Harold Pinter acknowledgement speech

[eppie]

The nature of corporate power in politics goes way, way back.  I just viewed "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" recently, and it still rings true every time I see it.  There has been a puppet master behind the Presidency, and most of Washington for a long, long time.  It bugs me too, but it is not unique to Bush, or this nation.
[right][snapback]97118[/snapback][/right]

Ok and that settled. Doesn't this bug you? Why doesn't the american public demand a change?. Why does 95 % of voters keep voting for Dems or Reps? I don't understand this anymore.

By the way, in Holland we don't have puppet masters behind the scenes...otherwise they would never have chosen the harry potter look-a-like as prime minister.

[kandrathe]

I think we here in Europe had a fairly good chance to judge the legitimacy of this election, based on huge media coverage due to its importance. True, we may not have seen everything, but neither did the U.S. citizens. I don't really want to elaborate on this, just let me drop a few goodies for you:
- The insufficiently comprehensible ballots
- The exertion of influence on certain groups (liberal blacks, for example)
- The discrepancies in the counting of the votes, that lead to a re-counting in the first place
- The re-recounting, which was controversially truncated by the jurisdiction
Now, do you really think it's mere coincidence that the U.N. sent election observers the next time the election took place (2004)? Similarly to a third-world-nation after a coup d'état, really.

The ballots and election equipment were the same or improved over prior elections, and still however simple they were, it resulted in some people not being able to comprehend them. I'm not sure what you mean by "The exertion of influence on certain groups", but there is a struggle in every part of the US relating to gerrymandering, and trying to rig and influence elections with "get out the vote", or negative ads meant to get some people from voting. There was a pretty outrageous case near me where 95 people were charged with with forgery, and another in Iowa I recall where a person lied their way into being a delegate for the Iowa republican convention. Both cases were prosecuted and the people convicted. The laws are clear on manipulations that you describe, and they are prosecuted locally. The election laws automatically call for a recount when the margin of victory is small. What became obvious was that in many past elections there was a small precentage of votes that never did get counted (because statistically they would not change the outcome). In Florida, due to the punched cards, the disposed of ballots were a larger percentage. The democrats made great political hay with "Every Vote Will Be Counted" in the next election, as if they were not a part of the problem in past years. As for " truncated by the jurisdiction", the recount of the recount was stopped, because the Florida law stated that the election results needed to be posted within a certain time after the election. The courts stopped the "recounts" from becoming a statewide recount and the fishing for votes to end. Do you think if had gone the other way, and the Gore camp had been allowed to selectively recount juridictions until they found a victory that the Republican losers would have called the election fair? As for the UN election observers in 2004... Was it more political hay, holding the US up for ridicule, waste of time and money, or all of the above? I noticed also how much fraud was discovered in subsequent European elections once people started scrutinizing them closely.

Sorry, but that is for them to know and for us to speculate. To state this is easy, to prove it  - not. And they haven't produced enough convincing evidence that this step was actually justifiable, yet. So far, that you call this 'qualified' makes me laugh bitterly.  In how far that holds true, I don't know. I lack the knowledge. And you? Or are you telling me the wisdoms from the regulars' table that you know to be true, and that surely don't have their origin in the (dis-)information campaign of the bush (to be fair, that's not a feature of the Bush government exclusively. But since that's what we're talking about...) administration, right?

And see, that is why we have elections every two to four years. If enough people are disillusioned with the current leadership of the nation, we can put different people into the seat. There is a bitter majority in Europe that loves the Clintons and hates the Bush's, but in this country there was just barely the numbers to get him elected, and re-elected. After 9/11, the world was behind the US in getting pay back, however there was little backwards Afghanistan, and... what? Saudi Arabia? Iraq was the target, way back to the first Bush administration and that should have been clear to those that voted for him in 2000, and certainly crystal clear for those who reelected him in 2004. But, let's refocus on the "Axis of Evil" and review what has been done tangibly to improve that problem. Anything? I don't see anything, do you? In fact, it might just be a little worse off now. Maybe it's the Casto strategy, to isolate them as best we can and let them rot until their despots die.

[kandrathe]

Ok and that settled. Doesn't this bug you? Why doesn't the american public demand a change?. Why does 95 % of voters keep voting for Dems or Reps? I don't understand this anymore.

Yes, it should bug anyone who believes in "We the People..." And, actually, with the ever intensifiying light, speed and lens of the media I actually think the people are better informed about corruption, and power brokerages than they were 100 years ago.

By the way, in Holland we don't have puppet masters behind the scenes...otherwise they would never have chosen the harry potter look-a-like as prime minister.

Ya, sure. Holland is immune. :)

Corporate Watch - Royal Dutch/Shell

[Occhidiangela]

By the way, in Holland we don't have puppet masters behind the scenes...otherwise they would never have chosen the harry potter look-a-like as prime minister.
[right][snapback]97152[/snapback][/right]

Yes you do, you are just ignorant of who they are. Look a little deeper. Enjoy the ride.

Ok and that settled. Doesn't this bug you? Why doesn't the american public demand a change?. Why does 95 % of voters keep voting for Dems or Reps? I don't understand this anymore

1. Why don't the European people demand a change from their dependence on America for security? Simple reason, there are various groups who view this matter with greatly differing perspectives. "American people" and "European people" are useless groupings within the context of your question, and my mimcry of it. An even more useless term is "Iraqi people." That chimerical entity doesn't exist either.

2. Since only about 60-70 of the US voters showed up in Nov 2004, your numbers are badly off.

3. No US third party has gained traction since no third party can seem to break in at the local level. As for Presidential candidates of various third parties

John Anderson 1980
Teddy Roosevelt 1912
Ross Perot 1992
George Wallace 1968
Ralph Nader 2000

And others.

Most seemed to act as spoilers. Roosevelt in the Bull Moose party, a spin off of Progressive Republicans from the core of the GOP, did considerable damage to Taft and ensured Woodrow Wilson became president. Perot did something similar to GHW Bush in 1992, though he took a different breed of voter: populists.

The populist party has yet to be rebuilt. I will argue that the Democratic party of Andrew Jackson was a populist party. It was eventually hijacked by semi-socialist internationalists, starting around the Wilsonian era, and further hijacked by not so moderate socialists in 1964-1968. So much for that line of a Populist party in the US. The Libertarians are to fractured to mount a valid run at rebuilding one. The Current Republican party seems to be heading toward Taft's model. :wacko:

The current two parties have no interest in there being a third party, and they act with vigor to preempt the creation of one.

Occhi

[eppie]

Yes, it should bug anyone who believes in "We the People..."  And, actually, with the ever intensifiying light, speed and lens of the media I actually think the people are better informed about corruption, and power brokerages than they were 100 years ago.

Ya, sure.  Holland is immune.  :)

Corporate Watch - Royal Dutch/Shell
[right][snapback]97177[/snapback][/right]

O man, and there I am with my shares in RD Shell...let's get rid of them.....

Anyway, I think there are a lot of differences though. Maybe you are right that there is something going on but for starters, we don't have so many superrich people, that can play the game to try to control things. We have a more homogeneouys political system I think. Don't get me wrong and think that I start US trashing. In america you don't stand a chance of being elected in national politics if your not very rich am I correct? I mean are there non millionaire congressmen?
And third, we tend to be a lot more critical of our leaders. Most of dutch people (even the ones that voted for him) are not proud of our prime minister. (the US president can maybe be better compared to our queen in that sense, of course without changing every 4 or 8 years).

But having said that I think you are actually right, only it is less visible over here. And the last four years things are changing for the worse over here with the liberals and the christian democrates in charge.

[Guest]

A 2 party state is the most representative Democracy. (At least in a system with a strong executive.)


The natural dynamic of a 2 party system is too push both parties towards the middle of the populace(despite all the rhetoric Ree. and Dem. agree on much.)


A multiparty state doesnt do this and results in one of 2 frequent out comes depending on the strength of its executive position.
1 Govt views that are median for the populace majority rather than the entire populace.
or
2 Govt that is dead locked.

[Occhidiangela]

O man, and there I am with my shares in RD Shell...let's get rid of them.....

I mean are there non millionaire congressmen?

Yep, loads of them are not millionaires. Your perception that only millionaires get into the Senate and Congress is in error, though I wonder if they don'g eventually leave as millionaires.

For example, the recent story of Representative Randall Cunningham of California, who took bribes in the order of 2.5 million dollars over a few years. He didn't start with a lot of money: he was a retired Navy fighter pilot who ran for office and succeeded 20 or so years ago. It appears he was trying to get into that millionaire club by taking bribes. And he got caught. And he will go to jail.

Hopefully, the guys bribing him, the real millionaires, will also go to jail, but since they are millionaires who can hire fancy lawyers, I am guessing they won't.

And third, we tend to be a lot more critical  of our leaders.

I don't think you perceive the blistering every president takes in the American press, which is very understandable given that you don't live here. Journalist (and a bit of a liberal shill) Molly Ivans has been writing scathing articles about George W. Bush, whom she calls "Shrub," since before he was Governor of Texas. She is not alone.

No matter what any President does, there is always someone writing him up for some failed policy or another. The criticism is constant. That is because you can't please all of the people all of the time, to misquote Abe Lincoln.

You could argue that our First Amendment and "the free press is the watchdog of liberty" cultural norms embed a habit of constant criticism, in both senses of the word: critical analysis, and being critical of any shortcomings in policy or action, perceived or real.

Occhi

PS: I wouldn't sell RD Shell, oil demand is going up, I expect oil stocks will do OK for the next few years. Thank a Chinaman next time you see one, you soon to be rich oil tycoon! :D

[Occhidiangela]

1 Govt views that are median for the populace majority rather than the entire populace.
or
2 Govt that is dead locked.
[right][snapback]97258[/snapback][/right]

Your point 1 makes little sense. The median for the populace majority is a best case condition. You can't please the entire populace in any majority rule system unless the entire populace agree on a given policy. If a policy to dig a new ship channel passes by 56% for 42 %against and 2% indifferent, you certainly aren't pleasing the entire populace.

Your point 2 was part of the Constitution's design, which concept was, I think, based in the British Parliamentary system. Better to dead lock than pass a policy with too strong (assumed rational) opposition.

Occhi

[Guest]

No point one does make sense.

You obviously cant apply averages to specific situations you have to look at the bigger picture.

This isnt something I made by the way. Game theory shows it over and over that a 2 party system moves both parties to the center of the whole populace. The icecream vendors positioning themselves on a beach is the classic example.

We have a 2 party sysem because its the nature of our election process not because the 2 current paties are trying hold a 3rd one down(they are trying to do that of course though.)


In most Euro goverments they "form a govt" after elections with which results in a weaker executive. Indviduals may get more specific representation but their representaive are correspondingly less effective.
In cases where a collition is needed in many cases which makes it more likely to have goverment this farther left or right than is likely in the US.




Its rather silly when people act like its direct choice to have 2 or more party systems. Its an artifact of your constitution in most cases.

[Occhidiangela]

This isnt something I made by the way. Game theory shows it over and over that a 2 party system moves both parties to the center of the whole populace. The icecream vendors positioning themselves on a beach is the classic example.

We have a 2 party sysem because its the nature of our election process not because the 2 current paties are trying hold a 3rd one down(they are trying to do that of course though.)
[right][snapback]97265[/snapback][/right]

While a two party system does ensure a reasonably robust opposition, which is a check/balance feature required for open government, the tendency to grow together may not be a best case solution, it may be "a best that can be managed" solution.

It is in the interests of those who are partisans, backers of parties, but not inside the political box, to limit their choices: the more parties that exist, the more influence pedaling and expense they go through.

What happens, policy wise, is a frequent use of false dillema to define policy choices "there are only two choices, ours and theirs."

What about that third thing? Even a dead lock breaking compromise does not create a viable third course of action, merely a modification to one of the two previous courses of action.

Occhi

[Guest]

You seem to think I am championing the 2 party system. Im not Im just stating the dynamics of it.

Although I dont really get your implications that something along the lines of "the man" is pulling the strings of politics.

Interest money has a terrible effect on politcs for sure and we need to fight it. But its not the organised enemy you supose. Its an older and more pervasive enemy - greed - at fairly individual level.
And its not making elaborate plans - everything is fairly direct. Everyone is short sighted, bad greedy people tend to be the most short sighted. Mostly the probelem is people through money at polticos in hopes of getting what they want.
Even if someone had a big long term plan it would probably be lost in the wash of "donations" aimed at short term gain.

Its bad and its simple.

[Occhidiangela]

You seem to think I am championing the 2 party system.  Im not Im just stating the dynamics of it.

Not at all, at least not intentionally, but I think I understand why you think my post was adversarial.

Although I dont really get your implications that something along the lines of "the man" is pulling the strings of politics.

Not "the man" but more along the lines of the well worn cliche of "political favors for sale." Chinese in the Lincoln bedroom, anyone?

Interest money has a terrible effect on politcs for sure and we need to fight it.

Yes, and an uphill battle it is indeed.

But its not the organised enemy you supose. Its an older and more pervasive enemy -  greed - at fairly individual level.

It is not monolithic, nor did I intend to portray it as such, but there is no question that those who buy influence are very organized. As I understand it, there are numerous factions playing the game. Many vs Many. But as to those who back/fund the various Parties, they are most definitely organized. If they weren't, there'd be no party.

Mostly the probelem is people through money at polticos in hopes of getting what they want.
[right][snapback]97274[/snapback][/right]

Throw money at them? My ref to Rep Cunningham was an anecdote along those lines. I think we agree in a general sense.

Cheers

Occhi

[Jester]

Well, there are a couple problems with all that.

First, congress is *not* the place to look for the movers and shakers of the USA. That's the house where at least remotely ordinary people do get elected on a regular basis. Certainly, it's not without millionaires, but it's not a rich-person's club.

The problems come higher up, in the Senate or in the White House itself. There, it's not that you have to be rich. Plenty aren't, or at least didn't start that way. Clinton was as poor as they come, and yet got the top spot.

What you have to be is *elite*. You need the connections. Money can buy you those connections, but it can't buy you popularity. Charisma is the best way, but not everyone has it. Brains works some of the time, although not often enough. Backstabbing will get you far, but not usually to the very top (Exception: Nixon). Above all, you need ambition, the kind of ambition that distorts your ethical view of the world, the kind that drives you to do stupid things for power.

But that's what keeps the ordinary person out of Washington, this perpetually revolving club of the power elite. Money is just one part of the game.

I doubt other countries are too much different. It's just that the stakes are lower, so people don't make the evil-but-convenient plays as often.

-Jester

[Chaerophon]

"There was no lie, there was a communication of the worst case scenario."

Rephrasing "worst case scenario" intelligence as fact is *lying*.

Doing so to drum up support for an illegal war is downright criminal.

http://billmon.org/archives/000172.html

-Jester
[right][snapback]97082[/snapback][/right]

In fact, it's just the kind of 'truth' formation and 'truth' obfuscation that Pinder is talking about in his Nobel address. Going to war under false pretences is okay because the good people of America and the ideals that make them better than the infidel were at risk. The American dream is worth saving from the infidel because it is 'true'. No need to properly justify the taking of thousands of lives in advance - pre-emptive war on the basis of extremely shoddy risk assessment (among other things...) can always be justified after the fact because "what we believe is true, what they believe is false, and evil." Shades of grey are for academics - the world of black and white plays into the hands of power much more usefully.

Securing a strategically important region (read: oil-rich and unstable) out of entirely realist motives is only okay in the public's eyes if it is ostensibly carried out in the name of moral 'truth'. The correspondent truth of the situation, the reality of the situation, is obscured by the self-righteous moral 'truth' that is sold to the people as complacency-inducing war-bait. I'm not sure why so many folks here have a problem with Pinder's assertions about 'truth'. It's pretty clear that societal notions of what is morally 'true' are often used to justify acts that, in reality, violate the same code by which they are superficially justified. Once he puts it to use in his polemic, it seems to be more of an epistemological than a metaphysical point, and one with which I am inclined to agree.

[Occhidiangela]

In fact, it's just the kind of 'truth' formation and 'truth' obfuscation that Pinder is talking about in his Nobel address.  Going to war under false pretences is okay because the good people of America and the ideals that make them better than the infidel were at risk.  The American dream is worth saving from the infidel because it is 'true'.  No need to properly justify the taking of thousands of lives in advance - pre-emptive war on the basis of extremely shoddy risk assessment (among other things...) can always be justified after the fact because "what we believe is true, what they believe is false, and evil."  Shades of grey are for academics - the world of black and white plays into the hands of power much more usefully. 

Securing a strategically important region (read: oil-rich and unstable) out of entirely realist motives is only okay in the public's eyes if it is ostensibly carried out in the name of moral 'truth'.  The correspondent truth of the situation, the reality of the situation, is obscured by the self-righteous moral 'truth' that is sold to the people as complacency-inducing war-bait.  I'm not sure why so many folks here have a problem with Pinder's assertions about 'truth'.  It's pretty clear that societal notions of what is morally 'true' are often used to justify acts that, in reality, violate the same code by which they are superficially justified.  Once he puts it to use in his polemic, it seems to be more of an epistemological than a metaphysical point, and one with which I am inclined to agree.
[right][snapback]97332[/snapback][/right]

Chaer and Jester

I hate to rain on your parade, but you are doing the same thing you accuse the Bush administration of doing. You have your foregone conclusion, so you choose the facts that support your case. That is not an uncommon habit, and it is also pretty useless.

At least you two aren't sending soldiers off to get themselves killed trying to arrest President Bush so you can hang him at The Hague. ;)

Worst case planning is a requirement. I have done it. I did it for some support operations in the Bosnia NATO operation in the 90's. Worst case condsideration are mandatory when considering security affaris. They are not, of course, the only consideration.

Future outcomes and the ripple effect are another consideration that the novice and the commentator are generally blind to. Commentators, including amateurs such as myself, are too often trapped in "what happened" and conveniently are not accountable for hard and fast predictions on "in five years, this is how it will look." That accountability is levied on all decision makers. I have written policy, in both military matters, and in politico military matters (well, I wrote drafts, none of which survived unscathed) and have had to answer up for the unintended outcomes that we missed forecasting.

To sum up, decisions are always made on incomplete and imperfect information.

What is at issue with the Bush administration is the case of "blatant tunnel vision" or self delusion. It is the apparently deliberate decision to seek out facts and intelligence of a variety of quality that supported a pre concveived notion. This included such dubious stuff as the forged Italian documents.

Classifying intelligence of hard to pin down sources is a daily hazard. That is why scores of analysts and intelligence professionals are employed, to seek and find patterns and indications of reliability. The answers rarely come out 100% clear. Like with doctors, you can always get a second opinion.

That does not excuse the decision to "hear what one wants to hear and disregard the rest." Seeking the set of facts that support a worst case, when so much is unknown and uncertain considering intentions of people, is part of the process.

Please read that again. Intentions The wild card that was Saddam's intention is STILL unknown, and he's still alive. And he's not tallking, is he?

In absence of facts, one makes assumptions when crafting a plan, policy, or a strategy.

We had worst case problems with the USSR for over 40 years. Intentions were a critical problem to deal with, since given the hardware, the unknown of looking into the brain of a decision maker, for example the 1962 Cuban Missile crisis, is a completely subjective process.

What I find most appalling about the Administrations process was the continual reductionism of complex problems into allegedly simple problems, into the false dilemma of only two choices, and for that matter, acting as though assumptions were facts.

Occhi

[Jester]

Occhi,

You seem to be missing what it is we find so appalling about this whole affair.

This could have been a mistake. It wasn't. It was a scenario contrived to scare and delude the people of your nation (and the rest of the world, albeit unsuccessfully) to support a war for geopolitical gain.

It's all right there, on PNAC's agenda. They wanted to invade Iraq. They wanted a trigger event that would give them some justification. They didn't care what the truth was, only what was convenient.

This was a sham. Intelligence was not misinterpreted, it was misrepresented. Deliberately. There were plenty of people, including those in the intelligence community, who were extremely skeptical of the notion that Saddam was any kind of serious threat. They weren't just ignored, they were silenced.

Intentions are at the very heart of this. And it was Bush and co's *intention* to invade Iraq, regardless of the legality, regardless of the cost, regardless of the long-term concequences. What the intelligence said only mattered insofar as it could be converted, often by mangling it, into propaganda.

And that is infuriating.

-Jester

[Guest]

You paint a calculated picture than reasonable people DONT believe.

The big problem is invading Iraq offered never offered great "geopolitical gain". It was never seriously thought it would. Even the rosey senerios of free flowing oli from frieds were just said to help sell the war, real analysts never bought in.

And yes US policy is definetly to keep the middle east stable for our own benifit and thats the over all goal.


BUT the actual invasion was propelled by fear(on the Presidents and everyone elses part) more than any specific desire on Iraq.

9/11 happened and immediatly the WhieHouse began worrying about what it imagined must be the next biggest danger - Sadam.
The the White used used bad evidense and bullied analysts into saying what they wanted - so they could go get Saddam.
I also suspect G.W. fet his was taking care of a mess his daddy left.


Im not defending the White House at all here. From a strategic sense the war appears to have been a big mistake. But you guys are giving an inaccurate portayal.

[Jester]

"You paint a calculated picture than reasonable people DONT believe."

I'm afraid you'll have to decipher that one for me, Ghostie. Did you mean "that" rather than "than"? If so, I disagree. The evidence is available and clear. If you meant something else, sorry for putting words in your mouth.

As for the rest, okay, so you're saying they saw Saddam as a genuine threat?

Bush probably is that stupid. I wouldn't bet on him successfully tying his shoes, let alone analyzing global military strategy.

But the rest of the PNAC crowd aren't. They knew full well that Saddam was a pathetic shell commanding a collapsed country. They knew that the chances of him actually having any dangerous quantity of low-grade chemical weapons, let alone anything in the high-biological or nuclear range, were slim to none. They cherry-picked their evidence, they forced the worst-case scenario. They undermined every attempt to solve the "crisis," which was an artifice created by the Bush administration, without war.

Why would they do all that? Either they're the most singlemindedly stupid group in history, or they were after what PNAC has always (and openly) been after: a military solution to a percieved weakness in the middle east.

If you see that as incompetence, and not intention, then I think you need to look harder at the evidence, and especially at how it was relentlessly pushed. They didn't just fall into a trap, they created the trap, sold it to the world, and rushed at it with all haste.

-Jester

[Guest]

History shows incompetence and fear guide more events than devious(or even enlightened) mechanations.



And yes it was "that".

[Jester]

Okay... is that your argument against?

History also shows that nations push aside all ethical considerations and grab power whenever possible.

Are we trading axioms, now?

-Jester