| JuryFury.com
A New Issue Every Monday ! SUBSCRIBE NOW !! Online School of Politics |
||
| Areas of Interest THE USA American Foreign Policy US House and Senate US Presidents State & Local Politics Regional Politics Politics of China The British Commonwealth Indian Subcontinent Middle East The European Union Africa Latin America ASEAN NATO United Nations The Non-aligned Movement Eastern Europe New Nations of the 20th Century General Topics Constitutional Law Human Rights Nuclear Disarmament & Treaties International Warfare Environmental Law Peace Treaties Economic & Social Alliances International Organizations Journalism & Media Racism and Democracy Women in the Workplace Family Law Courts and Practices The Judicial System Higher Education Education and Government Health Care & Insurance Rights of the Disabled Copyright & Working Online Legal Representation Legal Insurance Pornography Domestic Violence Religion & Law Workers Rights Employers Rights Prison & Life after Social Organizations Welfare & Poverty Taxation and Democracy Third World Aid Programs Space Exploration Alternative Energy Petroleum Industry & Cars Nuclear Power Programs for the Arts Sports Education Policing the Internet Privacy and freedom Immigration Food and Regulation War on Drugs War on Pharmaceuticals Public Housing Pollution and Control Sexual Harrassment Discrimination Electoral Process Consumers Rights Investors Rights Abortion Death Penalty Social Security Gender & Sexuality Grassroots Organization ACLU World Watch Oxfam UNICEF United Negro Fund Ford Foundation (suggestions welcome at our chatsite) Law of the Economy Join I-Traderschool, our sister magazine, for debates and news. |
What Makes a President? Why Educated doesn't mean Good by Sophia Barkat People make this mistake often. An idiot president is considered to be evil just by being ignorant. Where as an educated one is considered to be good. Why is that? Other than a few idiots who became Presidents most have been educated. Did that make them do the right thing? Or stop them from abusing power? Or make them legislate policies that did not help some lobby group at the expense of the good of the nation? Clinton was a shrewd President and a Yale law-school graduate and Rhode Scholar. Carter is a nuclear physicist. Bush Sr. graduated from Yale U. too. Can we safely say that they all made mistakes when it came to foreign policy and internal policy? And I don't mean who the slept with. I mean what decisions they took as Presidents. For if so, why after so many smart Presidents do we still have next to no disability insurance, ghastly public education in schools, and nefarious criminals running hospitals - if we consider how doctors push trial drugs on cancer patients these days. Clearly greed, ambition and power play a greater role in the shaping of a President or political leader than just intelligence. In fact, being a good President takes intelligence and the will to use it for social good. Can we safely say that we cannot name any world leader who had the courage to stand for what is right? by Trevor Batten Re: Sophia's post - Idiot President Vs. Educated President Sophia Barkat wrote: "People make this mistake often. An idiot president is considered to be evil just by being ignorant. Where as an educated one is considered to be good. Why is that?" Probably, because we are conditioned to mate with healthy individuals - who have symmetrical bodies and other siigns of good health which indicate they are good breeding stock. This means we equate beauty with health with good (I guess). Sophia wrote: "Other than a few idiots who became Presidents most have been educated." Wasn't that earlier in the days that people needed to read if they wanted information before the smiling face and the quick sound-byte (in the arse) invaded the living room? Sophia wrote: "Did that make them do the right thing? Or stop them from abusing power? Or make them legislate policies that did not help some lobby group at the expense of the good of the nation?" Da's a tricky one. The British political and parliamentary system means that the only possible way a government can be brought down (outside an election) was by revolt from within the government's own party. Margaret Thatcher was also removed by her own party (giving us John Major). In practice, this means a government has absolute power -but must not go beyond the limits of acceptable to the party in power. At present Tony Blair probably only survives because the opposition (conservative) party support him over the war. Traditionally, in British parliamentary history, you will find that important changes (such as the abolition of slavery -and probably the factory acts to protect workers health) were almost always introduced by the opponents of these changes -who were forced to introduce them in order to prevent their opponents from doing so -which would mean much more radical changes. So as a result of "enlightened" self-interest, small but highly significant changes were introduced into society. Changes that could hardly be revoked because they were introduced by those who opposed them. Life is full of paradox! William Cromwell, was a puritan dictator in England (who was also involved in the only execution of a native King in British history). Cromwell was able to maintain his power over the country through his "model army" which was an extremely efficient fighting force. The reason it was so efficient was because he appointed people because they were good and not because they fitted in for social, political or religious reasons. So, eventually, religious and political freedom was probably introduced into England through the very mechanism that was intended to suppress it! Sophia wrote: "Clinton was a shrewd President and a Yale law-school graduate and Rhode Scholar. Carter is a nuclear physicist. Bush Sr. graduated from Yale U. too. Can we safely say that they all made mistakes when it came to foreign policy and internal policy? And I don't mean who the slept with. I mean what decisions they took as Presidents." Perhaps one should distinguish between good administrators and good politicians (maybe the two are actually opposed to each other). I believe the BBC recently remarked something to the effect that Bush Sr. was probably the administrator -but Jr. is the better politician. I suspect that the media influence on voters probably means that politicians (will increasingly) win over administrators. Perhaps that is why Bush won against Gore (if he did). If this is true -then it could be interesting -because Bush plays the American crowd (who vote for him) but seems to have no awareness of the damage done abroad by his stupid but popular chauvinistic remarks. To a certain extent, we see something similar in England. Blair is a clever politician -but in the meantime England falls a apart because Blair is such a dumb administrator. In many cases, there is nothing more dangerous than success -ask any cocaine snorting pop star! (Incidentally, talking about "media" -I have the impression that CNN paints a picture of victory in Iraq -while the BBC paints a picture of total chaos and local disaffection with US forces. A group of US soldiers bringing food aid to a group of Muslims in a mosque had to be escorted to safety by Iraqi police) Sophia wrote: "For if so, why after so many smart Presidents do we still have next to no disability insurance, ghastly public education in schools, and nefarious criminals running hospitals - if we consider how doctors push trial drugs on cancer patients these days." Well I guess one reason is because even if some politicians really believed in these things, there are even cleverer politicians on the other side that know how to make such things look really stupid! Since the fall of the wall, this has been a real problem. People became scared of dogma (they saw what it meant in the Soviet Union) and many people were scared by the idea that socialism automatically lead to poverty and repressive systems (as if there was no repressive poverty in the US). So then you get people like Fukuyama (who was a Clinton advisor, I believe) preaching the end of history and the dawn of everlasting global liberal consumerist democracy (makes me sick in any case). Once this idea takes over (by getting promoted by some "liberal" professor in your local college!) then any form of social system not organized on market principles gets laughed out of court (remember how easy it was to think of an "economy" not based on consumption and commercial bartering?). This is why Tony Blair did his best (possibly for good reasons) to destroy the traditional British Labour party (creating "new" Labour -to rhyme with "new" Europe) in order to rebuild his party as a mildly social version of Thatcherism (an intellectual task probably equivalent to that of the theological genius (Aquinas?) who united Christianity with Pagan Greek ideals -something for which those responsible should never be forgiven!). Sophia wrote: "Clearly greed, ambition and power play a greater role in the shaping of a President or political leader than just intelligence. In fact, being a good President takes intelligence and the will to use it for social good." I guess it all depends on what you define as "good". The president is a best a "team leader" and probably doesn't wipe his nose without advise from a fleet of advisors and pollsters. However, the (most important) question remains -would the public (spoon fed by the commercial media) ever accept a "good" president (to use your term)? Sophia wrote: "Can we safely say that we cannot name any world leader who had the courage to stand for what is right?" Perhaps Lincoln, perhaps Gorby, maybe Putin, probably Schroeder, maybe Chirac - perhaps Blair, possibly even Georgie boy...... (who knows what these people really think -or, in some cases, if they think!) Can we safely say that we cannot name any person who has the absolute knowledge of what is right? PS -why do the media focus on Chirac as the great evil man and ignore Schroeder and Putin who seem to be in agreement with Chirac? Is it because the great American social engineering project cannot admit to having failed and produced an anti-American German? by Cherrie Lynn Lipsett Re: Trevor's post Trevor wrote: "Since the fall of the wall, this has been a real problem. People became scared of dogma (they saw what it meant in the Soviet Union) and many people were scared by the idea that socialism automatically lead to poverty and repressive systems (as if there was no repressive poverty in the US). So then you get people like Fukuyama (who was a Clinton advisor, I believe) preaching the end of history and the dawn of everlasting global liberal consumerist democracy (makes me sick in any case)." Funny I have read/heard two other views put forth as to why now a move towards capitalism and away from caring for society as a whole and having a heart and not just dollar signs on everything. One view put forth by the capitalists is there is no other game in town ( you come up with something better. Which I'm not through with the economics thing. Just haven't had time to really think but have done some reading and research via the internet on it). But there is something else. Also I read that the collapse of the Soviet Union made the capitalistic societies not have to do as many social "things" any more as they didn't have the pressure of the social things being done for the soviet Union's people as pressure. Trevor wrote: "Perhaps Lincoln, perhaps Gorby, maybe Putin, probably Schroeder, maybe Chirac perhaps Blair, possibly even Georgie boy...... (who knows what these people really think -or, in some cases, if they think!) I agree with you that Lincoln and Gorby did what they thought was best for their whole countries and their people and not for personal gain or friends personal gain and I personally think both were/is great people. I also feel, while I think Blair made the wrong decision to go with the US on invading Iraq, that Blair made this decision because he thought it was in the best interest of his country, people and the world. Who knows maybe I will be proved wrong and Blair right. It is too early to say. I do respect Blair for the decision he made as I do honestly believe he put the interests of his nation, people and the world above personal gain in making his decision. The other three, Schroeder, Chirac and Putin- well time will tell. I think all three could prove to be considered great men in the future when historians look back on the period. Trevor wrote: "Can we safely say that we cannot name any person who has the absolute knowledge of what is right?" I think in complicated-complex situations as now exist in the world it is only through hind site that we can see who was right and who was wrong. by Trevor Batten Re: Cherrie's post Cherrie wrote: "Funny I have read/heard two other views put forth as to why now a move towards capitalism and away from caring for society as a whole and having a heart and not just dollar signs on everything." Sure, as you pointed out earlier - there is not just one simple answer as to why things happen in the world. I'm afraid that my experiences on the borders between "art" and "science" leads me to believe that most people working in the "liberal arts" areas (including fine art, economics and social theory) are generally wasting their time - because the knowledge they need is on the other side of the fence (in the technical sciences) where the "liberal arts" people refuse to go! Your two theories are just two sides of the same (multi-faceted) coin. Slightly more that ten years ago, somebody told me that the people who supplied them with networking facilities were also running a "new age" publishing company with the intention of undermining the public's ability to think properly -so chaos would develop and people would deemand a strong leader. In my view, "Cyber-theory" and all the similar post-modern garbage is simply "new age" junk for (pseudo-)intellectuals. However, if the publishing story is true, then it would suggest that Bush is not just a temporary aberration but in fact part of a carefully developed strategy which has been slowly developing over the years. I understand that the networking company was later bought up by a larger company - but I've no idea if that increased or diminished the activities of the original owners (if the story is true). I know these remarks open me up to the criticism that I'm a conspiracy theory freak (which I guess would qualify me for US government office) - however, I guess there are "conspiracies" and "conspiracies". Today, the BBC were reporting that evidence has been found in Iraq that suggests that their were financial links between Saddam and al Quaeda. Further reporting reveals that assets have been sold off between the two "networks" (as between Enron and some other company?), that some people have worked for companies linked to both networks (like Rumsfeld, Halliburton and the Government?) or have moved from one organization to another (like Bush moving from Enron to White House?). The conclusion was that the links between Saddam and al Quaeda were simply opportunistic (like any other business) and not based on a structural (ideological) cooperation. However, close international cooperation would be needed in order to discover the truth. One might wonder, what the chances are of the US finding this cooperation -considering its aggressive attitude to other countries -and one might also wonder if the "truth" is as valuable to the US as the "propaganda" which it would replace. Cherrie wrote: "I agree with you that Lincoln and Gorby did what they thought was best for their whole countries and their people and not for personal gain or friends personal gain and I personally think both were/is great people. I also feel, while I think Blair made the wrong decision to go with the US on invading Iraq, that Blair made this decision because he thought it was in the best interest of his country, people and the world." Yes, I guess Blair does believe that it is not in Britain's interest to oppose the US -while perhaps other leaders believe exactly the opposite. Actually (to throw the cat among the pigeons) I'd like to nominate pres. Johnson - who I suspect got a bum deal from history and society. I have the feeling (as you suggest regarding Putin) that he really did wish to get out of the war - but just couldn't see a way. Blue eyed Kennedy, on the other hand, was the guy who started the illegal (secret) bombing of countries on the other side of the Vietnam border....... I understand (from a TV documentary) that Nixon had a neurotic desire to achieve -and it was this that pushed him over the edge into dirty tricks. One wonders how Bush compares with Nixon (who remained a popular politician, it seems -just as Clinton, in his way)! Cherrie wrote: "I think in complicated-complex situations as now exist in the world it is only through hind site that we can see who was right and who was wrong." In a world based on the commercial exploitation of trivia -there is little chance of discovering these things -even in hindsight! by Julie Fonda Re: Sophia's post Yes... I've never seen a world leader stand up for humanity -- at least not without an ulterior motive. I'm jumping into this conversation... I haven't read all of the posts. The insurance industry (in total) is another huge criminal voting/contributing $$$$$ block. Many times they hold the keys to life and death. I worked on both sides of the fence as a paralegal for 30 years, and the power that insurance companies have and the abuses they commit (in all areas of the industry) are appalling. Their latest propaganda push is that of screwing claimants under the guise of optimism. But as long as they are contributing to candidates, they will never change. In California, the Workers' Compensation insurance industry has rendered the Industrial Relations courts virtually impotent. And it happens on a grand scale. by Craig Johnson Re: Sophia's post Name one elected world leader.. There are none. None elected by anyone but individual Nations. So the point is moot. I never thought I'd see the day those of a liberal bent go off on so many "conspiracy" theories. At least the Libertarians and Conservative paranoids have more viable conspiracies then I've read here in the last week. As for whining about Insurance Companies, than you must hate Lawyers as much. Tort Reform is the only answer. Good luck finding a physician who'll accept HMO's in the next 10 years. |
Encourage Discussion Join Juryfury Chat Promote Juryfury.com Join online discussion Groups Archives Writers Needed Be a Columnist Be an Editor Become an Owner Writing Training Program Internship Program for Students Advertise with Us Our Staff & Contributors Our Magazines Quietpoly.com I-Traderschool Juryfury.com The Company Our Address: QuietPoly Inc. 240 W. Saunders. Dr. (#146) Flagstaff, AZ 86001 Tel (928) 214-7365 quietpoly@yahoo.com Our Affiliations (pending member) MediaChannel.org IndyMedia.org |