|
I don't know why but I like
Bush better than Clinton, so far.
Arthur
Reply
That is because you are
from Canada and don't know the micro-movements. Clinton never
fooled me. I always read what he said and knew when he was being
politically expedient. I also never doubted his commitment to the
environment and the peace of mankind. I didn't like his
"Republican" internationist economics and I didn't trust his lack of discipline
in his social life but I never felt that he didn't have the goods to understand
and make decisions good or bad. As for his family life and
relationship with his wife? Well, I respect that they are still
married and I like the way his daughter was discreet and seems to have turned
out well as opposed to the dysfunction of Reagan and both Bush I and
II. Finally I think Clinton was the only alternative we have to the
Corporate Media that Jim Bouton writes about. The idiocy over the
Reagan movie is a perfect example. Below is the letter I sent to a
couple of reviewers who were just so blatently Republican in a so-called
objective media that it made me mad.
I also read Bush's micro-movements
and they scream at me just like they do at Keith.
After having watched the Reagan puff job on Showtime
we can now put all this bruhaha beside the type of conservative contrary
agitprop that goes with such things as praising programs just before you refuse
to fund them. Or lying about
wars and social programs and claiming elitism for populists when you're born
with a silver spoon in your mouth (as in his current manifestation in the White
House). Reagan was after all is
said and done, the man who came from the arts, betrayed them and then at
the end of his reign said "oops, I made a mistake" and then funded them just as
Nixon had done when he worried about his record in
"history." The data that Reagan had to oppoint a
"commission" to find out about the arts, was available all along. I
certainly knew it and so did all of the rest of the people in the
arts. He was either senile or lying. Senility is the
most gentle evaluation.
Reagan sold out early on and the cold war would still
be going on if the Nuclear winter studies hadn't been published and scared the
Russians out of competing. "What's
the point if we ALL die?"
Which is a subtlety that Reagan missed at the time. It is no mistake that in
"Capitalist" Russia today, the largest party is still the Communist
Party. They just didn't like the one party system, the old military
impasse didn't work given the Nuclear Winter and the modern world was now
available to Russians through the Russian media itself. In
order to compete, they needed another way and they took it but to say that
Reagan was much more than at a convenient time in history is not
accurate.
We
were missing many wonderful statements in this movie. It could have been much more
truthful. Consider the "No
Mr. Gorbachev, I don't" when asked directly if he considered the Soviet Union
truly an "Evil Empire." (Talk about
blinking!) Or the statements about
reservations being good for Indians to that Russian student. And then there was Nancy Reagan's
statement reported in the press to Gobachev's wife upon seeing the opulence of
the Czar's Hermitage Palace. "I understand why you threw them
out." We don't need the stories about Nancy and Sinatra or any
of the other stuff that a fifty million dollar exploration into the Reagan
family personal activities might have shown. The record
is complete about this dodo.
The CBS mini-series was very respectful and nice to a man who didn't
deserve it even if he could mouth platitudes convincingly.
I would add that GWB's economic
policies may actually work but the price is strictly on the back of the poor and
builds the alienation of most Americans. It also strengthens the
cultural property that belongs to us all in the hands of the rich.
Why crucify the helpless who already sacrifice enough? Is that
truly what the American Revolution was about? Is that also the
hope that America has held out to the world when its historic record is often
dysfunctional? You should talk to the Russians from the old Soviet
Union who come here to perform. They won't lie to you about the
worker's paradise but they will not lie about the current hellish necessity of
living in this place either. I don't like what
the bureacratic Republican mediocrities have done to my home.
REH
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 12:54
PM
Subject: RE: Bush the confidence
trickster (was RE: [Futurework] Blair's curious illnesses
I
think Bush (like Clinton) are a sort of Rohrshach test. There is an
immediate response to the person, mannerisms, smile, manner of walking,
etc. What all this means I will leave to the
psychotherapists.
For
me I found Clinton to be a lying sleaze. Bush has a lack of guile that
may be real or fake. Probably a liar as well. I
arthur
Harry,
At 12:33 02/12/2003
-0800, you wrote:
Keith,
The part that
bothers me about your post is:
"Yet I think Bush is intellectually
stunted and is a confidence trickster through and through. And he's
vengeful, so some of his former contacts say."
What evidence to
have that he is intellectually stunted?
Harry, once again, I'm trusting the evidence of my own eyes and
ears, having seen Bush on TV often enough and knowing the context from which
he comes.
I remember that
when Bush came to office, he was unpracticed in the art of speaking. This
evinced jeers and catcalls from the not so loyal opposition. He is a quick
learner and he has adapted to his new position. His London speech was
excellent, delivered without a slip from his notes rather than from
reading a Teleprompter.
Why do you say he is a confidence
trickster?
Because he's told lies. And
we've found out about several of them. His track record is now such that you
would have to be very naive to believe anything that Bush says without
thinking carefully of why he might be saying them.
We can certainly
argue that the WMD didn't materialize. Yet, both Bush and Blair were more
than confident they existed. Indeed, most of the people concerned with
Iraq, including the inspectors, were sure they existed. If they were
moved, where did they go? There were some early reports that they were
buried in Syria.
No! With the present
sort of satellite photography (down to 6 inches visual resolution) and many
years of satellites going overhead, the CIA would know the whereabouts of
every single piece of fixed military or industrial technology in the whole
country. Not only visual methods, but infra red, X-ray and so forth mean
that any sort of significant underground installations would also be a
doddle to discover.
When the presence
of 100,000 troops at his borders persuaded Saddam that he had better
provide greater (if unenthusiastic) cooperation with the UN inspectors, it
could well be that any remaining WMD would be better off
elsewhere.
What evidence shows that he is vengeful, other than the
words of former contacts -- whatever that means? One of the problems of
thinking about these matters is that every movement, every gesture, every
decision, is analyzed and overanalyzed by people who do not really know.
They are guessing. Authoritative guesswork is now well-paid, so there is
no shortage of guessers and guesses.
I think that Bush has accepted
a Herculean task. He may not be up to it, but one must wonder who is? If
the situation in Iraq comes off the boil, if Syria mends its ways, if
Saudi Arabia takes the necessary antiterrorist action, if Iran continues
the policy (that may have already started) of rapprochement with the US,
Bush will become the president of the 21st-century.
Lots of "ifs",
but at least they are positive "ifs" -- a little different from the
constant prognostications of doom and disaster.
I really don't know how to express myself after reading the above
paragraphs! So I won't.
Keith
Harry
********************************************
Henry George School of Social
Science
of Los
Angeles
Box 655
Tujunga CA 91042
Tel: 818 352-4141 -- Fax: 818
353-2242
http://haledward.home.comcast.net
********************************************
From: Keith Hudson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent:
Tuesday, December 02, 2003 1:16 AM
To: Harry
Pollard
Subject: RE: [Futurework] Blair's curious
illnesses
Harry,
At 16:47 01/12/2003
-0800, you wrote:
Keith,
Long before
Iraq, Gwen and I used to be amused by Presidential
hair color
transitions. Hair that came in black, goes out gray.
Gray heads
become white. The job is not an easy one.
I remember a science
fiction yarn about the future Presidency.
There were actually three
Presidents - each with a specific area
to cover - to handle the
complexities.
Maybe there should be several prime
Ministers.
That's precisely what I think is going to
happen in the longer term future. We'll need (democratic) forums in each
policy area.
I only see Blair in action at
Question Time and Press
Conferences. He seems to handle things well
in those arenas.
He's a very good perfomer. And that's all
he is. He's intelligent but he has no intellectual depth. Two opposition
leaders ago, William Hague used to best him at Question Time three times
out of five. Hague is an intellectual (he is writing a biography of
William Pitt at present and learning to play the piano) though he doesn't
seem it because he has a broad Yorkshire accent. (He was the chap who
spoke at the Conservative Party Conference when he was 14! Remember?)
This, plus the fact that he is still young, and bald, ditched him as
leader of the Tories. He resigned very gracefully without hanging on too
long. In 5 - 10 years' time with a good book behind him he'll go straight
into the Tory leadership again. The main thing that bothers me about
Hague is that his ideas (a year ago, anyway) don't seem to have changed
since he was 14. But maybe they will as he writes about English history in
depth. He doesn't seem to be enmeshed at all with big business (thgough
I'm sure he has a few directorships) and keeps away from the London scene,
living an idyllic life (it would seem) in his constituency in Yorkshire
with his lovely wife Fiona (an intellectual who was one of the brightest
fast-track civil servants. She taught Welsh to Hague when he was Secretary
of State for Wales and she was his senior civil servant).
I must say, your usually
excellent analyses seem to falter when
you cover Bush (and perhaps
Blair).
Come on Harry! I'm now 68. I've knocked
around with people from all classes -- in the army , shop floor workers
(at two factories for some years), several Peers of the Realm and several
politicians of all three parties of entirely different abilities and
motivations. I've negotiated with civil servants at the highest level. If
I can't judge the calibre of politicians from their speech, gestures and
bearing after a sufficient number of viewings on TV (and, moreover that my
estimation fits in with those of other observers I have time for) then I'm
ready for the knacker's yard. I'm not prejudiced against Bush. My general
ragbag of policies is slightly more stocked with Republican policies than
with Democratic policies. Yet I think Bush is intellectually stunted and
is a confidence trickster through and through. And he's vengeful, so some
of his former contacts say.
Note the Economist
about
Blair:
" . . . he became blind to any evidence or
arguments that might
have forced him to think twice."
Harry
Junior's reaction to the Presidential Thanksgiving trip was
"it
showed class".
Could that be a reasonable reaction to
it?
It was a disaster. But Bush got his photos with the
Queen. That's what the trip was planned for 18 months ago long before the
invasion was planned and that's what he got. The rest was humiliation, but
Bush is so thankful that Blair -- his only friend in the non-American
world -- is supporting him that he was prepared to be humiliated as no-one
has ever been before.
Are you saying the Economist
doesn't have a "party line".
Isn't that good?
It
doesn't have a party line, which is good -- it has too many bright people
on the staff. But its leaders chop and change about too much in recent
years under the present editor. You really cannot be certain what it's
general line is going to be on new issues. It's so often quixotic. As I
wrote before, the Economist is extremely good at gleaning the
informational world and grabbing the latest idea before most other
publications, and that's why I buy it.
Best
wishes,
Keith
Harry
********************************************
Henry
George School of Social Science
of Los Angeles
Box 655
Tujunga CA 91042
Tel: 818 352-4141 -- Fax:
818 353-2242
http://haledward.home.comcast.net
********************************************
-----Original
Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of Keith
Hudson
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2003 11:46
AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Futurework]
Blair's curious illnesses
Harry,
This is especially for
you. Here's the Economist going back on
itself
(again!) concerning
Iraq. The view below is the safer one, I
think, because The World in
2004 has got to last, unlike
ephemeral
editorials.
-------
Waiting for Lord Hanson's Report on his
Enquiry into the reasons
for Dr David Kelly's suicide, promised for
this month, is as
interminable as waiting for Godot. Unless I've
missed some news
there are only two days left in which it can be
published --
Monday or Tuesday next (today being Saturday).
It
is just a little odd that the Hanson Report is being left to
the last
moment. One wonders, ever so gently, whether someone has
been trying
to postpone its publication. One can only admire the
rigour with
which Lord Hanson has conducted his enquiry and, to
the surprise of
most people, the cornucopia of textual evidence,
e-mails and all,
that he's extracted from the Ministry of
Defence, 10 Downing Street
and other high-flown places --
information which would normally be
regarded as sancrosanct for
at least the next 50 years. And then,
too, there was the curious
incident when Lord Hanson suddenly decided
to extend the enquiry
by a further day in order to call the Permanent
Secretary of the
Ministry of Defence to give evidence.
To my
surprise, this mandarin unequivocally contradicted the
statement
given previously by the prime minister that he'd had no
hand in
deciding that Dr Kelly should be named. But, according to
the civil
servant, the decision was taken at a meeting at 10
Downing Street,
and chaired by the prime minister. Curious.
Curioser and
curioser, there has been a succession of doctors
visiting 10 Downing
Street (going through the front door three
times in the last month if
I remember rightly), twice for stomach
troubles, and once for heart
palpitations -- the sort that every
middle-aged man gets from time to
time.
Then his much publicised his visit to the hospital to have
some
checks.
They've all been trivial complaints. What's curious
is not that
Blair might be suffering from a variety of
stress-linked
complaints, but why have we been told about them?
This is quite
unlike what normally happens when prime ministers or
presidents
are ill. They don't wish to be thought weak or vulnerable.
But
here we have a prime minister, while saying that he's raring
to
lead his party into the next general election, is allowing
the
whole world to know. Is he preparing us for news of a
more
serious complaint, and grounds for medical retirement when
Lord
Hanson's report is published? I don;t know and I don't intend
to
guess, but it's very curious all the same.
A recent
editorial in the Economist was quite in favour of
Blair's support of
Bush and adduced all sorts of reasons for the
invasion of Iraq. Here,
though, the political editor of the
Economist takes a different line.
I've extracted just two
paragraphs from his recent article in The
World in 2004 which is
punished by the Economist.
Keith
Hudson
<<<<
WHEN TRUST IS GOING, THE GOING GETS
TOUGH
Matthew Symonds
In 2003 Tony Blair gambled his
reputation on leading his country
into a war with Iraq. He did so in
opposition to public opinion
and despite the deep discomfort of most
of his own MPs. Although
the war itself went as well as even the most
fervent optimist
could have hoped, nearly everything associated with
it has since
gone pretty badly. The long failure to unearth weapons
of mass
destruction, the fragile security situation in Iraq and
the
bitterly slow progress in healing the war's diplomatic
wounds
have combined to make the successful military campaign
look
increasingly like a strategic blunder. The fallout will cast
its
shadow over 2004.
The prime minister's collapsing ratings
for "trust" are an
indication that almost everyone, even supporters
of the war,
suspects him of having exaggerated the case for military
action.
Not in the sense, as his more extreme critics claim, of
having
cynically deceived both Parliament and people. The
more
substantive charge against Mr Blair is that, having made up
his
mind about what was the right thing to do, he became blind to
any
evidence or arguments that might have forced him to think
twice.
The World in 2004 (The
Economist)
>>>>
Keith Hudson, Bath, England,
<www.evolutionary-economics.org>
_______________________________________________
Futurework
mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
---
Incoming
mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.541 /
Virus Database: 335 - Release Date:
11/14/2003
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus
Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.541 /
Virus Database: 335 - Release Date:
11/14/2003
Keith Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus
Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.541 / Virus
Database: 335 - Release Date: 11/14/2003
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus
Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.541 / Virus
Database: 335 - Release Date: 11/14/2003
Keith
Hudson, Bath, England, <www.evolutionary-economics.org>
|
