Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
OK. Jesus god help me, I can't believe I'm posting on this, but whatever. What "business organizations" are there that aren't trade groups (i.e., concentrated in a single area)? Besides the Chamber of Commerce?

The editorial boards of the Wall Street Journal and the Economist?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Yesterday, the Pentagon announces a massive march and country music concert celebrating our freedom. On, ah, September 11.

• "This year the Department of Defence will initiate an America Supports Your Freedom Walk," Rumsfeld said, adding that the march would remind people of "the sacrifices of this generation and of each previous generation".
  
  The march will start at the Pentagon, where nearly 200 people died on September 11, 2001, and end at the National Mall with a show by country star Clint Black.
  
  Word of the event startled some observers.
  
  "I've never heard of such a thing," said John Pike, who has been a defence analyst in Washington for 25 years and runs GlobalSecurity.org.
  
  The news also reignited debate and anger over linking September 11 with the war in Iraq.
  
  "That piece of it is disturbing since we all know now there was no connection," said Paul Rieckhoff, an Iraq veteran who heads Operation Truth, an anti-administration military booster.
  
  AdvertisementRieckhoff suggested the event was an ill-conceived publicity stunt.
  
  "I think it's clear that their public opinion polls are in the toilet," he said.
  
  Rumsfeld's march had some relatives of September 11 victims fuming.
  
  "How about telling Mr Rumsfeld to leave the memories of September 11 victims to the families?" said Monica Gabrielle, who lost her husband in the attacks.
  
  Administration supporters insisted Rumsfeld was right to link Iraq and September 11, and hold the rally.
  
  "We are at war," said Representative Pete King, (Republican, New York).
  
  "It's essential that we support our troops."

It's certainly true that I am not a Bush supporter, and as a matter of mental exercise and fairness, I am trying to avoid a reflexive distaste for everything that this Administration does. I am also mindful that September 11 has become the third rail of American politics, such that saying ANYTHING about it will draw criticism.

All that said, is it just me, or is this in shockingly bad taste? Support the troops, yes, but using this particular date seems purposefully designed to wrap the Administration ever tighter in the American flag, an anatomical feat I presumed impossible at this point.

Can't we just have another photo op of Bush in South Dakota, where his mug appears adjacent to the other four presidents on Rushmore, and be done with it?

Gattigap

Come to Seatlle on 9/11. Penske and I have a more dignified way to recognize the anniversity. We handle vipers while speaking in tongues, then we go to a middle eastern restaurant, order a feast and run out on the tab. We need to know if you'll be there because we like to reserve active snakes.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
OK. Jesus god help me, I can't believe I'm posting on this, but whatever. What "business organizations" are there that aren't trade groups (i.e., concentrated in a single area)? Besides the Chamber of Commerce?

US. Manufactureres Association, Business Roundtable, U.S. Exporters Association, Technet .......

All fifty U.S. State Chambers of Commerce came out in support of CAFTA. The US Chamber and the California Chapter had unanimous board decisions in support and every member of Technet - that it pretty much every technical company that counts came out for it.

When I say the business community is behind CAFTA - I am sayihng 99% of the business community.

Originally posted by ltl/fb
And, it's my understanding that the Governator is stepping up enforcement of labor laws so that businesses that obey laws on hours worked, minimum wage, working conditions etc. aren't at a disadvantage relative to businesses that don't obey these laws. This seems, to me, directly comparable to wanting the CAFTA countries to have at least some kind of labor/environmental laws, so that they aren't at a relative advantage above and beyond the lower cost of living or whatever. I don't get why you think this is not at all important.

Like I said, you could convince me it was important to businesses if businesses lobbied for it. But I have never heard of a sinlge business that came out against CAFTA because of its weak labor provisions. I am sure it would be nice, but the access to these markets, and the ability to purchase parts from these markets, totally outweighs (And eclipses) any concern about the labor standards.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
The editorial boards of the Wall Street Journal and the Economist?

Yes and every other business magazine. - Fortune, Business Week etc. In addition, most of the major newspapers. I think before I mentioned that the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times etc. all came out for CAFTA.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Come to Seatlle on 9/11. Penske and I have a more dignified way to recognize the anniversity. We handle vipers while speaking in tongues, then we go to a middle eastern restaurant, order a feast and run out on the tab. We need to know if you'll be there because we like to reserve active snakes.

OK, that's one "No."

Got it. Thanks.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
OK, that's one "No."

Got it. Thanks.

What would you propose for 9/11? I know it wouldn't be anything that could offend, or make people remember that there are real evil people trying to kill our way of life, but is there anything you might find appropriate? Maybe a statement about how we ourselves are really to blame?

[Spanky]

I should also point out that the Republicans that voted against Clinton's NAFTA proposal were being partisan. NAFTA had a lot of labour and environmental regulations but it was overwhelmingly a free trade agreement (althought it did not come close to created a level playing field as Ty would want it). The business community was solidly behind it. The Republicans that came out against it because it wasn't "really free trade" were realy just chossing partisanship over principle. They came out against it because Clinton signed it. On CAFTA there were some Republicans that are not really pro-free trade who voted for it because they just wanted to give Bush a win. They were being partisan also.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Maybe a statement about how we ourselves are really to blame?

Yeah, that's it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Yeah, that's it.

For me the day would best start with all TV stations replaying the news from that morning until the towers fall, then seguing into playing the documentary on Beslam to remind everyone we are still in danger. Everyone should be made to watch the way Sadaam mad everyone vote.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
What would you propose for 9/11? I know it wouldn't be anything that could offend, or make people remember that there are real evil people trying to kill our way of life, but is there anything you might find appropriate? Maybe a statement about how we ourselves are really to blame?

9/11 for me is always a day for indictments and therapy.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb

And, it's my understanding that the Governator is stepping up enforcement of labor laws so that businesses that obey laws on hours worked, minimum wage, working conditions etc. aren't at a disadvantage relative to businesses that don't obey these laws. This seems, to me, directly comparable to wanting the CAFTA countries to have at least some kind of labor/environmental laws, so that they aren't at a relative advantage above and beyond the lower cost of living or whatever. I don't get why you think this is not at all important.

What, I didn't do your dirty work for you? Maybe it's because your analogy is less than apt.

If California has laws, they need to be enforced. Stepping up enforcement means that there won't be cheaters who get away with it, reducing the efficacy of those laws and the respect for them. Seems pretty straightforward--laws should be enforced, because they exist and, in some cases, because not doing so disadvantages those who play by the rules, which is perverse.

Other countries have made a decision on their laws, or lack thereof, on certain issues. That's a legitimate choice that probably reflects, among other things, the relevant circumstances there. But there's not an issue that they aren't enforcing those laws, it's just that those laws are weak. But why are we in a position, given principles of sovereignty, to tell them what to do? Sure, it makes it hard to "compete" with them in certain respects, but that's because their gov't has made a different balancing of interests. Very different from California deciding to enforce the laws it already decided had value.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
9/11 for me is always a day for indictments and therapy.

That's a bitch. How's the job search going?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
What, I didn't do your dirty work for you? Maybe it's because your analogy is less than apt.

If California has laws, they need to be enforced. Stepping up enforcement means that there won't be cheaters who get away with it, reducing the efficacy of those laws and the respect for them. Seems pretty straightforward--laws should be enforced, because they exist and, in some cases, because not doing so disadvantages those who play by the rules, which is perverse.

Other countries have made a decision on their laws, or lack thereof, on certain issues. That's a legitimate choice that probably reflects, among other things, the relevant circumstances there. But there's not an issue that they aren't enforcing those laws, it's just that those laws are weak. But why are we in a position, given principles of sovereignty, to tell them what to do? Sure, it makes it hard to "compete" with them in certain respects, but that's because their gov't has made a different balancing of interests. Very different from California deciding to enforce the laws it already decided had value.

I agree with what you are saying, but we and they had made decisions on tariffs and other explicitly monetary trade issues, but were working out a deal in which we made promises on those -- so it was a good opportunity to get similarity on other things that are very much related.


ETA you usually use the big words better than me.

[Spanky]

This issue may seem trivial but it actually really important in the Bay Area right now. Two bay area Congresswomen voted against CAFTA who used to have the support of the business community. Ellen Tauscher and Anna Eschoo. Both Tauscher and Eschoo got massive pressure from the Democrat leadership (Nancy Pelosi) to vote against CAFTA to help stop Bush's momentum going into the Congressional elections. Pelosi also bombarded them with information of why CAFTA wasn't really good for business. Tauscher and Eschoo figured they could use those excuses to make the business community less mad or at least make a vote against CAFTA seem reasonable. I warned both Anna and Ellen that the business community would not buy it and the backlash would be horrible. They didn't believe me. Now the backlash is unbelievable. Worse than I even expected. Ellen especially was thought of a pro-business democrat but that reputation has been destroyed by this one vote. They have lost all support in the Silicon Valley which is pretty important in this area. I have been to meetings where Eschoo has tried to defend her vote to former strong supporters who now hate her. She actually tried to tell the head of technet, Tys argument, that she made the vote because CAFTA was bad for tech business. You should have seen the look on the head of Technets face when Anna tried to tell him what was good for the business group he represented (in other words she new better). He stormed out of the room saying in the future "don't do me any favors".

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
This issue may seem trivial but it actually really important in the Bay Area right now. Two bay area Congresswomen voted against CAFTA who used to have the support of the business community. Ellen Tauscher and Anna Eschoo. Both Tauscher and Eschoo got massive pressure from the Democrat leadership (Nancy Pelosi) to vote against CAFTA to help stop Bush's momentum going into the Congressional elections. Pelosi also bombarded them with information of why CAFTA wasn't really good for business. Tauscher and Eschoo figured they could use those excuses to make the business community less mad or at least make a vote against CAFTA seem reasonable. I warned both Anna and Ellen that the business community would not buy it and the backlash would be horrible. They didn't believe me. Now the backlash is unbelievable. Worse than I even expected. Ellen especially was thought of a pro-business democrat but that reputation has been destroyed by this one vote. They have lost all support in the Silicon Valley which is pretty important in this area.

OK, I so totally don't care about this. Was the point that you are on a first-name basis with these people? Maybe the serbian chick will go for that.