PeterDavid.net

Rod Lurie worked on the West Wing?

No. I read the wikipedia entry too quickly; it said he "may have been inspired by the West Wing." So I corrected that part of the post.

PAD

FYI: http://www.thrfeed.com/2008/08/commander-in-ch.html

If Obama's campaign was smart, they'd pre-empt any possibility of a Bin Laden video popping up. Start ads now that denounce everything he says, literally saying that he'd use scare tactics to get people to do what he wants. That he'd "endorse" one candidate to make you vote for the other. That by following their fears and believing what Bin Laden says means the terrorists win.

The sad this is, I don't think the McCain campaign is above using such tactics of creating a fake video.

I think an appropriate reply to a bin Laden endorsement of Obama would be: look at how he benefited from denouncing Bush in 2004.

You are giving Bin-Laden too much credit.

He might say he supports Obama. But not because of some diabolical plan to promote McCain, but because he actually believes (wrongly) that Obama's rise indicates that America is getting weaker and/or less beligerent toward him/Islam. On the other hand, if McCain wins, Bin-Laden will see it as proof of the United States hostility toward Muslims.

The pre-emptive ad campaign suggested above should begin ASAP, as far as I'm concerned. Whoever's really putting those bin Laden tapes out these days, they're bound to be working from exactly the sort of strategy PAD fears.

I didn't see this posted yet (apologies if I'm wrong!)... but as a fellow West Wing fan, did you see the Aaron Sorkin penned conversation between Bartlet and Obama?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/opinion/21dowd-sorkin.html?em

Unless, of course, the reason we haven't been able to find a sick old fugitive is because he's been dead for years...

We can but hope. In which case, I'd very much like to know who's been impersonating the dishonoured soul, and to what end.

Um, McCain does believe in talking with the enemy, as long as there's pre-conditions. That's the professional way to conduct diplomatic talks, and there's good reasons to do so, as any diplomat will attest to.

I don't think Bin Laden is sophisticated enough to use such reverse diplomacy. This plan reminds me of a SOUTH PARK where the KKK was opposed to something, but their smarter members realized whatever they support wound up failing due to the backlash against them, so they tried supporting what they wanted gotten rid of, working on the assumption everyone would oppose it once they saw the KKK against it.

Micha: You are giving Bin-Laden too much credit. He might say he supports Obama. But not because of some diabolical plan to promote McCain, but because he actually believes (wrongly) that Obama's rise indicates that America is getting weaker and/or less beligerent toward him/Islam.

JamesLynch:I don't think Bin Laden is sophisticated enough to use such reverse diplomacy.

Well, if you're Osama Bin Laden, and you're making a decision about whether to release another tape between now and election day, you say to yourself:

"Hmmm, if I release a tape now it'll probably affect the election somehow. If I say I like a candidate, that won't help him at all. If I say I hate a candidate, there's a good chance that it *will* help him."

See? He doesn't need to be a genius to figure this stuff out. I don't think we're giving him too much credit, and I don't think the reverse endorsement thing qualifies as sophisticated. Like many methods of manipulation it's simple, yet effective.

Rob Brown, you are giving him too much credit. People like Bin Laden don't think that way. They don't see your candidates the way you see them, and they really don't see them the way liberals do. If a person like Bin Laden publicizes his opinion on the US election, he does it because it makes him look like a big player in the international and Islamic scenes and not because of some clever reversed psychology. From his point of view both Obama and McCain are garbage. If Obama wins he will say that is because he is winning. He might offer a truce even, as one leader to the next. If McCain wins, he will say that this is proof of how belligerent and racist Americans are and that Jihad efforts should be doubled. He would consider both statements as true.

In the recent internal elections in one of Israel's parties, in which it was decided who will replace the prime minister, moderate Palestinian president Abu Mazen supported the more moderate Tsipi Livni. After she surprisingly won despite this endorsement, the Syrian government paper Tishrin wrote a very favorable article about her. Do you think that either Abu Mazen or Assad Jr. were using reverse psychology?

When Sharon decided to support withdrawal from Gaza, the leading peace organization Peace Now supported him. I thought: wow these guys must really hate Sharon. But I can assure you that they were not employing reverse psychology, despite the fact that their leadership was a room full of academics (at the time I think I already left).

As a rule Americans should not vote based on what Bin Laden thinks of their candidates.

----------------------
"Um, McCain does believe in talking with the enemy, as long as there's pre-conditions. That's the professional way to conduct diplomatic talks, and there's good reasons to do so, as any diplomat will attest to."

Yes, that's true. Because negotiations themselves are of value, parties negotiating don't want to give them for free. However, when you do what Bush did, and remove negotiations altogether or ask for a price the other side will not pay, you are reducing your chance of getting any price for the negotiations themselves or for their outcome (if they have a chance of succeeding).

Umm, yes. I made that connection in the first post after Palin was announced as Veep.

http://www.malibulist.com/mt/mt-commentsantispam.cgi?entry_id=6419

Micha: They don't see your candidates the way you see them, and they really don't see them the way liberals do

Well, clearly Bin Laden doesn't see things the same way we do. The question is: does Bin Laden have an idea of how we see things, or at the very least how we react to certain things?

In the recent internal elections in one of Israel's parties, in which it was decided who will replace the prime minister, moderate Palestinian president Abu Mazen supported the more moderate Tsipi Livni. After she surprisingly won despite this endorsement, the Syrian government paper Tishrin wrote a very favorable article about her. Do you think that either Abu Mazen or Assad Jr. were using reverse psychology?

I'm afraid that I'm not really well-versed in what Israel's relations are like with Mazen and Syria, but this situation strikes me as different. I'll tell you why, and if I'm wrong about something you can correct me.

What little I've read of Mahmoud Abbas suggests that he wants there to be peace with Israel, and that he doesn't condone the actions of Hamas. So, at least back when Abbas was President, it appears to me that the relationship between Israel and Palestine was different than the relationship between the United States and Al Qaeda.

I know much less about Mazen, which is to say nothing. But when the word "moderate" is applied to somebody, it doesn't conjure up a picture of somebody who's looking for a war, or who's looking to kill people, which is what Bin Laden wants. So again, to me it seems different.

As for what the Syrian paper wrote, how aggressive Syria has been towards Israel in relation to other Middle Eastern nations is not something I've been paying close attention to either. But even if they were the bitterest of enemies, the paper wrote the favourable article *after* Livni got elected. If a Bin Laden tape is released before the U.S. election, sometime this month, it will be different.

When Sharon decided to support withdrawal from Gaza, the leading peace organization Peace Now supported him. I thought: wow these guys must really hate Sharon.

What??? Why? What is so bad about getting support from a "peace organization"? Peace is a good thing. I'm sorry, but it looks like this is one of those things I'm gonna need explained to me.

"Well, clearly Bin Laden doesn't see things the same way we do. The question is: does Bin Laden have an idea of how we see things, or at the very least how we react to certain things?"

If he's like others in my vicinity then Bin Laden may try to understand how americans see things, but his view is simplistic and distorted by the way he sees the world. You are a liberal. For you a person like McCain is a belligerent person who only makes things worse and strengthens terrorists while Obama is a sensible moderate who will make it easier for the US to deal with terrorism. But Bin Laden's views probably resemble more the point of view of the most extreme hawk you can imagine. Hee sees Obama the same way, as a weak person, and as an indication that Americans are weak.

He is wrong, and his distorted views should not affect the way Americans vote. But this is the best assessment I can offer of how a person like Bin Laden sees things.

The examples of Abu Mazen and Tishrin are relevant not because they are like Bin Laden (although in some respects they are, but not as extremely), but to show that people -- and this case Arabs -- will decide to endorse a candidate in their enemy's politics despite the fact that such endorsement might very likely harm said candidate with undecided voters.

Abu Mazen is stil president, which is not much of a position.

"I know much less about Mazen, which is to say nothing. But when the word "moderate" is applied to somebody, it doesn't conjure up a picture of somebody who's looking for a war, or who's looking to kill people, which is what Bin Laden wants. So again, to me it seems different."

It's true that abu Mazen does not want war (as far as we can tell). But if so, why would he voice support for the more moderate Israeli candidate. Does he not realize that his endorsement might harm her chances? Or does he really want the less moderate candidate to win? Both answers may be true, but I think it is prefereable to assume the less diabolical answer.

Tishrin's support of Livni, even after elections, still might cause her harm in the political arena. It would be like Putin endorsing Pelosi after the elections to congress.

"What??? Why? What is so bad about getting support from a "peace organization"? Peace is a good thing. I'm sorry, but it looks like this is one of those things I'm gonna need explained to me."

It is like Obama getting support from Nader or Michael Moore or Islamic organizations in the US. There might be nothing wrong with it, but it is likely to scare away undecided voters. Peace Now (despite what they think) is considered an extreme left organization. For them to support Sharon's plan to withdraw from Gaza did not improve his standing with the center-right people whose support he needed.

"Peace is a good thing"

Peace negotiations had been discredited in the last two decades, since they seemed to come hand in hand with more violence. (this statement is true for both sides).

I don't see the hardship in accepting that bin Laden wanted to be on the insurgent side of a US invasion, or in accepting he'll demonize the hawks whose leadership of the US he knows he benefits from. There doesn't seem to be a need to portray his agenda as more complex than that.

Thanks for the explanations, Micha. I think it's kind of sad that Sharon needed the support of the center-right people. Those aren't the people who should be calling the shots, IMO.

Peace negotiations had been discredited in the last two decades, since they seemed to come hand in hand with more violence. (this statement is true for both sides).

They're still better than the alternatives: not trying for peace at all and living with the status quo, or war. And the objective of those negotiations, peace, *is* a good thing.

No hardship except that I don't think this assumption is true, that's all.

Of course, none of us really know what Bin Laden think. We just make assimptions. I think the above assumption is probably incorrect.

" the hawks whose leadership of the US he knows he benefits from"

Like I said, I don't think he sees American hawks or doves that way. In any case, he tries to benefit from every scenario. However, we should not assume that Bin Laden is more briliant than other people, and that he always does what really benefits him.

Oh, it should be clear I'm not denying he benefitted from the US invasion in some ways. But he was also harmed in other ways by it. And he will benefit and be harmed in one way or another if the US withdraws or remains in Iraq.

"I think it's kind of sad that Sharon needed the support of the center-right people. Those aren't the people who should be calling the shots, IMO."

In a dictatorship the extreme call the shots. Similarly in anarchic places (like Iraq). But in democracy it is the center that calls the shots. I wonder if it's a good thing or a bad thing that decision in democracy ultimately rests with the people who are least sure where they stand.

"They're still better than the alternatives: not trying for peace at all and living with the status quo, or war."

1) For Israelis who look at he situation in last three decades it often seems that trying for peace made things worse, not better. It is simplistic view of things. But if you simply look at things, it seems like the truth. and if you try to explain tthat things are not that simple, it seems as if you are twisting like a prezel to make excuses. In fact, it is surprising that Israelis support peace as much as they do (not enough but more than you'd expect).

2) For the Palestinians giving up on war might be too much to ask. Not accepting israel has been their raison d'etre for 50-100 years. To give it up is a very high price to pay.

"And the objective of those negotiations, peace, *is* a good thing."

It is. Everybody's for peace, even Bin Laden. But at what terms?

If israelis and Palestinians thing peace is a good thing -- which both do -- but that it is unattainable, they would not support negotiations, which require them to pay a price for something they thing is unattainable.

Geez, PAD, it's bad enough that we've had to live the past 8 years in a Babylon 5 story arc, do you have to provide more script ideas for these people?

--Ed

Oh, it should be clear I'm not denying he benefitted from the US invasion in some ways. But he was also harmed in other ways by it.

That's something like what addicts go through. Addictions are enabled by some form of privilege until his privilege is squeezed dry -- even if that privilege is the indulgence itself -- and the addict is in denial over its personal cost. Why should bin Laden be immune from something so mundane? I'm not the one giving him more credit than he's demonstrated.

Mike, my English is not good enough to understand your reply.

There was a typo in a crucial spot, and I see opportunities to revise for clarity:

Oh, it should be clear I'm not denying he benefitted from the US invasion in some ways. But he was also harmed in other ways by it.

That's something like what addicts go through. Addictions are enabled by some form of privilege[. Addicts persist] until [their enabling] privilege[s are] squeezed dry. [The enabling] privilege [may even be] the indulgence itself. [And like your observation of bin Laden] the addict is in denial over [his habit's] personal cost.

Why should bin Laden be immune from something so mundane? I'm not the one giving him more credit than he's demonstrated.

I'm still not clear whether you're agreeing with me or not Mike. I agree that Bin Laden ignores the harm to himself or others by his actions, while rationalilsing and overstating the benefits, whatever happens. you're right that being a terrorist is similar to addiction, but more prestigious.

Then the addiction may be to prestige.

If your extensive explanation of bin Laden's agenda doesn't contradict my simpler explanation of bin Laden's agenda, then we may very well agree. Yes, it's a wonder to me you felt the need to say I was giving him too much credit.

As for bin Laden's ability to guess the reactions of the American public to, well, pretty much anything, I refer you to the actions of September 11, 2001. The destruction wrought on American landmarks, and the direct assault on the very headquarters of American military might, was supposed to leave us frightened and cowed, willing to roll over to the (to him) obvious superiority of al-Qaeda.

In reality, it just pissed us off. A lot.

I can't really see anything bin Laden does vis-a-vis the elections at this point working out any better for him...

"Then the addiction may be to prestige."

Not only but among other things.

Mike, I disagree with the assessment that Bin Laden wants to see McCain win, or that he is likely to promote that goal by endorsing Obama.

I'm not exactly clear what you're saying.

Bin Laden has several long term and short term agendas. The Iraq invasion won for Al-Quaida an opportunity to cast the US as aggressors, an opportunity for a prestigious front against the Americans, an opportunity for an Islamic foothold as part of the general anarchy. But at he same time, the success of the early stages of the invasion, the pressure on Islamic government not to support him, the rise of Shia competitors, the presence of the US in the area, and especially the declining popularity of terrorism among Muslims as a result of the terrorism in Iraq, harmed Bin Laden. Similarly, American withdrawl will be good and bad at the same time for him. Bad, because it will remove an important rallying cry and Islamic front. Good, because he will try to present it as his victory against America.

What can I say, it's a complicated world.

In reality, it just pissed us off. A lot.

Well, it did piss you off, but it also made much of the population scared enough that Bush was able to fearmonger his way into a second term. And get people behind the Iraq invasion too.

I'm not exactly clear what you're saying.

Then it's a wonder you feel the need to challenge what I say, as I've said.

Since I don't know what you say, Mike, I am neither challeging or accepting it.

---------------
Rob, I don't know if Bin Laden expected the americans to react to 9/11 more aggressively or not very aggressively. Both benefit him in one way or another. Both are possible. I doubt his understanding of the US is such that he knew beforehand the way they did actually react. In any case, It seems that he was not prepared for an invasion of Afganistan. I doubt he knew before hand that Bush will invade Iraq. But, as you know, he found a way to benefit from that too. If he's like the terrorists from my part of the world, he probably thought that they are weak.

"But Bin Laden's views probably resemble more the point of view of the most extreme hawk you can imagine. Hee sees Obama the same way, as a weak person, and as an indication that Americans are weak."

Interesting.

I've long believed that there is more in common between hardcore Conservatives and hardcore Muslims than both of them want to believe, despite the differences in outward appearance.

They're both big believers in control, strength, faith, male superiority, and homophobia. Some of the comments I've heard of the more radical among the Hamas could be copied and pasted into the mouths of the crazier of the Southern US preachers without much alteration.

Particularly their discourses against "degenerate, decadent, materialistic, Western society," that are really quite similar.

Rene, you might be interested in Dr. David Brin's essay on memes: http://www.davidbrin.com/newmemewar.html

Really, they're exactly the same where it counts - firmly in the Machismo camp.

Jonathan, David Brin's essay is quite interesting.

And he is right that the machismo meme is very powerful in Latin America. Sometimes I feel like I've been fighting it all my life. God, my Dad was the archetypical Brazilian macho man.

But I'd say strong social conservatism, American style, is a sum of the Machismo and Homogeneity memes, with just a touch of the Paranoia meme for spice. Probably the same with Islamism, but with Paranoia cranked up a bit more over there.

Conversely, we Latin Americans have a lot more Machismo than Americans, but the Homogeneity and Paranoia meme are a lot weaker here.

My country Brazil, particularly, don't encourage as much violence in its Machismo. Being a good Brazilian macho man is more about being clever and limber and making fools of your enemies and sweeping the ladies off their feet, and play soccer well, but obviously physical courage is also valued.

I've long believed that there is more in common between hardcore Conservatives and hardcore Muslims than both of them want to believe, despite the differences in outward appearance.

Hmmmm, perhaps, but one could, if one thought it worth the effort, come up with similarities between some liberals and Osama; a belief that the USA is an imperialistic entity, a belief that we are too supportive of Israel, the idea that the West has benefited at the expense of poorer countries, etc.

Of course, none of that really matters--the fact that an evil person has a belief does not make it automatically evil. Hitler was a vegetarian who liked dogs, a fact that tells us nothing about either dogs or vegetables. One can agree or disagree with the points above on perfectly valid reasons; anyone who throws an "Oh yeah? Well you know who ALSO thinks that? OSAMA BIN LADEN!" at you is hardly worth the breath to respond too.

(It occurs to me...the folks who thought that Osama was deliberately trying to get us to vote for Bush through the clever use of reverse psychology...does that mean that when he goes on to one of his anti-semetic rants he is secretly trying to strengthen our ties to Israel? When he rants against homosexuals is he actually trying to advance the cause of gay marriage? When he lectures us on the evils of fornication, intoxicants, and gambling is he actually hoping that Salt Lake City will become the next Las Vegas?

You are right, Bill.

The radical liberals and Osama Bin Laden share some ideas, but I think they come to their belief in the evils of Imperialistic USA/Israel from different angles.

The crazier liberals seem to be motivated by self-hatred, guilt, or even misguided idealism. While Osama's hatred for the USA seems to be motivated by his desire of ruling an empire that would replace the West.

The similarities between Radical Conservatives and Radical Muslims are different, in that it's more of a similarity of... I dunno... attitude? Behaviour? It seems to go deeper, like long-lost cousins that hate each other and are always competing, but have the same personality type, you know?

But anyway, I was only refering to the crazy, truly radical conservatives when I made the comparision to radical muslims. I don't think the average Republican wants a theocracy!

DOn't give Osama any ideas!!!

Rene: "I've long believed that there is more in common between hardcore Conservatives and hardcore Muslims than both of them want to believe, despite the differences in outward appearance.

They're both big believers in control, strength, faith, male superiority, and homophobia. Some of the comments I've heard of the more radical among the Hamas could be copied and pasted into the mouths of the crazier of the Southern US preachers without much alteration.

Particularly their discourses against "degenerate, decadent, materialistic, Western society," that are really quite similar."

It is definitely possible to point to analogies in causes and attitudes between Islamic fundamentalism, Jewish fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism. There is also Hindu fundamentalism, of which I know nothing about. However, it is important not to carry the analogy too far just for the sake of symmetry.

Fundamentalist Jews also look like fundamentalist Muslims.

It should also be noted that the Muslim world is in general more conservative, and that hostility toward homosexuals goes beyond the extremes.

Another important point to remember is that while fundamentalists often tend to be hawks, not all hawks are fundamentalists.

---------

Bill Mulligan: "Hmmmm, perhaps, but one could, if one thought it worth the effort, come up with similarities between some liberals and Osama; a belief that the USA is an imperialistic entity, a belief that we are too supportive of Israel, the idea that the West has benefited at the expense of poorer countries, etc."

The extreme left in the west got its dislike of America and Israel and its tendency to support what they considered anti-colonialist movements from the soviets/communism. In the past they were willing to overlook the extreme nationalism and despotism of such movements because of shared hostilities and because these movements used Marxist lingo. But now the Islamists replaced marxist-like groups in the forefront of the fight against the US and Israel. so the extreme left finds itself in a little bit of a dilemma. Although they adjust. Some would deny that they support Islamists. Others might actually sympathize with them to a degree. Others are willing to overlook things.

When I used to involved in lefty events there used to be one or two people from an organization called the Socialist workers alliance (not to be confused with the socialist struggle, or the communist party). I believe they were Trotkytes. I doubt they actually had workers in their group.This guys used to distribute pamphlets. I remember reading one in which it was said that the Islamists are an authentic voice of the masses or something like that. I didn't keep reading, so I don't no the whole story. But these guys were the fringe of the fringe of the fringe.

"The crazier liberals seem to be motivated by self-hatred, guilt, or even misguided idealism. While Osama's hatred for the USA seems to be motivated by his desire of ruling an empire that would replace the West."

Some of them used to support the soviet empire. And Osama is an idealist. But you're right that Osama comes from a conservative direction.

It sometimes seems that extremes, left and right Muslim and non-muslim start looking very similar to each other.

Of course, none of that really matters--the fact that an evil person has a belief does not make it automatically evil. Hitler was a vegetarian who liked dogs, a fact that tells us nothing about either dogs or vegetables. One can agree or disagree with the points above on perfectly valid reasons; anyone who throws an "Oh yeah? Well you know who ALSO thinks that? OSAMA BIN LADEN!" at you is hardly worth the breath to respond too.

(It occurs to me...the folks who thought that Osama was deliberately trying to get us to vote for Bush through the clever use of reverse psychology...does that mean that when he goes on to one of his anti-semetic rants he is secretly trying to strengthen our ties to Israel? When he rants against homosexuals is he actually trying to advance the cause of gay marriage? When he lectures us on the evils of fornication, intoxicants, and gambling is he actually hoping that Salt Lake City will become the next Las Vegas?

Your "the fact that an evil person has a belief does not make it automatically evil" point allows the logical consistency to accept bin Laden was served by reverse psychology and knew it. There isn't the inconsistency your question seems to be implying there is.

Well, Einstein showed that space is curved, that if one goes in a straight line in both directions long enough you will eventually meet. So it's no surprise that the political extremes end up much the same.

(Editor's note--I actually have no frikkin idea if Einstein really believed that space is curved or, if he did, what that even means. Questions regarding curved space and other matters of physics are to be directed to smarter people, like Tim Lynch.)

Well, Einstein showed that space is curved, that if one goes in a straight line in both directions long enough you will eventually meet. So it's no surprise that the political extremes end up much the same.

You've really got to sit down and watch B5 sometime, Bill. G'Kar has a line along very similar approaches.

TWL

You know, a few days ago I said I couldn't see any way for McCain to win...but after last night's Kimbo Slice/Seth Petruzelli fight I'm officially out of the prediction business.

I'd still put money on Obama winning, if I were into gambling. At this point I think most of us have made our minds up. Now it's a matter of who can get their people to the polls and I think Obama is so far ahead in that regard it isn't even close.

Then again, Kimbo Slice...

Osama bin Laden Denounced Obama months ago. He said that Obama is not one of "us", and would for the most part would continue to have the same policies toward the middle east as McCain or Clinton. I tried to search for the articles, but I kept getting twenty pages of right wing blogs claiming that Osama likes Obama and Obama Denounces Osama.

So by the logic of "osama wants us to do what he tells us not to do" we are now supposed to think he WANTS us to vote for Obama? I'm so confused...

Bill, you don't understand. Bin Laden realized that we're on to his evil plan, so he's using a doubly reversed psychology.

Or,

Bin Laden was concerned by the fact that there are Muslims (in the US and outside) who view Obama favorably, and by extension might look more favorably on the US, so he made sure to tell everybody that Obama is just as bad as Bush.

Bill, you don't understand. Bin Laden realized that we're on to his evil plan, so he's using a doubly reversed psychology.

Ah, but he has to ask himself: are we the sort of folks who would believe an enemy or do the exact opposite? Now, a clever man say the opposite because he would know that only a great fool would believe it. We are not great fools, so we must clearly not choose to believe him. But he must have known we are not great fools, he would have counted on it, so we clearly cannot choose the opposite. Then again...

Exactly

Ah, but he has to ask himself: are we the sort of folks who would believe an enemy or do the exact opposite? Now, a clever man say the opposite because he would know that only a great fool would believe it. We are not great fools, so we must clearly not choose to believe him. But he must have known we are not great fools, he would have counted on it, so we clearly cannot choose the opposite. Then again...

But what he does not know, of course, is that we have been steadily dosing ourselves with Bush powder for eight years, and are immune to either choice...

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha...

(Falls over to the right, dead.)

"But what he does not know, of course, is that we have been steadily dosing ourselves with Bush powder for eight years, and are immune to either choice..."

Unfortunatly so is he.

Unfortunately, I think both Bush and McCain have already fallen victim to the best-known classic blunder.

Garry Shandling said something very interesting on "Real Time with Bill Maher." He said that Bin Laden has already won. With all of our money going to Iraq, we have no money to fix our collapsing economy.

My take?
Our role in the world as leader has been seriously compromised with other nations because of our recent policies. Along with the above observation, all Bin Laden has to do is sit back and watch us implode. He really doesn't have to do anything right now. We are doing it to ourselves.

"Posted by: KarenBoe at October 5, 2008 06:03 PM
Garry Shandling said something very interesting on "Real Time with Bill Maher." He said that Bin Laden has already won. With all of our money going to Iraq, we have no money to fix our collapsing economy.

My take?
Our role in the world as leader has been seriously compromised with other nations because of our recent policies. Along with the above observation, all Bin Laden has to do is sit back and watch us implode. He really doesn't have to do anything right now. We are doing it to ourselves."

Don't exagerrate too much. Don't depress yourself beyond what is appropriate. Yes, you wasted a lot of money in iraq. Yes, you became less popular, although not nearly as unpopular as you think. But Bin Laden did not 'win' and if he is going to wait for you to implode, he is going to wait a long time.

Look, this terrorism thing works both ways. You never have a clear cut victory, but neither does the other side. You win and you lose a little every day, and in the grand scheme of things you're winning more than you're loosing. Much more.

You're economy will recover, as it has in the past. Bush will be replaced by someone else, and the world will like you more (although not nearly as much as you thought). You will have to share with some other super powers, but not too much. And bin Laden will be in his cave making cassettes. He lost his base in Afghanistan, overplayed his hand in Iraq, made no successful attack in the west for awjile and is far from winning anything except making life more difficult for people in some Muslim countries and a few other places. The only really worrying thing about him is Pakistan.

Most importantly, you have a functioning vibrant society, far from imploding, which is more than they have in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and other places.

Cheer up and fx what needs fixing.

Oh, I am sure we will recover. I'm not nearly as down as you inferred from my post. My point was that Bin Laden really doesn't have to do anything right now. We are in rotten shape. The bailout bill may stop the floods from getting worse, but is just the tip of the storm. Does anyone think that the bank failures are all done now? There are still plenty of places out there that are teetering, they just haven't gone over the edge yet. I believe (and I am not anywhere near an expert on this) that the stock market will improve after the election. If we stop hemorrhaging money into Iraq we can use it to shore up our economy and infrastructure. We can use the money to invest in green collar jobs. But, since so much is tied up in the war, we are unable to use it here at home. Until we address out national debt and trade imbalance our economy can't recover. The way to do that is to invest in producing here. Our whole economy has been based on paper (Wall Street) for awhile now. There are a lot of things we can do that have been suggested by people with way more education and knowledge than I have. I just think that Bin Laden would probably not waste as many resources on bringing us down when we are bringing ourselves down.

"My point was that Bin Laden really doesn't have to do anything right now. We are in rotten shape."

I'm sure Bin Laden is happy about your problems, but this is nt what's important to him. The purpose of his terrorism is less about he damage it causes america and more about the prestige it gains for Bin Laden and to Islamism. The anarchists used to call it propaganda of action. He needs to do things in order to enhance his position. If he had enough resources he would have been happy to use them especially right now.

Iraq isn't the single problem with the economy. Granted, it's like having multiple shotgun wounds and several really nasty paper cuts that'd be everything else, but there's a lot more going on. My parents lived through WWII, so I used to hear a lot about the Way Things Were Then. Also, I took an honors economics class in high school that taught me along with Smith and the fact that my teacher'd get this gravity defying glob of spit on his lip, a wartime economy is a strong economy. Have we transitioned to a wartime economy? I personally don't think so, but I MIGHT be completely misunderstanding things.

"(Falls over to the right, dead.)"
Yeah, THAT'LL stop Mulligan...

I think one of the points made on Bill Maher's show this week was that Bin Laden knew he couldn't defeat the US military, so he said he'd trick us into going into bankruptcy.

It may have worked.

And that is why I think Bin Laden would prefer McCain win the presidency...so that the "war" would continue as long as possible.

”Have we transitioned to a wartime economy?”

Not in any way that I’ve really ever understood it we haven’t.

During all other wars taxes went up, not down and people conserved resources. instead of being encouraged to shop by the government.

The war in Iraq may not be the only problem in this economy, but the money spent there would have gone a long way toward easing the problems we have now. Along with keeping regulations and controls in place to check the greed of these huge corporations that are failing right and left.

I should have noted that my first sentence above was in reference to the "transition to wartime economy". Everything we have done in this country since 9/11 has been completely opposite to what had been done in the past regarding war and the economy and asking people to do without for the good of the country.

Hey, Bill Myers--or anyone else who knows about this stuff--I'm curious about two things going on now. Apparently the dollar is at its best showing in over a year. Why? With everything looking so bad here why would the dollar be going up?

Obvious possible answer--it's even worse in Europe and Japan. So again I ask...why? We are all aware of the housing situation here--has the exact same thing been going on elsewhere? Aren't banks tightly regulated in Europe? Or am I wrong about that?

Well, Einstein showed that space is curved, that if one goes in a straight line in both directions long enough you will eventually meet. So it's no surprise that the political extremes end up much the same.

(Editor's note--I actually have no frikkin idea if Einstein really believed that space is curved or, if he did, what that even means. Questions regarding curved space and other matters of physics are to be directed to smarter people, like Tim Lynch.)

Einstein explained gravity by portraying space as curved by mass. The greater the mass, the more severe the curvature of space, the heavier the weight as we know it.

And because where you have light, you have gravity, you can't have light traveling in a straight line. Therefore the path of a beam of light will eventually return to its origin. So, yeah, now you have a frikkin idea Einstein believed space is curved.

And where there is no mass, departure and arrival are meaningless.

Thank you for setting standards of intelligence greater than yours I qualify for.

Micha, your description of the way some radical left-wingers think is quite accurate. I've met them when I was in college, and after a while it turn me off radical leftism.

The (nonsensical) thinking seems to be something like: "Capitalism is the source of all Evil. The US is the champion of Capitalism. So anyone opposing the US is noble and worthy of support. So Islamic Fundamentalists are our allies."

Such radical leftism is a lot more common in South America than in the US. I couldn't believe it when some Brazilian left-wingers that were also feminists and gay activists were willing to be sympathetic to the fundamentalist islamists, who are extremely homophobic.

It didn't make sense, until I realized that their priorities were different from mine. I value personal freedom first, while their priority is Anti-Capitalism.

The traditional concepts of right and left are simplistic and a bit outdated. Capitalism isn't the enemy of social change. Hell, when I enter into a clothing store to buy and try on female clothes, the vendors in the store don't judge me, they just want to sell. People make money manufacturing condoms.

And the Pope already said that the alliance between the Church and capitalist societies was circunstantial. He often criticizes the excesses of capitalism.

Any belief system is dangerous when taken to extremes. Right now it seems we have taken capitalism to extremes. I have nothing against reasonable profits. I do, however, have something against obscene profits. If a CEO is making huge amounts of money, then what is going into research and development? Why don't those on the lower rungs of the ladder get more for the hard work they do in making the company profitable? And don't get me started on the vast sums of money being paid to CEOs who fail. If any of us do poorly on the job we are not given lots of money to retire. We are shown the door. Capitalism, like all else in life, needs limits. We learned after the Great Depression that human greed needs regulating. The wealthy among us have convinced us that government is bad and the market will correct itself. How's that working out? I've been beating my head against the wall complaining about the free rein (and reign) we've given the wealthy for so long. We don't even expect them to pay their fair share of taxes anymore. Not that we want to pay our fair share, either. The wealthy have made taxes, regulations, and liberal dirty words. It took them a while, but here we are today knowing that those things are not evil but contribute to the greater good.

But Karen, for all the failings mentioned above, how much actual harm has "extreme capitalism" done? Harm to our pocketbook maybe, in the form of taxes (which you say are good anyway, and Joe Biden says are patriotic) but we are still living in an age of unprecedented plenty. You and I are communicating through technology more powerful than that which sent men to the moon, technology that is affordable to people of even modest means in this country.

Yeah, I'd like to know what Franklin Raines (Fannie CEO 1999-2004),earned $90 million); Jim Johnson (Fannie CEO 1991-1998)earned $21 million in 1998 alone); and Jamie Gorelick (Fannie vice chair 1998-2003, earned$26 million) did that so deserved that kind of recompense. I'd gladly lose TWICE as much money for HALF that salary (interested corporations can contact me at kaiju@aol.com). I suspect their political connections kept them safe from much scrutiny. But I have to question what a "fair profit" is. If we put a limit on profits will we also put a limit on losses? And how do we do that?

(An aside--why exactly DO companies pay such salaries to people who, from all available evidence, do nothing? If capitalism is all about maximizing profits this does not seem an effective way to do it. Did the investors have any say ion hiring these nitwits?)

But Karen, for all the failings mentioned above, how much actual harm has "extreme capitalism" done? Harm to our pocketbook maybe, in the form of taxes (which you say are good anyway, and Joe Biden says are patriotic) but we are still living in an age of unprecedented plenty. You and I are communicating through technology more powerful than that which sent men to the moon, technology that is affordable to people of even modest means in this country.

The technology that Steve Jobs packaged for commercial use was whipped up by mostly publicly-funded research. The basic punch card technology computers as we know them were founded on was implemented for the census at the turn of the 20th century.

You're being awfully generous in crediting capitalism for the work of those who were unambiguously serving the public interests.

Republicans shelter a failed extremist ideology. It's nurtured a destructive stupidity that increases the need for bailouts as it weakens the government's ability to perform them the more slack its given. Their remaining virtue is theft.

Alan: "I think one of the points made on Bill Maher's show this week was that Bin Laden knew he couldn't defeat the US military, so he said he'd trick us into going into bankruptcy."

Bin Laden didn't trick the US into invading Iraq. You did it yourselves. The financial cost does benefit him, but this is not his main objective. Yes, we wants to see America topple completely eventually, but in the short term its enough that the US's influence and its willingness to act in the world arena will be reduced, while his prestige increases. Like I said, he can benefit both from the continuation of the war and its end. If the war in Iraq ends he will seek other fronts to keep the flames alive.

---------------

Bill Mulligan: "Hey, Bill Myers--or anyone else who knows about this stuff--I'm curious about two things going on now. Apparently the dollar is at its best showing in over a year. Why? With everything looking so bad here why would the dollar be going up?

Obvious possible answer--it's even worse in Europe and Japan. So again I ask...why? We are all aware of the housing situation here--has the exact same thing been going on elsewhere? Aren't banks tightly regulated in Europe? Or am I wrong about that?"

When the US sneezes everybody gets a cold. The Israeli economy has been doing well, and our currency was doing well while the Dollar tumbled. But first we exporters lost money because they were exporting to the US and getting payed in Dollars. Then our stock market crashed along with everybody else.

Look at the bright side, nobody is going to benefit from your misfortune.

----------------

Rene, I was in Brazil shortly before getting deeply involved in the left. I saw a communist demonstration in Rio and was impressed by their enthusiasm and their ability to make much noise with few people, even if I was not that impressed with their ideology. I told my friends we should imitate that. But unfortunately in my country the active left became more radical ideologically but not very capable or enthusiadstic in their actions.

-----------

Bill Mulligan: "But Karen, for all the failings mentioned above, how much actual harm has "extreme capitalism" done?"

The world we live in today is not extreme capitalism (despite what people on the extreme left say), nor is it extreme socialism (despite what people on the extreme right say). What we have is a compromise and a balancing act between the two forces -- the welfare state. You have unions, labor laws, minimum wage, social services, regulations, unemployment benefits, government funding, universal government education. All these things did not exist when there was extreme capitalism, and people were certainly hurt by that, most extremely in the great depression.

"Harm to our pocketbook maybe, in the form of taxes"

Taxes are not capitalism. the harm of capitalism is when millions of workers find themselves unemployed and penniless as a result of some macro economic development they have no way of understanding or influencing. The harm of capitalism is when employers have complete control of the terms of the employment, and the employees have no power at all: unions and strikes are broken, child labor etc. Extreme capitalism is also when there is no force preventing businessmen from polluting if it serves their economic interest.

I'm not saying that capitalism is all bad, or that communism is the solution to its ills. But lets not pretend that capitalism doesn't have some major problems.

Bill Mulligan: "Yeah, I'd like to know what Franklin Raines (Fannie CEO 1999-2004),earned $90 million); Jim Johnson (Fannie CEO 1991-1998)earned $21 million in 1998 alone); and Jamie Gorelick (Fannie vice chair 1998-2003, earned$26 million) did that so deserved that kind of recompense. I'd gladly lose TWICE as much money for HALF that salary (interested corporations can contact me at kaiju@aol.com). I suspect their political connections kept them safe from much scrutiny."

This is the proof that the invisible hand of the market is not the always benevolent force that some make it out to be.

"But I have to question what a "fair profit" is. If we put a limit on profits will we also put a limit on losses? And how do we do that?"

Social security, unemployment benefits, and of course bailouts.

Micha Said:

"Bin Laden didn't trick the US into invading Iraq. You did it yourselves."

His idea was to provoke the US into doing something stupid and wasteful. Bush the Lesser did. I was against it from the start, but I am not in a position of power where my voice could be heard. Less than half the country truly agreed about going into Iraq, but many let themselves be cowed into silence by the Republicancer sloganeering.

I think one of the points made on Bill Maher's show this week was that Bin Laden knew he couldn't defeat the US military, so he said he'd trick us into going into bankruptcy.

Maybe bin Laden learned something from Reagan and the Cold War...

An aside--why exactly DO companies pay such salaries to people who, from all available evidence, do nothing?

Bill, I don't think anybody has an answer for your question save that some will say it's capitalism at its finest. Personally, I think it's capitalism at its worst.

And for all your fun examples of people involved with Fannie, one that also stood out recently was the new CEO of Washington Mutual. He'd only been on the job a few weeks when WaMu was seized and sold to JPMorgan Chase. So how much 'compensation' could he receive? $18 million for 3 weeks. I never read whether he actually took it or not, but the fact remains that we're in a screwed up society if he can receive so much for so little time.

Maybe bin Laden learned something from Reagan and the Cold War...

Or maybe bin Laden learned something from his personal involvement in Russia v. Afghanistan.

This is the proof that the invisible hand of the market is not the always benevolent force that some make it out to be.

I'm not sure that Fannie and freddie are great examples of capitalism run amok. Look at this situation-- we have a company that pays outrageous sums of money to appointed leaders who are apparently in no way shape or form expected to produce profits. They will receive this money whether the company makes a profit or not. One would expect the invisible hand of the market to make quick work of such a scheme--were I to open a hot dog stand under that scenario I would expect to be eliminated by my smarter competitors. BUT--this company doesn't have to worry about failure because no matter how much it loses the government will cover its losses.

"No argument there, though I don't know that these are problems that capitalism has in greater degrees than most other systems. The former soviet countries have levels of pollution to a degree unthinkable in the west and child exploitation seems to be a far greater problem in China than here."

True. That's the dumb thing about communism as it was practiced in the USSR, China and everywhere else where it was practiced. By making the government both the ruler, the employer and the representative of the workers they ended up enslaving the workers much worse than capitalism. It just doesn't make sense to me. But of course, I've read only 30 pages of Marx, so I can't have long discussions about materialistic determinism while smoking a pipe.

"I don't know what to call that arrangement but it doesn't sound like capitalism, extreme, mild or new jalapeno Ranch flavor."

Same rule as applies to communism. It is nice to talk about an idealized version of capitalism, but in the real world capitalism simply means that the people with money can do what they want without any restrictions. If they want to give themselves huge salaries whose to stop them? The invisible hand of the market?

in the real world capitalism simply means that the people with money can do what they want without any restrictions. If they want to give themselves huge salaries whose to stop them? The invisible hand of the market?

Perhaps. If companies that gave out ridiculous salaries were able to fail and lose money for all the investors I'm thinking those investors would be a lot more cautious. But look at how we've set this up--it's like letting people gamble and telling them you'll cover their losses...kind of a guarantee they will gamble. What do they have to lose?

The invisible hand is handcuffed. In fact, under that arrangement you could argue that a cautious non-gambling approach is harming the investors. gambling is a bad idea for money management only so long as the possibility of loss exists. take that away and you'd have to be daft not to do it.

What does further deregulation do except disable the means for the bailout it inevitably needs?

Our law enforcement and fire departments are completely socialized, and we like it. We can stop to the point we like it without it all going bugf*** -- unlike deregulated capitalism.

Again: the remaining virtue of the republican party is theft.

As soon as she was nominated, I posted something on Tony's board about it almost being the West Wing prediction vs the Commander in Chief prediction. The difference with Commander in Chief, though is that President Allen was a lot more liberal than Palin is. Still, the initial scenario is amazingly similar.