More OT Political Stuff

Discussion in 'rec.music.guitar' started by Richard, Aug 10, 2003.

  1. Richard

    Richard Guest

  2. Weasel

    Weasel Guest

    Yawn.....


    "Richard" <rh310@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:MPG.19a09c87409eb8189897b9@news.verizon.net...
    > What a bunch of monkeys.
    >
    > http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/222/nation/CIA_warned_administratio
    > n_of_postwar_guerrilla_peril+.shtml
    >
    > --
    > For email, put NOT SPAM in Subject or I'll probably miss it.
    >
    > Net kooks: Part of the price we pay for free speech.
    >
    > <><
    >
  3. Richard

    Richard Guest

    weasel@bakerstreet.com wrote...
    > Yawn.....


    Sleep well.

    > "Richard" <rh310@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:MPG.19a09c87409eb8189897b9@news.verizon.net...
    > > What a bunch of monkeys.
    > >
    > > http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/222/nation/CIA_warned_administratio
    > > n_of_postwar_guerrilla_peril+.shtml
    > >
    > > --
    > > For email, put NOT SPAM in Subject or I'll probably miss it.
    > >
    > > Net kooks: Part of the price we pay for free speech.
    > >
    > > <><
    > >

    >
    >
    >


    --
    For email, put NOT SPAM in Subject or I'll probably miss it.
    <><
  4. On Sun, 10 Aug 2003 23:17:14 GMT, in rec.music.makers.guitar Richard
    [] What a bunch of monkeys.
    []
    [] http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/2...inistration_of_postwar_guerrilla_peril .shtml

    Here's a mild recap on the current accountability of their case for
    the war:

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001461070_thecase10.html

    Chris


    --
    "My current strat is actually a hollow tele."
    -- Fabio
    Remove X's from my email address above to reply
    [These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]
  5. Richard

    Richard Guest

  6. 'nuther Bob

    'nuther Bob Guest

    On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 00:30:00 GMT, Richard <rh310@hotmail.com> wrote:



    Yet another example of setting the outcome and then simply ignoring
    any evidence that fails to support "the plan".

    Maybe Bush spent too much time with that baseball team ?

    Bob
  7. Grant

    Grant Guest

    Not A Speck Of Cereal wrote:

    > Here's a mild recap on the current accountability of their case for
    > the war:
    >
    > http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001461070_thecase10.html



    My city has two daily newspapers. One printed the above story; the
    other didn't. I'm wondering whether it's a fifty-fifty split
    nationally. I think there's a lot of people out there that *think*
    they're getting most of the important stories, when in fact what they
    get is subject to the whims of the editorial staff.

    Most municipalities, unfortunately, don't have the luxury of two
    dailies, so people can't even cross-check to see what they're missing.
    Unless they subscribe to NYT, in which case they quickly discover that
    their local papers aren't telling them *anything* beyond the most
    rudimentary things, especially in the arena of international news.
  8. Grant

    Grant Guest

    Grant wrote:
    > Not A Speck Of Cereal wrote:
    >
    >> Here's a mild recap on the current accountability of their case for
    >> the war:
    >>
    >> http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001461070_thecase10.html
    >>

    >
    >
    >
    > My city has two daily newspapers. One printed the above story; the
    > other didn't. I'm wondering whether it's a fifty-fifty split
    > nationally. I think there's a lot of people out there that *think*
    > they're getting most of the important stories, when in fact what they
    > get is subject to the whims of the editorial staff.
    >
    > Most municipalities, unfortunately, don't have the luxury of two
    > dailies, so people can't even cross-check to see what they're missing.
    > Unless they subscribe to NYT, in which case they quickly discover that
    > their local papers aren't telling them *anything* beyond the most
    > rudimentary things, especially in the arena of international news.
    >


    follow-up thought: We already know that something like 60% of Americans
    think Bush is "doing a good" job with Iraq. I'd be really, really
    curious to see how that percentage would change if the poll were
    restricted to people who actually got their news from a comprehensive
    news source (e.g., a major daily, like LA Times, NYT, Washington Post,
    Chicago Tribune, etc., or even a foreign news source, like BBC) rather
    than either their boob tube or their hometown rag.

    And while we're at it, lets poll people with advanced degrees in
    economics on their views of Bush's economic policies, rather than caring
    what Moe the bartender thinks.
  9. Bruce Morgen

    Bruce Morgen Guest

    Grant <gpetty@aos.wisc.edu> wrote:

    >Grant wrote:
    >> Not A Speck Of Cereal wrote:
    >>
    >>> Here's a mild recap on the current accountability of their case for
    >>> the war:


    [snip]
    >
    >And while we're at it, lets poll people with advanced degrees in
    >economics on their views of Bush's economic policies, rather than caring
    >what Moe the bartender thinks.
    >

    Not that I think Dubya is
    even remotely right about
    the economy (or anything
    else, for that matter),
    but the real-world track
    record of "people with
    advanced degrees in
    economics" probably isn't
    any better than Moe's. I
    got a big kick out of the
    elder Bush's "voodoo
    economics" comment back
    in the day, because aside
    from the erudite essays
    and befuddling
    mathematical models,
    economics has always been
    what amounts to academic
    voodoo imo. Economists
    are good at *describing*
    economic conditions, but
    notoriously feckless at
    devising solutions. :-(
  10. 'nuther Bob

    'nuther Bob Guest

    On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 15:44:51 -0500, Grant <gpetty@aos.wisc.edu> wrote:


    >
    >follow-up thought: We already know that something like 60% of Americans
    >think Bush is "doing a good" job with Iraq. <snip>


    Not anymore. Those numbers are way down. The people in this
    country are easily misled and easily bored.

    >And while we're at it, lets poll people with advanced degrees in
    >economics on their views of Bush's economic policies, rather than caring
    >what Moe the bartender thinks.


    Well, I think that was already done. A link was posted here the other
    day pointing at the fact that last week 10 nobel winning economists
    took out a full page ad in major papers decrying the current tax cut
    and current deficit spending.

    Bob
  11. Grant

    Grant Guest

    Bruce Morgen wrote:

    >>And while we're at it, lets poll people with advanced degrees in
    >>economics on their views of Bush's economic policies, rather than caring
    >>what Moe the bartender thinks.
    >>

    >
    > Not that I think Dubya is
    > even remotely right about
    > the economy (or anything
    > else, for that matter),
    > but the real-world track
    > record of "people with
    > advanced degrees in
    > economics" probably isn't
    > any better than Moe's. I
    > got a big kick out of the
    > elder Bush's "voodoo
    > economics" comment back
    > in the day, because aside
    > from the erudite essays
    > and befuddling
    > mathematical models,
    > economics has always been
    > what amounts to academic
    > voodoo imo. Economists
    > are good at *describing*
    > economic conditions, but
    > notoriously feckless at
    > devising solutions. :-(



    True. But as bad as economists might be at predicting the economy or
    devising specific solutions (largely because of extraneous,
    unpredictable variables, I think, like wars, politics, SARS outbreaks,
    etc.), I would sooner trust an economist's view of "what makes sense"
    (in light of the available information) than a politician's empty slogans.
  12. Grant

    Grant Guest

    'nuther Bob wrote:
    > On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 15:44:51 -0500, Grant <gpetty@aos.wisc.edu> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >>follow-up thought: We already know that something like 60% of Americans
    >>think Bush is "doing a good" job with Iraq. <snip>

    >
    >
    > Not anymore. Those numbers are way down. The people in this
    > country are easily misled and easily bored.


    They went down. But last I heard, they stopped going down further and
    are now stable at somewhere near 60% (depending on the question you ask,
    I suppose). That's concerning Iraq. On the economy, the numbers are
    still sliding, I think.

    >
    >
    >>And while we're at it, lets poll people with advanced degrees in
    >>economics on their views of Bush's economic policies, rather than caring
    >>what Moe the bartender thinks.

    >
    >
    > Well, I think that was already done. A link was posted here the other
    > day pointing at the fact that last week 10 nobel winning economists
    > took out a full page ad in major papers decrying the current tax cut
    > and current deficit spending.
    >


    wish I'd seen that. Not that anyone in power will pay any attention to
    it anyway. :-(
  13. Bruce Morgen

    Bruce Morgen Guest

    Grant <gpetty@aos.wisc.edu> wrote:

    >Bruce Morgen wrote:
    >
    >>>And while we're at it, lets poll people with advanced degrees in
    >>>economics on their views of Bush's economic policies, rather than caring
    >>>what Moe the bartender thinks.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Not that I think Dubya is
    >> even remotely right about
    >> the economy (or anything
    >> else, for that matter),
    >> but the real-world track
    >> record of "people with
    >> advanced degrees in
    >> economics" probably isn't
    >> any better than Moe's. I
    >> got a big kick out of the
    >> elder Bush's "voodoo
    >> economics" comment back
    >> in the day, because aside
    >> from the erudite essays
    >> and befuddling
    >> mathematical models,
    >> economics has always been
    >> what amounts to academic
    >> voodoo imo. Economists
    >> are good at *describing*
    >> economic conditions, but
    >> notoriously feckless at
    >> devising solutions. :-(

    >
    >
    >True. But as bad as economists might be at predicting the economy or
    >devising specific solutions (largely because of extraneous,
    >unpredictable variables, I think, like wars, politics, SARS outbreaks,
    >etc.),


    Don't forget human psychology
    -- stock, bond, and commodity
    markets both reflect and
    influence economic conditions.
    They're notoriously susceptible
    to emotions like greed, panic,
    etc. -- and neither economists
    nor shrinks can predict that
    sort of stuff reliably.

    >I would sooner trust an economist's view of "what makes sense"
    >(in light of the available information) than a politician's empty >slogans.
    >

    That's sounds sensible until
    you find out how hard it is
    to get two economists to make
    sense to each other, let
    alone to a non-economist!

    That said, I favor both the
    economists and Moe over just
    about any politician --
    massively cutting taxes and
    killing bad guys at great
    expense simultaneously isn't
    sensible to anyone but the
    politicians and wacky neo-
    con thank-tankers who cooked
    it up and called it policy!
  14. Grant

    Grant Guest

    Bruce Morgen wrote:

    > That said, I favor both the
    > economists and Moe over just
    > about any politician --
    > massively cutting taxes and
    > killing bad guys at great
    > expense simultaneously isn't
    > sensible to anyone but the
    > politicians and wacky neo-
    > con thank-tankers who cooked
    > it up and called it policy!


    My point exactly. But these policies take on an air of legitimacy when
    a bunch of Elimidate rejects tell pollsters they think George W. is
    "doing a good job" because they found a check for $800 in their mailbox
    last week. I can't remember the last time I got so angry over someone
    sending *me* an unexpected cash windfall. They're sending me money
    looted from *my kids'* future income and/or standard of living, and I'm
    supposed to be grateful.
  15. Dan Stanley

    Dan Stanley Guest

    "Grant" <gpetty@aos.wisc.edu> wrote in message
    news:bhgrq9$4vn$1@news.doit.wisc.edu...
    > Not A Speck Of Cereal wrote:
    >
    > > Here's a mild recap on the current accountability of their case for
    > > the war:
    > >
    > >

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001461070_thecase10.html
    >
    >
    > My city has two daily newspapers. One printed the above story; the
    > other didn't. I'm wondering whether it's a fifty-fifty split
    > nationally. I think there's a lot of people out there that *think*
    > they're getting most of the important stories, when in fact what they
    > get is subject to the whims of the editorial staff.


    Nah. Most people don't even read a newspaper. They aren't getting anything
    more than soundbites from whatever shock jock they listen to on the car
    radio.

    > Most municipalities, unfortunately, don't have the luxury of two
    > dailies, so people can't even cross-check to see what they're missing.
    > Unless they subscribe to NYT, in which case they quickly discover that
    > their local papers aren't telling them *anything* beyond the most
    > rudimentary things, especially in the arena of international news.


    Well, don't forget that the NYT has it's own slant, and doesn't report stuff
    that doesn't fit their agenda, either, or bury the stories deep or whatever.
    ( That's not a slam, just a fact. I read the Boston Globe daily, which is
    owned by the NYT folks, and get most of my other news from public
    radio...that ought to give some idea of my general political bent. I'm very
    aware that those sources DO have a slant, though, and so I don't discount
    any more conservative sources out of hand. There have been lots of important
    things that the Globe didn't cover, while, for example, the WSJ *did*.)

    As always, BOTH sides can be devious, shifty, crafty, evasive and
    manipulative. Never forget that.

    Dan
  16. 'nuther Bob

    'nuther Bob Guest

    On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 19:11:47 -0500, Grant <gpetty@aos.wisc.edu> wrote:

    >They're sending me money
    >looted from *my kids'* future income and/or standard of living, and I'm
    >supposed to be grateful.


    Your kids future ? This latest tax cut is screwing us all over with
    a dramatic short term rise in the deficit and is strangling any
    recovery. Of course, only "liberals" like Greenspan are in agreement
    with me.

    Bob
  17. As Grant <gpetty@aos.wisc.edu> so eloquently put:
    [] Not A Speck Of Cereal wrote:
    []
    [] > Here's a mild recap on the current accountability of their case for
    [] > the war:
    [] >
    [] > http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001461070_thecase10.html
    []
    [] My city has two daily newspapers. One printed the above story; the
    [] other didn't. I'm wondering whether it's a fifty-fifty split
    [] nationally. I think there's a lot of people out there that *think*
    [] they're getting most of the important stories, when in fact what they
    [] get is subject to the whims of the editorial staff.
    []
    [] Most municipalities, unfortunately, don't have the luxury of two
    [] dailies, so people can't even cross-check to see what they're missing.
    [] Unless they subscribe to NYT, in which case they quickly discover that
    [] their local papers aren't telling them *anything* beyond the most
    [] rudimentary things, especially in the arena of international news.

    To be fair, the Seattle Times certainly has their left bent (and their
    competitor is currently a business partner), and has never been
    considered to be a centerist source of political info. I mean, c'mon
    now, even as a leftist myself, I can see the article is severely
    slanted.

    That said, the column is interesting.

    ----
    "...there would have been no Holdsworth or
    Hendrix without the genius of Boxcar Willie"
    -- Mark Garvin
    Remove X's from my email address above to reply
    [These opinions are personal views only and only my personal views]
  18. Re: Re: More OT Political Stuff

    On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 15:44:51 -0500, Grant <gpetty@aos.wisc.edu> wrote:

    >Grant wrote:
    >
    >follow-up thought: We already know that something like 60% of Americans
    >think Bush is "doing a good" job with Iraq. I'd be really, really
    >curious to see how that percentage would change if the poll were
    >restricted to people who actually got their news from a comprehensive
    >news source (e.g., a major daily, like LA Times, NYT, Washington Post,
    >Chicago Tribune, etc., or even a foreign news source, like BBC) rather
    >than either their boob tube or their hometown rag.
    >

    "Even" a foreign news source? I've said it before and I'll say it
    again...I subscribe to the NYT and the WSJ and for a long time
    starting about a month for for the war, they looked like mirror
    images.

    I heard about the "Nigerian uranium" months before my neighbors, not
    because I read the Times, but because I travel overseas for work. Much
    of what we're thinking about as "new news" has been common knowledge
    overseas for a year.
  19. 'nuther Bob

    'nuther Bob Guest

    On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 10:31:03 GMT, Mike McKernan
    <mikemck333@optonline.net> wrote:

    >I heard about the "Nigerian uranium" months before my neighbors, not
    >because I read the Times, but because I travel overseas for work. Much
    >of what we're thinking about as "new news" has been common knowledge
    >overseas for a year.


    Actually, I read the stories about it being disproved in the Boston
    Globe months and months before it became "news". I'm not saying that
    the Globe was some sort of pioneer, just that the information was
    circulating around long before anybody paid any attention to it.
    That seems to happen a lot... you read about something nefarious
    going on and it takes a year or more sometimes before it becomes
    interesting to the public.

    Bob
  20. "Dan Stanley" wrote:

    >Nah. Most people don't even read a newspaper. They aren't getting anything
    >more than soundbites from whatever shock jock they listen to on the car
    >radio.


    Sheeminy. Whatever Chuck can get out in a complete sentence
    before Imus interrupts him. Chilling.


    >> Most municipalities, unfortunately, don't have the luxury of two
    >> dailies, so people can't even cross-check to see what they're missing.


    The traditional news sources seem to gleefully ignore that a
    lot of people are going straight to the Internet newswires. Generally
    the morning's UPI, AP, AFP, and BBC over the 'net ends up on the 6 PM
    news, or the following morning's paper.


    >As always, BOTH sides can be devious, shifty, crafty, evasive and
    >manipulative. Never forget that.


    Centrist. %-|

    The thing I notice is how little the newsies know about things
    *I* know about. Major fact bungled, mangled or ignored. I thus worry
    about how bad they're screwing up all the other stuff.

    T'aint comforting.



    ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
    http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
    ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Share This Page