Source (and explanation)
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Saturday, June 28, 2008
GREAT QUOTES IN POLITICAL HISTORY: AuH2O Edition
In your heart, you know he's right.
— Barry Goldwater's 1964 Campaign slogan; The Democratic Response: In your guts, you know he's nuts.
Friday, June 27, 2008
GREAT QUOTES IN POLITICAL HISTORY: Sour Grapes Edition
I'd rather be right than be President!
— Henry Clay, failed candidate for President in 1824 (third behind Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams), 1832 (National Republican Nominee, lost to Jackson), 1840 (lost the Whig nomination to William Henry Harrison), 1844 (Whig Nominee, lost to James K. Polk), 1848 (lost the Whig nomination to Zachary Taylor). Clay died in 1852, preventing another run.
Programming Note
As I don't post much on the weekends, I'm going to try to fill them up with LOLPols. Check back tomorrow for another one!
Source
Source
IF YOU LIVE IN OR AROUND ST. LOUIS
Please come to this event tomorrow. There will be beer, and I'm making vegetarian foods.
Our Unelected Dictator
Shockingly, I partially agree with something posted on the National Review, written by Jonah "Doughy Pantload" Goldberg:
Jonah Goldberg on Anthony Kennedy on National Review Online: "The Court, by assuming that responsibility, and the other branches of government, by surrendering it, have permanently damaged the constitutional order. Indeed, Thomas Jefferson believed that a judiciary with final jurisdiction over the constitutionality of presidential and legislative actions “would make the judiciary a despotic branch” of government.See also, Sandy Says. I have a suspicion that after we win big this November, liberals will fondly recall when our biggest challenge seemed to be getting to 60 in the Senate. Damn near everything Obama and Congress do will have to be approved by Justice Kennedy.
Today, that despot has a name. It’s Justice Anthony Kennedy. Kennedy rules — thanks to his status as the court’s swing vote — as the true King of America."
Stupid People Think They're Smart
It has been brought to my attention that people are unaware of studies on the limits of intelligence self assessment, like this one:
I think we could probably imagine a set of skill, like using a computer, that it's pretty easy to know if you're any good at or not. And we could imagine another set of skills, like a sense of humor, that are notoriously difficult to self-assess. Stuff like driving a car, doing math problems, and recalling people's names falls into a spectrum between those two examples.
People vary, but probably the greatest indicator of whether or not someone is very stupid is if they aren't funny but think they're hilarious, or if they have awful taste. So, you are not wrong to screen dates based on whether they prefer George Carlin or Larry the Cable Guy.
Politics, which made me think of this, is a horse of a different color though, as there are fact/value distinctions. It's possible to imagine a person who completely understand the Republican agenda, for example, and still favors it on the merits, but this person's values are just going to be different than most people's (Dick Cheney, for example).
Most people, of course, don't really take the time to analyze every single thing their politicians do. Most people have one or a few issues that they really care about, pick the party that agrees with them on the things they "know", and then trust that party to be right on the stuff they don't know (even if they don't realize this is happening). And this is why pro-lifers support the party that has spent the last five years reigning death on innocents in Iraq. Now these people are in a very difficult position, having no real knowledge or understanding of foreign policy (foreign policy is very hard to understand, I might add*), so they end up making very stupid arguments advancing their position. And because of the way humans self-assess, they don't even know how stupid they are.
There is another way in which people fail to have available all the information they need to provide accurate self-judgments – and this deficit in information may hit hardest those most in need of revising their self-views. Often, to judge one's own or another person's choices, one needs to know the proper way in which a choice should be made. For example, suppose one were asked to judge whether another person's conclusion is logically sound. To provide an accurate judgment, one would have to have a pretty good grasp of the rules of logic. But what about those who fail to have such a grasp? Can they adequately judge?Or to put it another way, stupid people don't know that they're stupid.
Kruger and Dunning (1999; see also Dunning, Johnson, Ehrlinger, & Kruger, 2003; Ehrlinger, Johnson, Dunning, Kruger, & Banner, forthcoming; Haun, Zeringue, Leach, & Foley, 2000) suggested that people who do not have such expertise cannot judge accurately – either themselves or another person. Specifically, Kruger and Dunning argued, with data, that people who suffer from a deficit of expertise or knowledge in many intellectual or social domains fall prey to a dual curse. First, their deficits lead them to make many mistakes, perform worse than other people, and, in a word, suffer from incompetence. But, second, those exact same deficits mean that they cannot judge competence either. Because they choose what they think are the best responses to situations, they think they are doing just fine when, in fact, their responses are fraught with error. Indeed, if they had the expertise necessary to recognize their mistakes, they would not have made them in the first place.
I think we could probably imagine a set of skill, like using a computer, that it's pretty easy to know if you're any good at or not. And we could imagine another set of skills, like a sense of humor, that are notoriously difficult to self-assess. Stuff like driving a car, doing math problems, and recalling people's names falls into a spectrum between those two examples.
People vary, but probably the greatest indicator of whether or not someone is very stupid is if they aren't funny but think they're hilarious, or if they have awful taste. So, you are not wrong to screen dates based on whether they prefer George Carlin or Larry the Cable Guy.
Politics, which made me think of this, is a horse of a different color though, as there are fact/value distinctions. It's possible to imagine a person who completely understand the Republican agenda, for example, and still favors it on the merits, but this person's values are just going to be different than most people's (Dick Cheney, for example).
Most people, of course, don't really take the time to analyze every single thing their politicians do. Most people have one or a few issues that they really care about, pick the party that agrees with them on the things they "know", and then trust that party to be right on the stuff they don't know (even if they don't realize this is happening). And this is why pro-lifers support the party that has spent the last five years reigning death on innocents in Iraq. Now these people are in a very difficult position, having no real knowledge or understanding of foreign policy (foreign policy is very hard to understand, I might add*), so they end up making very stupid arguments advancing their position. And because of the way humans self-assess, they don't even know how stupid they are.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
GREAT QUOTES IN POLITICAL HISTORY: LBJ Edition
I have concluded that I should not permit the Presidency to become involved in the partisan divisions that are developing in this political year.
With American sons in the fields far away, with America's future under challenge right here at home, with our hopes and the world's hopes for peace in the balance every day, I do not believe that I should devote an hour or a day of my time to any personal partisan causes or to any duties other than the awesome duties of this office -- the Presidency of your country.
Accordingly, I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President.
— Lyndon Johnson, dropping out of the Presidential race in 1968, after it became clear that he would lose the Democratic Nomination.
The War Party's Philosophy
A majority of Democratic voters supported a view of foreign policy generally refered to as "Liberal Internationalism" in 2000, and 2004. Democrats are supporting a similar, although more robust, version of that philosophy in 2008.
One of the lingering problems for theories of voter choice is that the Republican party, on the other hand, completely switched gears in between 2000 and 2004, going from Neo-Isolationism to Neo-Imperialism. McCain is looking to continue the Imperialist model, but to be fair, he was already on board with it in 2000.
What the retreat-from-the-world and dominate-the-world models have in common is their disregard for the world. The foreign policy of the Republican party, in its declining stupid phase, is just pure Nationalism.
I'm reminded of this, observing this early phase of the McCain/Obama race, because of the sheer stupidity of the arguments. It doesn't matter that conservative commentary about Iraq focuses on Al-Qaeda, even though AQI is a nuisance at best, because these arguments aren't directed at people who know anything about the situation. It doesn't matter that McCain doesn't seem to know the difference between Sunni and Shia, because his voters don't either. In fact, these schmucks can get away with anything, as long as they sell it as blindly pro-American.
I love this one, in particular:
By the way, I think McCain's Iraq position requires graphical representation.
Get on anywhere you like, but you can't get off!
One of the lingering problems for theories of voter choice is that the Republican party, on the other hand, completely switched gears in between 2000 and 2004, going from Neo-Isolationism to Neo-Imperialism. McCain is looking to continue the Imperialist model, but to be fair, he was already on board with it in 2000.
What the retreat-from-the-world and dominate-the-world models have in common is their disregard for the world. The foreign policy of the Republican party, in its declining stupid phase, is just pure Nationalism.
I'm reminded of this, observing this early phase of the McCain/Obama race, because of the sheer stupidity of the arguments. It doesn't matter that conservative commentary about Iraq focuses on Al-Qaeda, even though AQI is a nuisance at best, because these arguments aren't directed at people who know anything about the situation. It doesn't matter that McCain doesn't seem to know the difference between Sunni and Shia, because his voters don't either. In fact, these schmucks can get away with anything, as long as they sell it as blindly pro-American.
I love this one, in particular:
I guess they're hoping that people are going to assume that McCain wants WAR for another 100 years. That isn't what he wants. He wants us to have a presence in Iraq--for 100 years, or less, or more, whatever it takes for it to be stable there.See? McCain doesn't want a 100 years of war, he just wants us to keep fighting until Iraq is stable, even if it takes 100 years! That's totally different!
By the way, I think McCain's Iraq position requires graphical representation.
Get on anywhere you like, but you can't get off!
Added to my Amazon Wishlist
Eight hundred minutes of George Carlin. - By Joshua David Mann - Slate Magazine: "The future scholar of comedy who sets out to publish The Complete Works of George Carlin had better be prepared for a multimedia endeavor. A truly comprehensive collection of the comedian's work would have to include his Grammy Award-winning albums, his best-selling books, and a transcript of his argument before the Supreme Court in defense of his immortal 'Seven Words' routine. In the meantime, mourners of Carlin, who died of heart failure earlier this week, can make do with the recently released George Carlin: All My Stuff. The retrospective box set, weighing in at more than 800 minutes of material, is comprised of 12 HBO specials, beginning with a 1977 performance at USC and ending with 2005's Life Is Worth Losing."I haven't seen much of the older stuff, but I think You Are All Diseased is my favorite.
Question of the Day
What would happen if the constitution had said "Potable water, being necessary to the livelihood of a nation, the right of people to drill and own private wells shall not be infringed."
I'm pretty sure we'd have people suing to protect their right to drill the sidewalk.
I'm pretty sure we'd have people suing to protect their right to drill the sidewalk.
Drinking Liberally
Just a quick reminder that we're getting together tonight at The Royale (3132 S. Kingshighway) beginning at 6PM. Come by and take Planned Parenthood ADVOCATES' "kNOw John McCain" challenge and share a drink with your Liberal friends!
See you tonight!
-Vanessa, Angie & Jason
I'll be there, and if you're in the STL area, so should you.
Obama and the Court
From TAPPED:
More broadly, one could feel, as John Stuart Mill did, that the Death Penalty is a tool government ought to have, and that this decision basically bans the death penalty for all non-capital cases. The court certainly seems to be heading in the direction of a complete ban in incremental steps. While I oppose the Death Penalty on pragmatic rather than theoretical grounds, I'm not going to cry if they get rid of it because of theory.
A third reason could be a growing realization on Obama's part that the Court is a conservative institution, historically biased against executive power. The court almost undid the New Deal; although we remember most vividly decisions like Roe and Brown, Liberal courts are rare — President Obama will almost certainly prefer a quiet court that lets him do what he wants.
My suspicion is that Obama actually opposes the death penalty, for reasons similar to my own: it doesn't work as a deterrent, it mainly effects poor minorities, and there are too many mistakes to believe anything close to justice is being achieved. But he also probably doesn't oppose it in theory, meaning that he could agree with the outcome of the court's decision, while disagreeing with their reasoning, and therefore honestly oppose the decision. In other words, the perfect pander. After all, about two-thirds of Americans support the death penalty.
BARACK OBAMA, PANDER-BEAR?Well, there are any number of reasons to oppose the decision. Firstly, you might agree with Obama's stated reason: Hey, I don't like the death penalty that much, but as long as we're killing people, child rapists probably deserve it.
Well, this seems like a naked pander to me: Barack Obama says he disagrees with yesterday's Supreme Court decision striking down the death penalty for child rapists. The Wall Street Journal reports:
“I disagree with the decision. I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for the most egregious of crimes,” Obama told reporters at a press conference in Chicago.The expected Democratic nominee said he believed the rape of a child “is a heinous crime” that fits the circumstance, siding with the four conservative justices who sit on the court, Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas.
Alito's reasoning in his dissenting opinion, though, was quite flawed, as Scott explains so ably. Alito wrote that child rape evidences a depravity deeper and far more disturbing than that of, for example, a guy who holds up a convenience store and stands by while his accomplice shoots the clerk. Therefore, Alito wrote, the child rapist should be subject to the death penalty, just like the robber. But as Scott points out, couldn't this also mean that the robber shouldn't be subjected to the death penalty? Secondly, Alito argued that the fact that several states allow the death penalty for child rapists proves the practice is backed by public consensus. But at the time of Brown v. Board, or Miranda, or Loving v. Virginia, dozens of states allowed practices that the Court deemed unacceptable.
If Obama has a separate, deeper reasoning for opposing the Court's decision yesterday, he should have out with it. Otherwise, I'll be forced to believe this is a pander. After all, about two-thirds of Americans support the death penalty.
More broadly, one could feel, as John Stuart Mill did, that the Death Penalty is a tool government ought to have, and that this decision basically bans the death penalty for all non-capital cases. The court certainly seems to be heading in the direction of a complete ban in incremental steps. While I oppose the Death Penalty on pragmatic rather than theoretical grounds, I'm not going to cry if they get rid of it because of theory.
A third reason could be a growing realization on Obama's part that the Court is a conservative institution, historically biased against executive power. The court almost undid the New Deal; although we remember most vividly decisions like Roe and Brown, Liberal courts are rare — President Obama will almost certainly prefer a quiet court that lets him do what he wants.
My suspicion is that Obama actually opposes the death penalty, for reasons similar to my own: it doesn't work as a deterrent, it mainly effects poor minorities, and there are too many mistakes to believe anything close to justice is being achieved. But he also probably doesn't oppose it in theory, meaning that he could agree with the outcome of the court's decision, while disagreeing with their reasoning, and therefore honestly oppose the decision. In other words, the perfect pander. After all, about two-thirds of Americans support the death penalty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
