Steele’s Uninformed New Talking Point: No Government Has Ever Created A Job»

You can't do better when starting a new job than by proving you're full of stuff.

'and provide jobs', Carla... don't forget 'and provide jobs' (i.e., government is a structure that's supposed to protect the rights of the people and provide jobs - plus anything else the duly elected representatives deem appropriate and/or necessary to secure their reelection and make the people more dependent on said government, of course...)

Just reflecting on your 1/28 commentary here extolling the virtues of the state's 'stimulus package' that would create 3000 jobs across the state.

Isn't it funny that Mr T. feels that just having Michael Steele as RNC chairman changes everything? Just the other day, Jeff Mapes related the following:

He said Steele's ethnicity helps bust the stereotype that the GOP is a "party of old white guys who only care about business."

Did everyone get that. Steele's ethnicity breaks the stereotype; it changes the appearance.

The GOP is still a party of old white guys who care about business. It just doesn't look that way anymore.

The Republicans are as addicted to facile symbolism as a tweaker is to his crystal, and they've been addicted for so long they've forgotten that message and reality ar two different things.

This smacks of the tendency of European footballers to always have to have "one of" whatever is the hot demographic, at the moment. Today it might be having a Dutch coach, tomorrow a striker from the Ivory Coast. I think it's just, "we've got an articulate black man, and he's preaching hope to Oregon Republicans".

Y'know..that whole life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness thing.

An aside, I find this an interesting sentiment, that ones hears a lot in this country. There's also a common sentiment that US gov is better because of the Bill of Rights, etc. A lot of countries, like the UK, counter that they have a body of tradition that adds up to a virtual Bill of Rights. Americans tend to laugh at this, saying if it ain't codified, it's just something nice the gov does for you, when it feels like it. So, my question is, why haven't the oft quoted "rights" of the Declaration ever been codified into law. The Constitution codifies some, but things like the "pursuit of happiness" are not a part of the US Constitutional documents, not one word.

We invoke the principle often. It's important to Americans. But gov doesn't have to promote or even respect that. It's not a part of the law. For Oregon lawmakers, it's perfectly justifiable to see it as a "nice to look like" but are not required to "protect and uphold" the principle. I say, codify it, or stop citing it. Things like the War on Drugs show it to be absent from domestic realpolitik. What does it say about the country that people want the Constitution amended to ban flag burning, codify marriage is between a man and a woman, etc., but there is no serious movement to add "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

The Declaration say those are inalienable rights. The Constitution says you can be deprived of the first two, if due process is satisfied. It ignores the third. Are we to accept that the principle of the Declaration will never be codified, as stated, while hearing that we can't hack a full Parliamentary democracy? If so, what we're left with is the worst form of Democracy on the planet. Churchill's observation that democracy is the worst from of government, except for every other kind, could be updated to the statement that American democracy is the greatest form of government, except for every other democracy.

The Republicans are as addicted to facile symbolism as a tweaker is to his crystal, and they've been addicted for so long they've forgotten that message and reality ar two different things.

This is why the Reagan baby-boom and their subsequent indoctrination and branding was so critical. Message and reality aren't different things anymore, and that generation provides the feet on the ground to implement the concept in society. Making the statement now means that you are over 35 and can't get out of "a sixties mentality". This is the nut of Sam's hard-core support. The message is the reality, regardless of what happened. The only diff between Dems and Reps is that the Reps have been using the trend much more cynically, while some Dems continue to try to lead.

You have to remember... the current prevalent business philosophy doesn't worry about the long-term. They only care about the next quarter's profit and tomorrow's stock price.

Likewise, when Republicans say they want to run government like a business, they mean doing whatever it takes to win the next election. They don't actually care about the long-term side-effects of their focus group-tested policies (case in point: Kari's post about free solar panels for everyone) so long as it's something you would have to be a monster to oppose (cutting taxes, "Patriot Act", "Clear Skies", etc).

There's also a common sentiment that US gov is better because of the Bill of Rights, etc.

The same can be said of the Constitution and the Pledge of Allegiance. Nice sentiments but always ignored by the White House, Congress and the American people when it is politically expedient. How about national symbols of hypocrisy? But, as they say in TV commercials, "Wait, there's more." How about the myths that the Democratic and Republican parties represent the people despite the abundance of evidence they are both purchased lock, stock and barrel by corporate America? Or, how about the myth of change foisted on the American public gullible enough to believe Obama will be a harbinger of change despite installing the same old disasters from the Clinton administration? Daschle, anyone?

To the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Pledge of Allegiance as documents the United States ignores for political convenience add the Charter of the United Nations and the Geneva Conventions to which this nation is a signatory.

From Wikipedia:

All conventions were revised and expanded in 1948.

* First Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field" (first adopted in 1864, last revision in 1949).
* Second Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea" (first adopted in 1906).
* Third Geneva Convention "relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War" (first adopted in 1929, last revision in 1949).
* Fourth Geneva Convention "relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War" (first adopted in 1949, based on parts of the 1907 Hague Convention IV).

In times of economic downturn, the government absolutely should step up and inject jobs into the economy.

I understand this is your belief, Carla... but it's not the stated purpose of government. Nor is the right to a government-provided job among the whole 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' thing... y'know.

Looking at the approval ratings for any legislative body in this country, neither party should be offering advice to anyone about how to get back into good graces. At the core, the difference between the major parties these days is purely cosmetic. It's a false choice for the voters = 'more big government vs even more bigger (sic) government'...

The GOP did run the country like a business -- Lehman Brothers.

Interesting read ;)

I think I'm just really going to miss "Bob T."'s comments on this board. :)