2012 President?

[uncool2pillow]

Your 2nd point may be valid. The 1st and last have little to to do with demonstrating a belief that the poor only have themselves to blame. He thinks (quite probably in error, I'll grant) that tax cuts to the rich will create jobs and grow the economy.

[lost highway]

I admit that some of my impression of his attitude is based on his history and his demeanor. MItt Romney seems better equipped to be an aristocrat than be in office, just as Joe Biden seems better equipped to schmooze at a bowling tournament than a fundraiser.

 

One thing that both Clinton and Kennedy knew how to do was communicate gracefully with different groups of people from different sides of American culture, as well as abroad. They had an abstract, subjective skill of acknowledging people's dignity.

[uncool2pillow]

Romney's Palestinian comments are regrettable and insensitive. Palestinians live pretty much in a prison. It is fair to ask, however, why so much of the Arab world lives in poverty while Israel lives in prosperity. It's a complex issue and our support of evil regimes like Saudi Arabia in the name of cheap oil is part of the answer. But so is an Arab culture that is regressive, sexist, and insular. Tom Friedman, a liberal and no fan of Romney, has written extensively on this.

[uncool2pillow]

I admit that some of my impression of his attitude is based on his history and his demeanor. MItt Romney seems better equipped to be an aristocrat than be in office, just as Joe Biden seems better equipped to schmooze at a bowling tournament than a fundraiser.

 

One thing that both Clinton and Kennedy knew how to do was communicate gracefully with different groups of people from different sides of American culture, as well as abroad. They had an abstract, subjective skill of acknowledging people's dignity.

I agree with this pretty much 100%. In terms of communication, if not impact, I would add Reagan to Clinton & Kennedy.

[lost highway]

It is fair to ask, however, why so much of the Arab world lives in poverty while Israel lives in prosperity?

 

Perhaps because they receive billions of dollars a year from the U.S., more than any other country for a period of a half a century. They've been given the opportunity to industrialize while neighboring countries merely produce raw goods.

 

Those are two reasons. As you mentioned, one needs several books to describe them all. I don't think Mittens read the book before he visited.

[uncool2pillow]

 

 

Perhaps because they receive billions of dollars a year from the U.S., more than any other country for a period of a half a century. They've been given the opportunity to industrialize while neighboring countries merely produce raw goods.

 

Those are two reasons. As you mentioned, one needs several books to describe them all. I don't think Mittens read the book before he visited.

U.S. can get credit for Israel's military might, but not so much their economic. Who has to "give" Arab nations the opportunity to industrialize? That's seems to me a very odd notion.

[lost highway]

Who has to "give" Arab nations the opportunity to industrialize?

 

Yet Israel was given this opportunity.. That is exactly what Israel represents in modern history: the kind of opportunities other countries can give. Yes, they have used the opportunity brilliantly, but you don't hear as many people celebrating the tyrannical power of Saudi Arabia, but by these measures they are also a smashing success.

 

You were quick to generalize about the evils of "Arab culture", yet no one seems to consider the thread of intolerance and religious extremism in Israeli culture.

 

This is a wide detour, but to bring it home to the conversation at hand; the explanations for prosperity and poverty. I had a cultural anthropology professor who championed a popular theory that groups such as the KKK had greater strength in times and areas of economic hardship. Extreme nationalism, xenophobia, and religious extremism seem to flourish in hard times. So, does Islamic extremism cause poverty, or spread because of it? No doubt these things are not mutually exclusive, but somewhat symbiotic. Nonetheless it would seem that a good dose of unemployment can bring the worst of any community to the forefront.

 

It is convenient for a child of riches such as Mitt Romney to attribute extreme success to cultural superiority, but this kind of social Darwinism ignores institutionalized poverty.

[caliber66]

U.S. can get credit for Israel's military might, but not so much their economic. Who has to "give" Arab nations the opportunity to industrialize? That's seems to me a very odd notion.

For every dollar that the U.S. has given to Israel in military aid, Israel can spend its own dollar on non-defense programs.

[IRememberDBoon]

How? His campaign seems to be built on the principle that Obama's stimulus (govt programs) have failed to help the unemployed. Elect him and he will empower the job creators to help those who are. Now, I'm not saying he's right, but how does he demonstrate that he believes poverty is one's own fault?

 

you realize he belongs to the republican party right??

[uncool2pillow]

Yet Israel was given this opportunity.. That is exactly what Israel represents in modern history: the kind of opportunities other countries can give. Yes, they have used the opportunity brilliantly, but you don't hear as many people celebrating the tyrannical power of Saudi Arabia, but by these measures they are also a smashing success.

 

You were quick to generalize about the evils of "Arab culture", yet no one seems to consider the thread of intolerance and religious extremism in Israeli culture.

 

This is a wide detour, but to bring it home to the conversation at hand; the explanations for prosperity and poverty. I had a cultural anthropology professor who championed a popular theory that groups such as the KKK had greater strength in times and areas of economic hardship. Extreme nationalism, xenophobia, and religious extremism seem to flourish in hard times. So, does Islamic extremism cause poverty, or spread because of it? No doubt these things are not mutually exclusive, but somewhat symbiotic. Nonetheless it would seem that a good dose of unemployment can bring the worst of any community to the forefront.

 

It is convenient for a child of riches such as Mitt Romney to attribute extreme success to cultural superiority, but this kind of social Darwinism ignores institutionalized poverty.

 

Did I use the word "evil" in describing Arab culture? Regressive and insular are not evil. Unfortunately, the treatment of women in parts of Arab culture are quite clearly evil. That alone is responsible for much of their lack of progress. My point is not to judge their culture as a rallying cry to American xenophobia ('merica, Fuck yeah, and that kind of thing), just to point out that Romney's comment was not completely racist stupidity. I agree with you about Israel. They have their own cultural issues to be sure. But that's besides the point we're talking about here.

 

By what measures is Saudi Arabia a smashing success? They are not a prosperous nation. If you think wealth is in the hands of a few in the U.S. you ain't seen nothin' yet. They've generated enough wealth through their oil revenue to enrich the whole country and they haven't. Don't tell me the U.S. is complicit in this, I know it. But we'd be equally happy buying oil from Saudi Arabia whether they were responsible for institutionalized poverty or not.

 

I'm pretty sure your cultural anthropology professor's theory is accepted fact but most of the educated world. This is why It will be very interesting (and scary) to see how this plays out in the Arab Spring. Will democracy moderate the extremism or give a stronger voice to it in the face of years of oppression.

[lost highway]

Did I use the word "evil" in describing Arab culture?

 

Not yet.

 

Unfortunately, the treatment of women in parts of Arab culture are quite clearly evil.

 

There it is.

 

Mitt Romney made a point of acknowledging the cultural superiority of a country that is highly successful, while it is the 4th highest recipient for USAID (that's non-military funding, nestled right between such dissimilar countries as Haiti and Kenya) and has a budget surplus. We worry about our deficit, yet were donating to a wealthy country with a surplus.

 

All that aside, you have taken a cautious and well measured stance to moderate what could be unfair accusations against Gov Romney. What are your motivations? Are you looking for something redeemable enough in him to vote for?

[gogo]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/opinion/mitt-romneys-search-for-simple-answers.html?_r=1

 

The author of Guns, Germs & Steel in the NY Times this morning, stating his belief that Romney misrepresented/misunderstood his thesis. Doesn't necessarily shed any new light on this discussion, but an interesting read, anyway.

[Sweet Papa Crimbo]

Not yet.

 

 

 

There it is.

 

Mitt Romney made a point of acknowledging the cultural superiority of a country that is highly successful, while it is the 4th highest recipient for USAID (that's non-military funding, nestled right between such dissimilar countries as Haiti and Kenya) and has a budget surplus. We worry about our deficit, yet were donating to a wealthy country with a surplus.

 

All that aside, you have taken a cautious and well measured stance to moderate what could be unfair accusations against Gov Romney. What are your motivations? Are you looking for something redeemable enough in him to vote for?

 

Yeah...Lord knows that cautious and well measured stances have no place in an internet discussion group. Let the ad hominum attacks and wild sword fights continue!

[uncool2pillow]

I don't care for caricatures of Obama (born in Kenya, socialist, etc.) and I don't care for caricatures of Romney. I voted for Obama in 2008 mostly because Palin being a heartbeat away from the presidency when her running mate is a cancer survivor scared me. I plan on voting for Romney, though I might just vote for some third party candidate like Buddy Roemer.

 

Lost Highway, what words, other than evil, would you use to describe female circumcision, forced marriage, stonings, etc.? I know a lot of people who consider lack of availability of safe, legal abortion evil. I make no apologies for using that word. It is not representative of the whole of Arab / Muslim culture, but it's not some right wing fantasy either.

[LouieB]

Maybe it is just plain true?

What a great ethnic stereotype.

 

LouieB

[Tweedling]

I love the Obama ad with Romney singing! Hahaha gets me every time.

[Guest Jules]

What a great ethnic stereotype.

 

LouieB

 

Stereotypes can be true.

[KevinG]

Stereotypes can be true.

 

Like all conversatives are racists.

[IRememberDBoon]

Its amazing how far to the right the conservative movement has gone since President Obama took office. things that you thought were settled law and taken for granted are now up for debate. especially since the 1990s

[LouieB]

Stereotypes can be true.

i have known plenty of Jews who were terrible with money.

 

Meanwhile back on thecampaign trail, the question of whether or not one is better off now than four years ago; despite the still lingering unemployment issues, at least we weren't plunged into a depression. That could have easily happened.

 

And if anyone wants to iknow where the greatest support for Obama is, just come with me to the west and south sides of Chicago. Not your most up neighborhoods, but everywhere you go are pictures of Barack in churches and daycare centers as well as people wearing tee shirts with his picture. While the right hates him and whites on the left have a distinct enthusiasm gap, those in some of the most depressed neighborhoods of his current hometown still are pretty fond of him.

 

LouieB

[jackins]

I think it also has to do with the economic downturn that came on during the Bush years and the post 9/11 spending. It's not just a response to Obama but a response to government spending which to many has been out of whack since the New Deal.

[IRememberDBoon]

When President Bush took office the budget was balanced and the economy was like a freight train.

 

I personally think things have gotten a hell of alot better under this President. In Oct -Dec 08 it was like everyone just threw their hands up and put it all on the incoming administration. NOONE had any answers and we were losing half a million jobs a month.

[jackins]

Right, I hear you. I think Obama has done some great things, but there is much that still needs to be done. I would have to say that I'm still in support of him but I hope he has a better strategy and plan for the next 4 years. To me it appears that he was a little overwhelmed with putting out fires. I just hope he's able to continue for another four years and redeem himself. We are at a very difficult place in the arc of our country, where the economy seems to need to be propped up by the government subsidies, but at the same time running up such an alarming debt, something has got to give and it's a tough call no matter who is in the White House.

[uncool2pillow]

When President Bush took office the budget was balanced and the economy was like a freight train.

 

A freight train fueled by the Internet bubble which was already beginning to burst. Clinton and the Republican Congress do deserve some credit for balancing the budget, but lets remember that the budget was balanced thank to increased revenues from mostly from increased incomes and job creation. A good chunk of that was smoke & mirrors from the internet bubble. Not as big or as fraudulent as the housing bubble, but still a big part of the late 90s economy.

[lost highway]

That's totally true about the Clinton years going into the Bush years. Many people say the real estate crisis was already being brewed back in the Clinton days.

 

The budget however, looked great under Clinton. Then Bush took us on two failed wars, one of which was based on a lie, the other he had no conviction for. While him and Cheney were sending us on some wild misadventures they were also cutting taxes.

 

Barney Frank was on TV talking about how the power of our military was necessary in WWII to keep an outside force from literally being capable of taking over our country. The cold war with Russia continued to wind up the military industrial complex. When the Bush years hit the thought was for the Pentagon to get the public to write it's check with the perception that a massive military was required to battle terrorism. We of course learned that it is not the most efficient, or elegant way to take on that particular foe.

 

The American people are starting to get hip to the fact that every battle is not something FDR can send us into to save the world, our economy and make us the most important country on earth. People are starting to see exactly what Eisenhower warned us of. It's just a practical line of thought to understand that if you want to reduce the deficit, you have to cut defense spending, or you'll end up having to toss out too much of the things the US needs to be safe, stable and prosperous.