[Vision2020] Body Count in Iraq

[David M. Budge]

Dear Joan,

Once again, you misread me, but methinks thou doest protest too much. 

Getting personal is an entirely different matter.  Not only do I make 
Bob Marley a regular part of my listening pleasure, but I've made it 
required listening for the entire hatch of little Budge muddlings.  Of 
course this requires me to listen to hours on end of Korn and Slim 
Shady, but that's is a small price for providing a proper education.  At 
least I've been able to veto any listening of Lil' Kim in my presence 
and I'm working on eradicating the homestead of anything Jackson.  If I 
had my way, however, I'd place a great deal more of The Crusaders and 
Mose Allison on the menu, but I don't usually get my way. Such is life 
when one cedes the bulk of responsibility to one's better half.

Regardless of either of our cases of acute infrequent dyspepsia, one 
must wonder what exactly you think my background in quantitative 
analysis has to do with being a stockbroker.  Of course the use of the 
word "stockbroker" as a pejorative is nothing new and I've found some 
level in the refuge of the misconception.  For the record "broker" is 
the operative here as the $1 trillion hit to the economy in 2001 came 
only two years after I began this most recent career.  Prior to that I 
was a professional curmudgeon, bit that's another story altogether. 

I'm relaxed too.  In fact, my dear wife feels that if I relax much more 
I may stop breathing altogether. 

I appreciate the concern, really I do.  I'll be fine though.

Dave Budge

Joan Opyr wrote:

> Dear David,
>  
> Once again, you misread me.  I'm beginning to suspect that that's 
> deliberate.  The Economist did endorse Kerry in 2004, but their 
> endorsement, as they put it, was reluctant.  Their endorsement of Bush 
> in 2000 was enthusiastic.  They bought all that horseshit about his 
> being a uniter and not a divider, citing as evidence Bush's record of 
> working productively as a Republican governor with the "Democrats" in 
> the Texas legislature.  Now, we all know that Texas has a weak 
> governorship, a holdover from Reconstruction, and that Democrats down 
> there are not much like Democrats in, say, California or New York.  As 
> far as I can tell, Mr. Bush's job in Texas was to cut a few ribbons, 
> make nice with the real powers that be in Texas -- the Lieutenant 
> Governor and the Speaker of the House -- and to sign 157 death warrants.  
>  
> The Economist never backed away from its endorsement of Bush in 2000.  
> Instead, through cock-up after cock-up, they adopted a defensive 
> posture re: Bush until their reluctant switch to Kerry.  (And, in 
> their explanation of that switch, they still felt obliged to say that 
> they still believed they'd made the right choice in 2000.)  The 
> Economist was gung-ho in their endorsement of Bush's invasion of Iraq; 
> they chose to "look on the bright side" regarding his massive tax 
> cutting program, his appalling budget deficits, and his irresponsible 
> and massive increases in government spending, and they never failed to 
> give the Bush Administration the benefit of the doubt on Homeland 
> Security, the International Criminal Court, faith-based initiatives, 
> and so on, and so on.  I grew sick of reading their increasingly lame 
> defenses of Bush's indefensibly bad policy, but, by God, I have read 
> The Economist every week since 1988.  Why?  Because its generally 
> well-written, if not always well thought-out, and that's more than I 
> can say for the majority of America's conservative rags.  (Also, I 
> enjoy the book reviews, the obituaries, and the in-depth international 
> coverage.  Good cartoons, too.)
>  
> Yes, I did notice that the reportage you cited was not from the desk 
> of The Economist.  I may be stubborn, but I'm not blind.  Listen -- I 
> hate to get personal, but do you need a martini or a diazepam or 
> something?  I would never dream of promoting illegal drug use 
> (especially not on a list with such a nice Sheriff's deputy among its 
> membership) but I'm thinking a little puff on a big fattie might go a 
> long way toward restoring your previous good humor.  You need to 
> relax, Dave.  You need to go with the flow.  Quit smoking that bad 
> Crossfire/McLaughlin Group stuff and start toking up on the old Bob 
> Marley.  I'll provide the metaphorical rolling papers by publicly 
> and sincerely bowing to your superior statistical knowledge -- all 
> hail the stockbroker!  No, really.  I mean, what the hell do I know?  
> I never got past Mathematics of Finance.  My interests in college were 
> girls, linguistics, girls, medieval literature, girls, beer, and 
> girls.  Oh, and in addition to my Engish BA, I acquired minors in 
> French, genetics, and girls.  My graduate work was, of course, in 
> Anglo-Saxon, Old Norse, feminist theory, and girls.  (Finally got my 
> priorities straight -- well, so to speak.)
>  
> BTW, Dave, you can't give me a demerit.  I'm not a sorority girl.  
> Though I certainly rushed many sororities, none would take me -- at 
> least not officially.
>  
> A-hem,
>
> Joan Opyr/Auntie Establishment
> www.auntie-establishment.com <http://www.auntie-establishment.com>
>  
> PS: On a cheerier note, those who are interested in The Auntie 
> Establishment & Brother Carl Show might want to check out our updated 
> webpage.  Brother Carl and I have added a really fine painting 
> of ourselves . . .     
>  
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     From: David M. Budge
>     Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 10:35 PM
>     To: Joan Opyr
>     Cc: Vision2020 Moscow
>     Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Body Count in Iraq
>      
>     Dear Ms. Three-legged Mule, I agree entirely with your second
>     paragraph.  I am not a regular reader of Economist but
>     occasionally am referred to their work.  I cannot comment on any
>     previous prognostications they've made about Iraq.
>
>     Allow me, with all due respect, to remind you of a few (perhaps
>     inconvenient) facts.  First, this reportage was not from the
>     editorial desk of The Economist.  Secondly, when the editors
>     endorsed John Kerry for president in 2004 they referred quite
>     bluntly to Bush as "incompetent" a week before this article was
>     published.  Accordingly, I find little evidence that this article
>     shows any "apologist" leanings but I do well understand the
>     statistics.  Also, Human Rights Watch, hardly a patsy for the Bush
>     adminsitration, questioned the varacity of the report
>
>     Twain said "There are lies, damn lies, then there are statistics"
>     (and me with a not-so-insignificant education in quantitative
>     analysis -  what was it? - "Don't try to teach your grandmother to
>     such eggs"?" I'd be glad to brag about my education if you wish,
>     but I'm not inclined to.)
>
>     You get one demerit on credibility. I'll ignore it as blind bias. 
>     Something that I am guilty of as well from time to time.
>
>     Dave Budge
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download : 
> http://explorer.msn.com <http://explorer.msncom>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20050214/4f9acf91/attachment-0001.htm