Tuesday, November 1, 2011
The "Devil" is in the Details
One of my main issues with extremists is their penchant to oversimplify. These individuals are constantly taking complex social, political, economic, and historical topics and reducing them; good versus evil, right versus wrong, effective versus ineffective (this one via the shameless utilization of cherry-picking), etc...............................................................................................Take, for example, the hard-core progressives' assessment of Ronald Reagan. Instead of simply saying that Mr. Reagan was a flawed man/President and/or holding the fellow responsible for specific events/problems (ballooning deficits, the Iran-Contra affair, Lebanon, etc.), these individuals have transformed the former President into this most monstrously evil of dark villains. It's absolutely ludicrous..........................................................................................................I mean, yes, Reagan DID make mistakes. Nobody of even a remotely fair mind would argue that. But the fellow also markedly reduced a) interest rates, b) inflation, and c) unemployment. That, I'm saying, and the fellow also brokered a landmark arms-control agreement with Gorbachev. The left, in my opinion, should at least be able to recognize this....................................................................................................P.S. And, yes, to be fair and balanced here, the same could also be said about what the right often does to FDR. Instead of giving the dude credit for things such as the bank holiday, his loosening up of international trade, the fact that some of the public works projects were actually useful, and, especially, his leadership during WW2, they're constantly demonizing him as some sort of pinko (this by focusing only on such boneheaded things as the NRA, etc.). This probably needs to stop, too.
But the fellow also markedly reduced a) interest rates, b) inflation, and c) unemployment.
ReplyDeleteEconomically speaking Paul Volcker's actions had MUCH more a direct effect on those problems then anything Reagan did directly, but since Jimmy Carter appointed Volcker and Reagan appointed Greenspan who crashed the economy from his actions, more then once actually.
However Reagan's trumpeting of borrowing money from where ever with no plans of ever paying it back does question why republicans seem to idol worship him so much with their new found disgust for deficits ... I mean no republican has ever introduced legislation nor set out a way to pay for Reagan's debt let alone Bush Sr. or Jr's debt. They sort of ignore how much the republican political ideology of the last 30 years have trashed the governments economic stability and of course the nations economy along with it.
I'm just saying, that is ...
I agree with you Will. This is also one of MY main issues with extremists.
ReplyDeleteBut I don't agree with you about these "hard core progressives". There are probably some who think Ronald Reagan was the "most monstrously evil of dark villains", but it's obvious that these nuts on the Left number far fewer than the nuts on the right (represented by the tea party congresspersons).
#37927 makes a good point though... after reading his comment I've concluded that Will's moderate extremism causes him to give too much credit to Reagan and far too little credit to FDR.
That's the problem with hard-core moderates... they need to tear down the accomplishments of the Left in order to make the Right seem not so bad.
Reagan could have fired Volcker and Clinton could have fired Greenspan. Bush? I have zero defense for a man who put 2 wars, 2 tax-cuts, and an expensive new entitlement program on the credit card. I just don't call the guy a damned war criminal, that's all............."Moderate extremism" - only in America, wd. LOL
ReplyDeleteReagan could have fired Volcker and Clinton could have fired Greenspan.
ReplyDeleteUmmm will, No they couldn't;
to wit;
As stipulated by the Banking Act of 1935, the President appoints the seven members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; they must then be confirmed by the Senate and serve for 14 years. Once appointed, Governors may not be removed from office for their policy views.
And the relevant federal law;
TITLE 12 - CHAPTER 3 - SUBCHAPTER II - § 250. Independence of financial regulatory agencies
How Current is This?
No officer or agency of the United States shall have any authority to require the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, the Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, or the National Credit Union Administration to submit legislative recommendations, or testimony, or comments on legislation, to any officer or agency of the United States for approval, comments, or review, prior to the submission of such recommendations, testimony, or comments to the Congress if such recommendations, testimony, or comments to the Congress include a statement indicating that the views expressed therein are those of the agency submitting them and do not necessarily represent the views of the President.
A president cannot remove a federal reserve board member because they hold differing political views, the federal reserve system could not work very well, if every four or eight years they changed like cabinet officers do.
That is the reason the offices for the board are set up with 14 year terms with a opening occurring every 2 years.
Will: I just don't call the guy a damned war criminal, that's all.
ReplyDeleteThat's due to your moderate extremism. Why else wouldn't you call a spade a spade? Preemptive war? Torture?
Will: About Bush, it is clear that your dislike of his policies doesn't make you fly off the handle and lie about him. Unlike what others do.
ReplyDeleteWD: "Preemptive war" does not apply against an enemy that has already attached us numerous times. A situation where war is already on anyway.
ReplyDeletedmarks: About Bush, it is clear that your dislike of his policies doesn't make you fly off the handle and lie about him.
ReplyDeleteNo, it's Will's moderate extremism that prevents him from seeing the truth about bush. As for you, it's your liking of bush's policies that cause you to lie about the criminality of them.
dmarks: "Preemptive war" does not apply...
Iraq was a preemptive war. bush argued in favor of preemptive war. bush himself disagrees with you dmarks.
And for the record "there is a consensus that preventive war goes beyond what is acceptable in international law and lacks legal basis".
bush = war criminal.
Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq attacked us multiple times. That was al Qaeda.
"No, it's Will's moderate extremism"
ReplyDeleteIs that like cold fire?
No, it is not the "truth". Your interpretation of international law is nothing like the qualified expert interpretation.
Also, "Iraq was a preemptive war. bush argued in favor of preemptive war. bush himself disagrees with you dmarks."
ReplyDeleteRegardless of what Bush wanted with preemptive war, he did not actually launch any. The war with Iraq was already on, launched by Saddam Hussein during the Clinton administration when Saddam Hussein decided to violate the cease fire agreements in many ways. Ways which included military aggression. Bill Clinton himself ordered major retaliations.
Fighting back against Iraq and Afghanistan was no more "pre-emptive" than fighting back against Japan after Pearl Harbor was.
"Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq attacked us multiple times. That was al Qaeda."
You are factually incorrect. Here is what actually happened.
1) The Afghanistan government openly hosted Al Qaeda and approved of and supported its operations. Any national government which openly hosts and supports an army and allows it full access to its land and government resources is responsible for this army's operations. But you are technically correct that the Afghanistan government did not attack us "multiple times". There was just one instance. 9/11/2001.
2) Saddam's regime ordered many strikes on patrols in the "no fly zones", which was an aggressive violation of the cease fire. Each one of these was an act of war.
------------
"bush = war criminal."
Only in your imagination.
dmarks is factually incorrect. The real facts are as follows...
ReplyDeleteIraq was not a threat to the United States. Whatever was to be done about their violations was up to the UN to determine, not the United States. That is why the institution exists.
bush's war was preemptive, not sanctioned by the UN, and most certainly illegal. Therefore bush NOT being a war criminal is only in the imagination of dmarks. This is the truth as well as the "qualified expert interpretation".
The Taliban did NOT strike us on 9/11. al Qaeda did. The Taliban had no knowledge of the attack. This is also the truth as well as the "qualified expert interpretation".
dmarks: Bill Clinton himself ordered major retaliations.
Bill Clinton did not order war or regime change.
37927, you may be right. But then why were the candidates asked (in one of the debates) what they would do about Mr. Bernanke?...And, fair or unfair, it's the President who gets the credit/blame for the economy.
ReplyDeleteAnd I ask you once again, wd. What about Mr. Obama? Is he a war criminal, too? He sextupled the # of drone strikes in Pakistan, and even more so the # of civilian deaths? There was no Congressional authority OR U.N. authorization for any of this.............As for Mr. Bush, I feel that he made a humomgous miscalculation (that, and he flagrantly cherry-picked the intelligence). I really think that he thought that it truly would be a cake-walk and that it would show the world just how serious he was. Unfortunately, I'm not a mind-reader.
ReplyDeleteWD said: "dmarks is factually incorrect. The real facts are as follows..."
ReplyDeleteNo, your 'facts' have nothing to do with anyhting.
"Iraq was not a threat to the United States."
Nor was Afghanistan just prior to 9-11. Regardless, the Gulf War cease fire agreement prohibited Saddam Hussein from aggression agaisnt us. He violated this by attacking us.
"bush's war was preemptive"
Here you are flat out wrong. There was a state of war BEFORE even Bush took office. Bush's major initiative in the spring of 2003 did not start or 'pre-empt" anything.
"not sanctioned by the UN, and most certainly illegal."
And here you are making things up. The retaliation was most certainly legal. Amateur claims that it was "illegal" have been rejected by the qualified experts.
"Therefore bush NOT being a war criminal is only in the imagination of dmarks."
Actually, this is according to the ICC and the UN. I side with them, not the ignorant cranks. Just sticking to the facts.
"This is the truth as well as the "qualified expert interpretation"."
Actaully, you are lying, and the experts agree.
"The Taliban did NOT strike us on 9/11. al Qaeda did."
Al Quada struck us with the full material, moral, and policy support of the Taliban. Which means they struck us too. Sticking to the facts.
"The Taliban had no knowledge of the attack."
Al Quada had a record of unprovoked aggression against the US. They had attacked us before and promised to attack us again. The Taliban gave Al Quada its full support and hosting knowing full well of this mission. You are saying something that is not true. The Taliban had knowledge that Al Qaeda was going to attack us more, and they suppored it.
"This is also the truth as well as the "qualified expert interpretation"."
Your claim contradicts the actual history.
"Bill Clinton did not order war or regime change."
So?
dmarks: No, your 'facts' have nothing to do with anything.
ReplyDeleteExcept the truth.
dmarks: ...the Gulf War cease fire agreement prohibited Saddam Hussein from aggression against us. He violated this by attacking us.
What was to be done in regards to violations of the cease-fire agreement was in the hands of the UN, not the United States acting unilaterally.
dmarks: [In regards to bush's war being preemptive]... Here you are flat out wrong. There was a state of war BEFORE even Bush took office.
The UN disagreed. bush disagreed. This isn't the case he made. He said we needed to attack because "the smoking gun might be a mushroom cloud". Stop trying to rewrite history dmarks.
dmarks: And here you are making things up [by saying bush's invasion of Iraq wasn't sanctioned by the UN].
No, you are making things up dmarks. The UN said "no" to the invasion. Amateur claims that it was "legal" have been rejected by the qualified experts.
dmarks: Actually, [bush not being a war criminal] is according to the ICC and the UN. I side with them, not the ignorant cranks. Just sticking to the facts.
You are not "just sticking to the facts". Failure to prosecute isn't a deceleration of innocence. Why don't you show me a statement by the ICC or the UN declaring bush to be innocent of war crimes before falsely claiming he didn't break the law? (answer: there isn't one).
dmarks: Actually, you are lying, and the experts agree.
Actually, you (dmarks) are lying, and the experts agree.
dmarks: Al Quada struck us with the full material, moral, and policy support of the Taliban. Which means they struck us too. Sticking to the facts.
I see no facts. I see someone making shit up. Where's your proof?
dmarks: are saying something that is not true. The Taliban had knowledge that Al Qaeda was going to attack us more, and they supported it.
Proof? The bush administration said, "We will make no distinction between the terrorists and those who harbor them"... they didn't say, "those who harbor and aid them in committing their terrorist acts". The reason the bush admin threw that "harbor them" bit in there is because they knew their case for war with Afghanistan was incredibly weak.
dmarks (responding to my saying, "Bill Clinton did not order war or regime change"): So?
So there was not a state of war before Bush took office... as you falsely claimed.
Will: There was no Congressional authority OR U.N. authorization for any of this.
ReplyDeleteIt is my understanding that the Pakastani government approved it (in secret). The deal was they would OK the drones... and in return they continue to get our billions AND get to deny their approval to their own people.
But I'm not defending Obama's actions. I very much disapprove of the drone strikes.
Oh, so it's OK to kill civilians as long as the host country accepts hush money for it? Is Obama a war criminal or isn't he?
ReplyDelete