Last night, I'd done another one of my Obama-is-like-Bush posts —
re global warming and polar bears — and Zachary Paul Sire commented:
It's just as bad now that Obama is doing it. Worse, even.
Palladian taunted:
But you'll still love to tongue his armpits, won't you Zachy baby?!
Yanking me onto his side, Zachary came back:
You always hysterically try to paint people who voted for Obama as some kind of mob of horny, brainwashed maniacs, so is that what you make of Althouse, who voted for Obama?
And what about you, darling Palladian? Are we to assume that you voted for John McCain, or did you not vote at all? Just because there is no magic candidate that reflects all of your wildest hopes and dreams doesn't mean you have to take it out on everyone else.
Sometimes, people have the fucking balls to go with a candidate and hope for the best. Sorry you couldn't man up.
Palladian says he mainly thinks of Zachary as a horny, brainwashed maniac, and as for Althouse, he sees why I voted the way I did, though he disagrees. As for himself, he says:
I voted for McCain/Palin, but it was a meaningless vote considering my state and district. I voted out of contempt for the other candidates and as a protest against the incredibly distressing mob mentality exhibited by the citizens of my city. I was actually not going to vote for anyone on the Presidential/Vice-Presidential ticket but when I was in line at my polling place, someone laughingly said "we're racking up the votes for our man Barack!" and a few people cheered which irked me enough to pull the lever for the opposition ticket.
"Just because there is no magic candidate that reflects all of your wildest hopes and dreams doesn't mean you have to take it out on everyone else."
Huh? See, this is the difference between lovers of liberty and freedom and people like you. We don't want or need a candidate who reflects all of our "wildest hopes and dreams". We want a candidate who will leave us alone. Neither party generally delivers such candidates. It is liberals (and often also conservatives) who need to be "led", who look for a politician to be their "savior", who vest their "hopes and dreams" in the person of a politician. This is a mistake, a pathetic vestige of our dark days when we dropped on bended knee and surrendered ourselves to worldly kings and potentates.
It was your candidate who based his entire campaign upon the ambiguous and ultimately meaningless word "hope", it was you who looked to him to reflect your wildest hopes and dreams of further enslavement to the State and further erosion of our national character. And, as it always happens, it is you who ended up with the political equivalent of vaporware inhabiting the Oval Office.
"Sometimes, people have the fucking balls to go with a candidate and hope for the best. Sorry you couldn't man up."
It's funny to hear liberals constantly, un-ironically, deploy the rhetoric of masculine power (balls, fucking, "man up") in defense of the weakest of feminine traits. There's nothing manly about "hope". Men don't hope for things, they make them happen. You sold your birthright for a mess of pottage. There's nothing manly in that.
Reap the whirlwind, dear Zachary. It's wonderful to watch you twist in the wind.
Zachary? Zachary? Where are you? Evaporated?
পোস্টগুলি
৩০১টি মন্তব্য:
«সবচেয়ে পুরাতন ‹পুরাতন 301 এর 201 – থেকে 301How are the boys of Thailand, dtl?
How do they feel about Obama's tax cuts?
Palladian has obviously been brainwashed by Fox News.
The Democratic party is way more on the side of liberty than Republicans these days. Be it on the topic of civil liberties for gay people, medical marijuana, end of life decisions, giving women the right to choose whether or not to have an abortion, etc.
I'm hard pressed to think of one scenario where the Republican party favors "freedom" over "slavery".
Or is it all about taxes? Because the Republican party created $1 trillion deficits. And now the Democratic party has to raise taxes two years from now to restore some fiscal responsibility to this country. In other words, they are being mature adults about the situation.
The American people like their government programs. They also like their $1 trillion wars in Iraq.
Somebody has to pay for that. And it's called the American taxpayer.
Palladian - Really, your gays are pedophile jokes are self-defeating. And offensive.
You didn't vote for Obama, and I truly think it's because he's black. There's definitely latent racism in your posts. Not sure if there are other personal issues you are dealing with there.
And your anti-Thai comments are BLATANTLY racist. I'm not Asian, so I'll leave it to someone else to comment on.
"This is a mistake, a pathetic vestige of our dark days when we dropped on bended knee and surrendered ourselves to worldly kings and potentates."
I've known people who had framed, signed, pictures of themselves with presidents (specifically, Ford)... because who wouldn't keep that memento?
My dad got a picture of Laura Bush and put it up, but it was to tweak some Democrat friend or other. He'd have never done it otherwise.
I can't think of any Republican equivalent to Camelot or the excessively silly idealized pictures of Obama. And yet... the criticism of Bush was often about dynasty. I have to think that it really is because Democrats are more likely to think in those terms.
"Palladian has obviously been brainwashed by Fox News."
I've never watched Fox News, honey. I don't own a television.
"The Democratic party is way more on the side of liberty than Republicans these days."
LOL. Anyone with federal power is never on the side of liberty, you silly little queer!
Bush pushed me towards anarchism, Obama pushed me over the edge. Join us, DTL. Fuck who you want.
And the Obama = slavery is what I was referring to when I'm talking about Palladian's latent racism.
"You didn't vote for Obama, and I truly think it's because he's black. There's definitely latent racism in your posts. Not sure if there are other personal issues you are dealing with there."
You found me out! You're right! I hate the negroes! How did you figure it out?! I've managed to keep it hidden for so long! It's true! I voted for the white part of Obama and against the black part! I'm so ashamed!
"And the Obama = slavery is what I was referring to when I'm talking about Palladian's latent racism.
Um, darling... Obama's black heritage is not slave-descended. I'm sorry that you think all black people were once slaves, but that's your little problem.
downtownlad thinks of slaves when he sees black people. Have you ever been to Africa?
Have you ever sucked a black cock, downtownlad? I have. Quite a few. And I loved it! I've never dated a black guy though so maybe I actually am a racist. My boyfriend's hispanic. Uncut. Hung. But that doesn't count. Some hispanics are actually not Democrats so they can't be trusted.
Palladian- Its only your personal distaste of me that prevents you from actually looking at my political views.
I am a registered independent, who leans Libertarian.
But as much as I want to stop the Iraq war, eliminate social security, eliminate Medicare, etc - it ain't happening. The American people like that stuff.
So I vote on the side of fiscal responsibility when it comes to economics, since none of the major parties is actually advocating any real spending cuts.
And while I do favor spending cuts, I'm not insane enough to favor spending cuts in the middle of a Depression. You do spending cuts when the economy is at full-employment and running on all cylinders. So there is an element of realism to my economic beliefs.
As for social policy, there's one policy in particular I care quite a bit about - gay rights. Hence that's why I mainly talk about that. And right now, its mainly Democrats who support that.
Although in New York, I find it amusing that the gay community's only hope for marriage rights right now lies with moderate Republicans. Republicans who I would have no issues voting for by the way.
"Palladian- Its only your personal distaste of me that prevents you from actually looking at my political views."
Did you ever think that if you weren't so abrasive and nasty that people might be more willing to listen to you?
Yes Palladian. Been there, done that.
I have one criteria when it comes to dating men. Hot.
"I have one criteria when it comes to dating men. Hot."
At least we agree on something.
Except I'm not abrasive and nasty. I'm one of the nicest people I know. Sometimes too nice for my own good.
I have tons of friends. But they only tell me to shut up when I talk about politics. So we never talk about it.
So I come here and the Althouse community are the lucky ones who get to hear me speak my mind.
And no - I've never thought about trying to convince anyone or change their minds. Why would I want to do that?
enjoy their slaveryMore strawman. They're so easy to knock around, I can see why you enjoy them, Palladian.
But I need more than "leave me alone" from a political philosophy. It's obviously unworkable. Government exists - that's not in debate. It's in our interest that it work well. We will disagree on what it ought to be doing, and that's why we have elections.
You voted for a candidate who was no less likely to grow government than the other one, so your bleating about slavery is ridiculous. What has the GOP done in the past 8 years to make government less intrusive, less onerous? Nothing.
You can't get to the argument that I "enjoy slavery" from the fact that I voted for Obama. That's just ridiculous ranting on your part.
So you voted. Big deal. So did I. We both chose the candidate that came closest to our convictions. We do this every four years, and we'll continue to do so. There's no servitude or bowing and scraping to monarchs involved. But you'll lose some and you'll win some.
The funniest thing here is that no one gets that it took wrapping up "competence" in a glitzy packaging scheme of hope and change to even make it palatable. I understand libertarians are big into economic liberty and the freedom of employers to demand competence of the people they hire, or else they should be completely free to fire them. Funny that some self-styled libertarians here don't get that this also applies to the American people in their hiring of prospectively competent public officials - who may then be fired if they turn out to be incompetent, thieving or politically self-defeating of a purportedly libertarian platform. But then, those libertarians would be idiots. And yes, competence should be an expectation of even the most hands-off government. If it isn't, then the least such supporters of an ostensibly libertarian philosophy could do is demand that the official(s) in question forego a salary.
How anyone can be so dumb as to not realize any of this is beyond me. But as has been suggested, the unemployed might have trouble understanding the concept of "competence".
Fen, university budgets are not "wholly subsidized" by taxes. Our budget is more than 50 percent derived from tuition - Like from Pell Grants?
Based on experience, I'm of a mind that you do until proven otherwise.
Beth: Well, you're an idiot for believing things you have no basis for. You have no idea of what I teach, how I teach, or how I treat my students.But I do have a basis for holding that judgement. Direct experience. And just as I believe any politician is lying until proven otherwise, I believe that teachers at the university level indoctrinate unless they can prove otherwise.
Just look up FIRE's case history. Mine is not an unreasonable assumption.
Pell Grants go to students at private universities as well, Fen.
Okay, I understand your point now, Fen. University teachers are eeeeevil. Ho hum.
Wow. More fallacy from our esteemed liberal arts english professor.
Never said they were evil. Just saying that:
1) Given their history, its not unreasonable to presume you indoctrinate your students. And its hardly unfair to place the burden on you to prove otherwise.
2) Someone like you who's city and job, is subsidized by taxpayers can't be taken seriously when they talk about the need for Big Government.
Of course, I don't think the Left really believes in the things they lecture us about. So don't bother.
Fen, every city in the U.S. is subsized by taxpayers, as are many, many jobs - in the private industry, too. Your logic is absent entirely. You're an ideologue and can't think in terms other than us versus them.
When you have evidence of my teaching being indoctrination, by all means, bring it forth. Until then, hide behind your false generalizations. Your argument has all the rhetorical force of "nyah nyah."
I realized something, Fen, while engaged in this exchange with you.
There are a lot of folks who frequent this blog who share your basic political philosophies, and with whom I have nothing but the most enjoyable time exchanging comments, whether it be on politics or simple mundane pleasures and pains of life. It's not about the politics - I disagree with Palladian's "leave me alone" post because I find it disengenuous, not because it angers me. And I like Palladian, genuinely, because I believe him to have integrity, and to be genuine in his dialogues with me.
When I say I don't indoctrinate my students, that's all I ought to need to say. That's my word, and I assume it means as much as does the word of the people with whom I disagree, but in whom I have great trust: Palladian, Pogo, Knox, Synova, Revenant, Trooper, Joan, Big Mike...I should stop naming names because I'll leave someone out - let that be a representative sample, and assume there are many more. When any of them speak to their own values, and about their own lives, I take them at their word. For the most part, I know I can expect a basic level of respect, even when in violent disagreement, from almost anyone on this blog.
That's how I conduct my classroom, as well. But if it's not proven in a right-wing study, you don't have to believe that.
Why is it that when someone says the government should leave us alone, some immediately point to roads and police. Perhaps there are legitimate functions of government and illegitimate ones? Perhaps it's obvious to anyone who's given the barest thought to the matter that someone who says government should leave him alone is likely first referring not to legitimate, Constitutional functions of government but to the incessant nannying, handout, special interest parts?
You always hysterically try to paint people who voted for Obama as some kind of mob of horny, brainwashed maniacs....Palladian still posts his weird, trollish crap about his theory that I am obsessed with Sarah Palin's pussy, or whatever, in threads I don't see till like two weeks after they occur. I barely even read these comment threads anymore, but yet Palladian is still going on with his trolling along these lines.
Sorry if I was vindicated that Sarah Palin is a moron and a nutcase.
Palladian, and other Althosue commenters, worshipped Sarah Palin to an extremely unhealthy degree. One Althouse commenter - Freeman Hunt - even did a video with that blogosphere nutcase Pamela Geller (of Atlas Shrugs -- currently being raked over the coals for her support of European fascist political parties) where Freeman Hunt proclaimed "I am Sarah Palin". Pathetic worship of a corrupt, lying politician if you ask me! But she didn't abort her Downs Syndrome baby.....
For most of the last campaign I was torn between McCain and Obama, much of the time leaning towards McCain. I viewed it as a chose of lesser evils. In the end, I had to go with Obama because I thought McCain showed extremely poor judgment in selecting that unqualified, ignorant nutcase, Sarah Palin, just to please the far right wing of the GOP. That selection, of course, won McCain's vote from Palladian, whatever phoney stories he posts about his election day decisions on these boards today.
Palladan has trolled me ever since, even though I barely post here anymore. Apparently he had some kind of "diva worship" thing going on with Palin. As well, Palladian is a hardcore right wing partisan, though he tries to pretend otherwise.
He also kisses Althouse's butt to an extreme degree, and she rewards him for that, approving of his trolling.
reeman Hunt says: Perhaps it's obvious to anyone who's given the barest thought to the matter that someone who says government should leave him alone is likely first referring not to legitimate, Constitutional functions of government but to the incessant nannying, handout, special interest parts?Nothing is obvious with some of you right-wingers. You are such a fan of Michelle Malkin and Pamela Geller that you may very well be a Nazi (Malkin wrote a book in support of putting Americqans into concentration camps, and Geller is currently under fire for supporting Eurofascist political parties). You did a video with those two women that's on YouTube. I don't wanna find you guilty by association, so I give you the opportunity to distance yourself from them. If you're down with them, however, you're the last person to be talking about government leaving people alone! You make YouTubes with NAZIS!!! FACT!
Freeman Hunt did a YouTube video with two known American fascists. Michelle Malkin supports (and wrote a whole book about) putting Americans into concentration camps. Pamela Geller is currently under fire for backing Eurofascist political parties, and wanting to appear at Euofascist events. When Freeman Hunt says she just wants government to leave people alone, bear in mind she is simultaneously doing YouTubes with ultra-right-wing American fascists! So what gives? Will she distance herself from the American fascists she breaks bread and makes YouTubes with?
Beth: When I say I don't indoctrinate my students, that's all I ought to need to say. That's my word, and I assume it means as much as does the word of the people with whom I disagree.
The same could once be said of lawyers.
You're part of a profession that DOES indoctrinate, that DOES squelch freedom of expression and association [and I doubt you've ever taken a stand against that]. Because of your peers, its common for students today to simply parrot your PCBS back at you so you cant trash their GPA over their political positions. So its not unreasonable for me to assume the worst of you until you prove otherwise. If can't handle that, find a profession that hasn't been so corrupted by the Left.
every city in the U.S. is subsized by taxpayers, as are many, many jobs - in the private industry, too. Your logic is absent entirely.
My logic is that its silly to consider advice from someone like you re the need for Big Government. You have an obvious conflict of interest - if Atlas shrugged, you'd either starve or drown.
Fen said...
... its only fair that you reveal your life is wholly subsidized by your fellow taxpayers."
as is yours and as is everyone's. Good Lord Fen, what's with a stupid comment like that? Did you ever stop to think that Beth pays part of her OWN SALARY? Do you? How fair is that.
I'm thinking of that old story about a guy carrying a sign in a protest. He wrote it, painted it...it said "free the taxpayers".. when he was resting someone switched signs on him so now it said "I want something for nothing". Several miles further he was stopped by another marcher who chastized him for the slogan. He of course hadn't noticed because his job was to carry the sign, not think about content as he had done that once.
And so we have Fen....
Loafing: you may very well be a Nazi .
Coming from a know pedophile, that doesn't mean much.
hdhouse: Did you ever stop to think that Beth pays part of her OWN SALARY? Do you? How fair is that. .
Oh thats rich. Since she pays taxes with money collected from other taxpayers, you think that absolves her of the charge that she's wholly dependent on taxpayers.
Hope you didn't hurt yourself there.
And the problem with Palladian is that Ann patted him on the back and some of the others on here with a protruding supraorbital rim gave him the God's gift to man honorarium.
I think Ann was sadly mistaken and causes me to call her judgment into question. Palladian is something of a condescending bigotted lout in whom I see no value.
Palladian is something of a condescending bigotted lout in whom I see no value.I guess to each his own. I rarely bother to stop and read the hateful tripe you post here.
It's quite heartwarming when hdhouse has his lucid moments. He almost seems coherent. But we should all remind ourselves that the lucidity is short-lived and understand that one day those moments will be fewer and farther between until they cease to happen at all. I know it's sad, but it's better to be prepared than to deceive ourselves with false hope.
Does someone want to wipe his chin?
Beth: Pell Grants go to students at private universities as well, Fen.
And some dogs have spots Beth. Non responsive.
You attempted to assert that you are not "wholly subsidized" by taxes. Our budget is more than 50 percent derived from tuition when a signficant portion of that tuition is also subsidized by taxpayers.
That dog wont hunt.
Beth,
I don't think anyone is accusing you of bad faith. I don't think you are the type to DELIBERATELY indoctrinate. Few educators are that far gone.
The problem isn't deliberate indoctrination. That's usually pretty easy to spot. The problem is that too many educators, particularly those who've been stuck in lib arts departments for too long, confuse progressivism with liberalism, and confuse progressivism with rationality.
The tendency of news organizations to do this accidentally is well known and well established (Groseclose, etc.) But it's easy to catch journos doing it. They have to do their indoctrination in public, to an audience of thousands.
Well-meaning but relentlessly and reflexively liberal professors are much less frequently exposed to the light of day. FIRE is doing good work, but there aren't enough of them.
Beth's strawman argument, suggesting that favoring a limited government is equivalent to anarchy, is dishonest.
No roads or police or firemen?
Bullshit.
No, we're not arguing for tollbooths on the sidewalks, but following the founders' advice to limit the state to a few functions for which it is well-designed.
That is, we demand to follow the US Constitution, not the bastardized rewriting effected by the New Deal.
As it stands, we stand on the cusp of a totalitarian government or the fourth American revolution. Either way, this nation will be unrecognizeable in 30 years. Zimbabwe, Belgium, or freedom will result.
Beth,
Re: "Leave me alone," I think someone else here had it right... Small government is NOT equal to anarchy, and no one here is advocating shredding the Constitution.
That being said, can you share with us just what the 10th amendment is supposed to mean?
Why do you think the founders put it there in the first place?
The indoctination I see hear is from rightwing paranoia. I'm fully aware of the power instructors have in the classroom and I'm not controlled by subliminal urges to steer my students my way in their thinking. I consciously and actively not only avoid that, but confront it. I do so also with my peers, and with the texts we choose in writing and rhetoric courses.
I'm disappointed that so many of the conservatives here live in a bubble of assumptions. What a bitter, nasty way to exist.
Fen, I'm paid for my work. If I no longer worked here, I'd work elsewhere. I choose to teach, and I've chosen to do other work before. You're a finger-pointing little whiner. The feds and states subsidize any number of industries - career military are subsidized by the state, too. Let's hear you dump on them for their having an opinion about government.
Loafing Oaf said:
Palladian still posts his weird, trollish crap about his theory that I am obsessed with Sarah Palin's pussy, or whatever,...
Theory guides; your comment decides.
[adapted from I.M. Kolthoff]
Palladian says: "It seems that a lot of people responded to the idea of freedom over slavery. Sad that none of our so-called liberals did. Oh well. We're better off without you."
Well, strawmen and cheap red-meat rhetoric don't generally appeal to people outside the choir. Also, claiming that the policies of Obama will lead to slavery of anyone in this country is just absurd, frothing-at-the-mouth nonsense. At least my Joe Republican link had a little humor in it and wasn't an exercise in paranoia.
Fen - regarding whether or not Beth works for "big government", what difference does that make regarding her arguments? Frankly, it sounds like you're engaging in a conservative variant of the chickenhawk argument - namely that someone who works for a governmental agency should have their views on government discounted. Plus, didn't you say you work in DC? That's a town where most jobs are linked to government. If your job is one of those jobs, should that disqualify or diminish your arguments automatically?
Also, the assumption that Beth is indoctrinating her students is an assumption of bad faith on her part. You are of course free to do that (I don't think that assumptions of bad faith are off-limits), but let's call it for what it is.
Jason said: "no one here is advocating shredding the Constitution."
Well, I kind of am: Empathy, Originalism, and the Presumption of Liberty.
Pogo says: "That is, we demand to follow the US Constitution, not the bastardized rewriting effected by the New Deal. As it stands, we stand on the cusp of a totalitarian government or the fourth American revolution. Either way, this nation will be unrecognizeable in 30 years. Zimbabwe, Belgium, or freedom will result."
Really? That is the demand on the table? So, what do you propose we abolish - Social Security, the FDIC, the SEC? Those are the main aspects of the New Deal that remain with us and effect people's lives, after all. Please, tell us how those programs entailed the groundwork for a totalitarian state and damaged America's economic health in the post World War Two era. Try not to flinch when the black helicopters fly overhead, particularly the ones manned by Belgians.
Give me a break. If you want to see an example why thinking people, including many people who consider themselves to be Republicans, want to shun the hardcore wing of the anti-Obama Right, here is some evidence.
I see I missed the deranged Fellatin's brilliant remark about slavery. Well, once again, I suppose that the unemployed have the luxury of deluding themselves into believing paying for a competent public servant (as opposed to paying for an incompetent and destructive one) amounts to slavery. To me it sounds like avoiding extortion, but what do I know?
Enthrall us once more, O Brave Fellatin, with your tales of chivalry and bravery - forged in the face of your totalitarian heritage and centuries of genuflection on bended knee to the kings of yore. Do you not hear the cries of your fellow artists? Their guild is calling out for their very own version of Joe the Plumber! And it's you!
What a dumb phony. Let me know how things go after your Middle East Pajamas Media tour. Perhaps you will enlighten Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and turn Ismail Haniyeh on to the virtues of paleolibertarianism by selling them some macrame, or whatever crap you peddle.
You know, James Lileks - no progressive he - once wrote about Kurt Vonnegut's obsession with the Bush administration by envisioning him in a jail cell, penning quatrains of protest on the wall with a shoelace tip dipped in blood. What we have in Palladian is the faux-libertarian version of Vonnegut's faux-liberal. His manifestos don't quite sink to the level of crudity of Ted Kaczynski's, but they share the same political philosophy, sheer ignorance and level of paranoia.
And the deranged McCarthyite Pogo, who makes it his choice to remain enriched and dependent upon the same government who lines his fat pockets as the one he decries for supposedly doing the same for the indigent, is basically here as a mouthpiece of the John Birch Society - the Right Wing version of the LaRouchies.
There was no way I'd skip voting in the last election, even though my vote wouldn't really make a difference in the presidential race, or for Senator or Congressman. Kentucky was strongly for McCain, not even close. Senator Mitch McConnell and Congressman Hal Rogers are the Robert Byrds of Kentucky/the 5th Congressional District. I'm against pork but they're really good at bringing home the bacon LOL.
No, what drew me to the polls was the Coal Run Village annexation vote. They even sent us all letters saying if we didn't become a part of their city, then the city of Pikeville (with their even higher taxes!) would annex us by force later. Duh, that can't happen--by law. I will not tolerate being threatened and coerced. The NO vote won resoundingly and will again if and when Pikeville tries to annex us. We chose to live in the county for a reason. Now leave us alone, greedy government.
... where Freeman Hunt proclaimed "I am Sarah Palin". Pathetic worship of a corrupt, lying politician if you ask me! But she didn't abort her Downs Syndrome baby.....
You thought that was Sarah Palin worship? Methinks you missed the point. Here's a hint: (1) Sexism not appreciated. (2) Stood in solidarity with condemning the sexist attacks on Palin. Thus, "I am Sarah Palin," or "When you make these sexist attacks on her, you are making them on all women." (And no, that doesn't mean that anyone thinks all attacks on Sarah Palin were sexist.)
As for Malkin and Geller, I seriously doubt that either of them are fascists. (That sounds like one of your standard fits of hysteria.) However, I'm not familiar enough with either of them to comment. We didn't work together on the video. John Hawkins invited some women to record segments individually. We did, sent them in, and he edited them together. I liked it.
@Beth, glad to see you're still posting this morning. I had to play catch-up to see where the thread has gone.
First, it would be nice if Democrats, including yourself, would stop hiding behind the things government does that essentially everybody agrees it ought to do. In your case bridges, roads, levees, firefighters, soldiers, and the CDC. In the case of the local (Democrat owned and operated) county council, every time there is a budget surplus, instead of saving the money or spending it one-time capital improvements, they create new programs that turn into new entitlements. Then the economy dips, the tax revenues fall short, and the council announces to the public that if they don't raise taxes then they'll have to cut police and firemen. Apparently this last go-around they got called on it, to their stunned horror, and people suggested in ungentle terms that if they (the council members) couldn't figure out how to cut the budget without cutting services that benefit all citizens, then perhaps in the next election the citizenry would have to find council candidates who can. It seems that some of the council members got the message, which is good.
But my point is that whenever revenues fall, the first programs Democrats bring up are the essentials -- CDC, the military, or, at local levels, police and fire. How about paying poor farmers, like Archer Daniels Midland, not to grow food on land that is marginal for food production anyway, while there are people in the world who are starving. And I would argue that we have more dams and levees than we need just now.
@Beth, earlier you argued that both of last fall's candidates would have grown the government. My counter is that it's the difference between a caress on the cheek versus a punch good and hard in the face. And I didn't vote for McCain because he was perfect; I voted for him because I felt he had integrity and I was pretty sure that a hack politician from Chicago's South Side would have none. As usual, I'm right about that no integrity.
Two last points. First, there is a difference to my mind between the levees upstream of Naw'leens and Naw'leens itself. Upstream is manifestly not going to be hit by hurricanes and tidal surges, nor is any part of it below mean sea level. Naw'leens suffers from all three faults. I seriously question whether all of the parishes should be rebuilt at taxpayer expense -- Katrina was a warning, not really the big one. The Dutch manage to live with a country below sea level, but they are not at major risk of cyclonic storms and, despite red light districts and marijuana-selling "coffee shops" there is a significant difference between the national character of the Netherlands and bon temps rouler, is there not?
Finally, kudos to you that you recognize the possibility that you might be indoctrinating students, and thanks for any efforts you make to counteract those effects. But academia is a bubble, and I would be very surprised if there weren't pernicious effects from choices of works to study to grades you assign, that are part of the gestalt of your department. You can't help it.
Heck, you know that I'm a Republican, so I'm perfectly certain that your automatic assumption is that I'm a racist, misogynistic, homophobe. You can't help it.
Beth,
Back to my question: What does the 10th Amendment mean to you?
Why did the framers include it?
"(And no, that doesn't mean that anyone thinks all attacks on Sarah Palin were sexist.)"
Of course, instead of defending against those attacks, you chose to make a video about sexism. Although who could blame you? That's the easier road to take -- or perhaps the only road to take -- in defending someone as corrupt, mendacious and ignorant as Palin. Make it all about attitude and solidarity, and nothing else. Oh joy! And I heard someone claimed that Obama was leading a cult movement...
But since it's what you know, I suppose that's why you're incapable of making a substantive criticism of Obama and instead complain about how his supporters are too interested in defending him from whatever narrow prejudices and bigotries put your petty crowd on the defensive. The right wing really does see in others a mirror-image reflection of its own pathologies and shortcomings. Or as Walt Kelly would say: We have met the enemy, and he is us. But that lesson's for people who can understand what Pogo was actually about.
To misunderstand the point of a comic strip must take some serious deficiencies. And yet, we're supposed to believe that you guys actually understand what The Founders and Framers had in mind? Get serious!
One thing I'm pretty sure that they didn't have in mind is a society as unbalanced and unhinged as Palladian and Pogo envision it. But then, we know how politically incompetent some of you can be. So we accept the exercise in self-parody that your ilk have become and have moved on with respecting the rule of law, pushing the economy and American society away from revolutionary conditions, and restoring the idea of a government that is not so incompetent, destructive and corrupt as to threaten any efforts by the people to keep it in check. I can't understand why that bothers you. But then, hypocrisy was never my strong suit.
Mike, I don't assume any of those things about you because I know too many Republicans who aren't racist, etc. But make of that what you will.
The students I teach are adults. When I assign a novel, I'm not teaching them to adopt whatever philosophy it might entail. We look at how that philosophy might represent the times from which the novel emerges. But more so, we look at how the elements of fiction work together to create a theme, interesting characters, conflicts. When I teach students composition, I don't care what they think about the topics they choose to argue, I care whether they have a strong thesis, clear topic sentences and examples and reasoning to support their argument. This semester, I did steer one student away from citing Lew Rockwell, to Reason and Wired magazines, as better examples of libertarian writing and thinking, so call that indoctrination if you will. I also repeatedly returned two students' papers arguing for speech codes on campus, with the request that they include an argument on how the codes can co-exist with the First Amendment. I suppose they interpreted that as indoctrination, but I'm confident that making students more comfortable with free speech is the right way to go in a writing class.
Fen - regarding whether or not Beth works for "big government", what difference does that make regarding her arguments?.
Wholly subsidized by taxpayers, not merely "works for big government". Her city, her job, her lifestyle - all at taxpayer expense.
Its important to remember that when she calls for more of the same. Like when an alcoholic advocates for drive-thru liquor stores.
She has an obvious conflict of interest - if Atlas shrugs, she starves or drowns.
@montana, you surely got up on the wrong side of bed this morning. So we right-wingers are "incapable of making a substantive criticism of Obama ..."?
Well, about 200 comments ago I complained about Obama's use of the bully pulpit to break contracts he finds inconvenient. Downstream I expect that to have serious economic repercussions, and I'm not the only one, as you can see here. This report is also cause for alarm.
This is not an administration that understands economics.
Jason, when I say "leave me alone" isn't much to crow about, I'm not arguing for big government. Palladian's thesis was in part to explain why he voted for McCain - and apparently he did so because someone voting for Obama irked him. I just found his complaints that the Obama voters are happy slaves and morons who voted from some sort of cult of personality ridiculous, particularly when he wants to paint himself as independent and rational, but clearly he's swayed by little more than pique.
How much do you want to be left alone? You tell me. There's no clear consensus on the limits of federal government versus state, and in Palladian's cry, there's no distinction between state and federal at all - it's just a vague, emotional expression of frustration with both parties, except for the part where he votes GOP anyway.
I'd give Kelo as an example of where I think big government is way off base. The Drug War is another. I find Radley Balko's writing about the way the drug war has fueled a militarization of local police forces to be very persuasive. On the other pole, whenever I hear "states rights!" cries I'm wary, coming as I do from the Deep South. The TSA and travel watch lists are good examples of intrusive, overblown government. Cameras on street corners are another, but I like that we, too, can wield cameras and watch the watchers. Those are some examples, hardly a complete list, but an inkling. I want government to be held accountable for what it does do; I am quite willing to hear various idea on what the parameters should be.
She has an obvious conflict of interest - if Atlas shrugs, she starves or drowns.No, she gets another job. Sheesh.
Do you really live in DC, Fen? If so, you're on a flood plain.
@Beth, I may be misunderestimating you. In your response to me I hope you're not lying to yourself, because every person suffers from the reality that we lie to ourselves more easily than to any other person.
Concerning your comment to Fen, I've lived in the Maryland suburbs of DC and worked downtown. Only the area of the State Department, the White House, the major monuments, and the Mall are on a flood plain. Even the Capitol is on a hill.
Speaking of floods, I won't back down from my position that spending tax dollars to rebuild Naw'leens to what it was pre-Katrina is a colossal waste. That goes triple for the 9th ward. It's only going to go back under water when the next big hurricane hits. We've been lucky since Katrina -- Rita made landfall as a category 3 well to the south and west of the city and still the levees were breached. Some day a cat 5 will hit head on and every penny sunk into rebuilding the city will be shown to have been a dead loss.
@Beth, I don't know if you have kids but if you do then Happy Mothers Day. (If not, just save it up for a few years from now.)
Montana, perhaps sexism is worth criticizing in addition to making other points elsewhere? And perhaps people can criticize Obama's followers and Obama? And perhaps one need not cover all bases in all comments or all threads?
My gosh, you are a cunt, Woodsy Owl.
Big Mike, I agree that the footprint of New Orleans should shrink. There's very little going on in the 9th Ward in terms of rebuilding, in any case. Nagin doesn't have the political will to talk about it, but I support more density in the high ground. I used to oppose developing condos and four-story apartments in the historic areas, but now I don't - it makes sense to move more of the population to high ground.
But we also have the technology to build good flood walls and pumping stations, and it should be done. Right now, we're probably in better shape in those terms than we were before Katrina, and that's a good thing. Closing the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet does a lot to protect lower-lying areas.
I'm not a mom - and I'm nearing 50, so I don't plan on becoming one. On this day, I reflect on missing my own mom. She was good people. Best wishes to your wife, if that's appropriate today.
@Palladian, I'd rather you didn't use that sort of epithet. It's use as a put-down rests on the assumption that women are inferior. The assumption is baseless in fact.
"It's use as a put-down rests on the assumption that women are inferior. The assumption is baseless in fact."
I'm countering his/her/its use of "Fellatin" as a (pathetic) epithet to refer to me. It assumes that homosexuals are inferior. I respond in kind as I said.
"I'm not a mom - and I'm nearing 50, so I don't plan on becoming one."
You could adopt. Is that allowed in LA? I don't follow adoption law.
It's use as a put-down rests on the assumption that women are inferior.
I thought it rested on the assumption that being genitalia was inferior to being a whole person.
Fen - sorry, that is just chickenhawking. Under that logic, anyone who is in the military shouldn't be trusted when they talk about the need for greater military readiness, and no research scientist should be trusted when they talk about the need for greater scientific research. There is a yawning gap between healthy skepticism based on the "where you stand is related to where you sit" principle and outright assumptions of bad faith and conflict of interest because of where someone works.
Also, in an advanced mixed economy (like ours has been for many decades), there is no clean line between the public and private sectors, wherein a private sector entity (other than a tiny store, and even then that's not true if that store benefits from small business tax breaks or favorable zoning laws, for example) can claim its success has nothing to do with government. Banks in the pre-TARP era? Sorry, imagine whether they'd have many depositors without the FDIC. Securities firms? Sorry, smaller investors would stay out of the market if it weren't for the regulatory system set up in the New Deal, including the SEC. That's life in the real economic world, not the one written about by Austrian School ideologues or internet libertarians.
@Beth, thanks for the update.
My wife informs me that motherhood is a mixture of joy, interspersed with strong urges to emulate Medea.
I was on her good side this morning, because I got her a nice present (which she will have to exchange, but I scored points for having given her something that would have fit back when we were first married), given her a nice card, and made breakfast -- and cleaned up.
But we have an appraiser coming in later in the week because we are doing a re-fi, and I'm still pounding the keyboard. So I've gotta go or I'll be in deep trouble.
I was hoping to get down to Naw'leens next week to give a talk, but it fell through. Too bad. I might have tried to look you up.
Palladian - you talk about freedom versus slavery in the current political context, which as I said earlier, sounds paranoid and histrionic to me, and I suspect most people as well given current polling.
But here is a question that may clarify the point - what freedoms have you lost or that you think you will lose, based on Obama's policies thus far and those he is promoting?
What banal performance art....
Here's Montana Urban Legend demonstrating his theory that secular progressive ad hominem attacks and Obotism are more palatable when delivered with staggering pomposity.
And what's with the drivel about "wrapping up 'competence' in a glitzy packaging scheme of hope and change to even make it. palatable?"
Surely it's not possible that you or anyone else with a modicum of intelligence believed that there was evidence of Obama's "presidential" competence prior to the election. There is no evidence of it yet.
That implication is as delusional as Beth's assertion to Palladian that: "You voted for a candidate who was no less likely to grow government than the other one...."
Where do you folks get this shit?
Fen - sorry, that is just chickenhawking. Under that logic, anyone who is in the military shouldn't be trusted when they talk about the need for greater military readiness.
No. Under my logic, you should be made aware that the guy advocating military readiness is the contract officer for Lockheed.
[...]
She has an obvious conflict of interest - if Atlas shrugs, she starves or drowns.
Beth: No, she gets another job. Sheesh.Another job subsidized by taxpayers Beth? And using your own logic, why are you still in NO? Are you expecting our sympathy and money next time a storm surge wipes you out? How bout you do us all a favor and move above sea level before that happens again?
C'mom somefeller. Thats like three in a row now. I know we love to disagree, but you're usually much sharper than this.
Inlaws over?
"I'm countering his/her/its use of "Fellatin" as a (pathetic) epithet to refer to me. It assumes that homosexuals are inferior. I respond in kind as I said."
Actually I use it in kind to meet your own level of insult. I use it to refer to the emphasis you place on others' habits -- such as what dtl supposedly did in high school, as if that were relevant to anything -- and because you thought you were pretty clever to intimate that said activity with others' relatives was how you contracted herpes. Referring to someone's performing fellatio is not an insult. Referring to the way they do it to the point of contracting disease, or without regard to others, or as a way of reflecting their own warped family dynamics probably is. You can make of that what you will. But you don't even have the presence of mind to realize that you know nothing about the libertarianism you profess to support, so I have no problem believing that you will use even this as a way of continuing to misconstrue things so egregiously.
And of course, explaining all this is an act of completely unwarranted generosity to someone as unhinged as you, which in your infinite misanthropy and distrust of others, you will undoubtedly feel compelled to throw back into my face. But such antics are to be expected by such a shallow poseur as yourself, so they don't bother me.
What reference(s) to your shortcomings would you find acceptable, O Shallow One? Oh, that's right. Your reflected importance on the intertubes makes you impervious to fallibility. So I'll just dispense with a go fuck yourself and we'll call it a day. Even though that can't possibly be as meaningful as the other epithet - given the context of what you did and said to deserve it. It's just some bait to throw out there for the benefit of your play-acting and temper tantrums - which only underscore and belie the very shortcomings you will deny until you are not only bald but beardless, too.
And toothless. But you already fulfilled that criterion in a much more important, if symbolic way.
"Inlaws over?"
No, just Mother's Day errands. And an interesting new (for me) book about Alexander the Great taking my attention. Plus, I've been more interested in trying (unsuccessfully) to get a straight answer out of Palladian.
Also, it's a huge peeve of mine when people talk about the public and private sectors of the economy as though they were sharply separate from one another, and the assumption that those who work in the public sector are somehow less likely to separate themselves and their biases from their jobs as those in the private sector.
@Mike - You honestly think I'm here to engage legitimate debate and substantive criticism of Obama? I mean, I can respect that. But you think that here is where I could find that... of all places? That sort of thing doesn't occur here, and I've long since figured that out.
So I'm here to make fun of the fact that a lot of people who want to pile onto the shallow bandwagon of the GOP's raging sense of impotence over Obama's popularity spent the better part of the last four years thinking that democracy was beneath them and insulting their fellow citizens' decent intentions. The time to engage the most substantive of criticisms has passed. Criticism will be made of Obama; what no one here can stand is that he seems to welcome and engage that so much more effectively than any of his adversaries. So now we are in a different historical chapter, where the petty fights and squabbles between the parties, that could be legitimized and fueled with a cookie-cutter veneer of intellectual debate about ideological differences of opinion about the role of government, no longer matter in the way they once did. You want to complain about what some Democratic public official has done? Fine! Who cares, though? Is it a partisan thing? Or an honest concern about whatever public official breaching their duty? Because in the case of the former, no one with any power gives a fuck anymore. Tough luck, beefcake.
Obama doesn't know about economics, you say? Great. I'll raise you one and say that neither did Bush. His party believed that market economics was a theology that excluded macroeconomic concerns and saw the market as being in the service of the government, or at least his party - and brought the legitimization of cronyism to wondrous new heights and incompetence to even greater vistas. Perhaps Lawrence Summers or Austan Goolsbee, who serve among Obama's current advisors, aren't your cup of tea, either. Perhaps they should defer to your very own special brand of economic expertise, whoever you are. Well isn't that special? I'll give you hint: No one cares about that either! The know-nothingism that defined the GOP burned itself out on a steady diet of contempt for, seemingly, any kind of objective knowledge. So what can I tell you? You can only be for stupidity and faith in stupidity for so long until no one's listening anymore. Guess the contempt for the American voter blinded people in certain quarters to the fact that contempt is no match for a brain cell or two.
All that being said, I have a blog. I don't take it incredibly seriously, but I've been known to show an interest in an intelligent discussion or two - with respect for perspectives from both sides of the proverbial aisle. You want to have a serious discussion about the Obama Administration's potential foibles? Name the forum, consider unblocking access to your profile, and let's have at it. But stop jerking my fucking chain and pretending that any of that has any place in this website - which is nothing other than an utterly and completely unserious playpen when it comes to anything approximating cogent discussion of public policy.
At that point, I will be all ears, Mike. And I will make sure to get up on the right side of the bed on that morning. You can count on it.
Beth,
Christ on a crotch-rocket... is it that hard to answer the questions?
What does the 10th Amendment mean to you?
Why did the framers include it in the Bill of Rights?
I wrote in Paris Hilton. She had the best, most concise economic plan of anybody... well, except Ron Paul. But his plan to eliminate the Fed is just dopey.
"...temper tantrums - which only underscore and belie the very shortcomings you will deny until you are not only bald but beardless, too."
Blah blah blah. I've been bald since I was 19, Woodsy Owl. And do us a favor: work on your writing skills. You sound like Glenn Greenwald with a budget thesaurus and no deadlines.
And I was correct in my assessment: You're a cunt.
Wow! 278 comments. This one got everybody going.
I'm particularly, poignantly happy not to have Obama on my conscience because I'm not a partisan or a capital-C Conservative (though I seem to be getting more and more conservative) and I don't dislike him personally. So it wasn't a slam dunk to hate him and never, ever, no way, vote for him. But I'm so glad I didn't. Don't have the metastasis of government and debt on my conscience, not that that's much consolation. But at least I don't have to feel a tiny bit responsible for it.
Fen, if I did move, New Orleans would still be here. What's your point? You're such a whiny little twit.
If I lost my job teaching, my skills will allow me to work in public or private industry. Thanks for the concern, but it's unwarranted. I'll be fine either way. I have a nice long resume, with plenty and varied experience.
Jason, since you obviously want to play law professor, why don't you tell us what the 10th means to you? I've answered your question - you go for it now.
@Montana, I'll go looking for your blog and we'll see what we can do to have a meeting of the minds.
If Barack Obama and his advisers knew anything about economics they'd understand that distribution of wealth follows a Pareto distribution, ergo the way to lift the value of the median and mean is to allow the value of the wealthiest to grow. Gates and Buffett are cases in point; both are wealthy beyond even avarice, but both have also created wealth for others. This is especially true of Gates, in the sense that the phrase "Microsoft millionaire" is one of the biggest cliches in high tech. So I don't much care that Bill Gates is worth more in billions than I am in thousands*; I firmly believe that if the Summers-Goolsbee-Obama concept of economics were still in place then Gates and Allen would still be a tiny outfit in a niche market, Jobs and Wozniak would never have been allowed to start a business in a suburban garage (Hewlett and Packard either, for that matter), there would be no home computers (or they'd be so expensive that only the Kennedys and Rockefellers would own them) and they'd still have command line interfaces.
I'm not going to defend the prior Republican administration, but somehow they grasped the point that redistribution of wealth can only work by lowering the mean and median, affecting everybody. Any cronyism will continue in this administration -- it will merely be other cronies.
In fact, I expect to see a return to the Carter era, when the way to win was not to invest in R&D or develop shrewd marketing plans or even better products. The way to win was to hire more and better lobbyists. This is already what's happening. Go look.
I think you need to read Black Swan by Nassim Taleb. I promise that the math is not particularly hard -- though there are pointers to Mandelbrot, and the Pareto distribution, if you're so inclined. Don't dismiss Hayek just because he was right.
____________
*OK, it's not really as bad as that. I invested my 401K conservatively and it didn't take as bad a hit as it might have.
Big Mike, I hope you get here sometime, but there's no rush. We made 291 a week ago - we're not going anywhere.
@Beth, I think I did misunderestimate you. You must admit that it's a rare humanities professor that can make a living outside the academic cocoon doing anything more complicated than cleaning septic tanks.
Still, from my own brief exposure to campus politics I have to admit that academia certainly does prepare one for dealing with a lot of crap.
Ah, I didn't get the reference to "291." Can you explain?
Good night.
No, Beth, you answered nothing. Nothing but muddleheadedness.
You teach expository writing? Scary.
You're the one advocating an expansive federal government. You're the one that needs to defend it. How can you square your expansive view of government with the plain text of the 10th amendment? The burden of the argument is on you big government types, not on me. After all, you want our money.
So, again:
What does the 10th amendment mean to you?
Why did the framers include it?
"You're a cunt."
Why don't you work on your writing skills and explain what this is even supposed to mean, Fellatin?
"I've been bald since I was 19"
As shallow as you are, that statement really goes a long way in explaining your intemperate attitude and anger management issues.
The writing won't change. And I'm pleased to know that it pisses you off. Given how much of an idiot you are, anything more abstruse than Dick and Jane would be way over your bald head. Must be frustrating.
You really seem to have a problem with owls. Did they bother your friend and ideological soul-mate Theodore Kaczynski when he was living in his log cabin? Since those lefty New Yorkers (and humans in general) annoy you so much, did you ever consider staying out there in the wilderness with Ted - away from that big, bad evil thing the rest of us call "civilization"?
Boo-Hoo. Poor Palladian. He can't even be king of his own little fortress here on Blogger.
Again, Mike. When you put yourself in the position of saying that Summers and Goolsbee know nothing of economics, you're making a pretty strong (and far-fetched) claim. Do you have their credentials? Do you have the number of publications they do? I don't. So why are you trying to convince me? You should be convincing them.
But if you want to play internet mix and match with a lil' ole bit o' folksy wisdom here, some factoid there, and a whole lot of polemic sprinkled everywhere else for good measure, I can play that game too. I'll put it to you this way. Demand is finally catching up to the fact that Americans make crappy products, provide crappy services, market the hell out of junk that no one really needs, and whine and cry once consumers catch on to their game. Are you going to say that the low savings rate, which is finally correcting, was not a problem? Deny the impact of the bubbles that our Cro-Magnon presidential predecessor and Co. cheered on? Are you going to deny that Gramm-Leach-Bliley played a role? Is everything going to be a left-right war in your analysis. You say you have quibbles with the previous administration. I'm curious to know if that extends one iota to their (extremely limited) intellectual and ideological underpinnings. Again, I'm not claiming to be a Ph.D. in economics - and I'll lay a hunch that you aren't either - but I will say that I highly doubt that those who are tend to see things in as politically polarized a fashion as you appear to assert they are.
Anyway, regardless of what you think the last administration was able to grasp, what is obvious is that they didn't grasp moral hazard -- which is essentially an economic subset of conflict of interest, another one of their gaping social and ethical weaknesses. To imply that the current administration has anywhere near as much a stake in rigging the markets to suit themselves as the previous lackeys did is to strain credulity. Their political support is a little more, shall we say, diverse. I know that bugs the hell out of some people, but some of us actually prefer a market that is free to grow, once it knows which way is up, and once the regulators grow up and give it a basis for making the distinction between true value and bloated metastasis. But maybe that's just me.
So where I'm coming from is a place where I appreciate your pro-free market cant, I just don't see how it applies to a legal context that believes that valuation is a spectator sport.
Freeman Hunt: Here's a hint: (1) Sexism not appreciated. (2) Stood in solidarity with condemning the sexist attacks on Palin. Thus, "I am Sarah Palin," or "When you make these sexist attacks on her, you are making them on all women." (And no, that doesn't mean that anyone thinks all attacks on Sarah Palin were sexist.)Oh, of course you wanna paint all attacks on Palin as "sexist". Meanwhile, you'll claim that attacks on Obama are unjustly painted as racist. You're doing the same thing as Obama fanatics! And wehat backers of Hillary did in the 1990s ("you're afraid of a strong woman..."). People attacked Palin's performance in the campaign because she said a lot of really stupid things and was caught in many lies. But you'll say this is all "sexism".
As for Malkin and Geller, I seriously doubt that either of them are fascists.The Little Green Footballs blog has been documenting Pamela Geller's support of European fascist policitians for months now. Apparently you missed all that. If Geller wants to fly overseas to appear at European fascist events, is it actually "hysterical" to call her a fascist????
It could be you're ignorant of Geller, but can you really claim to be ignorant of Malkin?
You claim:
However, I'm not familiar enough with either of them to comment.Yet Malkin's web site enjoys a prominent spot on your blog roll. You're not familiar with Michelle Malkin but you have her on your blog roll???? Why do you lie?!
We didn't work together on the video. John Hawkins invited some women to record segments individually. We did, sent them in, and he edited them together. I liked it.It sounds like you're unwilling to back Geller and Malkin, which is good. They are both highly dishonest bloggers who are into fascism. You call it "hysteria" on my part that I call them fascist. Well, Geller is the one who is in love with European fascists, and if that sounds like "hysteria" to you you need to investigate it. And Malkin is a proven liar on many occasions, and she wrote a book in support of concentration camps.
I don't think it's "hysterical" to call people what they are.
But I understand you wanna call me some kind of hysterical nutcase because you did a YouTube with two American fascists. Well, congrats, that YouTube is part of your record.
And now you claim you don't know jack squat about Malkin, even though she's on your blog roll.
Again, I only bring this up because you posted your jive about how you just want government to leave people alone, blah blah blah. Since when does the ultra-right-wing want government to leave people alone? If you were a true libertarian you wouldn't be breaking bread and doing YouTubes with Geller and Malkin.
I love how I'm called a "hysteric" for calling Pamela Geller and Michelle Malkin American fascists. I recorgnize it can be hysteria to call anyone you happen to disagree with a "fascist.". But your ordniary citizen is not Pamela Geller and Michelle Malkin. Pamela Geller is in close communication with European politicians who are in fact of the fascist persuasion. FACT. Michelle Malkin does, in fact, support fascist stuff like torture, and did, in fact, write a book supporting putting Americans into concentration camps. I'm not calling someone I simply disagree with a "fascist." I'm calling Pemela Geller and Michelle Malkin fascists. And that is, in fact, what they are.
@Montana, I found your blog and I'm happy to engage you in discussion.
You are correct that I am not an economist -- I am merely a mathematician who designs computer systems for a living. Consequently I am very comfortable with non-Gaussian distributions and in the real world I run into the Pareto distribution all the time. Taleb's book (that I mentioned previously) really resonates with me.
I might add that appeals to credentials don't much faze me. I do my work where the cutting edge meets the bleeding edge and I've met too many highly-credentialed academics in my own area who do not have a clue. Way too many of them try to map the technical problem into something that their cherished tools can work on -- sort of the mathematical equivalent of "every screw looks like a nail when all you know how to use is a hammer." So, don't bother waving the Obama team's credentials at me; I'm not impressed by credentials.
(I almost typed "phase" in the paragraph above -- Beth would have a field day!)
I have to admit that your ad hominem remarks do nothing to suggest to me that you have an open mind, nor that you have the right side of the argument. But, who knows? I might learn something I didn't know before. Bank deregulation -- which was a bipartisan effort you might recall -- was a contributor to last fall's meltdown, but the proximate cause was insufficient reserves in Fannie & Freddie to cover losses from sub-prime mortgages urged on by Democrats in the face of push-back from Republicans such as John McCain and the president you ignorantly characterize as "Cro-Magnon." (To be fair to your side, they should have pushed back harder. Much harder.)
I've left a message at your blog. Your move.
Yet Malkin's web site enjoys a prominent spot on your blog roll. You're not familiar with Michelle Malkin but you have her on your blog roll???? Why do you lie?! A prominent spot? I think it's just one of many in a list on the sidebar. Of course I know who Malkin is, and I've seen some of her work. But no, I'm not familiar enough with her to know her opinions and reasoning on a broad range of issues. Her blog isn't a regular read for me. I've liked some of her work, and she's linked to me before, so she's on my blogroll.
By the way, did you know that there are some blogs on my blogroll that never post anything I agree with? Imagine that.
I'm glad that Malkin also thought the sexist attacks on Palin were wrong and participated in the video. Regardless of anything else, she and I definitely agree on that.
And the reason that I would guess you're being hysterical is that that is your default mode of operation.
oh fuck it
I can't even write a response without Sucky Blogger eating all the line breaks.
YOUR FORMAT SUCKS ANN
Wow Mike. Where to begin?
"You are correct that I am not an economist -- I am merely a mathematician who designs computer systems for a living. Consequently I am very comfortable with non-Gaussian distributions and in the real world I run into the Pareto distribution all the time."
Is that why you didn't want to address the humble topics of consumer demand and quality/value? I mean, I'm not sure it takes abstract statistics to realize that a product is a piece of garbage and the service you're paying for is about as sub-par as it can get. However, I think that to economists such things might actually matter. Maybe some day we'll outsource consumption itself to mindless automotons and no one will care about those things either. Until then... Oh wait...
"I might add that appeals to credentials don't much faze me. I do my work where the cutting edge meets the bleeding edge and I've met too many highly-credentialed academics in my own area who do not have a clue."
My reaction is somewhere between.. "well isn't that touching!" and "So what?" It's almost like I want to ask you what your point is, but I'm not even sure you're the best authority on that. I'm sure credentialing in itself is, or can be over-rated. On the other hand, not everyone is an expert on everything and, like it or not, credentials and expertise give people a basis for determining how arguments in that field matter. If you disagree, and you can't even convince the experts, why the heck are you wasting your time on the intertubes trying to make the same points to me? Let me get this straight... None of the experts have any credibility, but you do? I mean, I wish I could offer you a shoulder to cry on at the bar over a beer, where you could lament how your unrecognized genius is not being put to good use in saving the world. But I'm sorry buddy. I'll offer you consolation, but have no way of determining the actual merit behind your gripe.
"Way too many of them try to map the technical problem into something that their cherished tools can work on -- sort of the mathematical equivalent of "every screw looks like a nail when all you know how to use is a hammer."
Fine. And this sounds like an incredibly generalizable problem. How do I know you're avoiding it? I mean, yes, sometimes outside perspective -- even from a proudly uncredentialed novice -- is useful. But you already ignored at least three key pieces to this puzzle. Sometimes things are simpler than the experts make them out to be. And then there are those incredibly simple economic things like demand, quality and a regulatory scheme rife with moral hazard that apparently don't make it onto the radar screen of the mathematician who wanted to save the economy.
"So, don't bother waving the Obama team's credentials at me; I'm not impressed by credentials."
Ok. I think you've said your piece on this. As have I.
(I almost typed "phase" in the paragraph above -- Beth would have a field day!)
"I have to admit that your ad hominem remarks do nothing to suggest to me that you have an open mind, nor that you have the right side of the argument."
Yes, Mike. But all you have to do is peruse a few of the comments here. I think it's safe to say I'm in hostile territory here, and there are people here for whom no argument I could make, no matter how sound and rational, would matter. Would convince them. They seem to think in ad hominems when socially or intellectually inconvenienced. And whether you like to admit it or not, politics matter.
There are various heuristics people use to make decisions. And while yours might be a little more respectful of cognition and reason, as we can see from the paragraphs above, sometimes experience does count for something. So do motives. And so do the past results achieved by people making the argument. But different people have different ways of being persuaded and I see no reason to refrain from using ad hominems with people who seem to think exclusively in terms of ad hominems. But I don't see why that should concern you so much seeing as how in my last reply I really didn't dispense any to you.
"But, who knows? I might learn something I didn't know before. Bank deregulation -- which was a bipartisan effort you might recall -- was a contributor to last fall's meltdown, but the proximate cause was insufficient reserves in Fannie & Freddie to cover losses from sub-prime mortgages urged on by Democrats in the face of push-back from Republicans such as John McCain and the president you ignorantly characterize as "Cro-Magnon."
It was a joke, man. Do you really want to be convincing while trying to defend Bush's intelligence?
"(To be fair to your side, they should have pushed back harder. Much harder.)
I've left a message at your blog. Your move."
Well, your salient reply was here - and for the moment, so is mine. But economics and blog activity are as much determined by, and a factor of human behavior as anything else. If these things are so darn important to you, I can't understand why you don't create your own blog and post about them from there. But maybe I don't fully understand who you are and where you're coming from.
@Montana, you used a lot of words but didn't say very much. I regard your comments about quality of services and products as being orthogonal to the discussion of whether I regret voting against Barack Obama. I didn't and I don't. If anything he's worse than I anticipated.
I think you mistake me -- probably deliberately so -- when you try to suggest that I am setting myself up as an economic expert. My point is that waving credentials at me is a waste of time. I'm influenced by mathematical certitude and by results. (There is also the very real possibility that President Obama is his own economic advisor, and that he only listens to those who agree with him.)
You ranted several times in this thread about products that are a piece of garbage and terrible service. But as John Ruskin put it, "there is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider price only are this man's lawful prey." Some American products are trash, some are quite good. It depends on the company and whether the product is targeting the quality niche or competing on low cost. I don't need to be an economic expert to see that.
You wrote that "different people have different ways of being persuaded and I see no reason to refrain from using ad hominems with people who seem to think exclusively in terms of ad hominems." You need to understand that ad hominem remarks never persuade anybody.
And I don't know George W. Bush personally, but people I do know who've met him, and whose judgment I feel I can trust, report that he's quite bright. The "George Bush is a dolt" meme was never more than propaganda pushed by a united media. Keep in mind that he has two Ivy League degrees -- and a Harvard MBA is every bit as impressive as a Harvard law degree.
This will be my last post on this thread. If you want to talk some more you'll have to do it in another thread or on your own blog.
Oh, one last thing. I don't write my own blog because I don't have the time. Sometimes I don't have the time even to read more than a few entries on Instapundit, much less manage a blog. For the past couple weeks my workload has been low, but I see it tending up again and I imagine I'll be looking at 60 - 70 hour workweeks.
"You need to understand that ad hominem remarks never persuade anybody."
Well, they might never persuade anybody of anything other than the fact that someone else doesn't respect them or their arguments and thinks they're a dolt.
"Keep in mind that he has two Ivy League degrees -- and a Harvard MBA is every bit as impressive as a Harvard law degree."
You know, for someone who says that credentials don't matter, you sure are selective about admiring Bush's "credentials". And that selectivity is all the more interesting given the fact that the person holding them ushered in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.
Not a very persuasive line of argumentation you're taking here, Mike.
Further, for you to miss that legacy admissions play a role in Bush's fantastic and wonderful education is really astounding.
"Oh, one last thing. I don't write my own blog because I don't have the time. Sometimes I don't have the time even to read more than a few entries on Instapundit, much less manage a blog. For the past couple weeks my workload has been low, but I see it tending up again and I imagine I'll be looking at 60 - 70 hour workweeks."
Setting up a blog - even as a placeholder, takes like all of five minutes. I don't understand how a computer programmer wouldn't get this. I daresay that you've spent more time posting comments on this thread than it would have taken to set up the darn thing. If nothing else, it establishes your credibility with regard to how seriously you take the idea of engaging discussions on-line.
And now for the actual substance of what you wrote:
"@Montana, you used a lot of words but didn't say very much."
Oh, well Gee. Isn't that nice? Tell me what you really think, why don't you?
"My point is that waving credentials at me is a waste of time."
And I might say there's a stronger case to be made for the idea that waving credentials that are "orthogonal" to the field of study in question - such as math and statistics - is an even bigger waste of time.
"I'm influenced by mathematical certitude and by results."
We're talking about a field of study regarding human behavior that is very far from establishing "certitude". This involves a heavy dose of human psychology and social behavior. It's not a game of Tron. We are not talking about anything that can be definitively reduced to a series of equations with absolute certainty, like electrical circuits. And we are talking about a field that is updated all the time.
"You ranted several times in this thread about products that are a piece of garbage and terrible service. But as John Ruskin put it, "there is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider price only are this man's lawful prey." Some American products are trash, some are quite good. It depends on the company and whether the product is targeting the quality niche or competing on low cost. I don't need to be an economic expert to see that."
America doesn't make enough of anything, at least not when it comes to actual manufactured products for use by civilians, to keep its country on the map. Tech is an exception, and that changes very rapidly. We've got Google. We've got the pirates of Microsoft. But this "low cost" niche is exactly the kind of garbage that I'm talking about. It also tends to be the kind of crap that doesn't make a lasting impression in consumers' minds; it doesn't make for brand loyalty - good products do. And good products are what made the American auto industry, for instance, the envy of the world, kept our manufacturing base in momentum, kept our skilled labor employed. Crap just contributed to the same psychology that led anyone to believe that fraudulent securities bundled from a real-estate bubble were a way to infinitely grow an economy forever. It was a dream. A fantasy. You know what those things are, don't you Mike? Or are those things just mathematically irrelevant psychological ephemera? In either event, they seem to have made quite an impact in getting us into this mess - so I don't think they should be ignored.
Somewhere down the road, you're going to have to concede that you are being very, very naive about some very real psychological factors that come into play in a very real way. And you are doing it in favor of either pretending or believing, just as naively, that that you can reduce people to numerical equivalents and still understand everything you need to know about why they behave they way they do when it comes to financial incentives. I understand you want me to be impressed by your knowledge of math and statistics (and big deal. I've taken enough math and stats to earn degrees and publish papers in highly technical fields as well. So what? Who cares?) But what I'm really not impressed by is your naivete and incredibly narrow breadth of perspective. I'd love to be convinced otherwise, but something like that can be a pretty significant obstacle.
@ Big Mike,
Two hundred ninety-one years; we say "made" here for birthdays - I just made 49. It must come from the French, faire, which is used in the same context.
I started teaching full-time less than 10 years ago, so I've done many things other than that to pay the bills. I did a lot of work as a free-lance writer and editor, tech writer, as well administrative stuff in offices. I also cooked for a while, worked on a couple of newspapers, made furniture. I like teaching the most, so despite the pay, I stick with that. I also get to do administrative things on campus, and tech support for online and computer-class instruction. It's all enjoyable.
Jason, I don't teach law, I don't even teach poli sci. I'm just a citizen, with basic understanding of the Constitution. It's not really up to me to define the 10th Amendment, it's up to courts to interpret that. Get a grip - I haven't argued for "big government" either. You think you're playing "gotcha" but you've just got your needle stuck.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন