…well, just read this and see for yourself.
While this piece doesn’t have anything to do with Korea, it is on OhMyNews, which makes it fair game. Among other interesting discoveries, we find:
- Europeans, who “have America’s interests sincerely at heart,” are waiting for us to redeem ourselves by electing Al Gore as president.
- The American heartland (read: stupid red staters) hate Bill Clinton because he is smart.
- Ford, Reagan, Bush ‘41 and Bush ‘43 are/were stupid.
- Everyone knows that the 2000, 2002 and 2004 elections were stolen. The only question is whether or not the 2006 elections will also be stolen.
It is all fun stuff and reads like something you mind find in the letter-to-the-editor section of a small town paper. However one thing the writer said does bother me:
This not only signaled the start of the 2006 campaign but also managed to displace the embarrassing headlines about the EU condemnation of the Bush regime’s policies of rendition, and secret torture prisons.
A regime is a system of government. America has had the same regime since the Constitution was ratified in 1787 (and arguably since independence in 1776). The term Bush regime can only be accurate if Bush had somehow managed to make himself dictator for life (like Kim Jong-il, for example).
Here is a prediction for you: Around noon on January 20, 2009, George W. Bush will leave the Oval Office for the last time, shake hands with the new President (Democrat or Republican) and retire. Bush will be gone but the regime will remain.
I am sure Rob will be back with Korean posts soon.
39 Comments
Andy, you made me think there, with your definition of “regime.” I had always thought of a regime as centering around a particular person (”the Hitler regime,” the “Pinochet regime,” etc.), but the dictionary proves you right. However, the usage of the word in this article is also attested in the Oxford English Dictionary: “…Now freq. (usu. derog.), a particular government.”
This guy is a reporter? I thought reporters were supposed to be at least relatively unbiased. This guy is as amateur as they come.
So when a Republican loathes Clinton, he/she is being patriotic, but when a Democrat loathes a Republican president, he/she \”hates America\”? Okay, got it.
Anyhow, OhMyNews is just a glorified blog. It is not traditional journalism by any means and its writers are not really reporters, even if they call themsleves such. I wouldn\’t waste too much bandwidth on this.
Also, I have to agree with NathanB here, despite his Shelton-hugging policies, that \”regime\” can be used to refer to a particular administration. HOWEVER, this is typically not how it is used in American journalism: it usually refers to less legitimate governments. In this case, the opinion writer was obviously using it for effect.
I\’m not fan of the Bush Administration, but in the interest of civil discourse, I try to avoid such sentiments.
He reports. You decide.
“bush regime” is just outrageous -_-
Hmm…all valid points. A simple visit to dictionary.com confirms that one meaning of the word regime , # 3 actually, is to refer to a particular administration. There is little doubt that the word is used pejoratively in the majority of cases (anyone wanting to test this claim, or confirm meaning #3, for either the American or British variety of English, can easily do so at http://sara.natcorp.ox.ac.uk)
I think getting hung up on the pejorative use of a word is sort of a separate issue from the main one, which I felt was more about maintaining professionalism in reporting, and in keeping opinion pieces separate from ‘news’. Of course, if anyone has studied Critical Discourse at all, they might agree with me that this is not as easy as it sounds at first.
Then again, what do we expect from a ‘professional’ piece of writing that uses words like ‘heartland’ (can anyone tell me the exact boundaries of such a construct?),’dark forces’, etc…
In short, it’s an opinion piece, so either agree, disagree, or get over it. It’s not the first article in the history of mankind to use or abuse statistics or to claim to represent the truth or the majority opinion. It seems to me that, while not exactly professional, it is still a decent piece of writing, especially when one measures it against articles appearing in the local English dailies and even the monthly periodicals.
Well, Ford, Reagan, and the Bush Klan might not (have been) be stupid. In fact I’d call them all very clever, just not at all very wise.
One more Republican president and America’s economy - already in hoc to the ‘freedom loving’ Communist Party of China, probably won’t recover enough to support it’s wars overseas.
Republicans really need to wake up and realize that no country can survive on arrogance and past achievements alone, and ask themselves if they want America’s ass owned by guys like Hu Jintao, who make even Bush look humane. Didn’t these guys learn the lessons of Rome, Russia and the British Empire? Osama must be laughing his head off, Bush has screwed the US and its economy more than a dozen 9/11s. If America had the wisdom to adopt a northern European type system, no country in the world would be able to compete with it. Sad, what a waste.
Yes, popular use alters the definition of words. Every so often the dictionaries will add the new definitions. I fully expect to see American English dictionaries to add, “A misconception or misunderstanding,” to the definition of “lie.”
It’s pretty dumb to say that Bush I was/is dumb. He’s quite intelligent.
An out-of-touch uber-wealthy insider sure, but far from ‘dumb’.
There they are again, lumping half a continent of countries into one big happy family having exactly the same thoughts about everything and anything. Bah. Care to compare the [Boeing buying] Poles and, hmm, the [Airbus selling] French for instance? Tsssss
If Jeb is elected, could it then qualify as a regime?
My personal opinion is that grammar books and dictionaries ought to be descriptive, even if, one hopes, they will also somehow be prescriptive.
Anyway, Richardson, I’m sure you’re on the money with “lie,” at least when it is a verb: “Oh–I lied!” has now come to mean “Oops–I made a mistake!” It can only be a matter of time before this is reflected in the dictionaries of the English language.
Then again, what do we expect from a ‘professional’ piece of writing that uses words like ‘heartland’ (can anyone tell me the exact boundaries of such a construct?),’dark forces’, etc…
From the western edge of the Great Plains (i.e., the foothills of the Rocky Mountains) to the west, to the Mississippi River to the east, to the southern borders of Oklahoma and Arkansas to the south, to the Canadian border to the north, also to include Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. It’s in the almanac.
OK, maybe I was being nitpicky with the regime thing. It is just a pet peeve of mine.
The Internet has given voice to many people who would otherwise never be heard outside a small circle of irritated friends (hence, the small town letter-to-the-editor reference). Being a conservative, stupid things that moonbats say jump out at me. If I were liberal (in the American meaning of the word), I am sure that dumb things that wingnuts say would draw my attention.
Ah, how soon we forget. Where was the economy after the dot com bubble burst a few years ago? How do you think it recovered in what was actually relatively speedy fashion, considering the financial repercussion of 9/11? Your floccinaucinihilipilification of Republican handling of the economy is a bit silly considering, you know, the actual context of what’s been going on in the world. Yes, we are spending vast sums of money; but one has to understand the consequences on not spending it to see the big picture. Jimmy Carter, please save us!
I didn’t know drugs were that easy to come by in South Korea. Seriously, the ‘arrogance’ rant is a bit trite. Give China 15-25 years and you’ll realize how foolish your statement sounds, and is. China has double demographic disasters on the way related to a) the male/female ratio, and to b) the ratio of workers/retired. Aside from that there is the developmental level of civil society, rule of law, etc. – the things besides population and resources that make a nation powerful. China will gobble up the territory of old Goguyro before it makes anyone across the pond its bitch.
Doing what needs to be done in regard to proliferation and terrorism, regardless of the opinions of others, it not arrogance. The threat of proliferation is real; pretending that America is arrogant for addressing the issue will not make it go away. Leftist policies won’t protect you against it – remember 9/11 was planned while Clinton was in office, and don’t forget Spain.
This is not surprising since you don’t apparently understand the relationship of taxation to a nations economic health. And I’m not sure what you’re looking at, but the U.S. economy is not suffering the relative economic malaise that Europe has been for the past couple of decades.
So, what Euro-socialist practices shall we adopt? The overall slow growth, relative to the U.S.? The unemployment and crippling riots of France? The welfare-state practices of Scandinavia, and associated tax scales? And how about European militaries – what good are they in this day and age? Not much, relatively.
No thanks.
Nathan - I was referring to the whole “Bush lied” rant regarding pre-war intelligence. Amazing that many prominent Democrats said the same things, based on the same intelligence, but they didn’t “lie.” My point begin that obviously the intelligence was wrong – as were the estimates by our NATO allies – but somehow it makes Bush a liar, but none of the others.
“The American heartland (read: stupid red staters) hate Bill Clinton because he is smart.”
That’s the one ( in addition to the others) that really got my goat. Turn that around and you’d be right. The liberal establishment hates the American heartland because they’re not as intelligent as liberals…
“Bush has screwed the US and its economy more than a dozen 9/11s. If America had the wisdom to adopt a northern European type system, no country in the world would be able to compete with it.”
Is someone leaking radiator fluid from their ears?? The American economy is stronger than at any time since the 1950s and we don’t have an inflated stock market to burst immediately before Bush leaves office. The largest economy in the world is still growing at over 5% annually. That’s pretty damn good. With the tech stock inflated period of ‘98-’00 aside, unemployment is the lowest its been since 1969. Only the ‘66-’69 and ‘51-’56 periods saw lower unemployment rates. Thats all fine and good but relative to Northern Europe, and the rest of Europe for that matter, the American economy appears even stronger. Dear God if we have people thinking the Northern European model of socialism is something to behold we should all be in nut houses playin with our willies, slick ones at that.
No thank you, I’ll take my high deficit any day of the week over what those cookoo European governments have done to economics and economic growth. And don’t anyone try to tell me that the deficit somehow farted into existence with the advent of the Republican control of Congress. That’s a crock of poo! A democratic Congress reigned in the US throughout the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s. They are all a bunch of big spenders who think they know better to do with your money than you do. Hmmm. Sounds like Europeans. The deficit will be fine and as soon as we start restricting social security benefits to high income retirees and war spending decreases the deficit will decrease as well. Lower taxes have indeed increased federal income, suprise surprise and as long as Congress keeps its fingers out of the peoples’ pockets the economy will be just fine thank you. In stark contrast to the unemployed of Europe.
> Didn’t these guys learn the lessons of Rome, Russia and the British Empire?
“The only thing we ever learn from reading history
is that no one ever learns anything from history” {sigh}
Actually, we’ve gotten what you rightists have to say summed up in two lines now:
“Oh noes! Everyone is out to get us! Poor put upon us!”
and
“Kneel before Zod!”
Everything else is smokescreen designed to confuse the issue.
@Mr. Chips:
George Bush has managed to run up the federal deficit to a record 8 trillion dollars by giving tax cuts that benefited mainly the wealthy and starting wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The military budget has increased significantly during Bush’s tenure. Contrast that with Clinton’s economic record, which included steady growth and budget surpluses. Proportioning out the debt, each American family owes $73,000. As for “A democratic Congress reigned in the US throughout the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s”, Congress has two houses, and Republicans won control of the Senate in 1980 when Reagan was elected and retained control throughout the Reagan presidency. The Senate was regained by the Dems during the tenure of Bush Sr., but in 1994, Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America brought both houses under Republican control. Moreover, the Democrats in Congress do not vote as a block; a large number of conservative Democrats vote on the same side as the Republicans on many issues.
The rate of household savings is now below zero. Like the federal government, the American people have been propping up the economy by spending more than we earn, and at some point, these deficits may trigger inflation.
You may sneeze at the federal deficit, but I don’t. Our negotiating power with China, Japan, and other creditor nations is seriously weakened by our dependence on them to finance a government that continues to spend more than it earns in revenue.
“George Bush has managed to run up the federal deficit to a record 8 trillion dollars…”
That’s simply not true. He has presided over a government that ran up the deficit from $5.6 to $7.9 trillion. His predecessor presided over a governmnet that ran up the deficit from $3.6 to 5.6 trillion. Not much less in actual amount, far more as a percentage, and without national security issues and natural disasters to account for.
Increase tax cuts for the wealthy have not increased the deficit, in fact they have reeled it in and prevented a far greater deficit. And as far extra military spending, Thank God!! It’s about time. Since no one else in the world wants to spend a dime on defense and rely solely on the wonderful nature of humand beings at least one country take some responsibility.
“Republicans won control of the Senate in 1980 when Reagan was elected and retained control throughout the Reagan presidency.”
Also, not true. Republicans did regain in 1981…however Democrat numbers were: in ‘81 - 47, in ‘83 - 45, in ‘85 - 49, in ‘87 (still Reagan - hence the Robert Bork libel) - 55, in ‘89 - 56, and in ‘91 - 59, in ‘93 - 57…
“The rate of household savings is now below zero.”
That is debatable. Forbes made alot of hoohy out of that but basically household assets of $28 trillion compared to household debt of $11 trillion is pretty damn good. There is a small percent of the population dragging down the savings rate, which economists don’t agree over how to calculate.
I do sneeze at the deficit. Hachoo! Actually no it’s nothing to sneeze at but the overall health of the US economy is far and away better than anything else on the globe. Deficits, well not good in large numbers do indicate fiscal activity as opposed to stagnation which is what is plaguing the entire world outside of the US and now China. China’s problem though is one of government manipulation. An economy simply cannot keep growing at that pace if the government keeps micromanaging every last detail. It’s not feasible. As far as negotiating power, that changes only if a long-term alternative investment is evident. And it is not so the negotiating power remains the same.
I understand that the US spending culture is out of hand, and it’s not limited to democrats or elephants, neither now nor in history but the overall dynamic economic situation in the US is what gives the rest of the world its increased standard of living. Without it Asia and Europe would still be developing and “re-developing” regions respectively. Only American styled “reckless” investment and spending can produce the kind of growth in capital necessary to attain the world’s current wealth.
My quote was: “A democratic Congress reigned in the US throughout the 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s.”
That was poorly worded. I should have been much more specific. 80s and 90s were not dominated by dems like in previous decades. I speak as a fool…
The U.S. federal deficit means next to nothing, and is simply an economic statistic, albeit the most popular one in the world. It’s simply a number that represents money owed to Americans by the people that have purchased U.S. bonds. If you really wanted to understand this deficit situation, we ought to create generational accounts that would determine: 1)
In other words, perhaps more difficult to follow, large governmental spending deficits represent more consumption, with reduced savings and investment levels amongst U.S. consumers (household savings). Smaller investment levels translates to less productivity levels as a result of having less capital per worker available to spend. As indicated by the balance of payments, higher U.S. interest rates attracts more foreign investment to the U.S. and an increase in the trade deficit. However, there is NOT a direct correlation between deficits, interest/savings/productivity growth rates.
Most economists will argue that either deficit rates mean absolutely nothing: 1) since the current generation will be handed off the means to pay that debt to future generations (see writings by David Ricardo and Robert Barro); or, 2) the deficit is incorrectly calculated and measured (see Robert Eisner and Michael Boskin’s writings); given the Congress’ redifining the term “deficit” in 1990 and 1993 with the Social Security payment/financing fiasco.
Finally, I feel, as well as the neoclassical pool of economists believe that, to truly understand the term “deficit” and realize it in terms of a real number, generational accounts, where money without penalty could be transfered within the nuclear family, need to be established for any real measurement to occur, but would more precisely determine the specific generational debt (owed to the government, minus payments received from the government) over a specific period of time.
==Continued==
If you really want to understand this deficit situation, we ought to create generational accounts that would determine: 1)the present value of net payments by future generations; 2) the present value of net payments by current generations; and, 3) the government’s real net worth (wealth).
–Remort
Iraq kicked out nuclear inspectors.
Iraq air force started flying into “no fly” zone and initiated near-collision incidences and locked U.S. planes with their target system.
Hussein applauded the 9/11 and hinted more to come.
The WMD was not THE ONLY reason to attack Iraq. If the US had not gone to Iraq, I am very certain that there would have been the 2nd and the 3rd 9/11s.
Bush was just pro-active. He attacked the terrorists where they lived! He is a good president.
“The U.S. federal deficit means next to nothing, and is simply an economic statistic, albeit the most popular one in the world. It’s simply a number that represents money owed to Americans by the people that have purchased U.S. bonds”
If the Chinese government or a US citizen or anybody else for that matter buys US bonds, then why do these bond purchasers owe money TO Americans? This must be a typo.
Richardson: “Ah, how soon we forget. Where was the economy after the dot com bubble burst a few years ago?”
Please, for the sake of your country get your head out of the sand. Never mind a few years ago. Where is it now? I suggest you shout it to the millions of American workers being handed their pink slips.
“Give China 15-25 years and you’ll realize how foolish your statement sounds, and is. China has double demographic disasters on the way related to a) the male/female ratio, and to b) the ratio of workers/retired. Aside from that there is the developmental level of civil society, rule of law, etc. – the things besides population and resources that make a nation powerful.”
China and the world, actually. BRIC is just the start. America has its own demographic disasters waiting in the wings. Read any Jared Diamond or Chalmers Johnson lately?
“Leftist policies won’t protect you against it – remember 9/11 was planned while Clinton was in office, and don’t forget Spain.”
Yup, and remember that the CIA staff from Clinton’s day warned Dubya something was coming, and he chose to ignore it. Read a good book lately?
“This is not surprising since you don’t apparently understand the relationship of taxation to a nations economic health.”
Ah sure ain’t no fancy Yale gradyewit lahk Mr. Bush, but ah know that if yer factories are gittin gobbled up by them Asian folk, and yew refyoose to tax, and yew spend like its your last night in the whorehouse, yew wake up totally fucked, hung over and penniless.
“So, what Euro-socialist practices shall we adopt? The overall slow growth, relative to the U.S.? The unemployment and crippling riots of France? The welfare-state practices of Scandinavia, and associated tax scales? And how about European militaries – what good are they in this day and age? Not much, relatively.”
I’d start with massive investment in the education system, universal health care, diversification of industries, job-skills training, daycare, and progressive taxation to help pay for it.
The EU can defend themselves as well as any, after all the Brits invented the jet engine, and the Germans rockets. And they have nuclear weapons should they ever need them. The Brits, French and Germans having already presided over,lost, and learned the basic lessons of empire - overextension will lead to collapse. No economy = no military = buh-bye Empire. Oh well, you’ll learn the hard way I guess.
“Your floccinaucinihilipilification ….”
Confucious say, Using many letters to impress man is like using many millimeters to impress his wife. Still, I betcha Dubya cain’t spell that doozy!
Ah, Richardson, I failed to catch that political reference.
–
This discussion seems like the right place to throw in a link to this article at the WSJ’s Opinionjournal.com site. Niall Ferguson writes about the impending problems in China, the American dependence on overseas capital and manpower, and the stagnation of Europe. He argues that while we usually think that “nature abhors a vacuum,” we are possibly heading for a situation where there will be no world hegemonic power.
Not to be a stickler for details, but you guys are confusing “deficit” with “debt”. The deficit is the yearly spending and the debt is what is accumulating.
(Wow! I actually learned something in university.)
Back to the original article. It’s the usual leftist elitist position: “Those of us on the coasts are simply smarter than those boobs in the heartland. In fact, they’re not smart enough to deserve the right to vote.” This is their calculus: candidate I agree with = intelligent; candidate I disagree with = shtoopid.
It goes both ways. Those in the heartland: candidate I agree with = moral; candidate I disagree with = immoral.
“I suggest you shout it to the millions of American workers being handed their pink slips.”
The US economy has created millions of jobs in the last few years and the employment rate is lower than the average of the last few decades.
“Read any Jared Diamond or Chalmers Johnson lately?”
Diamond sounds interesting, but I don’t think I’d bother with such leftist drivel from Chalmers Johnson.
“I’d start with massive investment in the education system, universal health care, diversification of industries, job-skills training, daycare, and progressive taxation to help pay for it.”
Uh, the US already has almost all of these things and spends a major amount of money on them, besides nearly universal healthcare and no national daycare. How is pouring massive more piles of money into these areas going to help? We can already see what such policies have wrought in Europe-stagnant economies, high unemployment, rigid labor markets and excessively high taxes on a decreasing number of workers. No thanks.
mook, mook, mook,
The defining difference is that the U.S. has well established financial and other support systems in place; China has no hope of achieving anything near that level of development in that time. Additionally, no Western nation will face anything even remotely similar to the male/female imbalance that China will. I don’t think you recognize the significance of 30 percent of the male population with absolutely zero prospect of marriage in a nation like China. Apples and Oranges.
Who was the CIA director during 9/11, what did he say, and who appointed him, genius?
Aren’t you the one who stated the futility of living on past accomplishments? Like inventing jet engines and rockets? Inconsistent, if not hypocritical.
Your arguments are ridiculous, aside from the German/French economic angle (which is more hilarious); why you want to argue against such a well-known and established fact as Europe’s relative militarily inferiority is beyond me. Do a little research rather than spouting what you prefer to be true. If nukes are what you mean, then I guess Russia’s military is equal to America’s, which is equally ridiculous.
Uh, ‘Floccinaucinihilipilification’ is one of those very well know, often used ‘many letter’ed words.
Follow the ‘The Korea Liberator’ pingback below to the refutation of your Europe delusions, including ridiculous assertions about ‘progressive’ taxes, etc.
Off to the airport . . .
Jared Diamond is an engaging, if predictably lefty, light-science writer. Guns, Germs, and Steel was a good read; so was the The Third Chimpanzee. Presumably Why is Sex Fun? is a good book too although I haven’t gotten around to it. Collapse, however, although I anticipated it quite hotly, was a letdown. The subtitle “How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed” sets up all kinds of possibilities. But Diamond cannot get past the lefty refrain “Because they cut down all the TREEES!” I’m sure there’s more to it than that, but the author dismisses all other factors. Thus, that book got tiring pretty quickly. I probably should have recognized the symptoms of Diamond’s “America Bad” disease from Guns, Germs, and Steel’s thesis that the supremacy of Western Civilization is all a big mistake. I’m going to give him another chance though.
But who the devil, except for the book-buyers at Kyobo Bookstore’s Noam Chomsky Department, would waste another minute on Chalmers Johnson? Good grief. Since MITI and the Japanese Miracle in 1982 he’s veered away from good scholarship and into crazytown. Although he’s 75 years old and so by rights ought to be dead soon, the guy looks pretty healthy and I fear ten more years of conspiracy theories and “America Bad” thinking from Chalmers Johnson.
And they are so desperate to believe that calculus, they ignore all evidence to the contrary. John Kerry’s grades at Yale were just like that doofus Dubya’s, but Kerry’s somehow a genius. Suuuure. Get a load of that photo and then talk to me.
The fact is that nobody who becomes the leader of a large and powerful country like the US is stupid (well, I don’t know about Dan Quayle, though it wouldn’t surprise me if he was just overly maligned by the left who seem to think that all Republicans are stupid). You can’t be stupid to be the one in 300 million people to become the leader of the most powerful country on earth. Despite the fantasies of many a conspiracy theorist, it just doesn’t work that way.
Sorry, but playing the stupid card is for people who can’t come up with any better arguments. It’s little more than a kid’s game of “You’re stupid. No, I’m not. Yes, you are. etc.”
I certainly don’t think Roh is stupid (he’s done some stupid things) but incompetent is more the operative word with him.
I’m glad I’m not the only one that sees a disconnect between Chalmers Johnson’s “MITI and the Japanese Miracle” and the stuff that has followed since. “Blowback” was one of the most eye-gouging exercices I’ve ever put myself through; and not learning my lesson I went on to “Sorrows of Empire” to convince myself that the man had indeed lost his grasp on reality. Blowback seems to have gotten an epsecially warm reception by Political Economy academicians here in Korea. The KDI guys just gush over him and think the world can’t keep spinning without his insight. I’m wondering if anyone familiar with these works can tell me what they think happened after MITI? I thought it was a pretty thought provoking book and fairly sound economically. What happened? I’m open for ideas…
Clinton maybe “smart”, I honestly don’t see how you can win an American presidential election without that qualification, but that isn’t to say he has made “smart” decisions in his personal life.
In any event, please keep hating America, we’ll keep fighting your wars and providing welfare payments too. America isn’t perfect, but we’re decent people that usually end up doing what’s right and best for everyone involved.
–Remort
I have to confess I’ve only read Johnson’s MITI book, none of the others, and thought it was a great tome. Thus, when I stumble on one of his op-eds it always stuns me. Now I know why. Thanks, BC.
2 Trackbacks
[...] Recently I’ve on business in a few of the former Yugoslav republics – Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, and Slovenia. They have made amazing progress over the past 15 years, and I plan to do a post on what they’ve become post-Socialism. But a post by Andy Jackson over at the Marmot’s and some of the comments have moved the Balkans post to the backburner for a bit. [...]
[...] Recently I’ve on business in a few of the former Yugoslav republics – Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, and Slovenia. They have made amazing progress over the past 15 years, and I plan to do a post on what they’ve become post-Socialism. But a post by Andy Jackson over at the Marmot’s and some of the comments have moved the Balkans post to the backburner for a bit. [...]