Terror Alert Elevated — Page 5

ok, ok, zola, here's the $20.

and *grumble grumble* a quick peck on the cheek...

---

Whether it happens or not, you can't go living in a hole waiting for it. The whole point of terrorist attacks (in terrorist eyes) is to catch the people where they don't expect it and hit them hard. I mean, really, how long can people sit in their houses/apartments hiding? When it comes down to it, even doing that might not matter.

Of course they tell us some of what they know, because if they don't people won't pay attention to anything suspicious that they do see (although after the intensity of the Sept 11th attacks, I don't know if I think they're stupid enough to let anything look suspicious.) Plus, if they don't tell us what "might" happen, and something does happen, they'll end up getting fried later on for failing to properly warn the people.

The bottom line about all of it is, really, go about your lives, hope nothing happens, and be aware of your surroundings. The problem is that the majority of the population doesn't pay much attention to his or her surroundings and wouldn't notice something weird if it landed on his or her face. Then, when something does go wrong they'll start screaming that they should have been told. Well they have.

I don't blame them for telling what they know, or think they know, at least in part. The problem is, people don't realize that it's virtually impossible to 100% prevent all terrorist attacks, and no matter what happens someone will find something wrong with how it was handled.

---

I agree that Kerry is un-inspiring. The standard product of the winnowing-out political process we have built for ourselves. But the people he will put in his cabinet, the judges he will appoint, and the diplomats he will send out into the world will be far less likely to be rabidly homophobic, racist, anti-abortion, misogynistic, creationist, anti-environmental freaks. The figure-head may not be stellar, but it's the support team you have to keep an eye on.

---

Updated On: 8/2/04 at 01:18 PM

I'm voting for David Hyde Pierce.

---

But papa, that can't be the only criterion for evaluating the success of an administration.

---

No one says that the economy is in great shape. Recovering, maybe. But not in great shape. But if you come up with a Bush administration quote for that, Zola, you'll be my new best friend. :)

True. But we have to vote this November.

I know that. I'm just saying, when you vote you have to vote for what you **think** will be the best thing, but there are no guarantees, it's basically blind trust, regardless of the campaigning. What it comes down to is who do you trust more?

A lot of people feel one way and a lot of people feel another way, but regardless of who makes us feel safer/better/happier right now, no one will know the actual results of a given administration until years down the line.

---

Agreed, papa. But it's also true that Bush's trickle-down economic policy (like Reagan's) is BS.

Here you go, Plum. On July 20th, W said: "Our economy since last summer has been growing at the fastest rate in 20 years. We're in terrific shape!"

So, is what W says true? Sure, if you pick that exact time period -- the first quarter of this year and the second half of last year, to be exact -- it is technically true. Over these three quarters the economy grew by 5.4 percent, which is faster than any other 9-month period in the past 20 years. But not by much. For the last 9 months of 1999, for example, the economy grew by 5.1 percent.

But why take 9 months? If we look at the last year, it's not any record at all. Similarly for the last two years.

In the same speech, Bush also bragged about the 1.5 million jobs created since last August. This impressive-sounding number also depends on a careful selection of time period. If we look at W's whole presidential term, the economy is still down more than a million jobs. Even the 1.5 million jobs created during Mr. Bush's selected ten months are a weak performance, barely enough to keep pace with the growth of the labor force.

Of course, the Bush administration does have some real 20-year record-breaking numbers but they are not the kind that it would like to advertise. Here's the gold medal: our Federal budget deficit for 2004 is 5.6 percent of GDP. (Papa, I think to be fair about this, you need to add the borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund as part of the deficit.)

---

Updated On: 8/2/04 at 02:28 PM

Zola, you're great. Thanks for those numbers. The rationalist in me is jumping up and down in glee right now, because it can join the irrational side of me that just wants to smack Bush upside the head.

i'm not sending ronny down, i never said that deficits are a bad thing, i'm just pointing out that ronny was much more adept at running them up than georgie boy. even though ronny did have a democratic congress to assist him.

---