OT political discussions in this NG

[Brian Hughes]

If Bush & Co. get their way in revising the Fair Labor Standards Act, at
> least 8 million people in the US will lose their overtime pay. That will put quite a dent into
> their standard of living. In addition, once their employers are no longer required to pay them
> overtime, their work hours will increase significantly, decreasing their quality of life.
>
> Tom Sherman - Near the confluence of the Mississippi and Rock Rivers
>
> The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is,
> the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. - John Kenneth Galbraith

Well I have to admit I was pretty ignorant on the proposed Fair Labor Standard Act. So I decided to
pop over to a credible source, and I went to the Dept of Labor's website to see what it said. Their
description of the effect of the revised (strengthened) Fair Labor Standards Act is just about 180
degrees from yours. Boy was I shocked (yes, that's sarcasm). They claim many millions would benefit,
not be hurt (see http://www.dol.gov/_sec/media/speeches/541Handout.htm ). Albeit, digging a little
deeper I did find where the DOL estimated 644,000 could lose overtime pay (not 8 million). I guess
I'll just have to choose for myself which one I should believe. So judging from the perpetual spin I
hear from the left which blames Bush/GOP for everything, plus my experience having been employed by
the federal government myself--I have no doubts whom to believe.

John Kenneth Galbraith is quite a sophist, nicht wahr? I think this one is better. The modern
liberal, like past liberals, searches for superior moral justification in controlling and spending
other people's money (while never seeking a true solution or taking responsibility for a problem).
The liberal actually believes if he/she can be generous someone else's wealth, he/she has no
responsibility to be generous with any of his/her own--Me

 

[Edward Dolan]

[email protected] (bandjhughes) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...

> "Randy N." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > <snip>
> > Are you better off today than you were 3 years ago? Of one hundred people who answer that
> > question truthfully, fewer than five can say yes.
> >
> > Randy
>
> I wonder where you came up with that statistic. I don't think I'm all that unusual but my income
> is certainly considerably higher than 3 years ago, meanwhile my house payments are much less (I'm
> still in the same house, just with a lower mortgage rate). My vehicles payments are complete. I
> ride my bike to work everyday now instead of driving,

>
> Funny thing though, I don't believe a political party was the major contributor to much of this at
> all. Me thinks even had the country suffered through Al Gore, I myself would be in much the same
> economic situation. I believe most others would be too?they just haven't figured out that the
> party currently in charge of the White House isn't the primary factor in their life and sole cause
> of their economic status.
>
>
> Brian

Yeah, me too Brian. I don't think political parties have all that much to do with our economic well
being except in emergency situations when there is an economic crisis. The economy hums along on
it's own course pretty much oblivious to what the politicians have to say about it or what they do
about it. They take credit for a good economy and get blamed for a poor economy, but they seem like
soothsayers to me. But then most economists also seem like soothsayers to me.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

"DH" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> > ...... No one understands that better than the Dutch. In fact, they may be thinking quite ill of
> > you for not standing by your country. There are duties owed to one's country regardless of where
> > you stand in the political spectrum.
>
> Why didn't you address the issue of blind patriotism? That's really what you are talking about.
>
> I get along just fine with the Dutch. We discuss ideas and the worth they might have. If an idea
> or a foreign policy is dumb, it does not matter which country initiates it or supports it, dumb is
> dumb, period. I think they respect me more for not being blindly patriotic. Anyone can wave a
> flag. Waving a flag just because it's your flag has no special meaning for me. If you're going to
> support all the ideas of whomever is in power, it would be easier simply to have a dictator and be
> done with individual thinking and criticizing.

Yes, but what do they really think of you and what do they say about you behind your back? No one
likes or trusts someone who is disloyal and too severe a critic of one's own country. The Dutch
remember their own traitors under the Nazi conquest and dealt with them rather severely after the
war. But the US government and it's leaders are not like the Nazis. Our leaders were democraticaly
elected to office and can be removed the same way. I would temper my criticism if I were living in a
foreign land.

Blind patriotism is for the ignorant, but there are worse things than that. Once a decision has been
made to go to war I guess I will choose to support my country and it's leadership while the war is
ongoing and save my criticism for after the war. As for flag waving, I suggest while you are in
Europe that you pay a visit to the American military cemeteries in Normandy and see if you can keep
a dry eye. And while you are there, remember the French perfidy, and then tell me how flags and
patriotism don't matter all that much.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Edward Dolan wrote:
> > ... Nationalism and strong religious views are not inherently evil (although they can and do
> > cause a lot of grief in the world) and you are right, we will always disagree about that. You
> > are not wrong to be critical of Bush in a foreign land, but it is unbecoming, and those
> > foreigners you are living among will respect you more if you show some loyalty to your country.
> > No one understands that better than the Dutch. In fact, they may be thinking quite ill of you
> > for not standing by your country. There are duties owed to one's country regardless of where you
> > stand in the political spectrum.
>
> Being critical of Bush II is not at all the same thing as being critical of the US as a nation.
...

Actually, being too critical of your country's leadership in a foreign land is often interpreted as
being critical of your country - and all that that implies. The finer distinctions that you and I
recognize do not apply to most people. Most of the world paints with broad brushes.

Also, I do not necessarily think either that you can easily separate a nation's leadership from the
nation or from the people, most especially in a democracy. That is why I do not just rail at the
French government, but also at the French nation and at the French people. They are not necessarily
one and indivisible, but there are surely very strong connections which cannot be easily dismissed.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Randy N." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> > He just can't get over the fact that Bush won the election fair and square!
> >
> > Ed Dolan - Minnesota
>
>
> In an administration widely regarded as the most corrupt in the history of the US (and with some
> very serious competition for the title), I say with no joy that the entire rest of the world with
> almost the sole exception of Britain has repudiated our policies and are well on their way toward
> creating an economic alliance to bury us, as yesterday's news from the G7 suggests. I predicted
> this since the whole trumped up nonsense over Iraq began.

The rest of the world relies on the US to do "the necessary". And as long as we do it, they will sit
back and let us, all the time carping and criticizing.

> If liberation from oppression was Bush's real strategy in Iraq, I can only hope that he is as
> willing to now go back to Somalia, invade Burma, the Congo, stay years in Liberia, and every oil
> poor state run by an evil dictator. Of course, that will be a lot harder now that the G7 has
> decided not to prop up our currency anymore.

Those other places you mention do not threaten us like Iraq (and Iran and North Korea) do. As far as
I know North Korea does not have any oil that we want, but we are nevertheless going to have to do
something about them sooner or later.

> With Bush's tax cut for the uber rich deficits growing to estimates as high as 44 TRILLION dollars
> by 2030, no one is very enthusiastic about investing in American companies. 44 Trillion is a Big
> Ass Number(tm).
>
> A weak dollar could help drive US Exports, if there was something we were making that other people
> could buy or didn't make better. It used to be software, until market speculation and an
> artificial crisis in California sandbagged the Information Economy. Now the cheap labor wing of
> the Republican party is NAFTAing the last bastion of actual wealth generation in America. We will
> reap the whirlwind.
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,97930,00.html
>
> I even chose a news source that you trust, Ed.

Thanks for the reference Randy but you might as well be referring me to a text in Sanskrit. I do not
understand economics, never have, and never will. All I know is that the dollar goes up, and then it
goes down, and then it goes up again. Same with the stock market. I said screw it! 40 years ago and
I haven't paid any attention to such things ever since.

> Grover Norquist wanted to weaken the government so he could drown it in his bathtub. Now it
> appears that his brilliant plan, coupled with Wolfowitz and Perle's thousand year Republican
> Party will cause the US dollar to lose primacy not only in oil markets, but all spheres of
> industrial trade. Way to go NeoCons! Since we don't make much of anything anymore, we are going
> to really have to struggle hard not to be put in the same situation as Berlin in 1946. Only
> worse, far, far, worse.
>
> But hey! Why should Grover worry? Thanks to Richard Mellon Scaife, he's got his, and he doesn't
> have any kids to worry about.
>
> On to my funny story.
>
> On the day of the election in 2000, I was in Canada working with a multinational group of
> programmers for a fortune 100 company, showing them how to convert a massive J++ abortion to a
> functional language. The next morning when I came down to the hotel ballroom they rented for our
> work group, everybody looked at me with a look of genuine fear.
>
> The questions flew hot and heavy. Would the US suffer a civil war? No, of course not, I said. We
> are a nation of laws, not people. I assured them that the votes would be fairly counted, and as
> soon as a majority was certified, the electoral college would reflect the correct numbers and a
> legal President would be declared.
>
> Despite your assertions, I have never been that wrong in my life (with the possible exception of
> dating my second spouse). Nor did I know at the time what chicanery the Jebster and Harris had
> purchased from Choicepoint. An election fraud worthy of Tom Pendergast or Boss Tweed at their more
> corrupt.

It is pointless to keep going back over that election. The pros and cons of it are mind boggling I
will admit. The main lesson I carry away from it is that you do not want to involve the courts in
elections unless absolutely necessary. Unfortunately, I do think it was necessary in the Bush-Gore
case in Florida. The real solution is not to have such close elections. Maybe if the Dems nominate
Dean we won't have to worry about another close election.

> I remember the look in the eyes of this guy from Taiwan (I am blanking on his name), who said that
> the only reason his nation existed at all was the support of the US. He said in broken English
> that Clinton was all that stood between the Chinese Communist Party and Taiwan. Seth, the Israeli,
> wondered if this would effect the efforts to secure a peace agreement with the Palestinians, as he
> had been hopeful that he and his family could move back to a peaceful Israel. Pavel wondered
> whether Bush would continue supporting the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo, where his younger brother
> was working for the UN. Uday hated the Bush family with a red passion, I think maybe he had bad
> history with them.
>
> I told them that the United States was bigger than that. And that they could depend on a
> consistent policy regarding the United States' commitments in the world.
>
> What a freakin sap I was. Because we flipped off the rest of the world, declaring ourselves beyond
> international justice, against Kyoto, and very much against peace in Israel, or anywhere had
> something we wanted to take.

I do not have your faith in international organizations and most especially anything having to do
with the UN. I like bilateral agreements among nations much better. Who wants to cooperate with
countries like Libya or Iraq or France under the UN.

> I will admit, softy that I was, that back in 99' I preferred that Clinton allow Osama to be a
> problem of Interpol and the CIA. It turns out that Bill knew better than the rest of us, George
> included, how dangerous Bush Sr's little helper in Afghanistan had become. But whether I agreed or
> not, Clinton bombed the muktuk out of al qaeda. It is just that he missed. That can be forgiven,
> IMO, considering how much ordinance W dropped on Osama AND Saddam without getting them.

We have essentially destroyed their power bases which is all that matters. As lone individuals they
can do nothing.

> So that is the story of how I spent my November 2000 'vacation' 8 months later, I would be lying
> in a hospital bed, trying hard not to die. I had only been home from the hospital for a couple of
> months, waiting for the next heart attack or stroke, when I saw the attack on 911.
>
>
>
>
> Oh yeah... you asked about tips to avoid stroke.
>
>
> I don't know what your current state of health is Ed. But if you want to avoid a stroke, I can
> tell you what we all think did it to me.
>
> 1. minimize the number of 70 hour work weeks where you fly somewhere in a coach class seat for
> hours, anticipating the sorts of situations where someone is willing to pay > $2000.00 a day
> for your ass in a chair, with all the stress that entails. It is never a happy story when you
> get there.
>
> 2. do not smoke a pack and a half a day.
>
> 3. Do not have the stress of an ugly divorce from a sociopath who wants not just to destroy
> everything you will ever own or do, but whose daddy is rich as Crassus.
>
> 4. Ride your bike a lot. The cluster of thrombi that hit my brain and heart did not kill me, but
> both my neurologist and cardiologist expressed wonderment that it did not. That they did not
> might have had something to do with my 28 years teaching full contact martial arts on the side.
> I am a tough old asshole.
>
> 5. TAKE AN ASPIRIN A DAY! If you are not doing so already, start today. I admit that I am not very
> fond of you Ed, but I wouldn't wish this on Donald Rumsfeld.
>
>
> -- Randy's extended Pity Party --
>
> If it wasn't for someone who loves me a lot, and who wants me to be around long enough to raise
> kids with her after she gets out of grad school, I probably would not be here now. I am in fairly
> constant pain some days far worse than others, and there are days I wish I had died in my sleep
> the night before. I cannot feel most of my right side. There is a large hole in my visual field
> that I have to read around. The sole of my right foot usually feels like I have just stepped on a
> live wire.
>
> I have a harder time understanding speech than I do reading text. Cat and I will sometimes sit and
> Instant Message each other, just because it often works better for me.
>
> I have to work really damn hard to do a lot with what is left of that old 170 IQ brain. So yeah, I
> do ramble some, and I certainly do not have the focus I used to have. I apologize for when I seem
> to blather. But I live in a mental fog some days. I also live in the horror, that when my
> intellect was most needed, this happened to me.
>
> Next month I will be 48. I don't really expect to make 60. But I agree with my primary doc, who
> says I have already beaten the odds 3 times. Her exact words when I told her that Cat and I want
> to have kids after she gets her Ph.D.. -- "Keep riding that bike."
>
> I spent a year on a terra trike, because I didn't have a sense of balance. It has returned enough
> to ride a recumbent bike and I ride it like my life depends on it, rain, shine, heat, or cold. I
> have become a fairly strong rider for my condition... and I walk with a cane. On a good day
> though, I can hit 20 mph on the flat for short distances. As a kid on my old Follis road bike, I
> could hit 35. But I enjoy the slow lane a lot more, really. I take my 'funny bike' to local bike
> rodeos to show the kids you don't have to be Lance Armstrong to enjoy a bike.
>
> I have a brilliant, adoring lover, 20 years my junior, who has stuck with me despite seeing me
> nearly die 3 times. I take it a sign from the Gods that I found the woman who loves me for myself
> in time for the worst crisis of a crisis filled life. It's hard to say I can die happy, but at
> least I won't die unloved. I have a whole new perspective on Lee Attwater these days. What a
> horror it would be to die like that, apologizing to the people you hurt up til the end. I
> sincerely hope he found peace.

Well, that is quite a story Randy. You have gone through hell and what I worry about for myself
every single day. I think you must have been very much a type A personality and they are prone to
cardio-vascular ailments. I think I might have been born a type A myself but the Navy cured me of
it. I will definitely take an aspirin a day and continue to ride my bike as your story has really
inspired me to do so.

I would say not to be discouraged as your condition will now be monitored by your doctors and
yourself. You definitely had a very bad stroke all right, but I think your symptoms will get better
as time goes by. You are most likely on plenty of medications now that are going to benefit your
heart and arteries and prevent any more strokes. You will probably outlive all of us as a result.
Hang in there and ride your bike. Best of good luck to you.

>
> Randy http://65.64.114.185/index.htm
>
> BTW.. You really need to ride the KATY in good weather. In May it is just about the prettiest
> thing I have ever seen.

I have always heard nothing but good things about the KATY. A bike trail meandering though forests
and meadows is as good as it gets in this life for me.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

PS. Don't worry about not liking me. It is a long line and you have lots of company.

 

[Edward Dolan]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> "Randy N." wrote:
> > ...
> > 1. minimize the number of 70 hour work weeks where you fly somewhere in a coach class seat for
> > hours, anticipating the sorts of situations where someone is willing to pay > $2000.00 a day
> > for your ass in a chair, with all the stress that entails. It is never a happy story when you
> > get there....
>
> That is pretty funny. I have worked a lot of 70+ hour weeks for less than $150/day. Of course,
> that is an improvement of the 80+ hour weeks I used to work for about $80/day (adjusted for
> inflation).

The one and only time in my life that I ever worked a 70 hour week was when I was 19 years old in
the Navy and that consisted mainly of standing watches (not very stressful - in fact, the main
problem was trying to stay awake). I do not understand how anyone can be such a glutton for work as
Randy N. and Mr. Sherman. I have devoted my life to pursuing leisure. It is just about the only
thing that I put any value on.

> Tom Sherman - Near the confluence of the Mississippi and Rock Rivers
>
> "We probably need to have tax cuts directed at lower-income Americans, such as payroll-tax
> reductions. Low-income Americans in totality bear a much higher tax burden than wealthy Americans
> do; therefore, there is a growing gap between the wealthiest and poorest Americans." - Republican
> Senator John McCain

I have always greatly been in favor of highly progressive income taxation for the purpose of
redistributing and spreading the wealth - as long as you do not kill the goose that is laying those
golden eggs. Socialist economies just don't work. We need entrepreneurs and venture capitalism, but
I do not see any reason why they should be rewarded disproportionately either. We are all living in
one society and need to take care of one another.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Randy N.]

Just a thought or two, with all respect.

brian hughes wrote:

>
> http://www.dol.gov/_sec/media/speeches/541Handout.htm ). Albeit, digging a little deeper I did
> find where the DOL estimated 644,000 could lose overtime pay (not 8 million). I guess I'll just
> have to choose for myself which one I should believe. So judging from the perpetual spin I hear
> from the left which blames Bush/GOP for everything, plus my experience having been employed by the
> federal government myself--I have no doubts whom to believe.
>

I am fairly unconcerned that it be 600,000 or one single mother-- it is vile to an astonishing
degree. The average American is being ***** slapped silly. The benefit package is not really that
wonderful lately, and the machines are run mean and lean already.

This horrible sop to business is a rotten carrot held out to industrial employers. It is a giant
step in the race to the bottom. They are trying to grant themselves the right to be Padrones, and
make us Peons.

Look at the other industrialized nations and ask yourself what the streets would look like if they
announced an idea like that?

Will this kickstart industry, maybe. Will American factory wages be set at parity with Canada,
or Mexico?

Shock and Awe -- but it is a temporary trance.

And one thing that doesn't get said about that number is that it might be 644K of Heads of
Household, Single.

> John Kenneth Galbraith is quite a sophist, nicht wahr? I think this one is better. The modern
> liberal, like past liberals, searches for superior moral justification in controlling and spending
> other people's money (while never seeking a true solution or taking responsibility for a problem).
> The liberal actually believes if he/she can be generous someone else's wealth, he/she has no
> responsibility to be generous with any of his/her own--Me
>
>
I thought that as a dean of American economics, he'd be entitled to a bit of sophistry. But I also
thought his earliest use for political philosophers appoach was almost lyrical. Had a kinda Cain and
Abel feel to it. Or perhaps it was Socratic, in the drinking Hemlock sense? But as to your points in
the last sentence,

Who was the last president

with a balanced budget? a budget surplus? to reduce the welfare roles? to sucessfully capture and
prosecute the leader of a WTC bombing?

What I haven't heard is someone take the official blame for this situation in Iraq. I hear some
blame shifting, but scant responsibility taking. Could just be me.

My Gawd, the speech to the UN was almost surreal.

ring? He even seemed to attempt to re-link Iraq and al qaeda with WMD.

It was a fairly muddled seeming speech to me. Equal parts lecturing and distracting.

Chirac slapped us hard. It is always a bit painful when someone lucid follows Bush. But it is
possibly poor form to show up hat in hand and then point your finger.

Just my POV, YMMV.

 

[Dh]

> Yes, but what do they really think of you and what do they say about you behind your back? No one
> likes or trusts someone who is disloyal and too severe a critic of one's own country. The Dutch
> remember their own traitors under the Nazi conquest and dealt with them rather severely after the
> war. But the US government and it's leaders are not like the Nazis. Our leaders were democraticaly
> elected to office and can be removed the same way. I would temper my criticism if I were living in
> a foreign land.

Ed, As I said, I get along well with the Dutch. Their views on US policy are similar to mine.
>
> Blind patriotism is for the ignorant, but there are worse things than that. Once a decision has
> been made to go to war I guess I will choose to support my country and it's leadership while the
> war is ongoing and save my criticism for after the war. As for flag waving, I suggest while you
> are in Europe that you pay a visit to the American military cemeteries in Normandy and see if you
> can keep a dry eye. And while you are there, remember the French perfidy, and then tell me how
> flags and patriotism don't matter all that much.
>
> Ed Dolan - Minnesota

I have been to several cemeteries over here. The cemeteries we're filling today could have been
avoided; we could have gone in with a coalition of more than two countries. There's no honor in
dying for a bad policy, that makes the deaths that much more sad.

 

[Edward Dolan]

"DH" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

Edward Dolan wrote:

> > Blind patriotism is for the ignorant, but there are worse things than that. Once a decision has
> > been made to go to war I guess I will choose to support my country and it's leadership while the
> > war is ongoing and save my criticism for after the war. As for flag waving, I suggest while you
> > are in Europe that you pay a visit to the American military cemeteries in Normandy and see if
> > you can keep a dry eye. And while you are there, remember the French perfidy, and then tell me
> > how flags and patriotism don't matter all that much.
>
> I have been to several cemeteries over here. The cemeteries we're filling today could have been
> avoided; we could have gone in with a coalition of more than two countries. There's no honor in
> dying for a bad policy, that makes the deaths that much more sad.

We did go in with a coalition of nations, not just Britain. We did not go in with the UN because of
the perfidy of France primarily. Do you think France and the rest of Old Europe would have
contributed any significant number of troops even if they had gone in with us? I doubt
it. The Bush policy of preemptive war with respect to Iraq I consider sound and necessary; it is
it's execution that I worry about.

You have chosen your side, I have chosen my side. It will be for history to finally determine who
was right and who was wrong.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Dh]

Ed, I suppose if things were going extremely well in the 'after war' phase, there would have been no
purpose for Bush to go to the UN yesterday, correct?

It seems history already admits things are not going to plan, n'est pas?

 

[Edward Dolan]

"Randy N." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Just a thought or two, with all respect.
>
> brian hughes wrote:
>
> >
> > http://www.dol.gov/_sec/media/speeches/541Handout.htm ). Albeit, digging a little deeper I did
> > find where the DOL estimated 644,000 could lose overtime pay (not 8 million). I guess I'll just
> > have to choose for myself which one I should believe. So judging from the perpetual spin I hear
> > from the left which blames Bush/GOP for everything, plus my experience having been employed by
> > the federal government myself--I have no doubts whom to believe.
> >
>
> I am fairly unconcerned that it be 600,000 or one single mother-- it is vile to an astonishing
> degree. The average American is being ***** slapped silly. The benefit package is not really that
> wonderful lately, and the machines are run mean and lean already.
>
> This horrible sop to business is a rotten carrot held out to industrial employers. It is a giant
> step in the race to the bottom. They are trying to grant themselves the right to be Padrones, and
> make us Peons.
>
> Look at the other industrialized nations and ask yourself what the streets would look like if they
> announced an idea like that?
>
> Will this kickstart industry, maybe. Will American factory wages be set at parity with Canada,
> or Mexico?
>
> Shock and Awe -- but it is a temporary trance.
>
> And one thing that doesn't get said about that number is that it might be 644K of Heads of
> Household, Single.

Business and labor negotiate their contracts in a free and open society. As long as the playing
field is level I don't see what business it is of the government to be interfering.

> > John Kenneth Galbraith is quite a sophist, nicht wahr? I think this one is better. The modern
> > liberal, like past liberals, searches for superior moral justification in controlling and
> > spending other people's money (while never seeking a true solution or taking responsibility for
> > a problem). The liberal actually believes if he/she can be generous someone else's wealth,
> > he/she has no responsibility to be generous with any of his/her own--Me
> >
> >
> I thought that as a dean of American economics, he'd be entitled to a bit of sophistry. But I also
> thought his earliest use for political philosophers appoach was almost lyrical. Had a kinda Cain
> and Abel feel to it. Or perhaps it was Socratic, in the drinking Hemlock sense? But as to your
> points in the last sentence,

Galbraith never had any reputation at all among economists. He was a political philosopher really
and those in that discipline never had any regard for him either. He was only popular with the
general public because he knew how to write readable books on otherwise very dull subjects.

> Who was the last president
>
> with a balanced budget? a budget surplus? to reduce the welfare roles? to sucessfully capture and
> prosecute the leader of a WTC bombing?

Haven't you heard? According to many economists balanced budgets no longer matter and neither do
budget surpluses. Reducing the welfare roles was a Republican program from time immemorial that
Clinton got on board with. Clinton did next to nothing about Al Qaeda. He treated it as a police
matter when it should have been treated as a war matter. Bush II came along just in the nick of time
to save us all from Clinton's stupidity.

> What I haven't heard is someone take the official blame for this situation in Iraq. I hear some
> blame shifting, but scant responsibility taking. Could just be me.

What blame for what Iraqi situation are you talking about? The war was a glorious victory for
American arms and now all we are doing is mopping up. I think it must just be you like you said.

> My Gawd, the speech to the UN was almost surreal.

> ring? He even seemed to attempt to re-link Iraq and al qaeda with WMD.
>
> It was a fairly muddled seeming speech to me. Equal parts lecturing and distracting.
>
> Chirac slapped us hard. It is always a bit painful when someone lucid follows Bush. But it is
> possibly poor form to show up hat in hand and then point your finger.

Bush is right and Chirac is wrong. Who gives a damn about who is lucid? I did not see any hat in
hand and the UN always needs to be lectured to as it has the morals of a French prostitute. Bush
struck exactly the right note.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Bandjhughes]

I too have a thought or two meant with all due respect.

"Randy N." <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Just a thought or two, with all respect.
>
> brian hughes wrote:
>
> I am fairly unconcerned that it be 600,000 or one single mother-- it is vile to an astonishing
> degree. The average American is being ***** slapped silly. The benefit package is not really that
> wonderful lately, and the machines are run mean and lean already.

What about the millions and millions of poor that this revision to the labor acts would help
substantially? If one single mother is not helped I don't believe we should say to heck with the
other 13 million (many of which would be poor single parents) that could really use the help the
revision would give them.

> This horrible sop to business is a rotten carrot held out to industrial employers. It is a giant
> step in the race to the bottom. They are trying to grant themselves the right to be Padrones, and
> make us Peons.
>
> Look at the other industrialized nations and ask yourself what the streets would look like if they
> announced an idea like that?

I have to ask, did you read the whole thing or did you just look for something you could spin
yourself around so you could stop reading and discredit the rest?

> Will this kickstart industry, maybe. Will American factory wages be set at parity with Canada,
> or Mexico?
>
> Shock and Awe -- but it is a temporary trance.
>
> And one thing that doesn't get said about that number is that it might be 644K of Heads of
> Household, Single.

Why keep making claims like that? Earlier you made up a stat that 19 out of 20 people are worse off
now than 3 years ago (only 5% were better off). If you care, it doesn't help with your credibility
much when you write bogus stats like that.

>
> Who was the last president
>
> with a balanced budget? a budget surplus? to reduce the welfare roles? to sucessfully capture and
> prosecute the leader of a WTC bombing?
>

Interesting enough the national debt increased every single year that the last president was in
office. Don't believe me? Then go to the US Gov treasury department web site and look it up. Albeit
the national debt increased at a much slower rate once the GOP took control of congress than earlier
when the Democrats had been in charge. Also interesting to note is the US constitution establishes
congress with the budget responsibility.

Welfare? Funny how the welfare bill was written by the GOP and vetoed by the last president twice
until his own advisors told him the country was turning against him. He then signed it and when
things went well took credit for it as his own idea.

Yes, I remember seeing Bill Clinton out there really making it a central focal point of national
policy to capture and prosecute terrorist. My gosh, when the embassies were bombed, when the
military dorms were bombed, when the USS Cole was bombed, etc, etc, he was right out there leading
the charge to capture and prosecution wasn't he? I'm quite sure he will go down in history for his
extraordinary efforts to capture and prosecute those responsible for the first WTC bombing--never
mind the fact that there was no serious effort to demand Yasin's extradition during his
administration, although it was known that Yasin was in Baghdad the whole time.

But to directly answer your first question, the last president in office when the budget was
balanced and the national debt decreased was President Eisenhower.

> What I haven't heard is someone take the official blame for this situation in Iraq. I hear some
> blame shifting, but scant responsibility taking. Could just be me.

What blame? Why do you beleive official blame is needed? I heard Colin Power appoligize to the Iraqi
people who survived Sadam wrath for not taking action earlier--is that what you mean about the Iraqi
situation?

>
> My Gawd, the speech to the UN was almost surreal.

> ring? He even seemed to attempt to re-link Iraq and al qaeda with WMD.
>

I didn't have much trouble understanding his point. But okay, no WMD were found thus far. So I think
they must have been all destroyed in Dec 1998 when Clinton ordered the 4 day of bombing of Baghdad
during his impeachment hearings. Those that weren't destroyed were obviously destroyed in May 1999
when Clinton ordered bombing over Baghdad again. After all, the reason given by President Clinton
for these bombings was to punish Sadam and the Iraqi government for not destroying its WMD. The
reason was not to delay or change the attention away from the impeachment as many on the right still
believe. Apparently these bombings were so successful, no WMD existed anymore. And al qaeda should
not be linked with WMD, after all, they're way too peaceful for that.

> It was a fairly muddled seeming speech to me. Equal parts lecturing and distracting.
>
> Chirac slapped us hard. It is always a bit painful when someone lucid follows Bush. But it is
> possibly poor form to show up hat in hand and then point your finger.
>
> Just my POV, YMMV.

Yes, my humble POV differs substantially.

 

[Tom Sherman]

Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> > That is pretty funny. I have worked a lot of 70+ hour weeks for less than $150/day. Of course,
> > that is an improvement of the 80+ hour weeks I used to work for about $80/day (adjusted for
> > inflation).
>
> The one and only time in my life that I ever worked a 70 hour week was when I was 19 years old in
> the Navy and that consisted mainly of standing watches (not very stressful - in fact, the main
> problem was trying to stay awake). I do not understand how anyone can be such a glutton for work
> as Randy N. and Mr. Sherman. I have devoted my life to pursuing leisure. It is just about the only
> thing that I put any value on.

The long work hours have been out of necessity. In the US [1], if one comes from the lower classes,
it is necessary to put in such an effort to escape them since "Daddy and Mommy" are not giving one a
free ride. With the stagnation in wages of all but the upper middle class and upper classes since
the early 1970's, it is not possible for a person to survive on a single unskilled labor job.

Then when one receives a graduate degree, the work hours are no better, due to being exempt from
the Fair Labor Standards Act overtime provision. It is to the benefit of company profit to have
salaried workers put in as many hours as they can tolerate, as the real hourly wage of the worker
drops significantly as they work unpaid overtime. In addition, this keeps unemployment higher
among skilled workers, which will depress wages and allow more de facto employer control over
workers lives.

The only protections most workers have from being exploited are those provided by the government. It
is exactly those types of protections that the Bush II administration is trying to eliminate.

> > "We probably need to have tax cuts directed at lower-income Americans, such as payroll-tax
> > reductions. Low-income Americans in totality bear a much higher tax burden than wealthy
> > Americans do; therefore, there is a growing gap between the wealthiest and poorest Americans." -
> > Republican Senator John McCain
>
> I have always greatly been in favor of highly progressive income taxation for the purpose of
> redistributing and spreading the wealth - as long as you do not kill the goose that is laying
> those golden eggs. Socialist economies just don't work. We need entrepreneurs and venture
> capitalism, but I do not see any reason why they should be rewarded disproportionately either. We
> are all living in one society and need to take care of one another.

The command economy exemplified by the Soviet Union provides a strong argument that the government
should not be in the business of producing consumer goods. However, the neo-conservatives are taking
things too far in the other direction, when they wish to privatize services that governments provide
effectively. There are two primary reasons for privatization of traditional government services. One
is that is transfers taxpayer money to the wealthy that own and control the companies that get the
privatization contracts. The second is breaking the government unions that traditionally support
Democratic candidates and policies. The side effect is former government employees with reasonable
working hours, salaries, benefits, and job security will end up working more hours for less money
and no job security.

The Bush II administration is conducting a class war against the class I came from (lower) and the
one I am currently in (entry level professional), which is why I would not even consider for a
moment supporting it politically.

[1] Unlike Northern and Western Europe where higher education is readily available to all those who
qualify academically, regardless of income and wealth.

Tom Sherman

"Wealth [in the US] is reaching levels of concentration not seen since before the stock market crash
of 1929. The top 1% now control 38.1% of the wealth and the top 5% control 60% of the wealth. The
average CEO makes 531 times the entry-level employee. The bottom 40% control just .2% of the wealth.
These are numbers more akin a third-world dictatorship than a modern democracy."

 

[Tom Sherman]

Edward Dolan wrote:
> ... Business and labor negotiate their contracts in a free and open society. As long as the
> playing field is level I don't see what business it is of the government to be interfering....

If you believe that a "fair and level" playing field between capital and labor exists in the US, you
have not observed very much, or you are blinded by your faith in the "EVERYTHING IS BETTER IN THE
USA" religion.

Tom Sherman - Ever hear of Taft-Hartley?

 

[Tom Sherman]

Edward Dolan wrote:
> ..Our [US] leaders were democraticaly elected to office....

...by the US Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote.

Tom Sherman

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." -
Joseph Stalin

 

[Tom Sherman]

Edward Dolan wrote:
> ... Also, I do not necessarily think either that you can easily separate a nation's leadership
> from the nation or from the people, most especially in a democracy....

Remember, Gore won the popular vote over Bush II.

Tom Sherman

"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." -
Joseph Stalin

 

[Edward Dolan]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
> > ... Business and labor negotiate their contracts in a free and open society. As long as the
> > playing field is level I don't see what business it is of the government to be interfering....
>
> If you believe that a "fair and level" playing field between capital and labor exists in the US,
> you have not observed very much, or you are blinded by your faith in the "EVERYTHING IS BETTER IN
> THE USA" religion.
>
> Tom Sherman - Ever hear of Taft-Hartley?

I believe labor was at one time pretty much in the driver's seat in this country not so long ago.
Remember PAT and what Reagan had to do in order to bring them to their senses? And the country was
solidly behind Reagan on that too. On thing I do know for sure: when labor has it's way the cost to
all the rest of us who are not part of organized labor is sky high. Thank God for Wal-Mart and
globalization. Those who labor in the vineyards are only worth so much after all.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Edward Dolan wrote:
> >
> > > That is pretty funny. I have worked a lot of 70+ hour weeks for less than $150/day. Of course,
> > > that is an improvement of the 80+ hour weeks I used to work for about $80/day (adjusted for
> > > inflation).
> >
> > The one and only time in my life that I ever worked a 70 hour week was when I was 19 years old
> > in the Navy and that consisted mainly of standing watches (not very stressful - in fact, the
> > main problem was trying to stay awake). I do not understand how anyone can be such a glutton for
> > work as Randy N. and Mr. Sherman. I have devoted my life to pursuing leisure. It is just about
> > the only thing that I put any value on.
>
> The long work hours have been out of necessity. In the US [1], if one comes from the lower
> classes, it is necessary to put in such an effort to escape them since "Daddy and Mommy" are not
> giving one a free ride. With the stagnation in wages of all but the upper middle class and upper
> classes since the early 1970's, it is not possible for a person to survive on a single unskilled
> labor job.
>
> Then when one receives a graduate degree, the work hours are no better, due to being exempt from
> the Fair Labor Standards Act overtime provision. It is to the benefit of company profit to have
> salaried workers put in as many hours as they can tolerate, as the real hourly wage of the worker
> drops significantly as they work unpaid overtime. In addition, this keeps unemployment higher
> among skilled workers, which will depress wages and allow more de facto employer control over
> workers lives.
>
> The only protections most workers have from being exploited are those provided by the government.
> It is exactly those types of protections that the Bush II administration is trying to eliminate.
>
> > > "We probably need to have tax cuts directed at lower-income Americans, such as payroll-tax
> > > reductions. Low-income Americans in totality bear a much higher tax burden than wealthy
> > > Americans do; therefore, there is a growing gap between the wealthiest and poorest Americans."
> > > - Republican Senator John McCain
> >
> > I have always greatly been in favor of highly progressive income taxation for the purpose of
> > redistributing and spreading the wealth - as long as you do not kill the goose that is laying
> > those golden eggs. Socialist economies just don't work. We need entrepreneurs and venture
> > capitalism, but I do not see any reason why they should be rewarded disproportionately either.
> > We are all living in one society and need to take care of one another.
>
> The command economy exemplified by the Soviet Union provides a strong argument that the government
> should not be in the business of producing consumer goods. However, the neo-conservatives are
> taking things too far in the other direction, when they wish to privatize services that
> governments provide effectively. There are two primary reasons for privatization of traditional
> government services. One is that is transfers taxpayer money to the wealthy that own and control
> the companies that get the privatization contracts. The second is breaking the government unions
> that traditionally support Democratic candidates and policies. The side effect is former
> government employees with reasonable working hours, salaries, benefits, and job security will end
> up working more hours for less money and no job security.
>
> The Bush II administration is conducting a class war against the class I came from (lower) and the
> one I am currently in (entry level professional), which is why I would not even consider for a
> moment supporting it politically.

Well, Tom, I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth either. And I have spent more hours
working at jobs that I hated than I care to recall. I elected not to work so hard and have gotten by
very nicely by carefully deciding what it is I want out of life. Admittedly, if you are pursuing the
good life with all the material goodies it is going to cost you something.

I do not understand how an entry level professional such as yourself can be doomed to work such long
hours with out very good compensation. Me thinks it may be time for you to look around for other
employment. If you are some kind of engineer there must be opportunities galore. It is my
understanding that engineers from other nations are coming to this country in order to get good
jobs. Apparently I am missing something here.

As to the privatization issue, I believe Britain at one time had rather heavily non privatized some
of their industries which turned out to be a disaster. They had to go back and privatize them again.
There are certain essential services that only government should and can do, but those services are
limited and not too numerous.

The class warfare issue also cuts two ways. The Dems are notorious for constantly appealing to that
issue which does not strike much of a resonance in most Americans (I think we all think we can be
millionaires maybe). Frankly, I would like to see a true populist party in this country, kind of
like what the Upper Midwest used to produce a century ago. When the Dems strike their populist pose
it just reeks of hypocrisy. But our two party system works against it too. I have often thought that
a parliamentary system like Britain would help this country out of it's two party stagnation.

The comparisons with the Europeans is not a fair comparison. We have been carrying the burdens of
the world ever since WW II, and they have been getting a free ride at our expense. And now we are at
war again through no fault of our own. It is our destiny and we can't escape it. If we want to have
a free society to improve upon we have to defend it against our enemies. It is mainly a question of
priorities. It is because I see the priorities the way I do that I will continue to support Bush and
vote for him. Maybe some day when we get a bit of a respite we can go back and make some necessary
improvements in our society.

> [1] Unlike Northern and Western Europe where higher education is readily available to all those
> who qualify academically, regardless of income and wealth.

When I was stationed in California in the 50's (U.S. Navy) I was struck by what a very fine higher
educational system the state had. The branches that made up the University of California and the
State College system were second to none. It was virtually free except for some very low fees. I
thought how wonderful, but can it last? Apparently it couldn't. We are a rich nation, but we can't
afford everything as much as we would like to. Unfortunately we have had to spend a fortune on
defense and there is no end in sight as far as I can see.

>
> Tom Sherman
>
> "Wealth [in the US] is reaching levels of concentration not seen since before the stock market
> crash of 1929. The top 1% now control 38.1% of the wealth and the top 5% control 60% of the
> wealth. The average CEO makes 531 times the entry-level employee. The bottom 40% control just .2%
> of the wealth. These are numbers more akin a third-world dictatorship than a modern democracy."

Yes, I do agree with you that things are going in the wrong direction. I guess as long as folks are
not starving in the streets that most Americans simply don't care about any of this. In a way, I am
glad that there are folks like you who are concerning themselves with the problem.

If only you could get your head screwed on straight with respect to the War on Terrorism. Remember,
the ultimate threat is a suitcase atom bomb that can be smuggled into this country and set off with
millions of casualties. It will make the WTC look like a tea party. There is no point in arranging
the deck chairs on the Titanic if the ship is going down.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Edward Dolan wrote:
> > ... Also, I do not necessarily think either that you can easily separate a nation's leadership
> > from the nation or from the people, most especially in a democracy....
>
> Remember, Gore won the popular vote over Bush II.

Did Gore really get the most votes? Eliminate the Florida results totally from the equation since it
was messed up. Did Gore still get the most votes? (Now you are finding out something very critical
about me and that is that I am too lazy to ever look anything up. It comes from my past as a college
librarian. Once I retired I resolved never to look up anything ever again in my life.)

IN ANY EVENT, it does not matter since only the electoral vote counts. And you know that. I am
beginning to think you are not an honest correspondent. Bush rightfully represents the nation and
the people of the US. I am making the same assumption about Chirac, which is why I am not forgiving
of the French people. Even countries saddled with tyrants and dictators are representative of the
people in a sense. If you have the mind set of the colonists of New Hampshire, Live Free Or Die!,
you will never end up with a tyrant and a dictator. Maybe some people deserve to live in slavery,
although I attribute such conditions mostly to lack of education and a proper culture. But now I am
starting to ramble .....

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

 

[Edward Dolan]

"DH" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Ed, I suppose if things were going extremely well in the 'after war' phase, there would have been
> no purpose for Bush to go to the UN yesterday, correct?
>
> It seems history already admits things are not going to plan, n'est pas?

What "after war" phase are you talking about? We are still at war and will be for some time to come.
Afghanistan and Iraq are simply battles in the over all larger War on Terrorism. Try to think of it
as WW III. Bush went to the UN for cover with respect to world opinion. It was never necessary and
if I had been President I would never have gone to the UN at all. I hold world opinion, such as it
is, in near contempt. I mean, do even you care what the g.d. French think - about anything?

History is not today's newspapers or even tomorrow's newspapers. It is the considered judgment of
a preponderance of historians (the guys who write books which 99% of us never read) and we will
not know for certain until maybe a century has gone by. Sorry, but that is the way final
judgments are made.

As you can see from this, I don't give a g.d. what Chris Matthews thinks about anything or any of
the other liberal commentators - provided they don't side track our President from his vital mission
of defending this country and prosecuting the war.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota