democrats in november

>> How 'bout the Democrats? We actually might beat Bush
>> in November!
>
> I will reply on metatuning in a few seconds.

Coincidentally enough, I saw Kerry speak last night in
Oakland. I was impressed. The turn-out was huge.

I am still offerring friendly 2:1 bets for $20 in favor
of Bush, however. This means if Bush "takes the
presidency for another term" you pay me $20, and if he
does not I pay you $40. Want in?

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> Coincidentally enough, I saw Kerry speak last night in
> Oakland. I was impressed. The turn-out was huge.

Politicians are fun. It's grand to watch them scurry around like
cockroaches, trying to find a place to hide from the light of a
controversial issue. Of ourse if they don't play that game they are
in trouble.

> Politicians are fun. It's grand to watch them scurry
> around like cockroaches, trying to find a place to hide
> from the light of a controversial issue. Of ourse if
> they don't play that game they are in trouble.

I had a blast. If you've read any of the political theory
stuff I've posted here, you know I don't take any of it
seriously in the least.

What bugs me more than dodging of controversy is the way
the details of the non-controversial issues are summarized.
For example, everybody wants 'healthcare for all', but
what does this mean and how can we bring it about? In most
cases the politician has advice on these matters from
experts of one sort or another. But will they tell you what
the details actually are, what other plans were considered
and why the plan they are advocating won out? No. Instead
we're left with simplifications like 'we're going to reverse
Bush's tax cuts to pay for it'. Well why did Bush cut
taxes? Because he chose a different expert's plan for
flawed reasons? No, because he wanted to line a few
people's pockets, including his own. Who would do such a
thing? What sort of explanation is this? It is typical,
and it requires a view of human nature that is perverse
indeed. Pandering to and encouraging such a view is pure
evil. It leads not to understanding but to blame.

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> Well why did Bush cut
> taxes? Because he chose a different expert's plan for
> flawed reasons? No, because he wanted to line a few
> people's pockets, including his own. Who would do such a
> thing? What sort of explanation is this? It is typical,
> and it requires a view of human nature that is perverse
> indeed. Pandering to and encouraging such a view is pure
> evil. It leads not to understanding but to blame.

Marx would say that Bush is simply a helpless pawn of his class and
class origins, and does what he does for that reason. Marx is full of
it in many respects, but in this instance, that may be about all there
is to say.

> > Well why did Bush cut
> > taxes? Because he chose a different expert's plan for
> > flawed reasons? No, because he wanted to line a few
> > people's pockets, including his own. Who would do such a
> > thing? What sort of explanation is this? It is typical,
> > and it requires a view of human nature that is perverse
> > indeed. Pandering to and encouraging such a view is pure
> > evil. It leads not to understanding but to blame.
>
> Marx would say that Bush is simply a helpless pawn of his
> class and class origins, and does what he does for that
> reason. Marx is full of it in many respects, but in this
> instance, that may be about all there is to say.

There's a lot more to say. There are those, some who even
get paid to write scholarly papers on the subject, who believe
tax cuts for the rich can help the poor. Tax cuts in general
have been known to have paradoxical results, such as increasing
revenue. Whatever his real motives, Bush does employ people of
this persuasion. If they are so wrong, say so and say why.
Newspapers like The Economist, at least, mention this stuff,
but I don't find any sincere discussion of them in contemporary
political rhetoric.

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> There's a lot more to say. There are those, some who even
> get paid to write scholarly papers on the subject, who believe
> tax cuts for the rich can help the poor.

And you think Bush believes this because of his deep understanding of
those scholarly papers?

Tax cuts in general
> have been known to have paradoxical results, such as increasing
> revenue.

That can work when the rates are very high, as they were when Kennedy
cut taxes. The US, however, has a low rate of taxation compared to
most industrialized countries, and a high rate of military spending.
This tends to mean that we get a nonparadoxical result called massive
deficits when we cut taxes; this is especially true when Republicans
are in charge, as they tend to both cut taxes and increase military
spending.

Whatever his real motives, Bush does employ people of
> this persuasion.

Like Reagan, be believes what he wants to believe, and hires people
who will tell him that what he thinks already thinks is true is right.
Bush wanted to believe Saddam was building the bomb, because Saddam
tried to kill his daddy. So, Bush quite honestly did believe it--not
out of logic or a keen grasp of the facts, but because he got the
result he wanted. It works just the same way for economics. If you
want to believe in the Laughable Curve and think you will get
something for nothing by cutting taxes which are already low compared
to comparable rates in other countries, you may. If you want to
believe global warming is a myth, you can. If you want to believe you
can jump out a window and fly, go ahead and try it--but reality has a
way of biting you in the ass, and that goes for voters as well, who
may not find the results correspond to the promises politicians make,
such as Reagan's promise to lower taxes, increase military spending,
and balance the budget all at the same time. If you *want* to believe
that sort of thing, then do so if you must.

>If they are so wrong, say so and say why.

2+3=4, not 3 or 5.

> > There's a lot more to say. There are those, some who
> > even get paid to write scholarly papers on the subject,
> > who believe tax cuts for the rich can help the poor.
>
> And you think Bush believes this because of his deep
> understanding of those scholarly papers?

For some reason he's listening to them. If you want to
prove him wrong you have to prove them wrong.

> The US, however, has a low rate of taxation compared to
> most industrialized countries, and a high rate of military
> spending.

I seem to remember reading that we spend less on defense,
as a portion of the GDP, than the major European powers.

> This tends to mean that we get a nonparadoxical result
> called massive deficits when we cut taxes; this is
> especially true when Republicans are in charge, as they
> tend to both cut taxes and increase military spending.

Deficit spending is another debatable practice. Many
economists believe it's the thing to do in a recession.
It can be seen as a foil to domestic saving. In a boom
households overextend their credit, and the government
should run a surplus. In a recession demand for capital
contracts, so the government should borrow. There are
other ways to look at it, none of them necessarily valid.

In the present recession, many economists feel American
housholds are still dangerously overextended (in such a
case further government borrowing would be ill-advised).
This can be blamed on the Fed holding interest rates
too low for too long, retailers offering zero interest
to clear inventories, etc. Many blame the Fed for
waiting too long to raise rates in the 90's.

It seems Bush and co. are banking on a limitless Asian
demand for dollars, and huge (perhaps unrealistic)
increases in American productivity in coming years.

> Bush wanted to believe Saddam was building the bomb,
> because Saddam tried to kill his daddy. So, Bush quite
> honestly did believe it

Now this I don't believe for a second. I think Bush was
convinced by hawks in the Pentagon to flex American
imperialism a bit, and simply said whatever he thought
would allow him to go to war, knowing that after war is
waged it doesn't so much matter why. The democrats
won't dwell on the missing WMD issue, I predict. Kerry
didn't mention it.

> >If they are so wrong, say so and say why.
>
> 2+3=4, not 3 or 5.

They do say they'll balance the budget at the same time
as doing x y and z, but it's a lie. Bush and his advisers
fully intended to run a deficit even before 9/11, and
Gore would have done the same. Governments almost always
run deficits during recessions.

Though I think republicans like to tax and spend to keep
the private sector weak... they like to run the show with
military contracts. Maybe they're despots, or maybe they
just believe that military hierarchies are the only
sensible way for humans to organize themselves (if you
joined as a teen and went all the way to general, I can
see how you might think such a thing). Either way, this
is why I generally detest the lot of them.

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > > There's a lot more to say. There are those, some who
> > > even get paid to write scholarly papers on the subject,
> > > who believe tax cuts for the rich can help the poor.
> >
> > And you think Bush believes this because of his deep
> > understanding of those scholarly papers?
>
> For some reason he's listening to them. If you want to
> prove him wrong you have to prove them wrong.

That's awfully easy. Reagan took their advice, and it was a disaster,
which stunningly huge deficits your children will still be paying
for. George I had to undo it, and Clinton stayed the course and
handled the economy very well, with excellent results. George II has
gone back to the pattern of cutting taxes and raising spending, and
expecting revenues to magically appear, and once again we are
sinking into a swamp of red ink. Last fiscal year, using real figures
and not Bush's cooked books (yes, politicians cook the books) the
deficit was 2/3 of a *trillion* dollars. Not million. Not billion.
TRILLION.

You are acting like a juror in a trial, where each side has experts
they have bought and paid for, and who say exactly what the lawyers
want them to say. You don't have to be, because you have the option
of ignoring opinion from think tanks and policy centers, filled with
academic whores. That cuts away most of this crap right from the
start--only listen to actual academics, whose paycheck does not
depend on giving an answer the person who pays them wants to hear.
Then try to locate the consensus, not the finge.

> > The US, however, has a low rate of taxation compared to
> > most industrialized countries, and a high rate of military
> > spending.
>
> I seem to remember reading that we spend less on defense,
> as a portion of the GDP, than the major European powers.

Where did you get that baloney from?

http://www.steve.burrow.name/article/weapons.shtml

http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/allied_contrib96/usa.html

> > This tends to mean that we get a nonparadoxical result
> > called massive deficits when we cut taxes; this is
> > especially true when Republicans are in charge, as they
> > tend to both cut taxes and increase military spending.
>
> Deficit spending is another debatable practice. Many
> economists believe it's the thing to do in a recession.

Within reason, it might be. When you are morgaging the next 100 years
to your credit card (and interest rates can easily rise on whatever
debt you accumulate) it goes well beyond the point of sanity, into
the realm of fantasy, stupidity, and greed. We don't even have the
luxury of repudiating our debt, as it would cause the world economy
to collapse.

> In the present recession, many economists feel American
> housholds are still dangerously overextended (in such a
> case further government borrowing would be ill-advised).
> This can be blamed on the Fed holding interest rates
> too low for too long, retailers offering zero interest
> to clear inventories, etc. Many blame the Fed for
> waiting too long to raise rates in the 90's.

As I remark, what do you think happens to service on that debt you've
accumulated when rates rise?

> It seems Bush and co. are banking on a limitless Asian
> demand for dollars, and huge (perhaps unrealistic)
> increases in American productivity in coming years.

It's merely stupidity and greed. The same crowd who ran us into the
ground under Reagan, and whom George "read my lips" H. W. Bush was
forced to rescue us from, is in charge. They are quite happy
inventing their "facts", and do. We seem to get this problem when the
person in the office of President falls below a certain standard of
intelligence, for which the cure is obvious.

> > Bush wanted to believe Saddam was building the bomb,
> > because Saddam tried to kill his daddy. So, Bush quite
> > honestly did believe it
>
> Now this I don't believe for a second. I think Bush was
> convinced by hawks in the Pentagon to flex American
> imperialism a bit, and simply said whatever he thought
> would allow him to go to war, knowing that after war is
> waged it doesn't so much matter why.

I don't share your cynical view of Bush. I think he is stupid, not
Machivellian.

> They do say they'll balance the budget at the same time
> as doing x y and z, but it's a lie. Bush and his advisers
> fully intended to run a deficit even before 9/11, and
> Gore would have done the same. Governments almost always
> run deficits during recessions.

Running a deficit is not the same as running a deficit of 2/3 of a
trillion dollars.

> Though I think republicans like to tax and spend to keep
> the private sector weak... they like to run the show with
> military contracts.

More Machiavelli.

> > > > There's a lot more to say. There are those, some who
> > > > even get paid to write scholarly papers on the subject,
> > > > who believe tax cuts for the rich can help the poor.
> > >
> > > And you think Bush believes this because of his deep
> > > understanding of those scholarly papers?
> >
> > For some reason he's listening to them. If you want to
> > prove him wrong you have to prove them wrong.
>
> That's awfully easy. Reagan took their advice, and it was a
> disaster,

Was it? Reagan's presidency saw the end of stagflation,
the Keynesian oxymoron that had baffled economists since
Nixon.

In any case it isn't a proof. That's the problem with
using History to prove things -- there are two many
variables that cannot be repeated.

> which stunningly huge deficits your children will still be
> paying for.

Ultimately the decision is the same as a personal loan. You
can become more competitive by borrowing against your future
productivity. Doing so helps motivates you in the future.
As long as you don't mind being busy and don't fail to repay,
you win.

Also, if you believe Kurzweil et al that exponential progress
in technology will continue, any fixed debt today should be
manageable.

> George I had to undo it, and Clinton stayed the
> course and handled the economy very well,

Clinton happened to be in office during a tremendous economic
expansion. Caused by one or more of:

() It was that time in the business cycle, and the end of
the Cold War added unusual euphoria.

() New technology raised the return on capital while the Fed
held rates down, causing unusual euphoria.

() Reagan's brilliant policies set the stage for unprecedented
economic growth.

> only listen to actual academics, whose paycheck does not
> depend on giving an answer the person who pays them wants
> to hear. Then try to locate the consensus, not the finge.

I try. Keep in mind I'm presently playing devil's advocate.

> > I seem to remember reading that we spend less on defense,
> > as a portion of the GDP, than the major European powers.
>
> Where did you get that baloney from?
>
> http://www.steve.burrow.name/article/weapons.shtml
>
> http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/allied_contrib96/usa.html

According to the 2nd link, in 1995 the US spent 3.9%, while
France and the UK spent 3.1%. And US spending did dip below
3% at some point in the 90's. Neoconservatives might argue
that countries like Germany only survive on roughly half this
because we give them defense services.

Ooo, I see that "Regime Change in Iran" is a news item at
newamericancentury.org. What a bunch of wack-jobs.

> > Deficit spending is another debatable practice. Many
> > economists believe it's the thing to do in a recession.
>
> Within reason, it might be. When you are morgaging the next
> 100 years to your credit card (and interest rates can easily
> rise on whatever debt you accumulate) it goes well beyond
> the point of sanity, into the realm of fantasy, stupidity,
> and greed.

Yes, well, since I agree arguing against this is rather
difficult. I could see it better if we were spending on say,
education or something nice like that.

> We don't even have the luxury of repudiating our debt, as it
> would cause the world economy to collapse.

What does it mean to repudiate a debt? I've never heard this
term.

> > In the present recession, many economists feel American
> > housholds are still dangerously overextended (in such a
> > case further government borrowing would be ill-advised).
> > This can be blamed on the Fed holding interest rates
> > too low for too long, retailers offering zero interest
> > to clear inventories, etc. Many blame the Fed for
> > waiting too long to raise rates in the 90's.
>
> As I remark, what do you think happens to service on that
> debt you've accumulated when rates rise?

Personal debts are usually taken against fixed rates (which
is an interesting topic in and of itself). National debts
don't have rates as such. They are partially financed with
bonds which can turn to junk, but bond yields are usually
fixed I think (I don't understand bond markets that well).
But they are also financed by creating money, which is more
like theft than a loan, since it immediately (in effect)
dilutes the value of assets held by others. The farther away
you are (in the trade chain) from the new money, the more you
get screwed.

> > It seems Bush and co. are banking on a limitless Asian
> > demand for dollars, and huge (perhaps unrealistic)
> > increases in American productivity in coming years.
>
> It's merely stupidity and greed.

Is Snow merely stupid and greedy for trying to redress our
trade deficit by letting the dollar slide?

> The same crowd who ran us into the ground under Reagan, and
> whom George "read my lips" H. W. Bush was forced to rescue
> us from, is in charge. They are quite happy inventing
> their "facts", and do.

I think they're operating rationally under a couple of core
beliefs:

() The world would fall apart without the American empire.

() It's worth acting on a worst-case oil shortage scenario.
If things get dodgy around 2010 or 2015, the person holding
the world together should be the person who controls where
the oil goes.

> > > Bush wanted to believe Saddam was building the bomb,
> > > because Saddam tried to kill his daddy. So, Bush quite
> > > honestly did believe it
> >
> > Now this I don't believe for a second. I think Bush was
> > convinced by hawks in the Pentagon to flex American
> > imperialism a bit, and simply said whatever he thought
> > would allow him to go to war, knowing that after war is
> > waged it doesn't so much matter why.
>
> I don't share your cynical view of Bush. I think he is
> stupid, not Machivellian.

You think the President of the US is stupid? How does a
stupid person get to such a station in life? Either he
only acts stupid to win the affection of the masses (or for
some other reason), or he was put in place by people who
are not stupid. The presidency of the US cannot be
controlled by stupid people, because it's valuable enough
that a smart person somewhere would come in and take over.

Clearly, people like Wolfowitz, or however you spell that
jacobite's name, are Machiavellian.

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
>
> > Well why did Bush cut
> > taxes? Because he chose a different expert's plan for
> > flawed reasons? No, because he wanted to line a few
> > people's pockets, including his own. Who would do such a
> > thing? What sort of explanation is this? It is typical,
> > and it requires a view of human nature that is perverse
> > indeed. Pandering to and encouraging such a view is pure
> > evil. It leads not to understanding but to blame.
>
> Marx would say that Bush is simply a helpless pawn of his class and
> class origins, and does what he does for that reason. Marx is full
of
> it in many respects, but in this instance, that may be about all
there
> is to say.

Class origins are no excuse for dishonesty. Bush and Chomsky are two
of the biggest liars we know.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> You think the President of the US is stupid?

I'd use a stronger word. Playing devil's advocate again?

> How does a
> stupid person get to such a station in life?

Family and money.

> or he was put in place by people who
> are not stupid. The presidency of the US cannot be

Huh? Where are all these smart people who voted for Bush? Are you
referring to the Supreme Court?

> controlled by stupid people, because it's valuable enough
> that a smart person somewhere would come in and take over.

How?

> > You think the President of the US is stupid?
>
> I'd use a stronger word. Playing devil's advocate again?

Not this time.

> > or he was put in place by people who
> > are not stupid. The presidency of the US cannot be
>
> Huh? Where are all these smart people who voted for Bush?

What I meant is that he may be a puppet of smart people.

But what do you mean?? Millions of highly intelligent
people voted for Bush, or do you have any delusions
about that?

> > controlled by stupid people, because it's valuable enough
> > that a smart person somewhere would come in and take over.
>
> How?

Stupid people do not generally hold power of any kind, Paul.
They are less successful in careers, less successful as
small business owners, less succssful as CEOs of corporations,
and less successful as politicians, than smart people.

-Carl

Carl,

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > > You think the President of the US is stupid?
> >
> > I'd use a stronger word. Playing devil's advocate again?
>
> Not this time.

I don't know if he is *stupid*, but I believe him to be slow, ignorant, and arrogant, and I find that a compellingly dangerous mix.

> But what do you mean?? Millions of highly intelligent
> people voted for Bush, or do you have any delusions
> about that?

I seriously question whether people who voted for Bush are "highly intelligent". Unless they are, and they didn't care about what they got after the vote.

> Stupid people do not generally hold power of any kind, Paul.
> They are less successful in careers, less successful as
> small business owners, less succssful as CEOs of corporations,
> and less successful as politicians, than smart people.

Unbelievably naive.

Cheers,
Jon

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Carl,
>
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > > > You think the President of the US is stupid?
> > >
> > > I'd use a stronger word. Playing devil's advocate again?
> >
> > Not this time.
>
> I don't know if he is *stupid*, but I believe him to be slow,
ignorant, and arrogant, and I find that a compellingly dangerous mix.
>
> > But what do you mean?? Millions of highly intelligent
> > people voted for Bush, or do you have any delusions
> > about that?
>
> I seriously question whether people who voted for Bush are "highly
intelligent". Unless they are, and they didn't care about what they
got after the vote.
>
> > Stupid people do not generally hold power of any kind, Paul.
> > They are less successful in careers, less successful as
> > small business owners, less succssful as CEOs of corporations,
> > and less successful as politicians, than smart people.
>
> Unbelievably naive.
>
> Cheers,
> Jon

Seconded,
Paul

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > > You think the President of the US is stupid?

In case you managed to only hear the tiny minority of Bush statements
that actually could be said to display intelligence, let me offer the
following sorely incomplete selection:

IT'S THE PRESIDENT, STUPID! - BUSH QUOTES

"Anyway, I'm so thankful, and so gracious - I'm gracious that my
brother Jeb is concerned about the hemisphere as well." -George W.
Bush, June 4, 2001

"It's important for young men and women who look at the Nebraska
champs to understand that quality of life is more than just blocking
shots." -George W. Bush, in remarks to the University of Nebraska
women's volleyball team, the 2001 national champions, May 31, 2001

"So on behalf of a well-oiled unit of people who came together to
serve something greater than themselves, congratulations." -George W.
Bush, in remarks to the University of Nebraska women's volleyball
team, the 2001 national champions, May 31, 2001

"If a person doesn't have the capacity that we all want that person
to have, I suspect hope is in the far distant future, if at all." -
George W. Bush, May 22, 2001

"For every fatal shooting, there were roughly three non-fatal
shootings. And, folks, this is unacceptable in America. It's just
unacceptable. And we're going to do something about it." -George W.
Bush, May 14

"There's no question that the minute I got elected, the storm clouds
on the horizon were getting nearly directly overhead." -George W.
Bush, May 11, 2001

"But I also made it clear to (Vladimir Putin) that it's important to
think beyond the old days of when we had the concept that if we blew
each other up, the world would be safe." -George W. Bush, May 1, 2001

"First, we would not accept a treaty that would not have been
ratified, nor a treaty that I thought made sense for the country." -
George W. Bush, on the Kyoto accord, April 24, 2001

"It's very important for folks to understand that when there's more
trade, there's more commerce." -George W. Bush, at the Summit of the
Americas in Quebec City, April 21, 2001

"Neither in French nor in English nor in Mexican." -George W. Bush,
declining to take reporters' questions during a photo op with
Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien, April 21, 2001

"It is time to set aside the old partisan bickering and finger-
pointing and name-calling that comes from freeing parents to make
different choices for their children." -George W. Bush, on "parental
empowerment in education," April 12, 2001

"I think we're making progress. We understand where the power of this
country lay. It lays in the hearts and souls of Americans. It must
lay in our pocketbooks. It lays in the willingness for people to work
hard. But as importantly, it lays in the fact that we've got citizens
from all walks of life, all political parties, that are willing to
say, I want to love my neighbor. I want to make somebody's life just
a little bit better." -George W. Bush, April 11, 2001

"This administration is doing everything we can to end the stalemate
in an efficient way. We're making the right decisions to bring the
solution to an end." -George W. Bush, April 10, 2001

"It would be helpful if we opened up ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge). I think it's a mistake not to. And I would urge you all to
travel up there and take a look at it, and you can make the
determination as to how beautiful that country is." -George W. Bush,
at a White House Press conference, March 29, 2001

"I've coined new words, like, misunderstanding and Hispanically." -
George W. Bush, speaking at the Radio & Television Correspondents
dinner, March 29, 2001

"A lot of times in the rhetoric, people forget the facts. And the
facts are that thousands of small businesses - Hispanically owned or
otherwise - pay taxes at the highest marginal rate." -George W. Bush,
speaking to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, March 19, 2001

"But the true threats to stability and peace are these nations that
are not very transparent, that hide behind the-that don't let people
in to take a look and see what they're up to. They're very kind of
authoritarian regimes. The true threat is whether or not one of these
people decide, peak of anger, try to hold us hostage, ourselves; the
Israelis, for example, to whom we'll defend, offer our defenses; the
South Koreans." -George W. Bush, in a media roundtable discussion,
March 13, 2001

"I do think we need for a troop to be able to house his family.
That's an important part of building morale in the military." -George
W. Bush, speaking at Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida, March 12, 2001

"I suspect that had my dad not been president, he'd be asking the
same questions: How'd your meeting go with so-and-so? … How did you
feel when you stood up in front of the people for the State of the
Union Address-state of the budget address, whatever you call it." -
George W. Bush, in an interview with the Washington Post, March 9,
2001

"Ann and I will carry out this equivocal message to the world:
Markets must be open." -George W. Bush, at the swearing-in ceremony
for Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman, March 2, 2001

"My pan plays down an unprecedented amount of our national debt." -
George W. Bush, in his budget address to Congress, Feb. 27, 2001

"I have said that the sanction regime is like Swiss cheese - that
meant that they weren't very effective." -George W. Bush, during a
White House press conference, Feb. 22, 2001

"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a
literacy test.'' -George W. Bush, Feb. 21, 2001

"It's good to see so many friends here in the Rose Garden. This is
our first event in this beautiful spot, and it's appropriate we talk
about policy that will affect people's lives in a positive way in
such a beautiful, beautiful part of our national - really, our
national park system, my guess is you would want to call it."-George
W. Bush, Feb. 8, 2001

"We're concerned about AIDS inside our White House - make no mistake
about it." -George W. Bush, Feb. 7, 2001

"There's no such thing as legacies. At least, there is a legacy, but
I'll never see it." -George W. Bush, speaking to Catholic leaders at
the White House, Jan. 31, 2001

"I appreciate that question because I, in the state of Texas, had
heard a lot of discussion about a faith-based initiative eroding the
important bridge between church and state." -George W. Bush, speaking
to reporters, Washington, D.C., Jan. 29, 2001

"I am mindful not only of preserving executive powers for myself, but
for predecessors as well." -George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Jan.
29, 2001

"Then I went for a run with the other dog and just walked. And I
started thinking about a lot of things. I was able to - I can't
remember what it was. Oh, the inaugural speech, started thinking
through that." -George W. Bush, in a pre-inaugural interview with
U.S. News & World Report

"Redefining the role of the United States from enablers to keep the
peace to enablers to keep the peace from peacekeepers is going to be
an assignment." -George W. Bush, Jan. 2001

"I'm hopeful. I know there is a lot of ambition in Washington,
obviously. But I hope the ambitious realize that they are more likely
to succeed with success as opposed to failure." -George W. Bush, Jan.
2001

"The California crunch really is the result of not enough power-
generating plants and then not enough power to power the power of
generating plants." -George W. Bush, Jan. 2001

"If he's - the inference is that somehow he thinks slavery is a - is
a noble institution I would - I would strongly reject that
assumption - that John Ashcroft is a open-minded, inclusive person."-
George W. Bush, Jan. 2001

"She's just trying to make sure Anthony gets a good meal - Antonio." -
George W. Bush, on Laura Bush inviting Justice Antonin Scalia to
dinner at the White House, Jan. 2001

"I want it to be said that the Bush administration was a results-
oriented administration, because I believe the results of focusing
our attention and energy on teaching children to read and having an
education system that's responsive to the child and to the parents,
as opposed to mired in a system that refuses to change, will make
America what we want it to be - a more literate country and a
hopefuller country." -George W. Bush, Jan. 2001

Carl,

Sorry ->

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
> Unbelievably naive.

Well, that just doesn't look so good in print. I do have a hard time you believing the points you did, about stupid people getting elected, but I guess "naive" isn't the best way. But when one looks at Bush and Dan Quayle (who was a heartbeat away from being Prez), how can you deny that stupid people can go all the way to the top in politics? All they have to do is *please* the right people.

Cheers,
Jon

> > You think the President of the US is stupid?
>
> I don't know if he is *stupid*, but I believe him to be slow,
> ignorant, and arrogant, and I find that a compellingly
> dangerous mix.

Me too. But what about Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz?
All slow?

> > But what do you mean?? Millions of highly intelligent
> > people voted for Bush, or do you have any delusions
> > about that?
>
> I seriously question whether people who voted for Bush
> are "highly intelligent".

Let's call 1% of the population highly intelligent. That's
roughly 30 million people, roughly half of whom didn't vote.
Roughly half of all voters chose Bush, but let's assume
that you're 4 times less likely to vote Bush if you're smart.
That's still 3 million smart folks who voted republican.

My Dad's smart enough to, coming from an impoverished and
broken family of alcoholics, earn a PhD in chemistry from
MIT and go on to invent highly successful medicines. He
voted for Bush because he doesn't believe in federally-funded
social programs, and he correctly perceived that republicans
fund them less than do democrats. He was and is in favor of
occupying Iraq and generally stands completely opposite from
me politically. But I'm grown-up enough not to confuse
political disagreement with my estimates of people's
intelligence.

> > Stupid people do not generally hold power of any kind,
> > Paul. They are less successful in careers, less
> > successful as small business owners, less succssful as
> > CEOs of corporations, and less successful as politicians,
> > than smart people.
>
> Unbelievably naive.

No, it's almost a definition. It's also a well-established
consensus in psychology. Leaders of nations may be crazy,
arrogant, ignorant, and bad at public speaking, but they
and/or the people who make up their administrations are not
stupid. It is you who are unbelievably naive if you think
otherwise.

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> No, it's almost a definition.

Wha??

> It's also a well-established
> consensus in psychology.

On what planet?

> Leaders of nations may be crazy,
> arrogant, ignorant, and bad at public speaking, but they
> and/or the people who make up their administrations are not
> stupid.

Well, this "and/or" changes things. Are you trying to back out?

> > Unbelievably naive.
>
> Well, that just doesn't look so good in print. I do have a
> hard time you believing the points you did, about stupid
> people getting elected, but I guess "naive" isn't the best
> way. But when one looks at Bush and Dan Quayle (who was a
> heartbeat away from being Prez), how can you deny that
> stupid people can go all the way to the top in politics?
> All they have to do is *please* the right people.

I didn't say stupid people don't get elected! I was very
careful to say, every time, that *some* key player(s) in
the outfit are bound to be smart. I mentioned at least
twice that Bush is either puppet or playing dumb.

Another thing to keep in mind is that many very brilliant
people are very bad public speakers. How accurately can
you judge the intelligence of someone you've never met?
How many people do you know who you think could survive
even 3 weeks under the kind of pressure and schedule that
the president keeps? Most folks have a hard time being
productive for 40 hours a week and returning their phone
calls and keeping up with paperwork and errands. In fact
most folks cannot do it. It's not easy for me. Such
constitution itself is a form of intelligence, I'd say.

Look, I don't like Bush any more than you. He does
everything my heart tells me is wrong. But that doesn't
make him stupid! In fact he seems very adept at extending
the powers of the presidency, capturing people's
imaginations, and spawning threads on metatuning.

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> I didn't say stupid people don't get elected!

You said they aren't leaders of countries, that this is almost a
definition, and that psychology says so.

> I was very
> careful to say, every time, that *some* key player(s) in
> the outfit are bound to be smart.

None of the people you mentioned ran Bush's election campaign.

> I mentioned at least
> twice that Bush is either puppet

Few candidates run their own campaigns. Does that make them puppets?

> How accurately can
> you judge the intelligence of someone you've never met?

There's plenty of evidence, from Bush's academic and professional
career.

> How many people do you know who you think could survive
> even 3 weeks under the kind of pressure and schedule that
> the president keeps?

Nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence.

>In case you managed to only hear the tiny minority of Bush
>statements that actually could be said to display
>intelligence,

Actually, I've seen a large number of stupidisms, and even
read through a Bushisms book. A old friend of mine teaches
English in France, uses them as examples of common errors.

>let me offer the
>following sorely incomplete selection:

Sorely incomplete is one way I'd characterize these quotes.

>"Anyway, I'm so thankful, and so gracious - I'm gracious that
>my brother Jeb is concerned about the hemisphere as well."

Don't see a problem.

>"It's important for young men and women who look at the
>Nebraska champs to understand that quality of life is more
>than just blocking shots."

Don't see a problem.

>"So on behalf of a well-oiled unit of people who came together
>to serve something greater than themselves, congratulations."

Don't see a problem.

>"For every fatal shooting, there were roughly three non-fatal
>shootings. And, folks, this is unacceptable in America. It's
>just unacceptable. And we're going to do something about it."

Don't see a problem.

>"There's no question that the minute I got elected, the
>storm clouds on the horizon were getting nearly directly
>overhead."

Don't see a problem.

>"First, we would not accept a treaty that would not have been
>ratified, nor a treaty that I thought made sense for the
>country."

Don't see a problem (without an assumption that ratification
requires unanimous acceptance).

>"It is time to set aside the old partisan bickering and finger-
>pointing and name-calling that comes from freeing parents to
>make different choices for their children."

Don't see a problem.

>"It would be helpful if we opened up ANWR (Arctic National
>Wildlife Refuge). I think it's a mistake not to. And I would
>urge you all to travel up there and take a look at it, and
>you can make the determination as to how beautiful that
>country is." -George W. Bush, at a White House Press
>conference, March 29, 2001

Don't see a problem.

>"A lot of times in the rhetoric, people forget the facts. And
>the facts are that thousands of small businesses - Hispanically
>owned or otherwise - pay taxes at the highest marginal rate."

Don't see a problem.

>"Ann and I will carry out this equivocal message to the world:
>Markets must be open."

Don't see a problem.

>"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass
>a literacy test."

Don't see a problem. There was wide criticism that
standardized tests are unmeaningful (incidentally of all the
things I oppose in the Bush platform, I oppose standardized
testing perhaps most of all).

>"I am mindful not only of preserving executive powers for
>myself, but for predecessors as well."

Don't see a problem.

>"Neither in French nor in English nor in Mexican."

It is probably inappropriate but not inacurrate to classify
Mexican Spanish as a language called "Mexican".

>"If he's - the inference is that somehow he thinks slavery
>is a - is a noble institution I would - I would strongly
>reject that assumption - that John Ashcroft is a open-minded,
>inclusive person."

I don't know who transcribed this, but there is potentially
no problem here.

-Carl

> > No, it's almost a definition.
>
> Wha??

In order to measure intelligence you need to measure
success at something. And the idea behind g is that
something can be almost anything.

> > It's also a well-established
> > consensus in psychology.
>
> On what planet?

IQ correlates very well with salary expectations (relative
to the field), SAT scores, etc. etc.

> > Leaders of nations may be crazy,
> > arrogant, ignorant, and bad at public speaking, but they
> > and/or the people who make up their administrations are not
> > stupid.
>
> Well, this "and/or" changes things. Are you trying to back
> out?

Please reread my posts, and point out a single instance
where I neglected the puppet possibility, keeping in mind
such posts were part of a running thread with Gene.

-Carl

> > I didn't say stupid people don't get elected!
>
> You said they aren't leaders of countries,

Correct. Stupid people are rarely calling the shots
for long.

> that this is almost a definition, and that psychology
> says so.

I said success at what you do is almost a definition
of intelligence and that psychology says so.

> > I was very
> > careful to say, every time, that *some* key player(s) in
> > the outfit are bound to be smart.
>
> None of the people you mentioned ran Bush's election
> campaign.

So?

> > I mentioned at least
> > twice that Bush is either puppet
>
> Few candidates run their own campaigns. Does that make
> them puppets?

Bill Clinton, for example, was a huge force in the Democratic
party. Probably one of the most influential forces in the
past 20 years. The same cannot be said of Bush, nor of any
popular Repulican save Reagan, in the last 20 years of the
Republican party.

> > How many people do you know who you think could survive
> > even 3 weeks under the kind of pressure and schedule that
> > the president keeps?
>
> Nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence.

When an agent does something impressive, it's called
intelligence.

-Carl

> > > No, it's almost a definition.
> >
> > Wha??
>
> In order to measure intelligence you need to measure
> success at something. And the idea behind g is that
> something can be almost anything.
>
> > > It's also a well-established
> > > consensus in psychology.
> >
> > On what planet?
>
> IQ correlates very well with salary expectations (relative
> to the field), SAT scores, etc. etc.

A google for 'g general intelligence' returns this as the
first result:

http://tinyurl.com/jpks

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> >"Anyway, I'm so thankful, and so gracious - I'm gracious that
> >my brother Jeb is concerned about the hemisphere as well."
>
> Don't see a problem.

"Gracious" is a solecism, and solecism suggest stupid.

> >"It's important for young men and women who look at the
> >Nebraska champs to understand that quality of life is more
> >than just blocking shots."
>
> Don't see a problem.

It's a bit silly, isn't it?

> >"So on behalf of a well-oiled unit of people who came together
> >to serve something greater than themselves, congratulations."
>
> Don't see a problem.

"Well-oiled" is slang for drunk.

> >"For every fatal shooting, there were roughly three non-fatal
> >shootings. And, folks, this is unacceptable in America. It's
> >just unacceptable. And we're going to do something about it."
>
> Don't see a problem.

Bush unintentionally suggests we need a higher proportion of fatal
shootings.

> >"There's no question that the minute I got elected, the
> >storm clouds on the horizon were getting nearly directly
> >overhead."
>
> Don't see a problem.

The horizon is not normally overhead.

> >"First, we would not accept a treaty that would not have been
> >ratified, nor a treaty that I thought made sense for the
> >country."
>
> Don't see a problem (without an assumption that ratification
> requires unanimous acceptance).

Bush is saying that if he thinks a treaty is good for America, he
will reject it.

> >"It is time to set aside the old partisan bickering and finger-
> >pointing and name-calling that comes from freeing parents to
> >make different choices for their children."
>
> Don't see a problem.

Bush says here that partisan bickering results from giving parents
free choices.

> >"It would be helpful if we opened up ANWR (Arctic National
> >Wildlife Refuge). I think it's a mistake not to. And I would
> >urge you all to travel up there and take a look at it, and
> >you can make the determination as to how beautiful that
> >country is." -George W. Bush, at a White House Press
> >conference, March 29, 2001
>
> Don't see a problem.

There's a hint in here that if only you took a look at it, you
wouldn't give a rats ass about it anymore.

> >"Ann and I will carry out this equivocal message to the world:
> >Markets must be open."
>
> Don't see a problem.

Why carry an equivocal message?

> >"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass
> >a literacy test."
>
> Don't see a problem. There was wide criticism that
> standardized tests are unmeaningful (incidentally of all the
> things I oppose in the Bush platform, I oppose standardized
> testing perhaps most of all).

"He or her" is a solecism.

> >"I am mindful not only of preserving executive powers for
> >myself, but for predecessors as well."
>
> Don't see a problem.

You cannot preserve executive powers for your predecessors.

> >"Neither in French nor in English nor in Mexican."
>
> It is probably inappropriate but not inacurrate to classify
> Mexican Spanish as a language called "Mexican".

It's a solecism.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:

> > How accurately can
> > you judge the intelligence of someone you've never met?
>
> There's plenty of evidence, from Bush's academic and professional
> career.

Here's the Cecil Adams on it:

http://urbanlegends.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?
site=http://www.straightdope.com/columns/010622.html

My own belief is that the president's IQ on any of the major tests,
such as Stanford-Binet or Weschler, when translated into degrees
Farenheit should be high enough to kill you. It doesn't look like
Bush would do that for most people.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> Let's call 1% of the population highly intelligent. That's
> roughly 30 million people, roughly half of whom didn't vote.
> Roughly half of all voters chose Bush, but let's assume
> that you're 4 times less likely to vote Bush if you're smart.
> That's still 3 million smart folks who voted republican.

Voting patterns as a function of intelligence are a curiosity--they
first trend Republican with increasing IQ, and then the trend
reverses itself, until at the upper levels there is a strong
Democratic tendency.

> > > Stupid people do not generally hold power of any kind,
> > > Paul. They are less successful in careers, less
> > > successful as small business owners, less succssful as
> > > CEOs of corporations, and less successful as politicians,
> > > than smart people.
> >
> > Unbelievably naive.
>
> No, it's almost a definition.

The average IQ of a top exective tends to be far higher than what we
can discern from Bush's SAT scores and general behavior. I'd be
surprised if you could find a single president of a Fortune 500
company who scored as badly as Bush. The same, of course, goes for
academics, especially in the more challenging fields, but academics
inhabit that dear old ivory tower; the fact that people who are
expected and required to perform in the "real world" are operating at
a level beyond the Bush league is at least suggestive. The voters can
relate to a regular guy like Bush, and that's an advantage, but it
brings with it a disadvantage also.

It's also a well-established
> consensus in psychology.

Citation? I'm afraid history tells us that leaders of great nations
are not always so clever as Cardinal Richelieu or Otto von Bismark.

> > >"Anyway, I'm so thankful, and so gracious - I'm gracious that
> > >my brother Jeb is concerned about the hemisphere as well."
> >
> > Don't see a problem.
>
> "Gracious" is a solecism, and solecism suggest stupid.

Yes, I missed that.

> > >"So on behalf of a well-oiled unit of people who came
> > >together to serve something greater than themselves,
> > >congratulations."
> >
> > Don't see a problem.
>
> "Well-oiled" is slang for drunk.

It's more commonly slang for 'in proper working order'.

>>>"For every fatal shooting, there were roughly three non-fatal
>>>shootings. And, folks, this is unacceptable in America. It's
>>>just unacceptable. And we're going to do something about it."
>>
>>Don't see a problem.
>
>Bush unintentionally suggests we need a higher proportion of
>fatal shootings.

Oh, I say, "ha ha".

He's clearly saying that there are too many shootings, and that
looking at the number of fatal shootings alone is not enough.

> > >"There's no question that the minute I got elected, the
> > >storm clouds on the horizon were getting nearly directly
> > >overhead."
> >
> > Don't see a problem.
>
> The horizon is not normally overhead.

That's a stretch.

> > >"First, we would not accept a treaty that would not have been
> > >ratified, nor a treaty that I thought made sense for the
> > >country."
> >
> > Don't see a problem (without an assumption that ratification
> > requires unanimous acceptance).
>
> Bush is saying that if he thinks a treaty is good for America,
> he will reject it.

I missed the missing negation, and clearly so did Bush.

> > >"It is time to set aside the old partisan bickering and
> > >finger-pointing and name-calling that comes from freeing
> > >parents to make different choices for their children."
> >
> > Don't see a problem.
>
> Bush says here that partisan bickering results from giving
> parents free choices.

And...?

>>>"It would be helpful if we opened up ANWR (Arctic National
>>>Wildlife Refuge). I think it's a mistake not to. And I
>>>would urge you all to travel up there and take a look at
>>>it, and you can make the determination as to how beautiful
>>>that country is." -George W. Bush, at a White House Press
>>>conference, March 29, 2001
>>
>>Don't see a problem.
>
> There's a hint in here that if only you took a look at it,
> you wouldn't give a rats ass about it anymore.

A very sensible thing to say. People have limited right to
"protect" something they've never seen and about which they,
in all likelihood, know next to nothing about.

> > >"Ann and I will carry out this equivocal message to the
> > >world: Markets must be open."
> >
> > Don't see a problem.
>
> Why carry an equivocal message?

Good point.

> > >"You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able
> > >to pass a literacy test."
//
> "He or her" is a solecism.

True.

> > >"I am mindful not only of preserving executive powers
> > >for myself, but for predecessors as well."
> >
> > Don't see a problem.
>
> You cannot preserve executive powers for your
> predecessors.

Indeed.

> > >"Neither in French nor in English nor in Mexican."
> >
> > It is probably inappropriate but not inacurrate to
> > classify Mexican Spanish as a language called "Mexican".
>
> It's a solecism.

Nah.

-Carl

> My own belief is that the president's IQ on any of the major
> tests, such as Stanford-Binet or Weschler, when translated
> into degrees Farenheit should be high enough to kill you. It
> doesn't look like Bush would do that for most people.

Agreed, but only Jefferson and Garfield immediately come
to mind. Washington, Adams, and Quincy Adams maybe. Wasn't
Nixon supposed to have a high IQ? Carter is pretty smart...

-Carl

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:

> > My own belief is that the president's IQ on any of the major
> > tests, such as Stanford-Binet or Weschler, when translated
> > into degrees Farenheit should be high enough to kill you. It
> > doesn't look like Bush would do that for most people.
>
> Agreed, but only Jefferson and Garfield immediately come
> to mind. Washington, Adams, and Quincy Adams maybe. Wasn't
> Nixon supposed to have a high IQ? Carter is pretty smart...

I think Wilson would clearly have been in the lethal range, but I'm
more optimistic about this than you, if that's the word.

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > > You think the President of the US is stupid?
> >
> > I'd use a stronger word. Playing devil's advocate again?
>
> Not this time.
>
> > > or he was put in place by people who
> > > are not stupid. The presidency of the US cannot be
> >
> > Huh? Where are all these smart people who voted for Bush?
>
> What I meant is that he may be a puppet of smart people.
>
> But what do you mean?? Millions of highly intelligent
> people voted for Bush, or do you have any delusions
> about that?

um ... yes, millions of highly intelligent people *did*
vote for Bush ... highly intelligent RICH people.

-monz

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <PERLICH@A...> wrote:
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, "Carl Lumma" <clumma@y...> wrote:
> > > > You think the President of the US is stupid?
>
> In case you managed to only hear the tiny minority of
> Bush statements that actually could be said to display
> intelligence,

and where might one find those? i've never seen one.

i selected these as my favorite gems of Bush-idiocy
... has there ever been another head of state in history
who gave such an appearance of stupidity?

> let me offer the following sorely incomplete selection:
>
> IT'S THE PRESIDENT, STUPID! - BUSH QUOTES
>
> <snip>
>
> "First, we would not accept a treaty that would not have
> been ratified, nor a treaty that I thought made sense for
> the country." - George W. Bush, on the Kyoto accord,
> April 24, 2001
>
> "It's very important for folks to understand that when
> there's more trade, there's more commerce." -George W. Bush,
> at the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City, April 21, 2001
>
> <snip>
>
> "This administration is doing everything we can to end
> the stalemate in an efficient way. We're making the right
> decisions to bring the solution to an end." -George W. Bush,
> April 10, 2001
>
> <snip>
>
> "Ann and I will carry out this equivocal message to the
> world: Markets must be open." -George W. Bush, at the
> swearing-in ceremony for Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman,
> March 2, 2001
>
> <snip>
>
> "You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to
> pass a literacy test.'' -George W. Bush, Feb. 21, 2001
>
> <snip>
>
> "I am mindful not only of preserving executive powers for
> myself, but for predecessors as well." -George W. Bush,
> Washington, D.C., Jan. 29, 2001
>
> <snip>
>
> "I'm hopeful. I know there is a lot of ambition in Washington,
> obviously. But I hope the ambitious realize that they are more
> likely to succeed with success as opposed to failure." -George
> W. Bush, Jan. 2001
>
> <snip>
>
> "I want it to be said that the Bush administration was a
> results-oriented administration, because I believe the results
> of focusing our attention and energy on teaching children to
> read and having an education system that's responsive to the
> child and to the parents, as opposed to mired in a system that
> refuses to change, will make America what we want it to be
> - a more literate country and a hopefuller country." -George
> W. Bush, Jan. 2001

-monz