This May Be Satire, But It's Deadly Serious to Me!

Septembri -- I have since responded here.

That's a kind sentiment. The hug is accepted (I am a touchy-feely liberal after all) but kept brief.

The revelation of Justice Department opinion that torture was now just peachy has flung me up into a new level of political anger. The most fundamental of civilized values - of American values - have been set aside in the pursuit of securing those very values.

What Gonzales and John Yo have written and argued cannot be considered as merely 'discussion'. What has happened at Abu Ghraib and the other prisons in Iraq, and what is happening in Cuba, reflect a prosecution of legal and moral ideas which have been broadly accepted at the top of the administration and the military. Further, part of what remains hidden from view is the nature of, and the source of, the assignment placed upon Gonzales and Yo preceding their writing these arguments. We can expect that there will be much here we'll never know, as the principals involved are clearly well aware of their personal legal liabilities both nationally and internationally.

In November of 2003, Ronald Dworkin, wrote in the NY Review of Books...
LINK

When I have time today, I will initiate a thread on this matter, and will do so with the somewhat forlorn hope that discussion free from cliche and shallow simplicities will follow. But I wish to make a singular point here now.

When we set up the framework of our thinking such that we characterize the other as 'Evil', with the inescapable corollary that we are Evil's opposite, then we will inevitably be blind to much that is good in the other and to much of what is evil in us. From such a framework of thought, all manner of hideous acts and pretences might be loosed.

Blatham writes:


I think you're reading more into it than what is actually there. The opinion is that the laws protecting detainees apply to American citizens only. There was no suggestion that others be treated with unwarranted cruelty or improperly. It is only suggested that we are not obligated to grant non citizens the same rights enjoyed by American citizens. I think you would be hard put to name any country where that was not the case.

Satire isn't satire without it being totally truthful. It's supposed to be funny to everyone except the target. It's supposed to spin the truth, not lies. That's what makes it so outrageous. It's the truth, and yes it does hurt, like it is supposed to.

Very few, especially neocons, can spin truth. They think distorting facts is the way to go, but whoever can master satire can make a hell of a lot of chickenhawks look like sitting ducks....which is the whole point of satire. Is it vicious? Yes. Is it mean? Of course. Is it the truth? Right on brother.

Jon Stewart is the master of that, Umbagog.

Cycloptichorn

Thomas writes:


For the short term, probably 9/11 was no bigger deal than a devastating earthquake. But other than planning stronger buildings, keeping heavy objects off top shelves, and training rapid response teams, there isn't much to do about earthquakes. They can neither be predicted nor prevented. Terrorism can.

Now we can do what has always been done, stick our heads in the sand, and pretend that if we don't make the terrorists mad, everything will be okay. Or we can take our lesson from 9/11, stand up and say enough is enough, and do something about it. The current administration chose the latter course. Millions of us support that choice.

If as many jobs are created in the next six months as have been created in the last three, the total number of jobs created only this year will be THREE MILLION.

Of course, Joe Nation, thinks that is not enough. The American voting public will judge whether or not they feel the economy has returned.

Stay tuned--Joe Nation.

The nature of the attacks had a lasting effect on the national economy, and even globally. People were afraid to fly/travel. Everyone hunkered down. Tourism spots were hit hard, none harder than the San Franciso Bay Area, where the combination of reduced tourism along with the downturn in the high tech industry really hit home.

I, and my entire family, flew one week after 9/11. The long distance flights were overcrowded with people who had been stranded combined with those who weren't. The feeder flights were literally empty.

Thomas- sir- No, I am of the opinion that you have not responded directly to my past posts regarding the economy. Your comments about Unemployment are way off base. I would urge you to find out what the Unemployment rate was in the fourth year of Clinton's first term. Then you could compare it to the fourth year of Bush's first term.

If you are unable to do so, I will help you.The Unemployment rate in 1996 was 5.6% THE SAME AS IT IS NOW.

Do you know what it will be in October. Mr. Thomas?

Here is some information:

The most basic measure of economic performance is GDP growth. The US averaged 3.1 percent annual GDP Growth in the nineties. This beats the 2.9 rate of the eighties but doesn't even come close to the 3.7 rate of the fifties or the 4.4 rate of the sixties. In fact, it even trails the 3.3 percent rate for the seventies business cycle.

and, Mr. Thomas, here is a section of my post on another topic which, after you asked for information, you did not respond to:

(If you will remember, you were bemoaning the deficit)

The government's ability to finance its debt is tied to the STRENGTH AND SIZE OF THE GDP.

AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP, debt held by the public was highest at the end of World War II, at 109 percent.

AS A PERCENTAGE OF GDP, debt held by the public fell to 24 % in 1974.

THAT DECLINE, FROM 109%( wars do that) to 24%occurred because the economy grew faster than the debt accumulated.


and, Mr. Thomas, the GDP in the last two quarters has averaged about 4.4% meaning that it was as HIGH as the average GDP's of the sixties, which, as you can note above, was the best decade for GDP growth in the last fifty years.

Mr. Greenspan, the great economic guru of the last twenty years and the steward of the economic boom of the ninties said on April 10, 2003.

quote:

"We will not know what the full effect of this war will be until its over, but we do know something about the framework of the American economy before entering the war, which was very surprising to me, We kept absorbing all those shocks, WHICH IN MY EXPERIENCE 30 YEARS AGO, WOULD HAVE CREATED A MAJOR CONTRACTION IN THE ECONOMY. We'll come through this efffectively with a stable economic system and one prone more to long-term growth and not stagnation."


and

from Steve Chapman
- March 22,2001, Chicago Tribune- Editorial Page.


"The Dow Jones Industrial Average has been sliding since January--THAT'S OF 2000, NOT OF 2001. The Nasdaq composite index peaked last March and spent the rest of the year in a nosedive.,...In the last three months of 2000, GDP grew by a puny 1.1 percent, the slowest pace in more than five years"

It is clear by almost every economic measure available, that despite the economic shock of 9/11( if you don' t think there was a shock, ask the travel industry and the Airlines) and the recession which began early in 2000, the economy is on a roll.

Perhaps, Mr. Thomas, you have figures for the year of 2004 which indicate that our economy is not expanding. If so, I would appreciate it if you would share them with me since I am not aware of such evidence.




A note about the present:

You are. of course, aware that the present administration inherited a recession from Mr. Clinton, are you not, Mr. Thomas?

chjsa- I was entered my data when you had already entered your post. I did not read your comment about travel until I had finished my post.

Apologies to you

Thomas strikes me as a guy who does look at available information. No doubt the European media does as poor a job as the U.S. media in objective reporting, however, and the media is where our current events history is mostly written.

Those who want Bush to fail will ignore all positive indicators and look for any negative ones or will make them up.

I have not detected that Thomas has ever manufactured any information, pro or con, nor does he seem to scour the newspapers looking for something, anything to support his point of view.

I do wish everybody could receive and would accept accurate information and draw their conclusions accordingly.

Foxfyre- You are correct. Mr. Thomas is indeed a gentleman and does not make up data. I have noted that.

HOWEVER, if he wishes his points to pervail, I would earnestly hope that he would strive to rebut the points I made above. If he does not, they stand.

Is that not fair??

nd, foxfure, please note that I invited anyone to post "negative" data. I did that because I am sure that,as far as the year of 2004 goes, the large majority of the data reveals that the economy is on a roll.

Alas, one of the most prevalent problems on these posts is that when evidence is given, those who are apparently unable( or unwilling) to rebut that evidence go on with the same mantra they used before the evidence was presented--eg-The economy of the USA is lousy.

I do wish someone would at least try to rebut evidence. Maybe it is me who is deluded. If someone could or would rebut my points, I might learn something. That is indeed a possibility!

I get all of my economic indicator information by watching television commercials.

We're doomed! DOOMED!

chjsa- Are you watching the commercials for new SUV's. Isn't it strange that with the soaring price of Gasoline( all due to the greed of Bush's cronies, I have heard) more SUV's are being sold than ever before. How could that be, chjsa?

I've seen info to the contrary, septembri. SUV sales have started to be affected by the price of fuel. In particular, Hummer sales. I have read this in the NY Times.

It's a FedEX commercial about them taking all the drama out of shipping overnight.

D'artagnan-Sir.

Unlike some on these posts, I strive to write what I have gleaned from my research. I try not to exaggerate or to minimize.

For your edification, go to the website CNN Money for June 3, 2004. On that site you will find the following:

QUOTE

GAS DOESN'T HURT SUV SALES

"Large sport/utility models held their own in May in the face of hgher gasoline prices, as automakers say they were not seeing a shift in buying patterns"

Cheerio- D'Artagnan

Well be fair Septembri. It is possible that somebody who can afford a Hummer is worried about the cost of gas

septembri,

For your edification (from CNN in may 04):

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0405/20/lol.01.html

It's a rough transcript so there are some typographical errors.



D'artagnan's statements were accurate. Several SUV makers have indeed, felt the pinch. And he was right to name the Hummer.

I know what article he was talking about (I read and remember it clearly) it was about the prius.