Letters to the Editor
-
R.Reagan's now distant "morning" , shunned dinner invites and site minders
Ronald Reagan's time in WashDC has many myths that the GOP have told,retold and retold once again with hopes that GOP would always have Reagan's "Morning in America" kitsch slogan to rally around. G.W.Bush has now fully managed to take the sun out of Ronny's "AM in USA" imagery. Sunset and solar eclipse now being more apt terms for the now very wayward Bush2 regime. Am very thankful for that turn of events. Just as an aside I would like to see A.Gore in the WH in late Jan.2009. That would be the best serum for these eight years of Bushism,Cheneyism and a badly run amok WashDC. Al Gore should rightfully be the guy to clean up and put to order Bush2WH mess. It is surely a big mess and A.Gore has the stature to displace the dubious legacy of the current office holder.
We know that the myths are not what they were put up to be back in the 1980's during Ronny's reign and they surely are not based on objective history now. Ronny's WH mixed politics and governance in ways that were often enough not legal nor very ethical. Sadly the Bush2WH has managed to exceed any and all of Ronny's WH history in these aspects. Clearly the invasion of Iraq was a very bad idea based on the worst of wishful thinking only to be outdone by the even worse American occupation of Iraq for Iraqi oil control. Well...looks like even the Saudis now are calling that kettle a black one. As for coming to dinner with G.W...
The era of "Reaganomics" was rife with fuzzy math and less than honest accounting. That legacy still abounds in WashDC with both "national parties" fully engaged in the funny money game. This fiscal abuse,funny money gaming to borrow more,spend more and cut the top ten percent of income tax payers amounts more and more is the big WashDC lie that is careening towards a date with fiscal reality.
Currently at Zmag.org/Znet there is an article under the March 27 Znet entries by PAUL STREET titled PEACE,DEMOCRACY,IRAQ? that is surely a worthwhile read for anyone with a little time on hand.
On a final note. Regarding the "you know who you are" post about length I would point out I surely am not anywhere near dropping comments here at GG's on a daily/many entries basis. Judging from the number of "page" counts on some threads it is a false notion to suggest that my posts here at GG run too long. In view of those who post many times again in/on the same thread I was left wondering what standard of length,column inches or space allotment I had transgressed. As for the self appointed nature of those who perhaps yearn to be site minders or the reciters of "don't use red ink to write" type style dictums I have noted and made some changes with this post. This is an open forum and SALON being the site host has not alerted me to any style infractions nor has GG. I do try to get the spellings correct and basic grammar is respected. I will abide the site minders who have hawkishly swooped down on me twice now. Going after Bart,shooter or any of the usual suspects for flawed thinking or politics is a staple of this site. I don't mind that they choose to visit GG's-- however I do excercise "skim over" then as well. Rules on how a book is put together or a proper biz letter are ok and fine. Blog comments are neither of those. This comment will within a few hours or a day already be well on it's way to the blog comments outback. I know I have a large number floating around out there already. The point is to engage and participate. To throw pebbles in the pond and send out some ripples. Maybe some good comes of it or maybe not. But do engage. Throw a pebble. Make some ripples. :-)
-
Isn't it "Arbeit macht Frei"?
I thought work was the key to freedom. Gosh, don't these revolutionaries learn the lessons of history?
-
All anyone thinks, I think, Jonathan
Is that the ugly, stupid person has the same rights the smart, handsome one has. No one said anything about opportunities.
-
But what motivates conservatism?
Brooks is deliberating clouding up the issue of what conservatives want, by focusing on how they want to get it. Ultimately, the motivating factor is the same, since they all push for a strengthening of the status quo.
Less government or more government is merely a means for an end, and cannot stand alone as a goal. Liberals don't argue for bigger bureacracy, for example, they argue for certain programs to address certain issues or to help certain groups. A large government is not a valid goal in itself, and neither is a small one.
While conservatives may disagree on how to get there and exactly what it looks like, their basic goal is the same. Some conservatives argue for less government, so that our government can't encourage things like class mobility and public education. Bush is a new breed, actually pushing for more government to strengthen the existing upper class and solidify our existing class heirarchy. At the same time, he intentionally guts agencies like FEMA, that do nothing for that heirarchy except provide good public relations.
That doesn't make Bush any less conservative, only more aggressive about his beliefs, and realistic about the fact that conservatives control more of the government than they have in years. He has simply sought to use the government to stifle progress, rather than simply weakening government so that it cannot encourage it.
Fear of social change and shifting power is ultimately what motivates conservative politics. It is no surprise to see conservatives leaning so strongly into authoritarianism-- if aggressive conservatives control government there is no way to avoid it, as the government becomes their best tool to maintain their own power and the status quo.
-
Remember, blame the Jews, win a badge
And don't have the time to go back through over 220 posts to count which ones blame the Jews for everything.
You're the first.
I always wonder what a guy like you does when he realizes he's 100% wrong in a case like this. Does it make you stop and think about your prejudices, or are they securely locked away in your alligator brain?