Letters to the Editor
-
regulation
Here is how the new-regulations-process works. Someone proposes them. The industry being regulated negotiates as much out of them as possible. An existing regulatory body is given the power to impliment the regulations, or a new body is created as part of the deal. Everyone goes on their merry way, except the industry regulated, which pays close attention and essentially dominates the regulatory body. The regulatory body plays lip service to consumer protection by making sure the industry must reveal in some obscure way exactly how they are cheating consumers. Otherwise the body makes sure the industry stays healthy and provides a forum for the industry players to keep consumers out of court and a forum for the players to fight with each other for regulations that will give them an edge over their competition. In the case of the securities industry, the body even turns its regulatory duties over to an industry membership SRO (self-regulatory organization). Loely!
-
A little bit too far
If you're running the show, you're responsible for whatever happens on your watch. That's what leadership means. The Clinton Administration not only failed to use the tools at their disposal to prevent the mess we've found ourselves in today, they aided and abetted the crooks who caused it.
It's true that our government has enormous influence on the economy. But we don't yet have a facist or soviet command driven economy. There's lots of other independent actors. The president doesn't lead the economy. They are not running that show. S/He shouldn't get the credit or blame for everything. And we shouldn't leave out the Congress anyway. That's were a lot of the sausage is made.
-
Missing The Point
"Reagan was effective at getting his vision implemented."
So what? So was Hitler. Being able to set direction and influence people is a primary competency for an executive, but there are plenty of powerfully influential executives who screw things up royally on a daily basis.
That's nice. But if you can't even manage the former - getting your vision implemented - nothing else really matters. You might as well be replaced by a potted plant.
We experienced the exact same kind of economic "recovery" under the Clintons as we experienced under Bush, in large part because both were reading off the same tired script. We had 8 years of the Clintons already, and they accomplished next to squat for the economy, apart from getting out of Dodge before Greenspan's last asset bubble popped.
Poor idiot Bush hasn't even been that lucky. Couldn't have happened to a nastier chimp.
-
@ theplanner, @ Sajwan
@ theplanner: Oddly enough, I'm a Democrat, and 90% of the Democrats that I know - which is a fair few people - don't support Clinton. The other difference between you and me, is that I'm not willing to claim that my experience is generalizable to election results.
As for your claim that black liberation theology isn't Christianity: while I don't have a dog in that fight, I do have two questions for you related to liberation theology (as distinct from whatever version plays in Chicago churches):
1) When the regional Catholic Church leadership sided with military juntas and land-owners throughout Latin America to suppress local parish priests and activists who embraced liberation theology as a way of breaking the exploitation of locals, who was acting more in concert with the teachings of the Christian Gospel?
2) what in heaven's name does that have to do with economic regulatory policy?
@Sajwan. 1) Godwin's law. Come on, you can do better than that.
2) The executive doesn't perform the role that you want in terms of detailed policy definition and execution. Those are the traits you might want in a Senator or Representative. I rather doubt that there's any one person who has fully mastered the tax code, and since policy (theoretically) reflects principle, there's no such thing as an "objectively best" policy, there are however "objectively better aligned to a given goal" policies.
-
Haggismold
Regarding your question about liberation theology, I was not addressing Latin American liberation theology, I was addressing black liberation theology, ala Wright and his mentor, James Cone. The “theology” that Wright teaches at his church is nothing like Christianity as most people understand it. Here are direct quotes regarding this "theology" from its major proponent, James Cone: 1. To be Christian is to be one of those whom God has chosen. God has chosen black people. 2. While it is true that blacks do hate whites, black hatred is not racism. 3. All white men are responsible for white oppression. 4. Theologically, Malcolm X was not far wrong when he called the white man the devil. 5. If there is any contemporary meaning of the Antichrist, the white church seems to be a manifestation of it. 6. Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love. *** I believe these teachings are fundamentally racist and divisive.
-
On Message... again.
Shortly after Obama gave his economic address, (probably before it even started really) a series of systematic processes began to unfold, on time, and in unison. As strategy play books were opened all across the country to a well bookmarked page, the head war cheifs, tasked with language formulation in the event of an emergency, looked down at the page, skimmed down to a highlighted article and breathed a huge sigh of releif. There it was. the counterpoint was still there after so many years of use. It was hard to undersand why it had still not been refuted successfully to this day, but nonetheless as effective as ever. As the chiefs picked up their war phones to get the message out to their handlers, they would read the text under a heading called:
"Blanket statement to counter Democratic talking points on: The Economy, Healthcare, Social Programs, Etc."
Within minutes of the message reaching one of McCain's aids, he would proudly proclaim the following dull witted response.
"There is a tendency for liberals to seek big government programs that sock it to American taxpayers while failing to solve the very real problems we face."
So lets consider that for over as many Presidential elections as I can remember, anytime a Democrat weighs offering solution based initiatives, the tried and true counterpunch methodology from the right has simply been to utter...chant actually, "government expansion, higher taxes, bread lines, shoeless, unfed children!"
Holy Jeebus, am I bored to death with this already. The only logical explanation for why this has been so effective is the fact that Democratic politicans have been so focus group driven, so convinced that staying on message is the only viable choice, and for so long that when they are backed into a corner and asked to defend their position in real terms, they sound rediculous, petty, contrived, and soulless.
The Right has their own fiery brand of rhetoric, and even though its just as empty, it has contempt and it is chock full of venom. It strikes at the anger of its constituency and charges the base effectively.
The truth is that the Democrats have no business peddling nuetral language as people can see right through empty platitudes without at least a shred of conviction. Time after time, these tactics have caused an implosion on the Left while the school yard bully runs away with the lunch money to start the next war of the week.
Who then has the common sense, much less back bone, to disarm a simple cliche? I think its long overdue personally.