Comments on: We only laugh because we can cry no more

We only laugh because we can cry no more

clevershark — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 09:59:10 -0800

"Willingness to accept a long-term American occupation force" is now set to become a condition for future bailouts.

By: specialk420

specialk420 — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:08:25 -0800

this is the clown who blew post-invasion planning in iraq. good choice george, another neo-con in charge is just what the world needed. more on wolfie and his neo-con cabal: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?041101fa_fact

By: clevershark

clevershark — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:11:12 -0800

Nothing says good financial judgement like thinking that the Iraq war was "going to pay for itself".

By: Balisong

Balisong — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:13:34 -0800

Is it just me.... Or is anyone else getting the feeling that the "real" agenda for this administration is the complete dismantling of everything that everyone else has been working towards for the past 100 years? Un-freaking-believable!

By: mss

mss — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:14:29 -0800

It did pay for itself. All the companies that invested have done well.

By: loquax

loquax — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:14:47 -0800

Read No Country Left Behind (reg req'd), by Colin Powell in last month's Foreign Policy. Maybe it will help dry your tears.

By: spooman

spooman — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:21:27 -0800

What a display of contempt for international institutions and the goal of poverty reduction. The nomination of someone who was at least an economist, however right wing, would've shown that Bush was at least remotely interested in helping the poor. In a strange way, this pisses me off a lot more than some of the more serious errors in judgement the administration has made, since at least a lot of those can be blamed on stupidity instead of ill will. This is just cronyism and naked lack of concern for suffering.

By: destro

destro — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:22:33 -0800

What happened to Bono?

By: trharlan

trharlan — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:25:24 -0800

The nomination of someone who was at least an economist, however right wing, would've shown that Bush was at least remotely interested in helping the poor. According to Wolfowitz's Bloomberg profile, he graduated from the University of Chicago in 1972 with a Doctorate in "Political Science & Economics." Whether one calls him an "economist" is a semantic issue.

By: 327.ca

327.ca — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:26:04 -0800

Well, when ya got political capital, ya gotta spend it somewhere...

By: quonsar

quonsar — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:28:09 -0800

What happened to Bono? he finally found what he was looking for.

By: Matching Mole

Matching Mole — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:31:58 -0800

"Ahhhhh shit, World, you been PUNK'D!" (cut to gigantic hidden cameras mounted on orbiting Prank Satellites)

By: mr.marx

mr.marx — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:33:27 -0800

this is all just a bad dream. right?

By: wadefranklin

wadefranklin — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:39:13 -0800

...is anyone else getting the feeling that the "real" agenda for this administration is the complete dismantling of everything that everyone else has been working towards for the past 100 years? You hit the nail on the head, Balisong. At this point, nothing this administration does surprises me anymore. I realized that this morning when I read about this appointment, and felt no reaction at all.

By: Balisong

Balisong — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:45:23 -0800

You hit the nail on the head It's like they go out of their way to select the correct wrench in order to pound the next screw in..

By: furiousthought

furiousthought — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:46:16 -0800

Whatever - wake me up when Alan Keyes becomes the next Supreme Court justice.

By: cows of industry

cows of industry — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:48:39 -0800

"Looking west from Ireland, you can just make out the gigantic red, white and blue finger rising above the horizon..."

By: cows of industry

cows of industry — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:49:23 -0800

Ooops, sorry. That shouldn't be linked... :(

By: electroboy

electroboy — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:56:58 -0800

"He helped manage a large organization," said Bush "He's a skilled diplomat. Worked at the State Department in high positions -- ambassador to Indonesia, where he did a very good job representing our country." I know it's trite to make fun of the way Bush speaks, but WTF? Can we get just a little complexity instead of broad, empty language? I'm sure in the next few sentences, Bush described Wolfowitz as a "self-starter" and "goal-oriented".

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:06:51 -0800

This isn't all because people are grossed out about the combsucking is it?

By: fshgrl

fshgrl — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:16:05 -0800

know it's trite to make fun of the way Bush speaks No, no it's still funny. Or it would be funny if he wasn't working to destroy everything we've all worked for for the last 100 years. I'd love to know what the neocons dream of, what they're trying to build and what they want to be remembered for. Do they imagine a world of peace and plenty fought for and won through strict adherence to fundamentalist protestant doctrine? Or is it more like the bit in LOTR with the mine and the dead trees?

By: matteo

matteo — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:18:37 -0800

Maybe it will help dry your tears. please no, I'm laughing so hard I don't mind the tears

By: techgnollogic

techgnollogic — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:20:47 -0800

An ape I would be, Full of mischievous glee; If aught came to vex thee, I'd plague and perplex thee. An ape I would be, Full of mischievous glee.

By: 27

27 — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:25:44 -0800

How can this guy possibly be qualified to be Dpty. Sec. of Defense and president of the World Bank? Don't economics and national defense exist on entirely different ends of the expertise-spectrum? (Assuming that Wolfy has expertise in both, acknowledging that he may not have expertise in either). I mean, unless this guy is SuperGenius, I just don't see how somebody can be qualified to hold such important roles in such dissimilar fields... Is there something, aside from political BS and the apparent recycling of members in The Shrub Club™ at work here?

By: nofundy

nofundy — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:34:36 -0800

You need only two qualifications for promotion in the Bush Administration: lots of loyalty and miserable failure.

By: andreaazure

andreaazure — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:44:14 -0800

And, in other news... David Duke is nominated to be the new president of the NAACP. Unreal.

By: OmieWise

OmieWise — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:45:57 -0800

I have to say that for a long time this has been the thing about Bush that makes me most convinced he's full of shit. It's one thing not to admit to mistakes or back down in the face of overwhelming evidence that your chosen path is wrong, and it seems like an entirely worse thing to continue to reward the people who have messed things up so badly. The same thing happened with Rumsfeld after the torture photos, although in that case it was simply a failure to fire him. What they both show is that Bush is completely and very disturbingly out of touch with reality. Not only is he a lousy president because of the policies he promulgates, he's an absolutely horrid assessor and manager of other people and his own self-interest.

By: OmieWise

OmieWise — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:50:40 -0800

loquax, Thanks for the link, although I'm not sure why we should have faith in Bush's ability to raise the world's masses out of poverty. He hasn't done a great job with the US economy.

By: trharlan

trharlan — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:55:36 -0800

How can this guy possibly be qualified to be Dpty. Sec. of Defense and president of the World Bank? Don't economics and national defense exist on entirely different ends of the expertise-spectrum? (Assuming that Wolfy has expertise in both, acknowledging that he may not have expertise in either). I don't know enough about Wolfowitz to judge his qualifications, but both of these posts are administrative. If Meg Whitman would have won the Disney job, would you say that media and and auctioneering exist on entirely different ends of the expertise-spectrum?

By: odinsdream

odinsdream — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 12:09:27 -0800

Anyone interested even slightly in this kind of stuff, I recommend you watch Rumsfeld's War.

By: Mean Mr. Bucket

Mean Mr. Bucket — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 12:14:22 -0800

Don't economics and national defense exist on entirely different ends Every war is fought for one thing: Profit.

By: 27

27 — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 12:31:02 -0800

If Meg Whitman would have won the Disney job, would you say that media and and auctioneering exist on entirely different ends of the expertise-spectrum? No. I suppose I incorrectly thought that these appointments were awarded based on more than one's ability to administer. It's be cool though if qualifications, prior experience/knowledge, etc. came into play. You know, combined with the administrative skills...

By: specialk420

specialk420 — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 12:32:33 -0800

"Looking west from Ireland, you can just make out the gigantic red, white and blue finger rising above the horizon..."

By: clevershark

clevershark — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 12:43:04 -0800

Actually, the recent spate insane appointments by this President makes perfect sense according to PNAC and Wolfowitz's own brainchild ("Defense Planning Guidance"). The overall goal of the policies in DPG is to actively prevent the establishment of any power that might come close to being seen as a rival for US influence. Most people come to associate this "power" as being a country. That being said, it's clear that the White House has taken this to mean ANY sort of power, and evidently they're going after the NGOs. I don't see the point of appointing John "Treaty killer" Bolton to the UN, except to basically do whatever he can to destroy the UN from within. Likewise here; this is clearly a step towards getting rid of the World Bank altogether. Having Condi Rice rule over the State department is an unmistakeable middle finger raised at everyone who's spent the past 15, 20, 30 years in the diplomacy trade (expect news of a purge within a couple of months).

By: Candide

Candide — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 12:52:19 -0800

Do any of you see the motivations of this administration stemming from resource depletion? It seems that the administration sees the instability of the future world due to the depletion of oil resources and subsequent decline in population, which is currently supported by agriculture grown with petroleum-based fertilizers. They can justify all of these actions with this. This is part of some long-term strategy of isolating the US from the rest of the world by pulling out of treaties and ignoring international rules. I get this idea from the "conspiracy theories" of peak oil activists like Michael Ruppert. Regardless, legislative and judicial leaders pretty much accept these seemingly evil and foolish decisions to not help the poor, wage wars, and destroy the environment. Why?

By: matteo

matteo — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 12:58:12 -0800

How can this guy possibly be qualified to be Dpty. Sec. of Defense and president of the World Bank? just ask ex- Defense Sec and ex- World Bank president and self-described "war criminal" Robert McNamara. anyway, massive tax cuts for the notoriously overtaxed African poor are coming soon. help is on the way.

By: orthogonality

orthogonality — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 13:30:30 -0800

I thought that, with Robert S. McNamara, the tradition had been established of giving the post to a technocratic Defense Secretary convinced of his own brilliance, who had gotten the nation deep into a foreign quagmire.

By: mk1gti

mk1gti — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:21:12 -0800

Well, I started reading the article by Colin Powell but he lost me after he compared Bush to Kennedy... I was looking at an earlier post that Wolfowitz graduated from the Chicago school of economics which indicates he might be one of the 'Chicago Boys' who exported their 'economics of denial' to South America where it was used to punish the poor while enriching the rich. Sounds like more of the same here: rob from the poor and give to the rich. I was reading something yesterday where this country is becoming more and more isolated, both politically and economically. This country's government and corporations move jobs overseas, slash education, slash health care, basically stabs itself in the brain with a sharp stick at every possible opportunity and expects doing this to make our country a world leader? Maybe in Bizarro World, but not in the real one. Our country and it's people are slowly but surely being relegated to the dustbin of history. Hello Third World, here we come ! ! !

By: arisbe

arisbe — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:31:33 -0800

See Jude Wanniski's comments.

By: spooman

spooman — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:35:37 -0800

The Bloomberg profile of Wolfowitz's education is different from what the University of Chicago calls his doctorate, along with everybody else. The NY Times said it was in International relations, and a U of Chicago magazine just calls it political science. And even if he did recieve some education as an economist, it wasn't his main focus then and he hasn't done anything in the field during his working life. So at best, he took a couple classes 30 years ago from the most dogmatic school of economics in the nation (incidentally, the U of Chicago 'man as an economically rational animal' dogma is now being shown to be almost the complete opposite of the truth- you can get much better results if you assume no intelligence at all. so even the little he may have learned was basically wrong.) Even if you think calling him an economist or not is a matter of semantics, he's certainly not a respected or experienced economist. Even the administration isn't touting him as qualified in the relevant areas- just as a 'good leader,' as if there isn't a single decent manager out of all the people with more experience in development economics.

By: koeselitz

koeselitz — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:36:28 -0800

I, a relatively uninformed average citizen who gets his news from blogs, am outraged that someone whom I percieve to be a threat has been nominated to a post I've never heard of before now.

By: fshgrl

fshgrl — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 14:43:39 -0800

Then you didn't read the post on Bono a few days ago did you? If the average citizen doesn't get outraged who will. Oh right, ultra right wing religious fundamentalists.

By: nims

nims — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:02:53 -0800

fshgrl please link to the aforementioned post.

By: koeselitz

koeselitz — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:13:31 -0800

"If the average citizen doesn't get outraged who will." A funny thing about outrage: it's never thoughtful. The closer you look at people, from the leftest leftie to the rightest rightie, the more you realize that they're never evil, they're just ignorant. Ignorance is nothing to get "outraged" about. It's not even something to get surprised about, since it's the condition of most human beings. I keep seeing this bumper sticker: "IF YOU'RE NOT OUTRAGED, YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION!" The translation of this is something like: "my anger is something you're morally obligated to share with me!" Why? Too many people have pretentions to understanding politics these days. It only makes them unhappy and outraged. Outrage, more than any other emotion, is a sign that the person who feels it shouldn't be thinking about politics in the first place.

By: grapefruitmoon

grapefruitmoon — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:18:15 -0800

Step 1 : Invade Iraq. Step 2 : ????? Step 3 : PROFIT!

By: 27

27 — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:24:25 -0800

Outrage, more than any other emotion, is a sign that the person who feels it shouldn't be thinking about politics in the first place. I think the founding fathers would disagree, but of course I can't be certain. I don't think they were motivated out of complacency though.

By: furiousthought

furiousthought — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:24:43 -0800

Too many people have pretentions to understanding politics these days. It only makes them unhappy and outraged. Outrage, more than any other emotion, is a sign that the person who feels it shouldn't be thinking about politics in the first place. That is reasonable-sounding, but wrong, because it precludes the possibility that someone in a leadership position might do something very bad; and the more I think about it the less comfortable I am with the elitism it implies. Saying that outrage is never thoughtful is basically saying that everybody who is stupid-looking is in fact stupid. It's not just the boy who cried wolf's fault the sheep got eaten, you know. (That is how the fable goes, right?)

By: koeselitz

koeselitz — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:39:08 -0800

27: "I think the founding fathers would disagree, but of course I can't be certain. I don't think they were motivated out of complacency though." Outrage and complacency aren't the only two motivations for action. furiousthought: "That is reasonable-sounding, but wrong, because it precludes the possibility that someone in a leadership position might do something very bad; and the more I think about it the less comfortable I am with the elitism it implies. Saying that outrage is never thoughtful is basically saying that everybody who is stupid-looking is in fact stupid." I didn't say that leaders never do things that hurt the people they lead. To the contrary, in a democratic country, where the people get to pick the leaders, leaders are apt to be pretty ignorant, and thus will likely do all kinds of things that will hurt everybody. The proper response to this isn't outrage; it's not their fault if people do stupid things. I'm only saying that anyone who is outraged at ignorant behavior in public officials probably doesn't have much of an understanding of human nature, and thus isn't fit to be (or maybe even vote for) a public official.

By: clevershark

clevershark — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 16:11:19 -0800

I, a relatively uninformed average citizen who gets his news from blogs, am outraged that someone whom I percieve to be a threat has been nominated to a post I've never heard of before now. Well, I am sorry that you are (self-admittedly) ignorant of these things. Let's hope you will not make the mistake of assuming that this ignorance is shared by all... I'm only saying that anyone who is outraged at ignorant behavior in public officials probably doesn't have much of an understanding of human nature, and thus isn't fit to be (or maybe even vote for) a public official. This is not ignorant behaviour from the White House. It is knowing, calculated hubris. I would be happy to look at the Bush Administration and see only ignorance... at least ignorance is a morally neutral force.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 16:52:51 -0800

Although not a formal code, traditionally the United States chooses the head of the World Bank while the Europeans pick the head of its sister organization, The International Monetary Fund. Both the U.S. and the Europeans have veto power over each other's choices. You Europeans better veto this. It's pathetic--every time this administration sees an international organization or treaty, or even a group of foreigners, it's psychotically compelled to scream, "fuck you!"

By: matteo

matteo — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:03:23 -0800

well, the feeling seems to be quite mutual at this point

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:14:04 -0800

good. we need someone to stand up to their bullshit...you go, EU--stop this travesty.

By: Eekacat

Eekacat — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:25:06 -0800

The analysis I heard today on NPR is that no-one is going to invest the political capital to stop this. Better get used to this, George is going to be getting his way a lot in the future.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:13:05 -0800

what, is the whole world mesmerized by the gap in Condi's teeth? what is it with people? what are they getting out of these horrendous appointments? what does Europe get out of it?

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:52:31 -0800

Financial Times: But critics will still point to the numerous lapses in judgment along the way. Mr Wolfowitz was among prominent members of the administration who engaged in a campaign two years ago to assure Americans that the financial costs of invading Iraq would be slight. These assurances were delivered against expert advice. "There's a lot of money to pay for this that doesn't have to be US taxpayer money, and it starts with the assets of the Iraqi people," Mr Wolfowitz told a House of Representatives hearing on March 27 2003. "On a rough recollection, the oil revenues of that country could bring between $50bn and $100bn over the course of the next two or three years," he said. "We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon." In the two years since the invasion, Iraq's oil revenues have totalled $25bn (€18.6bn, £13bn), despite soaring world prices. The cost of the war and reconstruction has exceeded $200bn so far. The appointment will also raise questions about development credentials. While Mr Wolfowitz's career included a stint as ambassador to Indonesia, his focus has long been on military affairs and he is not seen as an expert on development issues or international finance.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:56:53 -0800

Wolfowitz at the door -- Guardian-- ... The Commission for Africa recommended last week that heads of international institutions should be decided by open competition "for the best candidate rather than by traditions which limit these appointments by nationality". Europeans - who remember how the US managed to veto the German candidate to head the IMF last year - should now state their objections to Mr Wolfowitz loud and clear.

By: nakedcodemonkey

nakedcodemonkey — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:08:13 -0800

Bono FPP link for nims.

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:26:59 -0800

I think it's a good move, like the Bolton appointment. Bush is truly the best President I have observed (even if the ANWR thing is stupid).

By: Balisong

Balisong — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:44:20 -0800

Say, Paris.. Care to expand on your reasoning as to why he would be a good apointment, or is it that you just think Bush is looking out for America.. I hear it's hard work..

By: tranquileye

tranquileye — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:06:32 -0800

Wow. Thank is actually going to be WORSE.

By: tranquileye

tranquileye — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:07:13 -0800

Wow. The Bank is actually going to be WORSE. I didn't think that was possible. Really.

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:08:28 -0800

I just think the entire International order needs to be shook up real good. The whole Paris-ish diplomatic corruption behind closed doors nice nice look the other way club.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:10:53 -0800

Too bad Bush isn't smart enough to realize he would be much much more successful if he actually tried real diplomacy for a change, and not just "fuck you"

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:12:18 -0800

Actually, this appointment will not be nearly as valuable and entertaining as the Bolton appointment--are UN sessions public enough to be broadcast on, say C-Span? Bolton speeches and discussions would be wonderful to watch. But what is/will be entertaining: all the anger the Wolfowitz appointment will generate. Gee, yet another Jew-Banker!

By: ParisParamus

ParisParamus — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:14:04 -0800

This isn't just "fuck you." But it is partially such, which is appropriate. Actually, "fuck you" is in the eye of the beholder, so it's unavoidable in order to shake up those that should be.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:17:07 -0800

don't even try to spin it as anti-semitism. he's totally unqualified, just like Bolton. a "fuck you" to the whole world--allies, funders and recipients alike--is never appropriate when you lead a nation that needs allies, especially when you're waging war. it's simple.

By: sien

sien — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:57:31 -0800

Does this job matter that much? Is Wolfowitz actually being shunted off somewhere he won't really matter that much? It seems there is a knee jerk reaction here that says that this is a bad thing, but perhaps Wolfowitz is actually being fired. Looking at the Wikipedia Link for the world bank and going down to the list of presidents and going through them it appears that many of them are not even well known enough to get a biography. Who here knows much about Wolfensohn anyways? Who knows where he comes from or what his politics are. If we don't know that then why is everyone getting so excited?

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 21:02:53 -0800

the World Bank has enormous power, especially with regard to developing nations. It's been described as a giant loan shark roping poor nations in eternal debt, but also as a vital tool for raising standards of living and infrastructure around the world. With the proper leadership, it could also help repair some of the enormous damage we're doing in the name of "democracy" and "freedom"

By: orthogonality

orthogonality — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:11:48 -0800

koeselitz writes "Outrage, more than any other emotion, is a sign that the person who feels it shouldn't be thinking about politics in the first place." koeselitz was not outraged by slavery or Jim Crow. Because koeselitz is a calm, deliberative, reasonable man. koeselitz was not outraged by General Dyer's Amritsar Massacre. Because koeselitz is a calm, deliberative, reasonable man. koeselitz was not outraged by Hitler's crematoria. Because koeselitz is a calm, deliberative, reasonable man. koeselitz was not outraged by Stalin's gulags. Because koeselitz is a calm, deliberative, reasonable man. koeselitz was not outraged by the Japanese sneak attack at Pearl Harbor. Because koeselitz is a calm, deliberative, reasonable man. koeselitz was not outraged by North Vietnamese tortures of American airmen, or Jane Fonda's tactic approval of it. Because koeselitz is a calm, deliberative, reasonable man. koeselitz is not outraged by a deliberative American policy of torture constructed by the sitting Attorney General of The United States. Because koeselitz is, as always, a calm, deliberative, reasonable man.

By: orthogonality

orthogonality — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:18:07 -0800

sien writes "Looking at the Wikipedia Link for the world bank and going down to the list of presidents and going through them it appears that many of them are not even well known enough to get a biography." Erm, do a Google serach on World Bank President "Robert S. McNamara" and "Vietnam".

By: orthogonality

orthogonality — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:07:00 -0800

orthogonality writes "koeselitz was not outraged" Let me be clear: I'm not jumping on koeselitz really, but on the widespread belief that politics is not about things important enough to be outraged over -- or to die for. Politics isn't just about who gets the biggest office on Capitol Hill, or the most face time on "Meet the Press". Ultimately, politics is always about who's son is sent to a bloody death in the bottom of a muddy foxhole, and who's son gets to stay home and take credit for winning the war. About who gets to buy a big mansion from profits on the sale of AIDS drugs and who dies in her own waste before age ten because she can't afford AIDS drugs. About who is 3/5ths of a person and who gets to satisfy his lusts in the slave pens. About whether you plan the building of the Manchuria Railroad for the Greater East Asia Coprosperity Sphere or die building it. About whether you're driving the cattle-car to the camps or packed in the cattle-car. The NcNamaras and the Johnsons and the Rumsfelds and the Bushes and the Wolfowitzes plan wars, and make heroic speeches about "Domino theories" and "Axes of Evil", and they move counters on maps and they pose for portraits in the history books. But it's Tim Jones and Tyrone Johnson and Teodor Jiminez who are really affected by the politics and policies of our "leaders", because they're they ones who carry out those policies, they're the ones who can't vacation at the family ski lodge or run to Daddy's friends or take refuge in an academic career or the presidency of the World Bank when and if it all those bright shining policies turn to shit. Politics, ultimately, spends their lives as its currency, sends their orphaned children alone out into the world when daddy doesn't make it home from Iraq, determines if they get medical care or just a slow death from the Black Lung that enriched the coal company executives they worked for, ruins or enriches their lives. Politics is about life or death -- and some outrage is desperately needed.

By: sien

sien — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:31:28 -0800

orthogonality. First, note that I said 'many', not all. I know who Robert McNamara is. Now, without googling around, tell me all about Barber B. Conable. Tell me what he did that is important. And calm down a bit.

By: fshgrl

fshgrl — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 03:01:22 -0800

Too many people have pretentions to understanding politics these days. I think politics is the one thing all people can understand. And suggesting that politicians have access to super special info or resources that the rest of us wouldn't be able to understand is just laughable. I write reports for government officials and even if they read them they typically understand the implications of about 10% of what I say. And that's with bullet points and very small words. politicians are not all knowing, all dancing infallible superhumans who must not be questioned. They base 90% of what they think and do on rehashed summaries of third hand info. politicians need us to tell them what to do, not the other way around.

By: Enron Hubbard

Enron Hubbard — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 04:58:19 -0800

grapefruitmoon Step 1 : Invade Iraq. Step 2 : ????? Step 3 : PROFIT! I'm afraid its more like Step 1 : Invade Iraq. Step 2 : PROFIT! Step 3 : ?????

By: Beansidhe

Beansidhe — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 05:27:18 -0800

Politics is about life or death -- and some outrage is desperately needed. Absolutely, orthogonality. I have this "discussion" with people at work on a regular basis. Most of them think I'm batshit. What they see as "batshit," I see as "determined." I'm running for local office the next time around. I can't stand the idiocy anymore. And if anyone out there's been paying attention to the crap going on in the Orlando area, you'll know exactly what I mean.

By: Goofyy

Goofyy — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 07:54:58 -0800

orthogonality: Sir, that is magnificent! Everyone: Make your local school board put stickers with THOSE words on text books! Engrave it in stone and post THOSE words at your local court house. Make your registrar of voters send those words to every registered voter. Post this where ever people renew their driver's license. sien: calm down? Whatever for? It was a terrific speech! That kind of talk is exactly what America needs LOTS more of. If folks don't wake up and PUT (please, not demand) PUT a stop to this shite, its not going to stop. These bastards depend on the good little Americans standing there politely saying "Please sir, make it stop!". Anyone ever seen the cherry trees in DC? Lovely place. There's a building over there. I guess its a neo Greek thing, a memorial. Anyone remember?

By: koeselitz

koeselitz — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 08:26:18 -0800

ortho: "Politics is about life or death -- and some outrage is desperately needed." Politics is too important to be outraged over. Outrage does nothing; it's anger that runs its course, and once you change the channel, you'll be fine. The only thing that can make the world better is rational thought, and, as anyone who's ever been in a loud argument (this is metafilter, so I assume we can all imagine the experience) knows, anger is opposed to rational thought. All the things you listed are better reasons not to get outraged. Whom do you blame? History? People? Outrage can only come when you expect one thing of people and they do another. After who knows how many years of humans doing stupid things to each other, is anybody who's been watching really surprised anymore? A better question: while we're sitting around being outraged and demanding justice, isn't there work to be done? Outrage is, pure and simple, a waste of time and energy. The art of politics is the art of turning the circumstances in the world toward your own good and the good of others. It does not involve outrage, anger, sorrow, hate, or frustration. It is motivated by a love that is so rare as to be incomprehensible to most. fshgirl: "Politicians are not all knowing, all dancing infallible superhumans who must not be questioned." I want to stress this, for the third time: I'm not saying that politicians are infallible. On the contrary, I said above that most politicians today (all of them that I know of, although I suppose I don't know every one) are extremely unintelligent. Blaming them and loudly berating them for that rather than either using their unintelligence for our own gain or sweeping them aside with impunity is an empty action.

By: orthogonality

orthogonality — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 09:33:02 -0800

koeselitz writes "The art of politics.... is motivated by a love that is so rare as to be incomprehensible to most." "So rare as to be incomprehensible"? And yet 537 national leaders have it? Your words sound pretty, but what do they mean? How is "rare" "incomprehensible" "love" falsifiable? How do I quantify it? How do I measure it? How do I vote based on it? If it's so incomprehensible to nearly everyone, what place has it in a democracy? What, is it like the "subtle miracle" transubstantiation? This sounds like the magical talk the priest-king uses to separate you from your money. Speaking of whom, "Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." -- Denis Diderot

By: koeselitz

koeselitz — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 12:01:41 -0800

orthogonality: "'So rare as to be incomprehensible'? And yet 537 national leaders have it?" Who are these 537 national leaders of whom you speak who have mastered the art of politics? I truly and seriously would like to know. I was under the impression, as I've said, that the number was closer to zero. I speak of the motivation to the art of politics as "love" because I think true politics, politics practiced rightly, is driven by an affection for all human beings. I called it "rare" and "incomprehensible to most" because it involves calculating sacrifices with a large margin of error without flinching and without doing so out of hatred; that is, for example, being willing to sacrifice the lives of five hundred innocent people in order to save five thousand, yet being able to see when it's necessary to do so and when it's not. "How do I vote based on it? If it's so incomprehensible to nearly everyone, what place has it in a democracy?" I know that I'm not being a good member of the democracy club here. I don't really mind. Democracy really only has two things going for it: 1) general stability; and 2) a level of mediocrity which prevents only the most horrific events from happening. And I wonder if the first of those is even inherent to democracy. The best we can hope for in our latter-day democracies is another Lincoln or Pericles, a possibility that seems ever less likely. Diderot does not convince me. By the 1840s, even so strident an atheist as Stendhal (a brilliant man if there ever was one, by the way) was heard to cry, "Will the newspapers ever be able to replace the priests?" (Stendhal, you see, understood Rousseau's rhetoric, rather than simply being taken in by it like Diderot was.) Some people are wiser than others. Some people understand the art of politics better. I would rather have those people ruling; this makes perfect sense to me. Even the greatest minds of the Enlightenment, especially those who came first in it (Hobbes, and Machiavelli, for example) wanted the wise to rule, and bent their efforts to giving them the tools to do so.

By: koeselitz

koeselitz — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 12:20:36 -0800

By the way, maybe I should have said this before: when I say that politics is "incomprehensible to most," I also mean "incomprehensible to me."

By: sonofsamiam

sonofsamiam — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 12:35:19 -0800

Before the last king is finally strangled, his apologists will have long since been eaten by him. You're a bloody fool, koeselitz. Every single atrocity in history was committed in the name of the greater good. The Wise Men of Politics do not love you.

By: koeselitz

koeselitz — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 13:02:20 -0800

Eh, maybe. But if there really is no greater good, then the democracy-lovers all around me are fooling themselves, too; we're all screwed, in one big happy bunch. And then my own policy of a private life of inobtrusive selfishness touched here and there by what charity and love I can muster would seem to be the best bet anyhow.

By: sonofsamiam

sonofsamiam — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 13:11:06 -0800

There is such thing as the greater good, but you can't trust any authority to be working towards it, even democratically-elected authorities. They are looking out for themselves, always and forever. The second we forget that, the wolves move in. The price of freedom is still eternal vigilance.

By: SisterHavana

SisterHavana — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 20:04:11 -0800

I'm waiting for Rev. Donald Wildmon to be appointed an FCC commissioner.

By: orthogonality

orthogonality — Thu, 17 Mar 2005 21:27:12 -0800

koeselitz writes "Some people are wiser than others. Some people understand the art of politics better. I would rather have those people ruling; this makes perfect sense to me. Even the greatest minds of the Enlightenment, especially those who came first in it (Hobbes, and Machiavelli, for example) wanted the wise to rule, and bent their efforts to giving them the tools to do so." Yeah, those wise leaders always seem to know when it's imperative for somebody else's son to die to secure the "rights" of United Fruit, Standard Oil, the Hearst Newspapers, or Halliburton. It's a matter of principle, you know.