That may seem like an odd title for my first post after this historic election, but it is in response to and op-ed by Rep. John Boehner that appeared in the Washington Post today. I posted this comment:
Why should we listen to you when you offer the same old Republican recipe of tax cuts? Do you really think that cutting the corporate tax rate from 35% to 25% is a good idea when you consider that 25% is still higher than most countries and will have a limited effect on domestic investment, especially when we could be funding human capital investment with the lost revenues that would actually encourage businesses to invest here bc they know the American workforce really is the best in the world?
And, do you really expect to capture the youth of America, the next generation, by stigmatizing "radical environmentalists?" For John Boehner, it's anchors aweigh on the S.S. Irrelevant.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Limericks!
I am having a lot of fun with the WaPo limerick contest (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2008/11/tell-the-campaign-in-a-limeric.html):
There once was a small town mayor,
Who when criticized cried, "that's not fair!
My opponent is elite
And will bring us defeat
And pals around with terrorists like Bill Ayers!"
Posted by: lizziellen November 4, 2008 11:13 AM
The ads this campaign have been wiley,
Invoking Paris and Britney and Miley.
But we the people know better,
Even in states that are redder,
Than to believe the likes of O'Reilly.
Posted by: lizziellen November 4, 2008 11:23 AM
Sarah Palin has caused quite the mania,
You betcha, she'll out-campaign ya.
The states she did take
Are Pro-America, not fake,
But she won't get 1600 Pennsylvania!
or,
Sarah Palin has caused quite the mania,
You betcha, she'll out-campaign ya.
Some Americans are "pro",
Others "fake", lmao,
Lucky us "fakers" have 1600 Pennsylvania!
or, courtesy Sannie,
Sarah Palin has caused quite the mania,
You betcha, she'll out-campaign ya.
Some Americans are "pro",
Others "fake", doncha know,
Lucky us "fakers" have 1600 Pennsylvania!
There once was a small town mayor,
Who when criticized cried, "that's not fair!
My opponent is elite
And will bring us defeat
And pals around with terrorists like Bill Ayers!"
Posted by: lizziellen November 4, 2008 11:13 AM
The ads this campaign have been wiley,
Invoking Paris and Britney and Miley.
But we the people know better,
Even in states that are redder,
Than to believe the likes of O'Reilly.
Posted by: lizziellen November 4, 2008 11:23 AM
Sarah Palin has caused quite the mania,
You betcha, she'll out-campaign ya.
The states she did take
Are Pro-America, not fake,
But she won't get 1600 Pennsylvania!
or,
Sarah Palin has caused quite the mania,
You betcha, she'll out-campaign ya.
Some Americans are "pro",
Others "fake", lmao,
Lucky us "fakers" have 1600 Pennsylvania!
or, courtesy Sannie,
Sarah Palin has caused quite the mania,
You betcha, she'll out-campaign ya.
Some Americans are "pro",
Others "fake", doncha know,
Lucky us "fakers" have 1600 Pennsylvania!
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Election Nerves
tj: i think its going to be a close election and it will make tuesday night interesting
me: popular-vote wise i think it will be a close election, but i think it will be pretty much an electoral landslide for Obama
tj: have you not heard obamas warning!? this is the last week, things arent over! its not the time to claim victory!!
me: i'm not claiming victory, i'm just telling you what i think
my gut is telling me that "undecideds" are going to break strongly for McCain
the data seem to show that they are not going to break strongly enough
but as odd as it is to say with him being a republican and kind of tempermental, I think in the privacy of the voting booth, McCain will seem like the safer choice to a lot of people
stick with the devil you know, right
but i'm going to go on the polling data with this one because usually it is right, and say that Obama has enough support that a strong independent break for McCain isn't going to be enough for him
tj: lets hope you're right
me: popular-vote wise i think it will be a close election, but i think it will be pretty much an electoral landslide for Obama
tj: have you not heard obamas warning!? this is the last week, things arent over! its not the time to claim victory!!
me: i'm not claiming victory, i'm just telling you what i think
my gut is telling me that "undecideds" are going to break strongly for McCain
the data seem to show that they are not going to break strongly enough
but as odd as it is to say with him being a republican and kind of tempermental, I think in the privacy of the voting booth, McCain will seem like the safer choice to a lot of people
stick with the devil you know, right
but i'm going to go on the polling data with this one because usually it is right, and say that Obama has enough support that a strong independent break for McCain isn't going to be enough for him
tj: lets hope you're right
Monday, October 27, 2008
Research Topic
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/26/opinion/26brooks.html?em
Here's something to look into: the trends in the economy and equality in governments characterized by liberal orthodoxy vs. a more limited approach that nonetheless aims to lay the groundwork for a more equal society.
Here's something to look into: the trends in the economy and equality in governments characterized by liberal orthodoxy vs. a more limited approach that nonetheless aims to lay the groundwork for a more equal society.
Friday, October 17, 2008
Trickle Up
I posted this reply to the article "A Liberal Supermajority" in the WSJ today:
Most liberals individually do not believe in "big government" the way many conservatives demonize them to. Usually, they believe in "government just big enough to support my pet projects", and with a Reid-Pelosi-Obama government, it's the aggregate of all these liberal pet projects that become the "big government" that conservatives hate and fear so much. So let's refrain from demonizing individual "tax and spend" liberals and focus on what I took to be the original point of your argument, liberal government unchecked (I agree, we have reason to be concerned).
If you listened to the presidential debates, moderators occasionally attempted to address this issue in the context of the recession, which the author brought up: We may be less likely to face this balloon in government programs because the next President will have to prioritize. From what I heard, it was Senator Obama who enumerated his priorities (healthcare, the environment, education), and Senator McCain who contended that we could do it all.
Lastly, the author's use of quotation marks to denote "the rich" and "green elites" conjurs images of old white men in smoky rooms chortling at the ludicrous notion that we might be facing global environmental disaster and that a person making $200,000/year is considered rich. All arguments to the contrary aside, this image is not working for the Republican Party and the author would be well-advised to rethink his base-pandering tactics.
-an Independent
I didn't post the full extent of what I really thought bc I wanted the comment to get posted, but let's address some other issues in the original article (I can't even get into all of them):
1) The idea that wealth redistribution is bad.
-I understand the arguments against wealth redistribution: it stifles growth by taxing investors and those who would own their own business, my money is my money, it's a slippery slope into socialism, etc. Let's consider for a moment the current economic crisis, however, and think about putting money into the hands of people who would actually spend it, and moreover, spend it on Kraft products, Coca-Cola, and McDonalds (by company, these three make up 10% of the DJIA). When was the last time Warren Buffett ate string cheese, you think? But he (or at least his holding company) will benefit off the people who eat it on a regular basis. Letting the rich keep their money benefits the poor, under trickle down theory, by advancing investment in companies, thereby promoting growth and job creation: a rising tide lifts all boats. But, spreading some of that money to people who don't have enough to buy the things they need benefits company revenues, which benefits the rich. Furthermore, high inequality leads to a less-safe society for everyone. Besides, the U.S. has experienced more growth under Democratic Presidents than Republican ones; even if the business cycle is the major underlying cause of this, it is not consistent with the argument that Republicans stimulate the economy significantly or that Democrats slow it significantly. Indeed, all it says is that either party has little effect at all! We could argue about this (and who benefits more from the gov't, the rich or the poor?) around in circles, and we do, which is why we have politics and a power sharing system, and huge majorities of one party could be cause for concern. But, the President's job is larger than the veto, so again it's just one issue in the many that voters use to make up their minds.
2) Environmental policies are thrust upon us by a "green elite".
-Sure there is a "green elite", but they are those who can afford to buy local and organic, and install solar panels in their homes. They are not, as the author implies, an oligarchy of liberals who want to impose their agenda on the unwilling American people. It is irresponsible and morally reprehensible to discredit the good work people are doing to try and save our planet and benefit everyone on it. If you're not willing to help, at least thank us for the positive externality you will be receiving. That's just my axe to grind.
Most liberals individually do not believe in "big government" the way many conservatives demonize them to. Usually, they believe in "government just big enough to support my pet projects", and with a Reid-Pelosi-Obama government, it's the aggregate of all these liberal pet projects that become the "big government" that conservatives hate and fear so much. So let's refrain from demonizing individual "tax and spend" liberals and focus on what I took to be the original point of your argument, liberal government unchecked (I agree, we have reason to be concerned).
If you listened to the presidential debates, moderators occasionally attempted to address this issue in the context of the recession, which the author brought up: We may be less likely to face this balloon in government programs because the next President will have to prioritize. From what I heard, it was Senator Obama who enumerated his priorities (healthcare, the environment, education), and Senator McCain who contended that we could do it all.
Lastly, the author's use of quotation marks to denote "the rich" and "green elites" conjurs images of old white men in smoky rooms chortling at the ludicrous notion that we might be facing global environmental disaster and that a person making $200,000/year is considered rich. All arguments to the contrary aside, this image is not working for the Republican Party and the author would be well-advised to rethink his base-pandering tactics.
-an Independent
I didn't post the full extent of what I really thought bc I wanted the comment to get posted, but let's address some other issues in the original article (I can't even get into all of them):
1) The idea that wealth redistribution is bad.
-I understand the arguments against wealth redistribution: it stifles growth by taxing investors and those who would own their own business, my money is my money, it's a slippery slope into socialism, etc. Let's consider for a moment the current economic crisis, however, and think about putting money into the hands of people who would actually spend it, and moreover, spend it on Kraft products, Coca-Cola, and McDonalds (by company, these three make up 10% of the DJIA). When was the last time Warren Buffett ate string cheese, you think? But he (or at least his holding company) will benefit off the people who eat it on a regular basis. Letting the rich keep their money benefits the poor, under trickle down theory, by advancing investment in companies, thereby promoting growth and job creation: a rising tide lifts all boats. But, spreading some of that money to people who don't have enough to buy the things they need benefits company revenues, which benefits the rich. Furthermore, high inequality leads to a less-safe society for everyone. Besides, the U.S. has experienced more growth under Democratic Presidents than Republican ones; even if the business cycle is the major underlying cause of this, it is not consistent with the argument that Republicans stimulate the economy significantly or that Democrats slow it significantly. Indeed, all it says is that either party has little effect at all! We could argue about this (and who benefits more from the gov't, the rich or the poor?) around in circles, and we do, which is why we have politics and a power sharing system, and huge majorities of one party could be cause for concern. But, the President's job is larger than the veto, so again it's just one issue in the many that voters use to make up their minds.
2) Environmental policies are thrust upon us by a "green elite".
-Sure there is a "green elite", but they are those who can afford to buy local and organic, and install solar panels in their homes. They are not, as the author implies, an oligarchy of liberals who want to impose their agenda on the unwilling American people. It is irresponsible and morally reprehensible to discredit the good work people are doing to try and save our planet and benefit everyone on it. If you're not willing to help, at least thank us for the positive externality you will be receiving. That's just my axe to grind.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Fact-checking correction
Okay, here's a better explanation of what's going on here, from farther down the factcheck.org page:
"If the company is actually that profitable, and depending on how the business is organized legally, Obama’s plan would indeed raise his federal income taxes, and Obama conceded as much during the exchange. As we’ve written before, small businesses commonly are organized in such a way that their owners file business taxes as individuals. So if Joe’s plumbing business earns more than $200,000 per year (or $250,000 if Joe is married and files tax returns jointly) then his taxes would indeed be higher under Obama's plan than under McCain's."
"If the company is actually that profitable, and depending on how the business is organized legally, Obama’s plan would indeed raise his federal income taxes, and Obama conceded as much during the exchange. As we’ve written before, small businesses commonly are organized in such a way that their owners file business taxes as individuals. So if Joe’s plumbing business earns more than $200,000 per year (or $250,000 if Joe is married and files tax returns jointly) then his taxes would indeed be higher under Obama's plan than under McCain's."
Fact-checking
Take a quote like this from Factcheck.org:
McCain said “Joe the plumber” faced “much higher taxes” under Obama’s tax plan and would pay a fine under Obama’s health care plan if he failed to provide coverage for his workers. But Ohio plumber Joe Wurzelbacher would pay higher taxes only if the business he says he wants to buy puts his income over $200,000 a year, and his small business would be exempt from Obama’s requirement to provide coverage for workers.
For me, this hardly clarifies the issue. The $200,000 number must be referring to a tax bracket that already exists and would theoretically be the same under McCain, because we know the magic number for Obama is $250,000, the cutoff at which people would face higher taxes than they would under McCain. Sorry Joe, "Share the Wealth" is part of the American Dream, that's why we have a progressive income tax. If you don't like that, vote for Ron Paul. Remember, sharing the wealth makes a safer society for everyone, and I urge you to remember where you came from and think about the breaks you got as a taxpayer bc wealthier people where bearing the heftier share of the tax burden. If you make six figures, maybe it's your turn to support that burden.
McCain said “Joe the plumber” faced “much higher taxes” under Obama’s tax plan and would pay a fine under Obama’s health care plan if he failed to provide coverage for his workers. But Ohio plumber Joe Wurzelbacher would pay higher taxes only if the business he says he wants to buy puts his income over $200,000 a year, and his small business would be exempt from Obama’s requirement to provide coverage for workers.
For me, this hardly clarifies the issue. The $200,000 number must be referring to a tax bracket that already exists and would theoretically be the same under McCain, because we know the magic number for Obama is $250,000, the cutoff at which people would face higher taxes than they would under McCain. Sorry Joe, "Share the Wealth" is part of the American Dream, that's why we have a progressive income tax. If you don't like that, vote for Ron Paul. Remember, sharing the wealth makes a safer society for everyone, and I urge you to remember where you came from and think about the breaks you got as a taxpayer bc wealthier people where bearing the heftier share of the tax burden. If you make six figures, maybe it's your turn to support that burden.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
A Peek at the Other Side
As Dems gleefully pounce on the failure of deregulation as a Republican policy, here is a persuasive argument by Sebastian Mallaby that deregulation actually had little to do with the crisis.
And also from WaPo, Krauthammer also wrote something I found insightful. I usually find Krauthammer inciteful (as to rage), so color me surprised.
And leave it to George Will to restore my faith in Politics.
And this isn't really from the other side, but a nice analogy from David Brooks to Plato's cave, anyway:
"This money was entrusted to a few thousand traders who sloshed it around the world in search of the highest returns. These traders live in a high-tech version of Plato’s cave. They do not see reality directly. Instead they see the shadow of reality as it dances around in numbers on their computer screens. They form perceptions about other people’s perceptions of where the smart money is going next, so they’re three or four psychological levels removed from normal economic activity."
And also from WaPo, Krauthammer also wrote something I found insightful. I usually find Krauthammer inciteful (as to rage), so color me surprised.
And leave it to George Will to restore my faith in Politics.
And this isn't really from the other side, but a nice analogy from David Brooks to Plato's cave, anyway:
"This money was entrusted to a few thousand traders who sloshed it around the world in search of the highest returns. These traders live in a high-tech version of Plato’s cave. They do not see reality directly. Instead they see the shadow of reality as it dances around in numbers on their computer screens. They form perceptions about other people’s perceptions of where the smart money is going next, so they’re three or four psychological levels removed from normal economic activity."
Check it Out
From: http://norris.blogs.nytimes.com/
"4:50 p.m.
Not quite 10,000: The Dow closed under 10,000 for the first time since Oct. 26, 2004 today, even though it was far above the low of the day,
Over that period of nearly four years, here are the best and worst performers of the stocks now in the index, as measured by Bloomberg. (Figures do not include dividends.)
Best
1. Hewlett-Packard, up 129%
2. McDonalds, up 98%
3. Exxon Mobil, up 57%
4. Chevron, up 42%
5. Coca-Cola, up 30%
In other words, a tech recovery, two oil companies and two companies that sell inexpensive food or drinks.
Worst
1. General Motors, down 77%
2. Citigroup, down 60%
3. Alcoa, down 45%
4. Home Depot, down 42%
5. General Electric, down 36%
A car company that bet on S.U.V.s, a basic material company facing a recession around the world, a troubled bank, a retailer dependant on a vibrant housing market, and a conglomerate that long depended on its financial arm."
"4:50 p.m.
Not quite 10,000: The Dow closed under 10,000 for the first time since Oct. 26, 2004 today, even though it was far above the low of the day,
Over that period of nearly four years, here are the best and worst performers of the stocks now in the index, as measured by Bloomberg. (Figures do not include dividends.)
Best
1. Hewlett-Packard, up 129%
2. McDonalds, up 98%
3. Exxon Mobil, up 57%
4. Chevron, up 42%
5. Coca-Cola, up 30%
In other words, a tech recovery, two oil companies and two companies that sell inexpensive food or drinks.
Worst
1. General Motors, down 77%
2. Citigroup, down 60%
3. Alcoa, down 45%
4. Home Depot, down 42%
5. General Electric, down 36%
A car company that bet on S.U.V.s, a basic material company facing a recession around the world, a troubled bank, a retailer dependant on a vibrant housing market, and a conglomerate that long depended on its financial arm."
Monday, October 6, 2008
A comment on Kristol's column from Middlebury :)
33.
October 06, 2008 6:42 am
Link
It's interesting to see the Republicans' current state of desperation neatly packaged in one simple column. This summation of your morally bankrupt conversation with the blindly ambitious tool, Sarah Palin, shows exactly why you are going to lose this year.
— JA, Middlebury, VT
Recommend Recommended by 136 Readers
October 06, 2008 6:42 am
Link
It's interesting to see the Republicans' current state of desperation neatly packaged in one simple column. This summation of your morally bankrupt conversation with the blindly ambitious tool, Sarah Palin, shows exactly why you are going to lose this year.
— JA, Middlebury, VT
Recommend Recommended by 136 Readers
Terry and I agree on something
"Fannie and Freddie are definitely culpable in this...their mandate was to help people get mortgages for less interest, and those mortgages should have stayed in house, not sold to make money which is beyond their mandate. Besides, W himself has proclaimed promoting homeownership to be within the scope the government, so maybe some government subsidy to keep the loans in house would be in order, if you agree with him."
-a message I wrote to AM several weeks ago, in response to an article blaming the C.R.A./Fannie and Freddie for the crisis. I recently found out that Terry and I came independently to this same conclusion. I would modify my response slightly to acknowledge that the mortgage giants' hands were tied: they had to trade in these mortgages to raise capital to make new loans. If we as a country believe we should be promoting homeownership to underrepresented groups, then the capital should come from a combination our subsidy, i.e. taxes, and low-risk investment. The C.R.A. in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing, but its intersection with bad policy had an outcome that contributed to our current global economic predicament.
Question: now that the crisis is really taking off overseas as well, were there similar government-backed mortgage giants engaging in risky behaviors in other countries, as well? I heard that the mortgage and housing culture abroad is much different; most mortgages have shorter terms and rates pegged to an inflation index, which limited the market for them. If that's the case, and there wasn't a player like Fannie/Freddie, were all these toxic securities American-made?
-a message I wrote to AM several weeks ago, in response to an article blaming the C.R.A./Fannie and Freddie for the crisis. I recently found out that Terry and I came independently to this same conclusion. I would modify my response slightly to acknowledge that the mortgage giants' hands were tied: they had to trade in these mortgages to raise capital to make new loans. If we as a country believe we should be promoting homeownership to underrepresented groups, then the capital should come from a combination our subsidy, i.e. taxes, and low-risk investment. The C.R.A. in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing, but its intersection with bad policy had an outcome that contributed to our current global economic predicament.
Question: now that the crisis is really taking off overseas as well, were there similar government-backed mortgage giants engaging in risky behaviors in other countries, as well? I heard that the mortgage and housing culture abroad is much different; most mortgages have shorter terms and rates pegged to an inflation index, which limited the market for them. If that's the case, and there wasn't a player like Fannie/Freddie, were all these toxic securities American-made?
Friday, October 3, 2008
Generally Not a Krauthammer Fan, But...
Brilliant. Apart from the line about Dems believing nonsense, which pales in comparison to the nonsense Repubs will swallow ;)
Thursday, October 2, 2008
For Whom the Bell Tolls
A reaction to this editorial of today's nytimes:
Based on a quick amortization of a loan balance and then that balance reduced by 10%, it looks like lender profits would only take a 5% hit...you can help the borrower more than you hurt the lender. And keep in mind this 5% decrease is coming out of interest...that is to say, profit. It's not like we're asking the lenders to become charitable institutions...and as long as there is potential for profitability, we should be able to get them on board. It's convincing them that 5% lower profit outweighs increased foreclosures. We are all in this together, and have to come up with a solution that works for the entire economy, and not everyone is going to like every part of it. I don't think that the "moral hazard" is that great in bailing out borrowers...their credit will still be destroyed and there will be regulations and other incentives in place that discourage this kind of borrowing.
No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manner of thine own
Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.
-John Donne
Based on a quick amortization of a loan balance and then that balance reduced by 10%, it looks like lender profits would only take a 5% hit...you can help the borrower more than you hurt the lender. And keep in mind this 5% decrease is coming out of interest...that is to say, profit. It's not like we're asking the lenders to become charitable institutions...and as long as there is potential for profitability, we should be able to get them on board. It's convincing them that 5% lower profit outweighs increased foreclosures. We are all in this together, and have to come up with a solution that works for the entire economy, and not everyone is going to like every part of it. I don't think that the "moral hazard" is that great in bailing out borrowers...their credit will still be destroyed and there will be regulations and other incentives in place that discourage this kind of borrowing.
No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manner of thine own
Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.
-John Donne
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
The Feminist Question
Putting aside the massively depressing implication that Warner recognizes this attitude because she believes it to be somehow written into the female condition, let's consider that there are any number of women who could have been John McCain's running mate -- from Olympia Snowe to Christine Todd Whitman to Kay Bailey Hutchison to Elizabeth Dole to Condoleezza Rice -- who would not have provoked this reaction. Democrats might well have been repulsed and infuriated by these women's policy positions. But we would not have been sitting around worrying about how scared they looked.
-from http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/09/30/palin_pity/index.html
I think the real feminist question is not what other women could McCain have chosen, but what other candidate, regardless of sex, could McCain have chosen with "Maverick" credentials who would have been better suited to the job than Palin. I guess that's why Joe Lieberman is so upset.
-from http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/09/30/palin_pity/index.html
I think the real feminist question is not what other women could McCain have chosen, but what other candidate, regardless of sex, could McCain have chosen with "Maverick" credentials who would have been better suited to the job than Palin. I guess that's why Joe Lieberman is so upset.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Some Clever Comments
Glad some people out there are listening.
"Why is it continually assumed that we all would want to "have a beer" with some Bible-waving idiot who can't complete an original sentence?"
"Still, where does that leave those of us who prefer informed leadership to shovelfuls of regurgitated BS?"
"Just an idle observation: Iran's Ahmadinedjad has held more interviews with American media than Palin. Why is that?"
"Why is it continually assumed that we all would want to "have a beer" with some Bible-waving idiot who can't complete an original sentence?"
"Still, where does that leave those of us who prefer informed leadership to shovelfuls of regurgitated BS?"
"Just an idle observation: Iran's Ahmadinedjad has held more interviews with American media than Palin. Why is that?"
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
YIKES
HANNITY: Senator Obama on the campaign trail — and Senator Biden as well — they often criticize John McCain, that, well his plan is — he's going to continue the policies of tax cuts for the wealthy. For those that maybe buy into that class warfare agreement or think, why shouldn't the rich pay more? My question to you is the converse: why does everyone benefit if the rich pay less or if everybody pays less in taxes? Why is that good for the economy?
I'm just getting around to reading the infomercial now, and boy is it scary: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,424346,00.html
I'm just getting around to reading the infomercial now, and boy is it scary: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,424346,00.html
Hypocrisy
me: “While the New York Times and other media outlets were silent in the face of Barack Obama’s shameless and dishonorable attack on John Mccain, even Obama’s own running mate has now condemned the ad as terrible,” said spokesman Brian Rogers in a statement. “Barack Obama has brought the sleazy gutter politics of Chicago to our national stage, exposing his call for a ‘new politics’ as a lie and embarrassing even his own running mate with the low road campaign he’s running.”
GAAAAH
campaigners must have so much fun writing these things. it's like, How much can we get away with, how many negative words can we string into one sound bite
politics should not be this machiavellian; it's like the mccain campaign ppl live in an alternate universe. how can they get away with this??
D: the same way that their support increased when palin joined the ticket; people will believe what they want to believe, and pick out the parts that fall in line with what they want to hear and ignore the rest. and now they are making it so that to respond Obama will have to appear to be on the defensive
me: but can any normal rational person really appreciate this kind of blatant hypocrisy and hyperbole?
D: most people are not rational when it comes to politics. their own prejiduces interfere too much
me: sure, when it comes to their vote, but this level of two-facedness is unprecedented
D: yeah, it is so frustrating
me: PALIN: Yes it is gridlock and that's ridiculous. That's why we don't have an energy policy. That's why there hasn't been the reform of the abuse of the earmark process. And real reform is tough and you do ruffle feathers along the way. But John McCain has that streak of independence in him that I think is very, very important in America today in our leadership.
what level of consciousness do you think that Palin has when she is saying this, that McCain never showed up to vote when the energy bill came up...8 times. and of course Hannity won't call her on it
D: i'm sure that wasn't actually her speaking, they have probably taught him how to disguise and project his voice so it sounds like her but is actually him. you know they don't let her say anything that hasn't come straight from them
me: hahaha
PALIN: I have that within me also. And that's why John McCain tapped me to be a team of mavericks, of independents coming in there without the allegiances to that cronyism, to that good ole' boy system.
isn't "team of mavericks" kind of oxymoronic?
me: PALIN: Well, what we're doing up there is returning a share of resource development dollars back to the people who own the resources. And our constitution up there mandates that as you develop resources it's to be for the maximum benefit of the people, not the corporations, not the government, but the people of Alaska.
Sounds like socialism to me
D: haha, socialism, but where the majority of the money goes to the oil companies and to build more hockey rinks
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Don't Be Fooled
In early 1995, after Republicans had taken control of Congress, Mr. McCain promoted a moratorium on federal regulations of all kinds. He was quoted as saying that excessive regulations were “destroying the American family, the American dream” and voters “want these regulations stopped.” The moratorium measure was unsuccessful.
“I’m always for less regulation,” he told The Wall Street Journal last March, “but I am aware of the view that there is a need for government oversight” in situations like the subprime lending crisis, the problem that has cascaded through Wall Street this year. He concluded, “but I am fundamentally a deregulator.”
Later that month, he gave a speech on the housing crisis in which he called for less regulation, saying, “Our financial market approach should include encouraging increased capital in financial institutions by removing regulatory, accounting and tax impediments to raising capital.”
-http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/us/politics/16record.html?hp
But if you've already chosen McCain, chances are you believe he will learn from his mistakes and do the right thing in office. I'd believe the same of Obama.
“I’m always for less regulation,” he told The Wall Street Journal last March, “but I am aware of the view that there is a need for government oversight” in situations like the subprime lending crisis, the problem that has cascaded through Wall Street this year. He concluded, “but I am fundamentally a deregulator.”
Later that month, he gave a speech on the housing crisis in which he called for less regulation, saying, “Our financial market approach should include encouraging increased capital in financial institutions by removing regulatory, accounting and tax impediments to raising capital.”
-http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/us/politics/16record.html?hp
But if you've already chosen McCain, chances are you believe he will learn from his mistakes and do the right thing in office. I'd believe the same of Obama.
Friday, September 12, 2008
From the other side...
Brooks:
Near the start of his book, “The Conscience of a Conservative,” Barry Goldwater wrote: “Every man, for his individual good and for the good of his society, is responsible for his own development. The choices that govern his life are choices that he must make; they cannot be made by any other human being.” The political implications of this are clear, Goldwater continued: “Conservatism’s first concern will always be: Are we maximizing freedom?”
I'm not sure I'm right there with Barry on the logicial procession from "Man must make his own decisions" to "Man needs Freedom". Man has always operated within certain social parameters. I haven't read the book, and Brooks is paraphrasing to make a point similar to mine, so I'm sure there's more to it; nevertheless, I wonder what exactly it is that Goldwater is saying. What are his underlying assumptions here? Are decisions that an individual makes him- or herself more powerful than decisions imposed upon them by society? Why does more freedom lead to a better society? I'm not saying it doesn't, I'm just wondering what Goldwater's reasoning is.
Near the start of his book, “The Conscience of a Conservative,” Barry Goldwater wrote: “Every man, for his individual good and for the good of his society, is responsible for his own development. The choices that govern his life are choices that he must make; they cannot be made by any other human being.” The political implications of this are clear, Goldwater continued: “Conservatism’s first concern will always be: Are we maximizing freedom?”
I'm not sure I'm right there with Barry on the logicial procession from "Man must make his own decisions" to "Man needs Freedom". Man has always operated within certain social parameters. I haven't read the book, and Brooks is paraphrasing to make a point similar to mine, so I'm sure there's more to it; nevertheless, I wonder what exactly it is that Goldwater is saying. What are his underlying assumptions here? Are decisions that an individual makes him- or herself more powerful than decisions imposed upon them by society? Why does more freedom lead to a better society? I'm not saying it doesn't, I'm just wondering what Goldwater's reasoning is.
Campaigns to Administrations
From Krugman's op-ed today:
But there’s another answer, which may be even more important: how a politician campaigns tells you a lot about how he or she would govern.
I’m not talking about the theory, often advanced as a defense of horse-race political reporting, that the skills needed to run a winning campaign are the same as those needed to run the country. The contrast between the Bush political team’s ruthless effectiveness and the heckuva job done by the Bush administration is living, breathing, bumbling, and, in the case of the emerging Interior Department scandal, coke-snorting and bed-hopping proof to the contrary.
I’m talking, instead, about the relationship between the character of a campaign and that of the administration that follows. Thus, the deceptive and dishonest 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign provided an all-too-revealing preview of things to come. In fact, my early suspicion that we were being misled about the threat from Iraq came from the way the political tactics being used to sell the war resembled the tactics that had earlier been used to sell the Bush tax cuts.
And now the team that hopes to form the next administration is running a campaign that makes Bush-Cheney 2000 look like something out of a civics class. What does that say about how that team would run the country?
What it says, I’d argue, is that the Obama campaign is wrong to suggest that a McCain-Palin administration would just be a continuation of Bush-Cheney. If the way John McCain and Sarah Palin are campaigning is any indication, it would be much, much worse.
Well, I think Krugman has a point. If McCain feels okay with lying to the American people to promote an agenda now (we need more drilling!), what's to say he won't lie to enact those policies once in office. He's providing "answers" that aren't answers at all, but a simplification of the issues that actually prevents any real tackling of the issues themselves. Of course politicians are going to pander during campaign season, but they pander in their administrations as well, and if McCain doesn't mind pandering with outright lies, that's something to be concerned about.
However, what does Obama's campaign say about how he would run his administration? Would he be weak an indicisive, as the media is portraying his campaign now? How do we cut to the actual character of a campaign through the media slog, since that is the lens through which we all come to learn about the candidates and their potential administrations?
But there’s another answer, which may be even more important: how a politician campaigns tells you a lot about how he or she would govern.
I’m not talking about the theory, often advanced as a defense of horse-race political reporting, that the skills needed to run a winning campaign are the same as those needed to run the country. The contrast between the Bush political team’s ruthless effectiveness and the heckuva job done by the Bush administration is living, breathing, bumbling, and, in the case of the emerging Interior Department scandal, coke-snorting and bed-hopping proof to the contrary.
I’m talking, instead, about the relationship between the character of a campaign and that of the administration that follows. Thus, the deceptive and dishonest 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign provided an all-too-revealing preview of things to come. In fact, my early suspicion that we were being misled about the threat from Iraq came from the way the political tactics being used to sell the war resembled the tactics that had earlier been used to sell the Bush tax cuts.
And now the team that hopes to form the next administration is running a campaign that makes Bush-Cheney 2000 look like something out of a civics class. What does that say about how that team would run the country?
What it says, I’d argue, is that the Obama campaign is wrong to suggest that a McCain-Palin administration would just be a continuation of Bush-Cheney. If the way John McCain and Sarah Palin are campaigning is any indication, it would be much, much worse.
Well, I think Krugman has a point. If McCain feels okay with lying to the American people to promote an agenda now (we need more drilling!), what's to say he won't lie to enact those policies once in office. He's providing "answers" that aren't answers at all, but a simplification of the issues that actually prevents any real tackling of the issues themselves. Of course politicians are going to pander during campaign season, but they pander in their administrations as well, and if McCain doesn't mind pandering with outright lies, that's something to be concerned about.
However, what does Obama's campaign say about how he would run his administration? Would he be weak an indicisive, as the media is portraying his campaign now? How do we cut to the actual character of a campaign through the media slog, since that is the lens through which we all come to learn about the candidates and their potential administrations?
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Our Future First Lady?
I hope the American public saw this interview between Katie Couric and Cindy McCain, in which McCain can't remember her own husband's position on Roe vs. Wade!!! Here's another gem on Creationism vs. Evolution:
"McCain: I think both sides should be taught in schools. I think the more children have a frame of reference and an opportunity to read and know and make better decisions and judgments when they are adults. So, I think you know I don't have any problem with education of any kind."
I wonder how she feels about sex education...I actually think she is against abstinence-only programs. I guess that would be a rather hush-hush subject for a Republican campaign.
"McCain: I think both sides should be taught in schools. I think the more children have a frame of reference and an opportunity to read and know and make better decisions and judgments when they are adults. So, I think you know I don't have any problem with education of any kind."
I wonder how she feels about sex education...I actually think she is against abstinence-only programs. I guess that would be a rather hush-hush subject for a Republican campaign.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Too Cool for School
"By selecting Barack Obama as their nominee, the Democrats may have given Republicans an opening: the very qualities that inspire many fervent Obama supporters — the candidate’s high-flown eloquence, his coolness factor — have also laid him open to a Nixonian backlash. Unlike many observers, I wasn’t surprised at the effectiveness of the McCain “celebrity” ad. It didn’t make much sense intellectually, but it skillfully exploited the resentment some voters feel toward Mr. Obama’s star quality"
From Krugman's op-ed today.
How the Republicans do this, I don't know, but it's genius and amazing political sleight of hand. It's schoolyard politics; they have turned this campaign into a popularity contest. In a strange twist of events though, they have branded it as an anti-popularity contest: don't vote for the cool snob who looks down his nose at you; vote for us every day normal folk. Here's the ringer, though: McCain is the traditionally popular and cool wingman and Palin is the beauty queen bitch that everyone loves to hate, so how have they become the underdogs in this fight?!?!? Just another brilliant maneuver by the social elite to punish those who try to upset the social order or exist outside it? Class reproduction/preservation? The way of the world?
From Krugman's op-ed today.
How the Republicans do this, I don't know, but it's genius and amazing political sleight of hand. It's schoolyard politics; they have turned this campaign into a popularity contest. In a strange twist of events though, they have branded it as an anti-popularity contest: don't vote for the cool snob who looks down his nose at you; vote for us every day normal folk. Here's the ringer, though: McCain is the traditionally popular and cool wingman and Palin is the beauty queen bitch that everyone loves to hate, so how have they become the underdogs in this fight?!?!? Just another brilliant maneuver by the social elite to punish those who try to upset the social order or exist outside it? Class reproduction/preservation? The way of the world?
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Can't Resist Commenting on Palin
Well, word on the street in my social circles is that Palin nailed her speech last night in St. Paul. For the most immediate audience, I would say Republican insiders who were shocked or disgruntled at her nomination and other skeptical RNC attendees, she did. She had to prove herself to the Republican establishment, prove that she was not just a maverick gimmick, poorly vetted and ill-conceived. She hit all the red-meat notes while delivering a speech that probably resonated with the personal experiences of many Americans. She was strong and convincing where she needed to be, and familiar and sympathetic in all the right places.
In that way, it was a very polarizing, divisive speech in my opinion. Really, it was the second half that got me riled up, in that it hewed to party lines and was all rhetoric (albeit effective) and little substance--politics as usual, in other words. For instance, she played up Obama's proposed tax hikes and her own use of executive power to veto tax hikes in Alaska, obfuscating the real issue at stake and downright misrepresenting the facts (her own tax hikes in Wasilla probably affecting more people than would be affected by Obama letting the Bush tax cuts expire). I know, ALL POLITICIANS DO THIS. I'm just saying, I find this personally very polarizing because by telling Republicans what they want to hear, it shores up their righteousness in their own views and their disdain for the other side, while infuriating Democrats and making them ever more convinced that Republicans are all conniving idiots. It just gets worse and worse. On that note, I am retiring from politics.
In that way, it was a very polarizing, divisive speech in my opinion. Really, it was the second half that got me riled up, in that it hewed to party lines and was all rhetoric (albeit effective) and little substance--politics as usual, in other words. For instance, she played up Obama's proposed tax hikes and her own use of executive power to veto tax hikes in Alaska, obfuscating the real issue at stake and downright misrepresenting the facts (her own tax hikes in Wasilla probably affecting more people than would be affected by Obama letting the Bush tax cuts expire). I know, ALL POLITICIANS DO THIS. I'm just saying, I find this personally very polarizing because by telling Republicans what they want to hear, it shores up their righteousness in their own views and their disdain for the other side, while infuriating Democrats and making them ever more convinced that Republicans are all conniving idiots. It just gets worse and worse. On that note, I am retiring from politics.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Get Angry!
August 13, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Eight Strikes and You’re Out
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
John McCain recently tried to underscore his seriousness about pushing through a new energy policy, with a strong focus on more drilling for oil, by telling a motorcycle convention that Congress needed to come back from vacation immediately and do something about America’s energy crisis. “Tell them to come back and get to work!” McCain bellowed.
Sorry, but I can’t let that one go by. McCain knows why.
It was only five days earlier, on July 30, that the Senate was voting for the eighth time in the past year on a broad, vitally important bill — S. 3335 — that would have extended the investment tax credits for installing solar energy and the production tax credits for building wind turbines and other energy-efficiency systems.
Both the wind and solar industries depend on these credits — which expire in December — to scale their businesses and become competitive with coal, oil and natural gas. Unlike offshore drilling, these credits could have an immediate impact on America’s energy profile.
Senator McCain did not show up for the crucial vote on July 30, and the renewable energy bill was defeated for the eighth time. In fact, John McCain has a perfect record on this renewable energy legislation. He has missed all eight votes over the last year — which effectively counts as a no vote each time. Once, he was even in the Senate and wouldn’t leave his office to vote.
“McCain did not show up on any votes,” said Scott Sklar, president of The Stella Group, which tracks clean-technology legislation. Despite that, McCain’s campaign commercial running during the Olympics shows a bunch of spinning wind turbines — the very wind turbines that he would not cast a vote to subsidize, even though he supports big subsidies for nuclear power.
Barack Obama did not vote on July 30 either — which is equally inexcusable in my book — but he did vote on three previous occasions in favor of the solar and wind credits.
The fact that Congress has failed eight times to renew them is largely because of a hard core of Republican senators who either don’t want to give Democrats such a victory in an election year or simply don’t believe in renewable energy.
What impact does this have? In the solar industry today there is a rush to finish any project that would be up and running by Dec. 31 — when the credits expire — and most everything beyond that is now on hold. Consider the Solana concentrated solar power plant, 70 miles southwest of Phoenix in McCain’s home state. It is the biggest proposed concentrating solar energy project ever. The farsighted local utility is ready to buy its power.
But because of the Senate’s refusal to extend the solar tax credits, “we cannot get our bank financing,” said Fred Morse, a senior adviser for the American operations of Abengoa Solar, which is building the project. “Without the credits, the numbers don’t work.” Some 2,000 construction jobs are on hold.
Roger Efird is president of Suntech America — a major Chinese-owned solar panel maker that actually wants to build a new factory in America. They’ve been scouting the country for sites, and several governors have been courting them. But Efird told me that when the solar credits failed to pass the Senate, his boss told him: “Don’t set up any more meetings with governors. It makes absolutely no sense to do this if we don’t have stability in the incentive programs.”
One of the biggest canards peddled by Big Oil is that, “Sure, we’ll need wind and solar energy, but it’s just not cost effective yet.” They’ve been saying that for 30 years. What these tax credits are designed to do is to stimulate investments by many players in solar and wind so these technologies can quickly move down the learning curve and become competitive with coal and oil — which is why some people are trying to block them.
As Richard K. Lester, an energy-innovation expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, notes, “The best chance we have — perhaps the only chance” of addressing the combined challenges of energy supply and demand, climate change and energy security “is to accelerate the introduction of new technologies for energy supply and use and deploy them on a very large scale.”
This, he argues, will take more than a Manhattan Project. It will require a fundamental reshaping by government of the prices and regulations and research-and-development budgets that shape the energy market. Without taxing fossil fuels so they become more expensive and giving subsidies to renewable fuels so they become more competitive — and changing regulations so more people and companies have an interest in energy efficiency — we will not get innovation in clean power at the scale we need.
That is what this election should be focusing on. Everything else is just bogus rhetoric designed by cynical candidates who think Americans are so stupid — so bloody stupid — that if you just show them wind turbines in your Olympics ad they’ll actually think you showed up and voted for such renewable power — when you didn’t.
Op-Ed Columnist
Eight Strikes and You’re Out
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
John McCain recently tried to underscore his seriousness about pushing through a new energy policy, with a strong focus on more drilling for oil, by telling a motorcycle convention that Congress needed to come back from vacation immediately and do something about America’s energy crisis. “Tell them to come back and get to work!” McCain bellowed.
Sorry, but I can’t let that one go by. McCain knows why.
It was only five days earlier, on July 30, that the Senate was voting for the eighth time in the past year on a broad, vitally important bill — S. 3335 — that would have extended the investment tax credits for installing solar energy and the production tax credits for building wind turbines and other energy-efficiency systems.
Both the wind and solar industries depend on these credits — which expire in December — to scale their businesses and become competitive with coal, oil and natural gas. Unlike offshore drilling, these credits could have an immediate impact on America’s energy profile.
Senator McCain did not show up for the crucial vote on July 30, and the renewable energy bill was defeated for the eighth time. In fact, John McCain has a perfect record on this renewable energy legislation. He has missed all eight votes over the last year — which effectively counts as a no vote each time. Once, he was even in the Senate and wouldn’t leave his office to vote.
“McCain did not show up on any votes,” said Scott Sklar, president of The Stella Group, which tracks clean-technology legislation. Despite that, McCain’s campaign commercial running during the Olympics shows a bunch of spinning wind turbines — the very wind turbines that he would not cast a vote to subsidize, even though he supports big subsidies for nuclear power.
Barack Obama did not vote on July 30 either — which is equally inexcusable in my book — but he did vote on three previous occasions in favor of the solar and wind credits.
The fact that Congress has failed eight times to renew them is largely because of a hard core of Republican senators who either don’t want to give Democrats such a victory in an election year or simply don’t believe in renewable energy.
What impact does this have? In the solar industry today there is a rush to finish any project that would be up and running by Dec. 31 — when the credits expire — and most everything beyond that is now on hold. Consider the Solana concentrated solar power plant, 70 miles southwest of Phoenix in McCain’s home state. It is the biggest proposed concentrating solar energy project ever. The farsighted local utility is ready to buy its power.
But because of the Senate’s refusal to extend the solar tax credits, “we cannot get our bank financing,” said Fred Morse, a senior adviser for the American operations of Abengoa Solar, which is building the project. “Without the credits, the numbers don’t work.” Some 2,000 construction jobs are on hold.
Roger Efird is president of Suntech America — a major Chinese-owned solar panel maker that actually wants to build a new factory in America. They’ve been scouting the country for sites, and several governors have been courting them. But Efird told me that when the solar credits failed to pass the Senate, his boss told him: “Don’t set up any more meetings with governors. It makes absolutely no sense to do this if we don’t have stability in the incentive programs.”
One of the biggest canards peddled by Big Oil is that, “Sure, we’ll need wind and solar energy, but it’s just not cost effective yet.” They’ve been saying that for 30 years. What these tax credits are designed to do is to stimulate investments by many players in solar and wind so these technologies can quickly move down the learning curve and become competitive with coal and oil — which is why some people are trying to block them.
As Richard K. Lester, an energy-innovation expert at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, notes, “The best chance we have — perhaps the only chance” of addressing the combined challenges of energy supply and demand, climate change and energy security “is to accelerate the introduction of new technologies for energy supply and use and deploy them on a very large scale.”
This, he argues, will take more than a Manhattan Project. It will require a fundamental reshaping by government of the prices and regulations and research-and-development budgets that shape the energy market. Without taxing fossil fuels so they become more expensive and giving subsidies to renewable fuels so they become more competitive — and changing regulations so more people and companies have an interest in energy efficiency — we will not get innovation in clean power at the scale we need.
That is what this election should be focusing on. Everything else is just bogus rhetoric designed by cynical candidates who think Americans are so stupid — so bloody stupid — that if you just show them wind turbines in your Olympics ad they’ll actually think you showed up and voted for such renewable power — when you didn’t.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
More on the link between affordable housing and education
"Most economists would argue that the only long-term solution to poverty is figuring out a way to dramatically increase the human capital of the poor through some combination of better schools, better parenting, and convincing kids to stay in school and to work hard in school. Stable housing is no doubt an input to helping disadvantaged children achieve their potential. A number of studies have shown that kids who switch schools suffer a setback academically.
So — both for reasons of basic human decency and helping the long term prospects of the poor — affordable housing seems like a worthwhile objective."
From Freakonomics (the blog)
So — both for reasons of basic human decency and helping the long term prospects of the poor — affordable housing seems like a worthwhile objective."
From Freakonomics (the blog)
Populism
David Brooks' op-ed today:
"Second, there is a big debate under way over the sources of middle-class economic anxiety. Some populists emphasize the destructive forces of globalization, outsourcing and predatory capitalism. These people say we need radical labor market reforms to give the working class a chance. But the populists are going to have to grapple with the Goldin, Katz and Heckman research, which powerfully buttresses the arguments of those who emphasize human capital policies. It’s not globalization or immigration or computers per se that widen inequality. It’s the skills gap. Boosting educational attainment at the bottom is more promising than trying to reorganize the global economy."
Populism like any party has it's progressives and its reactionaries, and there are plenty of them who would agree with Brooks. Certainly the little soc reading I've done on the subject arrived at this conclusion long before Brooks and the campaign came around.
"Second, there is a big debate under way over the sources of middle-class economic anxiety. Some populists emphasize the destructive forces of globalization, outsourcing and predatory capitalism. These people say we need radical labor market reforms to give the working class a chance. But the populists are going to have to grapple with the Goldin, Katz and Heckman research, which powerfully buttresses the arguments of those who emphasize human capital policies. It’s not globalization or immigration or computers per se that widen inequality. It’s the skills gap. Boosting educational attainment at the bottom is more promising than trying to reorganize the global economy."
Populism like any party has it's progressives and its reactionaries, and there are plenty of them who would agree with Brooks. Certainly the little soc reading I've done on the subject arrived at this conclusion long before Brooks and the campaign came around.
Haven't posted in a while...
Brian: You are a news junkie But it's cool; I read the blurbs you put up. Sent at 2:00 PM on Tuesday
me: yeah, i started putting them up on a blog instead of in gmail
Brian: Is this the same girls-only spain blog? Sent at 2:02 PM on Tuesday
me: lol well yes actually, we keep up-to-date on why john mccain sucks, how the dow is doing, and who got laid recently jk
Brian: McCain got laid? ha
me: ha if so, poor cindy mccaini don't know which would be worse, being cheated on or having to sleep with john mccain
Brian: Hm. Blog it.
me: yeah, i started putting them up on a blog instead of in gmail
Brian: Is this the same girls-only spain blog? Sent at 2:02 PM on Tuesday
me: lol well yes actually, we keep up-to-date on why john mccain sucks, how the dow is doing, and who got laid recently jk
Brian: McCain got laid? ha
me: ha if so, poor cindy mccaini don't know which would be worse, being cheated on or having to sleep with john mccain
Brian: Hm. Blog it.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Property Value
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/10/nyregion/10towns.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5087&em&en=6ac84f72e23d5d35&ex=1215921600
“BACK before we lost our collective minds and began shrieking with horror at the thought of kids having fun on their own (as in not part of an official league or otherwise organized activity), they used to do things like find a vacant field, turn it into a makeshift diamond and spend glorious hours in the summer sun,” the local newspaper, Greenwich Time, wrote in an editorial in support of the youths on Wednesday."
...
"The field had 40 people last weekend for a Wiffle tournament, which is something no one bargained on when they bought their houses."
While there are probably very valid reasons to shut down the field, we seem to have a problem accepting the fact that when we buy a house, we are going to get a lot we didn't bargain for. We don't necessarily purchase the right for future certainty along with the property deed, and it's typical American arrogance to think that we are entitled control over all eventualities. Now I'm about to become a homeowner and we'll see how quickly I change my tune.
“BACK before we lost our collective minds and began shrieking with horror at the thought of kids having fun on their own (as in not part of an official league or otherwise organized activity), they used to do things like find a vacant field, turn it into a makeshift diamond and spend glorious hours in the summer sun,” the local newspaper, Greenwich Time, wrote in an editorial in support of the youths on Wednesday."
...
"The field had 40 people last weekend for a Wiffle tournament, which is something no one bargained on when they bought their houses."
While there are probably very valid reasons to shut down the field, we seem to have a problem accepting the fact that when we buy a house, we are going to get a lot we didn't bargain for. We don't necessarily purchase the right for future certainty along with the property deed, and it's typical American arrogance to think that we are entitled control over all eventualities. Now I'm about to become a homeowner and we'll see how quickly I change my tune.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Hostages Freed in Columbia
"Senator John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, released a statement that said Mr. Uribe and Mr. Santos had briefed him about the operation on Tuesday night, during his visit to Colombia."
What is John McCain doing being briefed about these things? Gee, the timing works out really nicely for him.
Full article from nytimes.com
What is John McCain doing being briefed about these things? Gee, the timing works out really nicely for him.
Full article from nytimes.com
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Bob Herbert
"One of the starkest examples of U.S. priorities came during the eruption of looting that followed the fall of Baghdad. With violence and chaos all about, American troops were ordered to protect one particularly treasured target — the Iraqi Oil Ministry. As David Rieff wrote in The Times Magazine in November 2003:
“This decision to protect only the Oil Ministry — not the National Museum, not the National Library, not the Health Ministry — probably did more than anything else to convince Iraqis uneasy with the occupation that the United States was in Iraq only for the oil.”
How convenient that the peculiar perspective of the oil-obsessed Bush administration can now be put to use advising the Iraqi government on its contracts with big oil."
“This decision to protect only the Oil Ministry — not the National Museum, not the National Library, not the Health Ministry — probably did more than anything else to convince Iraqis uneasy with the occupation that the United States was in Iraq only for the oil.”
How convenient that the peculiar perspective of the oil-obsessed Bush administration can now be put to use advising the Iraqi government on its contracts with big oil."
Monday, June 30, 2008
Independence Day with Bill Kristol
"The last few years, we’ve spent July Fourth at the house of friends who have had the assembled company read the entire declaration. It’s a longer document than one thinks; the charges against the king take quite a while to get through."
...From Bill Kristol's op-ed piece today. Another interesting turn of phrase considering the source: "The people are conservative. Liberty sometimes requires the bold leadership of a few individuals."
...From Bill Kristol's op-ed piece today. Another interesting turn of phrase considering the source: "The people are conservative. Liberty sometimes requires the bold leadership of a few individuals."
Friday, June 27, 2008
Again with the Separate but Equal
"As teenage boys saunter into the sumptuously appointed men’s grill room, their mothers are relegated to the ladies’ grill, down the hall with a hot plate, some card tables and no bar. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/28/us/28countryclub.html?hp
"Mr. LaRocca said the attorney general’s findings were “not binding” and that he hoped “it would not come” to a lawsuit. The renovated club will have the same formal dining room now used by men and women, and separate male and female grill rooms but with “equivalent accommodations,” he added."
So what if separate really is equal? Will the men squeal when the governor is in the Ladies' Grille making deals with female businesspeople, shutting the men out from potentially lucrative situations?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/28/us/28countryclub.html?hp
"Mr. LaRocca said the attorney general’s findings were “not binding” and that he hoped “it would not come” to a lawsuit. The renovated club will have the same formal dining room now used by men and women, and separate male and female grill rooms but with “equivalent accommodations,” he added."
So what if separate really is equal? Will the men squeal when the governor is in the Ladies' Grille making deals with female businesspeople, shutting the men out from potentially lucrative situations?
Here is an excerpt taken from Brooks' op-ed piece today:
"Several years ago, Tim Pawlenty, the Minnesota governor, said the Republicans should be the party of Sam’s Club, not the country club. This line is the animating spirit of “Grand New Party.” Douthat and Salam argue that the Republicans rode to the majority because of support from the Reagan Democrats, and if the party has a future, it will be because it understands the dreams and tribulations of working-class Americans."
"Sam's Club" Americans represent 3/4 of this nation's population...in a two-party system, shouldn't we all be the party of Sam's Club Americans? Democrats may not have been running the country well, but the programs they support have helped a lot more Sam's Club Americans than trickle-down. Maybe I should read the book...I'd look for it to explain how we can progress beyond the small government vs. social programs dichotomy into a system that manages to do both. That is way beyond the "Grand New Party"; if Douthat and Salam have a plan that serves the working class and diminshes government, we won't need a Grand New Party--we'll have transcended both parties.
"Several years ago, Tim Pawlenty, the Minnesota governor, said the Republicans should be the party of Sam’s Club, not the country club. This line is the animating spirit of “Grand New Party.” Douthat and Salam argue that the Republicans rode to the majority because of support from the Reagan Democrats, and if the party has a future, it will be because it understands the dreams and tribulations of working-class Americans."
"Sam's Club" Americans represent 3/4 of this nation's population...in a two-party system, shouldn't we all be the party of Sam's Club Americans? Democrats may not have been running the country well, but the programs they support have helped a lot more Sam's Club Americans than trickle-down. Maybe I should read the book...I'd look for it to explain how we can progress beyond the small government vs. social programs dichotomy into a system that manages to do both. That is way beyond the "Grand New Party"; if Douthat and Salam have a plan that serves the working class and diminshes government, we won't need a Grand New Party--we'll have transcended both parties.
The Age-Old Question: Is She For Real?
Just some tidbits from Ann Coulter.
Do you think she exists as a persona for conservatives to love or liberals to hate...do you think she makes more money because people love to hate her, or because people actually listen to her? I hope it's not the latter...
Do you think she exists as a persona for conservatives to love or liberals to hate...do you think she makes more money because people love to hate her, or because people actually listen to her? I hope it's not the latter...
Thursday, June 26, 2008
To Each Her Own
Read about excellent sheep. This isn't necessarily the premise for this blog, just a starting point.
Like good products of elite colleges, AM and I appreciated the article's validity on several levels but took issue with it in other ways. In righteous self-awareness, we agree that "because these schools tend to cultivate liberal attitudes, they leave their students in the paradoxical position of wanting to advocate on behalf of the working class while being unable to hold a simple conversation with anyone in it." [AM: "i know many people with that affliction"]. Is it an affliction, or a fairly universal condition (or both)? Don't members of a less elite class find themselves in the similarly paradoxical position of aspiring to the upper class without being able to converse with anyone in it? Remembering, of course, that not every elite student cares about helping the working class, and not every member of the working class cares to be anything but.
This assertion of a major fallacy in elite education seems to contradict the author's main point: that more students are matriculating and graduating with material goals and buying into a system whose main "societal function" is to replicate the class structure. In my experience, however, he fails to address what I see as a significant portion of the graduating class of 2007; that is, those, like my good friend AM, who are entering the world in corporate positions so that they may learn to game the system for the greater good. They are attempting to effect change from within society's walls, unlike those rare students extolled by the author, who reject society for solitude in a quest to contemplate and (I'm assuming as a corollary) bring about the "good society".
So we go round and round in the small questions and learn to distract ourselves from the cosmic ones. In the sociology department, we spend more time studying the mechanisms of social change movements than the validity of their ends. Does normativeness even have a place in the classroom?
Now for a personal whine: As an elightened liberal arts degree-holder, I can't in good conscience say that my job is better than a comfy mindless job that pays the bills but does nothing for society or doesn't at least come with the kind of paycheck that says "sure I sold my soul but I have my own charitable foundation", yet I wonder if I personally could be happy in that sort of position. It's like supporting abortion rights even though you yourself could never commit such an unconscionable act. We try and say we're not better, just different, and maybe in some cases that's true, but in the end it just comes off like "separate but equal". Inherently, it's not.
Like good products of elite colleges, AM and I appreciated the article's validity on several levels but took issue with it in other ways. In righteous self-awareness, we agree that "because these schools tend to cultivate liberal attitudes, they leave their students in the paradoxical position of wanting to advocate on behalf of the working class while being unable to hold a simple conversation with anyone in it." [AM: "i know many people with that affliction"]. Is it an affliction, or a fairly universal condition (or both)? Don't members of a less elite class find themselves in the similarly paradoxical position of aspiring to the upper class without being able to converse with anyone in it? Remembering, of course, that not every elite student cares about helping the working class, and not every member of the working class cares to be anything but.
This assertion of a major fallacy in elite education seems to contradict the author's main point: that more students are matriculating and graduating with material goals and buying into a system whose main "societal function" is to replicate the class structure. In my experience, however, he fails to address what I see as a significant portion of the graduating class of 2007; that is, those, like my good friend AM, who are entering the world in corporate positions so that they may learn to game the system for the greater good. They are attempting to effect change from within society's walls, unlike those rare students extolled by the author, who reject society for solitude in a quest to contemplate and (I'm assuming as a corollary) bring about the "good society".
So we go round and round in the small questions and learn to distract ourselves from the cosmic ones. In the sociology department, we spend more time studying the mechanisms of social change movements than the validity of their ends. Does normativeness even have a place in the classroom?
Now for a personal whine: As an elightened liberal arts degree-holder, I can't in good conscience say that my job is better than a comfy mindless job that pays the bills but does nothing for society or doesn't at least come with the kind of paycheck that says "sure I sold my soul but I have my own charitable foundation", yet I wonder if I personally could be happy in that sort of position. It's like supporting abortion rights even though you yourself could never commit such an unconscionable act. We try and say we're not better, just different, and maybe in some cases that's true, but in the end it just comes off like "separate but equal". Inherently, it's not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)