‘Crisis atmosphere’ grips World Bank.
By on Apr 20th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
‘Crisis atmosphere’ grips World Bank.
Sources say “there is a crisis atmosphere at World Bank headquarters,” as “displays of rebellion” are coming from “all levels of staff.” IPS reports:
[A]bout 110 country directors, their deputies and programme coordinators sent a message Friday saying they want Wolfowitz out.
At issue is a scandal involving excessive pay he coordinated for his girlfriend and then-Bank staffer Shaha Riza at a time when he was spearheading an anti-corruption campaign at the Bank and in its projects.
The officials, many of them considered senior staff, had met with Wolfowitz Wednesday at the Watergate office complex in Washington DC, where he was asked repeatedly to resign. At least four country directors publicly called upon him to leave his job.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Beck
Birther
Brown
Budget
Bush
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
DADT
Deficit
Economy
Education
Election
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Global Warming
Haiti
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iran
Justice
LGBT
Limbaugh
Lobbying
McCain
Media
Military
National Security
O'Keefe
Obama
Palin
Race
Radical Right
Robertson
Sports
Steele
Steve King
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Terrorism
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Can’t they fire him?
April 20th, 2007 at 11:37 pmOr have him arrested?
What do you expect?
This guy is and was nothing more than an “academic” who got in over his head. He was never qualified for the position (sound familiar?)……… and it was the result (one of MANY) of Bush administration “cronyism”.
April 20th, 2007 at 11:38 pmAnother stubborn Bushie who will not resign! These people always put themselves first! They don’t even have a shred of dignity!
April 20th, 2007 at 11:39 pmBushCO: You’re doing a heck’uva job Wolfowitz.
April 20th, 2007 at 11:39 pmBushCO: You’re doing a heck’uva job Wolfowitz.
Comment by Happy420 — April 20, 2007 @ 11:39 pm
Exactly………..
The “Browinie Syndrome” all over again.
At least people didn’t die this time……… as far as I know.
April 20th, 2007 at 11:44 pmDig your heels in, Georgie. Show us all what a defiant little ass you are. C’mon, don’t disappoint us. If you give in and let Wolfowitz resign, it’ll prove that you’re not a man. And you don’t want anyone thinking you’re just a little pussy, do you?
Isn’t it great how you can count on Bush to drag these things out? He’s going to stick by Wolfowitz and keep on insisting that there’s no way he’ll ever ask him to resign. In the meantime, his already abysmal support continues to drop, and GOP congressmen see their chances for re-election disintegrate before their eyes. I just love it!
April 20th, 2007 at 11:50 pmWhy of course it has to be so, conservative means hypocrisy.
They call themselves conservative, yet deny global warming, and tree hugging, and greed!
April 20th, 2007 at 11:51 pmYou would think the world bank would be worried about china holding so many dollars.
April 21st, 2007 at 12:00 amWolfie is chewing his comb down to a nub in anxious anticipation.
-GSD
April 21st, 2007 at 12:34 amWolfowitz is criminal garbage and country directors know it. That spittle combing freak must resign > PERIOD.
April 21st, 2007 at 12:36 amWolfowitz won’t resign until someone tells Cheney to let him.
April 21st, 2007 at 12:53 amIn answer to #1
The POTUS appoints the president of the World Bank.
April 21st, 2007 at 1:02 amJust like the blowjob oval office crisis.
April 21st, 2007 at 1:06 amSome other president should appoint the head of the WB.
April 21st, 2007 at 1:07 am#12 Is that always the case? It kind of seems that should not be the case since it is the World Bank. Not the Bank of the United States.
April 21st, 2007 at 1:09 amWell perhaps its time to shut down the World bank. If Wolfy won’t go, then the ROTW should shut it down.
If they feel the need, they could call 1-800-hchavez for a loan.
April 21st, 2007 at 2:28 amYet another witch hunt.
Can you show me exactly what law and statute did Mr. Wolfowitz break? No? Then stop whining about how he should resign. That’s pure partisan politics.
April 21st, 2007 at 5:06 amPure partisan politics and anti-semitic whining. Just what law did Mr. Wolfowitz break?
April 21st, 2007 at 5:07 amJust what law did he break?
April 21st, 2007 at 5:08 amJust what law did he break?
Comment by Frank Matthews
I don’t think that there is any law that he broke. But like (seemingly) all Bush appointees, he seems totally incompetent for this job. It seems to me, that the current situation is just an excuse, that the staff at the World Bank are rightly using, to get rid of him…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/14/AR2007041401564_pf.html
April 21st, 2007 at 5:46 am
>Pure partisan politics and anti-semitic whining. Just what law did Mr. >Wolfowitz break?
>Comment by Frank Matthews
Gee I don’t know.. is lying to help provoke an invasion of a sovereign nation a crime? Oh you mean about this? He broke a bank rule about how much you could up someone’s pay genius. If you break a rule at an institution you work at, usually you get fired. Also if its like any other big company, I’m almost sure there are corporate bylaws about conflict of interests which should have precluded him from even being in charge of setting pay for his little brown neocon sperm dumpster Jizza.
And tell me something.. since when is morality and decencey equivalent with legality, anyway? You guys are always deparate to sink to the lowest common denominator… ie. “if its legal its ok by me”.. you know, in some states having sex with animals is legal, so are you saying that if your hero Dumbya was caught having sex with a horse in a state where it was legal, you’d be here asking .. “what law did he break”? “what law did he break”?
And can the “anti-semite” crap. Most people who hate the guy either don’t know or don’t care that hes jewish. He helped start a disastrous war thats killed hundreds of thousands of people based on lies, and thats why people hate him. I know you people have an enourmous martyr complex and think you own the concept of being victimized by genocide, but get over yourselves. If you mess up the world people are going to hate you for messing up the world, not because of your religion or your race…
April 21st, 2007 at 5:59 amFrank M–
April 21st, 2007 at 6:04 amYou Republicans are so funny. Don’t you see that you can’t have it both ways? Appearances and perceptions are everything, as you all pointed out during the Lewinsky affair. Among Wolfowitz’ first actions is to give his girlfriend (well known among the ranks at the bank) a 50% raise in one fell swoop? Isn’t that a little like sending in a bill for his hooker?
And with AG Gonzales–can he really be so incompetent? I say no–I say those “I don’t recalls” were carefully scripted by Karl Rove….and that 5 million “lost” emails are basically another attempt to obstruct justice….why else would they have been deleted wholesale? And don’t try to claim that KKKKarl was concerned about lack of available memory on the server, as I read the other day that there had been specific action taken by the RNC team to remove (SPECIFICALLY) Karl Rove’s ability to delete his correspondence when they realized what he was doing.
Now the claim here is that they were going through all of these motions to comply with the Hatch Act…but what they’ve done is break the law in regards to retention of official communications. Sure, I bet it was a clunky repetetive process to follow, but with all those “lawyers” up there, in no way is there any credibility in the claims that this was unintentional or accidental.
You have to think about the motivations behind a person’s actions, and all of this adds up to something much larger and darker.
Loretta:
Nonsense. Either come up with the law under which he should be made to resign, or stop whining.
As far as Attorney General Gonzales goes, he did the best he could and you dems are blaming a guy who has thousands of meetings in a year for not remembering a couple of events he may or may not have participated in. Can you tell me exactly what you did on 7th December last year? I certainly can’t.
April 21st, 2007 at 6:31 amAbout Mr. Rove: Have you never accidentally deleted mail? I certainly have.
–
April 21st, 2007 at 6:37 ammatthews.frank@gmail.com
Frank Matthews:
Do you think its appropriate that Wolfowitz’ girlfriend received a 50% increase in salary? Did she do something extraordinary to warrant such an increase? If so, why hasn’t this come out. You have to admit, it seems unsavory, at best. Where do you think this money comes from? Why should good tax paying citizens put up with this kind of behavior? Aren’t you the least bit angry about the continuing corruption by “our” government employees?
April 21st, 2007 at 6:54 amFrank Matthews:
As for Roves e-mails, well, I believe the Administration is responsible to archive the communications that involve the daily business of governance. You and I have the perogative to delete e-mails, Karl Rove does not, period.
April 21st, 2007 at 6:58 amStop feeding the trolls.
April 21st, 2007 at 7:24 amwell said, MADMAX. And no, Frank, I have never “accidentally” deleted 5 million emails. Or 1 million. Or 100,000. Or one.
April 21st, 2007 at 7:28 amEven after you delete it, it’s in a trashcan. You have to intentionally take it off your system twice, which requires some effort and intent. And then, lucky for us, there is still information about it stored on your hard drive. And on the server you are using. And with the recipient.
One more thing–I do know what I did on December 7th. I have this cool thing called a calendar, and use it even though I don’t have the awesome responsibility for administering justice for the nation.
If the World Bank collapses, it might be the best thing the neocons have accomplished to date. This will surely drive a nail into the coffin of deference to the US. Mission Accomplished, Chuckle Nuts!
April 21st, 2007 at 7:33 amFrank Matthews is a troll-
April 21st, 2007 at 7:33 amOR- he lives in foKKKs “news” ‘happy-land’; carefully scripted by the RNC and reinforced by rush limp-bough ’s spew- carefully crafted for the double-digit IQ mouth breathers.
No transgression is too small if its a Dem, and Republi-SCUM who have been convicted are accidentally left out of the CONTURD ‘news’ orbit so they can focus on things like expensive haircuts, uppity congresswomen (sadly not re elected), Clinton’s ( insert here).
I work with these clowns and if I ever need to know what teh talking point of the day is, or what the CONTURD media or RNC want to spin, I come to work and lissin to them whine.
About Mr. Rove: Have you never accidentally deleted mail? I certainly have.
Comment by Frank Matthews
5000 times? Right. They are bound by law to retain these emails. The administration isn’t above the law. They work for the people. They are there to look out for the best interest of this country and uphold the constitution. Instead they have shredded our constitution while leaving the borders wide open. They have accumulated an 8 trillion dollar dept, and allow torture like China, N. Korea…. What I can’t figure out is why would you be an apologist for this administration? Name me one good thing this administration has done for this country Frank? NeoCons are not conservatives? As well they could give a sh!t about you. But you keep on trying to spin some good out of this administration.
April 21st, 2007 at 7:33 amMy parting shot to Frank and his little PedoCon buddies. Someday when your burning in hell next Rove, Wolfowitz, Bushies, and all the other treasonous scum destroying this country…take a breath and think that if you only would pulled your head out of your a ss, you wouldn’t be blowing Satan for living.
April 21st, 2007 at 7:46 amAnother boy Bush appointed incompetent. Yes, it is the Sadim touch that boy Bush possesses. He destroys everything he touches and now he almost destroyed the World Bank. George W Bush is nothing more than a pathetic man-child.
April 21st, 2007 at 8:13 amAs far as Attorney General Gonzales goes, he did the best he could and you dems are blaming a guy who has thousands of meetings in a year for not remembering a couple of events he may or may not have participated in. Can you tell me exactly what you did on 7th December last year? I certainly can’t.
LMAO – Gonzales couldn’t remember the meeting but he did remember that he attend a “Meth Awareness Day” event. How appropriate.
April 21st, 2007 at 8:18 am#23: It is appropriate if Wolfowitz, as the head of World Bank, so decides and it is not illegal.
#28: The current executive has made America strong and put the fear into the hearts of the terrorists. Just how many terror attacks has there been on US soil since we took over Clinton’s watch (which, by the way, resulted in 9/11)? None. You may think that coercive interrogation, pre-emptive strikes and strict refusal to negotiate with terrorists or terror sponsoring states like Iran and Syria aren’t right, but by God they work.
–
April 21st, 2007 at 8:43 ammatthews.frank@gmail.com
Part of the cabal committed to arrogance.
April 21st, 2007 at 8:47 amterror into the hearts of terrorists? What are you smoking, Frank?
April 21st, 2007 at 8:56 amPlease remember that these terrorists strap bombs to their bodies and commit suicide–what exactly is so scary about George Bush under these circumstances?
loretta: They may be willing to die, but i doubt they’re looking forward to waterboarding or a trip to egypt for further interrogation. This executive is able and willing to go all the way and terrorize even the terrorists.
–
April 21st, 2007 at 9:00 ammatthews.frank@gmail.com
PS–what about state-sponsored terrorism by Saudi Arabia, our good friend and ally? This is what makes me so frustrated when trying to talk to the die hard sheep that comprise Bush’s robust 30% approval rating–the constant in-your-face insult to basic intelligence.
April 21st, 2007 at 9:07 amGeorge W Bush was in the White House and ignored warnings before September 11th. For 9 months. Please, let’s don’t forget the deer-in-the-headlights documentation of his reaction, or more correctly, lack of reaction. And the photo op that followed, while the nation was under attack.
Dropped the ball in the “mission” to capture and punish the real perpetrator (Osama bin Laden, connected to many of our strong Saudi friends, in case anyone forgot) and has basically surrendered Afghanistan to the Taliban. Again.
Elected war with his father’s nemesis, and now we, the people, are paying through the nose to squat on the second largest oil reserve for his oil buddies.
Of course this is a great plan if you have oil or defense stock, hmmm?
great, Frank, I hope you feel the same way if a Democratic President were to ever stoop as low.
April 21st, 2007 at 9:08 amAfter they get rid of Wolfowitz, who they should’ve opposed in the first place, perhaps the newly enervated bank employees can start paying taxes on both their salaries and facility? Their going to get change alright, but after Paul departs, the kind of change they receive isn’t really going to be what they had imagined.
Beltway Greg
April 21st, 2007 at 9:10 amFrank Matthews: the Baghdad Bob of the GOP
Okay, we get it, Frank. You don’t know what the word “corruption” means and you can’t fathom that using a government position to enrich yourself and your girlfriend with taxpayers’ money or from the treasuries of other countries could possibly be wrong, if you’re a Republican. Obviously, you want us to think that you’re dumb as a post. I’ll grant you that.
April 21st, 2007 at 9:18 amloretta: You may have noticed that I’ve talked about this executive all the time. It will be a total and complete disaster for our security and morale of this country if we get a dem president in 2009. Quite frankly, the party affiliation of the next president is a national security issue.
–
April 21st, 2007 at 9:20 ammatthews.frank@gmail.com
chimpeach: did you post on Raw Story, too? No, I don’t see anything wrong with getting rich in a government position as long as no law get broken.
–
April 21st, 2007 at 9:22 ammatthews.frank@gmail.com
Frank–for once I agree with you. And we WILL have a Democratic President on ‘09.
April 21st, 2007 at 9:23 amplease let me clarify–
April 21st, 2007 at 9:27 amI agree with Frank where he pointed out that the political party affiliation of the next President is a national security issue.
I think tht getting rich off a government job should be considered a form of treason, like profiteering.
YES! ANOTHER PNAC PIECE OF CRAP TO GO DOWN THE SH*TTER!
April 21st, 2007 at 9:29 am#23,
Frank Matthews,
You wrote, “The current executive has made America strong and put the fear into the hearts of the terrorists. Just how many terror attacks has there been on US soil since we took over Clinton’s watch (which, by the way, resulted in 9/11)? None. You may think that coercive interrogation, pre-emptive strikes and strict refusal to negotiate with terrorists or terror sponsoring states like Iran and Syria aren’t right, but by God they work.”
You committed the fallacy called “argument from ignorance.” You do not know why there have not been any attacks since 9/11. You are merely guessing from the absence of attacks that the cause of the absence is the policies you cited and only those policies. Any guess, like any belief or opinion, needs positive evidence to justify it; without such evidence, no rational individual should accept the guess, belief or opinion. The fallacy is that you do not have any such evidence, hence are guessing in ignorance of the cause of the lack of attacks. (You may be right about the role of the policies you cited in preventing the attacks, but equally you may be wrong. Only evidence can determine this, not ignorance of the evidence.)
An example is the following: “There is intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy because you can’t prove that there isn’t.” We are ignorant about the truth of the matter since we have no evidence. The fallacy is to argue from this ignorance to the claim that such life exists. The question must remain open until such time as evidence is found.
The fallacy of arguments from ignorance are treated in college courses in critical thinking. One of the most troubling aspects of American political discourse today, on TP and elsewhere, left and right, is the poor understanding of so many people about how to reason critically and well.
This post has been brought to you by a professor of philosophy in the interest of promoting improved thinking.
April 21st, 2007 at 9:32 amProf. Colby,
Well, I never went to college so I don’t know about all those fancy theories, but as someone who is a self-made business man I know that I’m not stupid. “Courses in critical thinking” sound like brainwashing to me. It’s like saying that colleges teach people how to think and if you never went to college you don’t know how to think.
–
April 21st, 2007 at 9:43 ammatthews.frank@gmail.com
I’m surprised nobody has connected the dots between Wolfie’s acts of nepotism here and the neocon false charges of nepotism towards Valerie Plame. A bit of a double standard, eh? ;)
April 21st, 2007 at 9:44 amhow many terror attacks since 9-11? well lets see, the most recent at VT… hmmm… how many b4 that? well just look in your newspaper. Terror is terror… a war that can never be won without killing every single human being….. what about state sponsored terrorism (ie liberators)?
April 21st, 2007 at 9:47 amno need for a crisis… get rid of the mofo… Wolfie or Bush, step up and do the right thing… oh, wait, I forgot who I was talking to…
April 21st, 2007 at 9:48 amDr, Colby–
April 21st, 2007 at 9:49 amI think that what Frank is saying is that he’s intellectually incurious.
#49: VT doesn’t count as terror. It was a simple murderous rampage of a disturbed young man. Horrific, but it was not a terrorist strike. Terror has political and most often islamic motives.
–
April 21st, 2007 at 9:52 ammatthews.frank@gmail.com
VT doesnt count as terror? okey dokey…. (KOO KOO!)
April 21st, 2007 at 9:55 amoh yeah, islamic motives…. thats funny, what about state sponosred terrorism?
April 21st, 2007 at 9:56 am#47,
Frank,
I’m not accusing you of not being able to think. Nor am I accusing you of being stupid. I choose my words carefully, and I try to treat people in a respectful manner. I criticized your reasoning; I didn’t criticize you as a human being. So there’s no need to be defensive. I actually paid you the honor of treating you as a fellow thinking person.
I’m sorry if you were unable to attend college; you deserved better, and a more civilized society than ours would enable everyone to attend and develop his mind properly. (If you chose not to attend college, that’s a different matter.)
But your personal circumstances have no bearing on what is true or false or what is good or poor reasoning. Nor do my circumstances, or those of anyone else. If you really think that learning how to reason better is a form of brainwashing, then there is too large a gulf between us, and there’s nothing more I can say to try to convince you that you’re fundamentally wrong. Sadly, you illustrate my point, because your lack of a college education means that you didn’t acquire the understanding to distinguish between education and brainwashing. Critical thinking cannot possibly be compared to brainwashing.
I’d be curious to know what you thought of my example of the person who claims that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the galaxy because someone else can’t prove that it doesn’t. (I gave it because it’s non-political and should’t provoke anyone.) Would you accept this kind of reasoning? I doubt it, but I’d really like to know. My guess is that you wouldn’t. And if you wouldn’t, then you’re agreeing with the idea that it’s a mistake to use ignorance in an argument, and you just happen not to know what the “fancy theories” are.
April 21st, 2007 at 10:16 am#51,
Loretta,
I agree that Frank is intellectually incurious. This is sad but it may not be his fault. My own father was like that; indeed, he was a brute in many ways. I was lucky enough to be able to escape his limitations; perhaps Frank wasn’t lucky enough, or perhaps he just chose not to attend college. I realize that I might sound pompous or autocratic to some people, but the fact remains that I’m highly educated and am paid to educate others. I honestly believe that it’s a virtue to try to share some of that with others, whether on the left or right, male or female, rich or poor, young or old.
April 21st, 2007 at 10:19 amI see that there is a morally bankrupt Republican posting here under the name Frank Matthews. Matthews is forwarding the argument that any action by government officials is okay unless it is strictly illegal, no matter how much damage or disgrace the action brings upon the office. But I’m betting that Matthews thinks its okay even then, provided you are a Republican and don’t get caught.
April 21st, 2007 at 10:20 amFrank,
I just want to add that critical thinking has nothing to do with anyone’s moral, political or religious beliefs. Thinking well is neutral. It is blind to ideology, race, creed, color, sex, religion, etc. It is the only means that human beings have to try to find the truth together, because it is the only thing we all share as human beings. One can think well and be liberal or think well and be conservative; thinking well is not a tool of the left to brainwash anyone. I never brainwash my students. I teach them how to think for themselves, which requires that they learn how to think well by avoiding fallacies, for example.
April 21st, 2007 at 10:25 amIt is appropriate if Wolfowitz, as the head of World Bank, so decides and it is not illegal.
Comment by Frank Matthews — April 21, 2007 @ 8:43 am
Who the f*** is this Matthews idiot? Doen’t he know that employers generally establish POLICIES that govern employment? The World Bank has policies and it has a board of directors to enforce those policies. Wolfowitz violated bank policy. Does Matthews think that a CEO can do whatever the h*ll she wants with her company? The answer is decidely no.
April 21st, 2007 at 10:25 amWolfowitz refuses to resign, because who else would hire the spittle combing freak? If he is forced out of the World Bank, then his only option is opening a cheap Deli in Israel somewhere. I would not eat one of his sandwiches, since he constantly spits on his fingers to comb through his hair.
April 21st, 2007 at 10:32 amI don’t believe that Matthews’ apparent intellectual intransigence has anything to do with his critical thinking skills or lack thereof. Matthews is here to lay down some talking points on behalf of Team GOP. Notice his use of standard GOP rhetorical tricks. First there is the false dichotomy that it’s okay if it’s legal. Then there is the attempt to intimidate and censor by establishing a phony ground rule that any attempt to debate the subject constitutes whining. There is also the repeated assertion that a Bush administration official is not subject to ordinary rules of the job. It’s all in a day’s work for GOP clowns like Matthews. Let’s not cut this lying a**hole any slack here.
April 21st, 2007 at 10:37 amGet back here, Frank, I’m not done with you yet.
April 21st, 2007 at 10:38 amVerbalkint > Karl Rove hires GOPer operatives to hang on TP threads. They get some kind of basic training in diverting subjects and just being obnoxious.
April 21st, 2007 at 10:50 amVerbalKint,
I understand your point, but I prefer to assume that almost everyone who posts on TP is sincerely interested in debate and the truth, and not just in mindless attacks sponsored by GOP talking points, until shown otherwise. Some, like Valiant Venus, clearly fail this admittedly high standard of intellectual and moral integrity, and are not worth anyone’s attention.
I prefer not to guess about a person’s motives. (There’s a fallacy called the fallacy of mind-reading, in which one person presumes to know the genuine motives behind another person’s actions, but in reality doesn’t know and is only guessing from ignorance.) In Venus’ case, there’s no need to guess; in Frank’s case, unless I have evidence that he is just what you say he is, I prefer to assume his intellectual intransigence is inadvertent. If it’s intentional, then he isn’t worthy of my time or anyone else’s.
April 21st, 2007 at 10:51 amProf. Colby,
Well, I never went to college so I don’t know about all those fancy theories
April 21st, 2007 at 10:55 amI have used a logical fallacy, or two, OK a bunch, when talking about the Bushies, but I knew what I was doing. I pulled a 4.0 in Com 121. Saying Chris, oops I mean Frank Mathews is stupid isn’t a logical fallacy.
Jay,
Do you have any evidence for your claim or are you guessing? Many people at TP have suggested this, and I’ve always wondered how they know this. I wouldn’t doubt it if it were true, but the question whether it is true.
April 21st, 2007 at 10:56 amWhere are my posts?
April 21st, 2007 at 10:57 amNevermind hehe
April 21st, 2007 at 11:00 amLone Voice of Reason,
I like your name but you’re not the lone voice anymore. But seriously, I’d rather think of Frank, or anyone else, not as stupid but as unsufficiently aware of how to think well. I know this sounds naive or even foolish on my part, but I’d rather err on the side of optimism, openness, and belief in the possibility that anyone of normal intelligence can learn, than err on the opposite side. (I think this means that I’m in the right profession.)
April 21st, 2007 at 11:06 amMark Colby > some trolls on here in the past have admitted it. One even said he posted his quota of comments, for his pay, and thanked everyone for responding to his rants. MA the troll who goes by venus now asked if I would like to get paid to post on here like herself.
Some of them are not paid and just hard-core Bush lovers.
April 21st, 2007 at 11:08 amI’m still wondering about my question at #1″
April 21st, 2007 at 11:08 amCan’t they fire him?
Sure the president appoints him, but is he the only person that can UN-appoint him?
BTW, Professor, I wish I had gone to college and studied under you! You are an excellent teacher. But wasted on tripe like Frank, he isn’t here to learn.
I understand your point, but I prefer to assume that almost everyone who posts on TP is sincerely interested in debate and the truth, and not just in mindless attacks sponsored by GOP talking points, until shown otherwise.
Comment by Prof. Mark Colby — April 21, 2007 @ 10:51 am
Probably the most polite assumption. But I have been reading garbage from the Frank Matthews of the world for quite some time here, and I have decided to be impolite with them. Trust me, they aren’t interested in either truth or debate. Quite the contrary, they are here to subvert these things.
I’m not guessing about their motives. No doubt their motives for behaving this way are complex. I am commenting on their visible behavior.
April 21st, 2007 at 11:09 amMark, by all means play the optimist and continue to post. You will definitely add something positive here. You be the good cop; I will be the bad cop.
April 21st, 2007 at 11:11 amVerbalKint: I ran into people like you when I was posting on Raw Story. I just don’t get it. Why do you get so upset when I promote a dissenting point of view? I’m not getting upset over your misguided ways. On the contrary, I find it intriguing to see how someone can be so misguided and yet lucid. That’s at least one of my motivations. To keep on posting and observing your strange reactions to stuff that should be self-evident to anyone who’s in touch with the rational world.
–
April 21st, 2007 at 11:19 ammatthews.frank@gmail.com
and I will be the sober yin to your raging yang.
April 21st, 2007 at 11:21 amWhen I see a Frank Matthews posting here, I see rhetorical discipline in the face of considerable pressure. Their points are debunked again and again by other commenters, but they twist and turn and shimmy like a greased pig to avoid getting pinned down. Guys like Frank tend to appear out of the blue and pound away at a single issue, sticking to a very consistent line of reasoning, such as it is. The more sincere trolls tend to write random and contradictory things over time, and tend to comment on the full gamut of issues. So I tend to assume that trolls like Frank are appearing here as party operatives.
April 21st, 2007 at 11:23 amJay,
I find it appalling that these people post here because they’re paid to disrupt us. This new form of corruption and evil doesn’t surprise me; after all, if certain people can authorize the invasion of a certain sovereign nation under false pretenses, they and their associates can certainly authorize financial compensation for typing distortion- and misinformation-filled talking points on websites like TP. Thanks for the information.
Verbal,
Sometimes people’s motives here are clear, like Venus’s; other times, at least to me, they’re not, but I don’t read every post and I don’t keep track of some of the people doing the posting. (It’s a tempting activity, but I have more serious intellectual work to do.) You might be right about Frank Matthews; if I continue reading his posts and see the same patterns of irresponsibility that I found with Venus and others, I’ll disregard him as unworthy of my valuable time and attention. My hope is that, if I teach my students well, I can help the next generation avoid becoming like Valiant Venus.
April 21st, 2007 at 11:26 amWhy do you get so upset when I promote a dissenting point of view?
Comment by Frank Matthews — April 21, 2007 @ 11:19 am
Because you have framed the debate in an intellectually dishonest way, Frank. You are intellectually dishonest. So don’t get righteous with me. You aren’t here to debate anyone.
April 21st, 2007 at 11:28 amFrank,
How can you claim to be “in touch with the rational world” yet be unaware of critical thinking and condemn it as brainwashing?
By the way, I would still like an answer to my question regarding your reaction to the example I gave about intelligent life elsewhere in the galaxy. If you don’t have one, I’d be inclined to conclude that you’re just what Verbal says you are and that you don’t really post here to offer “a dissenting point of view,” as you just claimed.
April 21st, 2007 at 11:31 amComment by Prof. Mark Colby — April 21, 2007 @ 9:32 am
Wow! You’ve put into words what’s been on my mind for days now. Specifically regarding the arguments on gun control: People have stated that cities with the strictest gun control laws also have the highest crime rate. They deduce that therefore, stricter gun laws cause an increase in crime rates. It’s entirely possible that the conclusion is correct, but the argument is not logically valid. Without more data, a conclusion can not be drawn. I could claim that the reason those cities have stricter gun laws is because the crime rates were already higher than other cities, and that after they were implemented, the crime rate actually decreased.
April 21st, 2007 at 11:49 amAs with the other argument, my conclusion may be correct, but my argument is no more valid.
Just how many terror attacks has there been on US soil since we took over Clinton’s watch
Just one dipshit and it was on Shrubs watch…he was warned and chose to ignore the warnings. How many terrorist attacks have been on US soil in history…Just one asshole.
April 21st, 2007 at 11:59 amSorry, that should have said in the Democrats history. I believe Tim McVey was a Republican like yourself. You and your party are the real terrorist Frank. Scared to death about someone coming here to kill you.
April 21st, 2007 at 12:03 pmThis whole idea of who the next president is being a national security issue rings true! Considering that thanks to Republican policies our military is stretched to the breaking point certainly illustrates that point very well!
April 21st, 2007 at 12:04 pmLily,
You’re right. Their conclusion might be correct (it depends on the quality of their data, and social scientific data is notoriously questionable), but their argument is not logically valid. The question is one about causality: is there a causal relation between gun control and gun-related crime, and if so, does this causal relation vary over time, across cities or across countries (a key argument of gun-control proponents is that Europe, Scandinavia, and Japan all have a far lower incidence of gun-related crime because of their stricter laws regulating gun purchase and possession)? If it varies, what other variables might be responsible? And so on.
If it is true that “stricter gun laws cause an increase in crime rates,” the question would be why this causal relation exists in America but not in Europe, Scandinavia or Japan. They should have much more crime than they do; yet their crime levels are significantly lower than that in America.
April 21st, 2007 at 12:12 pmSomething I don’t understand is if this is the “World Bank” then why does the United States get to control who the President is? I heard on TV last night that if Bush wants Wolfowitz to stay, he stays. Why is that?
April 21st, 2007 at 12:54 pm“Just what law did he break?”
You know, it really doesn’t matter what laws he broke. When you have someone who does not have the support of any of the people he supervises, that person is no longer effective in their role. That effects the morale of the company and any company whose morale is in the basement is not going to be effective. If this was the corporate world, Wolfowitz would have been gone in a heartbeat. But because, for some strange reason the POTUS controls who is the President of the World Bank, he still has his job.
April 21st, 2007 at 1:01 pmThanks for the comments by Prof. Mark Colby,
First, the level of debate in this blog and other blogs has changed over the years. Progressives have become aggressive because of the policies of this belligerent administration. Because of this anger I believe we were able to take back the house in the last election. I feel that the time for debate is over. We have seen day in, and day out the corruption of this government, and this is the reaction to that. Prof. Mark Colby, how do you debate with people that have a Straussian/Machiavellian approach to humanity?
April 21st, 2007 at 1:26 pmJTitor,
To answer your question, debate is not possible with people with a Straussian or Machiavellian approach to humanity. All you get is the illusion of debate.
A genuine debate is one where the outcome is not determined in advance by the dogmatism, arrogance, ignorance, fears, needs, ulterior motives, and the like of one or more of the participants. Rather, a genuine debate has an outcome determined only by one factor: the quality of the reasoning–the arguments and evidence–articulated by the participants to justify their contending views. This is why so many of the “debates” on TP between progressives and the trolls are not genuine debates and accomplish nothing except what the trolls want, namely, to disrupt TP.
This also explains why I’ve repeatedly referred to intellectual and moral virtues, which trolls like Valiant Venus so patently lack. For example, he or she accused me of being autocratic because I insisted on the need to obey rules of logical thinking, which I happen to teach. Without the virtue of respecting and obeying such rules, genuine debate and intellectual activity are impossible.
Without intellectual and moral virtues, people will not value the truth, whatever it happens to be; instead, they will value only “winning the argument” by deception, invective, insult, fallacies, manipulation, disinformation, misinformation, and the like.
One reason why I’m a professor is that I teach the next generation. My hope is that they acquire some of these virtues from me and thereby avoid becoming the dead minds we call “trolls.”
April 21st, 2007 at 1:47 pmThanks Prof. Colby,
I feel the purpose of debate is to bring about a better understanding of the issues, and to come to a consensus of what is the morally a correct path to follow. The problems I see in academia are debate is open-ended. Academia has a tendency to debate issues for years. We no longer have that luxury. The Neo-Conservative movement based on Straussian beliefs, (as with Trotskyism on the left) are in the positions of power and not afraid to use this power to subvert the Constitution and our Bill of Rights. This is alarming and at some level to all free-minded people. This alarm has manifested into rage at one level or another, and it is apparent in this blog.
The key, I feel is to understand Neo-Conservative thinking. With this understanding you come to realize that Neo-Conservatives are neither new, nor conservative. The common factor between Neo-Conservatism and Paleo-Conservatism is the hate for “liberal Ideology”. Neo-Conservatism according to Shadia Drury’s writings are that the policies of the United States are based on the “noble lie”. That the elitist few know best for the masses, and that one world government is a necessary step to this end. This is what they truly believe in.
April 21st, 2007 at 2:28 pmProf. Colby -
I hope you are around more often. I’m looking forward to talking with you. Bashing Troll’s is only fun for a little while. It’s nice to get back into real discussion.
Interview with Shadia Drury:
The people will not be happy to learn that there is only one natural right – the right of the superior to rule over the inferior, the master over the slave, the husband over the wife, and the wise few over the vulgar many. In On Tyranny, Strauss refers to this natural right as the “tyrannical teaching†of his beloved ancients. It is tyrannical in the classic sense of rule above rule or in the absence of law (p. 70).
Something to think about.
April 21st, 2007 at 2:36 pmProf. Colby -
I’ve really enjoyed your thoughtful and articulate posts. Are you published? If so, where can I find/buy your book(s)? I tried Googling your name and found a Professor of Psychiatry, Jazz Artist, electronics designer, M.D. and assorted others, but no Professor of Philosophy (at least in the first several pages of hits). You appear to be a man with a common name and very uncommon ability to communicate effectively.
Thanks
April 21st, 2007 at 4:23 pmJTitor,
I agree with your post. Academic debate is indeed open-ended. But it’s not just “a tendency to debate issues for years.” Some issues have been debated for about 25 centuries, ever since Socrates began to debate them with his fellow Athenians. This is as it should be since academic debate isn’t supposed to reach consensus for the purpose of political action; it’s to explore ideas for their own sakes. When it comes to political action, you’re right that interminable debate is a luxury that we no longer have, thanks to the utterly malign neo-conservative movement and its hatred of liberalism. I agree completely with Shadia Drury.
Thanks for the compliment. Although I read TP every day, I can’t post often because it takes me away from more urgent intellectual matters, for which there’s already too little time and energy. (For one of these, see below.) I regret this but, like so much else in life, it’s a matter of priorities.
JustBillMe,
Thanks for the compliment. My publications so far are only papers in philosophical journals, but this summer I intend to work on a book on the question of whether science can support religious claims about God’s existence, a popular matter these days and one lending itself to my philosophical training and interests. If you’re right about my ability to communicate effectively–and of course I hope you are–then my book should be readable if nothing else. I hope you’ll be kind enough to buy 50 copies for yourself, family, friends, children, grandchildren, and neighbors.
The Google hits for me are hard to find for the reason you gave; Kenneth Mark Colby the psychiatry professor always turns up first, along with the jazz artist Mark Colby. If you do a search at Columbia’s and Rutgers’ university websites, you’ll find me.
April 21st, 2007 at 5:05 pmProf. Mark Colby,
Thanks for all your insight. I don’t blog much here either, due to some bad experiences, but will come back time-to-time. This is the way the blog should flow. All the screaming and yelling back and forth (which I did as well) is becoming counter productive. But it does have it’s usefulness in that Troll’s may believe that keeping the blog off message is a means to some end, it has kept the fire going. I used to call my self a conservative, whatever that really means? But over the years as I became more involved in the church and trying to move towards a more moral existence. Progressive are some of the most moral people I have found. Funny you would never hear that from the conservative side.
If and when you come back professor, please look me up.
April 21st, 2007 at 6:38 pm#42 Frank Matthews
chimpeach: did you post on Raw Story, too?
Not lately.
No, I don’t see anything wrong with getting rich in a government position as long as no law get broken.
Got it. You’re a fascist who likes the idea of rich Republicans ripping off taxpayers to make themselves rich. I guess I’m not as generous with my money as you are. That is, I don’t get a hard-on throwing my money at rich people, but I don’t mind helping out those who are truly in need.
How did you end up so hopelessly warped, Frank?
April 21st, 2007 at 7:10 pmThe point is not did Wolfowitz break any laws – he has lost the confidence of the institution he is heading because of poor judgement. Once that happens any institution, public or private does not function properly. The World Bank should be about helping poor nations improve the lot of their people – that cannot happen as long as Wolfowitz remains as its head.
April 21st, 2007 at 10:12 pmI would be neither offended nor dismayed…
…should the employees/admisnistrators of the WB…
…stone Paul Wolowitz…
…the next time he shows up for work…
…in the interest of persuading him to resign…of course…
April 21st, 2007 at 11:02 pmWow, Colby you rock….nice to see someone able to put it all into words that MOST people can understand. Nice, very nice to see, I thought everyone had turned into raving animals and it was just a scream and shout fest. All though I do so like slamming the trolls, they just seem so…..sick, you know.
Love seeing your posts, but you can bet after awhile the trolls will avoid your posts, for after awhile they will see that their game is turning against them and will just go to others to disrupt true disscussion.
thanks for taking the time to do this.
April 22nd, 2007 at 4:27 amI read online that US controls 18% of World Bank and they require 85% majority to pass any proposed changes–re: Wolfie’s resignation.
April 22nd, 2007 at 4:48 pmDoing the math, when it’s said the Chimp has the final say, the numbers
are with him unless some US staff actually ‘votes their conscience’ and
brings the total to 85% or more. We can only hope altho you can bet the
US voting block are all Repugs.