There is no legitimate use whatsoever for marijuana. This is not medicine. This is bogus witchcraft. It has no place in medicine, no place in pain relief...
— Bob Barr, "Drug War Chronicle", May 17, 2002
Saturday, September 13, 2008
GREAT QUOTES IN POLITICAL HISTORY: Drug Warrior Edition
— Bob Barr, "Drug War Chronicle", May 17, 2002
Liar, Liar
One of these days, Joe Biden's going to come out and say that John McCain's pants are — literally — on fire.
HELPING OUT PALIN #5
This is the fifth in a twenty part series. Click here for an explanation.
#5 How do you feel about French President Nicolas Sarkozy's recent visit to Syria? Do you believe the United States should negotiate with leaders like President Bashar al-Assad?
Come again? We currently have fairly friendly relations with Syria. They'd like them to be even better, and we ought to embrace that. Nancy Pelosi has met with Assad recently as well.
The Bush Administration has blamed Syria for many of the problems it has caused in the region, and Damascus has bent over backwards attempting to sate our demands.
One of the key problems that the Bush Administration has had diplomatically is that they've been too kind to our nominal allies and refused to negotiate with our "enemies". Saudi Arabia, India, Israel, and Pakistan have played us for fools repeatedly, just because their leaders are "good guys". Meanwhile, engagement with Iran and North Korea could have been brought to the table, and might have been willing to work with us more, if we had bothered trying to bargain in good faith.
I'm not even sure what Syria has done lately to piss off the Foreign Policy Mandarins (except for maybe the fevered dreams of the warmongers, who like to imagine that Syria is behind the Iraqi Insurgency), but the suspicion with which we view other nations just because they're supposed to be the "bad guys" is ridiculous.
#5 How do you feel about French President Nicolas Sarkozy's recent visit to Syria? Do you believe the United States should negotiate with leaders like President Bashar al-Assad?
Come again? We currently have fairly friendly relations with Syria. They'd like them to be even better, and we ought to embrace that. Nancy Pelosi has met with Assad recently as well.
The Bush Administration has blamed Syria for many of the problems it has caused in the region, and Damascus has bent over backwards attempting to sate our demands.
One of the key problems that the Bush Administration has had diplomatically is that they've been too kind to our nominal allies and refused to negotiate with our "enemies". Saudi Arabia, India, Israel, and Pakistan have played us for fools repeatedly, just because their leaders are "good guys". Meanwhile, engagement with Iran and North Korea could have been brought to the table, and might have been willing to work with us more, if we had bothered trying to bargain in good faith.
I'm not even sure what Syria has done lately to piss off the Foreign Policy Mandarins (except for maybe the fevered dreams of the warmongers, who like to imagine that Syria is behind the Iraqi Insurgency), but the suspicion with which we view other nations just because they're supposed to be the "bad guys" is ridiculous.
Friday, September 12, 2008
GREAT QUOTES IN POLITICAL HISTORY: Fine Minds of the 13th Century Edition
Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of information....Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know, I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of information on, on both sides of the subject -- creationism and evolution. It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of information and let kids debate both sides.
— Sarah Palin, on teaching creationism in public schools; Anchorage Daily News; October 27, 2006
HELPING OUT PALIN #4
This is the fourth in a twenty part series. Click here for an explanation.
#4 What is your preferred plan for peace between Israel and Palestine? A two state solution? What about Jerusalem?
Me? I don't have a plan. Or rather, we shouldn't dictate to someone else how they ought to run their country. And, in fact, it seems pretty irresponsible to try and do so. What we ought to do instead is acknowledge the grievances on both sides and try to play the role of honest broker and negotiator.
That said, Israel currently faces a demographic timebomb. The Palestinians that live in Israel are growing in population faster than the Jews, and will overtake them fairly soon. The United Jewish Democracy is doomed.
Israel can stay united and maintain its current borders.
Israel can stay a Democracy and maintain human rights for its citizens.
Israel can stay a Jewish state and maintain its cultural uniqueness and heritage.
Pick two.
Israel can stay whole and remain a Democracy by extending full rights to the Palestinians, but then it will lose its Jewish character.
Israel can stay united and Jewish by establishing a South African-style Apartheid regime that severely discriminates against the Palestinians and makes them second class citizens. But then it won't be a Democracy.
Israel can partition off a part of itself as a Palestinian state, and remain Democratic and Jewish, but smaller. How it goes about doing this is important, however, because a Sharon-style unilateral withdrawal from the territories (basically giving the Palestinians shitty slivers of Israel to quarantine them) will only provoke more violence from groups like Hamas.
Right now most liberal U.S. and Israeli politicians favor a negotiated two-state solution. After Sharon, some conservative Israeli politicians favor a unilateral two-state solution. Israeli likuds and U.S. neo-conservatives seem to favor Apartheid.
As a post-modern liberal technocrat, I think everybody'd be better off if Israel gave up its Jewishness and stayed united and Democratic. But other people take their cultural allegiances stronger than I do, and it's really up to the parties involved to work this out.
#4 What is your preferred plan for peace between Israel and Palestine? A two state solution? What about Jerusalem?
Me? I don't have a plan. Or rather, we shouldn't dictate to someone else how they ought to run their country. And, in fact, it seems pretty irresponsible to try and do so. What we ought to do instead is acknowledge the grievances on both sides and try to play the role of honest broker and negotiator.
That said, Israel currently faces a demographic timebomb. The Palestinians that live in Israel are growing in population faster than the Jews, and will overtake them fairly soon. The United Jewish Democracy is doomed.
Israel can stay united and maintain its current borders.
Israel can stay a Democracy and maintain human rights for its citizens.
Israel can stay a Jewish state and maintain its cultural uniqueness and heritage.
Pick two.
Israel can stay whole and remain a Democracy by extending full rights to the Palestinians, but then it will lose its Jewish character.
Israel can stay united and Jewish by establishing a South African-style Apartheid regime that severely discriminates against the Palestinians and makes them second class citizens. But then it won't be a Democracy.
Israel can partition off a part of itself as a Palestinian state, and remain Democratic and Jewish, but smaller. How it goes about doing this is important, however, because a Sharon-style unilateral withdrawal from the territories (basically giving the Palestinians shitty slivers of Israel to quarantine them) will only provoke more violence from groups like Hamas.
Right now most liberal U.S. and Israeli politicians favor a negotiated two-state solution. After Sharon, some conservative Israeli politicians favor a unilateral two-state solution. Israeli likuds and U.S. neo-conservatives seem to favor Apartheid.
As a post-modern liberal technocrat, I think everybody'd be better off if Israel gave up its Jewishness and stayed united and Democratic. But other people take their cultural allegiances stronger than I do, and it's really up to the parties involved to work this out.
HELPING OUT PALIN #3
This is the third in a twenty part series. Click here for an explanation.
#3 What’s the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite?
There are a few minor theological points, but my sense is that the divide is more like the Catholic/Orthodox Christianity divide — a minor theological dispute is the excuse given for a larger ethnic/cultural divide.
Realistically, in most countries Sunni just means Muslim. Something like 70% of the world's Muslims are Sunni.
The Shia, largest of the smaller denominations, just happen to be the ethnic majority in two countries: Iran and Iraq.
This has led to a schizophrenic foreign policy towards the region: we support the Sunni minority (led by Saddam Hussein) in Iraq to counter the Shia in Iran, we support the Shia in Iraq to counter Saddam, and now both the U.S. and Iran support the same Shia government in Iraq in order to oppose both nationalist Sunni and nationalist Shia.
Oh, and Al Qaeda is a radical Sunni sect, just to throw that into the mix. And the regular Sunni hate them and they hate the regular Sunni.
The only lesson that I'd take from all this is that it's past time to seriously engage Iran. We'll be better off if moderate Shia run Iraq. Iran will be better off if moderate Shia run Iraq. Our interests coincide. If we'd let go of our fevered dreams of endless war, we could cut easily cut a deal that would benefit both the U.S. and the entire middle east.
#3 What’s the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite?
There are a few minor theological points, but my sense is that the divide is more like the Catholic/Orthodox Christianity divide — a minor theological dispute is the excuse given for a larger ethnic/cultural divide.
Realistically, in most countries Sunni just means Muslim. Something like 70% of the world's Muslims are Sunni.
The Shia, largest of the smaller denominations, just happen to be the ethnic majority in two countries: Iran and Iraq.
This has led to a schizophrenic foreign policy towards the region: we support the Sunni minority (led by Saddam Hussein) in Iraq to counter the Shia in Iran, we support the Shia in Iraq to counter Saddam, and now both the U.S. and Iran support the same Shia government in Iraq in order to oppose both nationalist Sunni and nationalist Shia.
Oh, and Al Qaeda is a radical Sunni sect, just to throw that into the mix. And the regular Sunni hate them and they hate the regular Sunni.
The only lesson that I'd take from all this is that it's past time to seriously engage Iran. We'll be better off if moderate Shia run Iraq. Iran will be better off if moderate Shia run Iraq. Our interests coincide. If we'd let go of our fevered dreams of endless war, we could cut easily cut a deal that would benefit both the U.S. and the entire middle east.
HELPING OUT PALIN #2
This is the second in a twenty part series. Click here for an explanation.
#2 Is Iraq a democracy?
This is a difficult question to answer. Was the United States a Democracy before the voting rights act passed in 1965? According to the criteria that political scientists apply to contemporary nations, no. But most (white) Americans think it was.
I would classify Iraq as an emerging Democracy, with two things that prevent it from being a full Democracy, both relating to the concept of legitimacy, because as procedural concerns go (a constitution, regular elections, civilian control of the military, etc), Iraq certainly qualifies.
1. Domestic Legitimacy - Incomplete Popular Acceptance of the Government.
From time to time the Sadrists or the Sunni or even the Kurds openly defy the central government, often militarily. You can't have Democracy without near-universal popular acceptance of the government's legitimacy even if you disagree with the government.
A good example is the U.S. election of 1800. The Federalists lost the election and actually gave up power without a fight — a peaceful transition of power from one party to each other, which was only possible because both sides regarded the authority of the election above their partisan concerns. Iraq cannot become a Democracy until all sides are stakeholders in the government, win or lose.
2. Foreign Legitimacy - No Monopoly of Force
Whatever else may be the case in Iraq, a government isn't legitimate if it doesn't control its own territory. Currently, Iraq is occupied by the United States, which maintains a monopoly of coercive force in the country.
By definition, Iraq cannot be a Democracy until we leave.
#2 Is Iraq a democracy?
This is a difficult question to answer. Was the United States a Democracy before the voting rights act passed in 1965? According to the criteria that political scientists apply to contemporary nations, no. But most (white) Americans think it was.
I would classify Iraq as an emerging Democracy, with two things that prevent it from being a full Democracy, both relating to the concept of legitimacy, because as procedural concerns go (a constitution, regular elections, civilian control of the military, etc), Iraq certainly qualifies.
1. Domestic Legitimacy - Incomplete Popular Acceptance of the Government.
From time to time the Sadrists or the Sunni or even the Kurds openly defy the central government, often militarily. You can't have Democracy without near-universal popular acceptance of the government's legitimacy even if you disagree with the government.
A good example is the U.S. election of 1800. The Federalists lost the election and actually gave up power without a fight — a peaceful transition of power from one party to each other, which was only possible because both sides regarded the authority of the election above their partisan concerns. Iraq cannot become a Democracy until all sides are stakeholders in the government, win or lose.
2. Foreign Legitimacy - No Monopoly of Force
Whatever else may be the case in Iraq, a government isn't legitimate if it doesn't control its own territory. Currently, Iraq is occupied by the United States, which maintains a monopoly of coercive force in the country.
By definition, Iraq cannot be a Democracy until we leave.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
GREAT QUOTES IN POLITICAL HISTORY: Wuhhh? Edition
"You CANNOT go into a 7-11 or a Dunkin Donuts without an Indian accent."
— Joe Biden, July 2006 (video link)
The Bush Doctrine
It hasn't always been clear what the "Bush Doctrine" is. Originally it was the phrase "You're either with us or the terrorists" or "We will make no distinction between terrorists and nations that harbor them" or other things to that effect (all of these were used to justify the war in Afghanistan). Only later, when Bush really wanted a reason to invade Iraq (and couldn't find any terrorists there), did they start advocating for preventive war war against nations which don't threaten us. Silly people who think that they are serious tried to find some consistent thread in the administration's arguments, and made up this concept of a "Bush Doctrine". Really it's just a semantic dodge used to describe the rationales W. has come up with in order to bomb things.
This, of course, doesn't change the fact that Sarah Palin obviously has no fucking clue what she's talking about, but let's not turn George W. Bush into some sort of systemic philosopher with a coherent national security doctrine...
Transcript/Video, if you missed the interview. Bush Doctrine back and forth:
It's also worth pointing out that Charles Gibson doesn't actually know what he's talking about either. Preemptive war has long been the policy of the United States — if the U.S. is facing an imminent threat (e.g. Japanese ships steaming towards Pearl Harbor), we will shoot first. This has long been the policy of the United States (and, like, every other nation ever), and is actually the policy that Palin endorses here.
The Bush Doctrine, on the other hand, argues in favor of preventive war*. In no way was Iraq an imminent threat to the U.S. They weren't even a near-term threat. The administration admitted as much before the war, that Iraq was years away from being an actual threat to us. Rather than act to preempt an attack, the Iraq war was sold as a way to prevent Iraq from developing the capability to attack us in the future.
Historically, the United States (and the rest of the civilized world) has eschewed preventive war, and it is generally known, technically, as "Making up some bullshit to illegally invade another country". International Law, various treaties the U.S. has ratified, the U.N., the Pope, Howard Dean, and Bono are all opposed.
The multiple levels of ignorance on display here are really astounding:
1. Palin is completely unfamiliar with anything referred to as "the Bush Doctrine".
2. Gibson's knowledge about the topic he was asking about is fairly limited.
3. Even after Gibson explains how the Bush doctrine is different from prior U.S. behavior, Palin's answer clearly indicates that she doesn't understand the distinction.
4. Gibson doesn't follow-up on Palin's insipid answer, indicating that he doesn't actually care about the answer or (more likely), he too doesn't understand the significance of his own question.
Considering that indulging Bush's petulant urges resulted in a series of policy initiatives (war, torture, signing statements, etc.) that ignored International and American norms, it'd be nice if candidates for the office told us how they feel about the changes around here. At the very least, it'd be helpful to know if they even understood them.
*Although most people lie and call it preemptive in order to confuse the issue. Or, like Charlie here, they're too stupid to know the difference.
This, of course, doesn't change the fact that Sarah Palin obviously has no fucking clue what she's talking about, but let's not turn George W. Bush into some sort of systemic philosopher with a coherent national security doctrine...
Transcript/Video, if you missed the interview. Bush Doctrine back and forth:
GIBSON: Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?
PALIN: In what respect, Charlie?
GIBSON: The Bush -- well, what do you -- what do you interpret it to be?
PALIN: His world view.
GIBSON: No, the Bush doctrine, enunciated September 2002, before the Iraq war.
PALIN: I believe that what President Bush has attempted to do is rid this world of Islamic extremism, terrorists who are hell bent on destroying our nation. There have been blunders along the way, though. There have been mistakes made. And with new leadership, and that's the beauty of American elections, of course, and democracy, is with new leadership comes opportunity to do things better.
GIBSON: The Bush doctrine, as I understand it, is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense, that we have the right to a preemptive strike against any other country that we think is going to attack us. Do you agree with that?
PALIN: Charlie, if there is legitimate and enough intelligence that tells us that a strike is imminent against American people, we have every right to defend our country. In fact, the president has the obligation, the duty to defend.
It's also worth pointing out that Charles Gibson doesn't actually know what he's talking about either. Preemptive war has long been the policy of the United States — if the U.S. is facing an imminent threat (e.g. Japanese ships steaming towards Pearl Harbor), we will shoot first. This has long been the policy of the United States (and, like, every other nation ever), and is actually the policy that Palin endorses here.
The Bush Doctrine, on the other hand, argues in favor of preventive war*. In no way was Iraq an imminent threat to the U.S. They weren't even a near-term threat. The administration admitted as much before the war, that Iraq was years away from being an actual threat to us. Rather than act to preempt an attack, the Iraq war was sold as a way to prevent Iraq from developing the capability to attack us in the future.
Historically, the United States (and the rest of the civilized world) has eschewed preventive war, and it is generally known, technically, as "Making up some bullshit to illegally invade another country". International Law, various treaties the U.S. has ratified, the U.N., the Pope, Howard Dean, and Bono are all opposed.
The multiple levels of ignorance on display here are really astounding:
1. Palin is completely unfamiliar with anything referred to as "the Bush Doctrine".
2. Gibson's knowledge about the topic he was asking about is fairly limited.
3. Even after Gibson explains how the Bush doctrine is different from prior U.S. behavior, Palin's answer clearly indicates that she doesn't understand the distinction.
4. Gibson doesn't follow-up on Palin's insipid answer, indicating that he doesn't actually care about the answer or (more likely), he too doesn't understand the significance of his own question.
Considering that indulging Bush's petulant urges resulted in a series of policy initiatives (war, torture, signing statements, etc.) that ignored International and American norms, it'd be nice if candidates for the office told us how they feel about the changes around here. At the very least, it'd be helpful to know if they even understood them.
*Although most people lie and call it preemptive in order to confuse the issue. Or, like Charlie here, they're too stupid to know the difference.
HELPING OUT PALIN #1
Foreign Policy magazine, growing frustrated with Palin's nonexistent foreign policy record and general fear of the press, has publicly posted 20 questions that they'd like her to answer. I think they're pretty interesting, so, in order to help her out, I thought I'd take a stab at answering them.
#1 In a broad and long-term sense, would you have responded differently to the attacks of 9/11?
First let me answer with what I think the administration got right: freezing the bank accounts of suspected terrorists and working with the international community to track down members of the Al Qaeda network and bring them to trial.
Of course, this process was disrupted by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Despite the near unanimity amongst U.S. elites for the necessity of the Afghanistan war, it hasn't actually accomplished the stated goal. We need to realize that the enemy is a small collection of non-state actors. We need to work more to track and trap these guys in order to shut their networks down, rather than focusing on large-scale conflicts. And where their host countries won't agree to extradition with us (like pre-war Afghanistan) or they can't find them (like Pakistan), we need to upgrade our light footprint special forces troops and deploy them, rather than cluster bombs and armored combat brigades. Interestingly, this was Donald Rumseld's plan to reform the military before September 11th, and I wish he'd been more successful.
Obviously the invasion of Iraq was a gigantic mistake. Anyone who thinks the war was a good idea in the beginning, or wants to continue it now, just isn't serious about national security. Right now I think there's a general consensus that the war itself was a mistake, and while there are a few arguments floating around for why we ought to stay, the main motivation at this point is Pride. Which is to stay, there's no reason at all we shouldn't begin leaving tomorrow.
In terms of a domestic response, we ought to have and still ought to create a domestic intelligence agency, similar to the UK's MI5. The FBI is not properly equipped to deal with counter-terrorism, and they shouldn't have to. Homeland Security is a joke, rather than streamlining bureaucracy, they've just added another layer. Obviously the PATRIOT ACT is controversial, but not for the right reasons. This administration designed a series of provisions in order to help them spy on political opponents, including ultra-dangerous vegan potluck dinner groups, and sold it as a series of counter-terrorism measures. But let's not throw out the whole Act. We really do need roving wiretaps to cope with the cell phone age. But we don't need to be poking around people's library records. And some programs, like data-mining, are more likely to erode our capabilities by producing false positives than by producing any actionable intelligence.
And one more thing: torture is wrong, and it doesn't work. The mixture of moral rot and incompetence demonstrated by their torture policy exemplifies everything wrong with the Bush Administration.
(See Sarah, wasn't that easy? Only 19 more to go...)
#1 In a broad and long-term sense, would you have responded differently to the attacks of 9/11?
First let me answer with what I think the administration got right: freezing the bank accounts of suspected terrorists and working with the international community to track down members of the Al Qaeda network and bring them to trial.
Of course, this process was disrupted by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Despite the near unanimity amongst U.S. elites for the necessity of the Afghanistan war, it hasn't actually accomplished the stated goal. We need to realize that the enemy is a small collection of non-state actors. We need to work more to track and trap these guys in order to shut their networks down, rather than focusing on large-scale conflicts. And where their host countries won't agree to extradition with us (like pre-war Afghanistan) or they can't find them (like Pakistan), we need to upgrade our light footprint special forces troops and deploy them, rather than cluster bombs and armored combat brigades. Interestingly, this was Donald Rumseld's plan to reform the military before September 11th, and I wish he'd been more successful.
Obviously the invasion of Iraq was a gigantic mistake. Anyone who thinks the war was a good idea in the beginning, or wants to continue it now, just isn't serious about national security. Right now I think there's a general consensus that the war itself was a mistake, and while there are a few arguments floating around for why we ought to stay, the main motivation at this point is Pride. Which is to stay, there's no reason at all we shouldn't begin leaving tomorrow.
In terms of a domestic response, we ought to have and still ought to create a domestic intelligence agency, similar to the UK's MI5. The FBI is not properly equipped to deal with counter-terrorism, and they shouldn't have to. Homeland Security is a joke, rather than streamlining bureaucracy, they've just added another layer. Obviously the PATRIOT ACT is controversial, but not for the right reasons. This administration designed a series of provisions in order to help them spy on political opponents, including ultra-dangerous vegan potluck dinner groups, and sold it as a series of counter-terrorism measures. But let's not throw out the whole Act. We really do need roving wiretaps to cope with the cell phone age. But we don't need to be poking around people's library records. And some programs, like data-mining, are more likely to erode our capabilities by producing false positives than by producing any actionable intelligence.
And one more thing: torture is wrong, and it doesn't work. The mixture of moral rot and incompetence demonstrated by their torture policy exemplifies everything wrong with the Bush Administration.
(See Sarah, wasn't that easy? Only 19 more to go...)
WHAT IS JOE BIDEN HIDING?
TRAIL MIX for Thursday: What's Up at Top Newspapers' Campaign Blogs?: "While the Secret Service does not generally publicize their code names chosen for those running for the highest offices in the land. Anne Kornblut of The Trail discovered that “Denali” (the name for the Alaska national park and preserve known for its mountains and wildlife) is their code name for Gov. Sarah Palin. Palin’s husband, Todd an oil slope worker, is known to the Secret Service as “Driller.” “Drill, baby, drill” is the informal McCain-Palin election chant. Obama is codenamed “Renegade,” and Michelle is “Renaissance” (selection of codenames for spouses often begin with the same letter). McCain is “Phoenix” and his wife Cindy is known to the Secret Service as “Parasol.” Interestingly enough the code name for Joe Biden is still unknown."Marc Ambinder says it's one of these: Cobbler, Celtic, Carbon, Cat Wrangler, or Cantor.
My guess is either Cobbler (for his working class roots) or Cantor (for his... loquaciousness). Biden is Irish-American, but McCain's a Scot, so I'm not sure whey they'd pick Celtic. The other two are a bit silly.
But whatever it is, THE PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW. REVEAL BIDEN'S CODENAME, NOW!
Why Bristol Matters
I understand the tradition of respect and distance given to children of high profile politicians, on both sides of the aisle. I think most people probably assume that it exists because "they didn't ask to be thrust into the spotlight" or some other rationale, but I'm pretty sure it's just the case that most politicians have kids and are terrified of their kids embarrassing them — so you've got a mutually assured destruction sort of scenario that enforces the truce. Fair enough.
But Bristol Palin is different. Not because she was fucking around while a teenager — frankly, I think teenagers probably ought to be having more sex, not less. And not because she's having a baby, although a discussion about whether or not she "chose" to keep the kid or her parents exercised the same sort of control over her that McCain/Palin would like to exercise over all American Uteri might be interesting for the country to have.
The reason Bristol matters is because she reveals the lie that is social conservativism. The Culture War is fundamentally about values. Liberals believe in education and empowerment; Conservatives believe in tradition and restraint. Sex education is a perfect microcosm of the differences between the two. Generally speaking, Conservatives say that traditional values work just fine and anything other than abstinence-only sex education just encourages pre-marital sexual activity (and they, unlike me, are opposed to that). Liberals say that every study conducted on Planet Earth shows that abstinence-only doesn't work and just results in more unprotected sex, which results in more pregnancies and the spread of disease. Conservatives, however, don't trust science, statistics, studies, or really anything that doesn't come out of their magic book, so the argument continues.
But now there's Bristol Palin. Everyone agrees that Sarah Palin is virtually the Platonic ideal* of a Good Christian Conservative Mother, and if she couldn't raise abstentious daughter, then who else can reasonably expect to? In other words, the conservative position is total bullshit, revealed before you as a five months pregnant seventeen year old.
America, your daughters and sons are fucking like wild animals. Teach them to use protection. Vote Democrat.
*Yes, this usage relies on a common misconception regarding Plato's actual theory of the forms. It's ok though, as I'm appealing to the common understanding of the term, rather than the Platonic one.
But Bristol Palin is different. Not because she was fucking around while a teenager — frankly, I think teenagers probably ought to be having more sex, not less. And not because she's having a baby, although a discussion about whether or not she "chose" to keep the kid or her parents exercised the same sort of control over her that McCain/Palin would like to exercise over all American Uteri might be interesting for the country to have.
The reason Bristol matters is because she reveals the lie that is social conservativism. The Culture War is fundamentally about values. Liberals believe in education and empowerment; Conservatives believe in tradition and restraint. Sex education is a perfect microcosm of the differences between the two. Generally speaking, Conservatives say that traditional values work just fine and anything other than abstinence-only sex education just encourages pre-marital sexual activity (and they, unlike me, are opposed to that). Liberals say that every study conducted on Planet Earth shows that abstinence-only doesn't work and just results in more unprotected sex, which results in more pregnancies and the spread of disease. Conservatives, however, don't trust science, statistics, studies, or really anything that doesn't come out of their magic book, so the argument continues.
But now there's Bristol Palin. Everyone agrees that Sarah Palin is virtually the Platonic ideal* of a Good Christian Conservative Mother, and if she couldn't raise abstentious daughter, then who else can reasonably expect to? In other words, the conservative position is total bullshit, revealed before you as a five months pregnant seventeen year old.
America, your daughters and sons are fucking like wild animals. Teach them to use protection. Vote Democrat.
*Yes, this usage relies on a common misconception regarding Plato's actual theory of the forms. It's ok though, as I'm appealing to the common understanding of the term, rather than the Platonic one.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
GREAT MOMENTS IN POLITICAL HISTORY: Dick Edition
Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno.
— John McCain, at a Republican fundraiser, June 1998
High Information Nonsense
This is something I've talked about quite a lot on this blog, but I found a great example yesterday.
First off, Voters are stupid, well-informed voters are more stupid. Ezra's understanding of how people actually make decisions seems pretty spot on*:
So, how are we to interpret an Obama Organizer making this argument:
B. Persuasion — the Obama backer has become persuaded that Joe Biden's qualities (Washington experience, working-class roots) are the qualities needed in a VP because Obama picked him.
C. Projection — the Obama backer is unfamiliar with Biden's Hawkish record and is projecting his own views onto a trusted party leader.
I supported Biden because I hoped he'd be a bigger dick than Obama (a hope that has not yet born fruit, I might add), and I saw his foreign policy history as a necessary compromise, given that much of the party's leadership is similarly tainted. But to take it as a reason, nay the MAIN reason, to support Biden, well, that requires some major rationalizing and psychological sorting mechanisms.**
*It is, of course, possible for people to have even stupider reasons for voting the way they do.
**Of course, there's always option D. Cynicism — the Obama backer is willing to say and do anything to win the election, and was making an argument that his audience would accept...
First off, Voters are stupid, well-informed voters are more stupid. Ezra's understanding of how people actually make decisions seems pretty spot on*:
The Rationalizing Voter: "There are basically three theories of how voters think about issues when casting their ballot for a candidate. The first is 'policy-oriented voting,' in which a voter examines the various candidates on offer and votes for the one whose policy proposals most closely match the voter's own preferences. The second is 'persuasion,' in which the voter alters their own opinions to more closely conform with those of the candidate or party they favor. And the last is 'projection,' in which voters convince themselves that the candidate or party they favor really does possess the same beliefs that they do.
Sadly, persuasion and projection are much more common than policy voting. Voters aren't stupid. They're just much more committed to political parties and candidates than they are to issues. And we're not talking about the faceless rubes in the hinterlands. The effects of partisan bias actually become stronger as a voter's level of political information rises. High information voters, then, are actually more likely to warp their opinions based on their political allegiances"
So, how are we to interpret an Obama Organizer making this argument:
Joe Biden is chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I trust him to keep us safe.A. Policy — a fervent Obama backer (since the primaries) likes a VP who voted for the Iraq war, supported sending ground troops to Kosovo, and has 35 years of Washington Experience on pure policy grounds.
B. Persuasion — the Obama backer has become persuaded that Joe Biden's qualities (Washington experience, working-class roots) are the qualities needed in a VP because Obama picked him.
C. Projection — the Obama backer is unfamiliar with Biden's Hawkish record and is projecting his own views onto a trusted party leader.
I supported Biden because I hoped he'd be a bigger dick than Obama (a hope that has not yet born fruit, I might add), and I saw his foreign policy history as a necessary compromise, given that much of the party's leadership is similarly tainted. But to take it as a reason, nay the MAIN reason, to support Biden, well, that requires some major rationalizing and psychological sorting mechanisms.**
*It is, of course, possible for people to have even stupider reasons for voting the way they do.
**Of course, there's always option D. Cynicism — the Obama backer is willing to say and do anything to win the election, and was making an argument that his audience would accept...
Voting while black
Fairly frequently some jackass or another will claim that something is a "threat to Democracy". Hyperbolic nonsense like that obscures actual threats to Democracy, like the difficulty black people have voting in today's America, 43 years after the Voting Rights Act was passed.
The Last Man at the Obama office is not alone
I've been manning the office by myself for 2 hours now. I'm starting to wonder where the rest of 'em are. It's just me and people wanting yard signs (which, by the way, I do not have). Luckily, I recently watched a documentary about a similar situation.
But my morning poop is coming up soon...
But my morning poop is coming up soon...
All the pretty girls want to sit next to me
So it's my third day of riding on the bus to work, and I can now pronounce it a trend: When a pretty girl gets on the bus, she invariably sits next to me.
I'm young, fairly well dressed, clean shaven, and don't reek of booze. In short, I am the guy that every woman identifies as the least likely to grope her on the way to and from work. I am non-threatening.
I'm not sure how I feel about that.
I'm young, fairly well dressed, clean shaven, and don't reek of booze. In short, I am the guy that every woman identifies as the least likely to grope her on the way to and from work. I am non-threatening.
I'm not sure how I feel about that.
Pandora'd
Wonder if this'll work.
ZOMG - Matt Schmidt Radio!
Update: The real test for Pandora was how long it took to play "I Ran" by A Flock of Seagulls, given my other additions and deletions (I purposely didn't put the song in as a test case). Less than an hour!
ZOMG - Matt Schmidt Radio!
Update: The real test for Pandora was how long it took to play "I Ran" by A Flock of Seagulls, given my other additions and deletions (I purposely didn't put the song in as a test case). Less than an hour!
Our Communist State
Alaska residents cash in on dividend: "It's the season for Alaskans to be rewarded just for living here and this year's take is extra sweet: $3,269, a record share of the state's oil wealth combined with a special cash payout to help with stratospheric energy prices."You know, the Alaska oil payments sound an awful lot like my guaranteed income plan. (Give everybody a couple hundred bucks every month so they don't starve.)
Most arguments against my idea of just giving everybody money don't center around the cost being prohibitive (because it's not). Rather, they're usually framed in terms of market distortionary effects — "Lazy fuckers won't go to work" sort of arguments.
But Alaska, despite giving each of its citizens thousands of dollars a year, seems to have a functioning market economy.
Despite being a Socialist Hellhole.
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
GREAT QUOTES IN POLITICAL HISTORY: Obamarama Edition
Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.
— Barack Obama, after Super Tuesday
Racial Anxiety
One of the perks of working in an Obama office is that now I am inside the bubble.
What do white people who come into the office want? Yard signs.
What do black people who come into the office want? To register to vote.
What do people who work in the office want to do? Register voters.
So now there's this weird inverse-racism thing going on in my head, after only working here one day I'm starting to cringe every time a white person walks in. Because I don't have any yard signs.
What do white people who come into the office want? Yard signs.
What do black people who come into the office want? To register to vote.
What do people who work in the office want to do? Register voters.
So now there's this weird inverse-racism thing going on in my head, after only working here one day I'm starting to cringe every time a white person walks in. Because I don't have any yard signs.
Quote of the Day
Linden, expressing his frustration with people who want Yard Signs but aren't willing to volunteer:
A Yard Sign's Not Gonna Vote!True dat, yo. True dat.
The BLOG is BACK
I've been AWOL for about a month, for a number of reasons, but I'm back to regular blogging.
Right now I'm blogging this from an Obama office in South City St. Louis (the Obama campaign has 10 different offices in St. Louis), where I'll be the office manager until November.
So, if anybody's in the mood to volunteer, I can totally put you to work...
Right now I'm blogging this from an Obama office in South City St. Louis (the Obama campaign has 10 different offices in St. Louis), where I'll be the office manager until November.
So, if anybody's in the mood to volunteer, I can totally put you to work...
Bob Herbert in the NYT
Hold Your Heads Up:
"Why liberals don’t stand up to this garbage, I don’t know. Without the extraordinary contribution of liberals — from the mightiest presidents to the most unheralded protesters and organizers — the United States would be a much, much worse place than it is today."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
