3
   

Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

 
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 12:16 am
Is the American press finally growing some cojones?

Quote:
Editorial
The Trust Gap

Published: February 12, 2006
We can't think of a president who has gone to the American people more often than George W. Bush has to ask them to forget about things like democracy, judicial process and the balance of powers ?- and just trust him. We also can't think of a president who has deserved that trust less.

This has been a central flaw of Mr. Bush's presidency for a long time. But last week produced a flood of evidence that vividly drove home the point.

DOMESTIC SPYING After 9/11, Mr. Bush authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on the conversations and e-mail of Americans and others in the United States without obtaining a warrant or allowing Congress or the courts to review the operation. Lawmakers from both parties have raised considerable doubt about the legality of this program, but Attorney General Alberto Gonzales made it clear last Monday at a Senate hearing that Mr. Bush hasn't the slightest intention of changing it.

According to Mr. Gonzales, the administration can be relied upon to police itself and hold the line between national security and civil liberties on its own. Set aside the rather huge problem that our democracy doesn't work that way. It's not clear that this administration knows where the line is, much less that it is capable of defending it. Mr. Gonzales's own dedication to the truth is in considerable doubt. In sworn testimony at his confirmation hearing last year, he dismissed as "hypothetical" a question about whether he believed the president had the authority to conduct warrantless surveillance. In fact, Mr. Gonzales knew Mr. Bush was doing just that, and had signed off on it as White House counsel.

THE PRISON CAMPS It has been nearly two years since the Abu Ghraib scandal illuminated the violence, illegal detentions and other abuses at United States military prison camps. There have been Congressional hearings, court rulings imposing normal judicial procedures on the camps, and a law requiring prisoners to be treated humanely. Yet nothing has changed. Mr. Bush also made it clear that he intends to follow the new law on the treatment of prisoners when his internal moral compass tells him it is the right thing to do.

On Thursday, Tim Golden of The Times reported that United States military authorities had taken to tying up and force-feeding the prisoners who had gone on hunger strikes by the dozens at Guantánamo Bay to protest being held without any semblance of justice. The article said administration officials were concerned that if a prisoner died, it could renew international criticism of Gitmo. They should be concerned. This is not some minor embarrassment. It is a lingering outrage that has undermined American credibility around the world.

According to numerous news reports, the majority of the Gitmo detainees are neither members of Al Qaeda nor fighters captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan. The National Journal reported last week that many were handed over to the American forces for bounties by Pakistani and Afghan warlords. Others were just swept up. The military has charged only 10 prisoners with terrorism. Hearings for the rest were not held for three years and then were mostly sham proceedings.

And yet the administration continues to claim that it can be trusted to run these prisons fairly, to decide in secret and on the president's whim who is to be jailed without charges, and to insist that Gitmo is filled with dangerous terrorists.

THE WAR IN IRAQ One of Mr. Bush's biggest "trust me" moments was when he told Americans that the United States had to invade Iraq because it possessed dangerous weapons and posed an immediate threat to America. The White House has blocked a Congressional investigation into whether it exaggerated the intelligence on Iraq, and continues to insist that the decision to invade was based on the consensus of American intelligence agencies.

But the next edition of the journal Foreign Affairs includes an article by the man in charge of intelligence on Iraq until last year, Paul Pillar, who said the administration cherry-picked intelligence to support a decision to invade that had already been made. He said Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney made it clear what results they wanted and heeded only the analysts who produced them. Incredibly, Mr. Pillar said, the president never asked for an assessment on the consequences of invading Iraq until a year after the invasion. He said the intelligence community did that analysis on its own and forecast a deeply divided society ripe for civil war.

When the administration did finally ask for an intelligence assessment, Mr. Pillar led the effort, which concluded in August 2004 that Iraq was on the brink of disaster. Officials then leaked his authorship to the columnist Robert Novak and to The Washington Times. The idea was that Mr. Pillar was not to be trusted because he dissented from the party line. Somehow, this sounds like a story we have heard before.

•

Like many other administrations before it, this one sometimes dissembles clumsily to avoid embarrassment. (We now know, for example, that the White House did not tell the truth about when it learned the levees in New Orleans had failed.) Spin-as-usual is one thing. Striking at the civil liberties, due process and balance of powers that are the heart of American democracy is another.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/12/opinion/12sun1.html?hp
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 12:33 am
There ain't nobody who honestly thinks the Republicans will make gains this November. The only real unknown is how many senate and house seats will fall and whether majority power will shift in either or both houses.

Quote:
CAMBRIDGE, Md., Feb. 11 ?- House Republicans descended in force upon this Eastern Shore community for three days to ponder their political and policy future...

And President Bush, who arrived for a Friday pep talk to reassure Republicans worried about his poll numbers...

During a question and answer session, Mr. Bush, asked about his lackluster standing in the polls, told lawmakers that he was not pleased, but that if he took the numbers to heart, he would end up "in the fetal position on the floor," according to one audience member who was granted anonymity because the session was supposed to be private.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/12/politics/12memo.html
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 02:18 am
Foxfyre wrote:
I have read some of the book but do not own it.


You can read it online.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 06:26 am
Are we having fun yet, Tony?


Quote:
Details emerged last night of a shocking video which appears to show a group of British soldiers brutally beating and kicking defenceless Iraqi teenagers in an army compound.
The footage is said to show eight soldiers pulling four teenagers off the street following a riot and dragging them into their army base, before beating them with batons, as well as punching and kicking them.

An urgent Military Police investigation was under way last night into the events shown in the video. The Ministry of Defence issued the following statement: 'We are aware of these very serious allegations and can confirm that they are the subject of an urgent Royal Military Police investigation. We condemn all acts of abuse and treat any allegation of wrongdoing extremely seriously.'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,,1708161,00.html
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 06:37 am
OK, everyone...a special treat from me to all of you...something from Salon.

Quote:
Right-wing party animals

At this year's Conservative Political Action Conference, Boone, Cheney, Coulter and other luminaries of the far right gathered to glory in their victories over liberal America.
By Michael Scherer

Feb. 11, 2006 | By the time Pat Boone began singing a karaoke version of his own ballad "Under God," several journalists in the back of the ballroom had already poured themselves glasses of pilfered chardonnay. The U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Co. donated hundreds of bottles of the stuff to the Conservative Political Action Conference, a petty bribe from a leading purveyor of mouth cancer to the leading lights of the right wing. At the time, the journalistic ethics of sniping a snuff company's right-wing booze did not seem so important.

The Jumbotron screens on both sides of the stage flashed a montage of American flags, sunsets and crashing waves. Boone, who tans his face the color of a penny, rhymed the word "God" with the word "God" as a prerecorded chorus of children's voices played in the background. About an hour earlier, Vice President Dick Cheney had appeared from behind the blue curtains to wow the thousand or so diners with a bulldog version of the president's last State of the Union, bluntly daring Democrats to continue opposing the war in Iraq. The night's emcee followed with a joke about how French people screw in light bulbs. Now the diners were digging into their chocolate raspberry torte and enjoying a musical interlude. Next came Virginia Sen. George Allen, a Southerner who once hung a decorative noose from a tree in his law office. He was going to tell the diners why he should succeed George W. Bush as president of the United States. It was, by any rational measure, a good time for a drink.

The newspaper reporter sitting to my left leaned over to acknowledge the obvious. "They do need a new act," he muttered. But do they? The crowd of intellectuals, donors, students and operatives represented at this annual conference had overseen a string of three consecutive electoral victories. They controlled much of the House and the Senate. They had easy access to the White House, and a growing portion of the Supreme Court. Along the way, they might have betrayed some of their founding principles, by expanding the size of government at a record rate and exploiting the perks of power. Yet despite it all, they had good reason to celebrate. "Through every path we've trod," Boone crooned, "we can now live in freedom under God."

With its eccentric mix of power brokers and true believers, the annual CPAC is an odd duck, even by the standards of Washington's never-ending political conference cycle. In recent years, it has been seen by the outside world as a time of celebration for the nation's right-wing leaders, a chance for sitting politicians to rally with the base. Indeed, the event draws big names. Over three days, a cavalcade of the powerful would pass through the basement ballroom of the Omni Shoreham Hotel -- not just Cheney and Allen, but Republican Party chairman Ken Mehlman (to bait John Kerry, again), Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum (to bait Hillary Clinton, again), Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (to condemn gay marriage, again) and Ambassador John Bolton (to bait the U.N., again). These headliners drew the nation's top political reporters, but they represented only a sliver of the action.

Of the 4,000 or so who show up for the conference, about half are overdressed college kids in pearls, blue blazers or striped ties, young Republicans who come to D.C. for the chance to flirt with each other, watch Ann Coulter act outrageous, and attempt to sneak cases of Bud Light into their hotel rooms -- the kind of students that collect internships like Mardi Gras beads. Many others were older members of the obsessive political right: the Navy chaplain who went on a hunger strike, the militant Hillary haters, the self-published authors, the talk radio groupies, and one or two pot-smoking libertarians. In the exhibition hall, Lockheed Martin provided an F-22 Raptor flight simulator (the red button drops the bomb), the Objectivist Center built a shrine out of Ayn Rand book covers, and someone bid up the silent auction for lunch with Grover Norquist to $300.

The panels on states'-rights federalism, the dangers of social responsibility and voter fraud drew only piddling crowds, because CPAC is about preaching to the converted, not learning something new. But when Coulter took the stage, there was barely any standing room. She is, it must be said, less impressive in person than her reputation would suggest -- offensive, outrageous, long and blond, but also bland and obvious. The fact that her shtick has changed so little since 2002 reminds one less of Eugene McCarthy than of Bobcat Goldthwait.

That said, she did not disappoint her fans, coming to the stage under the thumping dance house beats to deliver a string of punch lines. Democrats: "Someday they will find a way to abort all future Boy Scouts." College professors: "sissified, pussified." Harvard: "the Soviet Union." John Kerry: the other "dominant woman in Democratic politics." Her post-9/11 motto: "Rag head talks tough, rag head faces consequences." For good measure, she threw in a joke about having Muslims burn down the Supreme Court -- with the liberal justices inside.

Then came questions. A young woman asked Coulter to describe the most difficult ethical decision she ever made. "There was one time I had a shot at Bill Clinton," Coulter said. A brave young man rose to explain that the Republican Party was trying to recruit Muslim voters. "Please, please, please don't say rag head," he pleaded. Her comeback was swift: "Yeah, I made a few jokes at Muslims. They killed 3,000 Americans." Applause. The next guy to ask a question at the microphone told Coulter his room number at the Marriott.

A few hours earlier, those in the ballroom had been treated to an even more bizarre spectacle when two pro-marijuana groups -- at least one of which is funded by billionaire Peter Lewis, bane of conservatives everywhere -- staged a debate with a former pro-football player over the merits of smoking dope. "You want the government involved so bad," thundered Ethan Nadelmann of the pro-pot Drug Policy Alliance. "What about the market ... What about having confidence in people's basic sense of freedom and good judgment."

"We got enough lazy people in America," objected Gary Copp, a sports radio host, who formerly played for the Dallas Cowboys, Detroit Lions and Philadelphia Eagles. A few minutes later, the anti-weed Copp admitted he had smoked a few joints in his time. That was about as sophisticated as the debate got. At another session, Steve Milloy, the Fox News commentator and ExxonMobil grantee, announced, "We don't know that humans are adversely affecting the climate." He promised to show up at a General Electric shareholder meeting to protest any actions the company takes to reduce greenhouse gases.

A 1:30 p.m. session on "Marriage in the States," which was supposed to include Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, featured instead a self-described former homosexual named Alan Chambers. He said sodomy was like fast food: "It will kill you." He was an expert because he had lived through the torment of gay lust, enduring "a never ending cycle of cravings and nourishment ... an endless treadmill of faceless encounters, broken hearts and unmet dreams." His research on the gay lifestyle had also taught him that gay people do not really want gay marriage (it was the liberal media) and that "lifelong homosexual relationships are not possible." Then he declared, in the struggling voice of a recovering alcoholic, "Today I stand before you as a heterosexual man ... who now lives an unparalleled life of happiness and satisfaction." He said there were hundreds of thousands like him.

A still-gay member of the audience, who said he belonged to the Log Cabin Republicans, rose in protest. "How can you speak for all homosexuals?" he asked. "As a gay person I would like to know how I am anti-family." Chambers let one of the other panelists take the question.

National political protests and conferences on both sides of the political spectrum have a tendency to bring out wingnuts and clowning crusaders. As a rule, such theatrics are of no interest to the networks, the Associated Press or the New York Times, which came to CPAC just to cover the big heavies like Cheney and Mehlman, hoping to discern in the variations of the stump speech some bit of news. When Cheney said that in the 2006 elections "people need to know just how we view the most critical questions of national security," the Washington Post declared it a watershed. It was, wrote a Post reporter, "the closest a top White House official has come" to making the issue of wiretapping a "political matter." Never mind the straight converts or the pot-smoking football players.

I was most interested in hearing Sen. Allen's stump speech, which he has been refining on his recent trips to New Hampshire. As a stump speaker, he has a friendly, neighborly delivery, and in recent years he has been cleaning his closet of his own skeletons, even introducing a bill to apologize for the Senate's once blocking anti-lynching legislation. In an open field for 2008, Allen is spoken about by many conservatives as the next best thing to a resurrected Ronald Reagan. In case anybody didn't know that, Allen mentioned the former president so many times I lost count. "I think we ought to look back at history, at Ronald Reagan, the person who motivated me to get involved in politics ... Ronald Reagan changed the dynamics of the Cold War ... Ronald Reagan persevered ... As always, Ronald Reagan was right." The rest blurred together. Like almost every presidential candidate, he promised to double the number of engineers and be strong in the war on terror.

Like the Senate's Dr. Frist, Allen has a tendency to use biographical metaphors. For Allen, it's all about football, owing to his own brief time on the gridiron and the fact that his father, of the same name, coached the Washington Redskins and the Los Angeles Rams. He kept calling the conventioneers his "team." At about that point, I looked around for the journalists, the members of my "team," whom I had seen stealing sips of chardonnay a few minutes earlier. But they had already left, gone home to their families. Almost three years out, the campaign season was not yet in full swing.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 09:39 am
blatham wrote:
Are we having fun yet, Tony?


Quote:
Details emerged last night of a shocking video which appears to show a group of British soldiers brutally beating and kicking defenceless Iraqi teenagers in an army compound.
The footage is said to show eight soldiers pulling four teenagers off the street following a riot and dragging them into their army base, before beating them with batons, as well as punching and kicking them.

An urgent Military Police investigation was under way last night into the events shown in the video. The Ministry of Defence issued the following statement: 'We are aware of these very serious allegations and can confirm that they are the subject of an urgent Royal Military Police investigation. We condemn all acts of abuse and treat any allegation of wrongdoing extremely seriously.'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,,1708161,00.html


I'm trying to figure out why you thought this post belonged on this thread. Is it because you think it casts the British military negatively, and thus the entire military effort in Iraq negatively, and thus Bush negatively, and thus it belongs in the Bush Supporters thread?

Why not post it over in the Democrats Gloat thread instead? That seems more appropriate, doesn't it? A news story showing negative things about the war belongs in the Democrats Gloat thread, right?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 10:47 am
Ticomaya wrote:
blatham wrote:
Are we having fun yet, Tony?


Quote:
Details emerged last night of a shocking video which appears to show a group of British soldiers brutally beating and kicking defenceless Iraqi teenagers in an army compound.
The footage is said to show eight soldiers pulling four teenagers off the street following a riot and dragging them into their army base, before beating them with batons, as well as punching and kicking them.

An urgent Military Police investigation was under way last night into the events shown in the video. The Ministry of Defence issued the following statement: 'We are aware of these very serious allegations and can confirm that they are the subject of an urgent Royal Military Police investigation. We condemn all acts of abuse and treat any allegation of wrongdoing extremely seriously.'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,,1708161,00.html


I'm trying to figure out why you thought this post belonged on this thread. Is it because you think it casts the British military negatively, and thus the entire military effort in Iraq negatively, and thus Bush negatively, and thus it belongs in the Bush Supporters thread?

Why not post it over in the Democrats Gloat thread instead? That seems more appropriate, doesn't it? A news story showing negative things about the war belongs in the Democrats Gloat thread, right?


I would think so as well. I think it's posted here becuase more people actually read this thread.
0 Replies
 
Stradee
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 10:49 am
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/02/12/national/inquiry583.jpg

Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte, left, spoke this month at a Senate hearing on threats to the United States. With him were C.I.A. Director Porter J. Goss and F.B.I. Director Robert S. Mueller III.


Published: February 12, 2006
WASHINGTON, Feb. 11 ?- Federal agents have interviewed officials at several of the country's law enforcement and national security agencies in a rapidly expanding criminal investigation into the circumstances surrounding a New York Times article published in December that disclosed the existence of a highly classified domestic eavesdropping program, according to government officials.

The investigation, which appears to cover the case from 2004, when the newspaper began reporting the story, is being closely coordinated with criminal prosecutors at the Justice Department, the officials said. People who have been interviewed and others in the government who have been briefed on the interviews said the investigation seemed to lay the groundwork for a grand jury inquiry that could lead to criminal charges.

The inquiry is progressing as a debate about the eavesdropping rages in Congress and elsewhere. President Bush has condemned the leak as a "shameful act." Others, like Porter J. Goss, the C.I.A. director, have expressed the hope that reporters will be summoned before a grand jury and asked to reveal the identities of those who provided them classified information.

Mr. Goss, speaking at a Senate intelligence committee hearing on Feb. 2, said: "It is my aim and it is my hope that we will witness a grand jury investigation with reporters present being asked to reveal who is leaking this information. I believe the safety of this nation and the people of this country deserve nothing less."

The case is viewed as potentially far reaching because it places on a collision course constitutional principles that each side regards as paramount. For the government, the investigation represents an effort to punish those responsible for a serious security breach and enforce legal sanctions against leaks of classified information at a time of heightened terrorist threats. For news organizations, the inquiry threatens the confidentiality of sources and the ability to report on controversial national security issues free of government interference.

Bill Keller, executive editor of The Times, said no one at the paper had been contacted in connection with the investigation, and he defended the paper's reporting.

"Before running the story we gave long and sober consideration to the administration's contention that disclosing the program would damage the country's counterterrorism efforts," Mr. Keller said. "We were not convinced then, and have not been convinced since, that our reporting compromised national security.

"What our reporting has done is set off an intense national debate about the proper balance between security and liberty ?- a debate that many government officials of both parties, and in all three branches of government, seem to regard as in the national interest."

Civil liberties groups and Democratic lawmakers as well as some Republicans have called for an inquiry into the eavesdropping program as an improper and possibly illegal intrusion on the privacy rights of innocent Americans. These critics have noted that the program appears to have circumvented the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires court approval for eavesdropping on American citizens.

Former Vice President Al Gore has called for a special prosecutor to investigate the government's use of the program, and at least one Democrat, Representative John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, has said the eavesdropping effort may amount to an impeachable offense.

At the same time, conservatives have attacked the disclosure of classified information as an illegal act, demanding a vigorous investigative effort to find and prosecute whoever disclosed classified information. An upcoming article in Commentary magazine suggests that the newspaper may be prosecuted for violations of the Espionage Act and says, "What The New York Times has done is nothing less than to compromise the centerpiece of our defensive efforts in the war on terrorism."

The Justice Department took the unusual step of announcing the opening of the investigation on Dec. 30, and since then, government officials said, investigators and prosecutors have worked quickly to assemble an investigative team and obtain a preliminary grasp of whether the leaking of the information violated the law. Among the statutes being reviewed by the investigators are espionage laws that prohibit the disclosure, dissemination or publication of national security information.

page 2: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/12/politics/12inquire.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5070&en=d30153149ec3a15d&ex=1140411600&emc=eta1
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 10:50 am
We should encamp in the gloat thread.

It appears to be vacant....hee.
0 Replies
 
Stradee
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 10:53 am
...yep - all at the Olympics! Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 10:55 am
Not exactly the "vacant" I meant, but...eh.
0 Replies
 
Anon-Voter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 11:52 am
Hey now!

We're just doing our part in helping you supporters celebrate the aftermath of the Bush victory ... in all it's stunning ... !! Twisted Evil

Anon
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 11:55 am
McG wrote:
I would think so as well. I think it's posted here becuase more people actually read this thread.


Laughing
0 Replies
 
Stradee
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 12:24 pm
Anon-Voter wrote:
Hey now!

We're just doing our part in helping you supporters celebrate the aftermath of the Bush victory ... in all it's stunning ... !! Twisted Evil

Anon


Anon, appears our republican friends are attempting to buy time...again!
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 12:42 pm
No, I think they simply lost interest in your - not particularly informative, entertaining, or enlightening - invective and shouting. Such poor material often has that effect.
0 Replies
 
Stradee
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 12:47 pm
Well thank you George. At the very least, we're consistent. Smile
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 12:49 pm
I like Lash's idea.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 01:24 pm
Plain and simple,the left on here cannot stand to see anyone having a good time or enjoying life.

Dont the Bush supporters know that according to the left,the whole world is doom and gloom and that if we are having a good time that means we are obviously doing it at some other persons expense.

So,since the left wants to spread the misery equally,they felt the need to come to this thread.

Happiness is wrong,according to the left,and must be stopped,no matter what the cost.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Feb, 2006 02:49 pm
Well the only ones who are offering ideas, values, concepts, hopes, and/or are doing something, right or wrong, these days are the Right aka Republicans who are sometimes even Conservative.

The Left (aka the Democrat Party these days) doesn't have anything to say or anything to offer except criticism of the people who, do have ideas, values, concepts, hopes, and/or are doing something. And even they are bored with that really fast. I mean there are a finite number of ways to say insulting things before one begins to seriously repeat himself/herself.

So, even if the trolls and spammers didn't stop by here, the Conservatives would still be posting interesting stuff and talking about it with each other and enjoying testing our point of view against the few thinking liberals and others who stop in to offer different but thoughtful and reasoned points of view.

If some Conservatives didn't go over to the Gloat Thread to provide them target practice now and then, then yeah, it would be pretty vacant. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Feb, 2006 09:28 am
Noting JW's post of a few days ago re the unprecedented great economy in the USA these days--it has been long enough now that GWB gets at least some of the credit for that--I also noted the following in this week's Newsweek Magazine. Apparently the higher taxes and more socialist policies of the EU are not producing comparable economies.

If the writer is reporting it anywhere near accurately, I sincerely hope the EU can turn that around as a poor European economy is not good for the USA.

Excerpt
Quote:
. . . .It's often noted that the European Union has a combined gross domestic product that is approximately the same as that of the United States. But the EU has 170 million more people. Its per capita GDP is 25 percent lower than that of the U.S. and, most important, that gap has been widening for 15 years. If present trends continue, the chief economist at the OECD argues, in 20 years the average U.S. citizen will be twice as rich as the average Frenchman or German. (Britain is an exception on most of these measures, lying somewhere between Continental Europe and the U.S.)

People have argued that Europeans simply value leisure more and, as a result, are poorer but have a better quality of life. That's fine if you're taking a 10 percent pay cut and choosing to have longer lunches and vacations. But if you're only half as well off as the U.S., that will translate into poorer health care and education, diminished access to all kinds of goods and services, and a lower quality of life. Two Swedish researchers, Frederik Bergstrom and Robert Gidehag, note in a monograph published last year that "40 percent of Swedish households would rank as low-income households in the U.S." In many European countries, the percentage would be even greater.

In March 2000, the EU's heads of state agreed to make the EU "the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-driven economy by 2010." Today this looks like a joke. The OECD report goes through the status of reforms country by country, and all the major continental economies get a B-minus. . . .

SOURCE
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 03/04/2026 at 11:12:44