I finally figured out what is wrong with me. Apparently, I am a “Bush hater.” After reading the latest posts and some previous ones over again, it is all clear to me now: the only reason why I am questioning our current government and its policies is because I just hate Bush.
When it comes to politics, the person that bears the ultimate responsibility is the President. Being the Harry Truman fan that I am, I believe firmly in the sign that he used to have on this desk. I see some absolutely horrible things that are happening right now as a result of country’s actions or inactions. When I question my friends who support Bush about these things, they accuse me of being a Bush hater and being partisan.
I get frustrated and well, downright angry when someone accuses me of my opinion being biased just because I hate Bush or I hate Republicans. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are many Republicans that I admire and even respect a great deal. There are Democrats that I don’t like at all.
But I guess in this age of simplicity (See: The United States, current population 250 million, attention span of 3 seconds, books+learning=the devil’s work) I have been labeled as a Democrat who is just being partisan and hates Bush. It is a simple answer from simple minded people.
I confront many Bush supporters with pesky questions like why are we not at war with Saudi Arabia when most of the 9-11 hijackers came from there? Why are we letting Europe, a group of countries most Bush supporters loathe, handle the continued defiance of Iran against the international community? Does it have anything to do with the fact that they supply us with oil?
When I ask these questions and back them up with facts I get accused of being “overly educated” and part of the liberal indoctrination machine. I have spent much time thinking about what this means and why this is occurring and I have come to the following conclusions.
We live in a very complex time that has many complex issues. This frightens the hell out of people who yearn for a time that was simpler. (See: NEVER) These yearning people are generally considered conservatives and want simple answers where none are forthcoming. They tend to get angry and frustrated at this hard reality and lash out at non-existant threats. These simple anwers don’t exist anymore and we need a leader who understands these issues and can handle a myriad of complex situations. We do not have that leader now.
I want to be clear about something before I continue. I don’t care what side of the aisle the next leader comes from as long as they can handle these problems in a more efficient way. An example of this would be really trying to understand the root of Islamic radicalism so we could not do a half ass…no wait a quarter ass job….of finding the leadership of Al Qaeda .
Speaking of energy, another issue of great complexity, what we don’t need is an administration who thinks the solution to this is to drill for more oil in Alaska. This is simple, short term answer to very intricate problem. Whenever I try to bring up some of the various fine points involved in improving our country’s energy consumption, my friends on the right once again give me the song and dance about how I just an overeducated liberal who is demeaning them.
It seems like that is the classic knee jerk response these days when I try to present facts that are contrary to the wonderful tale of fiction that is currently being woven right now in our country. What’s that? You don’t like high gas prices and you think that our President and his friends are profiting from this? Do you hate America, Mark, or just freedom in general?
China and India are going to be running our world? Why don’t you go live there then if you don’t like it here? You think our President is too busy making sure that he and his partners are wealthy and powerful to notice that our future is being squandered? Mark….Mark….Mark….that’s just liberal propaganda and don’t bother me with any of those so called facts you are presenting because we all know that you are just a Bush Hater!!
19 comments:
In fairness to your dim-witted Republican friends (who move their lips while reading) I think you can understand the confusion over your supposed open-mindedness:
I am waiting for the day when someone in the White House murders someone...Mark my words: IT WILL HAPPEN
Most people, and they are right, think that the goal of this war was to pad the pockets of big business.
Isn’t it special when two people [GWB and Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia] are in love?
But when a war is waged for oil and pals, well…..
explain how he can kill people...
Our current government is run by oil men. Their number one goal is to make more money in that industry and its related areas.
...they regularly break the 6th and 10th Commandments
And yet all vestiges of our democracy are being slowly removed from us
Not really the track record of somebody who is approaching a discussion ready to see both sides of an argument.
On the issue of the energy/oil, certainly you know that "I think we should be pursuing alternative energy resources" (to paraphrase previous comments) is not stating a fact in opposition to relying on ME oil/drilling for Alaskan oil. It is an opinion...one grounded squarely in that wonderful tale of fiction being woven right now in our country by those with, apparently, no other goal in life other than to knock the status quo. You never did respond to Scratch's exhortation to produce an actual, viable solution. Or, for that matter, the notion that perhaps the burden falls on all us to reduce our dependence on oil, and not just GWB. The buck stops on your desk just as much as it does his, right? Or are you just another victim?
Again, you are misinterpreting my frustation for being close minded. My frustration is based on the other side's complete unwillingness to see any thing other BUSH GOOD.
My frustration lies in seeing an event happen (war in Iraq, Haliburton #1 private contractor, Bush and Saudis in business together, people dying in war, complete control of all facets of government and press) and people say that it is biased view. These are all apparently true to me, folks.
There is a war in Iraq and 1700 US soldiers have lost their lives and what is it really for? Freedom? I challenge you to prove that fact to me. Innocent civllians have lost their lives and the reaction from Bush supporters is "oh well, that's what happens in war."
It is fact that Saudi Arabia supplys the US with its oil. It is fact that the Bush family is in the oil business with them. It is fact that 15 of the 19 9-11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. And yet somehow that is spun to be OK.
My example of someone in the White House murdering someone and getting away with it was an extreme example of how PR can change and affect anyone's mind. It makes you look at an event and question if what you are seeing is actully true. So the goal is to make you think in a supposed open-minded way when the reality is that you are succumbing to propaganda.
I have given so many fine points about how to fix our country's energy problem. There are a multitude of solutions out there. My current favorite is to recycle garbage and human waste into energy. We certainly seem to have a never ending supply of both.
This or any other alternative energy solution will NEVER happen under the current administration due to its ties with the oil industry. Oh, but wait that's just an opinion not a fact. It's not based on anything that's fucking well obivious as shit stinking. Nah, not at all.
I guess when I pay 2.75 or more at the gas pump today, I will say to myself that's just the way things are and no one is really to blame at all.
Republicans talk a good game of "accountability" and "taking responsibility", yet when you call them on it they get all defensive. It's pretty much a crime to be critical of the gov't these days, there's this atmosphere of intimidation and that comes through even in the media and the way the news is being reported. It's really quite tragic.
Crystal, setting aside the gross generalizations that really don't add to a constructive conversation, I would only offer that I agree...it is tragic that it is seen as "a crime" to criticize the gov't these days. All I ask for in that criticism, however, are alternatives. It's one thing to complain. It's something else entirely to offer reasonable alternatives. Markadelphia knows full well that I dislike many things about GWB, and all that I want from him when criticizing a policy or policies is a cogent argument for what the alternative is.
Markadelphia -
OK. I wasn't aware that you had provided many fine points regarding alternative energy resources. Frankly, I must not have been involved in those discussions because I haven't seen or heard a single one.
I'm not overly intrigued by any process that supposedly uses garbage or pig shit or wind or the sun to create energy because, by my understanding of physics, such a process is never going to be sufficient to power airplanes, heavy equipment, or other critical components of our world. I do, however, look forward to seeing your solution to this....I'm not trying to be an ass when I say that. I truly want to know how your latest favorite energy solution can truly power this world of ours.
I can't prove to you that the Iraq war was all about freedom any more than I can prove that an atom is comprised of protons, neutrons, and electrons. (For what it's worth, I've never said the war was about freedom...I don't even believe that to be true.) That is yet another area where you and I are different, I guess. You apparently see lack of proof as evidence that another, more sinister option is true, especially when facts can be cultivated to prove that other option. I see lack of proof as a consequence of there simply not being any way to prove it, especially to those for whom no proof will be good enough. My implied "proof" lies simply in the fact that actions and reactions are consistent with expectation, just as with the nature of atoms.
If that makes me and others like me GWB's lap dog in your mind then so be it. I can live with that. After having paid 2.75 at the pump today, I'll still be able to sleep well tonight knowing that I paid 2.75 because sometimes this world just sucks....
The deal is that it sucks more now. Life does in fact suck from time to time but the level of suckage has reached an all time high and at least half our country thinks that is: a)not true, b)things are actually great, c)Bush is a great guy, d)all of the warnings and bad things happening now will have no reprecussions in the future.
I find this belief staggering. It just floors me when I am confronted with it. I say, "But what about this or what about that?" And they say I am just a Bush hater. And that's why I wrote this latest post.
Crystal is dead on right about accountability. Criticize Bush and watch the spin begin.
I have offered solutions to these problems. I even offered them in the beginning when I aruged for the war. I said over and over again that we weren't done in Afghanistan, weren't even started in Saudi Arabia, and were nowhere in the ballpark at confronting the real War on Terror.
It strikes me as odd that after 9-11, we basically caved into Osama bin Laden's chief demand: getting out of Saudi Arabia. We removed our troops from the Holy Land as he wanted. And yet somehow Bush is viewed as tough on terrorism? Huh?
A better course would've been to find and capture Osama and Zawahari first, work with the Saudi government to root out suspected Al Qadea memebers, and begin educating the public over there about the good things our country has to offer.
In addition, aggresively pursuing alternative energy sources to reduce and eliminate our need for Middle Eastern oil and aggresively securing our borders from further intrusion. This is where the billions of dollars should have gone instead of the War in Iraq. Think of how much better off we would be right now.
I realize these are broad statements but they are just starting points to getting back on the right path.
I'm not one of the people in this country who think a), b), c), or d) are true, so I'm not sure why I'm trying to defend them. Actually, I guess I don't think I'm trying to defend them. I'm just trying to understand what it is that people (read "those who constantly criticize") are thinking we should do.
What we should have done is basically irrelevant to me. We can discuss all day whether or not we should have invaded Iraq. We can discuss all day whether or not sufficient effort was made to hunt down Bin Laden. Blah...blah...blah. What frustrates me more than any poor decisions that may have been made is the degree to which people are critical of those decisions, to the point where it sure as hell seems as if their only purpose in criticizing is to be critical. You say that's not Bush hatred...so be it. The net result is the same.
Bush and crew spin criticism. Yeah, and? Find me one president of this country that didn't employ people skilled in that very art. Hate the practice all you want, and nobody says you have to admire GWB for utilizing it. I don't, and I'm critical of GWB for utilizing it as much as he does. But you certainly have to realize that "spin" is how politics works today...for both sides. There's a vast difference between being critical of the practice and being critical of those who employ it. To be critical of a politician who "spins" for "spinning" serves only to cast doubt on your impartiality.
I like your last few ideas. In thinking back to those discussions, we basically agreed then and we still do today. Where I fall off those idea trains, however, is in the practical application, and since I don't really see a practical application, I don't understand the criticism.
I'd love to aggressively close the border to intrusions. The ACLU is probably going to want to have a few words with you on that one, though. Not to mention the ever-growing and vocal portion of the population that is firmly ensconced in the "equal rights for everybody" camp. Closing the border to intrusions sounds suspiciously like profiling and invasion of privacy to many people, and you know GWB would catch hell for that.
I'd love it if gas-guzzling cars could be replaced by vehicles powered by an alternative source. The automobile, airline, shipping, and travel industries, along with the US military, are all going to have a hissy-fit, though, if you start thumbing your nose at ME oil before a reliable alternative can be mass-produced. The bottom line (and yes, it does come down to the bottom line) is that oil powers industry, and I for one am not sure how one can "aggressively pursue" alternative energy while at the same time battling to keep the lights on. If you think more can be done....OK, I don't disagree. But again, there's a difference between criticism of the policy and criticism of the man, his intentions, and his morals.
I accept your word that no personal dislike of GWB forges your political stance. You should just be aware that, as your message rings quite the same as those who do have a personal/political bias, it's quite easy to confuse the two. It's no more fair to lump those who fail to make the distinction in with "Bush lovers" than it is to lump you in with "Bush haters".
Having seen what has already been said (of course), I am curious...what good has been done by the Bush administration? It is easy for me to list things that I don't see as beneficial or healthy, but rather than go over that ground again and again, I would like someone to simply list some things that have gone well and that have resulted in the population of this country reaping immediate benefits. If you want, you can include benefits to other countries as well, but be forewarned that if those benefits have an ill-effect on the US citizenery, it won't be viewed as an overall positive effect. I should think that 10 good things that have come from this administration would be sufficient. I would also like to know if someone who supports the current administration is doing better now than they were in the previous Clinton administration.
I have to say PL that it is a bit disappointing that you don't see any benefit in acknowledging patterns of bad decision making and using the analysis of those patterns to form opinions about the success any given administration. When someone (or some group) keeps making the same types of decisions that end in negative net results (ecologically, or for other people), how does one acknowledge this without being critical? Critical thinking seems to be the key to innovation and change. I believe John Stuart Mill discussed the application of criticism and critical thinking in maintaining liberty for all people, minorities and majorities alike. I highly recommend to anyone reading this blog to read On Liberty by Mill. I think that you may find wisdom in the thinking of the past.
I’ll give it a shot.
1. The deficit is coming down as we speak. Yes, the same organization that reports the damaging deficit numbers is now reporting favorable deficit numbers. With regards to the 90’s being better off in terms of deficits/debts, "The Surplus" is one of the greatest lies of that decade. In order for Bush to "restore" the surplus there first would have to have been one. There was never, at any time, a budget surplus. It was a projection - an accounting entry. The government never once took in more than it spent. The debt that was paid down during the Clinton years was the debt held by entities outside the US govt, and not debt held by the US govt itself, as that is a wash. To give an example, if you loan yourself 1 billion trillion dollars, you actually don't owe anyone anything worth a shit.
2. Bush passed tort reform. In addition to all other obstacles, we face an absolute legal crisis in American tort law which can only be described accurately as "Jackpot Justice" where there is no longer a reasonable apportionment of risk and where even the whackiest case (spilling coffee in your lap while driving, etc.) can cost the productive sector of our society millions of dollars- per case. Those millions of dollars mean domestic jobs will be eliminated and that domestic businesses will be looking to places where they can be assured of reasonable judicial restraint. We're in competition with other countries now and instead of pulling a global, economic Tanya Harding and trying to take out our competition with the stale, failed ideas that are burdening us- we ought to become leaner and more efficient domestically. The judicial system a joke and that, in a nutshell, is definitely a reason why businesses find it attractive to hire people 3,000 to 7,000 miles away.
3. Bush passed a tax cut. I don't expect you to admit to this because you seem to have a political agenda rather than an economic one but tax cuts ALWAYS spur business activity. I think you mentioned that you got $1200. Well, that’s a lot of money to me. Lots of democrats, including Hillary and Ted Kennedy, voted last year to make the tax cut permanent.
4. The unemployment rate is at 5%. Keep in mind too - there is no "quality" rating for jobs and there never has been. Bill Clinton claims to have created a huge number of jobs, but what was the quality of those jobs when they were support by venture capital jobs and were not sustainable when the dot com crash happened? Besides, I also love how liberals were happy to believe the government unemployment figures as long as those figures were negative for Americans. Now that things are beginning to be positive with more Americans finding jobs, libs now do not believe the government figures. Liberal critical thinking was not needed when the bad jobs reports were coming out.
Now do I believe presidents control the economy? No. It’s funny how some people believe that a free market economy is controlled by anyone like some five year manufacturing plan. This is America, not some socialist nation where the economy is planned. Bush constantly gets blame for things going bad, so using that logic….I’m going to give him the credit when things go good, even though any president taking credit for the performance of the economy is like the rooster taking credit for the sun rising.
5. The war in Iraq and terrorism in general. Shocking huh? Well we haven’t seen another terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11. Also, in the years since terrorists attacked us, President Bush has liberated two countries (his rhetoric and intentions nonwithstanding – deal with the results) and crushed the Taliban leadership of Afghanistan. The war has also served as a real wake up call for what will happen to other countries who harbor and support terrorists. Before the war in Iraq, what do you think the level of cooperation was in giving up terrorist elements in Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Yemen? Not much is how much. I don’t believe Al Queda when they call for us to pull out of Iraq. The Iraqi civilians are the target of many of their bombs. Besides, you libs kept saying that there was no connection between Iraq and Al Queda so why take Al Queda’s statements at face value when they tell us their motivation is getting us out of Iraq? Years ago, Osama referred to Saddam as an infidel dog because Iraq is/was not an Islamic republic. Saddam and his sons drank, wore western attire, and allowed women to become educated.
Those Middle Eastern countries need democracy and the trappings that go with it - free speech and free press chief among them. The very problem that leads to the prevalent attitudes among those people (and makes joining terrorist groups a great temptation) is the lack of any other avenues of expression other than those that are government approved. Besides, you do not convert a despotic, murderous, terrified population into a peaceful, code of law democracy overnight. IF a Democracy/Republic is successful in both Iraq and Afghanistan AND the quality of life increases even a little bit because of it, it’s only a matter of time before the people of Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Pakistan and others realize that these terrorists are NOT saviors for Islam but in fact heinous criminals / war lords that are in fact ruining their lives on a daily basis.
I believe the tensions between us and the Muslim world stem primarily from the conditions under which many Muslims live and not entirely what we do. I believe free people, living under freely elected governments, with a free press and with economies and education systems that enable their young people to achieve their full potential, don't spend a lot of time thinking about who to hate, who to blame, and who to lash out at.
What makes our current efforts in that region a sharp departure from the past is precisely the fact that the only respect in which governments are expected to be pro-American is that they neither support nor spawn terrorism, just my guess. Democracy in Muslim countries will, no doubt, result in the election of some governments that are unfriendly both to American culture and to American foreign policy aims but as long as those governments are not starting wars with their neighbors or spawning terrorism, I’ll be satisfied.
I think much of the criticism lobbed out there is the result of our overall societal problem which is a constant need for instant gratification. I'm a firm believer that our government is a reflection of the people and we are a people of instant fixes over long term results. Whatever fixes the problem the fastest with the least amount of worry or hassle beats long-term policy any day and far too many people look at the impact of a decision rather than the possible consequences of the opposite decision.
Those Muslim bombers who think that they are beating the West have now achieved their greatest achievement yet - the West is now going to war against not only Muslims, but also, Islam as a religion. In this new war, car bombs and suicide bombers here and there will be no match for the arsenal that us Westerners are putting together - an arsenal of laws, intelligence pooling, surveillance by satellites, armies of special forces as well as a growing number of allies inside the Arab world who are tired of having their lives disrupted by demented so-called jihadists or those bearded preachers who, under the guise of preaching, do little to teach and much to ignite flames of hate. This is long term strategic thinking, not short term tactical thinking and these policies are designed to yield results in the long term, not the short term. I mean hey – you mentioned History right? It took almost 100 years before the US really became the free nation to the extent that we know it. Many countries still have totalitarian forms of government, most certainly the Arab world. How do you change that? You plant the seed of freedom in the middle of it and nurture it to grow, simply put. I applaud a real leader who has the vision and guts to institute such policy without sticking his finger in the air to see what political opponents think.
If the American people were so satisfied with the job Clinton did, why did Gore lose in 2000? The people who consistently rank in the worst financial trouble nowadays are united by one surprising characteristic. They are parents with children at home (children are overrated anyway). Having a child is now the single best predictor that a woman will end up in financial collapse. Married couples with children are more than twice as likely to file for bankruptcy as their childless counterparts. A divorced woman raising a youngster is nearly three times more likely to file for bankruptcy than her single friend who never had children. The problem with the two-income family is that it doesn't plan its financial commitments geared to a single income by saving the extra income. Millions of two-income families used that second income to purchase opportunities for their children – a home in a safe neighborhood with good schools, a comprehensive health insurance policy, two reliable cars, preschool, and college tuition. They made long-term commitments to ongoing expenses and as their income went up, so did their expenses. Unless someone has some kind of auto deposit set up where Bush is sending you money each month...you're on your own as far as getting better off. All you are guaranteed is the right to pursue happiness...no one said you will be happy.
Is the government responsible for making sure I have a job at the salary I expect? Nope.
John, I have to say it's disappointing that you have shown a pattern of reading things into the statements of others. For an educated person to do so is unfortunate, and doesn't really help the cause of productive discourse.
I never said there was no benefit in critically examining patterns of bad decision making. In fact, quite the opposite; on disparate issues I've pushed for that very thing, even to the point where I espouse including a topic with which I passionately disagree (intelligent design) in science classes.
What I thought I quite clearly stated was that there is no benefit (in my estimation) to encourage the criticism of those who offer no solutions themselves; those who are being critical for the sake of criticizing. If GWB went on TV and encouraged all Americans to read "On Liberty", I shudder to think how much criticism he'd catch for attempting to brain-wash Americans blah, blah, blah.
For what it's worth, I agree with your contention that everybody should ready On Liberty. I have read and studied that essay in depth myself and can offer that it was instrumental in forming my own political identity. It helped change my perception and understanding of this self-described land of Liberty and Justice for All....but actually not in the way that Mill himself had intended. Rather, I found that Mill successfully argued himself right out of his main point. To me, utilitarianism and practicality are at the most fundamental level mutually exclusive, primarily due to the fundamental human need of self-preservation.
Anyway, long story short....yes, please do be critical of GWB and every president that will follow. I'm going to call you or anybody else on not providing reasonable alternatives to points of dispute. Questions of right or wrong or moral worth of the administration are for the history (philosophy?) books.
I'm not sure if I qualify as someone who supports the current administration or not. I support many of their policies, if that's your definition. Anyway, in answer to your query, I am better off now than I was during the Clinton administration. Of course, I'm a DINK living a WASP world, so maybe it figures that I would be better off. The count might be:
Better off: 1
Worse off: 281,421,905
for all I know. Observation of myself and many of those around me suggests otherwise.
To Scratch's list of contributions of the GWB regime I would add one more: the re-invigoration of the discussion of the role of government in the morality of our society as a whole. Although the immediate consequence of his actions has been largely negative, particularly with respect to the destructive "discussions" that have resulted, as I unsuccessfully tried to argue earlier I think there is benefit in our government actively embracing a moral code and rewarding those that follow the code. Even though the premise of his moral code is a belief that I do not share, the positive worth is not lost on me.
To add a bit more about our efforts against Al Queda thus far....
We did indeed accomplish our major strategic goal in Afghanistan, which was to remove Afghanistan as a safe-harbor and training ground for terrorists and the government that allowed the same. I don't think anyone was expecting a perfect democracy to form overnight there after the Taliban was overthrown, but it was still necessary nevertheless.
I'd say between our military action in Afghanistan and diplomatic pressure on Pakistan, we've dealt al Qaeda some pretty serious blows, even if we haven't delivered the fatal blow (which that invasion could not have accomplished anyway). In Afghanistan, we have destroyed training camps where terrorists openly trained and prepared to commit terrorist acts, all under the sanction of the then-government of that country. They have lost any freedom of movement in Afghanistan and have been forced into hiding in the mountains of Pakistan. And even in Pakistan, they no longer have freedom of movement, as several top al Qaeda lieutenants have been arrested in that country and turned over to U.S. custody. Furthermore, they no longer have the same ability to communicate as they once did, having to rely primarily on couriers to carry messages now. This slows their communications down quite a bit and makes it much more difficult to carry out and coordinate operations against us.
So, fatal blow to al Qaeda? No. But I think one could argue we've dealt them a pretty vital blow nevertheless.
Thank you Crab and PL for your considerate responses to my request for positive things that have happened during the current administration. Although you fell short - only 5 responses, let me ask you this...if I could prove that your 5 good things were not what you claimed them to be, would it make a difference in your outlook on the current administration? That is really the question of the hour and the one that bears most directly on Markadelphias issue with being dismissed as a Bush Hater. Because, if you cannot accept the facts of any given situation and not change your opinion, then the issue is that your support of the current administration has less to do with logic and facts and more to do with the realm of belief. Belief is an incredible thing because it is unassailable. What you believe will always be true in your mind not because it is true, but because you believe it to be. Belief has propelled countries and leaders to positions that allowed them to rule the world and committ attrocities as well as great acts of kindness. One of the things that has made our country great has been a reliance on facts, logic and the scientific method because it removed barriers that were created and held in place by belief. This was at least half of the reason for the separation of church and state in our Constitution. So here is the question...if I could prove that the administration cannot be credited with the 5 positive points that Crab made, would you change your mind about the current administration?
Let me know because if there is no chance that it will, I won't bother to try. It would be like trying to convince a Christian that God didn't exist...in other words, pointless.
I wasn't aware we were being graded on completeness...10 seemed an arbitrary number.
Anyway, as I stated before, I'm not sure if I qualify as somebody who "supports the administration", but since I seem to be lumped into that bucket, I'll just go with it. As Markadelphia knows, I didn't vote for GWB this election, and was anxiously looking for somebody else who might be a viable alternative. But the pros/cons of the two-party system should wait for another day, I guess.
From Scratch's list, I'd only be interested in reading a refutation of #2 and #5. (I believe 1,3, and 4 will never stop being a point of contention between people, so I don't see the need to waste your time or mine.) I'd also be interested in reading a refutation of my point...I'm not sure why you were discounting that. Maybe I'm not bright enough to come up with something that challenges you.
Assuming you can provide facts that refute those points, naturally I will be open to changing my mind on those issues. I'm not sure why you seem to have such a low opinion of my intellect and ability to be critical, and I'm not sure if I should be insulted by that. But I'll leave that aside and simply remind you that my original contention with Markadelphia's post was that he had not (and still has not) actually provided any fact to me to back up his claims. Something read in a newspaper, "tell-all" book, viewed on TV, or read on a blog is not fact by my understanding of the word. Your very point makes it clear that just because somebody writes it down or says it doesn't make it true, no matter how much the source of the information may believe it to be true.
Let the proof begin....
pl...Quite the contrary to your last post, I find your points challenging and well worth consideration. I sometimes wait until I have my own position considered carefully before I address yours. I needed clarification on your criticism of people who are critical of Bush and although I don't agree with you, I at least understand your position. In my mind, one does not have to have a solution to a problem to be critical of another solution or someone else. I don't know how to fix Ford's problem with faulty car door switches, but it sure as hell is annoying and being the owner, have the right to be critical of their inability to fix the problem.
As for proofs....
Point 2 of Crabmasters list of positive achievements was one that you were interested in seeing a refutation of. I can not refute the fact that the Bush administration has passed and will attempt to pass tort reform. However, the nature of that reform and the the hypocracy that created it is worth being critical of. I am certain the Crab is referring to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 passed in February of this year. The purpose behind the legislation was to prevent so-called frivolous class action law suits. This law sends class action lawsuits over 500,000 to be adjudicated by Federal judges (with some exceptions). Supporters of this law claim that it will prevent lawyers from shopping around to find favorable venues for their trials and it will ensure that those settlements that are awarded are more fairly administered. Here is my problem with this law. First, it kicks suits up to the Federal courts, a system that is already having difficulty with its own burden of cases, particularly given the increased criminal case load as a result of the Speedy Trial Act. This means that prompt and fair resolution of claims is not going to happen, especially with the budget crisis that has led to hiring freezes, furloughs and reductions in force at the Federal level (this was in the 2004 Year End Report on the Federal judiciary by Rehnquist). Furthermore, this means that legitimate claims may never be heard.
It is common knowledge that federal judges do not like to hear multiple state/multiple jurisdiction cases because of the problems of correlating multiple states laws. Although different plaintiffs can bring suits in each of the different states, this defeats the purpose of class action suits which is to conserve judicial resources. So the law is opening the door to waste.
I find it offensive that the law supercedes State jurisdiction unless 2/3 of the plaintiffs are from the state as well as the primary defendents. That means that national corporations and multi-national corporations that are irresponsible cannot be held responsible in a single state except the one that their corporate headquarters are in, assuming that 2/3 of the plaintiffs are also from that state. It has never been demonstrated that State courts cannot issue fair judgements. You might bring up Madison County in Illinois, but I would argue, how many states cannot be accused of the same thing? The vast majority!
I also find it offensive that the federal government thinks that State legislatures do not have the right to pass laws that protect their citizens and have those laws applied and interpreted by their own courts.
There are also some hidden ramifications in this law including the fact that class action suits brought by States Attorny Generals are treated in the same manor as any other class action suit.
This tort reform is bad policy. Even if Crab doesn't recognize this, surely it is contradictory to his earlier posts where he has supported states and individuals rights. Something about "wait until the federals get their fingers into it" Well, here is the reality of the class action tort reform. The federals will be running the show, when it runs at all.
As a parting shot, I find it hypocritical that Bush has pushed this reform considering his law suit against Enterprise (the rent-a-car place) in 1999 when a minor accident with one of his daughters led to a law suit. There was no real damage and insurance would have covered the accident except Enterprise had rented a car to someone without a proper license. So, tort reform is good as long as it doesn't apply to your own frivolous law suit.
As for point 4 - it is true that the unemployment rate is at 5%, but this is first time it has been this low since 2001. When one looks at a graph of unemployment rates since 1990, it is clear when there has been a Republican president is in office because those are represented by the massive spikes in unemployment. As Crab himself states, there is no indication of quality of jobs. There is also no proof that that 5% actually is representative of the population out of work. It represents those that are looking for work, not those that have stopped looking. It also discludes people who work part-time, but do not have full time employment. I don't think the unemployment rate is a very good indicator except in a very general way, and as I've said, if you are going to use it as a positive for Bush, then you need to also include the high rates that have typified his tenure.
Your last point pl is on the reinvigoration of the discussion of morality and the role of the government. I have serious issues with this and I suspect from your comments that you do to. The real issue here is whose moral code is going to be embraced? You, yourself said you didn't agree with all that has come to pass. Why would you list this as a positive thing? Isn't there a Constitution to keep this very thing from happening? America has always been and hopefully will always be a country of diversity that includes morality from a whole bunch of cultures. How is it possible to choose one moral code over another? Stick to the Constitution/Bill of Rights. In my opinion, having a discussion on morality and the role of government is counter productive and inflammatory serving only to obstruct more important issues like the loss of rights and abuse of American citizen rights.
I doubt seriously that I can change anyone's opinion about the Bush administration, but I have found that this discussion of positive Bush administration actions has been very surficial. I encourage everyone to look deeper into those things that Crab listed as positive. I would love to take on the other points that were made, but will only do so if Crabmaster will make a good faith effort to evaluate the refutation.
Thanks for the reply John. I enjoyed reading it. (I didn't understand the Ford comparison, as the status of a car door switch is not at all subjective, while assessment of a President's performance is clearly subjective. But that's a topic for another day.)
Based on your argument, it seems as if the tort reform legislation, while arguably well intentioned, is not practical. I can appreciate that argument, as my support for the reform was based primarily on intention. I don't share your reservations re: the notion of removing jurisdiction from individual states. By their very nature, class-action suits seem most appropriate in a federal forum, to me. So superficially speaking, that's a positive, especially from the defendant's perspective. But if that's not working in practice, then I definitely concur that's a bad thing.
Re: the unemployment rate, I think this is one area (as with the various other economic policies and indicators) where people will never agree. I do agree with you, though, that if you are to use the 5% as a positive indicator, you must also acknowledge the negatives. The only thing I would add to that discussion is that I give some credit to the current administration for the recovery in the unemployment rate after 9/11. Obviously the economy was struggling before 9/11, but that singular event had a major impact on economic indicators across the board. You can't blame the Enron debacle, or the failings of Kmart, Polaroid, et al, or layoffs at IBM, Motorola, Sprint, et al on that event. But the rebound of many major economic indicators from that date to today either occurred by happenstance or by action of the administration. Or both. As Scratch is fond of pointing out, Presidents don't run the economy. But their actions do impact the economy, and by many accounts actions since 9/11 have had a positive effect.
Re: the morality issue. I list this is a positive not in spite of the fact that there is a Constitution but because there is a Constitution and a Bill of Rights. Your last sentence on the topic illustrates why. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written at a time and in a world very different than today's world. And (personal opinion, based on my understanding of history) the rights afforded individuals within those documents have been twisted and become so corrupt over time that I suspect very few of framers of those documents would recognize them.
Every time I hear loss of rights and abuse of rights it really makes me sad. A large portion of our society has become so focused on what their rights are that they don't spend nearly enough time focusing on what is right, by any moral code. I don't pretend to know what is right, nor do I espouse attempting to determine what is right. But I do contend that to argue for rights at the exclusion of all other considerations, as so many do today, is just wrong. Abortion, guns, labor unions, pledge of allegiance, flag burning, gays, health care, immigration, poverty, prayer, stem cells, smoking, whatever....pick a cause, find in the Constitution or Bill of Rights where it says it's your right, and then battle to the death because nobody can prove you wrong.
Why do I see value in this discussion? Because there's no value in a society trying to survive that way, which I believe, as much as anything else, has led to the decline that Markadelphia has bemoaned for so long. I don't support the Christian ethic any more than I support the Buddhist, Hindu, or Scientology ethic. But I do support picking a lane and driving in it, even if it's not the lane I prefer, as long as everybody gets down the highway.
Sure there are some drawbacks to the law. For reach rule someone always seems to sneak in an exception. For each law there is a loophole the size of a garbage truck. Like with immigration, “Don’t dare try to sneak in here but if you happen to make it there will eventually be an amnesty so it won't matter anyway”. I think the positives outweigh the negatives in this case and like the glass being half empty or half full, both of our statements are correct and I’d say that all the posts in this thread give the reader a good idea of what the law is all about. When I point out the positive developments, that is not equal to a denial of the drawbacks, just providing a more complete picture as to why I think the law rocks.
Since the vast majority of malpractice suits are state suits, as you stated, passing it off to the feds will probably just ensure the complaining party is dead by the time it comes to trial. The average time for resolution of a federal lawsuit is 5+ years.
The Vioxx settlement has been in the news recently. Well, the reality is that big business is big and powerful. So big and powerful in fact that it can easily pass along the cost of this settlement in its services and products while competitors are joyful because they too price gouge with increased prices at the same time that Merck is increasing their prices. Ultimately big bidness doesn't pay a penny for these lawsuits/settlements. The general public will be paying for those punitive damages settlements via increased prices across the board, hence it doesn’t really affect Merck’s bottom line.
The tort reform bill we are discussing saw easy Senate passage (72-26) despite that fact that it does indeed restrict large class actions to federal court and like you said - the legislation will limit the ability of plaintiffs lawyers to "shop" for highly favorable state courts in which to try such cases and I think that rules. The other thing that rules is that this is only the first, and least controversial, of GWB’s package of tort reform proposals. The other components involve medical and asbestos liability reform.
I find it offensive that State Legislatures pass laws to “protect” us in the first place. People need to deal with the fact that we are mortals and die. Sometimes no doctor or lawsuit can fix what ails us - as bitter as that sounds.
There seems to be many laws that supersede state jurisdiction, hell Roe V. Wade is one example. With regards to state courts not issuing fair judgments, let’s take a look at Mississippi. Mississippi needs business more than any other state. It ranks 50th among the states in per capita income ($21,750 - half of Connecticut's top-ranking $42,435). Mississippi's liability system ranked worst in the nation. Worst in terms of judges' competence, judges' impartiality, juries' fairness (there have been 21 jury awards of more than $9 million since 1995 and my opinion is that a jury is comprised of people who were too stupid to get out of jury duty), the use of technical and scientific evidence, and overall treatment of tort and contract litigation.
I do realize that Mississippi is not poor because of its liability system. However, because of that system the state is poorer than it otherwise would be. A recent study found that the system costs Mississippi 7,500 jobs a year. Mississippi juries have awarded plaintiffs $1.8 billion since 1995. The Mississippi law that allows plaintiffs to combine their cases with others nationwide, along with a notoriously pro-plaintiff local judge, has made Jefferson County (population 9,695) the wonder of the legal world: Between 1995 and 2000, some 21,000 plaintiffs sued there. It’s no surprise to me that Mississippi’s insurance commissioner says 71 insurance companies have stopped doing business in the state.
Most Mississippi cities with populations smaller than 20,000 no longer have obstetricians. They have fled skyrocketing jury awards and the consequent high malpractice insurance premiums. In Las Vegas and surrounding Clark County, Nev., 42 percent of ob-gyns recently said they are planning to leave the state unless the liability crisis is solved. The U.S. Chamber estimates that American consumers pay an annual $1,200 "litigation tax" in the form of lawsuit costs that businesses pass along to consumers, including $60 billion to $100 billion for "defensive medicine" -- extra tests and other measures to avoid litigation.
A properly administered tort system enhances the efficiency and fairness of markets. A right to appropriate compensation for a faulty or harmful product is integral to a property right. But nowadays punitive damages seem to be limited only by the ability of lawyers to string zeros together in drafting a complaint. The threat of these claims turns tort law into a tool of extortion.
Nobody wants to keep those who are truly injured by incompetence from getting justice but it has become a lottery and that needs to be halted IMO. More lawsuits drive up malpractice insurance which drives up things like healthcare costs which in turn drives up our premiums that we pay for insurance. So as I said with regards to terrorism, far too many people are far too concerned with the impact of a decision rather than the consequences of inaction and Mississippi is an example of inaction with regards to tort reform. With regards to my support of individual rights….I don’t support my right to have a tool manufacturer make me and my future offspring with Anasthasia Myshkina independently wealthy for generations to come because there was no warning label in sight when I stuck a screwdriver in my eye.
Scratch, you're so naive. You couldn't be any more wrong than you are. It is common knowledge that Myskina prefers 6'3" guys with dark hair that have a rapier wit and are devastatingly handsome. (If I see any of those guys around I'll be sure to let them know....)
I cringe when I read statements like Nobody wants to keep those who are truly injured by incompetence from getting justice.... That's the very basis of the problem, I think. I'm not suggesting that everybody be prevented from receiving compensation when something goes wrong, but I will take what is likely the very unpopular position that in the great majority of situations (we're talking 99%+) you are entitled to nothing more than heartfelt condolences from your friends and well-wishers. That and $14 will get you the new Faith Hill CD. (Actually, don't waste the $14.) Frankly, anything short of criminal intent or gross incompetence is not worthy of attention, and I would hope will be weeded-out by this or forthcoming reform.
It truly is beyond my comprehension why somebody who took Vioxx and had a heart attack feels as if they are due anything. Let's see....hmmmm...I put a foreign substance in my body and it had an adverse effect. That's weird. Who would've guessed? Too bad there was that person holding a gun to my head forcing me to ingest those pills, otherwise this might not have happened to me.
Goodyear makes tires that fall apart after 1000 miles of normal driving conditions? I'll grant you gross negligence on that one.
But any legislation that puts a stop to people failing to take personal responsibility for their own actions, and in fact being rewarded for doing so, is OK by me. It would be unfortunate, and wrong, if the escalation to Federal courts truly did prevent people from receiving a fair hearing. But that would certainly seem to be the exception rather than the rule.
Crabmaster, I have to go with PL on this one. I see the logic in some of what you are saying, but I think that you have taken the position of someone who has mostly been unscathed their life. You probably haven't had your water supply poisoned with mercury or pcb's nor do you probably know anyone who has. You could tell me that if today, you were to find out that you were dying from mercury poisoning, or worse, looking forward to the physical damage without dying, that you would not take part in a class action suit, but I would not believe you. If nothing else, your insurance would jump in to a suit to get the money to pay for your funeral or medical care.
The problem with the tort reform solution on the table is that it is not of equal measure to the problems that it intends to solve. It would be like taking a bazooka to kill a deer. Yes, it does the job, but it doesn't account for the collateral damage it causes.
You spurn state law that protects you, yet you take advantage and reap the benefits of it on a daily basis. That is hypocritical.
I also have to say that your vision of why businesses are going to 3rd world countries is also warped. I sit on the board of directors of a small company that does international business and I can tell you that it has nothing to do with liability. It has everything to do with lack of environmental laws, cheap labor (and not because they don't get benefits, but because they work for 30 cents an hour) and in some types of businesses, because the workers are better educated. Materials are cheaper, people are cheaper, life is cheaper. It doesn't mean that it is better.
Not sure how you could go with PL on this one when he and I pretty much said the same thing…he even went further than me in some respects.
No, I haven’t had my tap water poisoned by mercury nor do I know anyone who has. Could be because that is the exception and not the norm.
Debating the hypothetical of whether or not I would take part in a class action lawsuit is useless. My precedence on the issue stems from the second day I lived in Minnesota. While still living in Illinois, I got a call on a Monday from an employer up here saying “We need you to start this Thursday” to which I said “I’ll be there”. Drove up here on a Tuesday, was driving around looking for apartments on Wednesday when I was slammed into by a large vehicle, clearly their fault as I was not moving when I was hit. My head snapped back and broke the window behind me. The amount of mail I got from lawyers could have saved a couple trees but did I sue? Nope, just got a check for the value of my truck and some free chiropractic examinations to make sure nothing major was wrong.
I never said it was the major reason for outsourcing but it is one of them.
Say what you want about negligence by businesses but lawsuits are not doing our healthcare industry any favors.
So I’m a hypocrite, the favorite accusation of the left these days and it means about as much to me as a warm bucket of hamster vomit.
Post a Comment