Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I don't hate Bush (I think he's been just as lousy of a president as many of his recent predecessors), but I also think that this whole fear of Islam rising again to take over the world is about as likely or serious of a threat as worrying about China taking over the moon. It's all tin-foil hattery in my opinion.

Ok, what I do hate is the cult of personality that's been built up around "W". "Dear Leaders" with almost no constraints on their power in times of war (which they can declare at whim without real checks and balances) are for third world dictatorships, not for constitutional republics.

~Jon

Posted by Jonathan Goff at April 25, 2007 10:30 AM

Ok, what I do hate is the cult of personality that's been built up around "W".

Which "cult of personality" is that? Could you provide an example?

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 25, 2007 11:16 AM

"almost no constraints on their power in times of war (which they can declare at whim without real checks and balances)"

Couldn't disagree more. Can you provide any specifics to flesh this out, or is it just a "feeling?"

Put another way, do you believe (or "feel") that Lincoln was a worse President than Bush43? Was he a dictator? Are you aware of the extent to which he demonstrably curtailed Constitutional rights? W ain't even close in comparison.

Posted by Crimso at April 25, 2007 11:25 AM

Give me a break. "almost no constratints"? You do remember all the United States Senators that voted on the war, don't you? You remember that Bush had to stand there and make his case for it? Convince them that he was right? There's a prime example of your checks and balances.

Want more? I can think of many other "constraints" on Bush's power that you must be overlooking:

Elections every 2 years. The GOP lost both houses of Congress in the last election, largely because of public disfavor with the administration. And in another 18 months, we'll be electing a new President.

Bush was forced to remove the underwhelming Miers from Supreme Court consideration. Roberts and Alito, both fine men and excellent candidates (my opinion obviously), still received severe scrutiny and plenty of dissenting votes.

An opposition party Speaker visits foreign countries against the express wishes of the administration.

Come on. Bush may be many things - some bad and some good, but he clearly doesn't have anything remotely approaching the power of a dictator, or no Senate vote would have occured, Miers would be on the Supreme Court, and Pelosi would be missing. Further proof is that all those people who publically complain about him get to do it more than once.

So if you want to complain about his policies, I'm with you, and I have some complaints myself. If you want to suggest that he has the same level of power as Kim Jong Il, Mussolini, or Pol Pot, I think your position in the debate is, as Rand said, "rendered futile, by the irrational blind hatred that so many harbor for George Bush.".

Good job proving his point.

Posted by Stephen Kohls at April 25, 2007 11:27 AM

Jon, if you read the article you will, I think, see your position clearly stated. In contrast, I encourage you to consider a few concerns that lead me to look upon the radical Islamic threat more concertedly than you:

- Absent action, do you think individual non-state actors (i.e. terrorists) will obtain access to nuclear, biological and/or chemical weapons? On what time scale might this happen? Do you think these agents will have any compunction against using these weapons, if available?

- Based upon the economic results of 9/11, what effect do you think would have resulted from the same destruction but with attendent nuclear contamination (e.g. dirty-bomb)? Today businesses in downtown Manhattan have greatly rebounded, would this have happened in the presence of a massive nuclear clean-up effort?

- Again, using the 9/11 effects as a gage, estimate the social/economic impact of successful attacks against major business and infrastructure centers of gravity (e.g. Mississippi river bridges, rail terminals, exchanges, major ports, etc.).

- Given that you feel the political and public reaction to 9/11 has been excessive, imagine the reaction to a much larger casualty resulting from terrorist WMD action.

I base my support of the GWOT not upon any illusion that hoards of jihadi are waiting over the hill to attack in mass, but in the certainty that they will not stop trying and that the inexhorable march of technology favors providing them with greater and more effective ways to kill the longer the situation is not addressed. I support the GWOT out of my belief that is we too little today we will be forced into either capitulating out way of life or having to do too much later.

Posted by submandave at April 25, 2007 11:33 AM

Rand asks:

Which "cult of personality" is that? Could you provide an example?

My opinion is that every time someone (like me) tries to offer criticism of Bush policy I am shouted down with chants: "Bush hatred!"

But BDS grows increasingly irrelevant as January 2009 draws closer and BDS is merely a mutated form of Clinton Derangement Syndrome, which pre-existed BDS.

Posted by at April 25, 2007 11:44 AM

Oh, I forgot to add this:

Also in my opinion, Mr. Blanklery creates a straw person caricature to attack and thus his conclusions are irrelevant to the actual political situation in America.

And since the American population is increasingly moving away from supporting the Administration's insistence on using a hammer to set screws, I also believe that shrill attacks on the so-called "Defeat-o-crats" will have the practical effect of solidifying approval ratings for people like Nancy Pelosi (53%?) and Harry Reid (44%) while GWB stays mired at (33%?).

Posted by at April 25, 2007 11:49 AM

My opinion is that every time someone (like me) tries to offer criticism of Bush policy I am shouted down with chants: "Bush hatred!"

That's an amusing opinion. I don't think it's supported by reality.

Posted by Rand Simberg at April 25, 2007 11:54 AM

I disagree, of course.

B: My opinion is that every time someone (like me) tries to offer criticism of Bush policy I am shouted down with chants: "Bush hatred!"

R: That's an amusing opinion. I don't think it's supported by reality.

But we do agree on spreading life across the solar system. That's a start, at least.

Cheers!

Posted by Bill White at April 25, 2007 12:03 PM

FOR LACK OF A BETTER PLACE TO SAY THIS... I'D LIKE TO INTERRUPT THIS POLITICAL DEBATE TO SEND A MESSAGE TO JON, WHOSE EMAIL I'VE LOST...

Jon, I saw you mention maple in a recent blog post. Have you tried using maxima, which is apparently open-source these days (and available as part of debian)?

(I'd have put this in email, but I lost your
address, as well as the blog@@@@ ID I'd need to
post a comment to your 'blog.

(Thanks. Y'all can now return to debating the merits of GW Bush.

pgf

Posted by Phil Fraering at April 25, 2007 12:17 PM

Well said, Stephen.

I especially like this newfangled idea you have of mixing verifiable facts into your reasoning. Think it will catch on?

Posted by Carl Pham at April 25, 2007 12:24 PM

Bill,

"to offer criticism of Bush policy I am shouted down with chants: "Bush hatred!""

I have yet to see this sequene occur.

I may well have missed them, but where are the chants? And what real criticism have you offered?

I am an ardent supporter of our efforts in Iraq, and I can see policies that proved counterproductive. It is a much different question whether they were on balance counterproductive AT THE TIME THEY WERE MADE. It is yet again a different question whether the policies were sustained well after it was clear AT THE TIME that they should change. Presenting arguments on these topics aren't symptoms of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

OTOH, if you were to say, "Bush is a liar, therefore we should leave Iraq", then I WOULD accuse you of BDS. The BDS would not be because of the accusation (heck, maybe he is), but because you would be using the accusation as an argument for a policy decision.

So, Bill, could you please provide specific examples? Preferably ones from this blog.

Thanks,

Posted by at April 25, 2007 05:43 PM

BDS is not defined by someone who states:

"I think Bush is wrong on this issue because.."

But rather the much more common (or at least it seems to be, especially by certain posters here):

"Bush is a mental retard who is running an international cabal that orchestrated the 9/11 attacks and he is attempt to subjugate every man woman and child on the planet to his evil will".

(side note: and wouldn't that be a pretty good trick for a mental retard huh?)

I am accused of being a Bush yes man because I DO defend him to the utmost against those who use the latter tact. If however an honest Bush opponent were to use the former tact in expressing their opposition to Bush in a rational manner I could in all likelihood fine some common points with which I would agree with them on, because I in truth certainly do not agree with Bush on everything. But I am seen as "Bushite" simply because I don't think he is the devil incarnate.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at April 25, 2007 07:05 PM

Crimso,

Couldn't disagree more. Can you provide any specifics to flesh this out, or is it just a "feeling?"

I may have been a little hyperbolic when I said "almost no constraints". Few effective constraints probably would've been closer to the mark. Most of my beefs with them in that regards revolves around their utter disrespect for due process of law, for laws they find inconvenient, and for humane treatment of suspected "enemy combatants". The fact that the government can declare you an enemy combatant and then lock you away with little if any real recourse to prove your innocence is disturbing. They haven't abused the power too much yet. Just a couple of peoples' lives ruined. Just dragging America's name in the world through the mud. No biggie.

Put another way, do you believe (or "feel") that Lincoln was a worse President than Bush43? Was he a dictator?

I would definitely say that Lincoln was worse than Bush43 in many ways, and that many things he did were indeed dictatorial. I'm not a huge fan of "ends justify the means" excuses being used to violate fundamental rights of human beings. In spite of what good Lincoln did, he should've been impeached. Of course, most presidents have done some impeachable activities, but that's a pretty weak excuse.

Are you aware of the extent to which he demonstrably curtailed Constitutional rights? W ain't even close in comparison.

Wow, so your argument is that because W didn't illegally curtail as many Constitutional rights as Lincoln, that it's ok? That's damnation by faint praise if I've ever heard it.

~Jon

Posted by Jonathan Goff at April 25, 2007 07:30 PM

Posted by Jonathan Goff at April 25, 2007 10:30 AM

No.

There is Bush hate like there was Clinton hate...the people who did the latter parrot the former and vica versa...the extremes in politics are all alike both ideologically impaired.

But Radical Islam is a problem and it can reshape the world. Us and the Reds might hvae our disagreements but we believe in the fundamental aspects of society in terms of how the government organization is structured....(OK thats general but it makes my point).

OBL and radical islam envision a world where national governments do not exist....and government is by religion...in Western culture we passed that a long time ago.

Sadly we have incompetents in this Administration trying to deal with it...and defenders of the Administration who cant face reality.

Robert

Posted by Robert Oler at April 25, 2007 08:55 PM

Oler: "defenders of the Administration who cant face reality"

As well as BDS sufferers like yourself who also can't face reality that the Bush administration's incompetence in fighting global islamofascism is better that the left wing democrats failure to recognize that global islamofascism even exists.

I would rather have incompetents in the fight rather than incompetents denying there is a reason to fight. And the ENTIRE leadership of the democrat party, as well as most of the rank and file of same, is defined by the latter.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at April 26, 2007 04:51 AM

Rand, it's time to reintroduce rationality. The reason the viewpoints are incompatible is because the "radical Islam is an existential threat" viewpoint isn't based in reality. Proponents can't point to anything that demonstrates that the existence of the US or of Western culture is under threat by a part of Islam. Sure, maybe in a few decades that will change, but as of now, radical Islam has killed less than ten thousand US citizens and presents no credible threat to the vast majority of the US. That is the reality. It is a danger that should receive some resources to mitigate, but not ahead of more pressing problems (like K-12 education, finishing the job in Iraq and Afghanistan, or reversing the erosion of freedom and the decline of federalism in the US).

Here's a relevant comparison: global warming. Like radical Islam, it is routinely described as an existential threat. Unlike radical Islam it (and related environmental problems) actually has global impact with the atmosphere having almost 20% more CO2 concentration than it did 50 years ago and with the PH of the world's oceans having grown noticeably more acidic. Radical Islam has only killed perhaps as many as a few hundred thousand people in places that already had such problems. Please direct some of the same healthy skeptism towards the perception of radical Islam as an existential threat.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at April 26, 2007 05:46 AM

Jon said: "...but I also think that this whole fear of Islam rising again to take over the world is about as likely or serious of a threat as worrying about China taking over the moon."

Whether or not it is a realistic goal is entirely beside the point. The point is that _they_ consider this an attainable goal (only because Allah is on their side) and such beliefs motivate them to commit heinous acts.

We don't have to plausibly see a future of a global Caliphate to be spurred to action. We only have to see, as submandave reminds us, a future of a nuclear-contaminated downtown Manhattan.

Posted by Mike Combs at April 26, 2007 06:12 AM

Rand: "Unfortunately, in addition, the debate is poisoned, almost rendered futile, by the irrational blind hatred that so many harbor for George Bush."

The man is judged harshly after long years of suffering his abusive arrogance, belligerence, corruption, and proud contempt for human life, law, and truth. To look at a statement of the morally obvious and see "blind, irrational hatred" is to confirm that as your own default setting.

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 26, 2007 07:42 AM

"abusive arrogance, belligerence" - not so according to those who personally know the man
"corruption" - measured how, by convictions, indictments or just "we know it's true"
"proud contempt for human life, law, and truth" - or, in other words, evil

Brian, you do more in a single sentence to illustrate exactly that which you argue against than I could ever have.

Posted by submandave at April 26, 2007 08:31 AM

"not so according to those who personally know the man"

A man is his actions, and the world knows this "man" more than it would like. An abusively arrogant, belligerent, proudly ignorant sideshow freak temporarily in control of the world's most powerful military, and lustfully eager to use it from the very beginning.

""corruption" - measured how"

Again, measured by actions. By the doling out of crucial, nonpartisan federal offices on the sole basis of personal or partisan loyalty; by the wholesale cession of federal policy to loyal GOP contributor industries; and a vast litany of specific outrages that would fill a phone book.

"or, in other words, evil"

Yes.

"Brian, you do more in a single sentence to illustrate exactly that which you argue against than I could ever have."

What the hell are you talking about?

Posted by Brian Swiderski at April 27, 2007 04:41 PM

Post a comment