Happy New Years everyone!
Friday, December 31, 2010
Monday, December 20, 2010
The Repeal Amendment
From the New York Times:
Any proposal to amend the Constitution should be treated to harsh criticism as a matter of course. Amendments seek to change the fundamental "rules of the game" and as such it is a no bad thing if they are put through the crucible. This is particularly true of proposals arising in "the heat of the moment." There is little doubt the widespread unhappiness over the recent health care law was the precipitating event for the appeal of this particular proposal, and there is also little doubt that emotional reactions are often a poor replacement for thought.
That being said, however, it does not follow that should we reject or prejudge any proposal merely because of its timing.
So what are we to make of the proposed change? Obviously, the amendment seeks a way in which the states could undo the work of Congress, albeit only if 34 states were in agreement on the matter. Constitutionally speaking, what purpose could such a change serve? Well, it could be argued the Federal government of today is too far removed and insulated from the check on its power the individual states were supposed to provide. Part of the reason for this, of course, is the result of the aftermath of the Civil War and the death of "state's rights" and "nullification." But some of it can also be traced to the institution of the direct election of U.S. Senators which cut off a once important avenue of national influence for state legislatures, and the passage of the 16th amendment which greatly expanded the scope of Federal power at the expense of the power of the states.
There is considerable merit to such a view. Despite the talk of "devolving power to the states" which has been a constant in Republican circles since the Reagan era, what has actually taken place has been very limited and more of an exercise in the Federal government voluntarily restraining itself rather than a restoration of power to the states. As such, there is the danger the Federal government, left largely free to ignore the states, will structure legislation to enhance its own power at the expense of popular sovereignty.
Such an argument would rest upon accepting the idea that state legislatures, as presently constituted, are more representative than the U.S. Congress. There seems little doubt this is the case. From the standpoint of democratic theory, the fact U.S. Congressional districts have an average of almost 700,000 people in them while the median state legislative district has only 40,000 clearly points to state legislature being more representative. Furthermore, the dominance of the national political party system has resulted in member of Congress who are more wedded to the support (and money) of national interests then they were in the past. Granted, this drift has been a component of our politics for well over 100 years, but that fact does not require us to merely acquiesce to it in the future, or prohibit the people from setting limits on it for the future.
So there would seem to be some theoretical basis for the proposal of such an amendment. The question turns now to be one of how effective the proposal would be in counteracting the ills it sees. This is where critics can play a vital role, assuming they do their job well. From the Times article:
Given the amendment would require 34 states to all sign on to overturn a Federal law, the least amount of population covered by those 34 states would amount to about 100 million out of the 300 million. However, Federal laws can be passed by states congressional delegations which come from states which amount to as few as 54 million in population in the Senate and 118 million in the House. Really this isn't all that different.
Levinson continues:
This, mostly, isn't a critique on the merits of the content of the amendment, as much as a practical assessment of its chances for passage. However, much of that assessment is based upon two assumptions which seem dubious at best. The first is the assumption of "small state power" which I debunked above. The second assumption is that state legislatures would feel themselves to be "on the same page" with their congressional colleagues in Washington. It seems likely state legislators might be more interested in increasing their own power rather than protecting the power in Washington, particularly as they hold so little power vis-a-vis the Federal government already.
Levinson, however, does eventually hit upon a substantive objection:
This, it seems to me, might actually prove to be the case. If one were interested in doing a cost/benefit analysis on the matter we might find the proposition to be a losing one. It may prove to be so rare a circumstance it isn't worth the rigmarole. However, the Constitution already contains measures which happen rarely if ever. Impeachment and overrides of Presidential vetoes come immediately to mind, as well as the constitutional power given Congress to determine the line of Presidential succession should both the President and Vice President be unable to serve. The infrequency of the potential use of the provision alone isn't really enough to make the claim it is unnecessary. However, the prima facie case for needing the amendment, in a practical "we could actually work this way" sense, still hasn't been met in my mind.
That being said, they do have a theoretical argument and that is something.
Cross posted at Blue Crab Boulevard.
The same people driving the lawsuits that seek to dismantle the Obama administration’s health care overhaul have set their sights on an even bigger target: a constitutional amendment that would allow a vote of the states to overturn any act of Congress.
Under the proposed “repeal amendment,” any federal law or regulation could be repealed if the legislatures of two-thirds of the states voted to do so.
The idea has been propelled by the wave of Republican victories in the midterm elections. First promoted by Virginia lawmakers and Tea Party groups, it has the support of legislative leaders in 12 states. It also won the backing of the incoming House majority leader, Representative Eric Cantor, when it was introduced this month in Congress.
Any proposal to amend the Constitution should be treated to harsh criticism as a matter of course. Amendments seek to change the fundamental "rules of the game" and as such it is a no bad thing if they are put through the crucible. This is particularly true of proposals arising in "the heat of the moment." There is little doubt the widespread unhappiness over the recent health care law was the precipitating event for the appeal of this particular proposal, and there is also little doubt that emotional reactions are often a poor replacement for thought.
That being said, however, it does not follow that should we reject or prejudge any proposal merely because of its timing.
So what are we to make of the proposed change? Obviously, the amendment seeks a way in which the states could undo the work of Congress, albeit only if 34 states were in agreement on the matter. Constitutionally speaking, what purpose could such a change serve? Well, it could be argued the Federal government of today is too far removed and insulated from the check on its power the individual states were supposed to provide. Part of the reason for this, of course, is the result of the aftermath of the Civil War and the death of "state's rights" and "nullification." But some of it can also be traced to the institution of the direct election of U.S. Senators which cut off a once important avenue of national influence for state legislatures, and the passage of the 16th amendment which greatly expanded the scope of Federal power at the expense of the power of the states.
There is considerable merit to such a view. Despite the talk of "devolving power to the states" which has been a constant in Republican circles since the Reagan era, what has actually taken place has been very limited and more of an exercise in the Federal government voluntarily restraining itself rather than a restoration of power to the states. As such, there is the danger the Federal government, left largely free to ignore the states, will structure legislation to enhance its own power at the expense of popular sovereignty.
Such an argument would rest upon accepting the idea that state legislatures, as presently constituted, are more representative than the U.S. Congress. There seems little doubt this is the case. From the standpoint of democratic theory, the fact U.S. Congressional districts have an average of almost 700,000 people in them while the median state legislative district has only 40,000 clearly points to state legislature being more representative. Furthermore, the dominance of the national political party system has resulted in member of Congress who are more wedded to the support (and money) of national interests then they were in the past. Granted, this drift has been a component of our politics for well over 100 years, but that fact does not require us to merely acquiesce to it in the future, or prohibit the people from setting limits on it for the future.
So there would seem to be some theoretical basis for the proposal of such an amendment. The question turns now to be one of how effective the proposal would be in counteracting the ills it sees. This is where critics can play a vital role, assuming they do their job well. From the Times article:
Sanford V. Levinson, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Texas, called the proposal “a really terrible idea” because it would give the same weight to small states as it would to large ones, allowing those with a relatively small proportion of the national population to have outsize influence.
Given the amendment would require 34 states to all sign on to overturn a Federal law, the least amount of population covered by those 34 states would amount to about 100 million out of the 300 million. However, Federal laws can be passed by states congressional delegations which come from states which amount to as few as 54 million in population in the Senate and 118 million in the House. Really this isn't all that different.
Levinson continues:
“There’s not the slightest chance it would get through Congress” or be ratified by the states, he said. “You can bet the ranch that there are enough state legislators in the large states who will not consider it a good idea to reinforce the power of small parochial rural states in which most Americans do not live.”
This, mostly, isn't a critique on the merits of the content of the amendment, as much as a practical assessment of its chances for passage. However, much of that assessment is based upon two assumptions which seem dubious at best. The first is the assumption of "small state power" which I debunked above. The second assumption is that state legislatures would feel themselves to be "on the same page" with their congressional colleagues in Washington. It seems likely state legislators might be more interested in increasing their own power rather than protecting the power in Washington, particularly as they hold so little power vis-a-vis the Federal government already.
Levinson, however, does eventually hit upon a substantive objection:
Even if it were approved, it would be extremely unlikely to have any practical effect, Professor Levinson said. “Any bill that can get through the byzantine, gridlocked process of being approved by two houses and the presidential signature is wildly unlikely to be opposed by two-thirds of the states,” he said.
This, it seems to me, might actually prove to be the case. If one were interested in doing a cost/benefit analysis on the matter we might find the proposition to be a losing one. It may prove to be so rare a circumstance it isn't worth the rigmarole. However, the Constitution already contains measures which happen rarely if ever. Impeachment and overrides of Presidential vetoes come immediately to mind, as well as the constitutional power given Congress to determine the line of Presidential succession should both the President and Vice President be unable to serve. The infrequency of the potential use of the provision alone isn't really enough to make the claim it is unnecessary. However, the prima facie case for needing the amendment, in a practical "we could actually work this way" sense, still hasn't been met in my mind.
That being said, they do have a theoretical argument and that is something.
Cross posted at Blue Crab Boulevard.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
We Are Doomed
I don't particularly care about the issue one way or another, but the amount of time, energy, and passion just spent on "Don't Ask Don't Tell" in a country with as many issues as this one has these days is staggering. It is as if the people who are supposed to be running the country are so overwhelmed by the daunting task in front of them that they will allow themselves to be distracted by something, anything else that comes down the pike.
It is symptomatic of an elite that has little interest in facing up to the real world, which is the same thing as being ruled by fantasists.
Fabulous.
It is symptomatic of an elite that has little interest in facing up to the real world, which is the same thing as being ruled by fantasists.
Fabulous.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
PolitFact's Partisanship
I see a number of folks are now coming on board with the realization that the website known as PolitFact, an arm of the St. Petersburg Times, is in practice a deeply partisan operation. I first looked into PolitFact in October 2009, where I asked the question "Why should I trust PolitFact?"
I then proceeded to show how PolitFact operates, with innuendo, distortions, and by largely deferring to those of the political left. In the cases I looked at, if the Obama administration said something was so it was not to be questioned. To question was to "lie" in their book.
Things haven't changed in a year. Concerning PolitFact's look at Obamacare Karl at Patterico's place finds:
This certainly seems to work hand-in-hand with my assessment of PolitFact as being vulnerable to same variety of ideological group think commonly seen in journalists as a whole.
Their answer? "Because we say so!"We are an independent, nonpartisan news organization. We are not beholden to any government, political party or corporate interest. We are proud to be able to say that we are independent journalists.
I'm sorry but it is possible for people to be corrupted by their own personal ideological motives. In fact, self-interest is kinda the number one way in which truth gets perverted. Now we know from surveys of the profession that self-identifying left leaning journalists outnumber right leaning journalists by almost two to one and are way out of proportion when compared to the American population as a whole. This being true, why is it safe for me as a reader to just assume the bunch of journalists at PolitiFact are playing it straight? The fact is it isn't safe.
I then proceeded to show how PolitFact operates, with innuendo, distortions, and by largely deferring to those of the political left. In the cases I looked at, if the Obama administration said something was so it was not to be questioned. To question was to "lie" in their book.
Things haven't changed in a year. Concerning PolitFact's look at Obamacare Karl at Patterico's place finds:
Then there are those “independent health care experts” PolitiFact consulted. One of them is ”Princeton University professor Uwe Reinhardt, an expert in health care economics.” PolitiFact leaves out his $2,300 donation to Barack Obama. Here’s a bit more of the wit and wisdom of Uwe, to give you a flavor of how impartial he is on the subject of government-run healthcare.
Next up is Jonathan Oberlander, “a professor of health policy at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.” Oberlander is in fact a political scientist who has written a great deal on the politics of the health care issue — which makes him about as much of an expert as I am. (At least Uwe Reinhardt has a Ph.D in economics.) Oberlander’s opinion that a single-payer government financing of health care is not “socialized medicine” tells you what his politics are.
PolitiFact also quotes Maggie Mahar, author of Money-Driven Medicine: The Real Reason Health Care Costs So Much. Well-known among those who follow the issue as a market-hating health care expert, I am not exactly shocked that she told PolitiFact what PolitiFact so obviously wanted to hear. PolitiFact neglects to mention that Maggie Mahar is a fellow at The Century Foundation, a progressive think tank. (They also fail to mention that Mahar’s educational background is in English literature.)
In contrast, PolitiFact dismisses the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute as conservative groups repeating a “lie” [Aside: Cato is libertarian, but we must all look alike to PolitiFact]. Thus, PolitiFact chose not to seek the advice of any experts affiliated with those groups, like Cato’s Michael Cannon, who argues that ObamaCare is a government takeover of the health care system.
This certainly seems to work hand-in-hand with my assessment of PolitFact as being vulnerable to same variety of ideological group think commonly seen in journalists as a whole.
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Urban Heat Islands For Beginners
There are a couple interesting posts floating around out there looking at the Urban Heat Island effect, and its potential impact upon the climate debate.
I realize there are time when science produces results that seem counter-intuitive. However, there are other times when claims are not simple counter-intuitive but are instead foolish. The blinkered response by the "global warming" crowd regarding UHI certainly seems to fall into the latter category.
I realize there are time when science produces results that seem counter-intuitive. However, there are other times when claims are not simple counter-intuitive but are instead foolish. The blinkered response by the "global warming" crowd regarding UHI certainly seems to fall into the latter category.
Dumb On Oh So Many Levels
The Board of Regents for the University of Wisconsin System must not be very bright people. From FIRE:
Indeed, if you bother to read the Seventh Circuit's opinion, it becomes clear this is a well travelled area of law with clearly holding, and recently affirmed, precedents readily apparent. Well, readily apparent to everyone but the tin eared members of the Wisconsin Board of Regents.
This is a particularly stupid course of action for two reasons: 1) In an era of tight financial constraints at the state level, the idea of spending even an additional dime on a quixotic effort to remove First Amendment rights for Catholics and other religious groups, is suspect at best. At worst it shows an "out to lunch"-ness that speaks of the worst kind of ideological fervor imaginable. 2) Given the political environment in Wisconsin presently, where a new hard line Republican governor will be able to work with a new Republican held state legislature on whatever they want to do, this action of the Regents is asinine. Republicans already view academia as suspect, so the Regents decide to act in as spendthrift a manner as possible, and as hostile to religion as possible.
So, the Regents are wrong on the legal merits, and have shown all the political instincts of Herbert Hoover looking at the Great Depression.
Bang up job guys.
The University of Wisconsin System Board of Regents recently filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to review a Seventh Circuit decision that invalidated the University of Wisconsin's policies governing funding for student organizations. The Seventh Circuit held that Wisconsin's policy of denying student activity fee funding to student organizations who wish to use the money for worship, proselytizing, or religious instruction violated the First Amendment. The University of Wisconsin now seeks to undo prior Supreme Court precedent holding that the denial of funding to religious organizations unconstitutionally penalizes groups for their particular viewpoint, and that funding religious groups does not violate the Establishment Clause.
Indeed, if you bother to read the Seventh Circuit's opinion, it becomes clear this is a well travelled area of law with clearly holding, and recently affirmed, precedents readily apparent. Well, readily apparent to everyone but the tin eared members of the Wisconsin Board of Regents.
This is a particularly stupid course of action for two reasons: 1) In an era of tight financial constraints at the state level, the idea of spending even an additional dime on a quixotic effort to remove First Amendment rights for Catholics and other religious groups, is suspect at best. At worst it shows an "out to lunch"-ness that speaks of the worst kind of ideological fervor imaginable. 2) Given the political environment in Wisconsin presently, where a new hard line Republican governor will be able to work with a new Republican held state legislature on whatever they want to do, this action of the Regents is asinine. Republicans already view academia as suspect, so the Regents decide to act in as spendthrift a manner as possible, and as hostile to religion as possible.
So, the Regents are wrong on the legal merits, and have shown all the political instincts of Herbert Hoover looking at the Great Depression.
Bang up job guys.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Stupid And Tyrannical
Ah...the left...smell the evil stupidity:
Got that? Buying health insurance is economic activity so the Feds have the power to make you do so.
But, buying oranges or porn is also economic activity. If Congress felt like making Americans purchase oranges or porn they would have the power?
I'm sorry, but you have to be almost brain dead to find that an argument to be squared with even the most basic notion of individual freedom. Or you have to be a Stalinist. (Six one half dozen the other I know.)
A year ago, no one took seriously the idea that a federal health care mandate was unconstitutional. And the idea that buying health care coverage does not amount to "economic activity" seems preposterous on its face.
Got that? Buying health insurance is economic activity so the Feds have the power to make you do so.
But, buying oranges or porn is also economic activity. If Congress felt like making Americans purchase oranges or porn they would have the power?
I'm sorry, but you have to be almost brain dead to find that an argument to be squared with even the most basic notion of individual freedom. Or you have to be a Stalinist. (Six one half dozen the other I know.)
Sunday, December 12, 2010
The View Out My Back Door
We got about 19 inches of snow yesterday, leaving this three and a half foot drift of snow blocking our backdoor.
Luckily, we can still escape out the front.
Wednesday, December 08, 2010
Our Moral Superiors
What would we do without betters like Aaron Sorkin? On Sarah Palin hunting:
So, the death of this 7 year old makes Sorkin happy.
I, for one, will dance about singling hallelujah when Sorkin shakes off his mortal coil. After all the world will have become all that more humane.
I'm able to make a distinction between you and me without feeling the least bit hypocritical. I don't watch snuff films and you make them. You weren't killing that animal for food or shelter or even fashion, you were killing it for fun. You enjoy killing animals. I can make the distinction between the two of us but I've tried and tried and for the life of me, I can't make a distinction between what you get paid to do and what Michael Vick went to prison for doing. I'm able to make the distinction with no pangs of hypocrisy even though I get happy every time one of you faux-macho shitheads accidentally shoots another one of you in the face.
So, the death of this 7 year old makes Sorkin happy.
I, for one, will dance about singling hallelujah when Sorkin shakes off his mortal coil. After all the world will have become all that more humane.
Saturday, December 04, 2010
Friday, December 03, 2010
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
"Progressives" Shocked To Discover Lockean Roots Of Constitution
Wow, the left is pretty stupid:
Phillips is of course correct about the property requirements originally needed in order to be a voter. The legal concept was that of a "freeholder." Phillips is also correct in his assessment of the reasons why the Founding Fathers (or most of them) supported such a view. Phillips is undoubtedly wrong in thinking such provisions could be re-implemented or would meaningfully address any current deficiency in our voting practices.
However, Phillips is actually engaged in working through the political theory (at least in a limited fashion) and that is a hell of a lot more than his critics seem willing or able to do.
Think Progress (which ironically seems to require very little in the way of thinking):
This is all true, but trite. It in no way is an attempt to asses the reasons why we would make the changes we did; how the changes affected the way politics happens; the relative strengths and weaknesses when compared to the freeholder system; in other words the kind of thinking that should be done when engaged in political theory.
Granted Think Progress doesn't win the award for "I have no idea what I'm talking about stupid." That goes to Crooks and Liars. They quote the same Phillips soundbite above and respond:
What? One man one vote? What does that have to do with the idea of restricting voting to Freeholders? Well, nothing. The poor folks at Crooks and Liars just got themselves confused while they were attempting to parrot another lefty site who were going on about the idea some Tea Parties tossed around about getting rid of direct election of Senators and mentioned that this would mean the principle of one person one vote for U.S. Senators would be violated. (This is so muddled I have no idea what they could be talking about. You cannot have "one man one vote" nationally when both Rhode Island and California both get to vote for two U.S. Senators. And since Reynolds v. Sims in 1964, all state legislatures have to adhere to "one man one vote." Simply giving state legislatures the task of picking U.S. Senators wouldn't alter that.)
The stupidity has given me a headache.
Maybe more later.
Every week, the Tea Party Nation hosts a weekly radio program, calling itself a “home for conservatives.” Two weeks ago, Tea Party Nation President Judson Phillips hosted the program and discussed changes that he felt should be made to voting rights in the United States....
PHILLIPS: The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote. It wasn’t you were just a citizen and you got to vote. Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today. But one of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you’re a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community. If you’re not a property owner, you know, I’m sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners.[Rather moronic emphases removed]
Phillips is of course correct about the property requirements originally needed in order to be a voter. The legal concept was that of a "freeholder." Phillips is also correct in his assessment of the reasons why the Founding Fathers (or most of them) supported such a view. Phillips is undoubtedly wrong in thinking such provisions could be re-implemented or would meaningfully address any current deficiency in our voting practices.
However, Phillips is actually engaged in working through the political theory (at least in a limited fashion) and that is a hell of a lot more than his critics seem willing or able to do.
Think Progress (which ironically seems to require very little in the way of thinking):
Phillips is advocating a policy of voter disenfranchisement that has its roots in the 18th century. When the United States was first founded, ownership of property was one of the requirements to vote in most elections. Many of these restrictions were phased out by the 1820s and replaced with requirements that the voter pays taxes. By 1850, these requirements, too, were phased out.
This is all true, but trite. It in no way is an attempt to asses the reasons why we would make the changes we did; how the changes affected the way politics happens; the relative strengths and weaknesses when compared to the freeholder system; in other words the kind of thinking that should be done when engaged in political theory.
Granted Think Progress doesn't win the award for "I have no idea what I'm talking about stupid." That goes to Crooks and Liars. They quote the same Phillips soundbite above and respond:
Sure, let's just do away with the principle of "one man one vote" altogether! After all, the Roberts Court has now enshrined corporate personhood -- this would be the next logical step.
What? One man one vote? What does that have to do with the idea of restricting voting to Freeholders? Well, nothing. The poor folks at Crooks and Liars just got themselves confused while they were attempting to parrot another lefty site who were going on about the idea some Tea Parties tossed around about getting rid of direct election of Senators and mentioned that this would mean the principle of one person one vote for U.S. Senators would be violated. (This is so muddled I have no idea what they could be talking about. You cannot have "one man one vote" nationally when both Rhode Island and California both get to vote for two U.S. Senators. And since Reynolds v. Sims in 1964, all state legislatures have to adhere to "one man one vote." Simply giving state legislatures the task of picking U.S. Senators wouldn't alter that.)
The stupidity has given me a headache.
Maybe more later.
Monday, November 29, 2010
The New York Times Model
The idea, we have been told from time immemorial it seems, is that a news organization like the New York Times would be dedicated to the principle of objectivity, so it wouldn't matter what the ideological/political proclivities of the individual reporters or editors were. If they voted 90% for one party over another we were never to worry because their objectivity would save the day. If you were to question that assumption based upon, oh I don't know, maybe a rudimentary understanding of human nature, well, you were a bad person who didn't appreciate how hard these journalists work. (Yeah, it was always a non sequitar, but that's what they always said.)
Well, Power Line points to something interesting. When the Climategate documents were released last year, the Times science reporter, presumably with the backing of the Times editors, stated the following policy:
What noble principles!
Yesterday, however, the Times published the following concerning the Wikileaks papers:
Unless, of course, those remarks are made by scientists espousing the pet catastrophe theory of today's left, in which case "mum" is the word.
As Power Line states:
But I'm being silly. Of course, the famous objectivity of the Times will come and save the day. All we need to do now is redefine what objectivity means.
ob·jec·tiv·i·ty
n.
1. The state or quality of being objective.
2. External or material reality.
3. Whatever the New York Times says it is.
Well, Power Line points to something interesting. When the Climategate documents were released last year, the Times science reporter, presumably with the backing of the Times editors, stated the following policy:
"The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won't be posted here."
What noble principles!
Yesterday, however, the Times published the following concerning the Wikileaks papers:
The articles published today and in coming days are based on thousands of United States embassy cables, the daily reports from the field intended for the eyes of senior policy makers in Washington. The New York Times and a number of publications in Europe were given access to the material several weeks ago and agreed to begin publication of articles based on the cables online on Sunday. The Times believes that the documents serve an important public interest, illuminating the goals, successes, compromises and frustrations of American diplomacy in a way that other accounts cannot match....
The question of dealing with classified information is rarely easy, and never to be taken lightly. Editors try to balance the value of the material to public understanding against potential dangers to the national interest. As a general rule we withhold secret information that would expose confidential sources to reprisals or that would reveal operational intelligence that might be useful to adversaries in war. We excise material that might lead terrorists to unsecured weapons material, compromise intelligence-gathering programs aimed at hostile countries, or disclose information about the capabilities of American weapons that could be helpful to an enemy.
On the other hand, we are less likely to censor candid remarks simply because they might cause a diplomatic controversy or embarrass officials.
Unless, of course, those remarks are made by scientists espousing the pet catastrophe theory of today's left, in which case "mum" is the word.
As Power Line states:
Without belaboring the point, let us note simply that the two statements are logically irreconcilable.
But I'm being silly. Of course, the famous objectivity of the Times will come and save the day. All we need to do now is redefine what objectivity means.
ob·jec·tiv·i·ty
n.
1. The state or quality of being objective.
2. External or material reality.
3. Whatever the New York Times says it is.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Giving Thanks
Well, this holiday isn't exactly going to plan. The wife and I are at home instead of being with the rest of the family in St. Louis. The combination of a mouth recovering from a root canal and bad weather on the roads made it impossible to do anything but stay put.
But, while it may not be what I was expecting, I can still give thanks for a tooth that is feeling better (something I share with an elephant), and rejoice that a feast will be had. Granted, a more appropriately sized chicken will replace the turkey, and my wife's Greek style green bean dish is no green bean casserole (thank God), but the pie is pumpkin so that is something.
So, for my American friends and readers: Happy Thanksgiving!
For my non-American friends and readers: Have a nice Thursday!
But, while it may not be what I was expecting, I can still give thanks for a tooth that is feeling better (something I share with an elephant), and rejoice that a feast will be had. Granted, a more appropriately sized chicken will replace the turkey, and my wife's Greek style green bean dish is no green bean casserole (thank God), but the pie is pumpkin so that is something.
So, for my American friends and readers: Happy Thanksgiving!
For my non-American friends and readers: Have a nice Thursday!
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Couldn't Happen To A Nicer Dumber Guy
This is Snarkalicious: Steve Benen Finds the Shooter on the Grassy Knoll
Heh.
If there weren’t so many exciting football games on today I could probably crank out several thousand words on the subject of fever swamp ramblings and overt political showmanship, but why ruin an otherwise perfectly nice Sunday? What Mr. Benen has really stumbled upon, (with the help of Mr. Yglesias) is the shocking fact that, in addition to digging the country out of a vast, black hole of spending, debt and taxation, Republicans would like to win the 2012 presidential race. Yes… shocking, I know.
Heh.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Profiles In Courage
I see the collective weight of the lefty blogosphere has decided to descend upon a 16-year old girl.
Is that a Pulitzer I smell?
(Gleaned with the help of Memeorandum, who obviously have the stomach for more inane shit than I ever could.)
Is that a Pulitzer I smell?
(Gleaned with the help of Memeorandum, who obviously have the stomach for more inane shit than I ever could.)
Monday, November 15, 2010
Idiots For A New Age
Losers of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your... um... well... you have nothing to lose period. 2 Dems claim Huffington stole website idea
That's right. Because no one had thought of putting ideologically based opinions on the Internet before Boyce and Daou came along.
/sarcasm
Two Democratic consultants are accusing Arianna Huffington and her business partner of stealing their idea for the powerhouse liberal website Huffington Post.
Peter Daou and James Boyce charge that Huffington and partner Ken Lerer designed the website from a plan they had presented them, and in doing so, violated a handshake agreement to work together, according to a lawsuit to be filed in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan.
The complaint is a direct challenge to the left’s most important media property from two stalwarts of the progressive movement. And it challenges Huffington’s own oft-told story of coming up with the idea in conversation with Lerer and other friends.
“Huffington has styled herself as a ‘new media’ maven and an expert on the effective deployment of news and celebrity on the Internet in the service of political ends,” says the complaint. “As will be shown at trial, Huffington’s and Lerer’s image with respect to the Huffington Post is founded on false impressions and inaccuracies: They presented the ‘new media’ ideas and plans of Peter Daou and James Boyce as their own in order to raise money for the website and enhance their image, and breached their promises to work with Peter and James to develop the site together.”
That's right. Because no one had thought of putting ideologically based opinions on the Internet before Boyce and Daou came along.
/sarcasm
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Remember, You Heard It Here First
Vindication, it is way too rare an event. From the Sarasota Herald-Tribune: Florida insurers rely on dubious storm model
Long time readers of The Iconic Midwest might remember that I took these RMS people to task almost four years ago (!) for this work. I wrote:
Those guesses have not only been unscientific, but they have been spectacularly wrong:
The details on how the "model" was created in the first place are fascinating in that they really seem to indicate fraud on the part of RMS:
Ah yes, Kerry Emanuel...what are the chances he would have been involved in the RMS debacle? Based upon the tenor of his work (which I have discussed before here, here, here and here) it was almost inevitable he would be involved in this.
The entire article is worth reading, and if you live in Florida it will be enough to send your blood pressure soaring.
Hurricane Katrina extracted a terrifying toll -- 1,200 dead, a premier American city in ruins, and the nation in shock. Insured losses would ultimately cost the property insurance industry $40 billion.
But Katrina did not tear a hole in the financial structure of America's property insurance system as large as the one carved scarcely six weeks later by a largely unknown company called Risk Management Solutions.
RMS, a multimillion-dollar company that helps insurers estimate hurricane losses and other risks, brought four hand-picked scientists together in a Bermuda hotel room.
There, on a Saturday in October 2005, the company gathered the justification it needed to rewrite hurricane risk. Instead of using 120 years of history to calculate the average number of storms each year, RMS used the scientists' work as the basis for a new crystal ball, a computer model that would estimate storms for the next five years.
The change created an $82 billion gap between the money insurers had and what they needed, a hole they spent the next five years trying to fill with rate increases and policy cancellations.
RMS said the change that drove Florida property insurance bills to record highs was based on "scientific consensus."
The reality was quite different.
Today, two of the four scientists present that day no longer support the hurricane estimates they helped generate. Neither do two other scientists involved in later revisions. One says that monkeys could do as well.
In the rush to deploy a new, higher number, they say, the industry skipped the rigors of scientific method. It ignored contradictory evidence and dissent, and created penalties for those who did not do likewise. The industry flouted regulators who called the work biased, the methods ungrounded and the new computer model illegal.
Florida homeowners would have paid more even without RMS' new model. Katrina convinced the industry that hurricanes were getting bigger and more frequent. But it was RMS that first put a number to the increased danger and came up with a model to justify it.
Long time readers of The Iconic Midwest might remember that I took these RMS people to task almost four years ago (!) for this work. I wrote:
Insurance companies are now using the threat of global warming to rip its customers off. Evidently a group called Risk Management Solutions (RMS) supplies the models insurance companies use to get an idea of what their risks and liabilities are in hurricane prone areas. Well, last spring threw out its old models based upon 100 years worth of empirical evidence in favor of a guess; a guess real life hurricane experts call "actually unscientific."
Those guesses have not only been unscientific, but they have been spectacularly wrong:
The new RMS model called for at least 11 hurricanes to come ashore in the United States by the end of 2010, most of them aimed at Florida.
Four hurricanes struck the U.S. None hit the Sunshine State.
RMS stands by its five-year outlook and contends that the risk of hurricanes remains higher than normal. Company officials last week said they would continue to adjust their model as needed, but a single five-year lull does not disprove their results.
Yet a growing number of experts now wonder if the changes spurred by RMS -- and the accompanying spike in insurance premiums -- were justified.
The woman credited with launching the industry of hurricane modeling questions how near-term models were introduced. She accuses RMS of overselling software that lacked sufficient scientific support, and says insurers accepted the output of that model as if it were fact.
"I've never seen the industry so much just hanging on what a handful of scientists or one model would say," said Karen Clark, founder and former CEO of AIR Worldwide, an RMS competitor.
"They're just tools," Clark said.
"They're models.
"They're wrong."
The details on how the "model" was created in the first place are fascinating in that they really seem to indicate fraud on the part of RMS:
The daily papers were still blaring news about Katrina when Jim Elsner received an invitation to stay over a day in Bermuda.
The hurricane expert from Florida State University would be on the island in October for an insurance-sponsored conference on climate change. One of the sponsors, a California-based company called RMS, wanted a private discussion with him and three other attendees.
Their task: Reach consensus on how global weather patterns had changed hurricane activity.
The experts pulled aside by RMS were far from representative of the divided field of tropical cyclone science. They belonged to a camp that believed hurricane activity was on the rise and, key to RMS, shared the contested belief that computer models could accurately predict the change.
Elsner's statistical work on hurricanes and climatology included a model to predict hurricane activity six months in advance, a tool for selling catastrophe bonds and other products to investors.
There was also Tom Knutson, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration meteorologist whose research linking rising carbon dioxide levels to potential storm damage had led to censoring by the Bush White House.
Joining them was British climate physicist Mark Saunders, who argued that insurers could use model predictions from his insurance-industry-funded center to increase profits 30 percent.
The rock star in the room was Kerry Emanuel, the oracle of climate change from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Just two weeks before Katrina, one of the world's leading scientific journals had published Emanuel's concise but frightening paper claiming humanity had changed the weather and doubled the damage potential of cyclones worldwide.
Ah yes, Kerry Emanuel...what are the chances he would have been involved in the RMS debacle? Based upon the tenor of his work (which I have discussed before here, here, here and here) it was almost inevitable he would be involved in this.
The entire article is worth reading, and if you live in Florida it will be enough to send your blood pressure soaring.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Steve Benen = World's Biggest Moron
The sheer ignorance of it all is amazing:
Yep, you heard it here first. Steve Benen is shocked, SHOCKED I TELL YOU, to discover that one branch of the United States government can serve as a check upon another branch of the United States government!
The real scandal is that foolish maroons like Benen are not dismissed out of hand when they say things so stupid a fourteen year old could correct them.
Steve Benen, either resign or prove you can pass high school civics.
If our political system made more sense, this would be an astounding scandal that would dominate the discourse.Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday during a meeting in New York that the new GOP majority in the House will "serve as a check" on the Obama administration, a statement unusual for its blunt disagreement with U.S. policy delivered directly to a foreign leader.
Yep, you heard it here first. Steve Benen is shocked, SHOCKED I TELL YOU, to discover that one branch of the United States government can serve as a check upon another branch of the United States government!
The real scandal is that foolish maroons like Benen are not dismissed out of hand when they say things so stupid a fourteen year old could correct them.
Steve Benen, either resign or prove you can pass high school civics.
Friday, November 05, 2010
Ethical My Aching Ass [UPDATED]
First Amendment anyone? Keith Olbermann suspended after donating to Democrats
Don't get me wrong here. I believe Olbermann is a mean spirited nitwit, but this "ethics" policy is more stupid than Olbermann. I'm sorry but being a journalist, even a really bad one, does not make you a second class citizen. The free exercise of citizenship has to include the ability to "put your money where your mouth is." It's one thing for an organization not engaged in an activity intimately connected to the First Amendment to put restrictions on the free political activities of its employees. Its another for a journalistic operation to do so. Oh, they are free to make whatever policies they want; it is just in the case of MSNBC, or any other organ of the press, such policies are asinine.
UPDATE:
I just loved this from Simon over at Stubborn Facts:
Presumably, before today we were supposed to believe Olbermann was an ethical jackass.
MSNBC host Keith Olbermann has been suspended indefinitely without pay after POLITICO reported that he made three campaign contributions to Democratic candidates.
MSNBC President Phil Griffin said in a statement Friday: “I became aware of Keith's political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay."
Olbermann made campaign contributions to two Arizona members of Congress and failed Kentucky Senate candidate Jack Conway ahead of Tuesday’s election.
Olbermann, who acknowledged the contributions in a statement to POLITICO, made the maximum legal donations of $2,400 apiece to Conway and to Arizona Reps. Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords. He donated to the Arizona pair on Oct. 28 — the same day that Grijalva appeared as a guest on Olbermann’s “Countdown” show.
NBC has a rule against employees contributing to political campaigns, and a wide range of news organizations prohibit political contributions — considering it a breach of journalistic independence to contribute to the candidates they cover.
Don't get me wrong here. I believe Olbermann is a mean spirited nitwit, but this "ethics" policy is more stupid than Olbermann. I'm sorry but being a journalist, even a really bad one, does not make you a second class citizen. The free exercise of citizenship has to include the ability to "put your money where your mouth is." It's one thing for an organization not engaged in an activity intimately connected to the First Amendment to put restrictions on the free political activities of its employees. Its another for a journalistic operation to do so. Oh, they are free to make whatever policies they want; it is just in the case of MSNBC, or any other organ of the press, such policies are asinine.
UPDATE:
I just loved this from Simon over at Stubborn Facts:
At first blush, this is all to the good: Olberman is vile, a poison to public discourse, and so there's a certain satisfaction seeing him get slapped. Alas, on closer inspection, it's Griffin who's the jerk in this story. Just what are those policies and standards that Olberman violated? "Anyone working for NBC News who takes part in civic or other outside activities may find that these activities jeopardize his or her standing as an impartial journalist because they may create the appearance of a conflict of interest. Such activities may include participation in or contributions to political campaigns or groups that espouse controversial positions."
Is this a joke? How could anything jeopardize the "standing as an impartial journalist" of Keith Olberman, who is one of the most viciously partisan hacks ever to defile a television studio? Olberman is paid to be partial, and now he's being suspended for endangering an impartial reputation that he's never had?
Presumably, before today we were supposed to believe Olbermann was an ethical jackass.
Thursday, November 04, 2010
First They Came For The Toys...
Since when has San Francisco been run by Mayor Burgermeister Meisterburger?
George Will sums it up:
The point of progressivism is that the people must progress up from their backwardness. They cannot do so unless they are pulled toward the light by a government composed of the enlightened - experts coolly devoted to facts and science.
The progressive agenda is actually legitimated by the incomprehension and anger it elicits: If the people do not resent and resist what is being done on their behalf, what is being done is not properly ambitious. If it is comprehensible to its intended beneficiaries, it is the work of insufficiently advanced thinkers...
...Responding to [these kinds of ideas], George Mason University economist Don Boudreaux agreed that interest-group liberalism has indeed been leavened by idea-driven liberalism. Which is the problem.
"These ideas," Boudreaux says, "are almost exclusively about how other people should live their lives. These are ideas about how one group of people (the politically successful) should engineer everyone else's contracts, social relations, diets, habits, and even moral sentiments." Liberalism's ideas are "about replacing an unimaginably large multitude of diverse and competing ideas . . . with a relatively paltry set of 'Big Ideas' that are politically selected, centrally imposed, and enforced by government, not by the natural give, take and compromise of the everyday interactions of millions of people."
You do not have to agree with the above criticisms, but there is no doubt they are a substantial, measured and rational response to the political vision offered by the political left in this country. Sure, for most people this unease may be only felt in an inchoate manner, a sense of unease and dissatisfaction with the path the Democrats have followed the last two years, but there is little doubt about the message voters sent to Washington and their state houses on Tuesday. They want something else.
The reaction from the left has been a combination of denial, hissy-fits, and crap like this:
Republican voters are dreadful unlettered hillbillies who poo in their trucker caps and only have sex with chickens because the goats move too fast
Gee, where can I learn more about this sophisticated and exciting political world-view? Is a full frontal lobotomy necessary or only recommended?
But, really, Will is right. The political left today does seem to operate and think of themselves as a "vanguard party" and the greatest mass of people they believe are unwashed and child-like peasants who need to be taught by Democrats not to screw the livestock and how to feed their children. It's a creed that increasingly makes disdainful moralizing pronouncements about "average" Americans so severe they would make a Puritan blush, and then they are shocked, SHOCKED I SAY!, when people don't want to vote for them.
It's no mystery to me.
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
IMW Report Card
OK, lets check the old election predictions from your friendly neighborhood blogger:
Hmm. I didn't do so well here. Oh, I didn't miss the Republicans taking the House (like most Political Scientists did back in 1994), but I missed the margin of victory rather badly. There is still some final counting to do, but it looks like the Dems will lose 64-65 seats. I am shocked at how Democratic support simply collapsed in the Midwest. The implications of that could be huge down the road, and I'm sure there are plenty of Democratic analysts trying to figure out how to reverse fortunes there.
As of right now it looks like I nailed this one. (We are still waiting for Washington state's numbers, like we wait every election. They really ought to update their systems up there. A team of five blind Capuchin monks could do the job quicker; five Capuchin monkeys quicker still.)
So, prediction wise, the night wasn't a total loss. I give myself a B-.
House: Republicans 227 Democrats 208 (Dems lose 48 seats)
Hmm. I didn't do so well here. Oh, I didn't miss the Republicans taking the House (like most Political Scientists did back in 1994), but I missed the margin of victory rather badly. There is still some final counting to do, but it looks like the Dems will lose 64-65 seats. I am shocked at how Democratic support simply collapsed in the Midwest. The implications of that could be huge down the road, and I'm sure there are plenty of Democratic analysts trying to figure out how to reverse fortunes there.
Senate: Democrats 53 Republicans 47 (Dems lose 5 seats)
As of right now it looks like I nailed this one. (We are still waiting for Washington state's numbers, like we wait every election. They really ought to update their systems up there. A team of five blind Capuchin monks could do the job quicker; five Capuchin monkeys quicker still.)
So, prediction wise, the night wasn't a total loss. I give myself a B-.
Monday, November 01, 2010
I'm Supposed To Be Sad About This?
The only phrase that comes to mind here is WTF? From Think Progress:
So, with the help of Medicaid, a young woman kicks cancer, and is now planning to BUY A HOUSE, and as a result needs to raise cash for a down payment.
Yet, for some unknown reason, I'm supposed to be crying a river here. Why? Because in this day and age someone is still expected to put a down payment on a new home?
Oh, the humanity!
Every single day, President Obama receives a special memorandum with “10 pieces of correspondence addressed to” him from Americans of all walks of life, a tradition he has kept up since he made the request to receive these letters on the second day of his presidency.
In January of this year, Obama read a letter from Jennifer Cline, a 28 year-old woman living in Monroe, Michigan. Cline informed Obama that she and her husband had both lost their jobs in 2007 and fallen on hard times as a result. “I lost my job, my health benefits and my self-worth in a matter of five days,” she wrote. Following the loss of her job, Cline “was diagnosed with two types of skin cancer, and she had no health insurance. She signed up for Medicaid, and treatment was successful. She went back to college after her unemployment benefit was extended.” She hoped that in “just a couple of years we will be in a great spot.”
After reading the letter, Obama chose to reply with a handwritten note on White House stationary. He wrote, “Thanks for the very kind and inspiring letter. I know times are tough, but knowing there are folks out there like you and your husband gives me confidence that things will keep getting better!”
But things, unfortunately, did not get better. Crunched by the costs of a down payment on her home and cancer treatments, Cline has been forced to sell her letter from the president to earn some money.
So, with the help of Medicaid, a young woman kicks cancer, and is now planning to BUY A HOUSE, and as a result needs to raise cash for a down payment.
Yet, for some unknown reason, I'm supposed to be crying a river here. Why? Because in this day and age someone is still expected to put a down payment on a new home?
Oh, the humanity!
More On Election Predictions
For those watching the poll numbers (particularly the last Gallup generic ballot with had the GOP up 15 points - yikes - on the Democrats) my predictions seem relatively positive for the Democrats. (Heavy on the relativity.)
Why is that? Well, simply put, I do not believe the poll numbers are going to translate into the kinds of losses I see being forecast. (Some are saying an 80 seat GOP gain is possible!) I really think it is more likely that we will see an election akin to the 1958 or 1974 elections; elections where the party of the sitting President (i.e. Republicans during the Eisenhower and Ford admins) lost big. However, they only lost 48 seats in each election, even though in 1958 unemployment had risen over 50% in two years, and the 1974 election was less than three months after the Nixon resignation. I have a hard time believing we will see a repudiation of the Democrats on a vastly larger scale. (And, yes, the lost of over 58 seats would be an outright repudiation.)
The reactions from the Democratic faithful runs the gamut from uneducated anger to resignation, but denial is noticeably absent.
Still, there are those that try to see the glass as half-full, like Marc Ambinder:
Well, at least on the national politics side, *I* think the Democrats can reach some of that.
Why is that? Well, simply put, I do not believe the poll numbers are going to translate into the kinds of losses I see being forecast. (Some are saying an 80 seat GOP gain is possible!) I really think it is more likely that we will see an election akin to the 1958 or 1974 elections; elections where the party of the sitting President (i.e. Republicans during the Eisenhower and Ford admins) lost big. However, they only lost 48 seats in each election, even though in 1958 unemployment had risen over 50% in two years, and the 1974 election was less than three months after the Nixon resignation. I have a hard time believing we will see a repudiation of the Democrats on a vastly larger scale. (And, yes, the lost of over 58 seats would be an outright repudiation.)
The reactions from the Democratic faithful runs the gamut from uneducated anger to resignation, but denial is noticeably absent.
Still, there are those that try to see the glass as half-full, like Marc Ambinder:
So let's stipulate that the Democrats will be heartbroken come Tuesday. But can we set a baseline level of expectations as to what would constitute the LEAST worst night they could have? Here's what I'd suggest:
-If Democrats prevent Republicans from picking up MORE than 50 House seats...
-If Democrats retain their Senate majority WITHOUT Joe Biden having to trek down to the Hill and cast the tie-breaking vote...
-If Democrats pick up/keep at least three of the following four governors' mansions--Colorado, Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania--or two of the preceding states AND if Bill White comes within 8 points of beating incumbent Gov. Rick Perry in Texas ...
-If austerity ballot measures in Colorado fail to pass and pot legalization does pass in California ...
Well, at least on the national politics side, *I* think the Democrats can reach some of that.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Election Predictions
I'm getting this out of the way early.
House: Republicans 227 Democrats 208 (Dems lose 48 seats)
Senate: Democrats 53 Republicans 47 (Dems lose 5 seats - and, yes, I'm not pretending the "independents" are actually independent.
House: Republicans 227 Democrats 208 (Dems lose 48 seats)
Senate: Democrats 53 Republicans 47 (Dems lose 5 seats - and, yes, I'm not pretending the "independents" are actually independent.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
NPR Proves It Ought Not Exist
The disgraceful behavior of (so called) National (so called) Public Radio in firing one of its journalists for not being politically correct enough has shown anyone who ever doubted it that it simply cannot be saved. NPR rejects The Constitution and it's protections, specifically because NPR favors some Americans over others...thus I believe American have the right, or duty, to reject NPR.
I've never been a big fan of Gov. Huckabee, but he has it right here. I can only hope this acts as an additional rallying cry for centrists and conservatives as they go to the polls in a couple of weeks.
Really, I have just had it. I hope the Democrats get their asses handed to them in November. I'm tired of having to listen to the inanities of under-educated nitwits like Steve Benen who labor continuously under the misapprehension that they somehow constitute an "elite" who ought to be listened to. Listen up folks; you are not an elite. Real elites don't have "credentials," they have actual intellectual abilities; real elites just don't say they want a free exchange of ideas, they actually allow for such a free exchange without the threat of punishment for deviating from some preordained orthodoxy; real elites are smart enough to recognize the issues that matter to them may not be the same as what matters to people who actually work for a living; a real elite doesn't act as if their status as elites was dependent upon denigrating those who work for a living when they disagree with you; basically, a real elite would be everything the chattering left of today is not.
In the wake of NPR's firing of contributor Juan Williams over comments about Muslims, Mike Huckabee is calling on the next Congress to cut the radio network's funding when it convenes next year.
"NPR has discredited itself as a forum for free speech and a protection of the First Amendment rights of all and has solidified itself as the purveyor of politically correct pabulum and protector of views that lean left," Huckabee said in a statement provided to CNN.
Williams told Fox News host Bill O'Reilly on Monday that he gets "worried" and "nervous" on flights when he sees people wearing "Muslim garb." NPR terminated Williams' contract on Wednesday evening.
Huckabee said he "will no longer accept interview requests from NPR as long as they are going to practice a form of censorship, and since NPR is funded with public funds, it is a form of censorship."
I've never been a big fan of Gov. Huckabee, but he has it right here. I can only hope this acts as an additional rallying cry for centrists and conservatives as they go to the polls in a couple of weeks.
Really, I have just had it. I hope the Democrats get their asses handed to them in November. I'm tired of having to listen to the inanities of under-educated nitwits like Steve Benen who labor continuously under the misapprehension that they somehow constitute an "elite" who ought to be listened to. Listen up folks; you are not an elite. Real elites don't have "credentials," they have actual intellectual abilities; real elites just don't say they want a free exchange of ideas, they actually allow for such a free exchange without the threat of punishment for deviating from some preordained orthodoxy; real elites are smart enough to recognize the issues that matter to them may not be the same as what matters to people who actually work for a living; a real elite doesn't act as if their status as elites was dependent upon denigrating those who work for a living when they disagree with you; basically, a real elite would be everything the chattering left of today is not.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
"The Suckiest Bunch Of Sucks Who Ever Sucked"
I've found something new to love: Republicans Kind of Suck … Which Is Why They Will Win Huge in November
Yep. That sure sucks alright.
[L]et’s look at what led us to the political situation we’re in. During the second term of the Bush presidency people just got fed up with Republicans. They were idiots, they were no good at the whole fiscal conservatism thing (which is sort of the whole point of them), we had these wars that seemed to be going nowhere, and the economy was beginning to fail. They sucked, and people were sick and tired of them.
Thus people turned to the Democrats. And Obama.
Let’s just say they also sucked.
AMERICANS: “So, the economy is pretty bad and there’s high employment. You think you can do something about that?”
DEMOCRATS AND OBAMA: “We can spend a trillion dollars we don’t have on pork and stuff.”
AMERICANS: “No … that’s not what we want. We’d really like you not to do that.”
DEMOCRATS: “You’re stupid. We’re doing it anyway.”
AMERICANS: “That’s not going to help us get jobs!”
DEMOCRATS: “Sure it will; millions of them … though they may be invisible. You’ll have to trust us they exist. And guess what else we’ll do: We’ll create a giant new government program to take over health care.”
AMERICANS: “That has nothing to do with jobs!”
DEMOCRATS: “We don’t care about that anymore. We really want a giant new health care program. We’re sure you’ll love it.”
AMERICANS: “Don’t pass that bill. You hear me? Absolutely do not pass that bill.”
DEMOCRATS: “Believe me; you’ll love it. It has … well, I don’t know what exactly is in the bill, but we’re sure it’s great.”
AMERICANS: “Listen to me: DO. NOT. PASS. THAT. BILL.”
DEMOCRATS: “You’re not the boss of me! We’re doing it anyway!”
AMERICANS: “Look what you did! Now the economy is way worse, we’re even deeper in debt, and we have a bunch of new laws we don’t want!”
DEMOCRATS: “You’re racist.”
AMERICANS: “Wha … How is that racist?”
DEMOCRATS: “Now you’re getting violent! Stop being violent and racist, you ignorant hillbillies! And remember to vote Democrat in November.”
So the Democrats sucked. But not just plain old, usual politician sucked, but epic levels of suck where it’s hard to find an analogue in human history that conveys the same level of suckitude. It was sheer incompetence plus arrogance — and those things do not complement each other well. We’re talking sucking that distorts time and space like a black hole.
It’s Godzilla-smashing-through-a-city level of suck — but a really patronizing Godzilla who says you’re just too stupid and hateful to see all the buildings he’s saved or created as he smashes everything apart. Or, to use Obama’s favorite analogy, you have a car stuck in ditch, so you call the mechanic, but the only tool he brings with him is a sledgehammer. And then he smashes your car to pieces and charges you $100,000 for his service. Finally, he calls you racist for complaining.
Yep. That sure sucks alright.
It's Official: The Chattering Left Has Lost Their Freakin' Minds
I swear to God I at first thought they were trying to be ironic in the following. It begins with the usual fevered ramblings from the New York Times: Secretive Republican Donors Are Planning Ahead
A secretive network of Republican donors is heading to the Palm Springs area for a long weekend in January, but it will not be to relax after a hard-fought election — it will be to plan for the next one.
Koch Industries, the longtime underwriter of libertarian causes from the Cato Institute in Washington to the ballot initiative that would suspend California’s landmark law capping greenhouse gases, is planning a confidential meeting at the Rancho Las Palmas Resort and Spa to, as an invitation says, “develop strategies to counter the most severe threats facing our free society and outline a vision of how we can foster a renewal of American free enterprise and prosperity.”
The invitation, sent to potential new participants, offers a rare peek at the Koch network of the ultrawealthy and the politically well-connected, its far-reaching agenda to enlist ordinary Americans to its cause, and its desire for the utmost secrecy.
Oh, good Lord. Not this crap again. It's bad enough that you have pinhead idiots like Alex Jones running around with conspiracy theories about how the Bilderbergers are going to enslave the planet (WARNING: Your IQ may drop 50 points if you click over and read that nonsense!), do we have to have the "paper of record" concoct a Republican only version of the same conspiracy theory?
Where is the irony? Well, the irony comes in when people who go in for the Republicans as Bildebergers conspiracy theory decry Republicans as conspiracy theorists for being Bildebergian.
It would be impossible to make up this stuff.
First, you have Yglesias bemoaning the "paranoid style" of the Koch brothers, supposedly because they say one of the reasons they want to confab is "...to review strategies for combating the multitude of public policies that threaten to destroy America as we know it." I'm assuming Yglesias has never received a fundraising letter from either the Republicans (ha!) or the Democrats. Such rhetoric is not unknown, it is positively ubiquitous. As such, the "paranoid style" (if that is what it is) should be recognized as what it is; namely, the way we do politics in a democratic society.
Or, you can read Chait in TNR wail:
I usually tend to think the liberals can be a little paranoid when they imagine that there's a cohesive elite of super-rich Republicans consciously pulling the strong of the political system.
As opposed to what exactly? Is Chait seriously trying to argue that Democrats never get together to discuss the best ways to win elections and influence the creation of public policy? What planet does he come from? On the planet I come from anyone who wants to succeed at politics thinks about it beforehand, and talks (conspires?) with others who hold similar goals and values.
But, maybe Chait is right and the Democrats really don't do this. This could be the explanation as to why their recent policy proposals have been, frankly, pretty awful. Perhaps they haven't thought about any of this beforehand and they are simply making it up as they go along.
Of course Chait knows the Democrats do this sort of thing. It's just that, for him, when Democrats do it they are acting responsibly. When Republicans do it, it is "the American social and financial elite [being] in thrall to insane conspiracy theories."
And, really, he wasn't trying to be ironic.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Please. I Beg You. Don't Make Me Sympathize With Rand Paul
This blog has never been a friend of Ron Paul. We like it that way.
In one of the rare instances where visiting the sins of the father upon the son made sense, I could cheerfully dismiss the Rand Paul senate race. In fact, I was happy that I did not live in Kentucky so I could be far removed from the Paulian nonsense.
But what did the Democrat in the race do? He launched an attack on Paul so despicable that even I had to say "This is simply vicious and wrong." Hell, even Democrat Claire McCaskill called it "very dangerous." I'd like to think she didn't just mean in the sense that it risks backfiring badly. This year what I'd like to have happen pretty much never will.
In one of the rare instances where visiting the sins of the father upon the son made sense, I could cheerfully dismiss the Rand Paul senate race. In fact, I was happy that I did not live in Kentucky so I could be far removed from the Paulian nonsense.
But what did the Democrat in the race do? He launched an attack on Paul so despicable that even I had to say "This is simply vicious and wrong." Hell, even Democrat Claire McCaskill called it "very dangerous." I'd like to think she didn't just mean in the sense that it risks backfiring badly. This year what I'd like to have happen pretty much never will.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Reality Check
For all the hemming and hawing you hear about "rising" anti-Islamic crime in this country the reality is being Muslim in the United States is a picnic compared to being Jewish.
For the year 2008, the last we have data for, there were 1519 incidents of "hate crimes" committed against person(s) based upon their religion:
6.9% were directed towards Muslims;
8.6% were directed towards Christians;
0.9% were directed towards atheists/agnostics
66.7% were directed towards Jews.
Based upon the total number of adherents for the various faiths we can say that in 2008:
1 out of every 12,848 Muslims was the victim of a hate crime;
1 out of every 1,323,679 Christians was the victim of a hate crime;
1 out of every 257,571 atheists/agnostics was the victim of a hate crime;
1 out of every 2646 Jews was the victim of a hate crime;
It's funny how you never hear the left complaining about anti-Semitism, isn't it?
For the year 2008, the last we have data for, there were 1519 incidents of "hate crimes" committed against person(s) based upon their religion:
6.9% were directed towards Muslims;
8.6% were directed towards Christians;
0.9% were directed towards atheists/agnostics
66.7% were directed towards Jews.
Based upon the total number of adherents for the various faiths we can say that in 2008:
1 out of every 12,848 Muslims was the victim of a hate crime;
1 out of every 1,323,679 Christians was the victim of a hate crime;
1 out of every 257,571 atheists/agnostics was the victim of a hate crime;
1 out of every 2646 Jews was the victim of a hate crime;
It's funny how you never hear the left complaining about anti-Semitism, isn't it?
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
I Refuse To Believe Most Political Scientists Are This Stupid...[UPDATED]
...but when prominent ones publish such nonsense I begin to doubt that belief:
So, here we have a hypothesis: military occupation causes suicide attacks.
So where have the United States been "occupiers" since 1900?
PHILIPPINES
CUBA
PUERTO RICO
GUAM
NICARAGUA
SAMOA
HAWAII
PANAMA
HONDURAS
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
MEXICO
HAITI
RUSSIA
GUATEMALA
EL SALVADOR
GERMANY
KOREA
JAPAN
VIETNAM
How many of these occupations resulted in suicide attacks against civilian populations? The answer seems to be zero.
Of course, there were other occupations. I wonder how those might be different?
Wikipedia lists the following countries has having experienced suicide attacks:
Afghanistan
Algeria
Egypt
Iran
Iraq
Israel
Lebanon
Pakistan
Russia (Chechnya)
Sri Lanka
United States (9/11 attacks)
Now, Dr. Papes expects you to believe military occupation is the dominant similarity in the above list.
So, what is it that causes occupations in countries that just so happen to be Islamic to spawn suicide attacks, when occupations in the non-Islamic countries did not generate such attacks? Obviously, the prima facie case for Dr. Papes "hypothesis" is simply lacking.
Like I said, nonsense. Very stupid nonsense.
This is what happens when someone allows their ideological attachments to overwhelm reality, honesty and common sense.
UPDATE:
Proving that the modern Left is almost entirely brain-dead, the usual suspects buy this crapola hook, line and sinker.
Given their ability to ignore evidence to keep their ideological preferences unchallenged, I believe it is fair to label the Lefties as positively anti-intellectual.
Since 2004, the number of suicide attacks—whether within a country or transnational—has grown with shocking speed. Through a close analysis of suicide campaigns by Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon, Israel, Chechnya, and Sri Lanka, the authors provide powerful new evidence that, contrary to popular and dangerously mistaken belief, only a tiny minority of these attacks are motivated solely by religion. Instead, the root cause is foreign military occupation, which triggers secular and religious people alike to carry out suicide attacks.
So, here we have a hypothesis: military occupation causes suicide attacks.
So where have the United States been "occupiers" since 1900?
PHILIPPINES
CUBA
PUERTO RICO
GUAM
NICARAGUA
SAMOA
HAWAII
PANAMA
HONDURAS
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC
MEXICO
HAITI
RUSSIA
GUATEMALA
EL SALVADOR
GERMANY
KOREA
JAPAN
VIETNAM
How many of these occupations resulted in suicide attacks against civilian populations? The answer seems to be zero.
Of course, there were other occupations. I wonder how those might be different?
Wikipedia lists the following countries has having experienced suicide attacks:
Afghanistan
Algeria
Egypt
Iran
Iraq
Israel
Lebanon
Pakistan
Russia (Chechnya)
Sri Lanka
United States (9/11 attacks)
Now, Dr. Papes expects you to believe military occupation is the dominant similarity in the above list.
So, what is it that causes occupations in countries that just so happen to be Islamic to spawn suicide attacks, when occupations in the non-Islamic countries did not generate such attacks? Obviously, the prima facie case for Dr. Papes "hypothesis" is simply lacking.
Like I said, nonsense. Very stupid nonsense.
This is what happens when someone allows their ideological attachments to overwhelm reality, honesty and common sense.
UPDATE:
Proving that the modern Left is almost entirely brain-dead, the usual suspects buy this crapola hook, line and sinker.
Given their ability to ignore evidence to keep their ideological preferences unchallenged, I believe it is fair to label the Lefties as positively anti-intellectual.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Krugman: "Deficit? What Deficit?"
Evidently, the sky is orange in Paul Krugman's world:
This is what is known in the real world as a lie.
For the 2009 budget (i.e. the last submitted by Bush) the total outlay of the Federal Budget was $3.1 trillion. For the first two years of the Obama administration the outlays were $3.6 trillion and $3.8 trillion. Thus, when compared to the baseline 2009 budget, the Obama administration spent an additional $1.2 trillion. Let's compare that with other two year periods since 1998 shall we? (data)
1998: $100 Million
1999: $100 Million
2000: $100 Million
2001: $300 Million
2002: $300 Million
2003: $400 Million
2004: $500 Million
2005: $300 Million
2006: $500 Million
2007: $700 Million
2008: $300 Million
2009: $500 Million
2010: $1.2 Trillion
2011: $1.2 Trillion
Thus I refute Krugman.
Here’s the narrative you hear everywhere: President Obama has presided over a huge expansion of government, but unemployment has remained high. And this proves that government spending can’t create jobs.
Here’s what you need to know: The whole story is a myth. There never was a big expansion of government spending.
This is what is known in the real world as a lie.
For the 2009 budget (i.e. the last submitted by Bush) the total outlay of the Federal Budget was $3.1 trillion. For the first two years of the Obama administration the outlays were $3.6 trillion and $3.8 trillion. Thus, when compared to the baseline 2009 budget, the Obama administration spent an additional $1.2 trillion. Let's compare that with other two year periods since 1998 shall we? (data)
1998: $100 Million
1999: $100 Million
2000: $100 Million
2001: $300 Million
2002: $300 Million
2003: $400 Million
2004: $500 Million
2005: $300 Million
2006: $500 Million
2007: $700 Million
2008: $300 Million
2009: $500 Million
2010: $1.2 Trillion
2011: $1.2 Trillion
Thus I refute Krugman.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Jeffrey Goldberg: An Embarrassment To The Enlightenment
Here is what passes for civilized discourse for The Atlantic.
How did America produce someone as thoroughly pig ignorant and intolerant of political differences as Goldberg?
Actually, that isn't a rhetorical question. The Left in this country is as convinced of its moral superiority as any Robespierre or Lenin ever was. Disagreeing with them, they believe, is simply proof of your moral deviancy. Thus the name calling; thus the attempts to punish thought and speech they don't care for; thus the non-stop campaigns to demonize and marginalize.
In every sense it is illiberal. Unfortunately, we now live in an age where a 140 character tweet is deemed sufficient space to issue one's opinion on the value and worth of another human being.
Really, how did American Judaism produce this vile, racist creature?
How did America produce someone as thoroughly pig ignorant and intolerant of political differences as Goldberg?
Actually, that isn't a rhetorical question. The Left in this country is as convinced of its moral superiority as any Robespierre or Lenin ever was. Disagreeing with them, they believe, is simply proof of your moral deviancy. Thus the name calling; thus the attempts to punish thought and speech they don't care for; thus the non-stop campaigns to demonize and marginalize.
In every sense it is illiberal. Unfortunately, we now live in an age where a 140 character tweet is deemed sufficient space to issue one's opinion on the value and worth of another human being.
Saturday, October 09, 2010
This Is What A Principled Man Sounds Like
This is a letter from Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara, Hal Lewis to the American Physical Society:
WUWT calls this "on the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door."
We should be so lucky.
From: Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara
To: Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society
6 October 2010
Dear Curt:
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago).
Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?
How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:
1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate
2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.
3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.
4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.
5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.
6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.
APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?
I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.
I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.
Hal
WUWT calls this "on the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door."
We should be so lucky.
Desperation Isn't A Strategy
Democrats and their journalist familiars have a new way to scare Americans. Republicans have unusual hobbies! Why is This GOP House Candidate Dressed as a Nazi?
OMG! An historical re-enactor! Run for the hills! You might learn something!
And don't think this is anything other than that. Buried in the story, way beneath reminding people that the Nazi were really bad - where would we be without journalists to remind us of that? - we read:
God only knows what the author of this piece, one Joshua Green, is smoking if he believes veterans are "upset" with re-enactors. Which kinda reinforces just how, frankly, stupid he is. After all, the closest he seems to have ever been to the military is his work on The Onion. Trust me Joshua, the kinds of people veterans really have no respect for are journalists like yourself who, presumably because of the multitude of paper cuts they have received in their editorial duties, believe they can speak for them.
I spent three years working at an historical park which attracted a lot of veterans, and not a few number of re-enactors doing Civil War and World War II events. Believe it or not when they performed a WWII era assault they had enemy Nazis they "attacked." Maybe Mr. Green is so ignorant about the conditions of war he believes a re-enacted battle could be held with participants from one side only. (When you come across something this moronic anything is possible I guess.) In any event, the re-enactment attracted lots of WWII vets and not one of them complained about the presence of German re-enactors. I guess its too bad Joshua Green wasn't around to tell them how they were supposed to feel.
I'll cheerfully admit re-enactors and other amateur historian types who really get into this stuff are a little odd. Anyone who ever read Tony Horwitz's fantastic book Confederates In The Attic knows that. Some of them are downright nut jobs. But so are some members of Congress. The guy who had an entire German Panzer division in miniature, which was set up in an exhibit room at the park, was not your average Joe to be sure. However, the exhibit itself attracted hundreds of vets who were interested in seeing that. Maybe Green thinks they too are secret Nazis?
Maybe I am too! After all, I can see wargames in the closet behind me. I have played the Nazi side countless times! So I must have fascist sympathies, right?
It gets worse then that! I've played the USSR side too, so I must also have commie sympathies. I've also played the British in Revolutionary War games, so I'm a Benedict Arnold as well; I've played the Confederate side in many a game, so chalk me up for a racist as well. Hell, I've even played the Saruman side in the Battle of Helm's Deep. Just how evil can one sonofabitch be!!??
BTW: Althouse points out that Green, in addition to being a nitwit, is also an unethical journalist.
An election year already notable for its menagerie of extreme and unusual candidates can add another one: Rich Iott, the Republican nominee for Congress from Ohio's 9th District, and a Tea Party favorite, who for years donned a German Waffen SS uniform and participated in Nazi re-enactments.
OMG! An historical re-enactor! Run for the hills! You might learn something!
And don't think this is anything other than that. Buried in the story, way beneath reminding people that the Nazi were really bad - where would we be without journalists to remind us of that? - we read:
In a follow-up email today, Iott seemed at pains to address concerns that his conduct may have alienated veterans groups but made no specific mention of possible offense to Jews or human rights groups: "Never, in any of my reenacting of military history, have I meant any disrespect to anyone who served in our military or anyone who has been affected by the tragedy of war. In fact, I have immense respect for veterans who served our country valiantly, and my respect of the military and our veterans is one of the reasons I have actively studied military history throughout my life." He added that he has participated in re-enactments as a Civil War Union infantryman, a World War I dough boy and World War II American infantryman and paratrooper.
God only knows what the author of this piece, one Joshua Green, is smoking if he believes veterans are "upset" with re-enactors. Which kinda reinforces just how, frankly, stupid he is. After all, the closest he seems to have ever been to the military is his work on The Onion. Trust me Joshua, the kinds of people veterans really have no respect for are journalists like yourself who, presumably because of the multitude of paper cuts they have received in their editorial duties, believe they can speak for them.
I spent three years working at an historical park which attracted a lot of veterans, and not a few number of re-enactors doing Civil War and World War II events. Believe it or not when they performed a WWII era assault they had enemy Nazis they "attacked." Maybe Mr. Green is so ignorant about the conditions of war he believes a re-enacted battle could be held with participants from one side only. (When you come across something this moronic anything is possible I guess.) In any event, the re-enactment attracted lots of WWII vets and not one of them complained about the presence of German re-enactors. I guess its too bad Joshua Green wasn't around to tell them how they were supposed to feel.
I'll cheerfully admit re-enactors and other amateur historian types who really get into this stuff are a little odd. Anyone who ever read Tony Horwitz's fantastic book Confederates In The Attic knows that. Some of them are downright nut jobs. But so are some members of Congress. The guy who had an entire German Panzer division in miniature, which was set up in an exhibit room at the park, was not your average Joe to be sure. However, the exhibit itself attracted hundreds of vets who were interested in seeing that. Maybe Green thinks they too are secret Nazis?
Maybe I am too! After all, I can see wargames in the closet behind me. I have played the Nazi side countless times! So I must have fascist sympathies, right?
It gets worse then that! I've played the USSR side too, so I must also have commie sympathies. I've also played the British in Revolutionary War games, so I'm a Benedict Arnold as well; I've played the Confederate side in many a game, so chalk me up for a racist as well. Hell, I've even played the Saruman side in the Battle of Helm's Deep. Just how evil can one sonofabitch be!!??
BTW: Althouse points out that Green, in addition to being a nitwit, is also an unethical journalist.
Thursday, October 07, 2010
Conscience Of An Idiot
Paul Krugman has his panties in a wad again: Tunnel Of Idiocy
Oh, I see. When the project in question affects New Jersey commuters like Paul Krugman who wish to zip into Manhattan to lead their oh so important lives, it comes down to a matter of tradeoffs; tradeoffs that should not include, evidently, the economic feasibility of the project itself. "What is 8 billion dollar when Paul Krugman could potentially save 15 minutes in traffic??"
Thrilling.
Of course, when the project involved runs up against potential (if almost imaginary) environmental concerns favored by Democrats, well, tradeoffs be damned! There are snails or slugs or amoebas to save! And no amount of jobs, economic development, or benefit to the public good is enough to tip the balance. Plus, you never read a Krugman column bemoaning the situation.
But then, replacing a decrepit lift bridge in Stillwater, Minnesota wouldn't do anything to shorten Paul Krugman's commute. So screw 'em.
Many reports that Chris Christie is about to scuttle the second rail tunnel under the Hudson. If so, it’s arguably the worst policy decision ever made by the government of New Jersey — and that’s saying a lot.
The story seems to be that Christie wants to divert the funds to road and bridge repair; but in so doing he would (a) lose huge matching funds from the Port Authority and the Feds (b) delay indefinitely a project NJ needs desperately ASAP. He could avoid these consequences by raising gasoline taxes. But no, taxes must never be raised, no matter what the tradeoffs.
Oh, I see. When the project in question affects New Jersey commuters like Paul Krugman who wish to zip into Manhattan to lead their oh so important lives, it comes down to a matter of tradeoffs; tradeoffs that should not include, evidently, the economic feasibility of the project itself. "What is 8 billion dollar when Paul Krugman could potentially save 15 minutes in traffic??"
Thrilling.
Of course, when the project involved runs up against potential (if almost imaginary) environmental concerns favored by Democrats, well, tradeoffs be damned! There are snails or slugs or amoebas to save! And no amount of jobs, economic development, or benefit to the public good is enough to tip the balance. Plus, you never read a Krugman column bemoaning the situation.
But then, replacing a decrepit lift bridge in Stillwater, Minnesota wouldn't do anything to shorten Paul Krugman's commute. So screw 'em.
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
Conservatives Don't Get It Either
More on the Tennessee house fire. From HotAir:
This is nonsense on stilts. I have no moral obligation to protect the property of others. If I see a neighbor's car being stolen I am under no obligation try to stop it. I do have a duty to report crimes to the police, but if the car gets destroyed before the cops arrive that does not mean I've failed a moral obligation.
If you want your personal property protected then it is incumbent upon you to provide for said protection. Period.
The homeowner in this case played roulette with his home and lost. And he (now) knows it.
So, if the Cranick family is now impoverished because of this fire (and I haven't even heard if he bothered to pay for insurance), there is only one person to blame and it isn't the firefighters.
Conservatives will often claim they want to live in a society where people are expected and encouraged to look after themselves, but if that is to mean anything it has to mean that people will bear the consequences for their foolish choices. "Protecting" people from their choices isn't treating them like adults, its treating them like children. Bailing everyone out only encourages more people to act irresponsibly. It is the slow path to infantilizing a nation.
I’m guessing 95 percent of our commenters will say, “Right on, let it burn. A contract’s a contract!” And yet 95 percent of those same people, upon finding themselves at the scene with a hose and a truck full of water, would have done the moral thing and tried to put it out notwithstanding the free-rider problem created by the Cranicks.
This is nonsense on stilts. I have no moral obligation to protect the property of others. If I see a neighbor's car being stolen I am under no obligation try to stop it. I do have a duty to report crimes to the police, but if the car gets destroyed before the cops arrive that does not mean I've failed a moral obligation.
If you want your personal property protected then it is incumbent upon you to provide for said protection. Period.
The homeowner in this case played roulette with his home and lost. And he (now) knows it.
“I thought they’d come out and put it out, even if you hadn’t paid your $75, but I was wrong,” said Gene Cranick.
So, if the Cranick family is now impoverished because of this fire (and I haven't even heard if he bothered to pay for insurance), there is only one person to blame and it isn't the firefighters.
Conservatives will often claim they want to live in a society where people are expected and encouraged to look after themselves, but if that is to mean anything it has to mean that people will bear the consequences for their foolish choices. "Protecting" people from their choices isn't treating them like adults, its treating them like children. Bailing everyone out only encourages more people to act irresponsibly. It is the slow path to infantilizing a nation.
Monday, October 04, 2010
Talk About Not Understanding The Free Rider Problem
And remember, the Left are supposed to be the "smart" ones:
Bullshit.
We are not talking about thousands of dollars here. We are talking about $75. You do not have to be "well-off" to afford yearly fire protection for $75. That comes to under 20 cents a day. And why didn't the family buy the protection? The same reason lots of people would do the same. They A) didn't expect to have a fire (i.e. they exhibited rank stupidity), and B) they thought if they ever did have a fire they would be protected anyway; in effect they believed other people would pay for their fire protection.
I'm sorry, but sometimes bad things happen to moronic people. Why are we all supposed to pick up the bill to bail them out?
Unfortunately, we live in a society where too many people seems to believe they are "too big to fail." I hate to break it to them, but that simply is not true.
Grow up.
As ThinkProgress reported earlier this morning, South Fulton firefighters from Obion, Tennessee, last week stood by and watched as a family’s home burned down because their services were available by subscription only, and the family had not paid the $75 fee. As ThinkProgress noted, the case perfectly demonstrated conservative ideology, which is based around the idea of the on-your-own society and informs a policy agenda that primarily serves the well-off and privileged.
Bullshit.
We are not talking about thousands of dollars here. We are talking about $75. You do not have to be "well-off" to afford yearly fire protection for $75. That comes to under 20 cents a day. And why didn't the family buy the protection? The same reason lots of people would do the same. They A) didn't expect to have a fire (i.e. they exhibited rank stupidity), and B) they thought if they ever did have a fire they would be protected anyway; in effect they believed other people would pay for their fire protection.
I'm sorry, but sometimes bad things happen to moronic people. Why are we all supposed to pick up the bill to bail them out?
Unfortunately, we live in a society where too many people seems to believe they are "too big to fail." I hate to break it to them, but that simply is not true.
Grow up.
This Is An Intelligence Test
If you got some time on your hand read the following links in order:
Link One:
Link Two:
Link Three:
Link Four:
Link Five:
I believe this exercise will demonstrate the difference between intellectual honesty and charlatanism.
Choose your side carefully.
Link One:
Link Two:
Link Three:
Link Four:
Link Five:
I believe this exercise will demonstrate the difference between intellectual honesty and charlatanism.
Choose your side carefully.
Saturday, October 02, 2010
Jacob Weisberg v. John Locke (And The Founders)
From Slate:
Thus Weisberg's "argument" boils down to "You cannot call me an elitist because I'm smarter than Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and all of the Founders." Yeah. That'll work, if you are an idiot.
So, if Weisberg rejects the political theory which grants individual and inalienable rights (i.e. the political theory underlying American government), I wonder what he replaces it with?
Palin's counter-snobbery holds those who live in the middle of the country, own guns, and go to church are more authentic, more the "real America," than those who live in coastal cities, profess atheism, or prefer a less demonstrative style of patriotism. But the insistence that gay people not be married, or that some go without health insurance, or that gas be lightly taxed, reflect choices about "how other people should live" no less than the opposite positions. Gingrich and others cast democratic decisions as illegitimate only when they conflict with right-wing ideology. If an unelected judge upholds gay marriage, he's practicing liberal elitism. But if the same unelected judge were to invalidate Obama's health care legislation, he would be defending the Constitution. Such hypocrisy is based on the construct of a pre-political state of nature, where we lived in abstract freedom until government arrived to limit and control us.
Thus Weisberg's "argument" boils down to "You cannot call me an elitist because I'm smarter than Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and all of the Founders." Yeah. That'll work, if you are an idiot.
So, if Weisberg rejects the political theory which grants individual and inalienable rights (i.e. the political theory underlying American government), I wonder what he replaces it with?
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Next Please
If this is journalism I think I'll just skip it from now on:
I think he's trying to sound "edgy" and "hip."
He sounds like a moron. An 11 year-old moron.
Christine O'Donnell's campaign is a successful exercise in angry, misfit masturbation, with as little to do with the deadly problems this country faces as some guy wanking in the balcony of a grindhouse has to do with Romeo and Juliet.
I think he's trying to sound "edgy" and "hip."
He sounds like a moron. An 11 year-old moron.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
I Blame Marvel
You know, as the mid-term elections draw nearer and the rhetoric on all sides of the political spectrum becomes dumber and dumber I cannot help but think there must be a reason for it all. There has always been a certain level of hysteria right under the surface of American politics. This hysteria erupts from time to time, but it rarely affects the general course of events very greatly. The cold war days of the "red scare' and the cries of "Who lost China?!" might excite the permanently or easily excitable, but they were never really important. The important political work was still getting done no matter how shrill the discourse on the fringes became.
Today, I'm not so sure. Each side holds such ridiculous views of the other side, it becomes difficult to fathom it. One could spend an hour every day going to Memeorandum and reading "opinions" that could only be described as "comically absurd." Yet, these notions are being taken seriously. And, each side feels justified in their own ideas because of the lunacy of how they were depicted by their opposition.
Indeed, the story lines that get trotted out resemble less the well worn patterns of political discourse that make up our shared history, and more the fantastic hyperbole of comic book superheroes. Think about it: Each side views itself as basically noble, though maybe not without its inner conflicts - which are needed to confirm their nobility anyway - while the other is made up of individuals who are nothing but evil, insane, and hell bent on total domination. Etc.
Maybe none of this would have happened if Marvel hadn't started to make all those damn superhero movies.
Today, I'm not so sure. Each side holds such ridiculous views of the other side, it becomes difficult to fathom it. One could spend an hour every day going to Memeorandum and reading "opinions" that could only be described as "comically absurd." Yet, these notions are being taken seriously. And, each side feels justified in their own ideas because of the lunacy of how they were depicted by their opposition.
Indeed, the story lines that get trotted out resemble less the well worn patterns of political discourse that make up our shared history, and more the fantastic hyperbole of comic book superheroes. Think about it: Each side views itself as basically noble, though maybe not without its inner conflicts - which are needed to confirm their nobility anyway - while the other is made up of individuals who are nothing but evil, insane, and hell bent on total domination. Etc.
Maybe none of this would have happened if Marvel hadn't started to make all those damn superhero movies.
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
I Really Thought Russ Feingold Was Better Than This
Unfortunately, its tin-foil hat time again: Feingold decries 'systematic' effort to 'destroy' Obama
That's right. You can never trust groups, particularly certain groups.
OMG! People with tea bags on their head!! How is the President of the United States of America to compete with people with tea bags on their heads!!! Its just so unfair and brutal. *sniff*
That's right. Feingold losing his seat in the Senate would be the equivalent of murder perpetrated by those "harsh" and "deadly" groups.
How, oh how, can we protect our Democrats from the perils of groups?
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) decried what he said was a "systematic, conscious" effort by groups to "destroy" President Obama.
Feingold, who's facing a tough reelection effort this fall, blamed coordinated opposition to Obama and the Democratic agenda in Congress for some of the political and electoral woes facing his party this fall.
"A conscious decision was made by certain groups to destroy this presidency the minute it started," Feingold said in a question-and-answer session with The New York Times published Tuesday evening.
That's right. You can never trust groups, particularly certain groups.
"People say it was the healthcare bill — no, it wasn’t. I go to every county every year and hold a town meeting," he added. "Within days of the president being sworn in, I had people showing up at my town meeting with hats on, with tea bags coming out, saying this is going to be socialism."
OMG! People with tea bags on their head!! How is the President of the United States of America to compete with people with tea bags on their heads!!! Its just so unfair and brutal. *sniff*
And while Feingold did not blame Republicans, he did single out "groups" for having looked to take down Obama, and with him, Democrats in Congress.
"I started coming back and telling my staff and my friends -– way back in spring of '09 -– that something is going on out there that is pretty deadly and pretty harsh even before we had any idea what the healthcare bill was going to be," he said. "There appears to be a systematic, conscious attempt to dismantle this president, so I’m less surprised than other people.”
That's right. Feingold losing his seat in the Senate would be the equivalent of murder perpetrated by those "harsh" and "deadly" groups.
How, oh how, can we protect our Democrats from the perils of groups?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)