Big Ol' Smitty

Q for SJ: Have you read/do you know about Confessions of an Economic Hitman? Thoughts?

It's been done--a lot. Hundreds and hundreds of hours of tongue-speaking have been captured on tape and studied relentlessly by researchers. None of it has turned out to be any actual language.

And Hindus, Taoists, Buddhists, Sikhs, Wiccans, Rastafarians, Scientologists, followers of traditional Native American religions, etc. Pretty much anyone who's not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim. Deism? A few minor edits in there.

All of these quotes suggest that it was *the* reason.

One day someone came into the bookstore where I work and asked if we had Prayer for Dummies. I really wanted to bust out laughing, being the secular bastard that I am.

Ari Fleischer (cited by Adams & Huband, Financial Times, April 12-13, 2003) stated that Iraq's possesion of WMD: British Foreign Minister Jack Straw (cited by Sanger & Barringer, March 7, 2003 NYT) announced that if Saddam disarmed: Colin Powell (March 6, 2003, NYT): Powell (March 23, 2003, NYT) stated that Iraq: Condi Rice (Foreign Affairs, January-February 2000, Mearsheimer/Walt): Anyone? Beuler?

http://www.newamericancentury.org/defense-20050128.htm Letter to Congress These are the same neo-con hawks who scoffed at Shinseki and claimed that the war was won back in 2K3.

Rummy & the Wolf, as well as the WS itself, pissed all over Shinseki and any notion that circumstances might arise that would require a larger commitment of forces. See the March 24, 2K3 piece by Jeffrey Bell, for instance, or the May 5, 2K3 piece (which applauds Rummy for crapping on Shinseki) by Max Boot. Boot said that post-war Iraq: (On a side note: an older lady in one of my roomate's classes was over at the crib the other night to watch a movie for class. She went on a double date w/ Donald Rumsfeld when she was younger.)

At least some of our elected officials are being sensible about the use of nuclear weapons. Rep. Sam Johnson: Rollcall.com

Elaborate? I would agree with that, SJ. Desperation and hopeless times allow marginal extreme groups to gain power (look at history). Glad we agree on the latter statement. I wasn't trying to argue that liberalization is bad--but that liberalization should not be forced or undertaken on anyone's terms other than the country in question's.

I dunno, you're really going out on a limb there. Those guys have been in tons of *classic* films.

Elaborate? I would agree with that, SJ.

You're kidding me. That's so wrong, on so many levels. Economic liberalization has been largely responsible for the the increase in the standard of living! Proof: Asia Eastern Bloc Gah~! Obviously it's preferable to a pure command economy--but stuctural adjustment & liberalization have worsened standards of living in some third world countries because they decrease access to government services like health care & education. I'm certainly not arguing that liberalization is a bad thing--just that it should be tempered with some concern for quality of life. Also, if liberalization is all wine & roses, why are there so many intellectual & grassroots movements against it in the Third World?

Wasn't sure where to post this, but this seems as good a place as any. I would like for someone who has claimed that "democracy" & "freedom" were justifications (for the Iraq war, made by the Bush administration) on par with the "WMD" & "security" justifications to respond to the following: Mar. 6, news conference. Bush stated that there was: Ari Fleischer (cited by Adams & Huband, Financial Times, April 12-13, 2003) stated that Iraq's possesion of WMD: British Foreign Minister Jack Straw (cited by Sanger & Barringer, March 7, 2003 NYT) announced that if Saddam disarmed: Colin Powell (March 6, 2003, NYT): Powell (March 23, 2003, NYT) stated that Iraq: Condi Rice (Foreign Affairs, January-February 2000, Mearsheimer/Walt):

Eh, it's just something I heard somewhere, maybe in an ecology class. Could be wrong. Here's some more stats: -If we raise fuel efficiency standards in American cars by one mile per gallon, in one year, we would save twice the amount of oil that could be obtained from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge -Raising it by 2.7 mpg would save enough to eliminate all the oil imports from Iraq and Kuwait combined -Raising it by 7.6 mpg would save enough to eliminate 100% of our gulf oil imports into this country source We could also improve mileage a lot by simple things like making sure our tires have good pressure in them and stuff like that.

Improve gas mileage by 1 mpg on average and we could cut oil imports by 1/2.

Most everything I've ever read indicates that yes, there is a pretty good-sized supply. And ANWR is not an easy place to ruin --- considering that the ground is pretty well frozen. An oil spill would be unlikely to even impact the ecosystem. Thanks, professor.

*I* love generalizations. Pardon me if I think human rights violations and authoritarian rule shouldn't be rewarded. And you support not doing anything to fix it. -=Mike ...Go to war? You gripe. Using money? You gripe... Yeah, because propping up authoritarian regimes with huge amounts of aid (a la Egypt) or military invasions (a la Iraq) are the only two possible solutions. But I would lean toward the second option--although I am hesitant to play world police and impose our values in other places. I don't know if you have read my posts, but I have stated that I support the war in Iraq because of the prospect of a free Iraq. I am pretty ambivalent about the war, though, for other reasons.

Nope. Doesn't look that way. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion...ack=1&cset=true And drilling off the coast of California & Florida is reeeeal feasible.

*I* love generalizations. Pardon me if I think human rights violations and authoritarian rule shouldn't be rewarded.

Hey, you--the guy who kills everybody who disagrees with you--you get an invasion. You, over there--the guy who doesn't let women vote--here's $500 million. The guy in the corner. Yeah, you, Mr. Government-Controlled-Media. It's sanctions for you, buddy. Seems random to me. Oh, I see. My bad. That makes it okay then.

So you think we should deal heavily with horrible human rights abusers and authoritarian regimes? Our GWOT allies like Thailand & Indonesia are using the GWOT as an excuse to crack down on dissident groups & to curtail civil liberties. And if you fail to realize that democracy tends to be a process and not an event, you'd realize how idiotic your incessant carping sounds. -=Mike ..."Yeah, they have more freedom. But it's not PERFECT, yet! It's all America's fault!" So how do we decide which human rights villain or ruthless dictator gets copious amounts of US aid? How come Egypt did and Cuba didn't? And I didn't say it was all America's fault. Stop putting words in my mouth. It's the fault of the authoritarian leaders & the human rights abusers. I think it's ludicrous to prop up these assclowns, though. But I guess it's idiotic to wish your country didn't aid dictators.

So you think we should deal heavily with horrible human rights abusers and authoritarian regimes? Our GWOT allies like Thailand & Indonesia are using the GWOT as an excuse to crack down on dissident groups & to curtail civil liberties.

I would list the countries who made changes based on European diplomacy --- but I'm drawing a total blank in naming one. -=Mike What the fuck does that have to do with what you quoted? Read the first sentence. Don't be afraid --- words won't hurt you. Our diplomacy is starting a possible trend towards democratization in the Middle East --- an approach that liberals could not have opposed more than they did. -=Mike I was asking why you quoted what I wrote. Because what you wrote (about Europe?) after you quoted me had nothing to do with what I wrote. Also I was suggesting that maybe BECAUSE THEY'RE THE #2 RECIPIENT COUNTRY OF US AID that maybe they should have had some decent democratic credentials to begin with to earn that status.