Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (6628)	9/3/2003 7:17:38 AM
From: KonKilo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793634

Just because it didn't turn out the way they thought it would does not make it a lie. Is it a lie if the teller believes it? Tough question. If it is later proven false, but the teller believed it at the time, I suppose one could argue about it technically being called a lie. But Marshall's point seems to be that Bush et al are lying to themselves, as well. At any rate ( and I do not like arguing semantics either), the end result of either an outright lie or a self-inflicted lie, is the same.

To: LindyBill who wrote (6628)	9/3/2003 9:07:40 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793634

Bush believed what he said when he said it, and you have no evidence to prove otherwise. Bill, if you are still discussing Marshall's article with SC, then this is a misstatement of his central point. He starts by noting various lies Bush has offered the public and argues he has a different style than previous recent presidents--all of whom, in a gesture of bipartisanship, he argues lied. But that's not his main point. It's different and more powerful. And more disturbing. It's about ideology. Marshall argues that across an entire series of policy fronts two things are happening--the Bush administration considers ideology the only thing, not one among several, to consider and thus, second, dismisses expert opinion as irrelevant. That has the effect of, increasingly, putting them out of touch with reality. It would be one thing to hear what the experts have to say, include that in policy formulation such that it fit, however loosely with ideological aspects. But it's quite another simply to ignore them and make policy as if only ideology mattered. It's definitely a very strong point. I keep saying that the dem candidates need to keep certain Krugman columns in their hip pocket to whip out when asked certain questions. This piece of Marshall is another one of those kinds of things. Though it's not about a specific item, more a large frame. I urge you to read it carefully. I remember early in the FADG thread life, tek posted the first Kagan piece. I skimmed it and posted a blowoff response. He, very gently, encouraged me to take another, more careful look. I did and realized I had not done my homework. Kagan had a great mind, one to learn from and disagree with. Certainly not blow off. Marshall doesn't quite have Kagan's brain power but this article is, in its own way, as significant.