War Tubas
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Quote of the Day
Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban. And that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) February 4, 2009, regarding the stimulus bill.
Friday, February 6, 2009
This...
...is why I'm so pissed off about this stupid damned stimulus.
And it's why I've been drawing all my little charts, and writing all the long posts, and explaining why infrastructure is important as it relates to economic growth...why the stimulus should revolve around infrastructure...
But none of that really fucking matters when you have retarded dildos running things.
To Sen Collins and Sen Nelson: I hope this chart counts you as quickly as possible. You fail at America.
Introductory macroeconomics helps stop this. Fuck! Woooouuullllddd you like to know whyyyy our little friend the green line is so steep? Because there's nothing but stimulus to stop it from bottoming out. The blue line and the red line had a little thing I like to call "monetary policy" to keep the recession from being so bad. Didn't have to go into debt, just had to pull the monetary policy lever and cut interest rates and things would pick up. But wouldn't you know it, we're already at 0.25%, so that shit don't work no' mo.'
So, call it what you will, a "market correction," what have you. The point is, life is going to suck for a very long time.
And it's why I've been drawing all my little charts, and writing all the long posts, and explaining why infrastructure is important as it relates to economic growth...why the stimulus should revolve around infrastructure...
But none of that really fucking matters when you have retarded dildos running things.
To Sen Collins and Sen Nelson: I hope this chart counts you as quickly as possible. You fail at America.
Introductory macroeconomics helps stop this. Fuck! Woooouuullllddd you like to know whyyyy our little friend the green line is so steep? Because there's nothing but stimulus to stop it from bottoming out. The blue line and the red line had a little thing I like to call "monetary policy" to keep the recession from being so bad. Didn't have to go into debt, just had to pull the monetary policy lever and cut interest rates and things would pick up. But wouldn't you know it, we're already at 0.25%, so that shit don't work no' mo.'
So, call it what you will, a "market correction," what have you. The point is, life is going to suck for a very long time.
John Cole
Hilarious:
I really don’t understand how bipartisanship is ever going to work when one of the parties is insane. Imagine trying to negotiate an agreement on dinner plans with your date, and you suggest Italian and she states her preference would be a meal of tire rims and anthrax. If you can figure out a way to split the difference there and find a meal you will both enjoy, you can probably figure out how bipartisanship is going to work the next few years.Now if only we can get elected Democrats to start ridiculing Republicans like this, we'll get somewhere.
Counterfactual counterintuitiveness.
Whatever Slate Magazine says, it's actually the opposite, because [appropriate yet esoteric documentary evidence found two clicks from the Wikipedia entry on the topic], which is better.
I understand why people don't pay me to write that. What I don't understand is why they pay writers at Slate.
I understand why people don't pay me to write that. What I don't understand is why they pay writers at Slate.
Stimulus vote today?
Presumably, we'll be saddled with an additional $900b debt, of which only a tiny fraction will be able to make up for the decrease in consumer spending, and a still smaller fraction of that going towards the infrastructure development the country will so definitely need to grow out of this.
If I were an advisor to Obama, I'd have him call a joint session of Congress to have two economic teams, conservative and liberal, Hayekian and Keynesian, battle it out. Each side would elect a leader, who would be able to give a 45 minute PowerPoint presentation, replete with graphs and pie charts and other visual aids, to promote their vision of what is the best interest of the United States based on their own doctrinal vision. A theoretical primer, if you will.
After the presentations, packets containing each team's proposals, based on real world figures, would be presented to the Senate to include, exclude, and modify into a real stimulus bill.
THAT is goddamn compromise.
I'm convinced that most of Congress has no fucking idea what's going on. The stimulus is purely political. This is the crux of the problem, thus, why we're spending so much money on things that will not fucking do anything, even in theory, to promote economic growth. They don't know how to do it, because they don't understand economics. They're just throwing money at the problem, to make the bill "big enough," and calling it a day. Political bullshit at its finest, and ultimately, its most countereffectual, which is the same thing.
If I were an advisor to Obama, I'd have him call a joint session of Congress to have two economic teams, conservative and liberal, Hayekian and Keynesian, battle it out. Each side would elect a leader, who would be able to give a 45 minute PowerPoint presentation, replete with graphs and pie charts and other visual aids, to promote their vision of what is the best interest of the United States based on their own doctrinal vision. A theoretical primer, if you will.
After the presentations, packets containing each team's proposals, based on real world figures, would be presented to the Senate to include, exclude, and modify into a real stimulus bill.
THAT is goddamn compromise.
I'm convinced that most of Congress has no fucking idea what's going on. The stimulus is purely political. This is the crux of the problem, thus, why we're spending so much money on things that will not fucking do anything, even in theory, to promote economic growth. They don't know how to do it, because they don't understand economics. They're just throwing money at the problem, to make the bill "big enough," and calling it a day. Political bullshit at its finest, and ultimately, its most countereffectual, which is the same thing.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Health Care Reform
Just read Krugman's column from Jan. 29, Health Care Now.
I can't argue with him about the economics of it. I'd love single payer yesterday.
He mentions why the entire column is shit in this paragraph:
First, if you tip the Republicans off to your hand now, before the stimulus is done, you make Harry Reid's job even more difficult than it is right now. And the man has a hard time meeting minimum expectations as it is.
Second, you need to give Obama time to catch his breath. How about we get an HHS secretary who can take some of the responsibility for selling this to Congress? Can we upgrade the White House computers to XP? In the meantime, let him get some easy bipartisan wins on stupid shit. Everybody has to get to know each other, like it or not. If you start out clubbing baby Republicans with the baseball bats too soon out the gate, they will hate you and obstruct everything for the next two years. I know, they already hate you. But they will hate you so much more. Shock and Awe will not work with these people. Obama will need some quick wins, learning how to work with these assholes on stuff they really don't care about but will go to the mattresses on. Gays in the military--stuff that helps America without spending a lot more money on government stuff would be nice.
Third, if the stimulus does nothing, and I have a feeling it will underachieve in a spectacular way, then you're left with two potential whammies. One, the market will crash right in the middle of the health care debate, and two, the spectre of having to raise taxes to pay for all of this shit exactly when the economy starts to improve--not when you wanted the stimulus to do it, but when it naturally recovers, if it recovers, years and years later, you would effectively kill the momentum of the recovery.
Fourth, I think you gain momentum for universal health care when the unemployment rate start creeping up and more and more people are taking the status of their employment a lot more seriously than they are right now. I think we're in for a bad first half of the year. This will do little to decrease public support for something like universal health care.
Fifth, the benefits of universal health care will be immediate, and will greatly improve millions of Americans' quality of life. What Krugman is advocating is a simultaneous left and right. I'm in favor of a one-two punch. I really want to land both squarely on the jaw of one of the most pressing problems our country faces, as powerfully as we possibly can. Can't do that if your feet aren't set.
Does universal health care help strengthen the economy? Absolutely, I think it does. Is it the right thing to do? Yessir. Do I want to stomp Republicans whenever I get a chance? Fucking A. Is this the most absolutely worst time to bring it up? Goddamn right it is.
I can't argue with him about the economics of it. I'd love single payer yesterday.
He mentions why the entire column is shit in this paragraph:
Finally — and this is, I suspect, the real reason for the administration’s health care silence — there’s the political argument that this is a bad time to be pushing fundamental health care reform, because the nation’s attention is focused on the economic crisis. But if history is any guide, this argument is precisely wrong.Maybe. It's still wrong to bring it up now. I'm not sure how you can make the argument that Obama is not doing enough with the stimulus and then turn around in the next column and say that he should immediately work to implement a hugely complex social spending program.
First, if you tip the Republicans off to your hand now, before the stimulus is done, you make Harry Reid's job even more difficult than it is right now. And the man has a hard time meeting minimum expectations as it is.
Second, you need to give Obama time to catch his breath. How about we get an HHS secretary who can take some of the responsibility for selling this to Congress? Can we upgrade the White House computers to XP? In the meantime, let him get some easy bipartisan wins on stupid shit. Everybody has to get to know each other, like it or not. If you start out clubbing baby Republicans with the baseball bats too soon out the gate, they will hate you and obstruct everything for the next two years. I know, they already hate you. But they will hate you so much more. Shock and Awe will not work with these people. Obama will need some quick wins, learning how to work with these assholes on stuff they really don't care about but will go to the mattresses on. Gays in the military--stuff that helps America without spending a lot more money on government stuff would be nice.
Third, if the stimulus does nothing, and I have a feeling it will underachieve in a spectacular way, then you're left with two potential whammies. One, the market will crash right in the middle of the health care debate, and two, the spectre of having to raise taxes to pay for all of this shit exactly when the economy starts to improve--not when you wanted the stimulus to do it, but when it naturally recovers, if it recovers, years and years later, you would effectively kill the momentum of the recovery.
Fourth, I think you gain momentum for universal health care when the unemployment rate start creeping up and more and more people are taking the status of their employment a lot more seriously than they are right now. I think we're in for a bad first half of the year. This will do little to decrease public support for something like universal health care.
Fifth, the benefits of universal health care will be immediate, and will greatly improve millions of Americans' quality of life. What Krugman is advocating is a simultaneous left and right. I'm in favor of a one-two punch. I really want to land both squarely on the jaw of one of the most pressing problems our country faces, as powerfully as we possibly can. Can't do that if your feet aren't set.
Does universal health care help strengthen the economy? Absolutely, I think it does. Is it the right thing to do? Yessir. Do I want to stomp Republicans whenever I get a chance? Fucking A. Is this the most absolutely worst time to bring it up? Goddamn right it is.
Too sad.
Justice Ginsburg has been hospitalized with pancreatic cancer.
My best, and my most heartfelt thanks to both Justice Ginsberg and her family. She is a valiant woman, and her positive influence will leave a lasting mark both upon the Court, and the country.
My best, and my most heartfelt thanks to both Justice Ginsberg and her family. She is a valiant woman, and her positive influence will leave a lasting mark both upon the Court, and the country.
I almost posted this yesterday,
but I did not want to admit the defeat of the western economy. Presumably out of self interest.
We are that close, and it is that dire. And it appears that finally Obama is getting it.
I've told you, I tell you, and will continue to tell you that the enormity of the problem--and the enormity of the only logical solution--is almost incomprehensibly awesome.
There has been a vacuum of leadership that Obama, for whatever reason, has been unwilling to rightfully step into.
Congressional democratic leadership are mindless, soulless puppets of no discernible vision. They display the leadership instincts of sheep, who have been successfully played and shepherded by the inept Republican bumblers who have just had their asses handed to them in an electoral rout not seen in decades--consider the height of the Republican House advantage in the 1990s: 24 votes, which they achieved in 1994. The Democrats in the house currently have a 77 vote edge.
In the two years they have been in power, they have not made one decisive stand for the interests of the United States of America. Not one. Obama has wrongly allowed them the opportunity to show their meddle on an issue of such importance.
Give them a microphone and they will dribble platitudes of no consequence from their worthless mouths. They speak of generalities and the need for decorum and forbearance and restraint. Feeble in mind and adverse of the slightest risk, they cede initiative to shadows.
They do themselves, their party, the American people, and the Constitution a disservice.
This farce needs to end. I believe in the separation of powers of government. I believe in the ability to find bipartisan solutions to common problems. I believe in compromise. And I sure as fuck do not believe in the superiority of the theory of the unitary executive.
But Obama is going to have to kick them in the ass. Very, very hard. And make them do his bidding. I believe this not because the President should, but until we have a change in leadership, the President must.
There are no words to describe the current bill as anything other than a shameful, hopeless, tragic farce of deliberative politics. This is not American government at its finest hour, and we do not have the ability to wait for Congressional statesmanship to show up. The President must kill this bill right now, submit a new one mindful of introductory fucking macroeconomics, and inflict as much pain on Democrats as possible to pass. the. bill.
For those of us who have been following the stimulus progress, I think we realized today that it's over. Congress is unwilling to provide the economy what it needs to stop the free fall.
And there is nothing anybody is going to be able to do to stop it once its gets rolling, and oh brother, it hasn't even started yet. You will know it's started when the market rallies the second time after this piece of shit bill passes. The first will be the sucker euphoria, the second rally will be the vultures, the shorts, covering. And then I do not see a floor.
If you haven't already, immediately start putting away six months worth of living expenses into your savings. Assume high energy prices.
Dear reader, good luck. You will need it.
If you prefer to go out swinging, call, do not e-mail, your senators. http://www.senate.gov
We are that close, and it is that dire. And it appears that finally Obama is getting it.
I've told you, I tell you, and will continue to tell you that the enormity of the problem--and the enormity of the only logical solution--is almost incomprehensibly awesome.
There has been a vacuum of leadership that Obama, for whatever reason, has been unwilling to rightfully step into.
Congressional democratic leadership are mindless, soulless puppets of no discernible vision. They display the leadership instincts of sheep, who have been successfully played and shepherded by the inept Republican bumblers who have just had their asses handed to them in an electoral rout not seen in decades--consider the height of the Republican House advantage in the 1990s: 24 votes, which they achieved in 1994. The Democrats in the house currently have a 77 vote edge.
In the two years they have been in power, they have not made one decisive stand for the interests of the United States of America. Not one. Obama has wrongly allowed them the opportunity to show their meddle on an issue of such importance.
Give them a microphone and they will dribble platitudes of no consequence from their worthless mouths. They speak of generalities and the need for decorum and forbearance and restraint. Feeble in mind and adverse of the slightest risk, they cede initiative to shadows.
They do themselves, their party, the American people, and the Constitution a disservice.
This farce needs to end. I believe in the separation of powers of government. I believe in the ability to find bipartisan solutions to common problems. I believe in compromise. And I sure as fuck do not believe in the superiority of the theory of the unitary executive.
But Obama is going to have to kick them in the ass. Very, very hard. And make them do his bidding. I believe this not because the President should, but until we have a change in leadership, the President must.
There are no words to describe the current bill as anything other than a shameful, hopeless, tragic farce of deliberative politics. This is not American government at its finest hour, and we do not have the ability to wait for Congressional statesmanship to show up. The President must kill this bill right now, submit a new one mindful of introductory fucking macroeconomics, and inflict as much pain on Democrats as possible to pass. the. bill.
Quote of the Day
Let me tell you something that we Israelis have against Moses. He took us 40 years through the desert in order to bring us to the one spot in the Middle East that has no oil!
Golda Mier
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Don't Have the Votes
Oh for fuck's sake (a phrase which is clearly becoming the number #1 alternative name for this blog).
Democrats do not have the votes in the Senate for cloture on the stimulus bill.
Which means more tax breaks for Paris Hilton.
I actually heard about a pretty good proposal from the Republicans. The focus is on housing, and specifically extending and expanding the current $7,500 tax credit for first time homeowners, as well as moves to help lower interest rates, with a target of 4%. Practical ideas, surely, that I can support.
Obviously it's better than handing out money to ever goddamn government program that Democrats have tacked onto the bill, I guess for new copiers and clerical temps or whatever else that money is supposed to be spent on to "stimulate" the economy. Once you're out of infrastructure ideas, guys, stop spending. I've alluded to this before--not enough spending is worse than spending too much, but you absolutely cannot throw the money away. It will rob you of future economic growth. Free condoms and 26 more weeks of unemployment are good things, I think, but not in a stimulus bill.
Tax "relief" is, again, retarded, and the inability for Republicans to understand this is frustrating. However, providing carrot and stick incentives using tax credits to temporarily (& artificially) floor housing prices is a good way to staunch the bleeding, provided the band-aid sticks.
The proposal cannot stand on its own. It will have to work with a variety of other programs that target other sectors of the economy, that are designed to get people back to work and keep them there. Otherwise you're just attracting more suckers, adding more foreclosures 12 months from now, plus or minus a percentage or two, as more and more suckers lose their jobs. There's a big difference between delaying the inevitable and retooling your economy to become less reliant on the magical ability of housing to make everyone rich.
It's a stimulus bill, not a Christmas list, of which not a penny will be paid from 2009 tax receipts. In other words, Democrats are going to have to grow up, and not support spending on social programs that do not stimulate the economy. Separate bills are needed for that stuff.
I have to say I chafe a little at the idea that initiative for smart spending comes from R's and not D's, but it in no way diminishes my support. It's a good idea.
Democrats do not have the votes in the Senate for cloture on the stimulus bill.
Which means more tax breaks for Paris Hilton.
I actually heard about a pretty good proposal from the Republicans. The focus is on housing, and specifically extending and expanding the current $7,500 tax credit for first time homeowners, as well as moves to help lower interest rates, with a target of 4%. Practical ideas, surely, that I can support.
Obviously it's better than handing out money to ever goddamn government program that Democrats have tacked onto the bill, I guess for new copiers and clerical temps or whatever else that money is supposed to be spent on to "stimulate" the economy. Once you're out of infrastructure ideas, guys, stop spending. I've alluded to this before--not enough spending is worse than spending too much, but you absolutely cannot throw the money away. It will rob you of future economic growth. Free condoms and 26 more weeks of unemployment are good things, I think, but not in a stimulus bill.
Tax "relief" is, again, retarded, and the inability for Republicans to understand this is frustrating. However, providing carrot and stick incentives using tax credits to temporarily (& artificially) floor housing prices is a good way to staunch the bleeding, provided the band-aid sticks.
The proposal cannot stand on its own. It will have to work with a variety of other programs that target other sectors of the economy, that are designed to get people back to work and keep them there. Otherwise you're just attracting more suckers, adding more foreclosures 12 months from now, plus or minus a percentage or two, as more and more suckers lose their jobs. There's a big difference between delaying the inevitable and retooling your economy to become less reliant on the magical ability of housing to make everyone rich.
It's a stimulus bill, not a Christmas list, of which not a penny will be paid from 2009 tax receipts. In other words, Democrats are going to have to grow up, and not support spending on social programs that do not stimulate the economy. Separate bills are needed for that stuff.
I have to say I chafe a little at the idea that initiative for smart spending comes from R's and not D's, but it in no way diminishes my support. It's a good idea.
Daschle Out.
And Obama says, "Sorry."
I like Tom Daschle. If he hadn't been a punk, he would have been an honest broker who probably could have gotten a lot of the health care reform done, due to his overwhelming popularity in Congress. But he is a crook, so I'm sorry, too.
This is kind of why it's important to keep your nose clean, guys.
Anyway, without further ado,
I nominate Howard Dean for, eh, consideration for nomination as Secretary of Health and Human Services. Even if they hate him in Congress, he can use every cabinet meeting to lobby for the continuance of the 50-state strategy.
I like Tom Daschle. If he hadn't been a punk, he would have been an honest broker who probably could have gotten a lot of the health care reform done, due to his overwhelming popularity in Congress. But he is a crook, so I'm sorry, too.
This is kind of why it's important to keep your nose clean, guys.
Anyway, without further ado,
I nominate Howard Dean for, eh, consideration for nomination as Secretary of Health and Human Services. Even if they hate him in Congress, he can use every cabinet meeting to lobby for the continuance of the 50-state strategy.
Quote of the Day
The only reason I get any girls at all is because of who I am...a rapist.
Rodney Dangerfield.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Coin Toss.
He had a 50/50 chance.
Apparently, he lost. Obama is not like Bush.
And that's OK! It really is! I've seen a lot of liberal bloggers bristle "Oh no he dinnit" about this, and I can't help but laugh about that a little bit.
First, it's cute, protecting President 80% Approval Rating, elected in large part because he stated that he planned to be out of Iraq within 15 months of taking office.
You can calm down. The Pentagon is always going to say they can win. I have to say I'm a little surprised that people are shocked by this. I would be more shocked if Petraeus didn't do something like this. He was tasked to achieve victory in Iraq, and he wants to see it through. Do people not expect him to play hardball to protect his plan, and what he believes to be in the best interest of honor of his guys, even if he wrecks himself in the process?
This is not a Constitutional crisis, and I actually applaud Petraeus and Gates if they do everything they can, including attempts to manipulate public opinion, against the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. They are doing what they believe in their hearts is right. Fortunately for those who actually believe they are wrong, they have a boss they must answer to.
Again, Obama has an 80% approval rating. They can convince 100% of his supporters that the President of the United States is wrong, and he can still order the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq within two weeks if he so chooses. Obama is the Commander in Chief, and as such, can order the military to do whatever he wants--within Constitutional boundaries.
And the Commander in Chief has just ordered a man who led the American forces in Iraq for 20 months to plan for a withdrawal without achieving the success that was expected of his plan, success that Petraeus, no doubt, believes to be right around the corner. Or maybe he feels Iraq in its current state is too unstable for us to leave. Or maybe he's worried about the security of his forces during the withdrawal. But none of that really matters, nor does it really matter what he does outside of the official chain of command, so long as he follows orders to the best of his ability.
Kennedy's Pentagon wanted to throw down with the Russkies during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Yet we're not all dead. Lincoln's Democratic opponent in 1864 was Gen. George McClellan, former chief of the Army of the Potomac. McClellan lost. Gen. Douglas MacArthur disagreed with Truman's limited Korean engagement so much that he pulled of his own PR blitz within Congress, and when that failed, tried to provoke his own fight. If he had won, the phrase, "Old soldiers never die, they just fade away," would never have been spoken. The funny thing about military guys is that they often have a myopic view about military activity--which is exactly what you want, even if it's maddening that they're not espousing your particular view.
Apparently, he lost. Obama is not like Bush.
CENTCOM commander Gen. David Petraeus, supported by Defence Secretary Robert Gates, tried to convince President Barack Obama that he had to back down from his campaign pledge to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq within 16 months at an Oval Office meeting Jan. 21.
But Obama informed Gates, Petraeus and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen that he wasn't convinced and that he wanted Gates and the military leaders to come back quickly with a detailed 16-month plan, according to two sources who have talked with participants in the meeting.
Obama's decision to override Petraeus's recommendation has not ended the conflict between the president and senior military officers over troop withdrawal, however. There are indications that Petraeus and his allies in the military and the Pentagon, including Gen. Ray Odierno, now the top commander in Iraq, have already begun to try to pressure Obama to change his withdrawal policy.
A network of senior military officers is also reported to be preparing to support Petraeus and Odierno by mobilising public opinion against Obama's decision.
And that's OK! It really is! I've seen a lot of liberal bloggers bristle "Oh no he dinnit" about this, and I can't help but laugh about that a little bit.
First, it's cute, protecting President 80% Approval Rating, elected in large part because he stated that he planned to be out of Iraq within 15 months of taking office.
You can calm down. The Pentagon is always going to say they can win. I have to say I'm a little surprised that people are shocked by this. I would be more shocked if Petraeus didn't do something like this. He was tasked to achieve victory in Iraq, and he wants to see it through. Do people not expect him to play hardball to protect his plan, and what he believes to be in the best interest of honor of his guys, even if he wrecks himself in the process?
This is not a Constitutional crisis, and I actually applaud Petraeus and Gates if they do everything they can, including attempts to manipulate public opinion, against the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. They are doing what they believe in their hearts is right. Fortunately for those who actually believe they are wrong, they have a boss they must answer to.
Again, Obama has an 80% approval rating. They can convince 100% of his supporters that the President of the United States is wrong, and he can still order the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq within two weeks if he so chooses. Obama is the Commander in Chief, and as such, can order the military to do whatever he wants--within Constitutional boundaries.
And the Commander in Chief has just ordered a man who led the American forces in Iraq for 20 months to plan for a withdrawal without achieving the success that was expected of his plan, success that Petraeus, no doubt, believes to be right around the corner. Or maybe he feels Iraq in its current state is too unstable for us to leave. Or maybe he's worried about the security of his forces during the withdrawal. But none of that really matters, nor does it really matter what he does outside of the official chain of command, so long as he follows orders to the best of his ability.
Kennedy's Pentagon wanted to throw down with the Russkies during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Yet we're not all dead. Lincoln's Democratic opponent in 1864 was Gen. George McClellan, former chief of the Army of the Potomac. McClellan lost. Gen. Douglas MacArthur disagreed with Truman's limited Korean engagement so much that he pulled of his own PR blitz within Congress, and when that failed, tried to provoke his own fight. If he had won, the phrase, "Old soldiers never die, they just fade away," would never have been spoken. The funny thing about military guys is that they often have a myopic view about military activity--which is exactly what you want, even if it's maddening that they're not espousing your particular view.
Privatization.
I think we're about due for another George Will column on why the privatization of Social Security is such an excellent opportunity for the American people.
Quote of the Day
What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?
Mahatma Gandhi
Monday, February 2, 2009
True Story
In the summer of 1999, I purchased two books from the local Barnes & Noble.
One, which I had wanted since first reading him in high school, was the Collected Works of Ambrose Bierce. I had encountered his work in junior year English class, through his powerful short story, "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge," and fell in love with him. The Devil's Dictionary remains an indispensable addition to any cynical misanthrope's library. I gleefully chortled and guffawed through the A's, B's, and C's. It's really quite funny, for instance:
The second book, How the Mind Works, by Steven Pinker, was completely fascinating. One of the last subjects Pinker dealt with was how subsets of a society use art as an exclusionary device.
One, which I had wanted since first reading him in high school, was the Collected Works of Ambrose Bierce. I had encountered his work in junior year English class, through his powerful short story, "An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge," and fell in love with him. The Devil's Dictionary remains an indispensable addition to any cynical misanthrope's library. I gleefully chortled and guffawed through the A's, B's, and C's. It's really quite funny, for instance:
AIR, n. A nutritious substance supplied by a bountiful Providence for the fattening of the poor.And then D:
DULLARD n. A member of the reigning dynasty in letters and life. The Dullards came in with Adam, and being both numerous and sturdy have overrun the habitable world. The secret of their power is their insensibility to blows; tickle them with a bludgeon and they laugh with a platitude. The Dullards came originally from Boeotia, whence they were driven by stress of starvation, their dullness having blighted the crops. For some centuries they infested Philistia, and many of them are called Philistines to this day. In the turbulent times of the Crusades they withdrew thence and gradually overspread all Europe, occupying most of the high places in politics, art, literature, science and theology. Since a detachment of Dullards came over with the Pilgrims in the Mayflower and made a favorable report of the country, their increase by birth, immigration, and conversion has been rapid and steady. According to the most trustworthy statistics the number of adult Dullards in the United States is but little short of thirty millions, including the statisticians. The intellectual centre of the race is somewhere about Peoria, Illinois, but the New England Dullard is the most shockingly moral.I finished the book with a sort of hurt only a jilted lover could possess.
The second book, How the Mind Works, by Steven Pinker, was completely fascinating. One of the last subjects Pinker dealt with was how subsets of a society use art as an exclusionary device.
Most people would lose their taste for a musical recording if they learned it was being sold at supermarket checkout counters or on late-night television, and even the work of relatively prestigious artists, such as Pierre Auguste Renoir and Claude Monet, draws derisive reviews when it is shown in a popular ‘blockbuster’ museum show. Modern and postmodern works are intended not to give pleasure but to confirm or confound the theories of a guild of critics and analysts, to e’pater la bourgeoisie, or to baffle the rubes in Peoria.Oh for fuck's sake!
Pounding the Table
There's an old lawyer's maxim that:
New RNC chair Michael Steele is quoted to have said: "Not in the history of mankind has the government ever created a job."
Really? Really?
There are all sorts of things you could say about how much the stimulus bill sucks that would be rooted in truth and to which I could grudgingly agree. Do that. All I see are counter factual arguments, from FDR's New Deal making the Depression worse, to now, apparently, this.
In high school I had to write a critical essay on a book that I didn't want to read. So I skimmed through the book, picked a few quotes, and summoned all my powers of bullshit to fill the paper out to the required length. I failed in a completely spectacular way.
What I selected to base my entire opposing position was, in fact, so completely divorced from the range of the book that my paper was marked up almost entirely with "???" and "see me after class," and "buggery means sodomy, is that really what you're trying to say?" I will always remember the lesson, which could be summed up in the famous quote of physicist Wolfgang Pauli, "That's not right. It's not even wrong."
If the law is on your side, pound the law; if the facts are on your side, pound the facts; if neither is in your side, pound the table.Usually, to understand what the national party is doing on any given issue, it's best to get your hands on the actual talking points, as opposed to trying to pierce the veil of any given politician's ignorance of the topic. But has political ideology become so completely postmodern that it simply no longer possible for both sides to agree on basic historical facts? I've grown increasingly concerned about this. Republicans seem to be simply pounding the table on the stimulus bill with patently false condemnations.
New RNC chair Michael Steele is quoted to have said: "Not in the history of mankind has the government ever created a job."
Really? Really?
There are all sorts of things you could say about how much the stimulus bill sucks that would be rooted in truth and to which I could grudgingly agree. Do that. All I see are counter factual arguments, from FDR's New Deal making the Depression worse, to now, apparently, this.
In high school I had to write a critical essay on a book that I didn't want to read. So I skimmed through the book, picked a few quotes, and summoned all my powers of bullshit to fill the paper out to the required length. I failed in a completely spectacular way.
What I selected to base my entire opposing position was, in fact, so completely divorced from the range of the book that my paper was marked up almost entirely with "???" and "see me after class," and "buggery means sodomy, is that really what you're trying to say?" I will always remember the lesson, which could be summed up in the famous quote of physicist Wolfgang Pauli, "That's not right. It's not even wrong."
Quote of the Day
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower's farewell address.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Great Moments in AM Radio
Idiot A: States like California, Illinois, and Michigan have taxed themselves to death! These liberal states should be Edens if you believe liberals!
Idiot B: California has a Republican governor.
Idiot A: Shhhhwaaaa---A RINO! He's married to a Kennedy!
Idiot B: California has a Republican governor.
Idiot A: Shhhhwaaaa---A RINO! He's married to a Kennedy!
Quote of the Day
One day as I was about to step on a dry leaf, I saw the leaf in the ultimate dimension. I saw that it was not really dead, but that it was merging with the moist soil in order to appear on the tree the following spring in another form. I smiled at the leaf and said, "You are pretending." Everything is pretending to be born and pretending to die, including that leaf. The Buddha said, "When conditions are sufficent, the body reveals itself, and we say the body exists. When conditions are not sufficient, the body cannot be perceived by us, and we say the body does not exist." The day of our "death" is a day of our continuation in many other forms. If you know how to touch your ancestors in the ultimate dimension, they will always be there for you. If you touch your own hand, face, or hair and look very deeply, you can see that they are in you, smiling.
Thich Nhat Hanh, Living Buddha, Living Christ
Oh for Fuck's Sake.
HHS Secretary appointee Tom Daschle is a crooked, sumbitch tax cheat!
I think that maybe having our gonna-have-to-spend-a-whole-lot-more secretaries and other cabinet-level officials cheating on their taxes is pretty disappointing. Maybe that's just me.
There's two things that piss me off:
One, it's the stupidity of accepting a nomination in which you know your tax cheating will be exposed. These are not just failures of personal morality, these are issues of judgment, and I seriously doubt Daschle's.
Two, it's the gall to ask me to not call for his head once his stupidity is exposed. It isn't the tax cheating that gets me, I already assume anyone with any money does it. It's that people who engage in criminal behavior still have a shot at getting confirmed. WTF happened to ethics and statesmanship? How much douchebaggery creates an acceptable level of scandal for that person to resign? It's insulting to me.
Daschle must go not because he's a fucking criminal, I'm not that idealistic. He's gotta go because if health care reform, which is important to me, is a priority of this administration, the HHS secretary is going to have to be the one to sell it to the American people in front of Congress. I'd just assume not have it sold to the public by an idiotic douche bag.
I think that maybe having our gonna-have-to-spend-a-whole-lot-more secretaries and other cabinet-level officials cheating on their taxes is pretty disappointing. Maybe that's just me.
There's two things that piss me off:
One, it's the stupidity of accepting a nomination in which you know your tax cheating will be exposed. These are not just failures of personal morality, these are issues of judgment, and I seriously doubt Daschle's.
Two, it's the gall to ask me to not call for his head once his stupidity is exposed. It isn't the tax cheating that gets me, I already assume anyone with any money does it. It's that people who engage in criminal behavior still have a shot at getting confirmed. WTF happened to ethics and statesmanship? How much douchebaggery creates an acceptable level of scandal for that person to resign? It's insulting to me.
Daschle must go not because he's a fucking criminal, I'm not that idealistic. He's gotta go because if health care reform, which is important to me, is a priority of this administration, the HHS secretary is going to have to be the one to sell it to the American people in front of Congress. I'd just assume not have it sold to the public by an idiotic douche bag.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
