On politics, Hitchens and I rarely agree…but this time he and I are singing in harmony. Obama is not a perfect candidate by any means, but McCain/Palin are a national disgrace, and there’s only one way rational people can vote.
It therefore seems to me that the Republican Party has invited not just defeat but discredit this year, and that both its nominees for the highest offices in the land should be decisively repudiated, along with any senators, congressmen, and governors who endorse them.
Throw all the rascals out, but be prepared to have to work hard to prod the Democrats into doing anything constructive with a majority.
I have been convinced for some time now that the Republicans are convinced they are going to lose and have put these two dullards up as a comedy act.
Christopher Buckley (son of William F.) and Wick Allison (former publisher of National Review) have also endorsed Obama for much the same reasons.
It’s getting interesting!
They certainly have helped SNL win back some popularity…
It’s not been a good week… a friend of mine (a staunch libertarian) has declared his support for Obama, as has well-known British conservative blogger Iain Dale, and about half the Conservative parliamentary party over here. And now bloody Hitchens too (not that I’ve ever liked him, I hasten to add). I’m starting to think that come November I’m going to be the last McCain-Palin supporter left in Britain. :-(
The next Presidency is going to be very difficult for the President. My fear is that Obama, if he wins, will be a one-termer. There is an argument to be made (though I don’t actually agree with it) that the Rethug leadership wouldn’t mind losing this one.
Now, I’ll be extraordinarily dysphoric: I don’t believe that Obama has a chance against the redneck racist vote. (Everybody please prove me wrong!)
Woah, there are actually McCain/Palin supporters on the other side of the pond? I thought you lot were supposed to be smarter than that.
In Canada back in the eighties to early nineties, had a Conservative government that by the end of its second term was tremendously unpopular. There was a recession going on, and the national debt was soaring.
In the 1993 election, the Conservatives went from 151 seats out of the 295 in parliament… to 2. There was a running joke that Jean Charest’s wife was sleeping with half the Conservative caucus.
This is what needs to happen to the Republicans. They don’t need to lose. They need to get S P A N K E D.
Hard.
Hard enough not only to express America’s outrage at the pointless Iraq War, the trampling of the constitution, partisan muzzling of government scientists, etc., but also to let the next government know that we won’t hesitate to do the same thing to them, should they step out of line.
I saw that this morning and, MAN, the way he cut open McCain’s chest and tore his heart out … Wow!!!!
“be prepared to have to work hard to prod the Democrats into doing anything constructive with a majority”
from your mouth to the populace’s ear.
“I’m starting to think that come November I’m going to be the last McCain-Palin supporter left in Britain. :-(”
Thank Cthulu that your support doesn’t actually matter in any way.
Personally, I think McCain is the Republican party’s sacrificial lamb. They knew George W. Bush had screwed up so badly that there was no chance in hell for another Republican President.
Romney sure as hell wasn’t going to taint his record with a loss when he could sit this one through and no V.P. candidate wanted to jump into this disaster either, that’s why they had to settle for Palin.
Hooray. The misogynist war-mongering drunkard is on our side. Woo. Hoo.
Given what Hitchens said a few months ago, this really does come as something of a surprise. Though I guess when you pick a Creatard like Palin, Hitchens would definitely lose interest.
Hitchens may be a neocon, but he is neither stupid nor insincere. This really doesn’t surprise me much.
Woohoo, go Chris!
Let’s Barack the vote this November (or right now if your state permits)!
Not that I claim to speak for Britain, but as a Brit resident in Britain, I can say that most Brits not only expect but actively want Obama to win. This does not mean we have any great belief in the man. The first thing you need to suspect about him is that he is running for the presidency of the USA. This alone is enough to distrust anyone’s motives. However, that being the case, and considering the alternative, I’m backing Barack.
I reiterate my previous observance that Hitchens is not a Republican (or Neocon – whatever that even means anymore) shill. Love it or hate it, he really does march to his own drum.
Ah, “war-mongering”. To be so young again. It’s the simplistic passions I miss the most. So invigorating.
Crap, now I have to vote for McCain.
In light of Hitchens political views, I often wonder if his atheism is sincere or just in spite of his wackaloon religious kook of a brother.
or vice-versa
In terms of sincerity, it’s hard to find someone who is more sincere in his atheism. Maybe Penn Jilette. He’s one to just say what he thinks, I don’t think Hitchens can even possibly begin to be insincere because right or wrong he launches in with full conviction.
Walton,
You still have time to change your mind :)
Hitchens’ atheism is sincere. He’s been very out about it, for a very long time. You can imagine how it was used to try to dampen sales of his book about Mother Teresa. Oh, the gnashing of teeth that was to be had!
So Walton, that supporter of every loony conservatard delusion because he’s been living too long in some kind of warped 15th century time warp, supports McCain/Palin?
Color me amazed.
Not.
I’m glad to see someone else saying this. Over the past weeks, I’ve felt very little other than real pity for McCain. I used to like him, precisely for all the reasons he was hated by the GOP during the 2000 election.
My personal pet conspiracy theory is that he’s being cynically used as a puppet by the far-right wing of the GOP. Nothing else (according to my irrational idea) would explain the shockingly obvious, patronizing choice of Sarah Palin to fire up the looniest “base” of the GOP.
Of course, there’s no evidence for any of this.
Wasn’t it his brother Peter Hitchens that started the William Ayers connection, which led to McCain/Palin supporters shouting “terrorist, kill him?” Congrats Christopher, your brother may have haplessly helped get your preferred candidate elected!
The thing I get from Hitchens is that he sincerely cherishes the basic secularism of the American constitution and the ideals that arise from it: that he wants to remind that country of the powerful humanistic thrust it can still represent. I fancy, at least, that his adoption of US citizenship, notwithstanding his long residence, is akin to Tom Paine’s emigration to the colonies. Perhaps as a means to promote the ideal in a receptive land. And now, I am throughly ashamed of my romanticism :O)
and my misspelling of ‘thoroughly’
Well, We will see what we will see with the results of the 2008 pres. election.
Will “We” step past the race issue and the fear issue and change direction and vote for Barack Obama or will the neocons and the social conservatives continue to be in control?
I’m am some what perverse and will vote for the democratic ticket but hope that the republican wins so therefore leave no doubt what so ever the hopeless of their policies are and finally bring the country to its knees, though that may have already occurred.
What is happening in the political sphere in this election?
It has been said by those already mentioned that they can not support the current candidate of the republican
ticket. It seems to me that the republican party has been taken over by the neocons and the social conservatives. The democratic party has shifted to the right of center and is increasingly conservative. Will the so called “main street conservatives” migrate to the democratic party and will the more left of center liberals the greens, labor, peace advocates and the “radical left” split off toward one of the other fringe parties. Or is it going to be just another swing to the left to be followed in do course by a swing back to the right.
are we going through a realignment or just the same old pattern? It does seem to me that we can thank shrub for that fact that our world wide dominance altered has been altered.
What does it look like you?
@#26: “I fancy, at least, that his adoption of US citizenship, notwithstanding his long residence, is akin to Tom Paine’s emigration to the colonies.”
Hitchens has actually written a book about Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man, so I don’t think your far off. He also wrote a biography of Thomas Jefferson.
I noticed this on another blog, and thought I would post it here. It’s a pro-life, conservative Christian who’s voting for Obama, and explaining why. Some of the other comments on that thread are worth reading too.
blog.beliefnet.com/crunchycon/2008/10/in_praise_of_not_voting_comments.html
For the record, I consider myself “pro-life” when it comes to abortion. But after eight years of Bush, I think it’s time to redefine what it means to be pro-life. Among other things, it should at the very least mean the following: To be pro-life is to be against unnecessary wars, and to be pro-life is to be against torture.
I look at Obama, and while I reject his more left-wing views, I see an intelligent, capable, and reasonable man. I believe Obama would never condone torture, would never take us into an unnecessary war, and will endeavor to make health care more affordable to those of lesser means (which will reduce the number of abortions).
With all due respect, Rod, abortion isn’t everything. Why not just recognize that this is one issue in which you vehemently disagree with Obama, and yet vote for the better man anyway? There are hundreds of issues that matter, and abortion is just one of them. Frankly, if the financial system falls apart, the issue of abortion is going to be very low priority (and meanwhile you can be certain the number of abortions will go up). Based on the way that Obama and McCain have behaved themselves, and have run their campaigns, who would you want to be in a position of leadership at this moment in history? “None of the above” really isn’t a very mature option.
It would be wonderful, truly wonderful, if we had a society where abortions never happened. In the real world that’s not going to occur. But it would also be wonderful if we never get manipulated into another war as foolish and destructive as Iraq. That is something a president has far more control over.
Which is the greater number: The number of Iraqi children who have died as a direct result of our misbegotten adventures there, or the number of American abortions in the past few years? Sorry to ask something so terrible, but being pro-life should mean more than being against a pro-choice candidate who has proven himself a reasonable man in other ways. The president can do far more about taking us into war, or refusing to do so, than he can about the laws, policies, and attitudes concerning abortion in this country. The president is the commander in chief, in regards to the armed services. He has very little command over the culture.
Roe v. Wade is probably never going to be overturned, and even if it is, the vast majority of the states will keep abortion legal. That’s a lost fight, Rod, and Obama’s views on the issue and his past voting record are just not that relevant to choosing a president right now.
One candidate, McCain, has proven himself to be an angry, belligerent, unpredictable jackass. He may actually have a worse foreign policy than Bush once he becomes president. It is entirely conceivable that with a president McCain we will go to war with Iran, or with Russia, or with North Korea, or with some other country. The other candidate, Obama, has proven himself to be an intelligent, restrained, inspiring and virtuous leader. He has opposed Bush from the start. He would never sing about bombing Iran. He would never start a war and then joke in public, “Now where are those weapons of mass destruction?”
Bush was (and is) pro-life. Look at where that got us. Being pro-life should mean so much more than being against abortion. At the very least, it should mean that you don’t play deceitful games with other people’s lives. You don’t start a war under false pretenses. You don’t pursue a war as if it’s going to be cheap and easy, and then let chaos reign. Also, you don’t keep people captive for years (apart from their families) without bringing charges. You don’t undo the Geneva Conventions so that you can be free to violate people’s human rights. You don’t condone torture by playing word games while winking at its practice. Why? Because human life is sacred. Human beings should be treated with dignity, and all human life should be protected. What else does “pro-life” mean?
Rod, you still have a few days. If I were you, I’d reconsider your decision not to vote. I love your blog, but I notice that you sometimes have a tendency to dance around in a wishy-washy fashion. Please be an adult. You must vote, and encourage everyone you know (including people who read your column) to vote. There are two possible choices in this election: Obama and McCain. To me, the choice is obvious. Frankly, I don’t see how a Christian can do anything other than vote in a way that utterly repudiates Bush’s policies. Abortion is just not the most important issue right now. Maybe in a few years, when the economy has recovered, America’s reputation has been restored, and the country is at peace abroad. Then you can vote your conscience on abortion, including sitting an election out. But not this time.
You supported Bush for many years. You supported the Iraq war. Consider voting for Obama as an act of penance. That’s one reason I’m voting for him. But there are many better reasons than that one. There is no good reason to stay at home this time. I honestly think that if McCain somehow wins, and you didn’t vote at all, you will regret that decision for the rest of your life.
Bush and McCain are the ones who don’t value and treasure human life. Obama may be wrong about abortion, but he is right about war and peace, and so many other things. From one Christian conservative to another, I suggest that you reject your uptightness about one single issue, and vote for the person who will make the best president in these dark times.
Sorry for the lecture.
– Treebeard
sorry for all the mistakes I type too slow and post too fast
<faux shameless quotemining>
Glad to hear it.
</faux shameless quotemining>
This is a big fat fucking surprise.
I need a Molly for this comment.
A large number of lifetime Republicans want nothing to do with John McCain. A lot of the other members of congress who voted for the bailout are also going to find that their support is sharply reduced.
-jcr
Jams @ 17: Ah, “war-mongering”. To be so young again. It’s the simplistic passions I miss the most.
actually, if you look up the word monger, it’s a reasonable descriptor for the most recent Hitchens V5.6, even with the Obama upgrade.
@walton:
I’m starting to think that come November I’m going to be the last McCain-Palin supporter left in Britain.
Who.
Cares.
Finally! Why he took his sweet time to finally make the endorsement is beyond me, maybe it has to do with the fact that Iraq is about to kick out foreign combat troops. With all the domestic issues we face, I don’t see how a credible atheist could possibly vote for the modern Republican (Falwell) party.
As for McCain, yes it is pathetically sad to see him doddering around from position to position, but this is no Republican regrouping conspiracy–this is the real McCain. He has finally been exposed under the harsh glare of the national spotlight. There are a number of articles on the Web that document his constant pandering to whatever seems to work for the moment. He carried the label ‘maverick’ because he kept things light and hastily skipped off to the next interview or he would sign on to the flashiest legislation he could find. Now that he has been forced to take a stand on a range of issues, he has no idea what to call home, which is truer to what a real maverick is anyway.
A large number of lifetime Republicans want nothing to do with John McCain. A lot of the other members of congress who voted for the bailout are also going to find that their support is sharply reduced.
you might want to look at how the UK bailout is helping (and how fast their representatives both voted and acted on it – money is already going into the system) before you decide you won’t vote for people who tried to repair the economy in the same way here.
or, hell, be a fool for all I care. Ignore the effect the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers had.
Ichy, the “bailout” in the UK is structured very differently than the US bailout was originally. As a result of the UK’s leadership in this, we are (finally) restructuring the original bailout idea to contain more of the UK-type provisions.
Here are some links for a quick, readable explanation:
To Do, Not To Do: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/08/to-do-not-to-do/
Gordon Does Good: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/13/opinion/13krugman.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
#17- If you like that one, I have some more “simplistic passions” I can whip out for you:
Go DIAF.
thanks for the links, liz.
I was just listening to an overview of the UK bailout from the guy who won the Nobel in economics this year, and the followup will be helpful in understanding all of this, I’m sure.
I’d note that that aforementioned laureate (whose name escapes me at the moment), also flatly stated that even he didn’t see how far the effects of letting these institutions fail would go; he was very surprised at the scale of the domino effect (in the US). However, he did make it very clear how much faster the UK had acted to stem the problems than the US has.
Same guy, Ichy: Paul Krugman
I said this in another thread where this was brought up, but I’ll repeat it here. That overly-hawkish sexist wine-sotted windbag has, for the second time, earned back a small degree of my respect. Too bad he didn’t get tortured this time, too.
(I kid, I kid! …mostly… no, really, I don’t actually want *any*body tortured, but, man, Hitchens gets on my bloody nerves!)
And Krugman rocks. I’m glad he got it! ^_^
“actually, if you look up the word monger, it’s a reasonable descriptor for the most recent Hitchens V5.6, even with the Obama upgrade.” – scooter
If you look up the word monger you’ll find it has multiple definitions. If you’re going to evoke a definition, you know, you should probably actually evoke a definition.
Here, I’ll help:
Monger – Dictionary.com
1) a person who is involved with something in a petty or contemptible way.
2) a dealer in or trader of a commodity
3) to sell; hawk
I would say three could be applied to Hitchens in terms of “warmongering” – as it does with Obama in terms of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and possibly Darfur, and… as it does to America in general. That is America’s primary export after all.
Sort-of beside the point though. The naivete is the knee-jerk assumption that selling a war is by default a bad thing. It belongs in the same bin as “all taxes are bad”, “all cops are pigs”, “we can save the world with guitars”, “in god we trust”, and other assorted shallow political cliches born out of an eagerness to over-simplify the complexities of human relations.
@Karley
Please, I only ask that you bring some artistry to your petty hostility. Hint: if there’s an acronym for it, it’s neither original nor clever. Come out of your shell. Don’t be afraid. This is a safe space.
That is America’s primary export after all.
YEEE-HAWWW!
:p
Same guy, Ichy: Paul Krugman
shows you how well my short-term memory is working these days.
:p
i swear, i just listened to him on the radio less than two hours before I posted that.
“YEEE-HAWWW!” – Ichthyic
Exactly.
Former McCain Supporter Accuses the Senator of “Deliberately Feeding the Most Unhinged Elements of Our Society the Red Meat of Hate”
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/13/former_mccain_supporter_accuses_the_senator
Finally an evangelical that actually makes sense!
you might want to look at how the UK bailout is helping
It’s not. You can’t cure the effects of inflation with further inflation. If that were possible, then Zimbabwe would be the richest country on earth.
-jcr
It’s not.
sincere in his atheism.
I’m not sure I understand what you mean by sincerity in this context. Either you buy the mythology or you don’t.
-jcr
This is what needs to happen to the Republicans. They don’t need to lose. They need to get S P A N K E D.
Will you also punish the Democrats for their complicity in the destruction of our civil liberties, going to war without a declaration of war, and the economic collapse in progress?
As far as I can tell, the only real Democrat left in the congress is Dennis Kucinich.
-jcr
I think McCain’s a fallguy. The Republicans are sacrificing this election to the Democrats ’cause they know something of the direction the world economy is going over the next few-several years and they want people to link the economic pain with the (black) Democrat president. I think the hate/fear mongering they are indulging in is an attempt to generate violence and unrest they can point to and blame on Democrat policy and/or leadership qualities.
They’ll probably fight much harder and more genuinely for the next term, by then there should be some signs of economic recovery. They’ll be blaming the Democrats for the pain and very few people will remember the real sequence of events. Public opinion is so short-sighted and has a very selective memory.
Will you also punish the Democrats for their complicity in the destruction of our civil liberties, going to war without a declaration of war, and the economic collapse in progress?
complicity?
hardly.
spinelessness?
sure thing.
be happy to whip them bloody if they don’t take advantage of the supermajority they likely will have coming out of the elections on the 4th.
as far as YOUR concerns go?
I quote another pharyngulite:
//Indecipherable Rhetoric//
If you actually HAVE money, suggest you get back to nurturing it rather than wasting your time here trying to convince us you know what you’re talking about.
Cute video there Itchy, but it does nothing to support your contention that the UK’s version of the bailout will be any more successful than the US government’s own attempt to follow the 1929 playbook.
This mess was caused by massive interventions in the market (the biggest one being artificially low interest rates from central banks for many decades, causing malinvestment), and all that the governments here and in Europe are doing is to try to prevent the repricing of overvalued assets like real estate, mortgage-based securities, and shares in the banks that made these mistakes.
-jcr
complicity?
Go look up the votes for the Patriot act, and the Iraq war funding resolutions. The Republicans didn’t pass those all by themselves.
-jcr
, but it does nothing to support your contention that the UK’s version of the bailout will be any more successful than the US government’s own attempt to follow the 1929 playbook.
that’s why I was referring to what Krugman had to say about it.
or would you like to argue with the current laureate on the subject, too?
you’re delusional.
seek help.
While this is very possible I think violating the “never ascribe to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity” rule is a little premature.
Go look up the votes for the Patriot act, and the Iraq war funding resolutions. The Republicans didn’t pass those all by themselves
you must not have read any of the MANY books being published by various congresscritters that detail how those votes came about, why many felt pressured to vote the way they did, and also explaining why they now regret having voted under duress.
you must also not understand the difference between fear and complicity.
in fact, it’s been my experience of your posts on Pharyngula that you actually understand very little of what you rant on about.
hence:
//Indecipherable Rhetoric//
Krugman’s award came from a panel of bankers. Of course they’re fans of his.
you’re delusional.
Hey, I know you want to believe that your favorite wing of the Ruling Party is better, but wishing doesn’t make it so.
-jcr
why many felt pressured
Oh, cry me a river! I notice that they had no trouble at all ignoring the outcry from the public, over 90 percent against the bailout, and you want to excuse them for voting against the bill of rights?
Most members of congress, with only a handful of exceptions, will happily shirk their duty to defend the constitution if they find it convenient to do so. If you think that you’re going to get any meaningful change by picking one side or the other of the ruling party, then you’re the delusional one.
-jcr
“you must not have read any of the MANY books being published by various congresscritters that detail how those votes came about, why many felt pressured to vote the way they did, and also explaining why they now regret having voted under duress.”
OMG!
I gotta go pee that’s so funny!!
There are books explaining why Democrats are intellectual and moral cowards who would throw away the Bill of Rights because they were skeered?
…and this Ichthyic stick thinks that’s a reasonable excuse to forego the personal privacy of a nation and follow sheepishly behind an obviously idiotic administration?
And to top it all off, this moron thinks that giving these idiots who he grants such idiocy to MORE power to fuck up?
Giving banks more money from the taxpayers coffers to banks so they can loan out more money to a society that is in hock up to its earballs IS NOT the brightest move in the playbook.
Neither will it be wise to bail out underwater homeowners, as it will just precipitate a massive mortgage-dumping all over the US.
Spring time will bring some pretty big oh mys! to the eyes of those thinking this bailout was a good idea…
Krugman’s award came from a panel of bankers. Of course they’re fans of his.
and yours came from?
*crickets chirping*
…is a good idea.
(bad form to whiff on a bitch slap, my bad)…
And to top it all off, this moron thinks that giving these idiots who he grants such idiocy to MORE power to fuck up?
I told you to go and hide in your log cabin, chicken little.
I am amazed at the amazement to this news. With Sister Palin’s VP nomination (given the life expectancy for a 72-76 year old whose *not* the POTUS), who else would you expect Hitch to back? Has the world of liberalism become so blinded by Hitchens support of the Iraqi War it can no longer see this guy is far more liberal than any shade of conservative, and far more skeptical atheist than anything? Such surprise seems wildly misplaced IMHO!
Neither will it be wise to bail out underwater homeowners, as it will just precipitate a massive mortgage-dumping all over the US.
I told you before where to look to find the answers to that.
that you chose to remain entirely ignorant is quite telling.
Gonna just say that even though I am a liberal democrat I am pretty hawkish in regards to war in the middle east. I obviously think Bush is an idiot and his policies regarding the M.E. have been terrible but I am not against the idea of the US using it’s military. And before anyone wishes to challenge me it matters that 9/11 was my home turf. So IMO instead of automatically being against the war in Iraq consider your position on Afganistan or old Yugoslavia. Unless you are a pacifist there are always situations that warrant the use of force. And again, I not really talking about specifics but I favor the use of force when confronted with militant extremists who have already attacked me personally. Twice now. I am thankful for Hitchens for speaking out in favor of military action without using the bullshit pro-american yahoo cowboy rhetoric that usually comes from the supporters of the war.
Anyway with that said I don’t think the Bush adminisrtation cares for much more than simply stealing. And I sort of reached a point where I loath republicans. I’ve had enough.
/rant off
When did Iraqis attack you personally?
*sniff*
Burning Paulite. It must be autumn.
Burning Paulite. It must be autumn.
please tell me they will go back into hibernation come November?
Rudi Giuliani, is that you?
Very true, Azkyroth. I could be crediting them with more smarts than they really have. I do sometimes tend to overestimate the intelligence of the worlds leaders. I keep thinking they must be considerably smarter than me to get to their positions, although many eventually prove themselves otherwise.
JAMS @ 44: I would say three could be applied to Hitchens in terms of “warmongering” – as it does with Obama in terms of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and possibly Darfur, and… as it does to America in general. That is America’s primary export after all.
I have to agree with you on that. However, Hitchens’ disconnects and his parroting of the Bush administration’s Iraq invasion absurdities are a matter of record.
As a person who is involved in media, on a network that debunked the yellowcake rumor, MONTHS before the State of the Union address, long before Plame got involved, we aired Scott Ritter’s consistent repudiations of the weapons of mass destruction lie at the first hint of Iraq intentions, all of which is now common knowledge even on Faux News forgive me if I get a little impatient.
When it takes the heroes of the left, like Jon Stewart, or a centrist dipshit like Bill Maher over a YEAR to get a clue, after it’s too late, I get a little impatient.
Hitchens bought into Curveball, and every con artist bullshitter that came down the Bush League Rove machine, all fucking lies, it’s documented, the only question is, is Hitchens a moron, who actually believed this nonsense, because his access to information was WORSE than a two -bit community radio volunteer like myself, or was he lying.
Idiot or liar
I’m sure Hitchens reads Fisk, Hedges, and Haaretz, who are now 100% correct in their facts and predictions, yet Hitchens ran with talking points from a Dry Drunk Christian fucktard, and a third rate failed Halliburton CEO.
He got citizenship out of deal.
Anyway, I can see from your responses that you and I are of like minds, I just get a little edgy around former iconoclast, Christopher Hitchens, and accusations of knee jerk or youthful vigor.
I’m 53 years old, and I hope this Obama character is just saber rattling with Pakistan, or we may indeed be pining for the good old days of GWB
_PEACE!!
Get the hell out of my state, Scott.
Or at least stop advertising the fact that you’re from here. I swear guys, most of us aren’t like that.
yet Hitchens ran with talking points from a Dry Drunk Christian fucktard, and a third rate failed Halliburton CEO.
the only thing I’ve ever thought about that that made any sense to me was that Hitch has some rather scary stuff compartmentalized away in that big brain o his.
If you’ve ever watched him shred the people he debates, you know he’s no dummy, and the motivations for lying about it on his own seem trivial to me (citizenship? really?); unless somewhere, somebody had some real dirt on him (but what on earth could possibly hang someone like hitch?)
I think somehow he really did conclude it to be the “best” course of action.
I don’t recall anyone here agreeing with him on that point. In fact, I seem to recall even PZ making a post or two denouncing Hitch’s support for Iraq.
as to the drinking, you’d expect that to have a more inconsistent effect on his position on the matter.
*shrug*
far be it that everyone is entirely predictable.
Or at least stop advertising the fact that you’re from here. I swear guys, most of us aren’t like that.
no worries, we know.
I’m from california, a state that multiple times has considered splitting itself into 3 or more pieces because of the huge disparity in economics and politics as you go from north to south, and west to east.
even then, there was one Larry Farfarman (look him up, he’s gotta be infamous by now), who all other californians often felt the need to apologize for.
#44- Fine then. Go fall off the Empire State Building, get torn to shreds by a hyper aggressive flock of harpy eagles on the way down, and land in a pile of salt-encrusted barbed wire.
Howzat?
@debaser71 – The problem with that argument is that starting a war with Iraq was never going to quell extremism – it’s had entirely the opposite effect, and I think that was pretty predictable from the beginning. Not to mention that Iraq had nothing to do with the Sept 11 attacks.
debaser71:
IIRC: 15 Saudis, 2 from the UAE, 1 Egyptian and 1 Lebanese
Saddam didn’t have Jack Shit to do with 9/11. Military action was certainly warranted in response to Al-Qaeda’s attacks, but Bin Laden’s the murderous fucker we want, and he wasn’t, isn’t, and never will be in Iraq.
“I told you before where to look to find the answers to that.
that you chose to remain entirely ignorant is quite telling.”
You say much not worth listening to. Doesn’t matter if anybody here listens to what I am saying. It’ll happen anyway. Too many people underwater with homes worth less than their mortgages, especially in California, where the party was the loudest. Industry upon industry that was dependent on building, including the builders, are gonna see some sad days ahead. Home Depots closing. Anderson Windows laying off people. All those real estate agents who were wheeling houses for that nifty 15%… Marble countertop folks…
Circuit City, where much of that “equity” was spent the last six years on plasma and the internet… Car dealers…
These people all have mortgages too. Whole lotta “fuckits” coming after the cold simmers down… My guess is March Madness won’t be what people think this year…
And wait till it runs right into the credit card debt of a country mired in debt…
And some of y’all think it a good idea to piss away 850 billion shoring up a few someone’s golf game?
My my my…
Umm not once did I say we should have invaded Iraq. Way to jump on some sort of liberal bandwagon though…
Ultra lame.
MAJOR CORRECTION
I meant National Review, not New Republic, and Chris Buckley is not an editor.
Sorry, very sloppy
…I assume the assumption that you endorsed Iraq was in connection with this:
What WAS the second time, then?
Ichthyic @ 78: I don’t recall anyone here agreeing with him on that point. In fact, I seem to recall even PZ making a post or two denouncing Hitch’s support for Iraq.
I think you have misconstrued my message.
The window of time available to educate people with facts closed in 2002, long before there was a Pharyngula.
The asshattery from ALL media was get revenge, just bomb SOMETHING!!
Americans are fucking idiots who are easier to scare than Boo from Monster Inc.
If you can sell bullshit like the Vietnamese are threatening the American way of life, and kill two million of them before losing a war, these sheep will buy ANYTHING!!!!
All of the information to derail the Bush/Cheny/Rove con job for invading Iraq was readily available, all over the internet, and broadcast daily on Pacifica Radio in NYC, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Washington DC, and Houston on 100,000 watt FM radio stations, and was available online from every English speaking newspaper published outside of American Poodledom.
My point is as plain as day, Christopher Hitchens and Michael Savage have been exactly the same for six years outside the Atheist debate, and giving this assclown a free pass, is the same as giving the sheep a tear in our overfed Anime eye because they were hiding under the bed, afraid of the big bad muslims, and crying for their daddy state to protect them from the boogey man.
Fuck them, the New York Times, the LA dog trainer, the daily show, Bill Maher, PBS, Bill Moyers, and the Michigan Militia for sucking the flag after 9-11.
I was up that morning and saw that disaster on TV with the pundits spinning and wincing.
My thoughts then, as now, have not changed:
1. holy shit, here comes a war and martial law.
2. It looks bad, but I can’t smell it from my house.
Ward Churchill’s kid glove statements on ‘Chickens home to roost’, and ‘little Eichmans’ understate my not giving a shit about 9-11, what took them so long?
You can’t run all over the world murdering the shit out Latin Americans, Indonesians, South Americans, and support lunatics in Turkey, Colombia, Iran, Iraq, overthrow African nations and install bloodthirsty Oil Company shills forever without taking one little bitty hit now and then.
All those unfortunate pawns in the twin towers were simply human currency, if you plant ice, you harvest wind, you sew death, the blood splatters your nice clean clothes.
Cry me a river.
Americans are cowardly shits, scared of their own shadows, when somebody says boo, they trott obediently behind draft dodging loudmouths like G-Dub, hoping to get a real manly man, with toughSpeak, like John Wayne, who was also a draft dodger, like Ronald Reagan in WWII, when there was actually something to fight for, like reclaiming all the investments we made in Germany that built the Nazi War machine.
but don’t get me started.
Azkyroth@#84
Sept. 11 WAS the second time. How soon history is forgotten.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing_(1993)
@ #4 & #6 …
Unfortunately, there are
demented fuckwits forsupporters of McCain/Palin on this side of the Pond….Try this raving, rectionary christian loon for starters.
This is the first time I have heard Hitchens endorse someone rather than pan them.
This is not surprising given the numberous and varied strongly held positions he has taken on issues, from the extreme Trotskist left to close to the neo-con right.
Through all this, of course, Hitchens has very vehemently NEVER BEEN WRONG and everyone who disgrees with him has been panned as an idiot or worse.
So it will be interesting to see how long this enfatuation with Obama lasts.
Chances are that six months from now Hitchens will be damning him from whatever position he has moved on to by them.
Katkinkate wrote:
While Obama will indeed inherit the worst mess any president has ever been left with, don’t think for one minute that the Republicans have been smart or have some grand plan for losing. The way they are losing is not going to help them next time.
It was back in December of 2007 when I asked the question: “Are Republicans stupid?”:
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/12/are-republicans-stupid.html
The surprising answer I got from a Dawkins-reading Republican was — apparently so.
Scooter #85 wrote “The window of time available to educate people with facts closed in 2002, long before there was a Pharyngula.”
Pharyngula was established on 19 June 2002. Just sayin’.
;-)
Norman Doering at #89: Reading the blog post you cited, I have to disagree with it to some degree.
Like the “Dawkins-reading Republican” quoted in the post, I am a small-government, free-market libertarian conservative. I disagree with the theocratic religious right; I believe that religion and personal morality are private matters that must be left to individual choice, and that the state’s role is not to impose its own moral standards and interfere in people’s private lives. But because I consider capitalism, free markets and small government to be vitally important to a prosperous economy, I would usually – though not always – vote Republican rather than Democrat, were I a US citizen. (Though I do recognise, as I’ve discussed at length on another thread, that many GOP politicians are not so much “pro-market” as “pro-business”, and that lobbying and crony capitalism pervades far too much of US politics; but I don’t really think the Dems are substantially better in that regard.)
The other area in which I would tend to agree with Republicans is that of judicial restraint and strict constructionism in constitutional interpretation. Yes, the US Constitution enshrines certain rights even against the will of an overwhelming majority. But where the Constitution says nothing about a particular right, and it is clear that its authors never intended to include such a right (abortion being the pre-eminent modern example), it is wrong for the courts to “update” the Constitution in order to create a new right. To do so usurps the sovereign right of the people to determine the laws which govern them. Thus I disagree with Roe, not because I necessarily think that the states ought to ban abortion (I don’t), but because it is clear to me, from a legal perspective, that they are entitled to do so, in the absence of any constitutional amendment specifically creating a right to abortion. There is a difference between “X is a bad law” and “X is unconstitutional”; the former is a normative statement, whereas the latter is a legal statement. There are plenty of sensible (though certainly disputable) arguments in support of the view that women ought to have a fundamental human right to choose an abortion; but this does not translate into them having an actual legal and constitutional right to choose an abortion. It is for the people, via their representatives, to determine what the law should be; the judges ought only to determine what the law is.
Do any of these viewpoints make me “stupid”? I don’t endorse religious-right wingnuttery. I don’t believe that creationism should be taught in schools. I don’t believe that same-sex marriage is going to destroy the world. But I do believe in free markets, limited government, and judicial restraint, and that is why I am a reluctant and critical supporter of the GOP.
A historic day, the USA, under a republican administration, partly embraces socialism !
U.S. to Buy Stakes in Nation’s Largest Banks
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122390023840728367.html?mod=djemalert
As was mentioned by another poster…
9/11 was the second attack on the towers. 1993 being the first.
And I think Guilani is a douche. He has used 9/11 for political and personal gain. All 9/11 brought me was death and loss. Watch New Yorkers talk about 9/11. John Stewart, Keith Olbermann, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, etc. Don’t just pull out Guiliani.
Another gripe I have is when people (genrally liberals and libertarian types) suggest that the threat from terrorist isn’t real. Maybe when your city is blanketted in dust it’ll seem more real to you.
And sorry for the bullet point style post…RL is calling.
Throw all the rascals out
That would (to me at least) mean a great many Democrats too as my vision of that term would be to throw all incumbents who are up for re-election out in their collective ears, Senate and the House. Wipe out as many incumbents as possible and start with a clean slate, both the president and this most recent Congress are abject failures.
Walton (#4)
Let’s hope so.
Jesus fucking christ it’s making me motherfucking sick to see Hitchens’s dick being sucked left and right by supposed left-wing bloggers just because he has decided that McCain and Palin are deranged incompetent scuzbuckets.
Hitchens was wrong, wrong, wrongity fucking wrong on the Iraq war, and was one of its loudest and most articulate drumbeaters. He’s also no motherfucking friend to women. I think it’s fucking stupid and counterproductive to give cookies to dumbfuck blind squirrels like Hitchens just because they happen to stumble on an acorn now and then.
Instead of lauding an obnoxious warmongering misogynist asshole like Hitchens for not being totally delusional, how about all the people who have recognized McCain and Palin for the deranged right-wing shitbags they are from the get-go, but who also demonstrate a tendency to get other important shit correct?
I don’t get this phenomenon where some on the left pop woodies and wet their panties every time some prominent right-wing scuzbucket “sees the light”. These motherfuckers are fleeing the GOP and other “conservative” movements like rats a sinking ship. They do not deserve any praise whatsoever for this self-serving pathetic behavior that merely demonstrates once and for all that they are unprincipled opportunists and always have been; rather, they deserve our disdain and, maybe, pity.
Just because you happen to agree with Hitchens on his stance toward godbotherer religious fuckwits-and now on McCain/Palin-doesn’t make him your friend or ally. I know PZ’s position is more nuanced than this, but many left-wing bloggers are jizzing in their pants.
I wish PhysioProf would visit here more often.
I’m with jcr and Scott on this one: the huge cash bailout is gonna end in massive inflation, and even if it did ‘stop the bleeding’ for now, it just made the problem worse, and destined to come back and bite us in the ass in the long term (and long isn’t all that long now)
debaser71 @ #91
Not real or exaggerated?
Walton in comment #91 asked:
Yes, most of those viewpoints make you stupid on multiple levels.
At the first level of stupidity is your belief that Republicans actually represent the things they claim to represent; small-government, free-markets and libertarian conservativism. At the next level is your belief that Democrats are any more opposed to such things than Republicans. At the third level is your idiotic belief that small-government and so called “free-markets” are better than what we have now.
If you disagree with the theocratic religious right then why vote for a group whose only major distinction in governing is bringing us restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, faith based initiatives and chief justices who want to overturn Roe v. Wade but have not given you smaller government and are now in the process of introducing more socialism into our financial system than we’ve ever known?
Comrade PhysioProf wrote:
PZ has written a few countra-Hitchens posts and I’ve got a post on my blog called “Christopher Hitchens is stupid.”
http://normdoering.blogspot.com/2007/12/christopher-hitchens-is-stupid.html
We give him credited for being right once in awhile because he’s one of us, an atheist. It’s a way of showing that even the craziest among us are not as bad as the craziest theist.
I’d say that someone who still believes that republicans represent these things after the last few weeks, and especially today’s Bush /Paulson anouncements (wait, are they now not republicans any longer ?), is rather… deluded ?
Physioprof:
In other words, even a stopped clock is right twice a day?
Walton, is there ANY thread you’re above infecting with your vapid, misguided libertarian drivel?
Christ on a crutch, it’s getting old. It’s been established repeatedly you don’t have the first fucking clue about economics, world history or international relations.
Give. It. Up.
Hitchens, from what I have heard him say, was a strong proponent and friend to the Kurdish people, who, without the US military intervention would have become toast with jam.
If you follow the Kurdish story and ignore the WMDs of Bush and Co., you get a whole different line of reasoning for rescuing a people from an evil regime.
The biggest mistakes made in this case by the US were made out of ignorance, hubris, and idealism.
The whole Iraq war decision was an almost perfect moral dilemma, made imperfect by the Bush team of idiots who tried to make names for themselves and money for their friends.
The biggest mistakes made in this case by the US were made out of ignorance, hubris, and idealism.
Which of the three does PNAC fall under, liar?
Yeah, mostly knee-jerk bullshit above.
Here you go… I used to work for greenpeace, is that left enough for you?
I was so against the Iraq war that I punched holes in my wall when this shitball started rolling. I recently realised that I have never voted for a single republican candidate, for any position. I support everything Hitch stands for, whether I agree with everything has no bearing.
Hitch is real. He feels what he feels strongly. He stands strong and proud on his convictions. He is a man to be admired in many, many ways.
Maybe you don’t agree with some of his views. Maybe you don’t realise what his views are because you’re too put off by his style to pay attention to what he’s actually saying or doing.
Obama is my candidate. He was not my first choice, or my second, but of the remaining two, he’s the obvious choice.
Don’t get me wrong, I think he’ll be fantastic. I hope he’ll be fantastic, and I’m proud to have a strong, intelligent, and patriotic man like Hitch on our side.
StuV:
PNAC was ignorant of basic military facts on the ground – the US simply doesn’t have the military power to take over random Asian nations at the rate of a couple of months each.
PNAC, with its underlying assumption that America could run the world by stomping on whatever nations it felt like making an example of, approaches the epitome of hubris.
PNAC, with its underlying belief that America deserves to run the world, was very idealistic.
Scott from Oregon is completely wrong to presume ‘rescuing the Kurds’ played a big role in the decision to invade Iraq (for instance, why has the same administration nothing to say about decades of widespread mistreatment of Kurds in Turkey?), but ignorance, hubris, and idealism certainly played a big role. As usual, Scott from Oregon is half right, but for entirely wrong reasons.
Llewelly
Scot said nothing of the sort.
He spoke of Hitch’s reasons, not of Bush.
I would say that putting words in peoples mouths in order to dispute them is frowned upon here.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/husseinindex.htm
For more background, see:
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/3/3/stephen_kinzer_on_the_us_iranian
and Steven Dunlap’s link to government docs here:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/09/oh_no_now_dinesh_dsouza_is_aft.php#comment-1101310
Idealism, my ass.
ggab, SfO literally said:
The biggest mistakes made in this case by the US were made out of ignorance, hubris, and idealism.
Also, llewelly, good point. But I think we both know that that’s not even remotely what Scott was trying to say.
#104 – StuV – Thank you! That is exactly what I think of Walton too.
“Not real or exaggerated?”
One example of what I mean is when South Park did their terrorists attacking out imaginations.
Anyway bumfuck montana probably has nothing to worry about. (Although I find it amazing that often times the loudest proponents of the idea that terror lurks around every corner are deep in the rural areas of red states.) Those of us who live in a city that has already been attacked twice have a different situation.
That should read…”attacking OUR imagination”. Fuck those guys.
Folks, the Republicans used the”Laugh-er ‘curve to give those gragantuan tax breaks to the super rich in order to “starve the beastiin our Social Compact- the Constitution, affirmed bt the Supreme Court. They hoped to have deficts so high that we had to cut essential government programs of the safety net. The rich do not make for more jobs necessarily but rather save more; it is the rest of us spending our Revenue came in as expected but not as much as the cretins thought to offset the deficit,so the cuts worsen the deficit and thus the debt. So the cretins wanted both to make a worse deficit and lessen it!Most economist,be they conservative like Ben Stein or liberal like Paul Krugman, know that Arthur Lafffer was a cretin.
The cretins do not use reason but their faith-based extreme capitalist idiotology to make policy recommendations. They had shills in Pres. Reagan and Bush2.
They ever bray that we the people should keep more of our money in our own pocket but thereby gloss over the need for the safety net and for infrastructure. They regard the poor much as Stalin regarded the Kulaks!
Now Obama-Biden will use sound economic theory to get us out of the crisis and to go forwards.They are not ideologues but practical stewards of our economy.
The mixed -economy is the known ideal as contrasted to the known dystopia of laissez-faire capitalism [ Reference to Ayn Rand’s ” Capitalism: the Unknow Ideal.”]
The Scandinavians do quite well with their social compacts and are happy peoples!
Down with Spencer-Randism [ so-called social Darwinism – Herbert Spencer and Ayn Rand ]!
Sorry for the typos. It is the rest of us spending our money that makes for the supply that meets the demand, causing more job creation. starve the beast the Unknown Ideal
SfO:
And yet you continue to comment. Weird.
StuV
I’m not sure what point you were making.
I was addressing the issue of the Kurds.
SfO said that Hitchens supports the Kurds.
Llewelly said
“Scott from Oregon is completely wrong to presume ‘rescuing the Kurds’ played a big role in the decision to invade Iraq”
(this next part isn’t a quote, just a point)
I now claim that the statement that SfO didn’t make, but that I attribute to him, shows his ignorance!!
Makes sense huh?
SfO (which should really stand for “seriously fubar obscurantist”) projecting again:
You say much not worth listening to
we’ve been trying to tell you that you say nothing of value for weeks now. must be one of those things you stick your fingers in your ears for.
how CAN you be so pathetic?
I know it’s not because you live in Oregon.
@ggab:
lewelly’s comments were based on the implication from what seriously fubar said here:
If you follow the Kurdish story and ignore the WMDs of Bush and Co., you get a whole different line of reasoning for rescuing a people from an evil regime.
which implies that one of the reasons to go to war in Iraq was to “save” the Kurds from the Iraqis.
It wasn’t, but I could see how he could easily confuse seriously-fubar with implying that these were also goals of the US invasion of Iraq.
btw, seriously fubar, the Kurds had and have much more to fear from the Turks than they did/do from the Iraqis by the time we started invading Iraq.
In fact, there was much debate about wooing the turks as allies (or even letting have free movement in their country) at the time, because one of their stipulations was that we let THEM handle the “kurdish situation”.
Ichthyic – Here are my two favorite hillbillies. One is pretending to be SfO. It end’s in a perfect Rev. BigDumbChimp imitation.
“If you follow the Kurdish story and ignore the WMDs of Bush and Co., you get a whole different line of reasoning for rescuing a people from an evil regime.
which implies that one of the reasons to go to war in Iraq was to “save” the Kurds from the Iraqis.”
I’m usually polite to moronic assholes because it is too easy to get venal on a blog, but you are a fucking idiot.
Hitchens speaks often of “solidarity with the Kurds” in most of his talks about why he supported the invasion of Iraq. His “Kurdish brothers in arms” etc…
I was specifically talking about Hitchens’ opinion, and why I believe he took the stand he did.
I never even implied I agreed with him.
“we’ve been trying to tell you that you say…”
There ya go with the group think again. There’s a group of Democrats and Socialists in a room. Whoopty doopty…
That’s all you’re telling me.
If you’re lucky you’ll get tossed in the dungeon before we all go tribal and decide to roast you and eat you. Normally we only eat babies, but I have a wood chipper that might tenderize an old chicken hawk like you.
/sarcasm
I will not vote for either dominionist.But I intend to vote no on Prop.8.
The cretins do not use reason but their faith-based extreme capitalist idiotology to make policy recommendations. They had shills in Pres. Reagan and Bush2.
They ever bray that we the people should keep more of our money in our own pocket but thereby gloss over the need for the safety net and for infrastructure. They regard the poor much as Stalin regarded the Kulaks!
Now Obama-Biden will use sound economic theory to get us out of the crisis and to go forwards.They are not ideologues but practical stewards of our economy.
You have a seriously poor misunderstanding of economics and capitalism if you think Reagan or Bush or GOPnuts in any way, shape, or form embrace capitalism. They are corporate fascists who use government (taxpayer) money to steal from the rich, middle, and working class in order to give handouts to big businesses (see: 2008 Bailout).
And yeah, I’m sure Obama-Biden will be our great Lords and Saviors. I, for one, welcome our new socialist overlords.
Maybe Biden will pull back our forces from Iraq and enlist them in the War on Drugs. He seems especially good at that idiotic crusade.
Would you rather be kicked in the shin or skinned alive?
FWIW, I understand why I provoke so much hostility; given that I am both a theist (though not a practising Christian anymore) and a (libertarian) conservative, I didn’t really expect people around here to like me. But why so much hostility directed towards “Scott from Oregon”, and anyone else here who expresses libertarian and/or non-leftist views? Is it so wrong to be a libertarian atheist rather than a liberal atheist?
I understood that this blog was dedicated to promoting rational thinking. There is nothing irrational about being a libertarian. Unlike religion – which, while one can argue in its favour, must ultimately always ask its adherents to accept its doctrines on faith rather than on reason – a libertarian political philosophy is equally as justifiable, in both theoretical and empirical terms, as a leftist one.
It seems like, to be accepted/liked around here, one must comply with the groupthink. “Democrats good, Republicans bad, taxes good, capitalism bad…” It is not enough to be an atheist or freethinker; one also has to be the “right kind” of atheist.
Your problem is not that you are not a part of the “groupthink” here. Your problem is that you are a dishonest little git.
> for instance, why has the same administration nothing to
> say about decades of widespread mistreatment of Kurds in
> Turkey?
The Turks, alas, thought otherwise, and there was considerably panic among Turkish nationalist circles about the possibility of American/Kurdish cooperation and a Kurdish state in northern Iraq.
They even made a silly propaganda movie called “Valley of the Wolves” about a Turkish James Bond, sort of, who fought against the evil Kurds and their American allies (including a Jewish doctor who was harvesting organs from prisoners). This was quite popular in Germany – Turkish gangster rappers (or minstrel German middle class kids who pose as Turkish gangster rappers), who often toy with Turkish nationalism and/or djihadism*, dominate German MTV.
*Kemalism – wich is secular in nature – Panturanism and Djihadism are, in theory, mutually exclusive, and logically should rule each other out, but don’t expect logic inside the brain of a macho thug.
This said, while there are madmen at the nationalist fringes of Turkish society, the Turkish mainstream is rather secular and liberal, and Turkish goverment, while sometimes repressive and authoritarian, especially when it comes to minorities like the Kurds, does not gas people, like Baathist Iraq did.
> The Scandinavians do quite well with their social
> compacts and are happy peoples!
Sweden suffered a crisis of its banking and mortgage system in the early nineties, it was very similar to the current American crisis.
Then by all means, show us some of this justification and adequately address the rebuttals that have been offered to your positions instead of just blithering about “groupthink.”
Walton,
Here is your assignment for the day:
Read the articles/interview I linked to @ # 110 and #111. Summarize them in three or four paragraphs (not less). Simply tell me what they say. Do not use the word “I”; do not give your opinion. What historical arguments are the journalists or authors making that are relevant to our understanding of the current US involvement in Iraq and relationship with Iran? Then, present any questions about or criticisms of the methods used or factual information presented. Finally, and only at the end, briefly discuss and support your own views on the invasion and occupation of Iraq and US policy towards Iran, engaging substantively with these writings. Do not begin any sentence with “I am.”
Your problem is not that you are not a part of the “groupthink” here. Your problem is that you are a dishonest little git.
Maybe I am. But that isn’t what I’m talking about, as you would know had you bothered to read my post more carefully. I am talking about the way other libertarians – even staunchly atheist libertarians – are treated around here. It seems it isn’t enough to be an outspoken opponent of the theocratic religious right; in order to be considered a truly “rational” thinker around here, one must also subscribe to some form or another of leftist economics.
SC, I accept your challenge and will get back to you as soon as I can. (I’m a busy student – though I appreciate you might not know it from the amount of time I spend on here! – and have a law essay to write before I embark on your “assignment”.)
No, one must raise rational arguments, or answer questions rationally. You do neither, you just make unwarranted points based on fixed assumptions that you never back up, and you rarely answer questions.
I’ve asked you a simple question several times, you refuse to answer ;
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/10/how_low_will_he_sink.php#comment-1155810
In this above mentionned thread Sc, frog and I tried to have a discussion with you about Friedmanian princples, but the only thing you can say about it, and repeat time after time, is that you believe in them. When we give you the examples of this financial crisis, Iceland, etc… you escape the discussion, as if you have no rational argument.
So what does that mean, you agree with what we write, then say it, or you just put your head in the sand and think nobody notices ?
OK, negentropyeater, I will answer your question honestly. (I’m not under the illusion that you will respect me any more for doing so, but one can always hope.)
I am uncomfortable with the bailout, I will admit that. It smacks of “lemon socialism”, where companies which make poor decisions and fail are taken over by government, whereas the more successful companies are left to survive on their own in the market. If financial institutions can be confident that government will rescue them if they fail, where is their incentive to make the right decisions and be cautious with their investment? A friend of mine – a libertarian – has, indeed, argued that we should simply have allowed the banks to go to the wall, and I have great sympathy with this argument. Yet the problem is the millions of savers who would have been hurt. Unlike with building societies, those who place their money in a bank are not necessarily shareholders in the bank; thus they have no control over their bank’s investment choices (except the drastic move of withdrawing their money), and it seems unjust to allow them to lose their savings because of poor decisions made by a few corporate executives.
Perhaps a better answer would have been to compensate directly all those who lost their savings, while leaving the banks themselves to fail. This could hardly have been more expensive, and would have preserved the basic principle of the market (which is that businesses must live with the consequences of their own decisions). But I freely admit that I don’t know whether that would have worked; if the world’s economists can’t agree on an answer, I’m not arrogant enough to assume that my own plan is perfect. (I wish Milton Friedman were still alive; it would be interesting to know what his answer would have been.)
Hitchens isn’t the only one who has turned. Christopher Buckley, William F’s son, once editor of National Review, has resigned and endorsed Obama/Biden:
http://thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-10-14/sorry-dad-i-was-fired/
BTW Walton, this notion of “leftist economics” of yours will require some definition.
Does taking control of the 9 largest banks in the country (a $250 billion equity share, and nomination rights, etc…) belong to “leftist economics” ?
Would you have told of MM Bush and Paulson a few months ago that they would be advocates of “leftist economics” ?
You know what I call your favoured version of economics ?
– Yoyo economics
When the yoyo goes up at an accelerated pace, all the profits go to a few capitalists. When it goes down, get the masses to pay back all those profits through taxes, debt reduction, inflation…
And start the yoyo again.
Nice trick, how long will it work ?
Hey, you realise that you are becoming a socialist. Economically, what you are suggesting (and I agree with btw), is that government should have wiped out the existing shareholders (as these banks would have become defacto bankrupt anyway) and taken 100% equity and saveguard entirely all deposits.
But of course, the US govt couldn’t do that, so it took only a 30% share of those banks, diluting the current shareholders a bit, but not entirely. They had to save their friends. I wonder how many shares of Goldman Sachs Mr Paulson still owns ?
Well, it was a spur-of-the-moment suggestion. I certainly don’t advocate socialism. But we are all trapped between a rock and a hard place: accepting lemon socialism and government bailouts, or letting lots of people lose their money.
Of course, it wouldn’t have happened if it wasn’t for Clinton’s policy of pressuring Fannie Mae and other lenders, via the Federal Reserve and the Treasury, into giving mortgages on easier terms (even treating unemployment benefit as a source of income for credit purposes!) to poor urban residents, in order to increase homeownership among ethnic minorities. Or, for that matter, for FDR’s establishment of Fannie Mae itself in 1938, putting government into the mortgage market (where it has no business to be). So, sadly, government is now in the position of having to clean up its own mess. The market is not to blame for this situation.
Listening to Fox News a lot I see…
Walton, think !
The US national debt has increased by $ 5 trillion in the last 8 years. You’re telling me that it’s all fault of those 2 million poor households who’ve taken too big loans during that period ? Hey that’s $ 2.5 million mortgages each, never thought they had that much credit potential.
Walton, at the very most, these subprime loans represent 5% of the credit bubble, the vast majority of the bubble is represented by hedge funds, broker-dealers, and many many more very rich capitalists who took advantage of the huge gearing ratios and low interest rates and complete disconsideration for risk that were possible during that time to make loads of money.
Are you really so naïve that you believe everything that’s said on Fox News ? Do you never start calculating, confronting it to reality and critical thinking ?
Walton,
you don’t seem to realise what really happened.
If you had, say, invested $1 million in a hedge fund (they only took serious clients) in 1990, this was leveraged 30 to 1, which means the fund could borrow $30 million at low rates for say ten years (5%, that’s $1.5 million per year) and invest it in the market. Between 1990 and 2000 for example, you would have received 15% dividends per annum (that’s how much the DJIA increased during that period), or $4.5 million per year for ten years, minus interests, get $ 3 million.
Not bad, invest $1 million, get paid $ 3 million per year for ten years, without having to move a muscle.
Take your $1 million out in 2000 and pay back the principal to the bank, and go to the carribean on early retirement to play golf and snorkel. Meanwhile, you’ve got yourself $30 million on an offshore account, taxfree of course !
What productivity gains has the economy received from you ? Well, it’s great, the $30 million loan that you took early, were pumped in the economy in 1990 and helped it to grow faster than it would have if you hadn’t taken that loan.
And you have the perfect money supply bubble, grows the economy, one guy gets very rich (you). The only problem, is that you can’t do this kind of giant Ponzi scheme for eternity. Otherwise, it would be great.
Multiply that one guy by a few hundred thousands, and there you have it.
How about this article?
http:// theheritagefoundry.org /2008 /10/15 /what-unregulated-capitalism/
(spaces added to stop my comment going into moderation)