
full credit to the source is given, and a link to the source page is
provided, which is the generally accepted Usenet standard for quoting
articles from another webpage, for purposes of discussion only)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> By The Associated Press
>
> WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Clinton rates near the top for
> managing the economy and pursuing equal justice, but dead last when
> measured for ``moral authority,'' according to a ranking of presidents by
> 8 historians.
>
> Overall among presidents, Clinton comes across in the middle, 21st out
> of 41 men who have occupied the Oval Office.
>
> Two other presidents marked by scandal -- Richard Nixon and Warren
> Harding -- came in just above Clinton in the historians' view of moral
> leadership.
>
> The academics rated Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, George
> Washington, Theodore Roosevelt and Harry Truman as the best leaders
> overall in a survey conducted by the cable public affairs television
> network C-SPAN.
>
> Historians from across the political spectrum rated the 41 men who have
> served in the White House on 10 qualities. The academics were asked to
> rank presidents using a scale of one to 10, with 10 being ``very
> effective.''
>
> Clinton rates 20th in crisis leadership; 21st in international relations; 21st
> in administrative skills; 22nd in vision; and 21st in performance.
>
> His high scores are in 'pursuing equal justice' (5th), economic
> management (5th) and public persuasion (11th); his low scores were in
> congressional relations (36th) and moral authority (41st).
>
> Rated worst overall as leaders were William Henry Harrison (37),
> Warren G. Harding (38), Franklin Pierce (39), Andrew Johnson (40)
> and James Buchanan (41).
>
> Ronald Reagan was ranked 11th overall, the highest of presidents of the
> past 20 years. George Bush came in at No. 20, Jimmy Carter at 22 and
> Gerald Ford 23. Nixon, at No. 25, was among those grouped toward
> the middle. President Lyndon Johnson was ranked 10th, Dwight
> Eisenhower was ranked 9th and John Kennedy was ranked 8th.
>
> The historians include presidential specialists David Kennedy and
> Stephen Ambrose.
>
> The survey was conducted in December and January. It is not scientific,
> since it simply asked for the historians' subjective opinions.
>
> A separate survey, conducted through C-SPAN's web site in December,
> asked for public opinion. Viewers also placed Clinton on the bottom for
> moral authority, but otherwise rated Clinton more harshly than historians.
>
> Viewers rated Clinton as No. 36 overall, with rankings below average
> for every category except economic management (19) and public
> persuasion (15).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note that the general public rates Clinton as one of the 10 worst Presidents
of all time, and judges him much more harshly than even the Historians do.
Most significantly, they rate him overall as much worse than Nixon. Well,
that's understandable, so do I.
>
> And who is the "electorate"? Do you mean the Electoral College? That body
> of politicians who elect the President above and beyond what the voting
> public really wants?
Hehe, you're going to see that question answered this November.
I don't think you're going to like the answer.
--
__________________________________________________WWS_____________
But I know I will.
Mark Maher
<20000222063934...@ng-fi1.aol.com>...
ABSOLUTELY! Although Congress is the body charged with making
the laws and passing the budget, it is up to the administration
to decide how much effort is put into enforcing those laws and
spending that money. The people in the executive branch (all of
whom, be they civil service bureaucrats or political appointees,
are beholden to the whim of the President) also carry out the
daily regulation, or lack thereof, of all of the things that the
Federal government has its fingers on. Just in case you haven't
noticed, that's just about everything.
Even in this administration, this President has used his power
of executive order to enforce his vision of what he sees is
right, even though the majority of Congress does not see it his
way and will not pass legislation to suit his fancy.
The Judicial branch can only get involved after the fact, once
the damage has already been done. Someone with enough money and
power has to take on the government or the corporation
responsible for the terrible toll that has already been dealt
out. Most average Americans don't have the resources for such a
fight, and the administration knows it. They have known it for
years.
Because of the practice of "Reagan-omics," the only thing that
the US seems to make better than anyone else nowadays are
military weapons. And due to the cutbacks in military and pure
scientific research funding (cutbacks that began in 1988 during
the Reagan administration, BTW) even that is thrown to doubt at
the present. The computers that are such a significant part of
the current economy are for the most part manufactured overseas
from parts that are made by impoverished workers at a fraction
of what we would consider a decent wage. I don't begrudge those
people their earnings - I do begrudge the multi-national
corporations who moved those jobs out of this country to make
their stock portfolio look better and to evade any chance that
someone might hold them accountable.
But that's just my opinion...I could be wrong.
__!_!__
Gizmo
Corun MacAnndra
>
>Corun MacAnndra wrote:
>>
>> In article <38B24EE8...@tyler.net>, WWS <wsch...@tyler.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >A shame that 58 of the top historians in the country disagree with you,
>> >as does a vast majority of the electorate.
>>
>> 58 out of how many? That's the great thing about statistics. You can make
>> them say whatever you want.
>
>The survey was done by C-Span and published by the New York Times. They took
>a very cautious stance, since they knew the results would be criticized,
>and they selected a group of historians from around the country and from
>all political persuasions, then averaged up their opinions. Of course this
>is subjective, it's all about politics. But it is, as well as could be
>done, an accurate portrayal of consensus opinion among most people who live
>in this country. You can check out C-Span or the New York Times if you want
>to learn more about their selection process.
First of all let's address the fact that you said (quoted above) that there
were 58 historians selected. The article (quoted below) states 8 historians
with a separate survey done by a portion of the viewing audience.
As for the subjectiveness of the poll, it's much more subjective than
merely being about politics. What we have here is a limited, self selecting
group. Eight historians do not comprise a wide cross section of the voting
public. Eight historians do not even comprise a wide cross section of the
politcally savvy public, which is an even smaller group than the voting
public. Also, the "general public" that was polled is again self selecting
in that they are all viewers of C-SPAN. Again they are a small and limited
group that does not comprise a wide enough cross section to make the
results valid.
>> By The Associated Press
>>
>> WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Clinton rates near the top for
>> managing the economy and pursuing equal justice, but dead last when
>> measured for ``moral authority,'' according to a ranking of presidents by
>> 8 historians.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Historians from across the political spectrum rated the 41 men who have
>> served in the White House on 10 qualities. The academics were asked to
>> rank presidents using a scale of one to 10, with 10 being ``very
>> effective.''
Academicians by their very nature tend to have very different ways of
looking at things than the average public. They tend to have a broader
range of experience and education than the average public. That's why
they're academicians and not the pizza delivery boy or the CPA down the
street or the banker, tailor, tinker, soldier, househusband, or data
entry operator. The general public often has strong opinions based more
on emotional reaction (or the opinions of their friends), than on actual
study. "I like/dislike this guy becuase everyone says he sucks." Note
the use of the ubiquitous "everyone" that so many people are fond of
quoting. No one can talk to everyone and so evoking them all tends to
invalidate most opinions right off the bat.
I refer you to the commentary by a noted author regarding one's right to
an opinion vs. one's right to an informed opinion.
>Note that the general public rates Clinton as one of the 10 worst Presidents
>of all time, and judges him much more harshly than even the Historians do.
>Most significantly, they rate him overall as much worse than Nixon. Well,
>that's understandable, so do I.
No, the general public does not since the general public was not part of
the survey. Only a self selecting and limited small portion of it took
place in the polling. To garner the opinion of the general public you
must take a much larger sampling than C-SPAN did. If there are 1 billion
people in the US (and I'm grabbing a number of of thin air for sake of
argument), then you must sample all of them to say the "general public".
Otherwise you must admit to a percentage that was polled and base your
findings on that percentage. I doubt that the viewers who gave their
opinions on the C-SPAN website constituted more than 5% of the general
public in the US. Hardly a wide sampling.
>> And who is the "electorate"? Do you mean the Electoral College? That body
>> of politicians who elect the President above and beyond what the voting
>> public really wants?
>
>Hehe, you're going to see that question answered this November.
>I don't think you're going to like the answer.
And why do you assume I won't like the answer? Do you have some precognitive
ability that lets you tell both the future and my political leanings? I don't
recall ever making a statement about who I would or would not be voting for
nor why. I simply argued against your use (or misuse) of scanty pollings
cleverly disguised as statistics.
I have been voting for as long as JMS. The first election I voted in was
McGovern/Nixon. It's irrelevant who I voted for. What is relevant is that
since that time there hasn't, in my informed and personal opinion, anyone
to vote FOR in a very long time. There are plenty of candidates to vote
against. And that in itself is a sad commentary on the state of politicians
in this country.
Corun
WWS
JBONETATI wrote:
>
> <<I want him to *remember* all the things he did -- >>
>
> Okay, this may turn the conversation in a different direction but it's a
> serious question:
>
> Do you really think that a President actually has the power to *do* the things
> you've said? Yes, perhaps he allowed them to be done and perhaps had an
> obligation to say something, but actually to instigate them as you make it
> sound? I don't think a President has had that kind of power for at least
> several decades.
My God! Serious, logical thought in a thread like this????
What's wrong with you!!! Cut that out this instant!!!!
--
__________________________________________________WWS_____________
Cassius81
>>
>> In article <38B24EE8...@tyler.net>, WWS <wsch...@tyler.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >A shame that 58 of the top historians in the country disagree with you,
>> >as does a vast majority of the electorate.
>>
>> 58 out of how many? That's the great thing about statistics. You can make
>> them say whatever you want.
>
>The survey was done by C-Span and published by the New York Times. They took
>a very cautious stance, since they knew the results would be criticized,
>and they selected a group of historians from around the country and from
>all political persuasions, then averaged up their opinions. Of course this
>is subjective, it's all about politics. But it is, as well as could be
>done, an accurate portrayal of consensus opinion among most people who live
>in this country. You can check out C-Span or the New York Times if you want
>to learn more about their selection process.
>
>
>this is only a partial quote, view the complete article at:
>http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/w/AP-Ranking-Presidents.html
<snip>
Hm... I wonder how Polk did. That guy is probably one of the most underrated
presidents. Sure, he was a dirty, racist bastard who went to war with Mexico...
*but*, he's also one of the few presidents who did everything he said he was
gonna do (and nobody can take that away from him!).
Cassius' Quote of the Day:
JMS: "Not that I hold a grudge, mind."
J. Potts
Corun MacAnndra wrote:
> And who is the "electorate"? Do you mean the Electoral College? That body
> of politicians who elect the President above and beyond what the voting
> public really wants?
In article <38B2F3FB...@tyler.net>, WWS <wsch...@tyler.net> wrote:
>Hehe, you're going to see that question answered this November.
>I don't think you're going to like the answer.
In article <3rBs4.8667$lK6.2...@iad-read.news.verio.net>,
Corun MacAnndra <co...@clark.net> wrote:
>And why do you assume I won't like the answer? Do you have some precognitive
>ability that lets you tell both the future and my political leanings? I don't
>recall ever making a statement about who I would or would not be voting for
>nor why. I simply argued against your use (or misuse) of scanty pollings
>cleverly disguised as statistics.
Besides, the original comment (by me) was that regardless of the things
that *Clinton* has done, I still think he's a better president than *Reagan*
was. Neither of these two gentlemen are running for president so neither the
electoral college nor the electorate will be able to say anything come
November regarding their opinions of them.
Reagan was an actor, even when he was running for president. That so many
people were duped (IMO) by his acting doesn't mean that he was a better
president. I based my opinions on the actions they took once in office.
There are more things that Reagan did that I disliked than Clinton did.
Ergo, IMO, Clinton was a "better" president. It may be a matter of
priorities or opinions of what was good or bad with regards to overall
policies. Them's my opinions and nothing you or the rest of the voting
population believes makes one iota of difference to me.
--
JRP
"How many slime-trailing, sleepless, slimy, slobbering things do you know
that will *run and hide* from your Eveready?"
--Maureen Birnbaum, Barbarian Swordsperson
Jms at B5
>(initial) quote as an attempt to prevent/dissuade you from using your
>own "freedon of speech"? If so, I'm confused, since from here it just
>looks like the usual "give and take" (okay, the "give and Take That!
>amd give and Take That!...)
The original message indicated that, for nothing more than stating my views, I
should go to hell.
Jms at B5
> the sinner. I hate what you said, Joe; I still respect and admire
> *you*. You, however, cannot see past your disagreements with
> Reagan on policy, and feel you must condemn the man himself as evil.
>
If you're going to go Biblical on me, then I have to point to the part that
says "Ye shall know them by their works." So given his record, yeah, I'd say
he fits the bill.
The "hate the sin love the sinner" thing is also a great remover of
responsibility. It also is used primarily by Christians, and I do not fall
into that camp.
Jms at B5
>when they suggest that a special place in hell is reserved for someone
>they don't like,
Which is what the person who started this particular thread said of me, that
for simply expressing an opinion, I deserved taht selfsame hell.
> or somewhat gleefully observing that Alzheimer's has
>turned someone they don't like into a mental vegetable. You can't throw
>stones willy-nilly and expect that someone might not throw them back.
You will not find glee anywhere in that statement. I said only that I found it
appropos...especially when you factor in the many mentally disabled people,
many of whom themselves suffer from Alzheimer's, who were dumped out into the
streets under the Reagan administration which felt that the money used to fund
those facilities was better spent on weapons tech, and thus saw record
closures.
Nothing I said in that one sentence comes anywhere NEAR the meanness of spirit,
the abuse of the mentally disabled, that was practiced by the administration
that closed down those facilities.
And I do expect people to throw back. I'd be disappointed if they didn't. But
it's one thing to say "I disagree with you and here's why," and another to say
"shame on you for speaking your mind, you should go to hell."
Nathan Shafer
>
> >I think it tells MORE about a person
> >when they suggest that a special place in hell is reserved for someone
> >they don't like,
>
> Which is what the person who started this particular thread said of me, that
> for simply expressing an opinion, I deserved taht selfsame hell.
Excuse me. I believe I was the one you are referring to, and I *never*
said anything about what you deserve. I only said that I was disappoin-
ted in you. And that is becoming more and more true as this thread
progresses.
Nathan Shafer
>
> >3. Finally, there's a difference between hating the sin and hating
> > the sinner.
>
Actually, there's nothing Biblical there. That is to say, nowehere in
the Bible does it say "Hate the sin..." What I quoted is really more
philosophical than Biblical.
> then I have to point to the part that says "Ye shall know them by
> their works."
Exactly my point. By your works, I believe you to be a decent, good
man whose heart is in exactly the right place. That makes it all the
more disappointing when you allow political myopia to move you unkind,
mean-spirited behavior.
> The "hate the sin love the sinner" thing is also a great remover of
> responsibility.
How so?
> It also is used primarily by Christians, and I do not fall into that camp.
I've never known religious labels to stop you from making use of a good
idea before.
What this comes down to, Joe, is this: you are allowing your ideological
antipathy for one man make you less than you are. That is a sad thing
to see, given the heights that you have shown yourself to be capable of.
And if the shoe were on t'other foot, I believe you would be the first
one to speak out and offer a gentle word of admonition to the erring
party.
Nathan Shafer
Thomas Bagwell
>
<snip>
> And let us not forget his administration's attitude toward education and the
> environment (good old Watt who declared that in school food programs, catsup
> could be considered a vegetable for dietary purposes).
>
> Now it's Reagan who can be considered a vegetable. I find something most
> appropos about that.
>
> jms
Hmmm...I thought it was Republicans who were supposed to get the rap for
being insensitive and derogatory of other people's problems...I guess
nobody is above it.
Tom B.
Jonathan Biggar
> You know, it's funny that we all like to say we support freedom of speech and
> differing opinions until someone actually *uses* same, at which point one is
> pilloried for saying such things (though on the other hand it's enlivened the
> conversation a bit).
Sure, I support free speech, but when someone, even you, takes cheap
potshots at a man that can't even defend himself anymore, I'll call it
like I see it.
> I'm sorry, but I can have no soft spot in my heart for Reagan. He's been a
> quisling ever since he was president of the Screen Actors Guild and cooperated
> gleefully with HUAC in rooting out all those supposed commies in the film biz.
And taking glee at the encroaching diminishment of a man who inspired
millions of Americans with a positive message of hope and responsibility
makes you better?
> He ran a heartless administration, which saw retreats in many necessary social
> areas, and created a meanspirited "me first" generation that gutted the heart
> of this country. He allowed, even encouraged the closure of plants and the
> shifting of the very *heart* of this country's manufacturing basis to other
> countries because it was good for share holders, no matter how many people were
> thrown out of work after decades of loyal service.
>
> You want to talk mean and cruel, nothing I said here compares in the
> *slightest* with the tens of thousands of people who have suffered lost jobs
> and incomes and even lost lives because of the policies and programs he
> implemented.
As opposed to all of the people whose jobs were lost and lives damaged
due to the rampant inflation of the '70s? Or the fact that the
government at the time thought it perfectly fair to take 90% of every
dollar off of the top of the "rich" in order to give it to people who
sit around on their butts and do nothing to help this country?
I think you are simply looking around and seeing human nature--that
there will always be greedy people and poor people--and sticking the
blame on a convenient target.
Now if you would show yourself to be just as critical about the serious
damage done to the rule of law by the current occupant of the white
house, then perhaps I wouldn't have lost quite as much respect for you.
--
Jon Biggar
Floorboard Software
j...@floorboard.com
j...@biggar.org
Marvin Gersho
I am all for freedom of speech. However, joking about Reagan becoming
a vegtable does seem cruel. You have a first amendment right to say
cruel things, but it seems so unnecessary. I think that Clinton is the
most corrupt and self-serving president of the twentieth century. Yet I
would never wish Alzhiemer's on him.
Why does it seem like liberals usually think that conservatives are evil
while convervatives tend to think that liberals are misguided?
JMS, I can understand that your political views are very different from
Reagan's views. However, could you consider the possibility that his
views were heartfelt, and that he did what he thought was best for the
country?
I have great respect for the intensions of Jimmy Carter and Ronald
Reagan. They both wanted what they thought was best for the country. I
just think that one of them was a great deal more effective than the
other.
Marvin Gersho
Jms at B5 wrote:
>
> >Needlessly cruel like violating the democratic process, maybe. Pity
> >that Hinckley fellow couldn't get closer. Oh well, at least the crook
> >will suffer longer this way. However bad Reagonomics may have been,
> >it's nothing on October Surprise and Iran/Contra. As far as JMS, the
> >only thing I can say is that Nixon is going to have company
>
> You know, it's funny that we all like to say we support freedom of speech and
> differing opinions until someone actually *uses* same, at which point one is
> pilloried for saying such things (though on the other hand it's enlivened the
> conversation a bit).
>
> I'm sorry, but I can have no soft spot in my heart for Reagan. He's been a
> quisling ever since he was president of the Screen Actors Guild and cooperated
> gleefully with HUAC in rooting out all those supposed commies in the film biz.
>
> He ran a heartless administration, which saw retreats in many necessary social
> areas, and created a meanspirited "me first" generation that gutted the heart
> of this country. He allowed, even encouraged the closure of plants and the
> shifting of the very *heart* of this country's manufacturing basis to other
> countries because it was good for share holders, no matter how many people were
> thrown out of work after decades of loyal service.
>
> You want to talk mean and cruel, nothing I said here compares in the
> *slightest* with the tens of thousands of people who have suffered lost jobs
> and incomes and even lost lives because of the policies and programs he
> implemented.
>
> But that's the way of things...get outraged about the *word* and not the
> *thing*...and the *thing* here vastly outweighs a few pixels and phospher dots.
Matthew Clark
> Now it's Reagan who can be considered a vegetable. I find something most
> appropos about that.
I don't know if you've ever been confronted of the "slow death" of
Alzheimer's,
but speaking as someone who lost his grandmother to it, no it isn't. I
can't imagine
wishing the hell my father (my own hell pales to his) went through as he
lost his
mother with each visit any more than I can imagine you wishing alcoholism on
a family. That was a foul ball, Joe, not just on Reagan's family, but on
everyone
who's had to go through it.
Matt Clark
Pål Are Nordal
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
WWS wrote:
> "J. Potts" wrote:
> >
> > People complain about the legal troubles of Clinton and his appointees.
> > They seem quick to forget how many of Reagan's appointees got into legal
> > hot water as well. I also well remember the the jokes being made about
> > Secretary of Interior James Watt. Thanks, but no thanks. As much as I
> > dislike many of the things done by Clinton, I still think he made a better
> > president than Reagan.
>
> A shame that 58 of the top historians in the country disagree with you,
I don't know enough about american presidents to comment on their qualities,
but assuming your evaluation of JFK, Eisenhower and Johnson in an earlier post
was correct, doesn't this make the list worthless? Why would their choice of
Reagan be any better?
--
Donate free food with a simple click: http://www.thehungersite.com/
Pål Are Nordal
a_b...@bigfoot.com
Andrew M Swallow
> television advertising.
> Television advertising is monstrously expensive.
>
>Things being as they are, it is no longer possible to be an honest
>politician above the municipal level in America without being
>independently wealthy (and we all know what Jesus said about the rich).
>
So the problem is not too much money but too much tv advertising. IMHO. Hence
to get honest government the USA would to limit Presidential candidates to say
two 5 minute adverts. See the UK election laws for an example.
Andrew Swallow
Andrew M Swallow
>first half of this century described how capitalism works in
>waves of creative destruction. Old industries have to be
>cleared away to make place for the new ones to grow and thrive,
>and the country that does this the most efficiently will not
>only dominate the world's economy but also end up providing
>the highest possible standard of living for its citizenry.
>
>If you want to see a place where this was never allowed to happen,
>just look at Moscow.
Have the USA and UK started replacing the industries build during Regan's era?
Or will we have to go through several years of high unemployment first?
Andrew Swallow
Greg Sirmon
JMS said: He ran a heartless administration, which saw retreats in
many necessary social
areas, and created a meanspirited "me first" generation that gutted
the heart
of this country.
These are opinions that are highly debatable. One could also argue
that the AIDS crisis and the state of our society have worsened in the
present administration. Often I have found that interest groups
complain louder whenever someone with whom they disagree with
ideologically gains power. Reagan was a perfect example. Never mind
that lower socioeconomic classes got richer in the 80's too. It's
only the enrichment of the higher classes that make the newspapers
(and the political rants).
JMS said: He allowed, even encouraged the closure of plants and the
shifting of the very *heart* of this country's manufacturing basis to
other
countries because it was good for share holders, no matter how many
people were
thrown out of work after decades of loyal service.
This economy *has* suffered a loss of manufacturing jobs as we have
made the transition to a service/information economy. People have
been hurt. But the laws of supply and demand require us to change
with the times or risk falling behind as an entire nation (and hurting
even more people) in the future. It is an incredibly tough choice,
but one which lots of experts in trade believe is the right one.
JMS said: You want to talk mean and cruel, nothing I said here
compares in the
*slightest* with the tens of thousands of people who have suffered
lost jobs
and incomes and even lost lives because of the policies and programs
he
implemented.
Nothing except the genocide practiced around the world while we
struggled to make the planet safe for democracy. Our system sure
isn't perfect, but it beats the heck out of Pol Pot or Josef Stalin or
Castro. Now, fighting communism doesn't give one free reign to
steamroll one's citizenry into pulp. But, I remember the 80's as a
time when optimism was at an all time high and most people were stoked
about America's renewed position of respect in the world. That being
said, we could debate forever the pros and cons of creating a safety
net society where all individuals' mistakes are tended to by the
government, creating a class of totally dependent "lurkers" for lack
of a better term. I'm not so sure that a philosophy of self reliance,
free spirit and community charity isn't the more compassionate choice.
This philosophy epitomized Reagan to many and may help explain to you
why people you might otherwise consider rational come to his defense.
JMS said: But that's the way of things...get outraged about the
*word* and not the
*thing*...and the *thing* here vastly outweighs a few pixels and
phospher dots.
True. However, if we are going to make any pretense at all about
being open minded, we have to acknowledge that both sides may have a
legitimate point and arrive at their conclusions out of a concern to
do the Right Thing. We cannot conclude that anyone (even your
despised Reagan caricature) deserves to be shut up or removed from the
process because they are Just Plain Evil. To do so would chill what I
think is a healthy debate and tear the very guts out of the free
speech doctrine which you and I both claim to support.
-Greg
Greg Sirmon
He ran a heartless administration, which saw retreats in many
necessary social
areas, and created a meanspirited "me first" generation that gutted
the heart
of this country.
These are opinions that are highly debatable. One could also argue
that the AIDS crisis and the state of our society have worsened in the
present administration. Often I have found that interest groups
complain louder whenever someone with whom they disagree with
ideologically gains power. Reagan was a perfect example. Never mind
that lower socioeconomic classes got richer in the 80's too. It's
only the enrichment of the higher classes that made the newspapers
(and the political rants).
He allowed, even encouraged the closure of plants and the
shifting of the very *heart* of this country's manufacturing basis to
other
countries because it was good for share holders, no matter how many
people were
thrown out of work after decades of loyal service.
This economy *has* suffered a loss of manufacturing jobs as we have
made the transition to a service/information economy. People have
been hurt. But the laws of supply and demand require us to change
with the times or risk falling behind as an entire nation (and hurting
even more people) in the future. It is an incredibly tough choice,
but one which lots of experts in trade believe is the right one.
You want to talk mean and cruel, nothing I said here compares in the
*slightest* with the tens of thousands of people who have suffered
lost jobs
and incomes and even lost lives because of the policies and programs
he
implemented.
Nothing except the genocide practiced around the world while we
struggled to make the planet safe for democracy. Our system sure
isn't perfect, but it beats the heck out of Pol Pot or Josef Stalin or
Castro. Now, fighting communism doesn't give one free reign to
steamroll one's citizenry into pulp. But, I remember the 80's as a
time when optimism was at an all time high and most people were stoked
about America's renewed position of respect in the world. That being
said, we could debate forever the pros and cons of creating a safety
net society where all individuals' mistakes are tended to by the
government, creating a class of totally dependent "lurkers" for lack
of a better term. I'm not so sure that a philosophy of self reliance,
free spirit and community charity isn't the more compassionate choice.
This philosophy epitomized Reagan to many and may help explain to you
why some people you might otherwise consider rational come to his
defense.
Daryl Nash
> Read the news yesterday? Fifty-eight historians were asked to rate the U.S.
> presidents based on a variety of leadership qualities. Following are the
> overall rankings: (cut to the top 11)
>
> 1. Abraham Lincoln
> 2. Franklin D. Roosevelt
> 3. George Washington
> 4. Theodore Roosevelt
> 5. Harry S. Truman
> 6. Woodrow Wilson
> 7. Thomas Jefferson
> 8. John F. Kennedy
> 9. Dwight D. Eisenhower
> 10. Lyndon B. Johnson
> 11. Ronald Reagan
>
> Given that JFK is the most pathetically overrated President in
> the history of the nation, Eisenhower did little but preside
> over the status quo, and even Johnson himself considered his
> presidency a dismal failure, it seems certain that Reagan's
> stature is going to keep on rising and rising long after he's
> dead.
>
Probably Reagan should be much higher on the list. I would certainly place him as
one of the most influential Presidents of this past century, along with FDR and
Truman. He probably brought the most positive change to the US of any President of
the second half of the century. (JFK, as you say, is vastly overrated.) Ironic
that the Pres to bring the most positive change to the US in the first half was
likely FDR, almost 180 degrees opposite Reagan in policy.
I still think Reagan was a dangerous old fart who did much harm and nearly got us in
a nuclear pissing match with Russia, but I have to agree that, after the fact, much
of the 90s economic boom seems to have stemmed from his policies.
Of course, I guess we'll have to re-evaluate it all again after the almost
inevitable economic crash.
Daryl
Mike Van Pelt
Jms at B5 <jms...@aol.com> wrote:
>I want him to *remember* all the things he did -- closing down mental health
>facilities and throwing old or mentally dysfunctional people into the streets
>(including many with alzheimer's)
The law which did this was signed by Gov. Edumung G. Brown,
Sr. You might recall he was governor before Ronald Reagan.
Which has been pointed out about sixty gadzillion times,
but nobody ever let a politically incorrect fact get in the
way of a good screed.
--
Yes, I am the last man to have walked on the moon, | Mike Van Pelt
and that's a very dubious and disappointing honor. | m...@netcom.com
It's been far too long. -- Gene Cernan | KE6BVH
Jms at B5
>things
>you've said? Yes, perhaps he allowed them to be done and perhaps had an
>obligation to say something, but actually to instigate them as you make it
>sound? I don't think a President has had that kind of power for at least
>several decades.
I think that's a very good question. There are some who seem to want to have
it both ways on this question, when it comes to Reagan. Why didn't the economy
come around while he was on watch for 8 years? "Well, the president can't
really do anything in that respect," they would say...then after he was gone,
and the economy came back, they said, "Oh, well, that was Reagan who did that."
So on that count they want to definitely have it both ways.
To the meat of your question...I think the answer is in general, yes. While
there are checks and balances, Reagan was able to push through a lot of his
agenda at the very start, and there are any number of things that can be
accomplished by executive fiat. There can be no question that Reagan broke the
Air Traffic Controllers' union -- he has repeatedly taken credit for this -- a
move which vastlly accellerated the erosion of unions in this country, to the
point now where we see the result in loss of health care, pension plans falling
apart, low wages, the use of temporary employees in huge numbers because they
don't have to receive benefits (Manpower Intl, a temp service, is now the
largest single empoyer in the US, with over one million employees).
A president sets the tone, appoints the Supreme Court Justices that retire
during his administration, and has vast discretionary powers.
Does that mean I let Congress off the hook on this, on either side of the
aisle? Nope. But this sort of thing comes from the top down, and Reagan
instituted a spirit of meanness and self-interest the likes of which I'd never
seen before and hope never to see again.
Jms at B5
>Sr. You might recall he was governor before Ronald Reagan.
>
So he's responsible for the same thing happening in the other 49 states? I'm
astonished, I didn't know the Governor of California had such authority.
JBONETATI
there are checks and balances, Reagan was able to push through a lot of his
agenda at the very start, and there are any number of things that can be
accomplished by executive fiat. >>
Okay, your example of the Air Traffic controllers is well taken; particularly
as to it's long term effects even though I've never been a big union fan.
At the same time, though, how can *anybody* predict all of the far-ranging
social consequences that may arise from a new law or executive action? Of
course that's part of the process, to debate the different issues and effects
of legislation. All that they can reliably argue, though, is short-term
effects. The long term (10+ years) have too many variables to reliably
predict.
<<(Manpower Intl, a temp service, is now the
largest single empoyer in the US, with over one million employees).>>
That may be a somewhat misleading statistic. Being the largest, everybody
registers with Manpower along with usually 2 or 3 other temp agencies. I'd
rather know how many of them are active and regularly out on assignment. I was
registered with them once for 8 months and they only offered me one 3 day
assignment 1 time while others kept me working constantly and on longer term
assignments.
Jan
JBONETATI
<<My God! Serious, logical thought in a thread like this????
What's wrong with you!!! Cut that out this instant!!!! >>
<g> Sorry 'bout that....But I did change the heading! Should have been fair
warning.
Anyway, I really wanted to know what JMS thought (thinks) because thanks to his
writing I know that he *does* think of these things and that there has to be a
reason for his being so vehement.
Jan
Frank McKenney
>>The words above sound like you're interpreting the above
>>(initial) quote as an attempt to prevent/dissuade you from using your
>>own "freedon of speech"? If so, I'm confused, since from here it just
>>looks like the usual "give and take" (okay, the "give and Take That!
>>amd give and Take That!...)
>
>The original message indicated that, for nothing more than stating my views, I
>should go to hell.
Hm. I think I find myself awash in a sea of meta-levels of meaning.
- If someone actually _sends_ me to Hell (which, AFAIK, has no direct
communication link with the US of A), it's fairly clear (to me) that
he/she/it is keeping me from exercising "free speech".
- If someone believably _threatens_ to send me to Hell, and the threat
seems imminent (e.g. I find myself tied to an altar with a
sacrificial knife at my throat), I'd feel like my freedom of speech
was being somewhat infringed upon.
- If someone believably threatens to mobilize a 10,000,000-member
religious organization to have me killed, possibly in order to let
me experience some form of Final Judgment which will (in their eyes)
send me directly to Hell, that also seems a bit of an infringement.
But... if someone simply _tells_ me to go to Hell (and presumably is
not making a recommendation for warm vacation spots (;-)), or says that
my actions (or my words) are an abomination in the sight of &deity-of-
your-choice, are they infringing on my speech? Or simply using
rhetoric?
On the other hand, your comment re your own right to free speech is also
rhetoric (does not appear to offer any specific threat of bodily harm).
I think I'm out of my depth. My daughter Heather spent several years
working on a degree in Philosophy - I think I'll turn it over to her and
ask for comments (;-).
Anyone else, please feel free to comment. I'm going to be quiet for a
while and pretend to think about this (;-).
Frank McKenney, McKenney Associates
Richmond, Virginia / (804) 320-4887
E-mail: frank_m...@mindspring.com
Tammy Smith
the time, & most of the other temp-places were too far away for me, so I
couldn't go with more than one. Temp-agencies are a legacy of the
Reagan-years, & they give no health-insurance. Now, I work for one of
those indian-casinos, & while I'm not a huge fan of gambling, at least I
get good pay & decent health-care. Also, it's not part of the usual
"corporate" climate, since these are individual businesses run by
tribes. I am *so* glad I no longer work for a big, faceless
corporation--I just felt like a cog in a wheel, not an individual. I
don't feel that way now.
Tammy
PS--We have Proposition 1-A in California, & if it doesn't pass, our
machines could be seized, & I could be out of a job. If it doesn't
pass, it could be disastrous for San Diego, where I live. The casinos
are some of the biggest employers in this area.
Nathan Shafer
>
> The original message indicated that, for nothing more than stating my views, I
> should go to hell.
Either I am mistaken in my understanding that I am the "original poster"
you are referring to, or you are wrong and won't acknowledge it.
I am, in fact, the one who coined the header "JMS, Shame on you." And
in that post, which I copy below, I said nothing about hell or what
you might or might not deserve for your behavior:
**************************
Joe, shame on you. Whatever your disagreements with RR on policy, to
make that kind of cruel joke is simply abysmal, and I am very disappoin-
ted. I've never seen you that needlessly cruel before, and have to say
I don't like it.
**************************
If I am incorrect in my assumption that you are referring to me, please
let me know so I can apologize as quickly as possible. If, however,
you *ARE* referring to me, please stop making incorrect statements
about what I said.
- Nathan
norv...@sirius.com
>Jms at B5 wrote:
>>The original message indicated that, for nothing more than stating my views, I
>>should go to hell.
>
> Either I am mistaken in my understanding that I am the "original poster"
> you are referring to, or you are wrong and won't acknowledge it.
You're wrong. Either that, or JMS is wrong in saying "original poster"
(though actually, he was saying "original message" -- the message he was
replying to was this one that I quote, I think...).
I quote this post...
bi...@wf.net (C/1Lt. Joe Biles) wrote:
"Needlessly cruel like violating the democratic process, maybe. Pity that
Hinckley
fellow couldn't get closer. Oh well, at least the crook will suffer longer
this way.
However bad Reagonomics may have been, it's nothing on October Surprise and
Iran/Contra.
As far as JMS, the only thing I can say is that Nixon is going to have
company in
his private little corner of hell."
Would you not say that someone was indeed suggesting that JMS was going to
join Nixon and Co. in a little corner of hell?
If JMS is wrong and not acknowledging it, then I'm doing the same thing in
interpreting it in the same way. <shrug>
Nathan Shafer
>
> the message [JMS] was replying to was this one that I quote, I think...).
>
> (C/1Lt. Joe Biles) wrote:
>
>> As far as JMS, the only thing I can say is that Nixon is going to have
>> company in his private little corner of hell."
>
> Would you not say that someone was indeed suggesting that JMS was going to
> join Nixon and Co. in a little corner of hell?
Based on the context, I assumed (and still believe) that Lt. Biles was
referring to Reagan (for Reganomics, Iran Contra, and the October
Surprise), not JMS, as Nixon's future hellmate.
However, thank you for pointing out the post; it is entirely possible
that JMS thought as you did, that he himself was the one being consigned
to hell.
Joe, if you are reading this, would you confirm or deny? It would ease
my mind greatly to know that this has all been simple confusion.
Thanks,
Nathan Shafer
C/1Lt. Joe Biles
creator of my favorite TV show misinterpreted something I said and
made a big deal out of it. How many times does this happen in your
lifetime?
Anyway, I wasn't referring to you, I meant that REAGAN would be
joining Nixon in that special corner. Read the rest of the message.
I'm agreeing with you.
Sorry if I set you off,
Joe Biles
On 22 Feb 2000 15:52:30 -0700, jms...@aol.com (Jms at B5) wrote:
>>The words above sound like you're interpreting the above
>>(initial) quote as an attempt to prevent/dissuade you from using your
>>own "freedon of speech"? If so, I'm confused, since from here it just
>>looks like the usual "give and take" (okay, the "give and Take That!
>>amd give and Take That!...)
>
>The original message indicated that, for nothing more than stating my views, I
>should go to hell.
>
C/1Lt. Joe Biles
poorly. What I meant was that as far as JMS' opinions of Reagan are
concerned, Regan would be the consigned "hellmate." <--- Good word.
I'll use it more often.
Biles
On 23 Feb 2000 13:41:40 -0700, Nathan Shafer <sha...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
Nathan Shafer
>
> Why does it seem like liberals usually think that conservatives are evil
> while convervatives tend to think that liberals are misguided?
Because you're conservative?
I don't mean to be glib; I simply think that it seems that way because
of where you are standing. My parents stand somewhere to the right of
Tailgunner Joe, and they think JFK and Clinton are/were two of the most
evil men in American history. They think Carter was a moron, and they
loved (and still love) Reagan.
Although my father's all time favorite president is Coolidge. Why?
"Because he didn't do a damn thing!"
- Mr. Shafer
- Nathan
The Nuclear Marine
Jonathan Biggar wrote:
> Sure, I support free speech, but when someone, even you, takes cheap
> potshots at a man that can't even defend himself anymore, I'll call it
> like I see it.
>
Out of interest, if he were able to defend himself, would Reagan waltz
his butt into this newsgroup and give his two cents on people"s opinion
of him? I would say no. So if differing opinions he would not defend
himself against are ok, why are differing opinions he cannot defend
himself against not ok.
> And taking glee at the encroaching diminishment of a man who inspired
> millions of Americans with a positive message of hope and responsibility
> makes you better?
Hate to break it to you John, but you are showing Reagan is using his
acts to defend himself. You are his willing tool in this act. But then
jms has already commented on this. Reagan doesn't have to be here to
defend himself, and his public acts and public condition are fair play.
>
> As opposed to all of the people whose jobs were lost and lives damaged
> due to the rampant inflation of the '70s? Or the fact that the
> government at the time thought it perfectly fair to take 90% of every
> dollar off of the top of the "rich" in order to give it to people who
> sit around on their butts and do nothing to help this country?
Amazing, you attack an administration who cannot defend itself in
person. Let's not forget that today, the poor is taxed proportionately
more than the rich (much greater in the 80's) and is that fair? Let's
face, there is no such thing as fair, it is a concept that differs
person to person. I don't put myself down because I can write in the
snow standing up but the police may have a differing opinion.
>
> I think you are simply looking around and seeing human nature--that
> there will always be greedy people and poor people--and sticking the
> blame on a convenient target.
>
> Now if you would show yourself to be just as critical about the serious
> damage done to the rule of law by the current occupant of the white
> house, then perhaps I wouldn't have lost quite as much respect for you.
>
Damage you see, or measurable damage that there is? On the other hand
in 100 years, you'll be physically dead, and probably won't care, so why
now?
=====================================
The hard part about being a Christian Atheist is finding out what an
oxymoron is.
The Nuclear Marine
Susan Phillips wrote:
>
> On 21 Feb 2000 18:05:34 -0700, Jms at B5 wrote:
>
> >>Needlessly cruel like violating the democratic process, maybe. Pity
> >>that Hinckley fellow couldn't get closer. Oh well, at least the crook
> >>will suffer longer this way. However bad Reagonomics may have been,
> >>it's nothing on October Surprise and Iran/Contra. As far as JMS, the
> >>only thing I can say is that Nixon is going to have company
> >
> >You know, it's funny that we all like to say we support freedom of speech and
> >differing opinions until someone actually *uses* same, at which point one is
> >pilloried for saying such things (though on the other hand it's enlivened the
> >conversation a bit).
>
> You're free to dislike Reagan's policies. You're free to dislike the man.
> You're free to say so. But I have to agree with the person who said shame on
> you. Reagan is a human being who's ill and can't defend himself now.
>
> Sue
> who will probably be pilloried for this
>
So you're the type that feels sorry for the Anti-Hero in "A ClockWork
Orange"? Hey, Reagan is getting less than he deserves in many people's
opinion. I hold no pity for him. He is human, and he will die as
humans tend to do from time to time. I hold more respect for Clinton to
put it in a way that is a more shocking statement (shows the idiocy of
perspective people place on events)
Myself, I say the US got what it elected. Blaming the man because he
did what others allow frees the ultimate people responsible- ourselves.
They could have re-elected Carter or elected Mondale (shudder) but
choose a man who knew nothing of the basics of Nuclear War and effects
on communications with satellites, and a man who knew most US citizens
understood even less.
Ironic that those that don't enjoy watching a dog suffer wish to take
away the rights of row inmates attempting to save their (innocent at
times) lives. Reagan helped financially cripple this country and now
since he can't remember this we should pity the poor animal. He
stopped mental health funding and has never publicly mentioned the words
AIDS or even homosexual that I know of. Shucky darn.
Oh, but maybe I'm being to harsh on "The Greatest President This Country
Ever Had"
Darnit, jms, now I'm worked
up.............breath............relax...........oooh, donuts.
================================
I can imagine a planet of complete peace.
I can imagine a planet without war.
And I can imagine us attacking that planet,
cause they wouldn't expect it.
The Nuclear Marine
Jms at B5 wrote:
>
> >3. Finally, there's a difference between hating the sin and hating
> > the sinner. I hate what you said, Joe; I still respect and admire
> > *you*. You, however, cannot see past your disagreements with
> > Reagan on policy, and feel you must condemn the man himself as evil.
> >
>
> If you're going to go Biblical on me, then I have to point to the part that
> says "Ye shall know them by their works." So given his record, yeah, I'd say
> he fits the bill.
>
> The "hate the sin love the sinner" thing is also a great remover of
> responsibility. It also is used primarily by Christians, and I do not fall
> into that camp.
>
> jms
>
> (jms...@aol.com)
Which, being Christian or Hating the sin, not the sinner? Most
Christians I know can't distinguish (such is the case with most
ideals)between the two. I think you probably hold more ideals than most
"Christians" presume they have. Of course, I have only your works to
base that (Grey 17 not withstanding).
=================================
At what point is a man truly dead?
The Nuclear Marine
Matthew Clark wrote:
> I don't know if you've ever been confronted of the "slow death" of
> Alzheimer's,
> but speaking as someone who lost his grandmother to it, no it isn't. I
> can't imagine
> wishing the hell my father (my own hell pales to his) went through as he
> lost his
> mother with each visit any more than I can imagine you wishing alcoholism on
> a family. That was a foul ball, Joe, not just on Reagan's family, but on
> everyone
> who's had to go through it.
>
Speaking as a guy who's own grandfather has Alzheimer's disease I can
say there was nothing foul about jms' comment about a public figure who
many think did worse than he himself is suffering.
===============================
On the bright side, thing best thing about Alzheimer's disease is you
get to meet new people everyday.
scarabz
Marvin Gersho wrote:
>
(some other stuff...)
>
> I have great respect for the intensions of Jimmy Carter and Ronald
> Reagan. They both wanted what they thought was best for the country. I
> just think that one of them was a great deal more effective than the
> other.
>
> Marvin Gersho
>
(snipping even more...)
Very well put. Remembering the Carter years and the Reagan years, it
was a pretty big turnaround from pessimism to optimism... and both
positions seemed justified in their times. Reagan, IMO (based on
every scrap of information I can get my hands on), had a lot to do
with that.
A note as far as moving people out of mental institutions and onto
the streets: I agree that that's bad policy, but there's plenty of
blame to go around. Much of that movement was actually caused by
leftward-leaning individuals complaining about conditions and
patients' rights, and making it much more difficult to keep people
in such institutions. (Yes, I do have evidence of this... parent
working for state hospitals.) That trend continues today, to varying
degrees in many areas. (Do you like that Mayor Giuliani (sp?) has
been trying to reverse that trend in NYC?)
Anyway, I've gotten a very high opinion of Reagan through getting
as much information as I can get my hands on. I can understand why
others would get a different opinion: it would depend on what
information you believe, what sources seem most reliable.
Unfortunately, too many people on both sides tend to form an opinion
without learning much at all.
I've developed a very conservative political view from becoming a
"news junkie." To all those who have a different, informed view, I
say: bring it on! I enjoy political debate. To those who haven't
followed much: watch and learn (and try to learn more on your own,
it's easy enough to do thanks to the web).
But I'm still hoping we can find somewhere other than here to
discuss this... I love B5, and don't want to turn this group into
flamewar territory.
--SCarab
"Not The One."
Jms at B5
>damage done to the rule of law by the current occupant of the white
>house, then perhaps I wouldn't have lost quite as much respect for you.
>
I'm sorry, I must have missed something, I thought there was an 8 year term
limit on Presidents. Shouldn't we be spending our time addressing this one
rather than fighting the last one all over again?
Jms at B5
>Reagan's views. However, could you consider the possibility that his
>views were heartfelt, and that he did what he thought was best for the
>country?
So did Hitler.
Now before everyone on the planet jumps on me, NO, I am NOT comparing RR in any
way, manner, shape or form to AH. I'm only saying that sincerely believing
that one is doing the right thing is not the same thing as DOING the right
thing. Nearly every government leader acts his way because that's what he
thinks is appropriate; that really doesn't prove, validate or excuse anything
one way or another.
And everything I've read about Reagan indicates that he really didn't have a
firm grasp on much of what was going on; he just wanted the pointy hat that
said President on it. He considered it his best role, and pretty much let
everyone around him write his scripts.
scarabz
Mark Maher wrote:
>
> JBONETATI wrote in message
> <20000222063934...@ng-fi1.aol.com>...
> ><<I want him to *remember* all the things he did -- >>
> >
> >Okay, this may turn the conversation in a different direction
> but it's a
> >serious question:
> >
> >Do you really think that a President actually has the power to
> *do* the things
> >you've said? Yes, perhaps he allowed them to be done and
> perhaps had an
> >obligation to say something, but actually to instigate them as
> you make it
> >sound? I don't think a President has had that kind of power
> for at least
> >several decades.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
>
> ABSOLUTELY! Although Congress is the body charged with making
> the laws and passing the budget, it is up to the administration
> to decide how much effort is put into enforcing those laws and
> spending that money. The people in the executive branch (all of
> whom, be they civil service bureaucrats or political appointees,
> are beholden to the whim of the President) also carry out the
> daily regulation, or lack thereof, of all of the things that the
> Federal government has its fingers on. Just in case you haven't
> noticed, that's just about everything.
>
(Which is why gun control is such a strange issue: as of late last
year, there were something like 6 prosecutions of something like
6000 arrests on federal gun charges, yet the Clinton
administration fights for more gun control)
> Even in this administration, this President has used his power
> of executive order to enforce his vision of what he sees is
> right, even though the majority of Congress does not see it his
> way and will not pass legislation to suit his fancy.
>
(This president has done more than any other in recent history
to try to circumvent the Constitutional limitations on the
exectuive branch. One recent example: threatening to sue some
handgun manufacturers unless they complied with his wishes --
everyone knew they couldn't win, but the lawsuit cost would
be harmful to the manufacturers.)
> The Judicial branch can only get involved after the fact, once
> the damage has already been done. Someone with enough money and
> power has to take on the government or the corporation
> responsible for the terrible toll that has already been dealt
> out. Most average Americans don't have the resources for such a
> fight, and the administration knows it. They have known it for
> years.
>
> Because of the practice of "Reagan-omics," the only thing that
> the US seems to make better than anyone else nowadays are
> military weapons. And due to the cutbacks in military and pure
Um... what world are you living in? Let's see... Microsoft,
Intel, Apple, Dell, Gateway, ... AND doctors are fleeing Canada
for the US ... AND the US still gets among the best students
from around the world, ... it would be easy to continue.
> scientific research funding (cutbacks that began in 1988 during
> the Reagan administration, BTW) even that is thrown to doubt at
> the present. The computers that are such a significant part of
> the current economy are for the most part manufactured overseas
> from parts that are made by impoverished workers at a fraction
> of what we would consider a decent wage. I don't begrudge those
> people their earnings - I do begrudge the multi-national
> corporations who moved those jobs out of this country to make
> their stock portfolio look better and to evade any chance that
> someone might hold them accountable.
Many manufacturing jobs have moved overseas... but you don't see
employment figures suffering from that fact. The design,
programming, and use of computers are still highest in the US.
Wages are up. Unemployment is down. If companies tried to
manufacture in the US, who would they hire?
>
> But that's just my opinion...I could be wrong.
>
How closely do you follow politics? If you want harder references
than my say-so, you can find them easliy enough on the web. I
have become more conservative the more I've learned. I think that
this would be the case with many people (though obviously not all.
Reasonable people can have a difference of opinion on many, many
issues.)
I'm rather confidant in my opinion, because of the information
I've learned. Please learn more, and I expect that you'll
regard your ideas as more than "just your opinion."
> __!_!__
> Gizmo
--SCarab
"Not The One."
TNW7Z
>Jms at B5 wrote:
[much snipped]
>> He ran a heartless administration, which saw retreats in many >>necessary
social areas,
[snip]
>> You want to talk mean and cruel, nothing I said here compares in >>the
*slightest* with the tens of thousands of people who have >>suffered lost jobs
and incomes and even lost lives because of >>the policies and programs he
implemented.
>As opposed to all of the people whose jobs were lost and lives damaged due to
the rampant inflation of the '70s? Or the fact that >the government at the
time thought it perfectly fair to take 90% >of every dollar off of the top of
the "rich" in order to give it to >people who sit around on their butts and do
nothing to help this >country?
Actually, the 90% top tax bracket existed under Eisenhower in the 50's. It was
a Democrat, JFK, who lowered it to 70%. Reagan lowered it to 50% and then
later to around 33%, I think. Of course we then ended up with, what was it --
around a 300 billion dollar deficit? Compared to 60 billion under Carter. And
now of course, under a very lucky Democrat, there's a surplus.
Also, I assume you realize that the higher % of taxes taken from people in
upper tax brackets does not apply to "every dollar" they earn -- only those
dollars above a certain cut-off.
Also, the inflation of the 70's was largely due to oil prices, which Carter had
no control over. And I believe that most economists feel that Volker? (can't
remember -- whoever was appointed *before* Carter left office) and the dramatic
drop in oil prices was what stopped inflation. Reagan benefited from it
greatly, but had little to do with it.
I'd have to go back and research what Reagan did to social programs.... the two
cuts I remember were:
1.) about 80% of the money for low income housing was slashed, resulting for
the first time in a significant percentage of the homeless (30 - 40%)
consisting of families and even people working full-time jobs. That's a trend
which continues to this day, especially on the East and West coasts. Prior to
that time the homeless tended to be people with drug and alcohol problems or
the mentally ill who had been deinstitutionalized to underfunded community
programs. We've now gotten so used to families and working people being
homeless, we don't even remember that it wasn't always the case.
2.) Benefits for the disabled were also slashed, clogging the courts with
people desperate to get them back. The fact that judges deemed that something
like 80% of the people who lost benefits should get them back indicates how
draconian those cuts were. And many people with severe disabilities suffered
for months without benefits prior to their court dates. Good thing Reagan
wasn't a poor or middle class person with Alzhiemers back then.
And today, it's very lucky that Reagan and his caretaker Nancy have lots of
money and don't need to rely on Medicare home health care or a nursing home.
Services have been slashed dramatically as a result of the Medicare cuts, and
the treatment of patients is getting worse by the day. Why the cuts? Part of
the balanced budget amendment -- getting rid of that pesky Reagan/Bush
deficit.
>Now if you would show yourself to be just as critical about the >serious
damage done to the rule of law by the current occupant of >the white house,
then perhaps I wouldn't have lost quite as much >respect for you.
Hmmmm... What about Iran/Contra? Our government is one of checks and balances
-- so no branch can gain dictatorial powers. Very frightening when the
executive branch decides to *secretly* go against a congressional vote and do
what it pleases. That's a threat to our entire system of government. In my
book, Iran/Contra was a whole lot worse than a pathetic guy trying to hide a
sexual affair.
TNW
Kurtz
"Marvin Gersho" <mge...@home.com> wrote in message
news:38B16D8B...@home.com...
>
>
> Why does it seem like liberals usually think that conservatives are evil
> while convervatives tend to think that liberals are misguided?
>
So somebody else has observed this tendency. Interesting.
Not long ago, Richard Cohen wrote an op-ed piece in the Post,
and, while praising McCain, went on to say that he was just plain
'wrong' on issues A and B and dead wrong on C. My reaction
was to think "wrong? can't someone have a difference of opinion
without it being right or wrong?".
I've noticed that some liberals tend to regard their own opinion
as right or wrong, and I mean wrong in the moral sense - tending
towards 'evil'. Conservatives tend to look at their own opinion as
right or wrong in the sense of making the best choice from what's
available. I don't regard people who disagree with me as any
kind of 'enemy', but as a potential 'convert'. All kidding aside, I've
found that most people who disagree with me have some very
logical and sensible reasons for why they believe what they do.
I always try to reason with such people, because there's always the
chance in my mind that *their* opinion might be the better informed
one. Most of the time when I argue with someone, I try to keep my
focus on *persuasion*, and not proving someone wrong - if you make
getting the other guy to admit he's wrong the point of an argument,
you'll be doing that forever, because in all my years I've never seen
it happen. If you're clever enough, you MAY be able to get your
opponent to agree with you and allow him to save face, by letting
him think he arrived at your opinion through his own wisdom.
I think it was JMS's stories that first led me to realize that a REALLY
good bad guy is not the one who is obviously eeeh-vill. Real life
bad guys rarely twirl their mustaches, wring their hands and squeal
with delight over the evil they are about to do. Most of the time, they
feel like it's the right thing to do. I always liked characters like Mr.
Welles
in "The Fall of Night". He seemed so harmless, and his reasoning made
sense. It was in both JMS's stories, and also in Harlan Ellison's I
realized a good story had better not beat you on the head with its 'moral'.
You do not create straw men for the side you disagree with, personally.
(Most TV shows do this constantly - they are so transparent!).
You create a conflict where both sides seem plausible - it is up to the
*reader* to decide which is right. The writer leaves it up to them.
Patrick MARCEL
> Nothing except the genocide practiced around the world while we
> struggled to make the planet safe for democracy.
...and I'm sure Argentine, Nicaragua, Panama and various other countries
where democratically-elected heads of state were replaced by US-friendly
dictators are very grateful.
Patrick
--
"We are all born as molecules in the heart of a billion stars; molecules
that do not understand politics or policies or differences. Over a
billion years, we foolish molecules forget who we are, and where we came
from. In desperate acts of ego we give ourselves names, fight over lines
on maps, and pretend our light is better than everyone else's. The flame
reminds us of the piece of those stars that lives on inside us, the
spark that tells us, 'you know better'." JMS
Corun MacAnndra
>
>Now if you would show yourself to be just as critical about the serious
>damage done to the rule of law by the current occupant of the white
>house, then perhaps I wouldn't have lost quite as much respect for you.
So you're saying that JMS can say anything he likes about anyone he
dislikes as long as he takes cheap potshots (your words) at people
you personally dislike as well, regardless of his personal feelings
about them? My, how democratic of you. I'm sure he'll work all the
harder now to gain your respect.
And before you twist that, no, I'm not saying who JMS likes or dislikes.
Apart from Reagan at this point I don't know. So I'm not speaking for him.
And you also can't infer from my comments who I like or dislike either,
so don't try to say I'm a Clinton fan (or not). Others in this thread
have made similar assumptions about my political preferences.
Corun
Pål Are Nordal
[ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set. ]
[ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
"John W. Kennedy" wrote:
> Most Americans are aliterate, and can be reached only by
> television advertising.
> Television advertising is monstrously expensive.
>
> Things being as they are, it is no longer possible to be an honest
> politician above the municipal level in America without being
> independently wealthy (and we all know what Jesus said about the rich).
Makes me glad I live in a country where political commercials are illegal.
--
Donate free food with a simple click: http://www.thehungersite.com/
Pål Are Nordal
a_b...@bigfoot.com
TNW7Z
re-write. If the original one also pops up, I apologize. Also, please ignore
it -- this one is more coherent.
In article <38B1E9D3...@floorboard.com>, Jonathan <j...@floorboard.com>
wrote:
>Jms at B5 wrote:
[much snipped]
>> He ran a heartless administration, which saw retreats in many necessary
>> social areas and created a meanspirited "me first" generation that gutted
the
>> heart of this country........
[snip]
>> You want to talk mean and cruel, nothing I said here compares in the
>> *slightest* with the tens of thousands of people who have suffered lost
>>jobs and incomes and even lost lives because of the policies and programs
>>he implemented.
>As opposed to all of the people whose jobs were lost and lives damaged
>due to the rampant inflation of the '70s? Or the fact that the
>government at the time thought it perfectly fair to take 90% of every
>dollar off of the top of the "rich" in order to give it to people who
>sit around on their butts and do nothing to help this country?
Not exactly. The top tax rate was 90% back in the Republican Eisenhower
administration. JFK, a Democrat, lowered it to 70%. Reagan lowered it to 50%
and then later to 33%. That coupled with the increase in defense spending
caused the deficit to balloon to 300 billion (it had been only 60 billion under
Carter). According to Reagan's budget guy, David Stockman, the deficit was
increased *deliberately* so Republicans would have an excuse to cut social
spending. [And how ironic -- under a lucky Democrat, we now have a surplus.]
Also, I assume you know that if someone is in the top tax bracket, the high
rate doesn't affect "every dollar" they earn. Most of their income is taxed at
the same rate as everyone else's. Only income above a certain level is taxed
at the higher rate.
With regard to inflation, under Carter that was directly due to OPEC's decision
to cut production and let oil prices rise. Carter couldn't do a thing about
it. The fact that it was under control in the Reagan years was due to the
dramatic drop in oil prices and Volker's? (appointed by Carter) policies.
Reagan lucked out.
With regard to social programs --
Reagan cut 80% of the money going to low income housing, which resulted in
about 30 - 40% of the homeless suddenly being *families*, often with a member
who had a full-time minimum wage job. That problem continues to this day,
especially on the east and west coasts. Prior to Reagan, nearly all of the
homeless were individuals with mental illness or drug/alcohol problems. 20
years later we forget there was a time when homeless working people and
families were nearly unheard of.
Then there were the draconian cuts to benefits for the disabled. After much
suffering waiting to get their day in court, 80% of individuals labeled
"disabled" were found by judges to be truly disabled and in need of having
their benefits restored. Good thing Reagan wasn't a poor or middle income
person with Alzheimers back then. What would he and Nancy have done while they
waited months to have their benefits restored?
And under the category of continuing fallout from the massive deficit (and
national debt) -- In order to pass the balanced budget amendment, Medicare was
slashed. As a result, a large number of home health care agencies and nursing
homes (not to mention hospitals) are going bankrupt leaving people without
services. And the nursing homes and home health care agencies still in
existence have dramatically cut back services. As the baby boomers start to
need these services for their parents or themselves, they're going to be in for
a big shock. If Ron and Nancy didn't have money and were dependent on either
home health care or a nursing home, they'd be in big trouble right now.
>I think you are simply looking around and seeing human nature--that
>there will always be greedy people and poor people--and sticking the
>blame on a convenient target.
But government policies and laws (encouraged by our leaders) can do a lot to
mitigate the human suffering that often occur when people are left to their own
devices.
>Now if you would show yourself to be just as critical about the serious
>damage done to the rule of law by the current occupant of the white
>house, then perhaps I wouldn't have lost quite as much respect for you.
Hmmm.... damage done to the rule of law? What about Iran-Contra? Our
government has a system of checks and balances so that no branch can gain
dictatorial powers. When the executive branch decides it is OK to *secretly*
defy something congress has voted on, that's a serious threat to our democracy
and our whole system of government. A pathetic man trying to hide an
embarrassing affair doesn't come close to causing that level of damage to the
rule of law.
TNW
John W. Kennedy
> The "hate the sin love the sinner" thing is also a great remover of
> responsibility. It also is used primarily by Christians, and I do not fall
> into that camp.
One cannot but recall Chesterton's (?) remark: "Christianity has not
been tried and found wanting; it's been found difficult and not tried."
But the whole issue of Xtian forgiveness vs. responsibility was dealt
with by Dorothy L. Sayers in her play, "The Emperor Constantine", far
better than I could ever do.
Helena
To forgive and to spare are not always the same. You spared Maximian
and Licinius once -- did you forgive them?
Constantine [surprised by a new idea]
Why, no -- I suppose not. I didn't care for them enough. I wanted to
be magnanimous.... I see. One can spare and not forgive -- and one
can also forgive, and not spare.... God forgives us -- but does He
spare us?
Helena [sighing]
Not very often. He did not spare Himself.
--
-John W. Kennedy
-rri...@ibm.net
Compact is becoming contract
Man only earns and pays. -- Charles Williams
John W. Kennedy
> What this comes down to, Joe, is this: you are allowing your ideological
> antipathy for one man make you less than you are. That is a sad thing
> to see, given the heights that you have shown yourself to be capable of.
> And if the shoe were on t'other foot, I believe you would be the first
> one to speak out and offer a gentle word of admonition to the erring
> party.
Nathan, Nathan, Nathan.... Weren't you hanging around when "Passing
Through Gethsemane" first aired? Joe's been through this before with
us. He isn't Brother Theo, any more than he's Al Bester. He is
himself, with his own opinions, beliefs, and feelings.
Anyway, passing it all off as "ideology" is simply to duck the issue.
If it is wrong to think Reagan evil because of "ideological antipathy",
it is just as wrong to believe the same about -- fill in the blank,
here, yourself (probably with he who must not be named on USENET). If
the overwhelming tendency of Reagan's political acts was toward moral
blindness, perversity, and hypocrisy, and to the growth of moral
blindness, perversity, and an amazingly self-satisfied hypocrisy among
the American people, why then Ronald Reagan is an evil man, and was an
evil president. And if this be so, moral responsibility demands that
one say it. "De mortuis nil nisi bonum" (beyond the bounds of courtesy
-- and I doubt very much that Joe would say these things direct to a
member of Reagan's immediate family) is very little more than a remnant
of pagan superstition.
Susan Phillips
>I worked for a temp-agency once, & I hated it. I wasn't working most of
>the time, & most of the other temp-places were too far away for me, so I
>couldn't go with more than one. Temp-agencies are a legacy of the
>Reagan-years, & they give no health-insurance.
This may have been true once upon a time but it isn't any more. At least not
where I am. I work for a temp agency - when I work - that provides health
insurance. Admittedly, the employee pays a lot of the cost but it is
available.
Sue
"How can you be anal-retentive if you don't have an anus?"
Bartleby, "Dogma"
Jms at B5
>>Based on the context, I assumed (and still believe) that Lt. Biles was
>>referring to Reagan (for Reganomics, Iran Contra, and the October
>>Surprise), not JMS, as Nixon's future hellmate.
>>
Nope. The sentence is self-explanatory. It refers to me. I'm a writer, I do
this for a living, I can parse a sentence pretty well. Words mean what they
mean, and the context here is quite clear.
Nathan Shafer
>
> Anyway, passing it all off as "ideology" is simply to duck the issue.
I disagree; I will get to why below.
> If it is wrong to think Reagan evil because of "ideological antipathy",
> it is just as wrong to believe the same about -- fill in the blank,
> here, yourself (probably with he who must not be named on USENET).
Just so. I believe it is equally wrong to say that HITLER was an evil
man as it is to say that Reagan is an evil man. How do you know what
was in either man's heart when he did what he did?
Now, it is quite another thing to recognize that a certain *act* is
evil. But even there, you're on dicey ground when a large portion of
the populace disagrees with you. That's why "ideology" is not simply a
dodge - even evaluating whether Reagan's acts as president were evil is
subject to one's ideology. You say that he tossed people out on the
street; your political opposite may say he simply made the correct
evaluation that it is not the place of the federal government to be
providing housing in the first place, and that Reagan judged that
private charity would quickly take up the slack. Whether or not Reagan
was correct in the latter, in the former his decision was based on a
*different political view*, nothing more.
> If the overwhelming tendency of Reagan's political acts was toward
> moral blindness, perversity, and hypocrisy
*If*. That is not an established fact, except perhaps among your own
social group. That is an *opinion.* But let's go on.
> why then Ronald Reagan is an evil man, and was an evil president.
Once again, I don't think you can know what was in his heart, so it
is not your place to say whether he was an evil or good man. That is,
I believe, at the heart of the edict "judge not, lest ye be judged."
Which, while its source is Biblical, I think is generally good advice
for everyone.
Nathan Shafer
Justin Bacon
>1. Abraham Lincoln
>2. Franklin D. Roosevelt
>3. George Washington
>4. Theodore Roosevelt
>5. Harry S. Truman
>6. Woodrow Wilson
>7. Thomas Jefferson
>8. John F. Kennedy
>9. Dwight D. Eisenhower
>10. Lyndon B. Johnson
>11. Ronald Reagan
>
>Given that JFK is the most pathetically overrated President in
>the history of the nation, Eisenhower did little but preside
>over the status quo, and even Johnson himself considered his
>presidency a dismal failure, it seems certain that Reagan's
>stature is going to keep on rising and rising long after he's
>dead.
I'm not sure how you conclude that while Kennedy, Eisenhower, and Johnson will
be devalued with time that Reagan's reputation will survive. Applying the final
nail in the Soviet coffin, perhaps? But Johnson saw us through civil rights
reform, Kennedy through the Cuban Missile Crisis, and Eisenhower over a
fundamental shift in the American economy.
Of all their achievements, I suspect that Eisenhower's freeway system will last
the longest.
>Reagan was right, and all the pseudo
>intellectuals who dreamt of Big Government and Big Programs were
>wrong.
Big Gov't and Big Programs (by your definition of 10-20 years) gave us the
1950s and 1960s. Try again.
And how do you explain the fact that trickle down economimcs have been tried
twice in this country -- and each time, at almost exactly a point 10 years down
the line, the economy crashed and burned (the recession Bush had to cope with
and the Great Depression itself)?
>Don't you remember Jimmy Carter, crying and wringing his
>hands, saying that America would just have to accept a permanent
>loss of influence in the world, and that our economy was never going
>to get back on track, and that there was nothing anyone could do
>about it? He was a nice man, but an idiot.
Carter is a very talented, intelligent man. He had the great misfortune to be
President at a time when the skills he possessed were worthless and every
weakness he posssessed was precisely where strength was needed. As a result,
his Presidency was a monstrous failure.
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
Justin Bacon
writes:
>> Which is what the person who started this particular thread said of me,
>that
>> for simply expressing an opinion, I deserved taht selfsame hell.
>
>Excuse me. I believe I was the one you are referring to, and I *never*
>said anything about what you deserve. I only said that I was disappoin-
>ted in you. And that is becoming more and more true as this thread
>progresses.
No, he's talking about the guy who said he would be going to hell. If you
didn't say that, then he's not talking about you.
Justin Bacon
tr...@prairie.lakes.com
Nathan Shafer
>
> >>Based on the context, I assumed (and still believe) that Lt. Biles was
> >>referring to Reagan (for Reganomics, Iran Contra, and the October
> >>Surprise), not JMS, as Nixon's future hellmate.
>
> Nope. The sentence is self-explanatory. It refers to me. I'm a writer, I do
> this for a living, I can parse a sentence pretty well.
Well, now I know that Joe was referring to Lt. Biles' post, not mine,
and so I offer my apologies to JMS for my incorrect accusation.
Jow, I think sometimes you give too much credit - just because you can
parse a sentence does not mean that everyone else can write parseable
(is that a word? Oh well, it is now...) sentences. Lt. Biles has
said that he meant Reagan, not you, and I think we should take him
at his word.
Anyway, peace. I'm done with this topic. Onward and downward...
- Nathan Shafer
C/1Lt. Joe Biles
99th percentile on the writing portion of the PSAT. I knew something
was off with that sentence when I wrote it, then my newsreader goes
down for two days, I get back on and boom--there it is. Eeeck... this
has not been the best week for me. I'm just glad that JMS has yet to
be deified like GR (the "Great Maker" not withstanding), or I'd be
three days dead right now, lynched for my supposed heresy.
On 24 Feb 2000 11:42:45 -0700, Nathan Shafer <sha...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
>Jms at B5 wrote: