Originally Posted by Tom Mazanec

I surf this site more or less often depending both on what is happening in the world (bigger headlines make me come here more) and in my own life (distractions make me come less often). I have pretty much posted my own opinions on where we are in the cycle, so I mostly post when I see an article related to my fears of flashpoints like Korea or Kashmir.

Tom,

I love your information on Korea. I read almost everything you post. You scare the crap out of me, but I really appreciate it.

BTW, my best friend is getting married next Spring, in Pusan, South Korea and I'm the best man. Considering he lives in the Battery Park City neighborhood (in Manhattan) and I was visiting him on the morning of September 11th, I'm a little concerned (irrationally perhaps!) about going to Korea. My friend even admits that I'm bad luck.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

ooh that smell
can't you smell that smell
ooh that smell
can't you smell that smell
the smell of death surrounds you

Virgil, I wouldn't be smoking too much of that stuff you have mistaken for Timothy hay.

--Croak

Tristan, the Right-Leaning Fox News has surpassed the Left-Leaning CNN in the Cable News ratings, but that's all I can think of. Well, for the broadcast networks, the left-leaning but slightly more centrist NBC draws higher news ratings than the further left CBS and ABC. For local news channels in the Twin Cities, the FOX-9 (KMSP) news at 10 PM has higher ratings than the ABC-5 (KSTP) news at 10. As always, however, NBC-11 (KARE) and CBS-4 (WCCO) still rule local news up here. BTW, Channel 9's surpassing Channel 5 has much more to do with the parent networks' ideologies (and the fact that ABC sucks) than with the local news affilliate's coverage.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...sion_politics/

Laid-back Californians' new obsession: politics

By Yvonne Abraham, Globe Staff, 8/24/2003

RIVERSIDE, Calif. -- A local granite supplier, Fred Smith, will gladly tell you what's bigger than the California recall.

Nothing.

The murder case of the 20th century? Nope. O. J. Simpson's trial was peanuts compared with the hullaballoo over the Oct. 7 vote on whether to unseat Governor Gray Davis, Smith said.

The rape case of the year? Not even close. Lakers star Kobe Bryant's tribulations have slipped to the bottom of newscasts.

"This is a big case," Smith said, taking his lunch break at a table in the shade in Riverside's Main Street plaza. "The recall is making history. Then you've got a lot of key players running. It's prevalent. Just like dinner on the table, it's there."

And with great gusto, Californians are eating it all up: the superstar candidacy of Arnold Schwarzenegger, the graphic accounts of the state's budget woes, the cavalcade of minor celebrities the ballot has gathered.

The recall is everywhere, all over local television, and in the streets, the dog parks, the cafes, the bars. It unites strangers in pride, bemusement, embarrassment, outrage. Suddenly, California has become New Hampshire in a presidential year. Residents have strong opinions about the candidates; and they're conscious of their power to make or break a major politician's career while the whole world watches.

California's political analysts -- busier than ever -- say they have never seen anything like it.

"It's almost like the whole state is watching a car wreck," said a Democratic consultant, Bill Carrick. "People are fascinated by it, and they're engrossed in all the little details, but at the same time, it repulses them a little bit. This is totally unlike anything that ever happens in California politically. We're always covering entertainment and car chases, and the right sunscreen to use. All of that has been pushed aside for politics, of all things."

"I've been on CNN more in the last two weeks than in the last two years," said Allan Hoffenblum, publisher of a California elections guide and a Republican consultant. "I'm sitting here talking to NPR in Scandinavia. . . . Everyone from Bangor to Bangkok knows Arnold Schwarzenegger is running for governor of California."

A measure of just how big the recall is in these parts: Politics is California's new small talk.

Snatches of conversations about Schwarzenegger fill the air. The talk is on a transcontinental flight ("His wife is so smart, she wouldn't marry a dummy," says a middle-aged woman). It's on a Beverly Hills street ("But he's not going to win, is he?" says a worried-looking man). It hits a news conference ("He made me care about politics again," says a buff reporter from a muscle magazine).

Only Election Day will tell whether the interest is wider than it is deep. And some Californians are worrying that the celebrity buzz is making a punch line out of their state.

"It's embarrassing!" Adrienne Higgins, a 69-year-old, said on a recent afternoon while perched on steps in the sun at Santa Monica Pier with her sister Marian Blount, who is 65. Both are lifelong Democrats.

When the topic of the recall was broached, the sisters said, "Oh my," and raised their hands to their mouths, apparently in unison.

Higgins, a West Los Angeles resident, has lived in the city since 1947. And, she said, she is used to people making her state the butt of national jokes. But this recall goes too far, even for California.

"There's a joke that if you tilt the country, all the nuts and fruitcakes fall to the West Coast," Higgins said. "That's not true -- we have brilliant people here, brilliant colleges, diverse cultures --but all this nonsense absolutely reinforces" the state's image.

Blount, equally embarrassed by the cavalcade of 135 candidates the race has attracted -- a former child star, a porn actress, a comedian noted for smashing melons with his head, and a legion of self-promoters and kooky gadflies -- admitted after a while that she had signed the recall petition, because Davis had "not done the job he was elected to do."

"It's historic, and it's about time the politicians understand people have had enough," she said, "even though we have to go to these stupid lengths. Maybe I'm dreaming, but maybe the tide will blow towards Washington, and people will realize George W. Bush is the next recall candidate."

But she said all bets are off --and her optimism is hopelessly misplaced -- if Schwarzenegger is elected.

"Let him answer some questions!" Blount said. "He's goofy! He's not qualified! He hired Rob Lowe? From the `West Wing,' he's got experience? If Schwarzenegger gets in, we'll know people want funny money and fantasy land."

According to Field Poll results released about a week ago, 54 percent of voters surveyed -- including more than a quarter of the voters who, like Blount, support the recall -- agreed that the election had made California a laughingstock.

"They don't like to be the butt of national jokes," said Mark DiCamillo, director of the Field Poll. "But they do like the opportunity to recall the governor, and that it might attract more voters to the polls, and increase voter awareness to the seriousness of California's problems."

Of course, there are also plenty of locals who see the recall as a cause for great civic pride.

"I don't think it's a circus," said Shawn Steel, former chairman of the state Republican Party, who helped launch the recall. "What we have here is a populist, middle class rebellion that's a lot of fun. The circus is an East Coast elitist liberal media invention to demean a serious political revolt that's succeeding and, the good news is, spreading. It's everywhere, in every coffee shop. This is the way democracy ought to be, and it's driving the power elites in both parties mad."

On Oct. 7, Californians will go to the polls to decide two things: first, they will vote yes or no on recalling Davis, which requires a simple majority. Second, regardless of their vote on the first question, they will choose the person to replace the sitting governor, who will win with a plurality.

Californians are as passionate about the first question as they are about the second. In conversations with ordinary people, anger toward Davis is as strong as the fascination with Schwarzenegger.

In Riverside, none of the voters who said they felt strongly about the race cited the actor's presence as the main reason for their intense interest. Instead, they said, Davis's shortcomings have galvanized them. Voter after voter said the governor was responsible for the state's enormous deficit, at one point pegged at $38 billion, but now about $8 billion after cuts and tax and fee increases.

Long before Schwarzenegger and the circus arrived, one of 35 California residents signed the petition to support the recall, which garnered more than 1 million signatures.

"This is special because he ripped us off," said Rebecca Fleeman, 52, who seemed to be in a hurry on Riverside's Main Street on a humid afternoon -- until the topic of the recall was raised.

"They tripled" car registration fees, Fleeman said. "We've never been in this much debt. Yes, we're mad, because he doesn't know how to handle our money."

Fleeman, and many other voters in Riverside, saw no need to speak the name of Davis in conversations about the recall. Everybody knows who "he" is around here.

Though he has been in the race for little more than two weeks, and though he has yet to outline specific policy proposals beyond his commitment to holding down taxes and spending, Schwarzenegger was the main beneficiary of an animus toward Davis. Among locals, Fleeman said the actor already has her vote.

On the sticky patio at Lake Alice, a Riverside bar, it was porn star Mary "Mary Carey" Cook, rather than the "Terminator" star, who had folks shaking their heads in disgust at the recall.

"Here we are in California, and who do we have running?" asked Melinda-Ann Kolenski, 32, a cook who was sitting with three of her friends. "A porn star. California looks like a joke. Every state is laughing at us."

"Every guy is gonna vote for her," piped up Shawn Dye, 36, who had been sitting alone at a nearby table, and who had been silent until then. Kolenski and friends invited Dye to join them; the recall talk forged a brief friendship where there might otherwise have been no connection.

Dye said she was not sure about the actor either.

"I don't really follow politics, but what with everything going on, I see Arnold Schwarzenegger on TV saying, `I'm for the American people,' and to me I think it would be a mockery if people pick him. What does he know about politics?" asked Dye, a single mother and a waitress at a pancake house.

Several people at the table, who had identified themselves as liberal, responded with the Republican actor's campaign theme, which he has been sounding in $1 million worth of 60-second television spots since Wednesday: Because he doesn't need money from anyone, he will represent ordinary people, not the special interests.

All of them, including Dye, said they would vote on Oct. 7, but few analysts are sure that the enormous enthusiasm for the recall spectacle would extend to the polling booths. A high turnout would mark a significant departure from the state's voting patterns of recent years. The secretary of state's office has reported a marked increase in online registrations since the recall began, with 31,000 new voters. Statewide figures on other registrations will not be available until September.

"You have a big celebrity running for high office and that's very sexy," said Philip Trounstine, director of the Survey and Policy research institute at San Jose State University and a former communications director for Davis. "California voters may be sort of interested and bemused, but it's hard to sense that they're excited about the issues facing state government. It's very superficial."

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepu...azcalif10.html

Home-state mess amazing to 'Calizonans'

Joseph A. Reaves
The Arizona Republic
Aug. 10, 2003 12:00 AM

The circus looks just as wacky from this side of the Colorado River.

Transplanted Californians living in Arizona are as amazed as anyone about the recall election under way in their former home state, where an Austrian-born actor, a pint-size sitcom star from the '70s and a lifelong porn peddler are among the candidates to become the next governor.

"I'm sorry California is a laughingstock, but they did it to themselves," said Julie Lee, 39, of Anthem. "They got what they deserve."

Lee is one of more than a quarter-million former Californians who have moved to Arizona since 1995. She and her husband came for the same reason many others did, to find affordable housing.

But an added blessing for many was simply getting away from the sometimes farcical politics of their home state.

"My personal observation is that the sky is a different color over California. Always has been, always will be," said Harry B. Ryon, a former Los Angeles police officer who moved to Mesa in 1999.

"Quite frankly, I am afraid of the future of the state. The slate of candidates is scary."

Scary is one word that comes up among ex-Californians talking about the recall. But more often they consider it a joke or an embarrassment - a circus.

"We've been talking about it all day. It's just . . . it just takes my breath away. It's so weird," said Jeff Chapman, 57, director of the School of Public Affairs at Arizona State University.

Chapman moved to Scottsdale from California in 1999 for economic reasons. He got a better job. He doesn't have any high-minded notions that Arizona is an inherently better place than California. But he does think the recall is a bizarre, potentially dangerous sideshow.

"This is one California habit that I sincerely hope doesn't spread to Arizona. It's a circus. I mean, just look, you've got Larry Flynt, the porn guy, in the race."

Flynt, longtime publisher of Hustler magazine, is little more than a bit player in the recall show. The real star, of course, is macho-man Arnold Schwarzenegger, the movie action hero and former Mr. Universe.

"I don't think Arnold can lose," said Carol Reed, 39, an engineer from the northwest Valley, who says she moved from California because the state's politics were "way too liberal for me."

"That state is so messed up. I left there in 1988, and I've never thought of going back," she said.

Schwarzenegger's decision to enter the race last week took an already bizarre political story to new levels and kindled the interest of many, in California and out, who might otherwise ignore the recall spectacle.

"If I was to vote for anybody, I'd vote for Arnie," said Fred Long, 46, a native of San Jose, Calif., who moved to Arizona in May and sells cars for a Mesa dealership. "It's just like Jesse Ventura in Minnesota. He won't cater to the special interests."

Although he welcomes Schwarzenegger's entry into the race, Long does confess to feeling a little red-faced about how the rest of the nation seems to be snickering at a crazy cast of characters that includes Gary Coleman, the 4-foot-8 former star of the 1970s sitcom Diff'rent Strokes.

"It's very embarrassing for me to be a Californian looking back at that," he said. "God knows, I'm appalled at what's happening."

Mike Patrick, 55, and his wife, took early retirement from telecom industry jobs and moved to Scottsdale in November 2001. Patrick blames the recall election on special-interest groups and politicians coming together to do their worst in the worst possible economy.

"I think it's a perfect storm of the worst coming together," Patrick said. "Just about anything in life has good and bad, yin and yang. But this is all the bad coming together."

C.A. Okerson, 66, of Mesa, spent much of his life in Southern California. He said he gave up on his home state for the very reasons fueling the recall of Gov. Gray Davis.

"This is what happens when politics and greed take control," he said. "I could see what was happening and got out as quickly as I could liquidate."

Kathy Wong, 51, of Glendale, grew up in the Bay Area and in many ways left her heart there. She moved for economic reasons and thinks the Davis recall is a positive move.

"I think that folks in California are finally fed up with Governor Davis and have decided to do something about it," she said. "They're not afraid of forging ahead and taking action. They don't really care what the rest of the nation thinks."

But Lee, the mother of three who moved to Anthem from Republican-dominated Orange County when her husband lost his software job two years ago, said Californians do care what the rest of the nation thinks.

"Everybody says, 'California, aha, whatever, live and let live,' " she said. "But they'll start squawking and shake things up when they get angry.

"Look at what happened with Reagan. Maybe they think Arnold will do the same thing."

Ronald Reagan went from being a sidekick to a chimp in Bedtime for Bonzo to becoming governor of California and president of the United States. More than a few people in California are betting Arnold the Terminator will become Arnold the Gubernator.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by ....

Past traffic congestion here at www.fourthturning.com is dutifuly reported here:

Hey folks, that's a change of a whopping 253% in upward traffic movement!

Currently, this site is falling like the Titanic in the wake of an iceberg. It's traffic congestion is down a whopping 6,798% in the last few months.

Must mean we be 4t, eh? :-?

Dear Mr. Periodicy, are you now a Progressive Proponent of HRH Numbers XIV? Are you becoming a majoritarian? A democrat? It doesn't add up. Do the XXX sites of I, Preverted (sp?) tastes have similar mood swings?

Aw gee, I wouldn't read too much into my posts like this.
In fact, if I were you I'd be more like Brian Rush
and not read my posts at all. Not even periodically.

After all, ya don't wanna catch a virus do ya? :wink:

Originally Posted by ....

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by ....

Past traffic congestion here at www.fourthturning.com is dutifuly reported here:

Hey folks, that's a change of a whopping 253% in upward traffic movement!

Currently, this site is falling like the Titanic in the wake of an iceberg. It's traffic congestion is down a whopping 6,798% in the last few months.

Must mean we be 4t, eh? :-?

Dear Mr. Periodicy, are you now a Progressive Proponent of HRH Numbers XIV? Are you becoming a majoritarian? A democrat? It doesn't add up. Do the XXX sites of I, Preverted (sp?) tastes have similar mood swings?

Aw gee, I wouldn't read too much into my posts like this.
In fact, if I were you I'd be more like Brian Rush
and not read my posts at all. Not even periodically.

After all, ya don't wanna catch a virus do ya? :wink:

I don't think you mind my reading your posts Mr. Lamb. What you don't seem to enjoy is anyone disagreeing with your Progressive views (that this is true of many another Progressive -SH of Irak, for instance- shall not disuade me, my dear Mr. Lamb). Bow to King Numbers as you will; so many Americans now do.

"I don't think you mind my reading your posts Mr. Lamb."
Oh yes I do mind. Why else would I post at a public forum?

"What you don't seem to enjoy is anyone disagreeing
with your Progressive views..."
I rather enjoy intelligent disagreement that is without
insult (Mike Alexander and I debate all the time while
agreeing on very little. But seldom do I find petty insults
lurking in his responses)

"(that this is true of many another Progressive
-SH of Irak, for instance- shall not disuade me,
my dear Mr. Lamb)."
Saddam is my brother in Progressive arms? Lo, a house
divided against itself cannot stand. Thus I cheered his downfall.
While liberals, libertarians and paleos were mourning.
Go figure, huh?

"Bow to King Numbers as you will;
so many Americans now do. "
I haven't a clue what this means.
Though I gather your are trying to say something very, very deep and profound.

The Culture Wars and PC aren't dead yet:

This story is posted for discussion purposes only.

Zippo Snuffs Web Site Featuring Tricks
Zippo Has Snuffed a Web Site Featuring Hundreds of Tricks That Can Be Performed With Its Lighters

BRADFORD, Pa. Aug. 27 ?
Zippo has snuffed a Web site featuring hundreds of tricks that can be performed with its trademark lighters.

Officials with Bradford-based Zippo Manufacturing Co. on Monday shut down the site citing "concerns of some in the fire safety industry."

A message from Web site founder Morton Kjolberg read that "although I personally don't agree with these concerns, we have reached a point where we are left with no other alternative other than to shut zippotricks.com down."

The site detailed 555 tricks submitted by Zippo tricksters along with video demonstrations of fiery feats such as "Dante's Halo," "Devil's Kiss" and "Hogan's Leg Drop."

In June, James Shannon, head of the National Fire Protection Association, wrote to Zippo president and CEO Greg Booth asking him to shut down the site and cancel a 10-city tour of Zippo tricksters.

Shannon called the Web site and tour "dangerous and insensitive to those who have been burned by fire." (emphasis mine)

Booth and Zippo's general counsel, Jeff Duke, defended the site and tour in a July 17 Washington Post article, saying Zippo lighters were safer than other lighters or matches.

"There is no statistical support that the Zippo lighter is a dangerous tool," Duke told the paper.

Hmmm...maybe we should give up using gas to cook, after all, it uses fire, and that is dangerous and insensitive to those who have been burned by fire....we'd better disable our furnaces too...

I detest this kind of attitude! You know, I have been bitten by dogs a couple of times and don't particularly care for them other than on an individual basis. If I subscribed to this logic, then everyone should give up their dogs!

Market or Nation?
Francisco Jose Moreno
Wednesday, August 27, 2003
The globalization of the economy has become one of our primary concerns. NAFTA, WTO, the Doha Round, trade balances, productivity, export and import have joined crime, abortion and health care as items of media attention and public concern.
We were first told that the future was in trade integration with Canada and Mexico, and then with the Pacific Rim area, and then with the world; but as we move in the global direction disquieting trends appear at home.


The disproportion of income between the very rich and the rest of Americans is at an all-time high and so is the disproportion in the taxes they pay.

The industrial, well-paying jobs that traditionally allowed blue-collars workers to move up the social ladder have vanished. When overall economic indexes move up the income for most Americans remains stagnant. Job security has become a thing of the past. In addition, crime, homelessness, drug addiction and illegal immigration have become endemic.

The rosier the promises of the global economy, the starker the reality most Americans face. Perhaps it is then the right moment to ask ourselves a question: What are we, a market or a nation?


Simply saying we are both, market and nation, is no satisfactory answer. Yes, markets give rise to complementary interests and working partnerships, and nations are far from producing perfect harmony, but without deifying or demonizing either concept, the differences between market and nation are real and profound. Thus the question remains: What takes precedence, being a market or being a nation?


A market is a battleground; a nation a common undertaking. A market creates competing interests; a nation shared ones. A market is based on the pursuit of individual advantages; a nation on collective goals. If market, our relations with other Americans would be primarily based on profit - on what we can get out of each other; if nation, on common interests - on what we can accomplish together.

To the degree we view ourselves as a market we have no hesitation about teaming up with outsiders to get the best of our neighbors. To the extent we think of ourselves as a nation we protect our neighbors from outsiders.


Our present economic thinking is unconcerned with the relationship between market and nation. It is this lack of concern that produces the ambiguity with which we face our internal problems and the contradictions that now characterize our foreign policy.


For over forty five years after World War II the cold war solidified American national identity. The containment of Soviet power and the struggle against communism were our national goals.

We used our commanding economic resources to stop the Soviet Union and Marxism from dominating the world. During all those years the United States put economics at the service of politics.

Cynics might say it was the other way around, but what it is unquestionable is that the American taxpayer bankrolled the cold war to the tune of an estimated $13 trillion.

Whether the price was justified or whether the same goal could have been reached by different means are now moot questions, but the impact of that investment and its accompanying policies are highly relevant to our present circumstances.


Every war produces propaganda, profiteers, heroes and casualties. The idealization of the free market was our propaganda. We fought the lure of communism with the glorification of unrestrained economic activity. We took away from Adam Smith the ideas of his that did not fit our purpose and used the rest to oppose Karl Marx's. To the utopia of the workers' paradise we responded with the promise of complete consumer satisfaction.


The profiteers were many, not limited to the defense industries and not only American. Every trade deal, every economic policy implemented for political rather than business reasons enriched some people on bases other than their ability to compete and the fair market value of the goods and services they provided. Many American, European and Asian corporate and private fortunes were built on the back of the American taxpayer?the unsung hero of the cold war.


One of America's traditional strengths has been its pragmatism?the subordination of abstract concepts to concrete realities. Upon this outlook the values that define the nation were founded and the American system built.

If America stands for something, it is the rejection of dogma and the pedantry, arbitrariness and misery that follow in its train. Led by the demands of war propaganda to exalt the free market, we seem unable now to distinguish between its reality and its myth, between what a free market can and cannot do.


No free market is perfect. The equilibrium between supply and demand so dear to classical economists is a chimera, an abstract construct, while the practical implications of the actual imbalances produced or aggravated by uncontrolled markets are quite real.

The most successful economies the world has ever known, the United States, Western Europe, Japan and the Asian Tigers, took their strength not out of unrestrained markets, but from the practical and intelligent mixing of free and interventionist policies. There is no historical example of strong, successful and lasting economy built on the basis of unregulated market activity. None!


With the cold war over, our economic ideas and trade policies need reexamination. The time for propaganda is past. It is now time for a calm and accurate taking of stock. We must make sure that realistic thinking replaces partisan rhetoric and that narrow interests, be they business or political, are not taken for the common good.

The goal is the preservation of the United States as a viable and strong country and of the values and beliefs it has come to embody. The economic policies we adopt are the means. These policies must be practical efforts to protect and improve the conditions under which we live. The market is to serve the nation and not the other way around.


We must begin by acknowledging that current economic thinking and policy are the leftovers of ideological warfare, and that the ongoing popularity of some economic terms, ideas and clich?s is based not on the sound understanding of economic reality but on the emergence of an "economic correctness" that is theoretically opposed but psychologically identical to the "political correctness" of militant liberalism.


Our economic discourse has become cluttered with terms, assumptions and numbers that obscure rather than clarify the situation we face and the options we have. We are bombarded with economic information as never before.

Regular news broadcasts now include, often as lead items, reports on consumption and production indexes, employment statistics, trade figures, interest rates, GDP projections and a myriad of related items. Most people cannot process this wealth of information.

To compound our confusion we are told that the country is coming out of a recession, but that the good jobs are not coming back; that the inevitable global economy holds the key to a prosperous future, but that this future cannot be guaranteed to our children; that our productivity is up, but that most of us work longer and make less than before.


The international expansion of trade - exporting, importing and establishing manufacturing and service facilities in different parts of the world - as presently advocated by big business and establishment economists has one set of clear winners: those acquiring new markets and choosing their operating conditions. They produce where labor is cheap and sell where the highest paying customers are. The advantages to producers of goods and deliverers of services are clear. What about the consumers?


The benefit to consumers, in theory, is that they are provided with alternatives for the satisfaction of their needs and wants. Their choice is multiplied, and their ability to get the most or the best for the least is increased. Such an assumption contains, however, one key component: to avail themselves of the benefits of free trade consumers must retain their purchasing power - they must have money.

Without money to buy, consumers cannot take advantage of the benefits of a free market. To have this money, they need jobs. Hence the dilemma emerges. Employers want to reduce costs and increase profits. To accomplish this, they fire full-time employees, hire new part-time or temporary ones or go abroad after cheaper labor and looser environmental controls. In theory the jobs lost in some sectors are made up by the creation of jobs in others, the new jobs being equivalent in number and quality to the old ones. In theory overall wealth increases and spills over all of society. In theory.


Practice tells us something else. As well-paying jobs vanish they are not replaced by equivalent ones. Either unemployment, underemployment, or both emerge. It is of no help to the individuals affected or to the country that the jobs lost here go to increase the profits of the company or provide employment somewhere else. But the defenders of unrestricted trade tell us that it shouldn't matter, better still, that it is good for us.


The defenders of unrestricted trade don't give enough weight to some facts:

a) that since overseas workers are paid less than American workers were paid, the total amount of money going now for wages is only a fraction of what it was before. If an Indonesian worker is paid $1 an hour for a job for which an American worker was paid $10, the overall amount put in the hands of employees to consume, in their country or any place else, is less than it was;

b) that the increased company profits go to a very small number of people: owners, stockholders and executives. The money now in their pockets is put to different uses than if it had remained in the hands of employees. That is, with the same amount with which six employees would have bought Fords, a company executive buys a Mercedes, and large amounts of wages-turned-into-profits go into financial transactions, speculation and real estate investment that create little employment anywhere;

c) that there is no guarantee that any of the wealth created in other countries by eliminating jobs here will find its way back to us. To attract that money, we have to have either something no one else has, or produce something cheaper than anyone else. The first means technological advantage and the second cheap labor. Advantages in technology, if we follow unrestricted free trade logic, cannot be kept within the confines of the country; becoming a source of cheap labor implies third-world living conditions.


We are already, in fact, showing some of the symptoms of third-world countries: a deteriorating middle class, a widening gap between rich and poor, incurable poverty in a sizable portion of the population, ineffective educational and health care systems, pockets of uncontrollable violence, a frustrated citizenry and, most ominous of all, the increasing interference, through unrestricted lobbying, of foreign interests in the determination of our policies.


The higher reluctance of Europe and Japan to accept the primacy of the market over national interests and their lingering attachment to interventionist and protective devices are attempts to prevent what is happening to us, efforts to keep their economies at the service of their societies.

When our negotiators and representatives ask them to put commitment to free trade above national concerns they often balk. We would be well served to realize their reasons for putting political and social realities above theoretical economic considerations. Instead we seem ready to enshrine an economic fantasy?leave the market alone and as the wealthy get wealthier their wealth will spill over, trickle down, to the rest of society.


We don't have to go into everything that is wrong or self-serving with this view. It should be enough to point out that in actuality whatever spills over doesn't reach all, or even much, of society; that implementing this theory widens the gap between rich and poor; that it undermines national security by encouraging the sale of defense-related industries and technology to foreign buyers; that it cripples the middle class through unemployment, underemployment and disproportionate taxation; that it places politicians at the mercy of money; that through crime, inadequate education and lack of opportunity it condemns the poor to inescapable abject conditions of living; that it is ultimately detrimental to the stability, and hence security, of the nation.


To accept ideas and practices that weaken the country economically and socially is suicidal. Freedom can only exist and prosper within bounds and regulations. Without these limits we don't have freedom but anarchy. Economic activity is no exception to the rule.

The concept of a free market is being turned from a constructive and practical idea concerning the management of the economy into an article of faith?into a dogma; a dogma that promises universal prosperity in the future while heavily tilting the balance in favor of privileged minorities in the present and whose adoption as governing principle places the interests of some above the interests of the nation.


The abandonment of our traditional economic pragmatism cannot but beget internal dissension, and dissension, if unchecked, moves towards a point where whatever holds the nation together snaps.

Any economic policy that increases or perpetuates social tensions, that favors a minority in detriment of the majority, that despoils the middle class, that puts foreign interests above American, erodes the integrity of the country and contributes to eventual internal disorder. Nations are dynamic entities and when they are not united in the pursuit of common goals, their different components tend to drift apart.

Taking national cohesion for granted is foolish?and dangerous.


The idea that profitable commercial intercourse across borders can only prosper and benefit the participants if conducted under unhindered corporate control is, in terms of both experience and theory, nonsense. Nonsense because profitable international trade has gone on for thousands of years under many different conditions.

Totally unrestricted trade, by putting the interests of a few above the welfare of the nation, undermines political stability throughout the world and places America?s future in jeopardy. Our world is organized on the bases of national institutions, loyalties and commitments, and there is no viable substitute for them in sight.

An unrestricted free market undermines the very political, legal and social structures it requires to exist. Any international economic arrangement that is unresponsive to the need for political and legal order subverts the very conditions that make a free market, and a free society, possible.

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

Francisco Jos? Moreno, President of the Strategic Assessments Institute, Agoura Hills, CA.

Former Chairman of the New York University?s Political Science Department; Lecturer on Economics at UC Berkeley; and Vice-President of Philip Morris International. He is the author of three books, over thirty academic articles and a frequent contributor to American newspapers.

Contact: fjm@strategicasssessments.com

Market or Nation?
Francisco Jose Moreno
Wednesday, August 27, 2003
The globalization of the economy has become one of our primary concerns. NAFTA, WTO, the Doha Round, trade balances, productivity, export and import have joined crime, abortion and health care as items of media attention and public concern.
We were first told that the future was in trade integration with Canada and Mexico, and then with the Pacific Rim area, and then with the world; but as we move in the global direction disquieting trends appear at home.


The disproportion of income between the very rich and the rest of Americans is at an all-time high and so is the disproportion in the taxes they pay.

The industrial, well-paying jobs that traditionally allowed blue-collars workers to move up the social ladder have vanished. When overall economic indexes move up the income for most Americans remains stagnant. Job security has become a thing of the past. In addition, crime, homelessness, drug addiction and illegal immigration have become endemic.

The rosier the promises of the global economy, the starker the reality most Americans face. Perhaps it is then the right moment to ask ourselves a question: What are we, a market or a nation?


Simply saying we are both, market and nation, is no satisfactory answer. Yes, markets give rise to complementary interests and working partnerships, and nations are far from producing perfect harmony, but without deifying or demonizing either concept, the differences between market and nation are real and profound. Thus the question remains: What takes precedence, being a market or being a nation?


A market is a battleground; a nation a common undertaking. A market creates competing interests; a nation shared ones. A market is based on the pursuit of individual advantages; a nation on collective goals. If market, our relations with other Americans would be primarily based on profit - on what we can get out of each other; if nation, on common interests - on what we can accomplish together.

To the degree we view ourselves as a market we have no hesitation about teaming up with outsiders to get the best of our neighbors. To the extent we think of ourselves as a nation we protect our neighbors from outsiders.


Our present economic thinking is unconcerned with the relationship between market and nation. It is this lack of concern that produces the ambiguity with which we face our internal problems and the contradictions that now characterize our foreign policy.


For over forty five years after World War II the cold war solidified American national identity. The containment of Soviet power and the struggle against communism were our national goals.

We used our commanding economic resources to stop the Soviet Union and Marxism from dominating the world. During all those years the United States put economics at the service of politics.

Cynics might say it was the other way around, but what it is unquestionable is that the American taxpayer bankrolled the cold war to the tune of an estimated $13 trillion.

Whether the price was justified or whether the same goal could have been reached by different means are now moot questions, but the impact of that investment and its accompanying policies are highly relevant to our present circumstances.


Every war produces propaganda, profiteers, heroes and casualties. The idealization of the free market was our propaganda. We fought the lure of communism with the glorification of unrestrained economic activity. We took away from Adam Smith the ideas of his that did not fit our purpose and used the rest to oppose Karl Marx's. To the utopia of the workers' paradise we responded with the promise of complete consumer satisfaction.


The profiteers were many, not limited to the defense industries and not only American. Every trade deal, every economic policy implemented for political rather than business reasons enriched some people on bases other than their ability to compete and the fair market value of the goods and services they provided. Many American, European and Asian corporate and private fortunes were built on the back of the American taxpayer?the unsung hero of the cold war.


One of America's traditional strengths has been its pragmatism?the subordination of abstract concepts to concrete realities. Upon this outlook the values that define the nation were founded and the American system built.

If America stands for something, it is the rejection of dogma and the pedantry, arbitrariness and misery that follow in its train. Led by the demands of war propaganda to exalt the free market, we seem unable now to distinguish between its reality and its myth, between what a free market can and cannot do.


No free market is perfect. The equilibrium between supply and demand so dear to classical economists is a chimera, an abstract construct, while the practical implications of the actual imbalances produced or aggravated by uncontrolled markets are quite real.

The most successful economies the world has ever known, the United States, Western Europe, Japan and the Asian Tigers, took their strength not out of unrestrained markets, but from the practical and intelligent mixing of free and interventionist policies. There is no historical example of strong, successful and lasting economy built on the basis of unregulated market activity. None!


With the cold war over, our economic ideas and trade policies need reexamination. The time for propaganda is past. It is now time for a calm and accurate taking of stock. We must make sure that realistic thinking replaces partisan rhetoric and that narrow interests, be they business or political, are not taken for the common good.

The goal is the preservation of the United States as a viable and strong country and of the values and beliefs it has come to embody. The economic policies we adopt are the means. These policies must be practical efforts to protect and improve the conditions under which we live. The market is to serve the nation and not the other way around.


We must begin by acknowledging that current economic thinking and policy are the leftovers of ideological warfare, and that the ongoing popularity of some economic terms, ideas and clich?s is based not on the sound understanding of economic reality but on the emergence of an "economic correctness" that is theoretically opposed but psychologically identical to the "political correctness" of militant liberalism.


Our economic discourse has become cluttered with terms, assumptions and numbers that obscure rather than clarify the situation we face and the options we have. We are bombarded with economic information as never before.

Regular news broadcasts now include, often as lead items, reports on consumption and production indexes, employment statistics, trade figures, interest rates, GDP projections and a myriad of related items. Most people cannot process this wealth of information.

To compound our confusion we are told that the country is coming out of a recession, but that the good jobs are not coming back; that the inevitable global economy holds the key to a prosperous future, but that this future cannot be guaranteed to our children; that our productivity is up, but that most of us work longer and make less than before.


The international expansion of trade - exporting, importing and establishing manufacturing and service facilities in different parts of the world - as presently advocated by big business and establishment economists has one set of clear winners: those acquiring new markets and choosing their operating conditions. They produce where labor is cheap and sell where the highest paying customers are. The advantages to producers of goods and deliverers of services are clear. What about the consumers?


The benefit to consumers, in theory, is that they are provided with alternatives for the satisfaction of their needs and wants. Their choice is multiplied, and their ability to get the most or the best for the least is increased. Such an assumption contains, however, one key component: to avail themselves of the benefits of free trade consumers must retain their purchasing power - they must have money.

Without money to buy, consumers cannot take advantage of the benefits of a free market. To have this money, they need jobs. Hence the dilemma emerges. Employers want to reduce costs and increase profits. To accomplish this, they fire full-time employees, hire new part-time or temporary ones or go abroad after cheaper labor and looser environmental controls. In theory the jobs lost in some sectors are made up by the creation of jobs in others, the new jobs being equivalent in number and quality to the old ones. In theory overall wealth increases and spills over all of society. In theory.


Practice tells us something else. As well-paying jobs vanish they are not replaced by equivalent ones. Either unemployment, underemployment, or both emerge. It is of no help to the individuals affected or to the country that the jobs lost here go to increase the profits of the company or provide employment somewhere else. But the defenders of unrestricted trade tell us that it shouldn't matter, better still, that it is good for us.


The defenders of unrestricted trade don't give enough weight to some facts:

a) that since overseas workers are paid less than American workers were paid, the total amount of money going now for wages is only a fraction of what it was before. If an Indonesian worker is paid $1 an hour for a job for which an American worker was paid $10, the overall amount put in the hands of employees to consume, in their country or any place else, is less than it was;

b) that the increased company profits go to a very small number of people: owners, stockholders and executives. The money now in their pockets is put to different uses than if it had remained in the hands of employees. That is, with the same amount with which six employees would have bought Fords, a company executive buys a Mercedes, and large amounts of wages-turned-into-profits go into financial transactions, speculation and real estate investment that create little employment anywhere;

c) that there is no guarantee that any of the wealth created in other countries by eliminating jobs here will find its way back to us. To attract that money, we have to have either something no one else has, or produce something cheaper than anyone else. The first means technological advantage and the second cheap labor. Advantages in technology, if we follow unrestricted free trade logic, cannot be kept within the confines of the country; becoming a source of cheap labor implies third-world living conditions.


We are already, in fact, showing some of the symptoms of third-world countries: a deteriorating middle class, a widening gap between rich and poor, incurable poverty in a sizable portion of the population, ineffective educational and health care systems, pockets of uncontrollable violence, a frustrated citizenry and, most ominous of all, the increasing interference, through unrestricted lobbying, of foreign interests in the determination of our policies.


The higher reluctance of Europe and Japan to accept the primacy of the market over national interests and their lingering attachment to interventionist and protective devices are attempts to prevent what is happening to us, efforts to keep their economies at the service of their societies.

When our negotiators and representatives ask them to put commitment to free trade above national concerns they often balk. We would be well served to realize their reasons for putting political and social realities above theoretical economic considerations. Instead we seem ready to enshrine an economic fantasy?leave the market alone and as the wealthy get wealthier their wealth will spill over, trickle down, to the rest of society.


We don't have to go into everything that is wrong or self-serving with this view. It should be enough to point out that in actuality whatever spills over doesn't reach all, or even much, of society; that implementing this theory widens the gap between rich and poor; that it undermines national security by encouraging the sale of defense-related industries and technology to foreign buyers; that it cripples the middle class through unemployment, underemployment and disproportionate taxation; that it places politicians at the mercy of money; that through crime, inadequate education and lack of opportunity it condemns the poor to inescapable abject conditions of living; that it is ultimately detrimental to the stability, and hence security, of the nation.


To accept ideas and practices that weaken the country economically and socially is suicidal. Freedom can only exist and prosper within bounds and regulations. Without these limits we don't have freedom but anarchy. Economic activity is no exception to the rule.

The concept of a free market is being turned from a constructive and practical idea concerning the management of the economy into an article of faith?into a dogma; a dogma that promises universal prosperity in the future while heavily tilting the balance in favor of privileged minorities in the present and whose adoption as governing principle places the interests of some above the interests of the nation.


The abandonment of our traditional economic pragmatism cannot but beget internal dissension, and dissension, if unchecked, moves towards a point where whatever holds the nation together snaps.

Any economic policy that increases or perpetuates social tensions, that favors a minority in detriment of the majority, that despoils the middle class, that puts foreign interests above American, erodes the integrity of the country and contributes to eventual internal disorder. Nations are dynamic entities and when they are not united in the pursuit of common goals, their different components tend to drift apart.

Taking national cohesion for granted is foolish?and dangerous.


The idea that profitable commercial intercourse across borders can only prosper and benefit the participants if conducted under unhindered corporate control is, in terms of both experience and theory, nonsense. Nonsense because profitable international trade has gone on for thousands of years under many different conditions.

Totally unrestricted trade, by putting the interests of a few above the welfare of the nation, undermines political stability throughout the world and places America?s future in jeopardy. Our world is organized on the bases of national institutions, loyalties and commitments, and there is no viable substitute for them in sight.

An unrestricted free market undermines the very political, legal and social structures it requires to exist. Any international economic arrangement that is unresponsive to the need for political and legal order subverts the very conditions that make a free market, and a free society, possible.

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

Francisco Jos? Moreno, President of the Strategic Assessments Institute, Agoura Hills, CA.

Former Chairman of the New York University?s Political Science Department; Lecturer on Economics at UC Berkeley; and Vice-President of Philip Morris International. He is the author of three books, over thirty academic articles and a frequent contributor to American newspapers.

Contact: fjm@strategicasssessments.com

Dave:

What a crock!

Let me simply confront some of Moreno's argument's more egregious faults:

A market is a battleground; a nation a common undertaking...To the degree we view ourselves as a market we have no hesitation about teaming up with outsiders to get the best of our neighbors.

He has this completely backwards. A market is the environment created by individuals conducting trade with each other. Trade takes place only when all parties involved perceive some personal benefit in foregoing what they currently have in exchange for what the other party is willing to give them. In commerce, both parties win. When we team up with another in a market, it is to be able to best serve our neighbors (and everyone else) -- offering them the highest perceived value for their current holdings; getting those holdings for ourselves in the exchange. Nations insist that some must suffer so that others may benefit (consider the softwood tariff pitting the interests of timber producers in the country directly against the interests of timber consumers within the country), markets exist to the benefit of all participants.

No free market is perfect. The equilibrium between supply and demand so dear to classical economists is a chimera, an abstract construct, while the practical implications of the actual imbalances produced or aggravated by uncontrolled markets are quite real.

A non sequitor. The concept of equilibrium in real life is a fantasty once held by the classical economists (along with the need for an objective valuatino in exchange, for example). Any more, it is used by the opponents of laissez faire. The proponents of free commerce reject it as an unrealizable construct in a world of discrete actors. Imbalance is a necessary component of existence; to fight it is to rail against the tides.

There is no historical example of strong, successful and lasting economy built on the basis of unregulated market activity.

Equally, there is no historical record of a strong, successful, and lasting economy built on any controlled basis. Even more, there is really no historical record of an economy build on laissez faire ever having been in existence for any length of time. On the other hand, those ages and locales wherein the division of labor has been least restricted have been among the more prosperous.

to avail themselves of the benefits of free trade consumers must retain their purchasing power - they must have money....Without money to buy, consumers cannot take advantage of the benefits of a free market. To have this money, they need jobs.

The equation of purchasing power with money is fallacious. To partake of the fruits of a market, one must bring something of one's own to trade. That is, to consume, one must produce. Money is by definition, the most marketable commodity; it must be obtained in the first place by trading something produced. Without producing, consumption is restricted. The market relies, not on money, but on production to satisfy wants. So long as wants are unrestricted (a fair assumption), opportunities for production are equally unrestricted. "Jobs" do not provide for consumption.

________________________

"But murdering men is a paltry way to benefit them indeed, and when we calculate the expenditures for such warfare we find that they have crippled the basis of the nation's livelihood and exhausted the resources of the people to an incalculable degree." -- Mo Tzu

Dave:

What a crock!

Let me simply confront some of Moreno's argument's more egregious faults:

A market is a battleground; a nation a common undertaking...To the degree we view ourselves as a market we have no hesitation about teaming up with outsiders to get the best of our neighbors.

He has this completely backwards. A market is the environment created by individuals conducting trade with each other. Trade takes place only when all parties involved perceive some personal benefit in foregoing what they currently have in exchange for what the other party is willing to give them. In commerce, both parties win. When we team up with another in a market, it is to be able to best serve our neighbors (and everyone else) -- offering them the highest perceived value for their current holdings; getting those holdings for ourselves in the exchange. Nations insist that some must suffer so that others may benefit (consider the softwood tariff pitting the interests of timber producers in the country directly against the interests of timber consumers within the country), markets exist to the benefit of all participants.

No free market is perfect. The equilibrium between supply and demand so dear to classical economists is a chimera, an abstract construct, while the practical implications of the actual imbalances produced or aggravated by uncontrolled markets are quite real.

A non sequitor. The concept of equilibrium in real life is a fantasty once held by the classical economists (along with the need for an objective valuatino in exchange, for example). Any more, it is used by the opponents of laissez faire. The proponents of free commerce reject it as an unrealizable construct in a world of discrete actors. Imbalance is a necessary component of existence; to fight it is to rail against the tides.

There is no historical example of strong, successful and lasting economy built on the basis of unregulated market activity.

Equally, there is no historical record of a strong, successful, and lasting economy built on any controlled basis. Even more, there is really no historical record of an economy build on laissez faire ever having been in existence for any length of time. On the other hand, those ages and locales wherein the division of labor has been least restricted have been among the more prosperous.

to avail themselves of the benefits of free trade consumers must retain their purchasing power - they must have money....Without money to buy, consumers cannot take advantage of the benefits of a free market. To have this money, they need jobs.

The equation of purchasing power with money is fallacious. To partake of the fruits of a market, one must bring something of one's own to trade. That is, to consume, one must produce. Money is by definition, the most marketable commodity; it must be obtained in the first place by trading something produced. Without producing, consumption is restricted. The market relies, not on money, but on production to satisfy wants. So long as wants are unrestricted (a fair assumption), opportunities for production are equally unrestricted. "Jobs" do not provide for consumption.

________________________

"But murdering men is a paltry way to benefit them indeed, and when we calculate the expenditures for such warfare we find that they have crippled the basis of the nation's livelihood and exhausted the resources of the people to an incalculable degree." -- Mo Tzu

Justin '77 wrote:

Sean:

What a crock!

Huh? Do you mean to refer to Dave's post? I'll admit to occasionally offering a crock of sh** but I honestly don't know what crock I produced this time.

Justin '77 wrote:

Sean:

What a crock!

Huh? Do you mean to refer to Dave's post? I'll admit to occasionally offering a crock of sh** but I honestly don't know what crock I produced this time.

How do the cowpokes stay slim in Wyoming? Why am I thinner than those at the nearest apartment house? Perhaps, Ms. Genser at the USDA has an answer.

Suburbs make your butt bigger!


People who live in the most spread-out areas spend fewer minutes each month walking and weigh about six pounds more on average than those who live in the most densely populated places. Probably as a result, they are almost as prone to high blood pressure as cigarette smokers, the researchers found.

"There are lots of other reasons why we should work to contain sprawl," said Reid Ewing of the University of Maryland's National Center for Smart Growth, who led the study. "This could be another important reason."


reason- no

important- no

another- that I will give to Mr. Ewing.

How do the cowpokes stay slim in Wyoming? Why am I thinner than those at the nearest apartment house? Perhaps, Ms. Genser at the USDA has an answer.

Suburbs make your butt bigger!


People who live in the most spread-out areas spend fewer minutes each month walking and weigh about six pounds more on average than those who live in the most densely populated places. Probably as a result, they are almost as prone to high blood pressure as cigarette smokers, the researchers found.

"There are lots of other reasons why we should work to contain sprawl," said Reid Ewing of the University of Maryland's National Center for Smart Growth, who led the study. "This could be another important reason."


reason- no

important- no

another- that I will give to Mr. Ewing.

Originally Posted by Sean Love

Justin '77 wrote:

Sean:

What a crock!

Huh? Do you mean to refer to Dave's post? I'll admit to occasionally offering a crock of sh** but I honestly don't know what crock I produced this time.

Whoa! major brain disconnect right at the outset!

(I've amended the error. :oops: )

Originally Posted by Sean Love

Justin '77 wrote:

Sean:

What a crock!

Huh? Do you mean to refer to Dave's post? I'll admit to occasionally offering a crock of sh** but I honestly don't know what crock I produced this time.

Whoa! major brain disconnect right at the outset!

(I've amended the error. :oops: )

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by Sean Love

Justin '77 wrote:

Sean:

What a crock!

Huh? Do you mean to refer to Dave's post? I'll admit to occasionally offering a crock of sh** but I honestly don't know what crock I produced this time.

Whoa! major brain disconnect right at the outset!

(I've amended the error. :oops: )

Justin,

No problem. And of course feel free to call me on a crock when you see one. Just be gentle. :wink:

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by Sean Love

Justin '77 wrote:

Sean:

What a crock!

Huh? Do you mean to refer to Dave's post? I'll admit to occasionally offering a crock of sh** but I honestly don't know what crock I produced this time.

Whoa! major brain disconnect right at the outset!

(I've amended the error. :oops: )

Justin,

No problem. And of course feel free to call me on a crock when you see one. Just be gentle. :wink:

I don't know if this is evidence of 3T or 4T but this is without a doubt the dumbest, least substantive criticism of a political candidate I have ever read in my life. It is so unique that it is worthy of inclusion here:


"... The real question liberty lovers should be asking themselves about Schwarzenegger is whether he is a moral man. Much of his movie career would suggest otherwise.

The use of strong vulgarity, obscene language and gratuitous profanity in so many of his movies tells me he is not a man with a moral core ? not someone who is a good role model for children."

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34254



So because the candidate agreed to read movie scripts which demanded that he channel his breath over his vocal chords, over his tongue, and through his teeth in such a way that he made sounds recognizable to English speakers as "four-letter words" but possibly recognizable to non-English speakers as words for "dish," "goat," "automobile," similar innocuous terms, or nothing at all, the candidate reveals that he is not a "moral" man and is unfit for public office. If Arnold is unfit for office, it certainly is not because of some arbitrary and insignificant words he may have uttered in order to emphasize a point. There is no necessary correlation between language used and moral fiber. However there is a correlation between inability to tolerate irrelevant random noises produced by the vocal chords and inability to deal with reality. What century is this? By any chance, are there stocks out in front of the court house? :lol: 3T or 4T?

I don't know if this is evidence of 3T or 4T but this is without a doubt the dumbest, least substantive criticism of a political candidate I have ever read in my life. It is so unique that it is worthy of inclusion here:


"... The real question liberty lovers should be asking themselves about Schwarzenegger is whether he is a moral man. Much of his movie career would suggest otherwise.

The use of strong vulgarity, obscene language and gratuitous profanity in so many of his movies tells me he is not a man with a moral core ? not someone who is a good role model for children."

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34254



So because the candidate agreed to read movie scripts which demanded that he channel his breath over his vocal chords, over his tongue, and through his teeth in such a way that he made sounds recognizable to English speakers as "four-letter words" but possibly recognizable to non-English speakers as words for "dish," "goat," "automobile," similar innocuous terms, or nothing at all, the candidate reveals that he is not a "moral" man and is unfit for public office. If Arnold is unfit for office, it certainly is not because of some arbitrary and insignificant words he may have uttered in order to emphasize a point. There is no necessary correlation between language used and moral fiber. However there is a correlation between inability to tolerate irrelevant random noises produced by the vocal chords and inability to deal with reality. What century is this? By any chance, are there stocks out in front of the court house? :lol: 3T or 4T?

Originally Posted by Seadog '66

I don't know if this is evidence of 3T or 4T but this is without a doubt the dumbest, least substantive criticism of a political candidate I have ever read in my life. It is so unique that it is worthy of inclusion here:


"... The real question liberty lovers should be asking themselves about Schwarzenegger is whether he is a moral man. Much of his movie career would suggest otherwise.

The use of strong vulgarity, obscene language and gratuitous profanity in so many of his movies tells me he is not a man with a moral core ? not someone who is a good role model for children."

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34254



So because the candidate agreed to read movie scripts which demanded that he channel his breath over his vocal chords, over his tongue, and through his teeth in such a way that he made sounds recognizable to English speakers as "four-letter words" but possibly recognizable to non-English speakers as words for "dish," "goat," "automobile," similar innocuous terms, or nothing at all, the candidate reveals that he is not a "moral" man and is unfit for public office. If Arnold is unfit for office, it certainly is not because of some arbitrary and insignificant words he may have uttered in order to emphasize a point. There is no necessary correlation between language used and moral fiber. However there is a correlation between inability to tolerate irrelevant random noises produced by the vocal chords and inability to deal with reality. What century is this? By any chance, are there stocks out in front of the court house? :lol: 3T or 4T?

NICE :-)

Originally Posted by Seadog '66

I don't know if this is evidence of 3T or 4T but this is without a doubt the dumbest, least substantive criticism of a political candidate I have ever read in my life. It is so unique that it is worthy of inclusion here:


"... The real question liberty lovers should be asking themselves about Schwarzenegger is whether he is a moral man. Much of his movie career would suggest otherwise.

The use of strong vulgarity, obscene language and gratuitous profanity in so many of his movies tells me he is not a man with a moral core ? not someone who is a good role model for children."

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34254



So because the candidate agreed to read movie scripts which demanded that he channel his breath over his vocal chords, over his tongue, and through his teeth in such a way that he made sounds recognizable to English speakers as "four-letter words" but possibly recognizable to non-English speakers as words for "dish," "goat," "automobile," similar innocuous terms, or nothing at all, the candidate reveals that he is not a "moral" man and is unfit for public office. If Arnold is unfit for office, it certainly is not because of some arbitrary and insignificant words he may have uttered in order to emphasize a point. There is no necessary correlation between language used and moral fiber. However there is a correlation between inability to tolerate irrelevant random noises produced by the vocal chords and inability to deal with reality. What century is this? By any chance, are there stocks out in front of the court house? :lol: 3T or 4T?

NICE :-)