What in habeaus corpus maximus was Al Gore thinking, in selecting such a war-mongering, two-faced traitor as Joe Leiberman as his Vice Presidential nominee. After watching his speach at the RNC, I have to wonder, do the people of Connecticut feel like Amway representatives at the bottom of the downline? His slavish support for Sarah Pallin, a person he doesn't know from a hole in the wall, showed just what a tool he was for the McCain camp, and totally uncredible, despite his experience in the U.S. Senate.
Leiberman seems to be completely unpeturbed about George W. Bush's most egregious law-breaking and John McCain's slavish support for that erosion of our Constitution. Leiberman seems to suppport any military action against any enemy of Israel, even when such actions are against the interest of the United States. What little respect I held for Leiberman prior to tonight's speech is pretty much gone.
Leiberman has sold his soul, and pretends that he is riding the middle. With our Constitution hanging by a thread, Leiberman has taken up the "Order of the Scissors" and is willing to cut away, and market it as bi-partisan expediency. At the time, I thought Ned Lamont's campaign against Leiberman was misplaced. In retrospect, the citizens of Connecticut should be embarrassed to have elected a man of this low caliber. But I give them some solace, that I too was fooled by him. I too have sought the middle ground at times with authoritarian conservatives. However, I was grounded by a basic understanding of what our country was about, Leiberman does not appear to me to be so grounded. Good bye Leiberman. I hope you got a good deal on your soul.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I missed Lieberman's speech. My wife and I rented "The Diving Bell and the Butterfly".
By the way, my wife is far more likely than I to say "ahhh, Tolstoy" since she is the one with the degree in Russian. She is a prof at Weber, not in Russian.
Here is my basic confusion with liberalism. Let's take immigration as an example. If we can agree that, ceteris paribus, an increase in the supply of anything lowers its price. So an increase in the supply of apples or oil or wheat lowers their price than it would be otherwise. So if we add several million new sets of hands to the US labor market, then the price of labor will be lower than it would be otherwise. So why on earth would a liberal want to lower the price of labor? Why do (some) liberals think that being stricter on immigration enforcement is a bad thing? Either they don't believe there is an effect on wages due to the extra supply of workers, or they don't care and just believe we should help poor people from Mexico or wherever on humanitarian principles by lettting them come here, regardless of the consequences on US workers.
Exhibit A is my own experience. When I was in high school I worked at fast food, washing dishes, food prep, etc. This was a few decades ago. If you index for CPI what I earned when I was 16-18 would be $13-$15/hour today. Those same jobs today at the same places pay maybe $8 or $10 if you are lucky. So why are real wages today 30-40% lower today than I was in high school? One explanation seems to be the increase in supply of labor from immigration.
Before one jumps to the reaction of "well the minimum wage hasn't kept pace and it should be higher", it should be noted that I was making more than the minimum wage then, and workers today are making more than the minimum wage. So the numbers I quote are "apples to apples" market wages and not statutory wages.
So why do I think the way I do? I suppose you could call it observational economic history. I wouldn't call that dogma.
I am beginning to agree with you on Lieberman. Anyone who looks at the Iraq war as Lieberman does has a case of the "they're just little brown people syndrome", and has either not read the travesties contained in US foreign policy history or does not understand them.
Unfortunately, there are many of the "Elders of Israel" who think Lieberman is a friend of theirs, and who, when they step forth to save the "Constitution from hanging by a thread", will be very surprised when they learn that their help is not needed because it is more of the poison and none of the cure.
I firmly believe that (see D&C 101:77-80) Constitutional principles are valid for all people, however on their own terms and only by example and persuasion (not force). I also believe that the methods the US empire (and its mother empire, the British, before it) uses to 'promote liberty' is much more akin to the tactics of the LOSING SIDE in the war in heaven.
Post a Comment