Say you were trying to prove that historians would remember the Bush administration more favorably than the Clinton one. What would you say for Bush? (note-more favorably as in having done a better job, not more favorably as in having had historic events like 9/11 and the war with iraq in it)
I've tried, and I can't think what I'd say. But I don't like Bush, I'm obviously less able to come up with stuff. For those who do-what would you say?
No, not for school. Just me obsessing about a debate topic and wondering what people would have said for Bush.
[ November 08, 2004, 10:46 PM: Message edited by: Toretha ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
You start. What did Clinton do that will make him be viewed favorably by history?
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
A lot of my problem is lack of knowledge. I'm looking stuff up now about Clinton. I'm not trying to start an argument. I'm just asking what good things have been done by Bush.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Well, Clinton allowed a genocide on his watch, but so is Bush. (This might be a negative for Bush because he a) had Clinton's experience and b) said that "we" should do everything we can to prevent a repeat of it. While it's a negative for Clinton, Bush doesn't gain any ground because he's allowing the same thing to happen.) So basically, I'm not helping you.
Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
changing title, cause I can find clinton stuff, but am biased on Bush.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Clinton could play the sax.
Its too early to judge Bush. What if within four years there is a Palestinian state at peace with Israel? What will happen in Iraq? What if there isn't another major terrorist attack on American soil for at least decades? What if he sucessfully reforms the tax code (in a way that makes the vast majority of Americans happy)? What if he "saves" social security? What if he cuts the deficit in half? What if the economy experiences its best four years ever? What if he successfully reforms the intelligence community? What if..?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
More Wars. History likes a good war, have you seen the History Channel? The deficit isn't going to be kind to him, though. 1) I don't think he is going to cut it, 2) the interest payments are just going to get more ridiculous as time goes on.
[ November 08, 2004, 10:49 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
Didn't Bush do something re: lots of funding to help fight AIDS and its societal consequences (orphaned kids, etc.) in Africa? I'll see if I can find details later, I don't remember exactly what they were.
Posted by Raia (Member # 4700) on :
Irami: I know this is off topic, but I would just like to take this opportunity to say that I think "Frimpong" is the coolest word I've ever heard.
Continue.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I have some serious doubts history will remember Bush fondly, at least for his first term.
America will end up with equal rights for homosexual, its just a matter of time. Bush will be remembered as the president who tried to pass an amendment banning gay marriages. I think when we are in a more liberal time, that will be seen as homophobic and discriminitory, just as the Jim Crow laws are now seen as racist and barbaric.
For those social conservatives, maybe you doubt that such a day will come, but I would bet my life it does. Progress does not go backwards. Conservatives in history probably hoped there would not be a day when women could vote, or that african americans would be treated fairly, but it was inevitable. So too are homosexual rights.
As far as the war in Iraq goes, since Bush was re-elected, he can no longer be blamed alone. The American people have affirmed what he has done. Whether history looks back kindly at the war probably has a lot to do with the outcome. If we can somehow establish a free Iraq without it being anarchy, and without too much more bloodshed, then it could still be seen favorably.
Other than that, we had the biggest surplus in american history under Clinton, and now we have the biggest deficit under Bush. I can't see how that will be anything but a strike against Bush. I have no idea how economically conservatives can support one of the most fiscally irresponsible presidents in history.
Still, I sincerely hope that he can do great things with this second term. I think hes been a terrible president so far, but it only takes one truly great accomplishment to turn that around.
[ November 09, 2004, 08:04 AM: Message edited by: Xavier ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Didn't Bush do something re: lots of funding to help fight AIDS and its societal consequences (orphaned kids, etc.) in Africa?"
Well, it depends on how you define "lots" of funding, and whether you think his refusal to provide that funding without strings cheapens the "gift" any.
But, yeah, I'm willing to put that down as a slight positive. He needs some.
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
For some reason I had a vague idea that he cut funding. Check your book, Anna dahling, there's an index.
I heart you!
Jen
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Well, he deserves a lot of the credit for the record numbers of new voter registrations, along with the record voter turnout in the 2004 election. Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
The problem with this thread request is that no matter how good something is that someone has done, there is someone who will declare reasons why it's not good.
Some people think that Bush's signing of the bill against partial birth abortion is a good thing. Some people think that prescription coverage for seniors -- a benefit that came under Bush's administration -- is a good thing. Some people think that increased federal spending for education -- another thing that came under Bush's administration -- is a good thing. Some people think that taking a pro-active approach toward terrorism is a good thing. Some people think it's a good thing that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. Some people think that the faith based initiative is a good thing. Some people think that abstinence training and strategies as a primary focus for sex education is a good thing. Some people really kind of like the tax cuts that have come from Bush's tenure in office. Some people even think they are good for the country.
But like I said...nothing is so good that someone somewhere will not state what's not good about it.
edited for clarity and pesky doublenegatives
[ November 09, 2004, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: jeniwren ]
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
You know, Afghanistan went really well. But that was like a whole two or three years ago, so it probably doesn't count Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Oh, is Afghanistan over? I didn't realize we were all done there.
Posted by ginette (Member # 852) on :
Actually, I would say that nothing that a government ever does is good. Good in this context meaning one of the best solutions. Reasons are:
1) short time view (within four years) because of election spans 2) mostly the solution is a compromise that is sub-optimal 3) counter effects and side effects have not or only partially been foreseen
In my opinion the best solutions for a countrys economy are those who have been found by economists, not those politicians come up with.
Posted by dread pirate romany (Member # 6869) on :
The only thing I can think of is his plans to go to Mars. Although I am hazy on what he has actually done.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Bush makes The Daily Show way more fun to watch! Who can disagree with that?
[ November 09, 2004, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Tom, does something have to be over to go well?
EDIT: I mean, seriously, are we not allowed to be glad about successful early phases of an operation just because there are future phases left to be completed? Was the quick and effective conquest of a territory that has been considered unconquerable for centuries, the ousting of an evil and oppressive government, and the restoration of basic human rights to a nationful of women a worthless achievement because there are still a few problems left to be solved?
Guess what, Afghanistan will never be "over". Countries don't "end". They have a long road ahead of them, and to some degree or another, we will be involved as a friend and ally to the Afghani people. Let's celebrate our successes as we achieve them, rather than viewing our very involvement with them as an automatic dismal failure.
[ November 09, 2004, 12:13 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, my personal impression is that suggesting that Afghanistan "went well" implies that we have achieved our goals in Afghanistan, and/or have made significant progress towards doing so. Would you say this has happened, or is happening?
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
I think that it's fair to assume that the whole "Mission to Mars" talk was just a lot of BS to get the intellectuials off his sorry @$$ for a few months.
Congress rejected the request from NASA for increased funding. Don'tcha know--there's a war on?
He also cut funds to that liberal boondoggle called "Head Start"! Who needs it anyway?! Screw those kids! It's not like Bush showed up at some news conference and praised it all to high heaven just a week or so before he cut the fundi...wait, sorry, he did.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Whoops, you answered while I was expanding on my originally-short post Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Geoff, I'd point out that none of the three accomplishments you laid out are actually accomplished:
1) Afghanistan has actually been conquered successfully several times. What it has not been is held, and we have not demonstrated that we can hold it. In fact, we've pretty much announced that we cannot, and have no intention of trying.
2) While we removed the despotic government from the capital city, the rest of the country is ruled by tribal warlords and/or representatives of the same despotic government we meant to kick out. Still, I'd give them a "B" for effort on this one.
3) Rights for women in Afghanistan are not going particularly well. They are, indeed, slightly better off than they were, but all indications suggest that this initially positive trend is reversing even as we speak, since American attention is elsewhere. Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
TomD,
You're being so cynical! Now, you should watch what I do! I'm never cynical!
--SteveS
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
And, don't forget: we've achieved our primary goal in the War On Terror. We've captured or killed Osama Bin Laden.
What you say?
We haven't?
But it's been three years! What the hell else have we been doing? That was like the A #1 goal! I heard Bush say it himself!
Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
quote:Well, he deserves a lot of the credit for the record numbers of new voter registrations, along with the record voter turnout in the 2004 election.
Dude, I think you're getting your W. Bushes and P. Diddys mixed up.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
Well, welcome to the real world. I honestly don't know what some people would consider to be a "successful" operation in a foreign country. What, the Taliban didn't just disappear? What, changing the way the populace views human rights is difficult? Huh, a country that has never been completely united under a central government has trouble doing so? What a shocking failure! How could we have been so incompetent?
I don't know, maybe I'm just in a better mood than you or something, but I can look at a situation like the one in Afghanistan, see the problems, and still think we're doing well, and that we have accomplished many of our short-term goals.
There are people who look at America and think we're the most horrible country in the world because all they can see are the problems. I think they need to step back a bit and get some perspective. Most of the things that America believes in and stands for are very new ideas on the historical scale, and making them work perfectly for everyone all the time is an impossible dream, at least right now. But it's a noble dream, and I think that every step that brings us closer to that dream is worth celebrating.
The fact that reality doesn't just roll over and reshape itself to match our fondest hopes does not mean that the accomplishments we do make suddenly become reclassified as failures.
Posted by A Rat Named Dog (Member # 699) on :
quote:We've captured or killed Osama Bin Laden. What you say? We haven't? But it's been three years! What the hell else have we been doing? That was like the A #1 goal! I heard Bush say it himself!
Funny how people remember history differently. I recall that three years ago, Bush said capturing or not capturing Osama Bin Laden wouldn't make or break the War on Terrorism. Al Qaeda can function without him, and Al Qaeda is the enemy.
Bin Laden is certainly our number 1 target, as far as individuals go, but our number 1 goal is to end the use of terrorism against the United States by Muslim fanatics. That involves far more than capturing Bin Laden, and can be accomplished without him.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Tom just hates Bush, and as a result, can't see anything he's responsible for as good. <pokes tom> Lighten up man.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
To Bush's credit, he's done more than most presidents to protect us from our civil liberties.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Tom just hates Bush, and as a result, can't see anything he's responsible for as good."
No, no, see, you've got that backwards. I hate Bush because I can't see anything he's been responsible for as good.
------
"The fact that reality doesn't just roll over and reshape itself to match our fondest hopes does not mean that the accomplishments we do make suddenly become reclassified as failures."
Geoff, I was pointing out that the accomplishments you listed were not in fact "made." They may be "in progress," although I would submit that things in Afghanistan do not appear to be going so well as all that.
I didn't expect Afghanistan to turn into a garden of happy liberal latte-drinkers overnight. But it would have been nice to see us pay some attention to the country after we located the six piles of rubble they had and blew them back up.
[ November 09, 2004, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Now we see why I didn't bother participating in this thread.
Dagonee
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
I couldn't resist my above post. It was a cheap shot, I know, but I just liked the phrasing too much to not post it after it occurred to me. As pennance, I'm going to come up with something positive for which I think Bush will be remembered by history.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hey, no, seriously, I've only jumped on the Afghanistan thing because I figured that Geoff and I shared roughly the same goals for Afghanistan and thus it was mystifying to me that he might feel we had "done well" -- past tense -- since we almost certainly share the same criteria on that one.
I know I don't apply the same criteria to tax cuts as a Bush supporter might, which is why I haven't bothered to address those -- or other issues like 'em.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote: Some people think that Bush's signing of the bill against partial birth abortion is a good thing. Some people think that prescription coverage for seniors -- a benefit that came under Bush's administration -- is a good thing.
Fair enough, Jeni. ---------------
quote:
Some people think that increased federal spending for education -- another thing that came under Bush's administration -- is a good thing. Some people think that taking a pro-active approach toward terrorism is a good thing.
I'm wondering about this increased funding, I know money has been shuffled around in the education budget, including cutting a teacher bonus that was awarded for becoming nationally certified. I wonder how much of the money is being eaten up by admin costs for NCLB. It may be a modest portion, but if the money is going to all these places that don't need it, *shrugs*.
quote: Some people think it's a good thing that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. Some people think that the faith based initiative is a good thing. Some people think that abstinence training and strategies as a primary focus for sex education is a good thing. Some people really kind of like the tax cuts that have come from Bush's tenure in office. Some people even think they are good for the country.
It's what you do, and it's how you do it. I think that's why we have so many laws on the books allowing abortion in the case of rape. You have a tax cut and we dethroned Saddam, but looking at how we went to war and the deficit-- how do you countenance a tax cut staring in the face of a deficit, and yes, he took money out of the social security "lock box," Osama bin Laden making movies, and our commitment to Iraq right now, why is it the case there is a reason why I don't think these things are good.
I'm not so sure that being a President is about producing effects. I know being a CEO is. But a President of a nation of people, it's more than that. And everytime he behaves in a manner I wouldn't want schoolyard children to behave, then something is wrong.
[ November 09, 2004, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's not that I think anyone's misbehaved in this thread. I just strikes me as a rather pointless exercise for the reasons you gave in the tax cut example.
Dagonee
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Rat Named,
quote:Most of the things that America believes in and stands for are very new ideas on the historical scale, and making them work perfectly for everyone all the time is an impossible dream, at least right now. But it's a noble dream, and I think that every step that brings us closer to that dream is worth celebrating.
Just what are those noble things that the US beleives in and stands for? The sense I get is that we're not only not exporting them abroad, but we're also losing them at home.
I'm, of course, thinking about civil liberties. I'm thinking of a reasonable judicial system and application of accepted international laws--like the Geneva Convention.
I'm thinking of the beauty of not killing 100,000 civilians in a unilaterally declared war.
Of course, others may be thinking about the exportation of US restrictions against legal abortions, discussions about the use of contraception, and general family planning, and those people should be quite happy.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Everytime Bush makes stupidness, laziness, or revenge cool, he makes my life harder and more dangerous. Everytime he brags about not reading the paper or taking the low road with the NAACP, it's work I have to do. These are the intangibles. Clinton made marriages uncool, Bush makes thinking uncool. In my esteem, these are both atrocities, but I guess we can pick our poisons.
[ November 09, 2004, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
It is kind of funny how with all the Afghanistan arguing, no one has mentioned how it has just gone right back to pre-Taliban structure. Many leaders in the Northern Alliance are rattling sabres over the past election, and I'll be surprised if the whole northern region doesn't continue to have the instability it's had even since we've been there for years to come.
But Kabul is nice. Check that off as a complete win, I guess.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
I said it before the invasion and I'll say it again - invading Afghanistan was a mistake. It galvanized opposition in the Muslim world and (predictably) led to the further invasion of Iraq. And what have we gained from it? Al Qaeda, the prime target, was not destroyed. All signs point to it being as capable of attacks as it ever has been, if not more so. Bin Laden was not captured. The country itself is not orderly or peaceful. It shows no signs of long-term stability. The only good news is that, contrary to what I thought, the Pakistani government came down on our side to help.
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
"It galvanized opposition in the Muslim world and (predictably) led to the further invasion of Iraq."
A reasonable person could support the invasion of Afghanistan without coming to the conclusion that the invasion of Iraq would be the logical next step.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
To somewhat reiterate my first post, how can we judge an eight year presidency after less than four years? Especially with Iraq and Afgahnistan we're going to need years after the Bush presidency to tell if they were a success.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Irami, thanks for responding to my post. My point was that it's very much the way you choose to look at things. Very little in this world is 100% good. Pretty much everything comes at a cost. Everyone weighs the good returned against the cost, and we all have differing standards of balance.
I listed a number of things that many people see are good about Bush's time in office. I see that none of those things are painted thick with 100% Good varnish. The partial birth abortion bill has problems as I understand it, in that "partial birth abortion" is not a medical term. Further, for Pro-Lifers, the bill is almost worthless in that it seeks to prevent a miniscule percentage of the abortions performed in this country. Prescription drug benefits for seniors could be seen as yet another government funded entitlement. Some people do not believe that increased spending in education is a good thing, but that public education requires wholesale reform. Some people view a so called pro-active approach toward terrorism as simple international bullying and fear that it will only give us what we deserve: more terrorism close to home.
For me, Bush has balanced enough on the Good side of issues for me that he got my vote and continues to enjoy my support. I don't think he's ever done a perfect thing. I also do not believe he's a complete incompetent. He's a man performing an exceptionally difficult job to the best of his abilities. He is trustworthy, IMO. I trust him to be a good leader. I think he's done a good job so far. The war in Iraq is hardly a failure to me, in that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power, and the loss of life has been so little by comparison to other wars. We've accomplished great good for an acceptable cost. (Please, please don't romanticize about how even the loss of one life could be considered "acceptable". The cost of the Civil War was unthinkably high, and yet, it was worth the cost, IMO. I fear that if we were presented with the same imperative today, we would not go to war.) I don't understand the timing of the Iraq war, but I don't particularly believe I need to -- I assume that Bush and his advisors know some things I don't. I consciously try not to fall into the trap of post-Vietnam public philosophy: that because a commander-in-chief's lips are moving, he must be lying.
I don't like the huge deficit we're facing -- but Kerry could not offer me a smaller one, and promised to raise my taxes. Social security is a mess that started being a mess a very long time ago. Bush didn't start it, and I have little hope that he'll make it much better. I think the only solution for it is to grunt our way through.
So you may call Bad what I call Good, and that's okay. Undoubtedly some of what you call Good, I call Bad, and there, I think balance is acheived.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:A reasonable person could support the invasion of Afghanistan without coming to the conclusion that the invasion of Iraq would be the logical next step.
But they'd have been wrong, no? Once we invaded one country that hadn't attacked us, it opened the door wide open to invading others - particularly in the minds of the American people.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
So Afgahnistan was innocent in your mind?
Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
Afghanistan was harboring Osama bin Laden. Iraq was not. It is a pretty clear distinction supported by logic and the findings of the 911 Commission.
Posted by kerinin (Member # 4860) on :
i'd like to say a few things about no child left behind, just because it's come up a couple times and deserves more discussion. no child left behind is a disaster, there's really no other way to put it.
the first problem, which is open for debate, is that it assumes that testing children to death will make them better educated, when in fact it will (obviously) make them better at passing tests. this means that we are handing control of our educational system to test-writers.
the second problem, which is also open to debate, is that adam smith really shouldn't be applied to education. the idea that teachers should be held accountable is great - the idea that school funding should be cut if the school isn't performing adeqately is rediculous. in a perfect world, children would be able to leave under-performing schools and go to better ones, establishing a competitve marketplace for education. unfortunately this isn't how it works. due to various problems: bussing, uninvolved parents, local beauracracy etc, what happens is that students in under-performing schools stay in those schools and because they're under-performing they loose funding. which obviously isn't a very good way to fix their performance issues. on top of all this, teachers get bonuses for teaching students which perform well (read: affluent well-educated kids with parents who participate in their schooling), encouraging the good teachers to leave the schools which need the most help to move to the ones that need the least. the bottom line here is that "accountability" is doing nothing to imrove the education of underprivlidged students and is in fact diverting resources from those students to higher-performing ones.
the third problem is that there is practically no funding for the program. teachers recieve bonuses for performing well, but the bonuses are way to small to really motivate anyone (my girlfriend is a teacher). on top of this, there is little or no funding to cover the added mandates which the program imposes, which means that the end result is that anything which is not directly related to testing gets cut. not entirely cut, but seriously de-emphasized.
the program is referred to in the educational system as the "no school left standing" program.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
quote:To somewhat reiterate my first post, how can we judge an eight year presidency after less than four years?
Nothing personal (really: I mean it!), but this quote reminds me of the phrase "Doesn't know XXXX from shinola on two tastes."
I know it's going to be a bad 8 years becasue it's been a lousy 4 years, and now he not only thinks he has a mandate, but there's no "next election" to worry about!
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
But, in all seriousness, he has help to unify the "Arab world."
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
So you don't like Bush either way, but that doesn't tell us how history will judge him on the assumption that history is non-partisan.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
I think that history will show how Bush helped set back the advances made in the USA by at least 20 years, and helped establish us as the leader among the other third world countries.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
National Missile Defense.
Posted by Danzig avoiding landmarks (Member # 6792) on :
Opium and heroin production has risen. I support that.
Bush's second victory may well lead to the destruction of the Democratic party, and the rise of another major party.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Xavier, I know it's a little late...but I keep hearing the idea that "you can't roll back progress".
The fact is, I only hear this idea from people who are, or lately were, in the driver's seat. Their programs are always progress, and their opponents are always opponents of progress. I'm sure Shalmanezer of Assyria gazed at the bodies of his decapitated, mutilated foes and thought, "Neat! You just can't stop progress, can you?"
History does not go in any specific direction. It goes where the people with power decide it should go. (Yes, large numbers are a form of power--but not the only form.) Whether you consider the direction it actually goes in progress depends on which side you're on.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:So Afgahnistan was innocent in your mind?
Innocent is not the correct word. Afghanistan was not guilty of anything worthy of invasion. Refusing to turn over someone in your country is a right even the U.S. has claimed to have.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Afhganistan was bubbling over with human rights violations. There is no great crime in invading the country. But since we didn't have a clear objective, we invaded, now we have Osama bin Laden sitting on 1000 pounds of heroin.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
from jeniwren on the first page:
quote: but Kerry could not offer me a smaller one, and promised to raise my taxes.
In the town hall style debate (I believe it was the second one) Kerry promised he would not raise taxes for people making under $200,000 a year.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
So if you were president you would let other countries harbor terrorists all they want no matter how many Americans die.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
That was the one where he assumed that nobody in the audience made over 200,000. I don't make same assumption about jeniwren. Though, for the record, she did at one point in time assume that I was short and fat. Apparently, I use too many words with lower case ooos in them.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Some people do make over $200,000 a year and they aren't the people who need to be taxed more. Its the people who are making the multi-millions a year who are the "problems." Furthermore, that was only income tax. There's still Social Security, capital gains, death tax, gas tax, etc.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote: History does not go in any specific direction. It goes where the people with power decide it should go. (Yes, large numbers are a form of power--but not the only form.) Whether you consider the direction it actually goes in progress depends on which side you're on.
I think you are mistaken here.
American and European history, at least in the last few hundred years, have most certainly moved from the direction of less equal rights toward more equal rights.
The removal of the feudal system and aristocracy... The change from kingdoms to democracy... The abolition of identured servatude and slavery... The right of freedom of religion... The right of blacks to vote... The right of women to vote... The ammendments granting equal rights to blacks and women... The gradual decline of socially acceptable racism and sexism in society... The gradual acceptance in American media toward gays, recent notable shows include MTV's the Real World, Will and Grace, and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy... The right to gay marriage in Canada, Norway, Sweden, and Massachusettes...
Seems pretty directional to me. Is it wrong to look at my list and see gay marriage as inevitable?
[ November 09, 2004, 09:32 PM: Message edited by: Xavier ]
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
I realize that jeniwren could make over $200,000 a year and debated adding a question asking whether she did or not that post, but I decided it sounded too rude. Jeniwren, if you make over $200,000 please ignore my post.
Posted by Ethics Gradient (Member # 878) on :
The estate tax - or the more emotively titled "death tax" - only effects a small number of estates. Something like 80% of estate tax is paid by 1% of estates. Cutting the estate tax is a blatant effort to support dynastic wealth rather than its redistribution.
The American taxation system probably needs a significant, ground-up overhaul to drastically reduce the number of separate taxes and the way in which they are collected. This might make debate regarding taxation rates much more feasible and it would certainly support the end-user of the system in being able to determine their tax status in a number of ways. In Australia, individuals are subject to a single Pay As You Go income tax, capital gains tax, Medicare Levy, Higher Education Contribution Scheme (low interest, education loans) repayments and fringe benefits tax. There are some other things that apply in particular circumstances but not to the broader public. For many Australians, PAYG income tax and the Medicare Levy are the only components of their taxation payments.
As a result, changes to tax rates occur mainly in the the adjustment of marginal tax rates within PAYG or the thresholds at which rates apply.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
Well I know no one wants to hear this but Bush will most likely be remembered for kick starting quite a few reforms in the United Statest military. The armed forces are slowly but surely finally coming out of the cold war mentality and gearing up for something closer to the colonial conflicts of the past. Making the military faster ( quicker response time) as speed is more critical today than ever before if nothing else but political pressure and our zap at you media. To me its insane how hard it must be to run a military for the United States at the higher levels simply because of the media. Though that has its good and bad effects.
That and I think, hope, that someone reinstates the draft in the United States. Now I know everyone hates this etc. but how do you think you get a morally and ethically fit military? In my profession its the persons who want to kill who enjoy the idea of closing with the "Enemy" and destroying him that continue to do that job. Believe me its not just all out of patriotism I've met some pretty sadistic dudes but at the very least most of them are restrained through duty and higher command, but not entirely. The only thing is that though we would have a more ethically fit military and one less likely to cause problems in the future, it would be one a little less proffesional and though not less effective in battle ( more numbers) it would take more casualties. But its time for America to come to the terms that fire power does not balance out sheer violence of action. Something our military is still lacking.
Now everyone gives Bush a hard time for the economy etc., well it was already on the way down when he took office, how is he at fault with that. Not to mention Sept 11ths effect on our economy ( it sucks to be an airline at least), will we blame that on Bush. That and Afghanistan not being 100% in hand at the moment ( not to mention Iraq as well) is something I blame on the "humanity" of the United States. Americans don't like a thousand Americans dying in over a year of fighting ( an honestly low number) how would they react to a thousand in a month, or even 6 months?
That and you make mention of Americas movement to more liberal values, well this is true to a point, but also notice that most of that value change is happening in Urban areas ( which also btw happened to favor Kerry) not in the Rural. Which btw is not the kind of social split you want in a society ( note the political differences between the Industrial north and the Agricultural south) That and you say that values/social progress is always forward, well thats rather wrong and silly. Remember that homosexuality as a whole was much more accepted in certain "ancient" cultures than our own. This and I believe its amazing how big of a deal we make over certain smaller social issues and miss rather large ones, or at the very least social diseases which are taking hold in America. Personally I don't think anyone is going to truely crack down and attempt to make homosexual sex illegal, most likely someone somewhere will find a political compromise that allows there to be homosexual couples, not "married." Especially since marriage itself though a legal concept is generally seen as a religous rite, especially by the religious right .
Though I think what Bush will be remembered for best (or at least be infamous for) is his inability to express his views and plans in such a manner to make everyone understand. Instead he goes with a gungho approach I would attempt with my fireteam. Its not very tactful to go on TV and say the equivalent of "gotta kill um all" on television. Though its not what he honestly means its what comes out of it all. He has never really compromised on any of the issues and plans as he said he would. He has in the sense been a poor leader, why do I say that? Well what kind of leader can only have half his "led" follow him. A good leader, an excellent president may not be liked by all, but at least respected. The sad thing is many of his actions could be seen in the highest light, but its the way he divulges them.. that is well more than a bit lacking.
Overall I Think Bush will be seen as a poor communicator who may have made correct choices, but in his implementation and explanation of those choices failed to take them to their fullest.
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
No, Xavier, but your list is itself prejudicial. You list the trends that favor your position, and ignore things like the growing concentration of wealth. You also (understandably) ignore things like the insistence that fetuses have no right even to stay alive because you do not agree with the position behind them. In effect, you are picking and choosing issues that you think are "progress" and that are being successfully pushed.
Secondly, a couple of hundred years is very little compared with several thousand years. The trend you speak of is real, but it could also begin to reverse itself tomorrow. Perhaps it already has.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I agree with Fox. What are they feeding you? Yeah, look, when I disagreed with him, he was probably 18, is it so hard to be believe that he-- or I-- have changed.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
I grew up ::laughs::, if you talk to the people who know me very well I've changed a great deal of late.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:No, Xavier, but your list is itself prejudicial. You list the trends that favor your position, and ignore things like the growing concentration of wealth. You also (understandably) ignore things like the insistence that fetuses have no right even to stay alive because you do not agree with the position behind them.
Yes, I did only list events which I felt showed the trend. I have a position to defend after all .
I'm not sure how the growing concentration of wealth affects my trend toward freedom. Could you explain please?
As far as abortion rights are concerned, I think that could be included as another step in favor of freedom if phrased in the direction of women's rights, but against the trend if put in the direction of fetal rights. So whether it supports the trend is a matter of interpretation.
There are others that might more show my list's bias, such as not including the restrictions on the rights to use drugs. Thats certainly trending towards less freedom.
But besides arguing my statement that its inevitable, how do you personally feel Mabus? Do you think that the conservatives can keep homosexual marriage illegal forever? I also wonder if you believe that someone would have been wrong for thinking that an end to slavery was inevitable prior to the civil war, or that womens sufferage was inevitable pre-WWI?
Edit: And in regards to how long my timeline is, you could say it starts at about the middle of the Medieval Ages, which is a considerable time period to see trends.
[ November 09, 2004, 10:13 PM: Message edited by: Xavier ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I still think Bush's speaking problems are a ruse to avoid questions he would preferred unanswered and to keep his opposition underestimating him. He probably took this lesson from Eisenhower.
Personally, I agree that the country is slowly moving toward more gay rights, but I don't think it will affect Bush's legacy. Do most people think of Woodrow Wilson as a racist or as the man who won WWI and set out the Fourteen Points?
Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
Xavier, the increase in concentration of wealth gives more power to the already wealthy, since they can spend whatever amount they like to get their way in courts or in the legislature. If they are all of good will, that is not inherently a problem--but that is not something I would bet two cents on, let alone my life.
As for your second question...it really is a matter of time. By the time the Civil War started, the end of slavery may have been inevitable--but I am not sure. Was it inevitable in 1800? I doubt it. At some point it probably became inevitable, but I do not know when that was. And there is no guarantee that what has happened cannot be reversed--even today it is theoretically possible we will revert to having some form of slavery be acceptable. I honestly do not know if homosexuals will gain the right to marry--certainly they already have in some places--or how long it will last if they do. That goes right along with my belief that nothing is inevitable.
It is somewhat like Hari Seldon's statement in the Foundation trilogy--the fall of the Empire is not inevitable if enough people can be convinced to act in a way that will keep it from falling. How do you convince them? That's the question....and there is no clear answer.
[ November 09, 2004, 10:22 PM: Message edited by: Mabus ]
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
That and remember progress is always relative, I'm sure that men from the past would be rather alarmed and disturbed by our "progress." That and I believe gay rights to be an inflated issue, it is not of the same level as womens rights and slavery. Why do I say that? Because the fact is the African didn't have much choice about slavery, he couldn't just paint himself white or make himself European and be free in America. A woman couldn't just make herself a man and enjoy the same freedoms. The fact is that homosexuality is much more of a choice, I know more than a few gay persons who don't let it interfere with their life. They work the jobs they want to, live with the persons they want to and thats it. No one is saying ( or ever implemented in law) that homosexuals couldn't vote, hold office, or own land. Sure its never exactly been socially popular, but government shouldn't regulate what society believes, simply what they are allowed to do. You can't stop people from hating a group, but you can stop them to a point from discrimenating and lynching them.
That and I believe the detention of Japanese Americans in WWII was a step back, not to mention the social outlash against Germans during WWI. The social outlash against former slaves after the Civil war that "set them free." The rather unequal use of African Americans ( not to mention "lower classes") in Vietnam through the drafts ins and outs. The continual buildup of wealth in the upper classes and loss of it at the bottom. Americas problems with religious tolerance when you aren't a protestant christian. And on top of that the problem of tolerance that atheists seem to have in our nation. Yes our nation has made many great changes in the past hundred years plus. Its generally hard for society like America to go "backwards" for a great length of time.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:So if you were president you would let other countries harbor terrorists all they want no matter how many Americans die.
Me? No. I just would use more valid tactics to take out those terrorists than all-out invasion of sovereign nations.
Or do you think France should get to tell America who we have to arrest and hand over to them? If France can't tell us that, we can't tell Afghanistan that.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
If we were harboring people who had murdered thousands of French citizens they would certainly have the right to invade us.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
I would bet that Germany and some of the South American countries are harboring (or were, since they're now dying off from old age) known Nazi war criminals. People who have caused the deaths of thousands, as it were.
Would it be OK for us to invade Germany if they refused to hand over these known war criminals? Brazil? Argentina? Madagascar?
(I really don't think that any Nazis are hiding out in Madagascar. I just like saying "Madagascar.")
[edited for spellnig]
[ November 10, 2004, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
If it was clear that the nazi party was committed to continuing its mission of genocide, then yes, we'd be completely right to invade the country that harbored its leadership.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Why don't we join the World Court, then?
If it IS true that other countries have a right to overrule by force our decisions on whom to give up to the authorities, then what reason do we have for staying out of the World Court? Are we suggesting that, rather than use law to determine which countries have to hand over whom to which countries, we use a policy of might-makes-right instead?
[ November 10, 2004, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Mabus:
quote: Xavier, the increase in concentration of wealth gives more power to the already wealthy, since they can spend whatever amount they like to get their way in courts or in the legislature. If they are all of good will, that is not inherently a problem--but that is not something I would bet two cents on, let alone my life.
How is that a change from how it always was? There have always been the rich and powerful. They used to be much more powerful then they are today.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
The countries that harbor terrorists like bin Laden don't abide by World Court rulings. That and the World Court is a bunch of BS if you look at some of the rulings they've made against Israelrecently. Nazi Germany didn't listen to the League of Nations either so why would we expect a similar nation to listen to the World Court? Countries that Germany, Brazil, and Argentina aren't intentionally harboring Nazis anymore than the U.S. currently harboring Nazis and when Israel abducted Aldolf Eichman from Argentina that was perfectly fine to me.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
But you agree that if we ignore their "BS" and don't hand over the war criminals they demand, they have a right to invade us, conquer us, and install their own style of government?
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
If we were harboring people who murdered thousands of their citizens and we refused to turn them over (as the Taliban did) then they would be justified in invading us.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Progress can indeed be undone. Just look at the reemergence of defacto segregation over the last twenty to twenty-four years.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
The interim Iraqi government has just demanded that we hand over George W. Bush as a (possibly) genocidal war criminal. His unilateral war declared on Iraq has caused the deaths of over 100,000 civilians.
Do we turn him over? Is it OK if they invade us?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Progress can indeed be undone. Just look at the reemergence of defacto segregation over the last twenty to twenty-four years.
Or American women losing the right to vote in the late 18th century. Or the economic collapse of the Dutch Mercantilistic society. Or the history of the civil rights movement, the Reconstruction efforts, or the Irish Free State following the respective assasinations of Martin Luther King Jr., Abraham Lincoln, and Michael Collins. Why not throw in the fall of the Roman Empire too?
Progress is neither inevitible nor free. It needs people working to support it.
Much of American social progress rests on our fat stomaches. I can't source the quote "Civilization is only three meals away from barbarism" (I'd be grateful is someone could), but this is more true for contemporary America that for nearly any other place and time. Ray Bradbury wrote a short story once about what would happen to this country if all the televisions stopped working. Could you imagine the chaos that would result from such a realistically unimportant thing?
[ November 10, 2004, 11:55 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Then you might as well claim that Germany should bd justified to invade the US for killing its citizens during WWII. If you're unwilling to use reason or common sense I don't see the point of having a discussion. The US engaged in a war that was approved by the UN Security Council. Osama bin Laden is a terrorist and by harboring him, the Taliban became culpable for his actions as they protected him and allowed him to continue his attacks.
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
I may have goten caught up in the rhetoric--I meant my previous post to point towards Iraq more than towards Afghanistan
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)