KMG Politics 9-2-04

[km gresham]

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/w/walker/04/ walker090204.htm (http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/w/walker/04/walker090204.htm)

Deep pass completion for team Bush.

[ 09-02-2004, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: km gresham ]

[George.]

Karen, you are getting your news from a site called Men'sNewsDaily, with links to "Get this gear for liberals to FEAR!" and "Poker Babes", and featuring screen-saver pictures of some bimbo in a tight bra?

That is less biased than the mainstream media?

Give me a break!

[km gresham]

Never said it wasn't biased - just thought the article was interesting. Tell me where you can find unbiased commentary. ;)

[km gresham]

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/kondracke/

I think they're going to make a mistake having ads with Kerry talking to the camera about his plans for the country - the more Kerry is seen and heard the lower his numbers go. He just is not an inspiring face or speaker. It works better for him to have surrogates tout his qualifications.

[George.]

Originally posted by km gresham:
Tell me where you can find unbiased commentary. ^

Try The Economist (http://www.economist.com) You'll like it, it tends to be conservative on most issues, but without dogma - very technical and impartial.

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Originally posted by km gresham:
Never said it wasn't biased Kinda says it all there don't it ;)

[Meerkat]

Originally posted by George.:
Karen, you are getting your news from a site called Men'sNewsDaily, with links to "Get this gear for liberals to FEAR!" and "Poker Babes", and featuring screen-saver pictures of some bimbo in a tight bra?
It's obvious that Karen has PMS: Posts Men's Stuff. :D

[km gresham]

smile.gif Ok, Meer - that was a little funny. ;)

[Alan D. Hyde]

The Economist???

Conservative????

George....

Alan

[George.]

The Economist supports Bush, supported the war in Iraq, believes in the free market, is suspicious of government regulation, and is generally hawkish and socially and economically conservative.

Is that too liberal for you?

[Alan D. Hyde]

The Economist has sniped at President Bush and at Operation Iraqi Freedom, often has an elitist (unAmerican) point of view, and is not terribly uncomfortable with British socialism.

No one would ever suppose that Milton Friedman was the North Star of their editorial policy.

They're closer to J. K. Galbraith...

Friedman's thinking is the sunlight of present-day economics.

The Economist is but a cloud, sometimes reflecting but often obscuring, that light.

Alan

[LeeG]

Alan, what is YOUR source of unbiased news?

[George.]

Originally posted by Alan D. Hyde:
The Economist has sniped at President Bush and at Operation Iraqi Freedom, often has an elitist (unAmerican) point of view, and is not terribly uncomfortable with British socialism.
Well, it vigorously supported the invasion of Iraq, but disagreed with the disastrous follow-up "strategy". It supported Bush, but criticizes his mistakes - especially when he drifts off true free-market conservative economic policy, as in deficits and protectionism.

I did say they were technical and not dogmatic...

But it is funny that you think they are not conservative. Most lefties hate them, except when they favour the legalization of drugs! :D

On the other hand, if you define any non-American point of view as elitist, even from a British periodical, then I can't help you.

[Alan D. Hyde]

I mean, George, unAmerican in the sense that there is an elitist rather than an egalitarian undercurrent in much of the thinking there.

I am any man's equal here, before God and the law, although if I can't learn something of value from almost anyone else, it's likely my own fault...

BUT, I'm no man's better.

We don't, at our best, judge people here by where they've come from.

What we DO care about, is what they've made of themselves.

Alan

[George.]

Alan, you are one of the few conservatives in the bilge that can articulate their ideas without demeaning them...

But you must admit, conservative economic thought (and I agree with most of it) IS a bit elitist, in its assumption that some folks will rise through hard work and merit, and the rest... is the rest.

Darwinian, but true. And elitist, but so is reality.

[High C]

Originally posted by George.:
[QB]...But you must admit, conservative economic thought (and I agree with most of it) IS a bit elitist, in its assumption that some folks will rise through hard work and merit.../QB]Not just some, most.

[George.]

OK, most, at least in your country and mine - the world as a whole is a dismal place. But most rise just a little bit each generation. A few rise spectacularly. And more than a few sink under their own weight.

All that in a pure Adam Smith economy, of course. In the real world there is a lot of unfair play...

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

George, I fancy Alan's view of "The Economist" may have been affected by their waning enthusiasm for his President, as manifested in their current edition. They damn his foreign policy with faint praise, and rightly condemn his fiscal profligacy.

The Economist is really a pure Liberal (in the nineteenth century sense of the word) publication - it is for hard money and free trade, combined with a "hands off" approach to other matters, as witness its view of drugs. I am avoiding the word "libertarian" as this has become associated with gun-toting idiots.

Alan, I am having a little difficulty, as an Englishman, with the notion of a conservative who is not in some sense at least also an elitist.

Taking myself as an example, whilst politically I am a Liberal Democrat (not the same thing as a "liberal" in the USA, and much closer to the Economist's position) I am unquestionably socially conservative, in matters of dress, of conduct and so forth. My children eat at the family table, go to church, and are expected to behave in a civilised manner. I even belong to a London Club which excludes "lady associates" (there are no lady Members) from the Bar, though I regret to say that we have now admitted them to the Dining Room.

This would certainly be regarded as elitist by many people; indeed, my sister is one of them.

[George.]

Originally posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett:
I even belong to a London Club which excludes "lady associates" (there are no lady Members) from the Bar...This would certainly be regarded as elitist by many people; I don't know if it is elitist, but it certainly no fun! :D

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

I've just noticed something.

Alan, you write:


Friedman's thinking is the sunlight of present-day economics.

yet you propose to vote for GW Bush. JF Kerry, on the other hand, has a record of supporting deficit reduction.

Would it be impertinent to ask you to explain how you reconcile these two positions?

[ 09-03-2004, 06:59 AM: Message edited by: Andrew Craig-Bennett ]

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Originally posted by George.:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett:
I even belong to a London Club which excludes "lady associates" (there are no lady Members) from the Bar...This would certainly be regarded as elitist by many people; I don't know if it is elitist, but it certainly no fun! :D </font>[/QUOTE]There are of course other "Clubs", of an utterly different nature, which discourage ladies in general, and wives in particular, from entering the bar, because they have other "ladies" already there. Can be fun, but definitely expensive. :D

[High C]

Originally posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett:
...JF Kerry, on the other hand, has a record of supporting deficit reduction.Whoa! Where'd you get that idea? :eek:

[ 09-03-2004, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: High C ]

[Alan D. Hyde]

Andrew, if George W. Bush would spend a morning in conversation with Milton Friedman, it might do Mr. Bush's thinking on these matters a world of good...

Alan

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

There, Alan, we are in entire agreement!

[Andrew Craig-Bennett]

Originally posted by High C:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett:
...JF Kerry, on the other hand, has a record of supporting deficit reduction.Whoa! Where'd you get that idea? :eek: </font>[/QUOTE]Why, High C, I got it right here:


Early in his Senate career in 1986, John signed on to the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Bill, and he fought for balanced budgets before it was considered politically correct for Democrats to do so.
Of course, that fellow Zell Miller is a tad unreliable... ;)

[High C]

Originally posted by Andrew Craig-Bennett:
Early in his Senate career in 1986, John signed on to the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Bill...True, but he then proceeded, along with the rest of the then majority (guess who), to violate the terms of Gramm-Rudman year after year. These same deficit hawks finally repealed Gramm-Rudman.

[ 09-03-2004, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: High C ]