JayB

Hey Matt: Since you are in favor of a progressive taxation scheme, would you be in favor of eliminating the tax-deduction on mortgage interest? Seems like a no-brainer from the progressive taxation side, as it clearly favors those with enough wealth to own a home over those who are too poor to do so. It also inflates the value of housing by an amount proportional to the tax-subsidy, and contributes to a massive missallocation of capital to an unproductive sector.

Please, more absurd reductions. Does marginalizing others make it easier to rationalize your pablum? The "right" hates anyone who thinks that capitalism isn't the bees knees, and believes the state may have a role in something other than enforcing farcical interpreatations of judeo-christian historical morality. I can't wait for the next cliche of leftists you'll trot out! So would you say that, on the whole, the Left's outpouring of condemnation directed at the administration and its supporters has been matched by an equaly energetic condemnation of the Taliban and the Jihadi's operating in Iraq? Unfortunately someone in my household is inverting the power structure that I was hoping to impose on my household by means of my farcical interpreatations of judeo-christian historical morality that I've been striving to impose on the world - and I've got to fold some clothes and do the dishes.....

Say what? Because they decide it is worthwhile to vote, given the situation as they find it, means they think some U.S. - led coup or invasion of their country was a good thing -- or that they can't possibly think our foreign policy smacks of ambition, militaristic expansionism, or a lack of conscience? I'm not going so far as to say we are no better than the terrorists, but c'mon, Jay - surely there are one or two Iraqi's who right now today are saying they wish we hadn't invaded and are highly suspicious of our motives in doing so. I bet there are a couple of voters in some other country where we have replaced their government who might also remain skeptical. I think that you are right on all of those fronts, Matt, but on the whole I don't think that their aspirations for their respective countries represent anything that either we or the vast majority of their countrymen would recognize as being in their best interests, or represent a viewpoint or set of perogatives that we should necessarily orient our policy goals around. I think it's telling that Sunni extremists are now engaged in a violent campaign to prevent their fellow fellow Sunnis from registering and voting. With regards to the first point, it seems clear that if the population saw no distinction between what the democratic process that was made possible by the invasion and forcible removal of Hussein had to offer them, or the multitude of other outcomes that could be brought about by either abstaining from or sabotaging the process - they would most likely not have voted in such large numbers, or would have perhaps pencilled in Saddam as a write in candidate. As far as I know the "Bring Back Saddam!" movement failed to muster much enthusiasm outside of the folks intent on detonating both themselves and folks on their way to the polling stations - so it seems to me that they must have discerned a difference between the their totalitarian past and the possibility of a democratic future. What the F___ are you saying here, JayB -- that we should feel no compulshion to respect what the actual VOTERS might think? As far as your argument about the lack of "bring back Saddam" votes -- I even LESS understand what you are talking about. Is THAT a reality -- for anybody???? No - just saying that the aspirations of the millions of people who voted should be the focus of our efforts and policies - rather than those intent on blowing them up on the way to the polls.

There certainly haven't been any bombs detonated in mainland Europe, or plots to do the same thwarted there recently - have there? Even the French seem to be acting irrationally and taking this non-threat seriously. Good thing we know better than their security services.

And if they were in a marriage procession being bombed, they might find the two rather similar, no? Or perhaps they'd just be annoyed that Afghanistan (or Iraq) is still a war torn country ruled by fundamentalists years after being invaded by "liberators" troubling. Hell, maybe they'd just be pissed to hear rich white Americans sitting in suburbia proclaiming the virtues of "freedom" while fellow Arabs were beings shot, starved, and dying needlessly. Of course they may think of abstract concepts such as liberty as things other than the semantic arguments of rich foreigners. They might, but given that one was an accident, and the other an outcome upheld and sanctioned by the legal code both underpinning and enforced by the other society - one could rightly call their judgement into question. With regards to the second point, my hunch is that most of the Arabs in question are rather more irked with the Arabs who are engaged in a campaign to kill them than the aforementioned rich suburbanites sitting several thousand miles away - but one never knows. It's telling that for large segments of the Left the principal target of personal hatred, and threat to the well-being of the Arabs in question, is the rich white suburbanite rather than the jihadi detonating the car in the marketplace, the mosque, or the police station.

When I'm exaggerating something to the point of absurdity its supposed to be amusing and point out what I think is a shortcoming of someone's reasoning - the reductio ad absurdium. I just thought it was hillarious and telling that people are willing to engage in the "moral-equivocation-at-a-distance" bit by asserting that the present US was - literally - on the same plane as the Taliban. My guess is that were they were to stumble upon a divorce proceeding on the grounds of adultery, and say, a public stoning for the same offense - I don't imagine that they'd be indulging in the same glib, shallow pop-nihilism concerning the two governments - but who knows.

Say what? Because they decide it is worthwhile to vote, given the situation as they find it, means they think some U.S. - led coup or invasion of their country was a good thing -- or that they can't possibly think our foreign policy smacks of ambition, militaristic expansionism, or a lack of conscience? I'm not going so far as to say we are no better than the terrorists, but c'mon, Jay - surely there are one or two Iraqi's who right now today are saying they wish we hadn't invaded and are highly suspicious of our motives in doing so. I bet there are a couple of voters in some other country where we have replaced their government who might also remain skeptical. I think that you are right on all of those fronts, Matt, but on the whole I don't think that their aspirations for their respective countries represent anything that either we or the vast majority of their countrymen would recognize as being in their best interests, or represent a viewpoint or set of perogatives that we should necessarily orient our policy goals around. I think it's telling that Sunni extremists are now engaged in a violent campaign to prevent their fellow fellow Sunnis from registering and voting. With regards to the first point, it seems clear that if the population saw no distinction between what the democratic process that was made possible by the invasion and forcible removal of Hussein had to offer them, or the multitude of other outcomes that could be brought about by either abstaining from or sabotaging the process - they would most likely not have voted in such large numbers, or would have perhaps pencilled in Saddam as a write in candidate. As far as I know the "Bring Back Saddam!" movement failed to muster much enthusiasm outside of the folks intent on detonating both themselves and folks on their way to the polling stations - so it seems to me that they must have discerned a difference between the their totalitarian past and the possibility of a democratic future.

What strategy should we pursue with China? Seems like a technological embargo would be hard to maintain in this day and age (nos amis are literally clamoring to sell them their most advanced weapons systems as we speak), and even if their were no deficit to finance the odds are good that China would still be buying up massive amounts of T-Bills in order to maintain a favorable exchange rate for exports to the US - the primary effect of which would be reduction of the yield on the said securities. Would you support making sales of T-Bills to China or their proxies illegal? Seems like our best bet is to promoting individual freedoms within China, and ensure that Japan and Korea are prepared to assume responsibility for their own security.

The above post suggests that you see the Bush administration and the Islamic fundamentalist movement as being absolute political opposites. This must mean that you see nothing ironic in any of the words our president spoke this morning. Ambition...militaristic expansionism...unburdened by conscience... for some Americans, not only the Taliban comes to mind when we hear these words. There is an email making the rounds today titled "Bush calls for his own impeachment." I conclude from your post that if you were to receive this email, not only would you fail to see the humor-- you wouldn't even get the joke. Well - I'm aware of such perspectives Barry, but being aware of them and thinking that they are reasonable and logically or morally defensible is something quite different. I think that the major reasons that I disagree with such a perspective is that I don't agree that things that are physically equivalent to one another are morally equivalent, and that the ends which the said acts are intended to advance also matter. It follows, then, that I don't believe that deploying the millitary and sacrificing lives and capital to depose dictators and create functioning democracies is the moral equivalent of using indiscriminate terror to install and maintain totalitarian regimes. Apparently none of the tens of millions of people who literally risked their lives to cast their votes in the elections held to advance the cause of democracy in their countries agree with your perspective either, and their opinion counts rather more with me than yours.

The new McCarthys = liberals, with their inflexible, dogmatic, intolerant worldview, and penchant for conspiracy-theories, hyperbole, and paranoia. It is you who have replaced a real threat (Islamofascism) with manufactured threats "big corporations", "fundamental Christianity", "American imperialism", among others. This is like shooting fish in a barrel. More please! "Yet in many ways, this fight resembles the struggle against communism in the last century. (always have to have a worldwide enemy to keep up the Defense Department budget )" This is a serious question - have you ever read a serious history of the Soviet Union, or Maoist China? Or the 20th century for that matter?

He at least gets points for consistency. Always throw out an absurd straw dog option to beat upon in opposition to the Bushie line, therefore making the Bushie line seem (almost) plausible. The above is a classic example suggesting that those who are looking for an alternative to this administration's stumbling are in favor of the Taliban. Excellent! Great parallel to Bush's references to the Communist threat. Bring on the black lists! Hmmmm, who is likely to stand in for McCarthy? Yeah - thankfully we're safe enough to engage in semantic dithering about the moral equivalence of Bush and Osama - though it would be interesting to see how many of the Grand Equivocators on this board would be willing to enter into a lifelong game of "trading spaces" with your counterparts in Tehran, send Johnny off to the Madrassa instead of the Montessori school next to the PCC, etc. The other interesting component of these discussions is the presumption that the Islamists have only a reactive agenda, and have no long-term agendas or aims of their own.

Given that the whole premise of Bush's speech is baseless fearmongering, and there's nothing more at work here than superficial attempts to manipulate the minor differences and misunderstandings between the Islamists and the West - I presume that none of you would object to jettisoning the principles that underly our civilization and replacing them with those advocated and enforced by the Taliban. I know that when my wife saw the stooped chick in the bee-keeper suit walking three steps behind the bearded guy in the park the other day she got a serious case of Burqua envy, and nothing keeps couples devoted like seeing a good public stoning every now and then....

Shouldn't we pontificate about their hypocrisy instead? I am willing to wager that a harangue by Jimbo reagarding the said hypocrisy could would result induce a self-inflicted mercy killing amongst any of the yuppies on the receiving end of the lecture....

They probably drove SUV's to Greenlake to go jogging as well - you should kill them, or at least tag them with one of your climate change stickers.

"their bodies" is where the argument falls flat on its ass. there's more than one person involved Men seem to think that they are the other person involved. Wrong. BINGO. The assertion that men, politicians or not, should be involved in the decision is laughable. The females of our race have the responsibility of bringing children into this world, and with that responsibility comes a right to make the decision on when and how they do that. Is this a particular case, or do you believe that in a general sense one cannot formulate an opinion that extends beyond the particulars of one's identity? By this logic no one should take women's opinion on the draft seriously, because they do not have to register for selective service. As things stand now, women have the final say on whether or not they wish to bear a child or abort it - and I'm personally comfortable with that - but it doesn't follow that men should preclude themselves from even thinking about the morality of the matter, or that their opinions should be discounted on the basis of their gender alone, if for no other reason that you are essentially using an ad hominem argument to defend a woman's right to make this decision - and it's an incredibly weak means of doing so. Formulating an opinion is different than legislating rule. And because men are the overwhelming force in legislature, what you said about women not having a say in the draft is essentially true. But even aside from that, I could probably be convinced that as long as women are not drafted, that it could be up to men alone to decide on whether they wish to continue that barbaric practice or not. Hell, it's men who start the wars that require the deaths of so many people in the first place--you guys are more than welcome to deal with that problem and pay for it with your own blood. So - with respect to the distinction between opinions and legislation, the gender of the person making the argument that the legislation is based upon is what matters - not the argument itself? With respect to the men-as-root-of-all-evil riff - there seem to be a few assumptions at work there. The first is that women have by default always opposed war, which is not true. The second is that women have themselves chosen to abstain from the physical aspects of war - which is not the case either - they simply haven't been allowed to participate in the offensive side of any war that I'm aware of in a meaningful way. The third is that acts of war which are physically equivalent are thereby morally equivalent - which would render those who killed on behalf of the Nazis and those who killed to oppose them moral equals. The final is that taking no action that involves violence is by default the most moral course that a person or society can take in any given situation, which is also a proposition that's easy to disprove.

"their bodies" is where the argument falls flat on its ass. there's more than one person involved Men seem to think that they are the other person involved. Wrong. What argument do you use when confronted with a woman who believes abortion is immoral and should be made illegal? Can't see the gender argument working very well there.

"their bodies" is where the argument falls flat on its ass. there's more than one person involved Men seem to think that they are the other person involved. Wrong. BINGO. The assertion that men, politicians or not, should be involved in the decision is laughable. The females of our race have the responsibility of bringing children into this world, and with that responsibility comes a right to make the decision on when and how they do that. Is this a particular case, or do you believe that in a general sense one cannot formulate an opinion that extends beyond the particulars of one's identity? By this logic no one should take women's opinion on the draft seriously, because they do not have to register for selective service. As things stand now, women have the final say on whether or not they wish to bear a child or abort it - and I'm personally comfortable with that - but it doesn't follow that men should preclude themselves from even thinking about the morality of the matter, or that their opinions should be discounted on the basis of their gender alone, if for no other reason that you are essentially using an ad hominem argument to defend a woman's right to make this decision - and it's an incredibly weak means of doing so.

Hey - that's my truck!

Yeah - I was hoping to carry-out this conversation under the radar, being terrified as I was that SC would read my musings and be forced to show his hand, disclose the truth, and bring down the entire administration with the facts that his clout and connections enabled him to uncover. Fact that, had they been known by anyone by him, would have promptly led to a grand-jury investigation and a scandal that made Watergate look like a hearing for a jaywalking ticket by comparison. Now it's too late, I've forced his hand... .

Do you guys think that the Democratic party had these same deficiencies under Clinton, or that this is a new phenomenon? Would you vote for a Blair/Clintonesque candidate or are you looking for someone closer to an "old" labor, England-in-the-70s kind of guy?

I'd get castastrophic coverage from BlueCross/Blueshield or someone like them in whatever state you're living in. Should be cheap for a nonsmoking male under 30 - maybe $50/month.

It all depends on the questions, Matt. If someone says "Do you think it's reasonable to conclude that Bush's re-election in 2004 was dependent on systemic- yet-undocumented electronic voter-fraud in Ohio, despite the fact that that no credible evidence has materialized to suggest that such a thing actually occured, despite nearly a year's worth of scrutiny" my answer would be no. If the question was "Do you think its reasonably likely that some votes cast in the 2004 election were fraudulent?" I'd say - yeah, that's probable - but there's a mighty big difference between the two propositions.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts." I'm glad that their are skeptics watching every election, but it skepticism is one thing and paranoia is another. Skepticism contains an implicit obligation to base one's beliefs upon the best available evidence and the most rigorous analysis. If there's no evidence to support a given claim, even after there's been ample time and scrutiny, I don't think it's reasonable to perist in believing that the said claim is true, or even the most probable explanation. The analogy with creationism is especially apt here. No one can prove that a supreme being didn't create the universe from scratch 6,000 years ago, complete with a fossil record, geologic record, astronomical record, genomic record, etc, etc, etc, that provides overwhelming physical evidence to support evolution in the confines of a very old universe, but in the face of the evidence at hand - it's not reasonable to maintain that such a cosmic deceit actually occured.

I wouldn't say that I'm 100% sure about much of anything, so no - but 100% certainty does not seem like a reasonable standard by which to evaluate the results of a process involving hundreds of thousands of people, nor does it seem reasonable to maintain that the election was fraudulent in the absence of any real evidence to support such a claim.