Re: Baghdad Bush

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 03:55:41 +0100, abelard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

>On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 02:18:55 +0000, George Stewart
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
>
>  typed:
>
>>I think he's brave.  He's also said to be extremely personable close
>>up, very charming (he won over a few sceptical opposition politicians
>>who met him on his state visit here in the UK last week).
>>
>>I certainly don't like his politics (he isn't really a free-marketer
>>at heart, he's too fond of big government for my tastes - and
>>regulation certainly makes life easier for the kind of crony
>>capitalist he's accused of being, that's for sure, so that would fit
>>the more critical picture of him).  I can't be sure, but I don't think
>>he's my type of person (in the sense of I can't imagine my wife and
>>friends and I ever really enjoying an unbuttoned dinner with him).
>>
>>I heard he's suspected of somewhat shady dealings in the Texas
>>politics/business nexus (the stories vary - hard to decide whether
>>there's any truth to them).
>>
>>One thing's for sure, of the people available, he seems to be the
>>right man at the right time, and I thank the Gods that Al Gore wasn't
>>in Bush's position on Sept 11.  For whatever reason, maybe it's just
>>sheer survival instinct combined with a modicum of intelligence, GWB
>>seems to be very aware of the urgency of the current situation, and of
>>the need to prevent a bloodbath of the kind we used to have in the
>>20th century.
>>
>>There are many things to worry about this coming century, but one of
>>the worst case scenarios is an ocean of fused glass in what's now
>>called "The Middle East" (and the name of "America" cursed by
>>generations of human beings).  Which _is_ a highly feasible US
>>response to a nuclear terrorist holocaust on US soil.  (After all, it
>>can never be forgotten that the US _has_ used its nuclear arsenal in
>>anger, and is therefore not barred by precedent from ever making a
>>nuclear response to nuclear terrorism).
>>
>>I shudder to think of that.  I like America too much to want that to
>>happen, and I have no ill-will towards the mass of living, breathing
>>human beings, with their hopes, achievements, etc., in the Middle
>>East.
>>
>>One can't be absolutely sure, of course, but so far it seems that Bush
>>is doing everything he can to avoid that sort of outcome too, by
>>acting now to ensure the spread of democracy as a way of defusing
>>terrorism.
>>
>>The _most_ charming and telling thing about him, IMHO, is that he
>>doesn't mind being made a fool of, and for strategic purposes doesn't
>>seem to mind being touted by pseudo-intellectuals as a hick idiot.  I
>>think this shows a sense of humour (in a sort of black
>>humour/Deliverance sort of way), and an admirably well-controlled ego
>>- well, either that, or he just isn't aware of how much of an idiot
>>people seem to see him as, which is highly implausible.
>>
>>At the end of the day, I think he's a "good" religious person (in the
>>acceptable sense of somebody who tries to live a moral life, and
>>thinks on occasion of his relation with the Cosmos as a whole, and
>>with what he thinks of as its Creator) - the kind of religious person
>>who really isn't much trouble to the rest of us.  He also seems to
>>have overcome some personal problems (booze mainly), which is a rare
>>enough attainment, productive of some insight into one's self, and to
>>be applauded.  At least wrt to the international situation, he seems
>>to be doing his best, which I suppose is all you can ask of the man.
>
>a most excellent post....
>welcome from upm....
>

Cheers - I guess, considering I think of myself as a classical liberal
of the anarcho-capitalist tendency, I like to think that what I've
outlined is kind of like the "party line" from that point of view.

And as an ex-leftist who still has a soft spot for soft-heartedness,
I'd be much happier if there was a Democrat I could trust to a)
continue prosecuting the war with full vigour (this ought not to be
too difficult to imagine, considering how FDR - for all his faults
from a classical liberal point fo view - prosecuted WWII); and b) keep
his fucking hands off the economy.  But there doesn't seem to be one,
although I gather the official Democrat line is that they _will_ keep
the WoT going, so theoretically all the candidates should be sound on
that score.  If that's so, then Liebermann looks like the one who
ought to be in the position.

Achhh, who am I kidding?  Leadership has always been much more about
the person than the politics, at the end of the day.  Since the notion
of actually deciding between two such miscellaneous grab-bags of
contradictory policies on the basis of pondering and deliberation
before voting, is economically ludicrous (in the academic sense of
"economically"), what it boils down to for most people is, do they
like the look of the fellow or not?  

>i suspect the glass scenario will depend a great deal upon the
>    sanity of the medievalists....
>no sane person will hate those who do the best available....
>
>regards....



- George Stewart

********************************************************

"Certainly, the workers might envy the capitalists; but such emotions simply could not 
supply the gigantic impetus required to overthrow a structure as massive as the 
capitalist system. Before the workers of a capitalist society could unite, they had to 
feel that they had literally nothing to lose - nothing to lose but their proverbial 
chains. For if they had homes and cars and boats and rvs to lose as well, then it 
became quite another matter." - Lee Harris