I saw this last week (via Judith), and it's just too good not to post (posting has been light at SerandEz due to lack of time and health).Sadly, there already have been instances of this in the media, as Judith linked to there.
I still hope that most people actually see through such garbage.
All right - I think I'm going to go work on a practice write-up now. Yeah, that's how we accountants roll, baby.
I think one good thing about dems being in charge is that it will prove that they are not any better.
ReplyDeleteAlso, feel better.
"... and the Republican leadership is still full of alcoholics with rage problems" Just interpreting the picture. :)
ReplyDeleteIf I wanted to be nitpick, I'd also notice that gas prices are still higher than a year ago, unemployment is no where near the lowest in history and no sane person thinks that we are currently winning the war on terror (attacked up unquestionably up worldwide even excluding Iraq)
due to lack of time and health).
ReplyDeleteHmmmmm
BSCI - Yeah, I noticed the alcohol/gun thing, too. :)
ReplyDeleteGas prices are finally dropping (and hard), though that's not something the US government can do much about at this point in history; unemployment is at a very, very low rate; and more attacks does not necessarily mean we're losing. Overall, I do think we're winning, though not by as much as we should be...
Over the period of years, gas prices will keep rising... basic supply and demand. The barrel price is a realistic measure of typical price and it isn't looking good.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif
Considering the explosion of growth in countries like China, unless supply is drastically cut (i.e. alternative energy sources) the price is only going up.
Unemployment is a complex measure and the results are mixed. There are some postive and some negative things.
If not by rate of attacks how do you measure winning the war on terror? Individuals caputured from a deck of cards? Inability to perform mass destruction attacks (Iran/N Korea)? Sucess in Iraq and Afganistan?
Over the period of years, gas prices will keep rising... basic supply and demand.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. Which also kind of lessens your earlier point.
unless supply is drastically cut (i.e. alternative energy sources) the price is only going up
Agreed! We need to develop something, and fast.
Overall, unemployment as it stands now is viewed by most economists as a positive.
If not by rate of attacks how do you measure winning the war on terror? Individuals caputured from a deck of cards? Inability to perform mass destruction attacks (Iran/N Korea)? Sucess in Iraq and Afganistan?
A bit of the latter two. Getting societies to the point where - as a whole - they have freedom, democracy, and have no incentives to support or want terror.
We now both agree that gas was ridiculous thing to mention in the cartoon since short term prices have nothing to to with politicians. (Although Democrats are more likely to invest federal money in more than hydrogen and Alaskan oil drilling)
ReplyDeleteThe specific unemployment number is ok, but dozens of indicators on wages, transience of jobs are not. The economy is more complex than just one number.
As for sucess on the war on terror, if the latter two are your indicators, then the facts that North Korea and Iran are devoping nuclear weapons unchecked is winning? After about December 2001, has there been anything serioiusly sucessful in Afganisation. Do you reall think there is sucess in Iraq. Bechtel is leaving with their jobs unfinished because they don't have the basic safety and security necessary to build anything. What specific things make you think we are winning?
We now both agree that gas was ridiculous thing to mention in the cartoon since short term prices have nothing to to with politicians.
ReplyDeleteWell, as ridiculous as people blaming the President for them being high in the runup to elections.
Although Democrats are more likely to invest federal money in more than hydrogen and Alaskan oil drilling
I don't think that's true.
but dozens of indicators on wages, transience of jobs are not
Most, if not all, major economic indicators are doing very well. As a whole, I think it is more reasonable to say that the economy is doing well than not.
N. Korea and Iran developing weapons is a huge problem. I don't see anything that leads me to believe that the US should be doing anything now than they are, or that the Democrats have a better approach.
I think Afghanistan has been quite successful. What about it hasn't been? They got rid of the Taliban, the economy is improving, the country has a democracy, the people have freedom, and they're pretty satisfied with it, especially as compared to the Taliban.
Iraq - of course there's success. Saddam gone, going to get hung, no hundreds of thousands of people getting carted away to secret prisons in the middle of the night, people have a democracy, a government, freedoms, a booming economy, they can actually get products like (gasp) cellphones... Yes, plenty of success. Hardships? Some of that, too. Starting countries over isn't easy.
Are you serious about Afganistan and Iraq?
ReplyDeleteDoes this sound like progres?
Taliban upport rises in Afganstan
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Nov06/0,4670,AfghanTalibanSupport,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Oct07/0,4670,AfghanistanAnotherIraq,00.html
and Iraq
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,229423,00.html?sPage=fnc.world/iraq
Instead of hundreds of thousands being carted awat, they are just dying
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Nov09/0,4670,Iraq,00.html
And the death rates are increasing
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Sep21/0,4670,IraqCivilianDeaths,00.html
but they have cellphones so all is well
They are dying at a lower rate now, with terror attacks constantly, than they were under under Hussein.
ReplyDeleteThe cellphones was a simple example - the point of that statement was that they were *not allowed or able* to buy many goods we take for granted, while now they can.
As for Afghanistan, you need only to click on the link that is by Judith, which this post linked to, to see my point. Some excerpts:
"Most of the 6,200 surveyed say they are satisfied with democracy, but corruption is a major problem
Despite a raging pro-Taliban insurgency, the people of Afghanistan say they are optimistic about the future, satisfied with their young democracy and rank security low on their list of everyday concerns, according to a survey out today."
•77% said they were satisfied with the way democracy is working in Afghanistan.
•54% said they were more prosperous than they were under the Taliban, which governed Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001
•Afghans were more than twice as likely (44% to 21%) to think their country was headed in the right direction, rather than the wrong direction; 29% had mixed feelings.
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20061109/a_afghansurvey09.art.htm
ReplyDeleteOk the Afganistan poll:
"Polling couldn't be conducted safely or reliably in two areas: southern Afghanistan's strife-torn Zabul and Uruzgan provinces, which together account for 2.3% of the country's population."
That sounds pretty bad.
You're also selective quoting. Right after it said 44% said the country was heading in the right direction, it sayd, "Still, the optimists were down from 64% in a smaller Asia Foundation survey conducted in 2004." That's a pretty big drop.
You also skipped the Iraq state that 52% thought Iraq is going in the wrong direction. 9% think scarcity of water is the biggest problem in their region. (Translation 1/10 of the country is having trouble getting enough water to drink)
You said 54% are more prosperous than the Taliban, but 26% are less prosperous. That's sure not a tide rising all ships. 51% reported needing bribes to get health service.
Granted I'm quoting the worst of the article, but I'm just trying to show that you read the article through a selective lense and only register the postive while missing some pretty serious negatives.
And for your cell phone comment about overlooked luxuries:
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/44251/
"Thus, nationally, Iraqis have just 11 hours on average of electricity a day, and in Baghdad, the heart of instability in Iraq, there are between four and eight hours on average per day."
Cell phone are useless without electricity to power the towers.
BCSI - Absolutely. My point is simply that there are good and bad sides to these stories. Overall, I still think they were the right move.
ReplyDeleteThe point of this cartoon is simply that it will be interesting to see if the media's reporting changes now that the Dems are in power. Until now, the negative stories were easily the focus, with scarcely a positive story reported at all. Will that change? We're already seeing a couple positive stories - flukes, or a change in approach?