Thursday, September 18, 2008
Vicious Bastards
Poll shows support for torture among Southern evangelicals... that's because the categorization is just a polite stand-in for "redneck".
HELPING OUT PALIN #9
This is the ninth in a twenty part series. Click here for an explanation.
#9 How would you balance concerns over human rights and freedom in China with the United States' growing economic interdependence with that country?
Our economic interdependence with China encourages liberalization in their economy and the spread of political rights.
Any punitive action that we take against another country just tends to increase the support of the people for the rulers, regardless of who or what they are. Bombing Kosovo increased Milosevic's popularity in Serbia. U.S. sanctions against Cuba are the number one reason Castro managed to stay in power for fifty years.
The most oppressive regimes in the world (Burma and North Korea) are also regimes which completely isolate themselves from the broader world — Tyranny can only survive in a vacuum.
If we really want a country to be kinder to its own citizens we ought to encourage it to become more interdependent with the broader world community, and China is on the right path.
#9 How would you balance concerns over human rights and freedom in China with the United States' growing economic interdependence with that country?
Our economic interdependence with China encourages liberalization in their economy and the spread of political rights.
Any punitive action that we take against another country just tends to increase the support of the people for the rulers, regardless of who or what they are. Bombing Kosovo increased Milosevic's popularity in Serbia. U.S. sanctions against Cuba are the number one reason Castro managed to stay in power for fifty years.
The most oppressive regimes in the world (Burma and North Korea) are also regimes which completely isolate themselves from the broader world — Tyranny can only survive in a vacuum.
If we really want a country to be kinder to its own citizens we ought to encourage it to become more interdependent with the broader world community, and China is on the right path.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
The Ownership Society
I had no idea that this is what the Republicans meant!
So apparently the U.S. Government will now own 80% of AIG.
And there are around 305,000,000 Americans.
So congratulations, citizen! You now own 0.0000002624% of AIG! See if they'll cut your rates.
So apparently the U.S. Government will now own 80% of AIG.
And there are around 305,000,000 Americans.
So congratulations, citizen! You now own 0.0000002624% of AIG! See if they'll cut your rates.
Don't fuck with Adlai!
Sort of unbelieveably, in her Wall Street Journal, Lady de Rothschild takes a potshot at Adlai Stevenson:
Now I really like Adlai (that commercial I posted yesterday was one of his). Hell, here's a commercial from 1952 and one from 1956 endorsing Civil Rights, a decade before Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, what's "elitist" about that?
Democrats Need to Shake The 'Elitist' Tag - WSJ.com: "I must face the uncomfortable truth that liberal elitism has been a weakness of the Democratic Party for more than half a century. In 1952 and 1956, for example, Adlai Stevenson emerged as the presidential candidate of the party's 'new politics' wing. But while Stevenson's stylish, articulate, high-brow manner thrilled the nation's intellectuals, he could never connect with large numbers of working-class Democrats who found him aloof and aristocratic.He didn't lose because he was elitist and couldn't connect with working americans. He lost because he ran against Dwight "I kicked Hilter's ass" Eisenhower. Harry Truman offered to take a demotion and run for VP again if Ike would run as a Democrat.
The 'new politics' Democrats have found their new, improved Stevenson in Mr. Obama."
Now I really like Adlai (that commercial I posted yesterday was one of his). Hell, here's a commercial from 1952 and one from 1956 endorsing Civil Rights, a decade before Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act, what's "elitist" about that?
SRSLY?
Hmmm.
A prominent Hillary Clinton backer is endorsing John McCain because Barack Obama is too "arrogant" and "elitist". Steelworker? West Virginia coal-miner? Migrant farm worker?
Naah, globe-trotting baroness.
What can "elitist" possibly mean to this woman?
A prominent Hillary Clinton backer is endorsing John McCain because Barack Obama is too "arrogant" and "elitist". Steelworker? West Virginia coal-miner? Migrant farm worker?
Naah, globe-trotting baroness.
What can "elitist" possibly mean to this woman?
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
GREAT QUOTES IN POLITICAL HISTORY: Never Edition
"Never. Is never good enough for you?"
— Nancy Pelosi, 2005, on her timetable for offering a plan to change social security. (source)
HELPING OUT PALIN #8
This is the eighth in a twenty part series. Click here for an explanation.
8. Other than more drilling, what steps do you suggest the U.S. take in order to move toward energy independence? Do you believe more investment is needed in alternative energy research? If so, how would you recommend this funding be allocated?
Well, first off, drilling is stupid.
1. It's not much oil.
2. Offshore drilling is extremely vulnerable to weather fluctuations.
3. The oil we have in the U.S. should be saved for the future, for things like Airplane fuel, for which there is no good substitute yet, or plastics manufacturing, etc.
I would "fund" alternative fuels by creating market incentives for them through a carbon tax. Why pick and play favorites that are innefficient (ethanol) or mythological (clean coal) or potentially apocalyptic (nuclear)? Tax Carbon, all carbon output, and then split the proceeds from the tax between a flat rebate to the American citizenry, and infrastructure improvements (SUPERTRAIN!).
This will reduce greenhouse gases, encourage people to live greener lives (everybody gets the same rebate, so those who use less carbon will actually profit on the deal), and create more investment (jobs!) and liveable communities.
The idea of "Energy Independence", is, by the way, a ridiculous idea. Is there any particular reason we shouldn't buy wind power from Canada if they can make it cheaper than we can? The problem with our current energy regime isn't the foreign sources, it's the fact that it's destroying the planet and increasingly expensive.
8. Other than more drilling, what steps do you suggest the U.S. take in order to move toward energy independence? Do you believe more investment is needed in alternative energy research? If so, how would you recommend this funding be allocated?
Well, first off, drilling is stupid.
1. It's not much oil.
2. Offshore drilling is extremely vulnerable to weather fluctuations.
3. The oil we have in the U.S. should be saved for the future, for things like Airplane fuel, for which there is no good substitute yet, or plastics manufacturing, etc.
I would "fund" alternative fuels by creating market incentives for them through a carbon tax. Why pick and play favorites that are innefficient (ethanol) or mythological (clean coal) or potentially apocalyptic (nuclear)? Tax Carbon, all carbon output, and then split the proceeds from the tax between a flat rebate to the American citizenry, and infrastructure improvements (SUPERTRAIN!).
This will reduce greenhouse gases, encourage people to live greener lives (everybody gets the same rebate, so those who use less carbon will actually profit on the deal), and create more investment (jobs!) and liveable communities.
The idea of "Energy Independence", is, by the way, a ridiculous idea. Is there any particular reason we shouldn't buy wind power from Canada if they can make it cheaper than we can? The problem with our current energy regime isn't the foreign sources, it's the fact that it's destroying the planet and increasingly expensive.
Darwin
Did you ever wish you could watch an hour long discussion of Charles Darwin by two prominent biologists?
Charlie Rose with E.O. Wilson and James Watson.
Charlie Rose with E.O. Wilson and James Watson.
Brown Voters
I posted the 2004 exit polls yesterday. Remember this part?
And among the poorest Americans the result is even starker:
Now imagine what the last couple of election cycles would've been like if poorest 5% of Americans weren't allowed to vote.
Well, you don't have to. Because undocumented Hispanics that live in America, do American jobs, and pay American taxes don't get to vote.
What the American electorate will look like once we offer amnesty and citizenship to them is left as an exercise for the reader.
*Note also that Nader scores highest amongst the wealthy. You gotta be pretty rich in order to "vote your conscience"...
| VOTE BY INCOME |
|  | KERRY |  | NADER | |||
TOTAL | 2004 | 2000 | 2004 | 2004 | ||||
 | ||||||||
Less Than $50,000 (45%) | 44% | n/a | 55% | 0% | ||||
| ||||||||
$50,000 or More (55%) | 56% | n/a | 43% | 0% | ||||
| ||||||||
And among the poorest Americans the result is even starker:
| VOTE BY INCOME |
| | KERRY | | NADER | |||
TOTAL | 2004 | 2000 | 2004 | 2004 | ||||
| ||||||||
Under $15,000 (8%) | 36% | n/a | 63% | 0% | ||||
| ||||||||
$15-30,000 (15%) | 42% | n/a | 57% | 0% | ||||
| ||||||||
$30-50,000 (22%) | 49% | n/a | 50% | 0% | ||||
| ||||||||
$50-75,000 (23%) | 56% | n/a | 43% | 0% | ||||
| ||||||||
$75-100,000 (14%) | 55% | n/a | 45% | 0% | ||||
| ||||||||
$100-150,000 (11%) | 57% | n/a | 42% | 1% | ||||
| ||||||||
$150-200,000 (4%) | 58% | n/a | 42% | * | ||||
| ||||||||
$200,000 or More (3%) | 63% | n/a | 35% | 1% | ||||
| ||||||||
Now imagine what the last couple of election cycles would've been like if poorest 5% of Americans weren't allowed to vote.
Well, you don't have to. Because undocumented Hispanics that live in America, do American jobs, and pay American taxes don't get to vote.
What the American electorate will look like once we offer amnesty and citizenship to them is left as an exercise for the reader.
*Note also that Nader scores highest amongst the wealthy. You gotta be pretty rich in order to "vote your conscience"...
Rumor has it...
that I'll be getting some yard signs to sell today. Thirty-five signs, first come, first serve, eight bucks a pop.
Monday, September 15, 2008
GREAT QUOTES IN POLITICAL HISTORY: Greatest American Congress Edition
It seems to me that if the Senate and the House of Representatives, in this long and arduous session, had done nothing more than pass this security Bill, Social Security Act, the session would be regarded as historic for all time.
— FDR, signing Social Security into law, 1935
Porn and "Common Sense" Philosophy
Ross Douthat has an absurdist piece up at the Atlantic that appears to take seriously the idea that Pornography is a form of Adultery. The basic argument:
What Douthat does to open up the argument is a thought experiment meant to appeal to our common sense intuitions about adultery, and then makes an argument based upon those intuitions. That's fine, as far as it goes, but this sort of argumentation ought to be reserved for things that we don't already have opinions about. My thoughts on pornography and adultery are already fairly well-formed — as are virtually everyone else's, I'd wager. This is not to say that looking at porn is or isn't adultery (although it isn't), but that a "Common Sense" argument like this is just a non-starter since we already have separate "Common Sense" thoughts on the issue at hand.
Start with the near-universal assumption that what Spitzer did in his hotel room constituted adultery, and then ponder whether Silda Spitzer would have had cause to feel betrayed if the FBI probe had revealed that her husband had paid merely to watch a prostitute perform sexual acts while he folded himself into a hotel armchair to masturbate. My suspicion is that an awful lot of people would say yes—not because there isn’t some distinction between the two acts, but because the distinction isn’t morally significant enough to prevent both from belonging to the zone, broadly defined, of cheating on your wife.To which Brian Beutler tries to respond in characteristic philosopher fashion, by analyzing things:
You can see where I’m going with this. If it’s cheating on your wife to watch while another woman performs sexually in front of you, then why isn’t it cheating to watch while the same sort of spectacle unfolds on your laptop or TV? Isn’t the man who uses hard-core pornography already betraying his wife, whether or not the habit leads to anything worse?
sleeping with a prostitute may be like masturbating in front of a prostitute because both involve sexual acts with a prostitute, and masturbating in front of a prostitute may be like masturbating to porn because both involve masturbating, but that doesn't mean sleeping with a prostitute is anything at all like masturbating to porn.This might be the case, but it doesn't actually matter.
What Douthat does to open up the argument is a thought experiment meant to appeal to our common sense intuitions about adultery, and then makes an argument based upon those intuitions. That's fine, as far as it goes, but this sort of argumentation ought to be reserved for things that we don't already have opinions about. My thoughts on pornography and adultery are already fairly well-formed — as are virtually everyone else's, I'd wager. This is not to say that looking at porn is or isn't adultery (although it isn't), but that a "Common Sense" argument like this is just a non-starter since we already have separate "Common Sense" thoughts on the issue at hand.
White Votes
On what planet does Barack Obama have a chance of winning the white vote?
John Kerry only got 41% of the white vote. If Kerry had won Hispanics with the 66% that Obama is polling, that would've shifted New Mexico, Iowa, Nevada, and probably Colorado.
Given the Hispanic shift to the Democrats over the past 4 years, the natural demographic increase of Hispanic voters, and a potential surge of African American voters, Barack Obama will win the presidency with just 40% of white voters. He ought to be able to pull that in any state outside of the South/Appalachia.
The Democrats will win in 2008 because of the shift of Hispanic voters. Everything else is noise.
John Kerry only got 41% of the white vote. If Kerry had won Hispanics with the 66% that Obama is polling, that would've shifted New Mexico, Iowa, Nevada, and probably Colorado.
Given the Hispanic shift to the Democrats over the past 4 years, the natural demographic increase of Hispanic voters, and a potential surge of African American voters, Barack Obama will win the presidency with just 40% of white voters. He ought to be able to pull that in any state outside of the South/Appalachia.
The Democrats will win in 2008 because of the shift of Hispanic voters. Everything else is noise.
Luchadoros!
I wasn't kidding earlier, we do have a couple of paintings of Mexican Wrestler masks in our office now. Here's the artist (who works above our office).
HELPING OUT PALIN #7
This is the seventh in a twenty part series. Click here for an explanation.
7. Do you support the U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Agreement, which would lift restrictions on sales of nuclear technology and fuel to India, a country which hasn’t signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty?
No. One of two things has happened:
1. We're getting played. The Administration, myopic about China and Afghanistan, is ignoring Non-Proliferation and has basically given India everything it wants in order to keep them "on our side".
2. The Bush Administration's instinctive drive to undermine the post-WWII liberal consensus hates international treaties and is doing everything it can to undermine them, even if it means giving away the keys to the nuclear store.
Whatever interpretation you favor, it's clear that if you'd prefer not to die in a nuclear holocaust, it would be better to embrace and extend the current regulatory scheme, rather than allow it to become irrelevant.
7. Do you support the U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Agreement, which would lift restrictions on sales of nuclear technology and fuel to India, a country which hasn’t signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty?
No. One of two things has happened:
1. We're getting played. The Administration, myopic about China and Afghanistan, is ignoring Non-Proliferation and has basically given India everything it wants in order to keep them "on our side".
2. The Bush Administration's instinctive drive to undermine the post-WWII liberal consensus hates international treaties and is doing everything it can to undermine them, even if it means giving away the keys to the nuclear store.
Whatever interpretation you favor, it's clear that if you'd prefer not to die in a nuclear holocaust, it would be better to embrace and extend the current regulatory scheme, rather than allow it to become irrelevant.
Battle of Seattle
Make this movie come to St. Louis.
The trailer isn't clear on the point, but the people wearing the plexiglass face masks are the bad guys.
The trailer isn't clear on the point, but the people wearing the plexiglass face masks are the bad guys.
HELPING OUT PALIN #6
This is the sixth in a twenty part series. Click here for an explanation.
6. Nearly 40 percent of the world's population lives in China and India. Who are those countries' leaders?
China is an authoritarian (although not totalitarian) oligarchy, broadly Communist in spirit, but pragmatic in practice. The current President is Hu Jintao, who's a fairly boring Technocrat. China's leadership is relative stable and should remain so until the Chinese Miracle wears off. What happens at that point is anybody's guess.
India is the world's largest Democracy, with two large ideological parties, a Hindu Nationalist party and a pragmatic Socialist party. They map fairly easily onto the Republicans and Democrats, if you replace all the crazy Christian BS with crazy Hindu BS. There are also a host of regional parties that make Indian politics fairly impenetrable. The Socialists are currently in charge, as they were for most of the 20th Century. The Nationalists had a brief stint in power during 1999-2004 wherein they almost nuked Pakistan but decided not to at the last minute due to pressure from the business class. As the Socialists appear less likely to nuke Pakistan (or China), I would prefer that they remain in power.
6. Nearly 40 percent of the world's population lives in China and India. Who are those countries' leaders?
China is an authoritarian (although not totalitarian) oligarchy, broadly Communist in spirit, but pragmatic in practice. The current President is Hu Jintao, who's a fairly boring Technocrat. China's leadership is relative stable and should remain so until the Chinese Miracle wears off. What happens at that point is anybody's guess.
India is the world's largest Democracy, with two large ideological parties, a Hindu Nationalist party and a pragmatic Socialist party. They map fairly easily onto the Republicans and Democrats, if you replace all the crazy Christian BS with crazy Hindu BS. There are also a host of regional parties that make Indian politics fairly impenetrable. The Socialists are currently in charge, as they were for most of the 20th Century. The Nationalists had a brief stint in power during 1999-2004 wherein they almost nuked Pakistan but decided not to at the last minute due to pressure from the business class. As the Socialists appear less likely to nuke Pakistan (or China), I would prefer that they remain in power.
Beer
Free beer offer no longer operative as Linden is in the office and we'll be moving the beer to a walk-in cooler soon. This will prepare us for an all-day drinking marathon some time this week.
Obama/Biden '08!
Obama/Biden '08!
People surf the web on Thursdays
Just so you know, while the traffic level for this blog has its ups and downs, more people have visited on a Thursday (as compared to other days in the same week) than on any other day. For every week. I find this exceedingly odd and cannot figure out a reason for it.
Glad to be in the midwest
Apparently somebody blew up Wall Street this morning or something...
Update: After reading through some commentary on the situation, I have concluded that we are good and fucked.
Anything the administration does at this point will just be a reach around.
Update: After reading through some commentary on the situation, I have concluded that we are good and fucked.
Anything the administration does at this point will just be a reach around.
FYI
So I walk into the Obama office to open it up for the week. I'm supposed to be here by nine. I'm early. Three things happen before I'm actually supposed to be at work.
1. I almost lock the janitor out of the office by accident. I apologize in English. She only speaks Spanish. Hilarious over-exaggerated sentiments of mutual understanding erupt from both of us.
2. Sorry, lady, I don't have any fucking yard signs. And don't lie to me and tell me that someone from this office said you had them. No one from this office said that. Comical paintings of Barack Obama as a Mexican Wrestler? We have those (and no, you can't have one), but no yard signs.
3. Holy Shit! There's a half-full keg of Schlafly beer in the back office! And nobody else is going to be in until noon.
BRING ME ICE AND YOU CAN HAVE FREE BEER.
1. I almost lock the janitor out of the office by accident. I apologize in English. She only speaks Spanish. Hilarious over-exaggerated sentiments of mutual understanding erupt from both of us.
2. Sorry, lady, I don't have any fucking yard signs. And don't lie to me and tell me that someone from this office said you had them. No one from this office said that. Comical paintings of Barack Obama as a Mexican Wrestler? We have those (and no, you can't have one), but no yard signs.
3. Holy Shit! There's a half-full keg of Schlafly beer in the back office! And nobody else is going to be in until noon.
BRING ME ICE AND YOU CAN HAVE FREE BEER.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
GREAT QUOTES IN POLITICAL HISTORY: What About Taxing The Rich? Edition
The do-good liberal who said we have to take care of everybody -- and they are well intentioned -- the more debt they run up to give to the poor, the poorer the people get because they cannot keep up.
— Ron Paul, January 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
