Keep in mind that, as Gaijin Biker notes, Americans are too stupid for these polls to mean anything.

Keep in mind also that Gaijin Biker is a tool.

I don't live here at apostropher, lemuel, I'm just crashing on his couch, but I for one would appreciate it if you didn't make with the personal attacks.

I strongly disagree with GB on many many issues, but he presents his arguments without resorting to name-calling. You generally do too, and maybe you're just in a grouchy mood today (I certainly am, the news just keeps getting worse), but anyway let's all just play nice.

Doesn`t that mean that 71% approval of the job Bush is NOT doing?

lemuel, didn`t you ever get the sense that perhaps GB hangs out here because he is not fully lost to the dark side?

TokyoTom: Yes, I did. But after the comment thread I linked to, I've kind of changed my mind.

And Mitch, you may be right. At the same time, I'm not buying the whole "civility" dodge much more from a nice guy like you or 'stropher than from a wanker like Richard Cohen or Jonathan Chait.

Fact is, GB's defenses of Bush are pure toolery, and he deserves to be called out on them.

Y'know, the big difference is that GB makes no pretenses of being a Democrat or a progressive, as do Cohen and Chait. As far as I've read him, he's consistent in his beliefs and tolerant of dissenting opinions.

While he can speak for himself, I assume that GB hangs out here because we have similar senses of humor and appreciation for teh weird. And neither he nor I run a purely political blog.

I guess I'm just saying that there are better ways to call someone out than by simply labelling them a tool.

Also, GB doesn't hold an elected position, isn't in control of any policy, doesn't get published in any national media, etc. He's just a guy who comes around and has discussions with us.

So while I have no problem with labelling Bush or Chait or Cohen tools (and worse), I think the case is different here. That is, I'm not proposing that everyone in the whole wide world should just get along and be civil to each other. I'm saying that in the case of someone we "know", and who has always been civil and honorable here, we probably oughta hold off on the personal vitriol.

That said, I think apostropher is a total tool.

The perfect tool for the job.

Fair enough M/tch.

It's because I find myself (figuratively) puking on (virtual) couches so much that I don't post comments under my real name.

You'd better not puke on my (well, apostropher's, but still) couch, you tool!

Feel free to, you know, add some comments there, though.

Anyone?

Please???

So I come here to read good ole GB's response and he he's not here- I am so bummed...

Whilst we're brown nosing about the poor sap, I'll just add that- as I have discovered with a very conservative co-worker lately- as long as there are cock jokes, people can find common ground.

Amen.

Amen.

Lemuel, I think that all the other thread you links to demonstrates is that GB is clever and devoted to his view of reality. We all know that it is easier to do that, cleverly, than to change one's mind - you know, there's the big hurdle to get over in admitting that maybe you were WRONG. Much easier to doge, weave, spin, etc. We all do it. It may help to understand GB if you realize he has a long and emotional link to Israel.

Apostropher, personally I plague GB since I'm in Japan. Let's say he is tolerant, but not particularly welcoming, of disagreement? Still, he has influenced my views, which come from a Republican/libertarian background. I'm sure I'd get along better with him if I rode a bike.

Wow, I never noticed there was a whole thread here about the question of my toolishness.

A few points:

(1) Bush is not my platonic ideal of a President, and never was. I'd like a guy who could speak clearly, for starters. And all the faith-based stuff creeps me out. But after 9-11 happened, many people, even Democrats, were glad he was in the White House. And in 2004, he just plain seemed like a better choice to me than Kerrey.

I am prepared to cut a whole lot of slack for someone who takes on the Herculean task of reforming the Middle East, especially when his opponents seem to think that either (a) we should let the UN solve the problem, (b) the problem isn't actually all that bad, so quit worrying, or (c) Bush actually caused the problem because 9-11 was an inside job and Iraq was all about enriching Halliburton shareholdersaaaaAAAARRRGH!!!

True, with each fumble, the slack diminishes. Bush, like the Japanese government, seems to have a knack for creating trouble where none need exist. Why not just call liberating Iraq the main reason for invading Iraq, instead of hyping WMD and setting yourself up for criticism if no WMD are found? Why not just get retroactive warrants for your wiretaps? Why?

And yet Bush's obvious, forehead-slapping missteps don't make his opponents any more inherently appealing to me. So when I see libs, Dems, lefties, or what-have-you gloating about Bush's low approval ratings, my reaction is a big "Whatever". It's easy to find fault with the guy who's actually on the hook to get things done. Al Gore can go on SNL and make jokes about "some made-up war", but 9-11 probably would have happened the same way in a Gore administration (the WTC was first bombed under Clinton, after all), and we have no idea whether a measured, nuanced, Gore or Kerrey response would have kept America safe from any and all terrorist attacks for almost 5 years now — as Bush, the Worst President Ever™, has done.

(2) I don't mind when Tokyo Tom (or anyone else) politely disagrees with what I write. I mind when people demand that I write about entirely new and unrelated topics that happen to strike their fancy.

(3) And finally, on the subject of being a tool, let's all bear in mind that tools are what separate man from the animals. Except chimpanzees. And otters. And those dolphins with the sponges. But the fundamental point, I should think, is clear.

One more thing, for Tokyo Tom: I don't have "a long and emotional link to Israel". Never been there. Don't know anyone there. Don't speak Hebrew. Don't go to synogogues. Don't keep kosher. My religious upbringing, while nominally Jewish, was ridiculously lax, and I consider myself an atheist.

I do strongly support Israel's right to exist in the Middle East, but then I'd probably support just about any country's right not to have its citizens suicide-bombed by brainwashed teenagers. The fact that Israel is a ray of democratic, civilized light shining out of the inky blackness of Middle East despotism and mullahcracy just sweetens the deal.

It's pretty lame (and perhaps also anti-Semitic, but I won't go there) that you hold up my support for Israel as some sort of "Aha!" key to my inner psyche. Supporting Israel is simply the logical position at which anyone who values civilization, political freedom, responsible government, and basic human decency must necessarily arrive.

Supporting Israel is simply the logical position at which anyone who values civilization, political freedom, responsible government, and basic human decency must necessarily arrive.

Of course the devil is in the details of how blanche the carte of support for Israel should be. Many people's concern over some of Israel's policies, particularly with regard to the settlements, is precisely due to strong belief in the ideals of civilization, political freedom, responsible government, and basic human decency.

Oh wait I forgot to add "you tool!!1!!".

GB, I'm glad I attracted your attention to this thread; it was calling out for your comments. You may note that I have defended you here, as NOT a tool but as someone defending his perspective - a perspective that I think is understandable.

Maybe I'm wrong about your support for Israel as being tied in to your support for Bush, but I think your own responses above demonstrate it, and your own blog is certainly full of much stronger stuff showing you equate the struggle between Palestinians and Israelis with the Bush-declared "War on Terror".

You may recall that I have noted often on your blog about how humans are driven by a psychology of clan or tribal identity, that in turn is entagled in our perceptions and our many social conflicts. I think it is almost self-evident tat this sense of identity is closely tied into how the US, other Western nations and various Arab and Islamic countries have responded to 9/11, to later terrorist incidents in other countries and then to the Mohammed cartoons. I spent the greater part of my adult life on the East coast and lived and worked 13 years in the NYC area, GB, and have many Jewish friends; it is clear (and most of them are willing to admit) that their views of the Middle East after 9/11 - and their support for Bush'e actions there after 9/11 - is colored by their pre-9/11 views of the Middle East and of the problems faced by Israel.

It is not "anti-Semitic" for observers to note the psychology of identity at work among Jews, just as it is among the rest of us. If we want to solve our group conflicts in an increasingly complex and international society, I think it imperative that we pay more, not less, attention to the dynamics and psychology of group identity.

Regards,

TT

GB, as for your substantive comments about your support for Bush, I think:

(1) We can all whole-heartedly agree on and support Israel's right to exist. But what does that really mean that we do in terms of foreign policy? For example, does that means Israel, Pakistan and India can have a nuclear weapons capacity outside of the NPT, but Iran cannot reprocess fuel as permitted within the NPT?

As an aside, the Israelis themselves can't make up their own minds on their own Middle East policies - leaders who think Israel should reach political accommodations with the PLO and with Israeli arabs are assassinated, while Israel itself was involved in helping to establish Hamas as a foil against the PLO.

(2) Reforming the Middle East IS a Herculean task, but why did we take it on (and why should we cut Bush "a whole lot of slack" for it)? Republicans were right to be concerned about what Clinton was getting us involved in over in the Balkans; it seems clear now that one of the enduring results was major permanent military bases there. A response to 9/11 and al Qaeda led to Afghanistan, but not logically or inevitably to Iraq, where we are building more huge, expensive and permanent bases. Why?

My problem with this administration is that most of its expressed reasons for actions have be rather unconvincing covers for motivations that have never been fully articulated or publicly debated. This has continued to poison all of our domestic political discussions.

In the case of the Balkans and Middle East, Clinton's actions were viewed as the "tail wagging the dog" - namely, as motivated for domestic political gain. Can the same be wholly denied in the case of this administration's adventures in the Middle East? I mean, clearly Bush initially enjoyed being the "war President", and the war has continually been used as a political bludgeon and to justify all manner of domestic policies that would traditionally have horrified the whole political spectrum.

(3) As I have previously noted, many Republicans have fled from this administration because its policies have proven disastrous; others with a more centrist, moderate and liberarian bent (and liberals) never signed on. It seems very difficult to say that much about its policies or practices are "conservative", including its support for Israel, militarism, flag-waving, budget-busting pork and influence-peddling or its support for the faith-based stuff that creeps out you and probably all of us here. I find it curious that you continue to support the administration, while acknowledging its ineptness - why can't you see that the administration is rotten at its core and is eroding the fabric of our society?

You seem to have missed the point on Israel, TT, so let me spell it out:

Yeah, I support Israel, but NOT because I share some sort of primal "tribal identity" with the Jewish people.

But even if I did have that sort of an emotional tie to Israel, it is in fact anti-Semtic (although relatively mildly so) to dismiss someone's logical, fact-based opinions on the Middle East out of hand because he's Jewish. Would you similarly dismiss opposition to forced female circumcision becasue it came from an African woman?

My support for Israel is based on my evaluation of the facts, and should be criticized on that basis.

GB: You continue to miss my point about tribal identity. We all have various groups with which we identify, and the fact that we do so is a fundamental part of nature - we evolved and still live in a dangerous world in which we cannot enirely "go it alone". The person who is group-less is in an extremely vulnerable position. The strong sense of group identity frequently fuels/exacerbates conflicts, as we tend to be suspicious of those in "other" groups, and when a conflict is breaking out those "in the middle" are often forced to choose sides. This dynamic is at work in Iraq today, is visible in US politics in many ways (in the dismissive name-calling, objectification and collective talking past each other that relates especially to Bush and his ME policies, commencing with the build-up to Iraq), and was evident in the way the US got support from the countries with which we are culturally tied - UK and Australia (Canada failing to join the coalition because of a Quebeqouis premier), and Japan (a long-term Anglo-America-phile). There are lots of other groups, from the family on up: schools, baseball teams, companies, religion, languages, etc. All of these connections, which are very meaningful for us, are primarily emotionally driven (although they can be rationally explained as a part of evolution that makes sense).

The difficult part about building a country or a stable international order is how to bridge the divides of differing identities by building menaingful common identities in a way that the groups involved do not find threatening. The US fortunately had a melting pot (with some problems now in digesting all of the illegal aliens), while Europe has had a more difficult time - with many nationalities, Muslim immigrants, and the French, who are tools.

All of which is simply a long way of saying that each of us has his own group identities, for good or bad, but the tug that the group exerts is an emotional one, not a rational one, so we all find it difficult to parse our own motives. Others are frequently better than we are at looking through our own rationalizations. Logic is our best way of doing it, but it is also helpful for us to admit that we are often simply not logical.

You say that "it is in fact anti-Semtic (although relatively mildly so) to dismiss someone's logical, fact-based opinions on the Middle East out of hand because he's Jewish". I agree with you - I would just reply that this statement is a strawman, since I haven't in fact dismissed your opinions on the Middle East out of hand because of your Jewish background; in fact, I haven't dismissed your opinions on the ME at all.

Your concern in part proves my point about how group identities play with our perceptions. You are concerned that some may view a particular group identity as a reason for dismissing the views of a person from that group; I understand that concern and think it happens all too frequently (and of course there is a horrible historical record of it). My point is instead that our perceptions are colored by our group identities, so ignoring group indentities makes it harder for us to understand ourselves and each other.

BTW, we weren't really discussing your support for Israel, but your support for Bush and his administration. Some of us have a hard time understanding how criticizing such support based on the facts, but I for one have a hard time understanding your position, which seems rather diversionary and slippery (such as on the thread lemuel pointed out). Are you telling me that your position is based on cool reason alone? And no, I'm not sure that my own views are purely logical either.