OT: Rating the President

[Krsqk]

Originally posted by E. Albright:
Your numbers are off. Taking a quick look at the UN Charter, we can note that the relevant Chapters are IV and V.

Oops. *prepares to be sued*

One must note something you've failed to mention: the difference is General Assembly v. Security Council decisions. And actually, plenty of people (outside of the mainstream American media, anyway) have commented on the fact that the GA passes resolutions against Israel, but the SC never seems to. See, there's a very simple reason for this: to pass a SC resolution against Israel, the US veto would have to be evaded. And that's NOT gonna happen.

1) You don't win if you don't try; 2) You're not going to get a country to pass a SC resolution demanding things unacceptable to its ally. Great Britain's not going to demand that we return Hawaii to the natives, either, although there's a movement for that.

This does bring up another interesting double standard, however. The media made noise Last fall about how the French or Russian veto threats that were stalling the proposal of anti-Iraqi SC resolutions represented naught but special-interest efforts to benefit a client state. Now, why doesn't the (US mainstream) media talk mention the obvious parallel to a lack of pro-Palestinien SC resolutions? (Aside from the fact that the mainstream US media prefers to forget that the Palestiniens exist, of course...)

I'm not a mind-reader, but it's not for any supposed symapthy for the Israelis on the part of the media. They lean more toward headlines like "Israelis Attack Settlement; 25 Palestinian Children Die." Then, near the end of the article, they bury a half-sentence or so stating that the intended target was the group of gunmen hiding in the middle of the children. I can't seem to find too many articles which "forget" the existence of the Palestinians. The NY Times, for example, seems quite aware of them. The AP and Reuters articles printed in the Orlando Sentinel and its parent, the Chicago Tribune, are also frequently pro-Palestinian.

This brings up a point which always irks me. Papers always defend themselves against claims of bias by pointing to their editorials. No one's complaining of bias on the opinion page; it's the slant of the news that matters. It's like a cattle farmer claiming to run a zoo because he keeps a dog on his porch. "See? We don't just have cows!"

[ February 04, 2003, 15:44: Message edited by: Krsqk ]

[E. Albright]

All right, from my perspective the OT: RtP thread is right back where it was before the Crunch. We've people with radically different outlooks squabling about what it is to be biased, with no hope of reaching a consensus. On the other hand, things have advanced beyond that point, 'cause I seem to recall having made some lofty statements claiming I wouldn't "throw gas on the fire" or somesuch. So...

E. Albright,

Recalling his resolution of 30 January 2003 to cease and desist in the posting of argumentantive replies to the OT: Rating the President thread,

Recognizing his failure to abide by his 30 January 2003 resolution,

Taking note that he really has better things to do with his time,

Reaffirming the potential discourtesy involved in argumentative political discussion,

Reaffirming also the futility of arguing about subjective perceptions of subjectivity,

Recognizing the need to not waste Shrapnel server space on wildly off-topic debate,

1. Decides to unilaterally withdraw from the OT: Rating the President thread;
2. Urges other Members to refrain from doing likewise;
3. Urges all Members to remain seized of the subjectivity of bias perception in the meanwhile;
4. Decides to shut up and be done with it.
   

[Wardad]

EVEN MORE ON TOPIC:

WASHINGTON (AP) - A Bush administration overhaul of decades-old labor regulations could force many Americans to work longer hours without overtime pay.

STORY: http://news.findlaw.com/ap_stories/a...64503_065.html

On the Net:

Overtime exemptions fact sheet: http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/whd/whdfs17.htm

Overtime requirements fact sheet: http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/whd/whdfs23.htm

*** SO NOW HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT BUSH? ***
*** Don't worry, Australia or Canada is not so bad. ***

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's odd, I can not connect with WWW.DOL.GOV from the coporate server???
OOPS, gotta go, my phone is ringing.....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

[ February 04, 2003, 19:09: Message edited by: Wardad ]

[rextorres]

With the deficit budget currently proposed by the resident thing are kind of scary. The fed will eventually need to raise interest rates to prevent inflation. Unfortunately - the proposals put out are counting on growth to make up for the deficit which raising interest rates will have hamper.

Something is going to have to give. I still don't understand how some people in this forum can endorse W's Voodoo economics.

[Fyron]

I see nothing bad in that article. The article even states that more low-income employees will be eligible for forced overtime pay.

"If this minimum level is raised, more employees automatically will be entitled to overtime, thus providing additional protections to low-wage workers," she said.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by rextorres:
Something is going to have to give. I still don't understand how some people in this forum can endorse W's Voodoo economics.

Probably because we understand it's not voodoo, but sound economic policy that realizes the economy isn't a zero sum game, encourages entrepreneurship and economic growth instead of incentivising counter productive behaiviors. The governments job isn't to decide who gets how much of the pie. The government's job is to stay out of the way so the pie can get bigger. GWB get's that. You don't obviously.

Geoschmo

[ February 05, 2003, 01:05: Message edited by: geoschmo ]

[rextorres]

Originally posted by geoschmo:

The governments job isn't to decide who gets how much of the pie. The government's job is to stay out of the way so the pie can get bigger. GWB get's that.

Geoschmo

You know who had that very same philosophy?

Herbert Hoover.

[ February 05, 2003, 01:39: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Askan Nightbringer]

Originally posted by rextorres:
You know who had that very same philosophy?

Herbert Hoover.

Who was he?

But I must say about George W....when the Enron scandal broke out he was up to his eyeballs in it. How could anyone ever trust him to produce sound fiscal policy after that?

Askan

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by rextorres:

quote:

---

Originally posted by geoschmo:

The governments job isn't to decide who gets how much of the pie. The government's job is to stay out of the way so the pie can get bigger. GWB get's that.

Geoschmo

You know who had that very same philosophy?

Herbert Hoover.

---

And he was right. What's your point? Oh, I forgot. You don't have a point. You have soundbites.

Geoschmo

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Askan Nightbringer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rextorres:
You know who had that very same philosophy?

Herbert Hoover.

Who was he?

But I must say about George W....when the Enron scandal broke out he was up to his eyeballs in it. How could anyone ever trust him to produce sound fiscal policy after that?

Askan

---

Uh no. The only thing Bush had to do with Enron was they gave some campaign donations. Enron gave loads of cash to both sides. That's one of the dirty little secrets of American politics. It's not a republican or democratic problem, it's a rot the whole process.

Clinton policies were actually much mroe favorable to Enrons way of doing business. FOr example Ken Lay was a huge supporter of the Kyoto agreement, which Bush has all but scrapped.

Who was president while Enron was doing all it's shenanigans? Not Bush.

Geoschmo