The Phony World of the Minimum Wage
Nov 30th 2006 | 5:13 am
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
The Phony World of the Minimum Wage
By William F. Buckley Jr.
Nancy Pelosi, the new speaker of the House, has told us that she will
call up as maybe the very first order of business increasing the
minimum wage. Here are the relevant facts:
The federal minimum wage, enacted in 1938, was last raised in 1997.
>From that point on, with certain exceptions, you could not lawfully
hire someone to work without paying him or her at least $5.15 per hour.
Paying that much would yield $206 per week, or $10,712 per year. A
different federal agency defines poverty as annual earnings of $9,827
or less for a single person. The mathematics of the above informs us
that the existing federal minimum wage barely keeps a single worker out
of poverty.
Of course, many states and localities have enacted higher minimum wages
than the federal one. In San Francisco, you need to pay a worker $8.50
an hour; in New York State, $6.75; in Wisconsin, $5.70.
We learn that 60 percent of minimum-wage earners - two-thirds of them
women - are working in restaurants and bars; 73 percent, by the way,
are white, and 70 percent have high-school diplomas. Nearly 60 percent
work part time.
Now we can leech from these figures several observations:
(1) It can be very difficult to tell what a minimum wage worker is
actually making. Many of those who work in restaurants and bars receive
tips; then again, the minimum wage is substantially lower for people in
that situation.
(2) A high-school diploma will not in and of itself give the worker
merchandisable skills o'erleaping the minimum wage.
(3) Since there are part-time workers who receive only the minimum
wage, a moment's reflection makes it obvious that they receive, by
whatever means, income that makes life possible.
Now on the matter of what to do about it, we should begin by
acknowledging that any argument for circumventing the market wage is
sophistry. The market will tell you, even in San Francisco, what you
need to pay in order to hire an hour's labor. But sophistry is
sometimes in order. We do not allow child labor - except in certain
circumstances: Peter Pan, at the neighborhood theater, is allowed to
work even if he is only 12 years old.
Monopolies are not permitted to set prices. The idea is that in a free
society, you must not tolerate any constriction in production. But
again, sophistry is permitted, because labor unions, in many fields of
endeavor, practice exactly that - a monopoly on the price of labor.
What do we do about that? Exactly what we do about waiters who don't
list their tips: We ignore it.
We learn that one individual American last year received compensation
of $1.5 billion. This leads us indignantly to our blackboard, where we
learn that the average chief executive officer earns 1,100 times what a
minimum-wage worker earns. What some Americans are being paid every
year is describable only as: disgusting. But that disgust is irrelevant
in informing us what the minimum wage ought to be. The one has no
bearing on the other.
We are bent on violating free-market allocations. Doing this is not
theologically sinful, but it is wise to know what it is that we are
doing, and to know that the consequence of taking such liberties is to
undermine the price mechanism by which free societies prosper.
Milton Friedman taught that "the substitution of contract arrangements
for status arrangements was the first step toward the freeing of the
serfs in the Middle Ages." He cautioned against set prices. "The high
rate of unemployment among teenagers, and especially black teenagers,
is both a scandal and a serious source of social unrest. Yet it is
largely a result of minimum-wage laws." Those laws are "one of the
most, if not the most, anti-black laws on the statute books."
Professor Friedman is no longer here to testify, but his work is
available - even in San Francisco.
Nancy Pelosi, the new speaker of the House, has told us that she will
call up as maybe the very first order of business increasing the
minimum wage. Here are the relevant facts:
The federal minimum wage, enacted in 1938, was last raised in 1997.
>From that point on, with certain exceptions, you could not lawfully
hire someone to work without paying him or her at least $5.15 per hour.
Paying that much would yield $206 per week, or $10,712 per year. A
different federal agency defines poverty as annual earnings of $9,827
or less for a single person. The mathematics of the above informs us
that the existing federal minimum wage barely keeps a single worker out
of poverty.
Of course, many states and localities have enacted higher minimum wages
than the federal one. In San Francisco, you need to pay a worker $8.50
an hour; in New York State, $6.75; in Wisconsin, $5.70.
We learn that 60 percent of minimum-wage earners - two-thirds of them
women - are working in restaurants and bars; 73 percent, by the way,
are white, and 70 percent have high-school diplomas. Nearly 60 percent
work part time.
Now we can leech from these figures several observations:
(1) It can be very difficult to tell what a minimum wage worker is
actually making. Many of those who work in restaurants and bars receive
tips; then again, the minimum wage is substantially lower for people in
that situation.
(2) A high-school diploma will not in and of itself give the worker
merchandisable skills o'erleaping the minimum wage.
(3) Since there are part-time workers who receive only the minimum
wage, a moment's reflection makes it obvious that they receive, by
whatever means, income that makes life possible.
Now on the matter of what to do about it, we should begin by
acknowledging that any argument for circumventing the market wage is
sophistry. The market will tell you, even in San Francisco, what you
need to pay in order to hire an hour's labor. But sophistry is
sometimes in order. We do not allow child labor - except in certain
circumstances: Peter Pan, at the neighborhood theater, is allowed to
work even if he is only 12 years old.
Monopolies are not permitted to set prices. The idea is that in a free
society, you must not tolerate any constriction in production. But
again, sophistry is permitted, because labor unions, in many fields of
endeavor, practice exactly that - a monopoly on the price of labor.
What do we do about that? Exactly what we do about waiters who don't
list their tips: We ignore it.
We learn that one individual American last year received compensation
of $1.5 billion. This leads us indignantly to our blackboard, where we
learn that the average chief executive officer earns 1,100 times what a
minimum-wage worker earns. What some Americans are being paid every
year is describable only as: disgusting. But that disgust is irrelevant
in informing us what the minimum wage ought to be. The one has no
bearing on the other.
We are bent on violating free-market allocations. Doing this is not
theologically sinful, but it is wise to know what it is that we are
doing, and to know that the consequence of taking such liberties is to
undermine the price mechanism by which free societies prosper.
Milton Friedman taught that "the substitution of contract arrangements
for status arrangements was the first step toward the freeing of the
serfs in the Middle Ages." He cautioned against set prices. "The high
rate of unemployment among teenagers, and especially black teenagers,
is both a scandal and a serious source of social unrest. Yet it is
largely a result of minimum-wage laws." Those laws are "one of the
most, if not the most, anti-black laws on the statute books."
Professor Friedman is no longer here to testify, but his work is
available - even in San Francisco.
Nov 30th 2006 | 11:04 am
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The Phony World of the Minimum Wage
It doesn't matter what the minimum wage is. Just figures. The strong
will always exploit the weak and governments collude in this.
will always exploit the weak and governments collude in this.
Nov 30th 2006 | 10:54 pm
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The Phony World of the Minimum Wage
Thanks for this utterly off topic copyright violation posted to NG
rec.travel.europe.
Buckley should have continued his thought process and commented on the
possible effect of elimination of the minimum wage laws. E.g., if
American companies could pay workers the same wages and benefits as
they pay their workers in China would the corporations move their
factories back to the USA?
Maybe a "free labor zone" on the south side of Chicago would answer
that. The FLZ would have no minimum wage, no labor unions, no wage
taxes, no nothing except cash for work, by the hour or by the piece.
John Bermont
http://www.enjoy-europe.com/
Earl Evleth wrote:
> By William F. Buckley Jr.
> Nancy Pelosi, the new speaker of the House, has told us that she will
> call up as maybe the very first order of business increasing the
> minimum wage. Here are the relevant facts:
> The federal minimum wage, enacted in 1938, was last raised in 1997.
> >From that point on, with certain exceptions, you could not lawfully
> hire someone to work without paying him or her at least $5.15 per hour.
> Paying that much would yield $206 per week, or $10,712 per year. A
> different federal agency defines poverty as annual earnings of $9,827
> or less for a single person. The mathematics of the above informs us
> that the existing federal minimum wage barely keeps a single worker out
> of poverty.
> Of course, many states and localities have enacted higher minimum wages
> than the federal one. In San Francisco, you need to pay a worker $8.50
> an hour; in New York State, $6.75; in Wisconsin, $5.70.
> We learn that 60 percent of minimum-wage earners - two-thirds of them
> women - are working in restaurants and bars; 73 percent, by the way,
> are white, and 70 percent have high-school diplomas. Nearly 60 percent
> work part time.
> Now we can leech from these figures several observations:
> (1) It can be very difficult to tell what a minimum wage worker is
> actually making. Many of those who work in restaurants and bars receive
> tips; then again, the minimum wage is substantially lower for people in
> that situation.
> (2) A high-school diploma will not in and of itself give the worker
> merchandisable skills o'erleaping the minimum wage.
> (3) Since there are part-time workers who receive only the minimum
> wage, a moment's reflection makes it obvious that they receive, by
> whatever means, income that makes life possible.
> Now on the matter of what to do about it, we should begin by
> acknowledging that any argument for circumventing the market wage is
> sophistry. The market will tell you, even in San Francisco, what you
> need to pay in order to hire an hour's labor. But sophistry is
> sometimes in order. We do not allow child labor - except in certain
> circumstances: Peter Pan, at the neighborhood theater, is allowed to
> work even if he is only 12 years old.
> Monopolies are not permitted to set prices. The idea is that in a free
> society, you must not tolerate any constriction in production. But
> again, sophistry is permitted, because labor unions, in many fields of
> endeavor, practice exactly that - a monopoly on the price of labor.
> What do we do about that? Exactly what we do about waiters who don't
> list their tips: We ignore it.
> We learn that one individual American last year received compensation
> of $1.5 billion. This leads us indignantly to our blackboard, where we
> learn that the average chief executive officer earns 1,100 times what a
> minimum-wage worker earns. What some Americans are being paid every
> year is describable only as: disgusting. But that disgust is irrelevant
> in informing us what the minimum wage ought to be. The one has no
> bearing on the other.
> We are bent on violating free-market allocations. Doing this is not
> theologically sinful, but it is wise to know what it is that we are
> doing, and to know that the consequence of taking such liberties is to
> undermine the price mechanism by which free societies prosper.
> Milton Friedman taught that "the substitution of contract arrangements
> for status arrangements was the first step toward the freeing of the
> serfs in the Middle Ages." He cautioned against set prices. "The high
> rate of unemployment among teenagers, and especially black teenagers,
> is both a scandal and a serious source of social unrest. Yet it is
> largely a result of minimum-wage laws." Those laws are "one of the
> most, if not the most, anti-black laws on the statute books."
> Professor Friedman is no longer here to testify, but his work is
> available - even in San Francisco.
rec.travel.europe.
Buckley should have continued his thought process and commented on the
possible effect of elimination of the minimum wage laws. E.g., if
American companies could pay workers the same wages and benefits as
they pay their workers in China would the corporations move their
factories back to the USA?
Maybe a "free labor zone" on the south side of Chicago would answer
that. The FLZ would have no minimum wage, no labor unions, no wage
taxes, no nothing except cash for work, by the hour or by the piece.
John Bermont
http://www.enjoy-europe.com/
Earl Evleth wrote:
> By William F. Buckley Jr.
> Nancy Pelosi, the new speaker of the House, has told us that she will
> call up as maybe the very first order of business increasing the
> minimum wage. Here are the relevant facts:
> The federal minimum wage, enacted in 1938, was last raised in 1997.
> >From that point on, with certain exceptions, you could not lawfully
> hire someone to work without paying him or her at least $5.15 per hour.
> Paying that much would yield $206 per week, or $10,712 per year. A
> different federal agency defines poverty as annual earnings of $9,827
> or less for a single person. The mathematics of the above informs us
> that the existing federal minimum wage barely keeps a single worker out
> of poverty.
> Of course, many states and localities have enacted higher minimum wages
> than the federal one. In San Francisco, you need to pay a worker $8.50
> an hour; in New York State, $6.75; in Wisconsin, $5.70.
> We learn that 60 percent of minimum-wage earners - two-thirds of them
> women - are working in restaurants and bars; 73 percent, by the way,
> are white, and 70 percent have high-school diplomas. Nearly 60 percent
> work part time.
> Now we can leech from these figures several observations:
> (1) It can be very difficult to tell what a minimum wage worker is
> actually making. Many of those who work in restaurants and bars receive
> tips; then again, the minimum wage is substantially lower for people in
> that situation.
> (2) A high-school diploma will not in and of itself give the worker
> merchandisable skills o'erleaping the minimum wage.
> (3) Since there are part-time workers who receive only the minimum
> wage, a moment's reflection makes it obvious that they receive, by
> whatever means, income that makes life possible.
> Now on the matter of what to do about it, we should begin by
> acknowledging that any argument for circumventing the market wage is
> sophistry. The market will tell you, even in San Francisco, what you
> need to pay in order to hire an hour's labor. But sophistry is
> sometimes in order. We do not allow child labor - except in certain
> circumstances: Peter Pan, at the neighborhood theater, is allowed to
> work even if he is only 12 years old.
> Monopolies are not permitted to set prices. The idea is that in a free
> society, you must not tolerate any constriction in production. But
> again, sophistry is permitted, because labor unions, in many fields of
> endeavor, practice exactly that - a monopoly on the price of labor.
> What do we do about that? Exactly what we do about waiters who don't
> list their tips: We ignore it.
> We learn that one individual American last year received compensation
> of $1.5 billion. This leads us indignantly to our blackboard, where we
> learn that the average chief executive officer earns 1,100 times what a
> minimum-wage worker earns. What some Americans are being paid every
> year is describable only as: disgusting. But that disgust is irrelevant
> in informing us what the minimum wage ought to be. The one has no
> bearing on the other.
> We are bent on violating free-market allocations. Doing this is not
> theologically sinful, but it is wise to know what it is that we are
> doing, and to know that the consequence of taking such liberties is to
> undermine the price mechanism by which free societies prosper.
> Milton Friedman taught that "the substitution of contract arrangements
> for status arrangements was the first step toward the freeing of the
> serfs in the Middle Ages." He cautioned against set prices. "The high
> rate of unemployment among teenagers, and especially black teenagers,
> is both a scandal and a serious source of social unrest. Yet it is
> largely a result of minimum-wage laws." Those laws are "one of the
> most, if not the most, anti-black laws on the statute books."
> Professor Friedman is no longer here to testify, but his work is
> available - even in San Francisco.
Dec 1st 2006 | 12:02 am
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The Phony World of the Minimum Wage
Fortunately the Seppo spelling of 'phony' will put off any intelligent
person from bothering to read his bilge, if the poster's moniker wasn't
familiar to them already.
person from bothering to read his bilge, if the poster's moniker wasn't
familiar to them already.
Dec 1st 2006 | 12:04 am
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dumbasses spell 'phony' thus.
[email protected] wrote:
> Fortunately the Seppo spelling of 'phony' will put off any intelligent
> person from bothering to read his bilge, if the poster's moniker wasn't
> familiar to them already.
> Fortunately the Seppo spelling of 'phony' will put off any intelligent
> person from bothering to read his bilge, if the poster's moniker wasn't
> familiar to them already.
Dec 1st 2006 | 2:03 am
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The Phony World of the Minimum Wage
> From: "John Bermont" <[email protected]>
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty,rec.travel.europe
> Date: 1 Dec 2006 03:54:06 -0800
> Subject: Re: The Phony World of the Minimum Wage
>
> Thanks for this utterly off topic copyright violation posted to NG
> rec.travel.europe.
This post is a forgery. A man named Stephen Bach forged Earl's name and
address to post this "off topic copyright violation". Earl had nothing to
do with it. He has filed an abuse complaint, but Stephen Bach's server does
nothing about him, even though Bach has forged about 70 posts in Earl's
name.
Donna Evleth
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty,rec.travel.europe
> Date: 1 Dec 2006 03:54:06 -0800
> Subject: Re: The Phony World of the Minimum Wage
>
> Thanks for this utterly off topic copyright violation posted to NG
> rec.travel.europe.
This post is a forgery. A man named Stephen Bach forged Earl's name and
address to post this "off topic copyright violation". Earl had nothing to
do with it. He has filed an abuse complaint, but Stephen Bach's server does
nothing about him, even though Bach has forged about 70 posts in Earl's
name.
Donna Evleth
Dec 1st 2006 | 2:04 am
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The Phony World of the Minimum Wage
> From: [email protected]
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty,rec.travel.europe
> Date: 1 Dec 2006 05:02:54 -0800
> Subject: Re: The Phony World of the Minimum Wage
>
> Fortunately the Seppo spelling of 'phony' will put off any intelligent
> person from bothering to read his bilge, if the poster's moniker wasn't
> familiar to them already.
I shall repeat to you what I told John Bermont. This post is a forgery.
Donna Evleth
>
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty,rec.travel.europe
> Date: 1 Dec 2006 05:02:54 -0800
> Subject: Re: The Phony World of the Minimum Wage
>
> Fortunately the Seppo spelling of 'phony' will put off any intelligent
> person from bothering to read his bilge, if the poster's moniker wasn't
> familiar to them already.
I shall repeat to you what I told John Bermont. This post is a forgery.
Donna Evleth
>
Dec 1st 2006 | 7:27 am
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The Phony World of the Minimum Wage
yess earl evleth is a specialist in abuses, although we have been lenient
with him, we do not use such methods we despise
"Donna Evleth" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
C19602C3.3EF1E%[email protected]...
>> From: "John Bermont" <[email protected]>
>> Organization: http://groups.google.com
>> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty,rec.travel.europe
>> Date: 1 Dec 2006 03:54:06 -0800
>> Subject: Re: The Phony World of the Minimum Wage
>> Thanks for this utterly off topic copyright violation posted to NG
>> rec.travel.europe.
> This post is a forgery. A man named Stephen Bach forged Earl's name and
> address to post this "off topic copyright violation". Earl had nothing to
> do with it. He has filed an abuse complaint, but Stephen Bach's server
> does
> nothing about him, even though Bach has forged about 70 posts in Earl's
> name.
> Donna Evleth
>
with him, we do not use such methods we despise
"Donna Evleth" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de news:
C19602C3.3EF1E%[email protected]...
>> From: "John Bermont" <[email protected]>
>> Organization: http://groups.google.com
>> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty,rec.travel.europe
>> Date: 1 Dec 2006 03:54:06 -0800
>> Subject: Re: The Phony World of the Minimum Wage
>> Thanks for this utterly off topic copyright violation posted to NG
>> rec.travel.europe.
> This post is a forgery. A man named Stephen Bach forged Earl's name and
> address to post this "off topic copyright violation". Earl had nothing to
> do with it. He has filed an abuse complaint, but Stephen Bach's server
> does
> nothing about him, even though Bach has forged about 70 posts in Earl's
> name.
> Donna Evleth
>
Dec 1st 2006 | 10:01 am
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The Phony World of the Minimum Wage
Hey Earl & Donna quit posting off topic crap in rec.travel.europe. You
and pops are really obtuse.
and pops are really obtuse.
Dec 2nd 2006 | 4:57 am
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The Phony World of the Minimum Wage
Donna Evleth wrote:
> > From: "John Bermont" <[email protected]>
> > Organization: http://groups.google.com
> > Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty,rec.travel.europe
> > Date: 1 Dec 2006 03:54:06 -0800
> > Subject: Re: The Phony World of the Minimum Wage
> >
> > Thanks for this utterly off topic copyright violation posted to NG
> > rec.travel.europe.
> This post is a forgery. A man named Stephen Bach forged Earl's name and
> address to post this "off topic copyright violation". Earl had nothing to
> do with it. He has filed an abuse complaint, but Stephen Bach's server does
> nothing about him, even though Bach has forged about 70 posts in Earl's
> name.
> Donna Evleth
I believe you Donna. I should have known something was amiss. Earl
promoting Bill Buckley ideas?
> > From: "John Bermont" <[email protected]>
> > Organization: http://groups.google.com
> > Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty,rec.travel.europe
> > Date: 1 Dec 2006 03:54:06 -0800
> > Subject: Re: The Phony World of the Minimum Wage
> >
> > Thanks for this utterly off topic copyright violation posted to NG
> > rec.travel.europe.
> This post is a forgery. A man named Stephen Bach forged Earl's name and
> address to post this "off topic copyright violation". Earl had nothing to
> do with it. He has filed an abuse complaint, but Stephen Bach's server does
> nothing about him, even though Bach has forged about 70 posts in Earl's
> name.
> Donna Evleth
I believe you Donna. I should have known something was amiss. Earl
promoting Bill Buckley ideas?
Dec 2nd 2006 | 5:44 am
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The Phony World of the Minimum Wage
On 2/12/06 18:57, in article
[email protected] om,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I believe you Donna. I should have known something was amiss. Earl
> promoting Bill Buckley ideas?
I might at times. Or any other conservative thinker, who finally starts
thinking. The Cato Instituted had a number of people against the wars
both Gulf War I and II. I was for Gulf War I because I felt for
the Kuwaitis and don't believe modern wars should award the aggressors
with territorial gains. I am not even happy with the Israeli
occupation of the West Bank and they were not exactly the aggressors
in the 68 war. But I don't like the religious wackos and their Biblical
predestination of naturally owning Judea and Samaria.
As for Iraq a lot of conservatives were not happy with the nation
building liberal ideas of Bush. I don't mind them but I also
am not a utopian. I'd like the women freed in Afghanistan but
I don't think we can make that happen.
I am very self-congratulator now in that I had the following
positions before the war started.
From JOSH MARSHALL
http://www.hillnews.com/marshall/063004.aspx
Bill Buckley, you and I know the war was a mistake
³With the benefit of minute hindsight, Saddam Hussein wasn¹t the kind of
extra-territorial menace that was assumed by the administration one year
ago. If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be
in, I would have opposed the war.²
Those words are William F. Buckley¹s, from an article in yesterday¹s New
York Times marking Buckley¹s decision to relinquish control of the National
Review, the flagship journal of the conservative movement he founded 50
years ago.
Also out on the newsstands now, in The Atlantic Monthly, is an essay
Buckley wrote describing his decision to give up sailing after a lifetime
covering the world¹s oceans and writing about it.
Mortality is the backdrop of both decisions, as the 78-year-old Buckley
explains. In the Atlantic essay he describes his decision to abandon the sea
as one of assessing whether ³the ratio of pleasure to effort [is] holding
its own [in sailing]? Or is effort creeping up, pleasure down? Š deciding
that the time has come to [give up sailing] and forfeit all that is not
lightly done Š brings to mind the step yet ahead, which is giving up life
itself.²
There is certainly no shortage today of people saying the Iraq venture was
wrongheaded. But Bill Buckley is Bill Buckley. And perhaps it is uniquely
possible for a man at the summit or the sunset of life ‹ choose your
metaphor ‹ to state so crisply and precisely what a clear majority of the
American public has already decided (54 percent according to the latest
Gallup poll): that the president¹s Iraq venture was a mistake.
So with the formal end of the occupation now behind us, let¹s take stock of
the arguments for war and see whether any of them any longer hold up.
€ The threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
To the best of our knowledge, the Hussein regime had no stockpiles of WMD
on the eve of the war nor any ongoing programs to create them. An article
this week in the Financial Times claims that Iraq really was trying to buy
uranium from Niger despite all the evidence to the contrary. But new
³evidence² appears merely to be unsubstantiated raw intelligence that was
wisely discounted by our intelligence agencies at the time.
Advocates of the war still claim that Saddam had ³WMD programs.² But they
can do so only by using a comically elastic definition of ³program² that
never would have passed the laugh test if attempted prior to the war.
€ The Iraq-al Qaeda link.
To the best of our knowledge, the Hussein regime had no meaningful ‹ or as
the recent Sept. 11 Commission staff report put it, ³collaborative² ‹
relationship with al Qaeda. In this case too, there¹s still a ³debate.²
Every couple of months we hear of a new finding that someone who may have
had a tie to Saddam may have met with someone connected to al Qaeda.
But as in the case of WMD, it¹s really mock debate, more of a word game
than a serious, open question, and a rather baroque one at that. Mostly,
it¹s not an evidentiary search but an exercise in finding out whether a few
random meetings can be rhetorically leveraged into a ³relationship.² If it
can, supposedly, a rationale for war is thus salvaged.
The humanitarian argument for the war remains potent ‹ in as much as
Saddam¹s regime was ruthlessly repressive. But in itself this never would
have been an adequate argument to drive the American people to war ‹ and,
not surprisingly, the administration never made much of it before its other
rationales fell apart.
The broader aim of stimulating a liberalizing and democratizing trend in
the Middle East remains an open question ‹ but largely because it rests on
unknowables about the future rather than facts that can be proved or
disproved about the past. From the vantage point of today, there seems
little doubt that the war was destabilizing in the short run or that it has
strengthened the hands of radicals in countries like Iran and, arguably
though less clearly, Saudi Arabia. The best one can say about the prospects
for democracy in Iraq itself is that there are some hopeful signs, but the
overall outlook seems extremely iffy.
Surveying the whole political landscape, it is clear that a large factor in
keeping support for the war as high as it is is the deep partisan political
divide in the country, which makes opposing the war tantamount to opposing
its author, President Bush, a step most Republicans simply aren¹t willing to
take.
At a certain point, for many, conflicts become self-justifying. We fight
our enemies because our enemies are fighting us, quite apart from whether we
should have gotten ourselves into the quarrel in the first place.
But picking apart the reasons why we got into Iraq in the first place and
comparing what the administration said in 2002 with what we know in 2004, it
is increasingly difficult not to conclude, as a majority of the American
public and that founding father of modern conservatism have now concluded,
that the whole enterprise was a mistake.
[email protected] om,
"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I believe you Donna. I should have known something was amiss. Earl
> promoting Bill Buckley ideas?
I might at times. Or any other conservative thinker, who finally starts
thinking. The Cato Instituted had a number of people against the wars
both Gulf War I and II. I was for Gulf War I because I felt for
the Kuwaitis and don't believe modern wars should award the aggressors
with territorial gains. I am not even happy with the Israeli
occupation of the West Bank and they were not exactly the aggressors
in the 68 war. But I don't like the religious wackos and their Biblical
predestination of naturally owning Judea and Samaria.
As for Iraq a lot of conservatives were not happy with the nation
building liberal ideas of Bush. I don't mind them but I also
am not a utopian. I'd like the women freed in Afghanistan but
I don't think we can make that happen.
I am very self-congratulator now in that I had the following
positions before the war started.
From JOSH MARSHALL
http://www.hillnews.com/marshall/063004.aspx
Bill Buckley, you and I know the war was a mistake
³With the benefit of minute hindsight, Saddam Hussein wasn¹t the kind of
extra-territorial menace that was assumed by the administration one year
ago. If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be
in, I would have opposed the war.²
Those words are William F. Buckley¹s, from an article in yesterday¹s New
York Times marking Buckley¹s decision to relinquish control of the National
Review, the flagship journal of the conservative movement he founded 50
years ago.
Also out on the newsstands now, in The Atlantic Monthly, is an essay
Buckley wrote describing his decision to give up sailing after a lifetime
covering the world¹s oceans and writing about it.
Mortality is the backdrop of both decisions, as the 78-year-old Buckley
explains. In the Atlantic essay he describes his decision to abandon the sea
as one of assessing whether ³the ratio of pleasure to effort [is] holding
its own [in sailing]? Or is effort creeping up, pleasure down? Š deciding
that the time has come to [give up sailing] and forfeit all that is not
lightly done Š brings to mind the step yet ahead, which is giving up life
itself.²
There is certainly no shortage today of people saying the Iraq venture was
wrongheaded. But Bill Buckley is Bill Buckley. And perhaps it is uniquely
possible for a man at the summit or the sunset of life ‹ choose your
metaphor ‹ to state so crisply and precisely what a clear majority of the
American public has already decided (54 percent according to the latest
Gallup poll): that the president¹s Iraq venture was a mistake.
So with the formal end of the occupation now behind us, let¹s take stock of
the arguments for war and see whether any of them any longer hold up.
€ The threat of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
To the best of our knowledge, the Hussein regime had no stockpiles of WMD
on the eve of the war nor any ongoing programs to create them. An article
this week in the Financial Times claims that Iraq really was trying to buy
uranium from Niger despite all the evidence to the contrary. But new
³evidence² appears merely to be unsubstantiated raw intelligence that was
wisely discounted by our intelligence agencies at the time.
Advocates of the war still claim that Saddam had ³WMD programs.² But they
can do so only by using a comically elastic definition of ³program² that
never would have passed the laugh test if attempted prior to the war.
€ The Iraq-al Qaeda link.
To the best of our knowledge, the Hussein regime had no meaningful ‹ or as
the recent Sept. 11 Commission staff report put it, ³collaborative² ‹
relationship with al Qaeda. In this case too, there¹s still a ³debate.²
Every couple of months we hear of a new finding that someone who may have
had a tie to Saddam may have met with someone connected to al Qaeda.
But as in the case of WMD, it¹s really mock debate, more of a word game
than a serious, open question, and a rather baroque one at that. Mostly,
it¹s not an evidentiary search but an exercise in finding out whether a few
random meetings can be rhetorically leveraged into a ³relationship.² If it
can, supposedly, a rationale for war is thus salvaged.
The humanitarian argument for the war remains potent ‹ in as much as
Saddam¹s regime was ruthlessly repressive. But in itself this never would
have been an adequate argument to drive the American people to war ‹ and,
not surprisingly, the administration never made much of it before its other
rationales fell apart.
The broader aim of stimulating a liberalizing and democratizing trend in
the Middle East remains an open question ‹ but largely because it rests on
unknowables about the future rather than facts that can be proved or
disproved about the past. From the vantage point of today, there seems
little doubt that the war was destabilizing in the short run or that it has
strengthened the hands of radicals in countries like Iran and, arguably
though less clearly, Saudi Arabia. The best one can say about the prospects
for democracy in Iraq itself is that there are some hopeful signs, but the
overall outlook seems extremely iffy.
Surveying the whole political landscape, it is clear that a large factor in
keeping support for the war as high as it is is the deep partisan political
divide in the country, which makes opposing the war tantamount to opposing
its author, President Bush, a step most Republicans simply aren¹t willing to
take.
At a certain point, for many, conflicts become self-justifying. We fight
our enemies because our enemies are fighting us, quite apart from whether we
should have gotten ourselves into the quarrel in the first place.
But picking apart the reasons why we got into Iraq in the first place and
comparing what the administration said in 2002 with what we know in 2004, it
is increasingly difficult not to conclude, as a majority of the American
public and that founding father of modern conservatism have now concluded,
that the whole enterprise was a mistake.
Dec 2nd 2006 | 6:28 am
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The Phony World of the Minimum Wage
On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 16:04:44 +0100, Donna Evleth <[email protected]>
wrote:
>> From: [email protected]
>> Organization: http://groups.google.com
>> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty,rec.travel.europe
>> Date: 1 Dec 2006 05:02:54 -0800
>> Subject: Re: The Phony World of the Minimum Wage
>>
>> Fortunately the Seppo spelling of 'phony' will put off any intelligent
>> person from bothering to read his bilge, if the poster's moniker wasn't
>> familiar to them already.
>I shall repeat to you what I told John Bermont. This post is a forgery.
You know, I knew it had to be. I haven't read rte in AGES, but Earl
is one of the people I remember and admired from my previous readings.
When I saw this post (off topic AND copyright infringement) I couldn't
begin to believe it was from the Earl that I used to "know"!
TammyM
Sacramento, CA, USA
wrote:
>> From: [email protected]
>> Organization: http://groups.google.com
>> Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty,rec.travel.europe
>> Date: 1 Dec 2006 05:02:54 -0800
>> Subject: Re: The Phony World of the Minimum Wage
>>
>> Fortunately the Seppo spelling of 'phony' will put off any intelligent
>> person from bothering to read his bilge, if the poster's moniker wasn't
>> familiar to them already.
>I shall repeat to you what I told John Bermont. This post is a forgery.
You know, I knew it had to be. I haven't read rte in AGES, but Earl
is one of the people I remember and admired from my previous readings.
When I saw this post (off topic AND copyright infringement) I couldn't
begin to believe it was from the Earl that I used to "know"!
TammyM
Sacramento, CA, USA
Dec 5th 2006 | 6:15 am
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The Phony World of the Minimum Wage
Zubenalgenubi wrote:
> Hey Earl & Donna quit posting off topic crap in rec.travel.europe. You
> and pops are really obtuse.
>
Are you totally dumb. Earl has not posted to this thread.
> Hey Earl & Donna quit posting off topic crap in rec.travel.europe. You
> and pops are really obtuse.
>
Are you totally dumb. Earl has not posted to this thread.
Dec 5th 2006 | 6:17 am
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The Phony World of the Minimum Wage
TammyM wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 16:04:44 +0100, Donna Evleth <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>From: [email protected]
>>>Organization: http://groups.google.com
>>>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty,rec.travel.europe
>>>Date: 1 Dec 2006 05:02:54 -0800
>>>Subject: Re: The Phony World of the Minimum Wage
>>>Fortunately the Seppo spelling of 'phony' will put off any intelligent
>>>person from bothering to read his bilge, if the poster's moniker wasn't
>>>familiar to them already.
>>I shall repeat to you what I told John Bermont. This post is a forgery.
>
>
> You know, I knew it had to be. I haven't read rte in AGES, but Earl
> is one of the people I remember and admired from my previous readings.
> When I saw this post (off topic AND copyright infringement) I couldn't
> begin to believe it was from the Earl that I used to "know"!
>
> TammyM
> Sacramento, CA, USA
Tammy, all you have to do is watch the difference between wanadoo & yahoo,
> On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 16:04:44 +0100, Donna Evleth <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>From: [email protected]
>>>Organization: http://groups.google.com
>>>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty,rec.travel.europe
>>>Date: 1 Dec 2006 05:02:54 -0800
>>>Subject: Re: The Phony World of the Minimum Wage
>>>Fortunately the Seppo spelling of 'phony' will put off any intelligent
>>>person from bothering to read his bilge, if the poster's moniker wasn't
>>>familiar to them already.
>>I shall repeat to you what I told John Bermont. This post is a forgery.
>
>
> You know, I knew it had to be. I haven't read rte in AGES, but Earl
> is one of the people I remember and admired from my previous readings.
> When I saw this post (off topic AND copyright infringement) I couldn't
> begin to believe it was from the Earl that I used to "know"!
>
> TammyM
> Sacramento, CA, USA
Tammy, all you have to do is watch the difference between wanadoo & yahoo,
Dec 5th 2006 | 7:38 am
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: The Phony World of the Minimum Wage
"Frank F. Matthews" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Zubenalgenubi wrote:
>> Hey Earl & Donna quit posting off topic crap in rec.travel.europe. You
>> and pops are really obtuse.
> Are you totally dumb. Earl has not posted to this thread.
He's not 'totally' dumb. He, Stephen Bach, is the forger of the fake Evleth
posts.
news:[email protected]...
> Zubenalgenubi wrote:
>> Hey Earl & Donna quit posting off topic crap in rec.travel.europe. You
>> and pops are really obtuse.
> Are you totally dumb. Earl has not posted to this thread.
He's not 'totally' dumb. He, Stephen Bach, is the forger of the fake Evleth
posts.
