Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id WAA03134 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Tue, 26 Feb 2002 22:25:07 GMT Message-Id: <22.214.171.124.0.20020226164241.02d40af8@localhost> X-Sender: jakemaier/pop.abs.adelphia.net@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 17:19:27 -0500 To: email@example.com From: Joachim Maier <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: RE: Rumsfeld Says He May Drop New Office of Influence In-Reply-To: <NEBBKOADILIOKGDJLPMAEEPOCLAA.email@example.com> References: <126.96.36.199.0.20020226124652.00bcf5f8@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
Because it under-estimates your opponent. Because I think I can hear some
anger or disgust out of your words, and I think in a political environment
it's a disadvantage to act out of emotion. (this does not necessary mean
you can't act emotional).
I also think that implied in your statement is the notion that the goal of
politics is the betterment of a situation. It would be nice if it were, but
it is only to govern a situation.
I wonder if a stupid (meaning slow in learning and understanding) political
entity could stay in power for a long time. Then there should easily evolve
a less stupid political opposition which could outmaneuver and replace the
At 01:39 PM 2/26/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>Well, 'better' he did, but that does not raise his performance to an
>adequate level. He did better, in terms of image: the policies he adopted
>are, and will prove to be, disasterous, for many reasons, some of which I
>have explained in earlier postings to this list. I would add the death of
>Daniel Pearl (a fellow alumnus); the failure to secure bin Laden; the recent
>moves of the Israelis against the Palestinians along with Sharon's
>'solution'; the proposed US defense budget; the loss of support for US
>policies in Europe; Rmsfeld's Office of "Strategic Information" fiasco; and
>rumblings in Egypt, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia as exhibits of the
>consequences of these policies. With, I suspect, a lot more to come.
>I do use the term 'stupid' in its technical sense, and can explore that, if
>you wish. I do apply it to the adminsitration, rather than to Bush
>personally: what we are doing - Afghanistan, "war on terrorism" language,
>Ashcroft legal actions, emphasis on hardening US targets rather than
>defusing terrorist motivation -- all of this is stupid and ineffective. And
>Now: why do you think that saying this is dangerous? Or counter-productive?
>I am intrigued and worried by your thought that it might be.
> > >The depths of the raw stupidity we are seeing from the administration is
> > >frightening.
> > >
> > >Lawrence
> > Lawrence, as much as I can understand your frustration, I think it is
> > dangerous and counterproductive, to call the administration stupid.
> > Bush did so much better as a candidate and as the president than many
> > people expected, because it was easy for him to show himself in
> > much better
> > light than public opinion granted him
> > Joachim
>This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
>Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
>For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 26 2002 - 22:35:16 GMT