Congressional Oversight of Executive Disappears (or almost)

Quote:

I do not come from another country like Canada which is so far gone in its politics that its Prime Minister is removed for corruption; so far gone in its economy that its dollar is miniscule when compared to the American dollar and so far gone morally that it has almost abandoned the traditional concept of marriage.

Now that - is funny!

Martin wasn't removed for corruption, the Gomery Inquiry exonerated him of any wrongdoing. The government, governing in a minority position, lost the confidence of the Parliament.

The American dollar and the Canadian dollar? Mortkat you are in fantasy land. The only reason the Greenback is not down there with the junk currencies is that it underpins the oil world and because too many people are holding it. The Canadian dollar is pretty damn strong from the viewpoint of this about-to-be-a-tourist-again.

And how about the budget deficit Bush has given you? Whoa! Supersized!

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

But by "it's a head-shaker" I particularly meant the thing so many of us from outside the US bump into...we really like the place, even love it, in all its wonderful woof and warp and genius and liberty and zest. But when we suggest that along with all that good stuff there is also some serious fukkedupness, some american folks react like you'd just raped their mother.

This is a very self-serving generalization, Blatham. There are many things about this country with which I find fault - I have occasionaly referred to some of them. The essential difference here is I don't buy the model you consistently put forward about the supposed evils of this government and the "dark forces" which you allege sustain it. In numerous discussions I have explained the elements of this disagreement. You now characterize those who disagree with you as blind to any criticism of this country whatever. That is pure bulls##t! I (and some others) just don't buy the particular criticisms and explanations that you repeatedly offer us. I hope you don't presume to have exhausted all the possibilities in your various arguments. You haven't even dented the great mass of them.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

blatham wrote:
But by "it's a head-shaker" I particularly meant the thing so many of us from outside the US bump into...we really like the place, even love it, in all its wonderful woof and warp and genius and liberty and zest. But when we suggest that along with all that good stuff there is also some serious fukkedupness, some american folks react like you'd just raped their mother.

This is a very self-serving generalization, Blatham. There are many things about this country with which I find fault - I have occasionaly referred to some of them. The essential difference here is I don't buy the model you consistently put forward about the supposed evils of this government and the "dark forces" which you allege sustain it. In numerous discussions I have explained the elements of this disagreement. You now characterize those who disagree with you as blind to any criticism of this country whatever. That is pure bulls##t! I (and some others) just don't buy the particular criticisms and explanations that you repeatedly offer us. I hope you don't presume to have exhausted all the possibilities in your various arguments. You haven't even dented the great mass of them.

There are two possible paths to resolution here, george. The first is quick and easy and smooth in all those details false and avoided and yet for all of that not in the slightest portion less likely to be found agreeable to a Republican of the modern sort. Here it is. I confess to raping your mother. Her bonnet will be returned shortly, I apologize for holding onto the memento.

The second path we might elect is entirely more work. I don't much like work but that fact of my character isn't relevant as you'll be doing it. To wit, I propose a survey, an empirical cast out into the deeper pools of not-republica. Choose whatever lure or wriggling bait you favor - an ounce of canadian flesh might do it or perhaps a Walmart gift-certificate printed in Myanmar by eight or nine fingered waifs - and we'll see what comes flashing up to the surface. "Has blatham", you will inquire of those amongst our fine company who strut their brief time beneath some other flag than the one you strut beneath, "got it right or has he not?"

0 Replies

Bernie, i'll give ya one - you were right when you said the republican administrations lack of perception evident.

Nobody knows that better than Americans.

Don't you see a real transformation taking place though? All is not bleak.

0 Replies

My lost love!!!

Yes, the big swing is underway. These guys got entranced with Machiavelli and their own glittering bank accounts and came to believe hubris the real mark of a winner.

But I think there is deeper stuff going on too, and that's more problematic.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

"Has blatham", you will inquire of those amongst our fine company who strut their brief time beneath some other flag than the one you strut beneath, "got it right or has he not?"

I will readily concede that, among the habitues of the political threads on A2K, a majority would likely favor your views over mine on the issues you frequently raise.

However, as I'm sure you will acknowledge, this is not a representative sample (or even a large enough one) on which one could confidently forecast the public view. Certainly the voting public is a larger, and perhaps less stratified sample, and it shows a result quite different from the one that would likely emerge here. Moreover history shows that repeatedly the prevailing public view on specific issues is subsequently proven wrong, though the general drift of public views over a broad swath of policies generally does much better in the eyes of history. The relevant conclusion here is that your proposed test simply doesn't mean much.

0 Replies

george

I know. Polling works good for picking a representative (well, sometimes) but not for sorting out the truth of things.

But really my point was directed specifically towards the values of objective viewing...how folks from outside the US perceive the nature of the beast.

In quite the same manner as folks who weren't Oedipus had perceptions of him which he could not possibly have, so it is with your friends who aren't Americans.

0 Replies

Interesting point. It also raises the question of sample size and stratification with respect to the prevailing views in other countries. I do agree that Brits, Canadians and others are likely to be much less susceptable to the self-delusions that may infect Americans than are we, or myself in particular. However they have their own set of self-delusions and the rather incessant chant that "as the only superpower, we (the U.S.)can affect everyone's lives and are therefore the fit subject for the examination and criticism of all", strongly suggests to me that this phenomenon is as likely to distort the vision of our foreign critics as it is ourselves.

By the way, please note that I have never claimed to know that the Iraq intervention will make the world a better or safer place or even better the lives of Iraqis. Instead I have professed the belief that this will be the verdict of the historians who, decades from now, will come to some preliminary conclusions. I have never claimed to believe or accept the professed importance or proximity of the Iraqi WMD matter. Instead I observed that it was a politically necessary step to give Blair the cover he claimed to need. I have also expressed the judgement that Bush's decision to seek specific Security Council approval - necessarily based on that, the only issue they would consider - was probably a serious miscalculation by this Administration.

You appear to see many U.S. policies as the result of some dark forces in American culture and the concerted action of some nefarious set of vested interests - political, economic, or cultural & social. I don't hold to those views. We have no shortage of shortsighted vested interests in our motivation - just as does every nation on the earth, including Canada. However I don't believe that they are the dominant explanation for the policies you oppose.

I certainly don't claim that this period of great American influence on the affairs of the worls is without exploitation. injustice, greed and all the other vices that have infected history. Instead I affirm that we are continuing generally beneficial trends that have existed for a long time. We have not done perfectly well in our moment in history's sun: however we are doing a bit better than par. - and a lot better than would many of the forces that oppose us, given the opportunity.

I believe there are some fairly long-term trends that influence the different U.S. and Canadian/European views on these matters. Among them are the reversal of our relative historical roles over the past century; some demographic differences (we are 4 years younger than Europeans - a big difference); economic differences (we are relatively more competitive and unequal); and a set of differences that have been variously related to what is often called "American Exceptionalism".

I don't claim that all of these differences necessarily make us better than others, only different. I believe that these issues have far more to do with the things you refer to than the theories which you put forward.

0 Replies

george

Sample size here on a2k is small, true. Yet polls of citizens in my country, in Britain, in Australia, New Zealand and in Europe consistently show the same sorts of ideas. Attribution for all these folks' views (plus similar notions held by so many in your own country) to merely irrational anti-Americanism seems pretty unlikely to be getting the story right.

I have found your ideas re Iraq to be careful and mostly sober.

OK...I just erased a bunch of paragraphs here as they merely repeat notions I've forwarded to you previously.

I'll just keep reading and trying to understand what is going on in the world and barking where I see folks doing things that seem to me to be not in the majority's best interest.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

george

Sample size here on a2k is small, true. Yet polls of citizens in my country, in Britain, in Australia, New Zealand and in Europe consistently show the same sorts of ideas. Attribution for all these folks' views (plus similar notions held by so many in your own country) to merely irrational anti-Americanism seems pretty unlikely to be getting the story right.

Well Europe was wrong in 1914, and managed to compound the error several times in 1919 and 1920 in Paris and Versailles. They ( Brits & empire) were wrong about the Japanese in 1924 and came to regret it in 1942. Europe was wrong again in the 1930s and remained so until Hitler struck Poland. Most of them were also wrong in their reactions to Reagan's challenges to the Soviet Union (Star Wars and "Tear down this wall") These facts do not constitute much of an endorsement for the sagacity of European opinion. one could even say that they have been "WEFT" (an unflattering Navy expression for one who is wrong a lot.).

Quote:

I have found your ideas re Iraq to be careful and mostly sober.
.

Thank you for that.

Quote:

I'll just keep reading and trying to understand what is going on in the world and barking where I see folks doing things that seem to me to be not in the majority's best interest.

Sounds like a good plan.

0 Replies

WEFT=wrong evr'y fukking time?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

My lost love!!!

Yes, the big swing is underway. These guys got entranced with Machiavelli and their own glittering bank accounts and came to believe hubris the real mark of a winner.

But I think there is deeper stuff going on too, and that's more problematic.

Hi ya Bernie!!!

I agree the administrations using pride and presumption as pre-requisite for manuvering worked - but the smoke cleared, indictments served, and most importantly, consequences for deceptive actions forthcoming from Justice, and with that, reformation.

btw, yur "barking and yipping" has certain panache.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

blatham

Quote:

Sample size here on a2k is small, true. Yet polls of citizens in my country, in Britain, in Australia, New Zealand and in Europe consistently show the same sorts of ideas. Attribution for all these folks' views (plus similar notions held by so many in your own country) to merely irrational anti-Americanism seems pretty unlikely to be getting the story right.

george

Quote:

Well Europe was wrong in 1914, and managed to compound the error several times in 1919 and 1920 in Paris and Versailles. They ( Brits & empire) were wrong about the Japanese in 1924 and came to regret it in 1942. Europe was wrong again in the 1930s and remained so until Hitler struck Poland. Most of them were also wrong in their reactions to Reagan's challenges to the Soviet Union (Star Wars and "Tear down this wall") These facts do not constitute much of an endorsement for the sagacity of European opinion. one could even say that they have been "WEFT" (an unflattering Navy expression for one who is wrong a lot.).

Please stop doing that george. Recall we started here with my comment that some americans respond to criticism of US policy/culture (even from folks who truly love so much in America) as if the commentator had raped that american's mother. And above, you just fall right into defensive mode again. It is the hubris problem george, it really is. That's more danger to america than criticism from canadians and germans and australians. Thomas and dlowan and nimh and walter and I really really aren't jealous or mean, and none of us are stupid...we wish you the best but we see some stuff you guys are doing which ain't likely to get you to the best. We ain't the enemy.

There's another thread started by kuv which has seriously good potential. He's a bright fellow too and he's picked two wonderful essays to initiate the discussion, one on Irving Kristol's forwarding of Intelligent Design and another by Hayek. These head into some of the real red meat of contemporary american political trends. I'll get thomas over there too.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1709801#1709801

0 Replies

I will gladly follow up on your link.

However, please note that your reaction to an entirely factual - and generally unquestioned - litany of major European public errors over the last century - errors which shaped the whole history of the last century and caused enormous human suffering and destruction - involved precisely the same excesses of which you accuse me and through which you persistently evade answering the main point of this dialogue.

I don't claim there is nothing to regret in American culture, politics or anything else for that matter. I do claim that, in most of the specific policy issues we have debaded, the actions of our government are probably the right ones - notwithstanding the public criticism they get from quarters of demonstrated unreliability.

0 Replies

Of course, we have a different system of government than the Canadians do but I am perplexed that Blatham has not seen fit to comment on the stinking mess in his country-CANADA.

As everyone knows, the PM, Paul Martin, has been forced to step down because of corruption charges.

Now that evens it up. Clinton was emotionally challenged and gave vent to his adolescent urges causing his impeachment and now, the LIBERAL PARTY in Canada has been turned out because they no longer have the moral authority to lead the nation.

Blatham says that some Americans react to criticism as if the commentator had raped the American's mother.

Not quite.

It is the unrelieved litany of errors which cause many of us to react. A leader in any endeavor is apt to be the target of many. As one who has traveled in Europe extensively, it is my opinion that much of the "criticism" is based on ENVY. That opinion would indeed be softened if there were even one or two initiatives undertaken by the present US administration that was praised, even if only so slightly, by the critics.

0 Replies

Mortkat wrote:

Of course, we have a different system of government than the Canadians do but I am perplexed that Blatham has not seen fit to comment on the stinking mess in his country-CANADA.

As everyone knows, the PM, Paul Martin, has been forced to step down because of corruption charges.

Now that evens it up. Clinton was emotionally challenged and gave vent to his adolescent urges causing his impeachment and now, the LIBERAL PARTY in Canada has been turned out because they no longer have the moral authority to lead the nation.

Blatham says that some Americans react to criticism as if the commentator had raped the American's mother.

Not quite.

It is the unrelieved litany of errors which cause many of us to react. A leader in any endeavor is apt to be the target of many. As one who has traveled in Europe extensively, it is my opinion that much of the "criticism" is based on ENVY. That opinion would indeed be softened if there were even one or two initiatives undertaken by the present US administration that was praised, even if only so slightly, by the critics.

GeorgeOB1 refers to a litany of major European Public Errors. Indeed. My favorite is recounted by William L. Shirer in his masterpiece-"The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" where he unmasks the French as cowards.

Shirer documents the fact that when Hitler ordered the Wehrmacht into the Rhineland. much to the consternation of his generals who felt that the very small force would be cut to pieces by the superior French forces, the French did not react. Instead, as Shirer notes, "The French, their nation already paralyzed by internal strife and defeatism" did not know that the Nazis just sent a small token force into the Rhineland.

As Jodl testified at Nuremburg, "Considering the situation we were in, the French covering Army could have blown us to pieces"

Shirer writes:
"It could have and had it, that would most certainly have been the END OF HITLER, AFTER WHICH HISTORY MIGHT HAVE TAKEN QUITE A DIFFERENT TURN"

European Public Errors? Of course, and that was a HUGE ONE.

0 Replies

It was the Soviets that did the most damage to the Germans in WWII.

0 Replies

talk72000 wrote:

WEFT=wrong evr'y fukking time?

You broke the code! It came from the LSO (Landing Signal Officer) book of abbreviations used in describing and grading pilot technique in landings aboard aircraft carriers -- FUBAR, and AFU are other entries. HICDNTL was another (= high in close; dropped nose to land.)

0 Replies

Jawohl!

0 Replies

Of course the Soviets did the most damage to the Nazis in World War II.

My post did not attempt to show anything about "damage". My post clearly showed that the French, according to evidence and testimony, were cowards who could have stopped Hitler in his tracks and perhaps destroyed his rule.

My post stemmed from the suggestion made by GeorgeOB1 that Europeans have made HUGE errors in the past. The reference to the French pusillanimity was one of those HUGE errors.

0 Replies

Congressional Oversight of Executive Disappears (or almost)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know