Friday, October 24, 2008

Wassup (8 years later)

Obama cuts ad for Jeff Merkley


Just last night some friends were wondering why Obama hasn't done more to help out Merkley. Looks like he just did.

Obama is a Jedi

Hoax

Looks like the doubters were justified.

No real details but the police are saying that charges will be filed against the hoaxer.

Good riddance.

The natural consequence of libertarian ideology

Dean Baker
What would Ayn Rand expect to happen? On the one hand we have the hot shot executives, on the other hand the schmucks who own stock in these banks. Would Ayn Rand expect that the executives would put aside their ambition, their lust for success, their greed, in order to benefit shareholders who are too dumb to even know what a credit default swap is?

Not for a second; Ayn Rand would watch the Wall Street big boys run roughshod over their shareholders' interests and be applauding them every step of the way. That is how the game is played. If Greenspan didn't think the Wall Street crew would rip off their shareholders for every last penny, then he was not a worthy disciple of Ayn Rand.
Baker hits on something that I wish more people understood about Libertarian/Randian theory. It's something that non-libs only get a glimpse of when things go bad and that libs like Greenspan either deny to themselves or just don't talk about because the truth would make their philosophy unmarketable. That truth is that cycles of huge booms and busts are good things, at least according to their ideology.

I've seen some honest libertarians argue that the government should allow the financial market to collapse because it is the only way to flush the system of the opportunists who rely on government bailouts (the "to big to fail" phenomena) to save their butts if their bets don't pay off. They are right. A bust on the level of the panics of the 1800s or the Great Depression does have a cleansing effect. It clears the field enough to allow new innovators to step in, rebuild the economy and make lots of money in the meantime.

That's the way it should be, according to libertarian thought.

I had a high school economics teacher who was a big fan of Milton Friedman style free markets. He argued that Germany and Japan's post war success (this was in the 80s) could be directly tied to the fact that their infrastructures were completely decimated after WWII. This allowed them to innovate and advance technologically, while America started falling behind because it was carrying forward an ever larger weight of obsolete factories and industries. "If I were king I would require all factories to be burned to the ground after 20 years," was his way of putting it.

Again, I think he was right. As I think the libertarians are right. At least on the cold logic.

The problem for libertarians is that few of them are willing to acknowledge the ugly consequence of their philosophy: during those busts a lot of people die. And those that don't die usually suffer considerably. In other words, libertarian/randian/friedmanesque economic policy has as an expected consequence the increased pain and suffering of most of the world's people. That's the acceptable cost of the "benefit" that comes from the flushing out of the bad blood every 30 or 40 years.

Why don't they acknowledge this? Maybe because they have convinced themselves that it won't really happen (Greenspan seems to be of this group). Maybe because they just don't want to admit to it because its to awful to contemplate. And maybe, for some, its because they know it, are fully accepting of it, but they know they can't sell it. The people would never tolerate it if they were told the truth. Those in this latter group, knowing that boom-and-bust cycles are a net positive for humanity, have a made a conscious decision to hide this ugly truth from the people "for their own good". (There is, of course, a 4th group who just don't give a crap about the welfare of others and just want to make money.)

Libertarians are right that bailing out banks and other corporations, because they are "to big to fail", just allows those poor performers to survive the consequences of their actions. It short-circuits the survival of the fittest nature of the truly free market. But their solution, just let them fail, will cause the kind of suffering talked about above. The better solution, for the welfare of all, is to simply not allow any private institution to become so big that its failure will bust the entire economy. That means regulation. That means enforcing anti-trust. That means something less than the truly free market of the libertarian's dream.

I can live with that. Can you?

Opie's Back!

Thursday, October 23, 2008

They really are stupid

I know its tempting to paint people on the right as stupid because of their views. I try to avoid it because (1) I know many paint the left as stupid for similar reasons and (2) many people really are sincere in their views and have come to them after thinking about them. Calling them stupid just doesn't help.

But sometimes they really are stupid.

More suspicions

The following is a comment on a right-wing blog made by someone who says they are a doctor and a McCain supporter. I post this with the intent of pointing out that not everyone on the right instantly jumps at the suggestion of perfidity on the part of Democrats:
Sorry to say but as a Physician, those lacerations (if you want to call them that)could not come from a knife of any sort, sharp or dull. Also, from the way her cheek is manifesting as red and irritated (synonymous for scratches) makes it an easy prognosis for me:

This is indeed a self-inflicted 'wound' most likely done with either a paper clip or quite possibly a fingernail.

If you would look at the BOTTOM of the letter, there are 2 DISTINCT and SEPARATE marks (what did the mugger do? Go over the same area with a different line?). This is not plausible in any form.

This is a fraudulent attempt at falsifying an attack and is illegal since a police report was filed. Why was she allowed to 'walk away' from the scene or a mugging/attack?

She never offered a description of her attacker other than he was 'supposedly' an Obama supporter. Was he white, black, latino??
This is outrageous and demands further scrutiny. Also suspect are the blackeyes. Although real, the contusions are not reminiscent of a frontal punch as there are no abrasions/contusions above the eye socket (men have big, large knuckles) and the area around the eye socket is sensitive soft tissues. This woman is committing fraud via Munchhausen By Proxy and should be jailed for submitting a false police report/complaint. And the only reason WHY she would refuse to seek medical treatment is that she knows her story would not hold up under a physicians examination.

And no, I am not an Obama supporter, I am voting McCain but these false allegations and rumors must stop. As a Dr, I can not fathom why people go to great lengths to lie about being attacked.

Someone needs to have her examined for 'a possible concussion' from being 'punched in the head', that alone would have allowed the police to forcefully admit her as if she in some way passes out while driving home after the 'attack, the police department would be liable for allowing her to leave with possible 'brain trauma'.

This story is a joke and not funny people.

Bad times

If this story is true then I hope they find the f*cker who did it and lock him up and all my best to the woman who got attacked.

But, if the story is not true...

I honestly don't know. But I have to say that the picture I've seen of her with the "B carved in her face" leads me to think her attacker must have used one of the dullest knives in creation. Far from a cut, it looks more like a welt raised from scrapping a paper clip across your skin a few times.

Update: Oddly enough, even Michelle Malkin is suspicious of this story. And it says something when I link to Malkin for confirmation of my own suspicions.

McCain campaign muzzles muslim supporter?

Aziz Poonawalla brings us the scoop that the McCain campaign appears to be deliberately blocking mainstream media access to its Muslim supporters, especially this guy:








Aziz asks why they would do this. Good question. What little I saw of Daniel Zubairi made me think he would be a dynamite spokesman. Maybe he just doesn't fit into the wider campaign narrative?

2012

I agree with Marc Ambinder that Palin will be the frontrunner for the GOP in 2012, at least among the "voice of the angry Right in the Wilderness". And I agree that she is a naturally talented politician who can learn enough in the next four years to become much better at dealing with the "issues".

What remains a question mark for me is how the paleocon/finance wing of the GOP will respond to her. That will be the core of the coming Republican civil war. The hardcore base will push for Palin, but if she can't win over the bankers than she will face serious opposition from those who will argue that it was the GOP's appeal to the nativists that killed them in the end (see Andrew Sullivan, Chris Buckley, et. al). But if the bankers push to hard to suppress the nativists, they will lose their organizational ground troops.

But all of this will depend on how Obama does in his first term. If he is even moderately successful at reversing the course of the Bush years without leaving our country in a bad situation (economically) then I don't think there is anything the GOP can do to deny him a 2nd term. I've always believed that Obama was in the drivers seat of this election. I believe the same will be true once he is in office.

It remains to be seen whether he will be as good a President as he was a campaigner.

(all of this said with the usual caveats about how this election isn't over yet, blah blah blah)

Sarah "W" Palin

Sarah Palin is plenty smart you betcha!

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

The first glimmer

I have foresworn voting for Republicans since 1996. The impeachment of Clinton was, for me, a final straw. It convinced me that, as a party, the GOP simply could not be trusted with their hands on the levers of power. The 2000 election and the reign of George W. Bush proved my point.

Since that time I have held firm in my position that I would not vote for a Republican, even if I liked them individually. There was to much risk, no matter the character of the person. The GOP as a whole needs to spend a few years in the wilderness, coming to terms with the actions of their leaders, before I would consider voting for them again.

The following video gives me hope that that day will someday come (background here).


Now, don't get me wrong. This is not a matter of gloating or saying, "I'll told you so." In fact, I denounce those Democrats who might look at this and call the people in these interviews "stupid" for having been "blind" for so long (I've already seen similar comments in response to this video). These people have obviously gone through a very trying experience and it hasn't been easy for them to make the choice they have made. The last thing we need is for Democrats to rub their faces in it.

Yes, I know a lot of Democrats are pissed off. I know they want to punish someone for the crap they have endured. But the last people they should attack are the first Republicans who say, "You may be right."

That's just stupid. It is hubris. And it is a sign that the Democrats are as susceptible to the disease that has infected the Republican party for the last 20-30 years. It is the disease that eventually will reduce the Democrats to as low a state as the Republicans are right now.

Don't catch it.

www.conservativesforchange.com

His last battlefield

No More Mister Nice Blog on why McCain would be foolish enough to fight his final battle in Pennsylvannia:
Right now, Obama is ahead of McCain in a number of Bush states -- and maybe McCain is less interested in wresting those states back than in saying, "Oh yeah? Well, I'm going to fight you in a blue state! So there!" Maybe there's less strategic thinking going on than we think -- maybe it's all gut.
As the Civil War dragged on, General Robert E. Lee came to understand that The Confederacy could never beat The Union in a protracted war. Yes, they had several battlefield successes, but the resources of The South were already stretched to the breaking point and could never hope to last against the industrial might of The North. He needed something big to give The Union pause and to impress foreign powers to intervene.

He decided on what might be called a hail-mary pass. He would cross the border into The North and attack The Union directly (nearly all fighting, up to that point, had been in The Confederacy). The eventual battle, at Gettysburg, ended up being the largest of the war (and the largest land battle until WWII). Despite his great tactical abilities, Lee was badly beaten and slunk back across the border. Gettysburg is widely considered to be the "turning point" of the war. From that point on the South was forever in retreat.

Gettysburg is in Pennsylvannia.

Just saying...

Howard Dean is still the man

Amen to this.

I don't know for sure whether Dean would have won the general if he had gotten the nomination. I don't know for sure whether he would have had the political power to reverse this countries cliff-diving course if he had been elected. But I do know that on virtually ever matter of public policy and political strategy for the last 6 years Howard Dean has been right and his nay-sayers have been wrong.

The Democrats owe a debt of gratitude to Dean that will probably take years to fully appreciate.

Is McCain's campaign really worse?

A lot of people have been talking about how badly run the McCain campaign is. Oliver Willis points to their latest ad as just another example of a campaign misfire.

But is the McCain campaign really being run any worse than past campaigns? Is it really that different from past GOP campaigns? Bush's campaign focused almost exclusively on trivialities, yet he "won" twice. Could it be that the political environment has changed so much that the techniques that used to work just look laughable now. Were they always laughable, but people just weren't laughing enough?

The White Guilt Effect

Reading this 538 post on The Bradley Effect it occurs to me there is another aspect to this effect that isn't discussed much. The presumption in most discussions of this effect is that bigots and racists may tell a pollster that they will vote for Obama because they feel bad expressing their racism out loud, but when election day comes they are alone and so their real feelings come forward. What I think is missing in this analysis is an understanding of voters who couldn't give a crap about Obama's race, but don't want their disagreement with him to be judged on racial grounds. The thinking of this kind of voter goes like this:

1. I don't like Obama's policies...

2. but, I don't want to be accused of racism if I say I won't vote for him...

3. So, I will tell a pollster that I am going to vote for him...

4. But, I will vote for McCain come election day.

Call this the "White Guilt" version of The Bradley Effect.

I don't know how much of this will be a factor in this election, but my gut tells me that it won't be. I think the one thing Obama has going for him is he makes people comfortable enough with him that they don't fear being labeled a racist if they disagree with him. That was not the case with previous national African American leaders (in fact, I wouldn't be surprised if this accounted for a lot of the polling differences 20 years ago when Bradley ran for governor of California).

We can hope.

John McCain: Socialist



And more, courtesy Jed Lewis:

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Comparing tax plans

Monday, October 20, 2008

Reason for the stupidity (still stupid)

Ah, Jesse Taylor explains the apparent stupidity. By publicly talking about whether they should or should not talk about Wright, the McCain campaign is getting the media to talk about Wright, without the McCain campaign actually talking about Wright.

I still think it is stupid. They are shooting themselves in the foot with their own cleverness. Sure, they get the Wright topic out there (as if it already wasn't), but they also add fuel to the speculation that the McCain campaign is out of control with all their public strategizing. Wright adds little negatively to Obama that isn't already there. But continued "should we or shouldn't we" talk from the McCain camp just compounds the impression that these guys are flailing.

Do they know how to play this game?

What political pea-brain honestly thinks it's a good idea to hold a political protest outside a polling station? The people who agree with you are already voting for you. The people who disagree with you are going to be even more enthusiastic about voting against you. And the undecideds are going to go into the polling booth with their last impression being a bunch of loud-mouth assholes screaming at them.

Brilliant!

The owls are (still) not what they seem.

Twin Peaks is the quintessential example of a TV show that started out strong and then went downhill fast (kind of like Heroes). The first six or seven episodes were some of the creepiest shit ever put on TV.

It's been nearly 19 years since the pilot and someone went back and has documented what all the scenes look like today. Remarkably, most of them are virtually unchanged. Thanks for the trip down memory lane.

Full Frontal Strategizing

Look past the whole Rev. Wright thing in this article and you'll see one of the reasons the McCain campaign is floundering: they keep talking about strategy in public.

Being a Democrat, and having experienced years of Democrats doing exactly the same thing, I can see what a losing proposition it is to talk about this stuff in public. No one but other strategists find it fascinating and the general public is more likely to react with disdain (if not horror) at the true nature of campaign planning.

When will McCain's people learn that it doesn't pay to talk with the press about what they might do next?

McCain asks Russians for money

The most likely explanation for this is that the Russian envoy's name just got on a mailing list somehow and the McCain campaign didn't catch it. Who would?

Still, that didn't stop the Russians from using it to embarrass McCain, who has turned Russia into a whipping-boy in this campaign.

Smoke and mirrors

Remember the whole "African Press International" kerfluffle last week (that long ago?) Remember how McCain supporters were hanging their hopes on the idea that Michelle Obama would call up some obscure web site, unprompted, and unload a series of "blame whitey" comments that seemed tailor-made to discredit the Obamas?

Yeah, I'm sure most of you didn't even hear about it. That's how a big a story it was.

I figured at the time that this was most likely the case of some prankster calling API up and doing an Obama impersonation and them being hapless enough to think they had a big scoop and running with it. But I also wondered if this might not have been more than just a prank and a deliberate attempt to create a scandal. Either by a McCain supporter wanting to embarrass Obama, or an Obama supporter wanting to embarrass those who might actually promote the story. The latter would be a classic Rovian technique of putting out bogus information in order to get an opponent to nibble on it and look bad in the process.

We still don't know the full story on this and probably never will (nor do I really care). But it appears I'm not the only one who had similar conspiratorial thoughts.

Who benefits from the Powell endorsement?

David Sirota thinks Obama's embracing of Powell (because of the latter's endorsement) says something disturbing about Obama. Like maybe this means Obama is closer to Powell's initial position on the war? I'm not sure I follow Sirota's logic. Just because Obama gladly accepts this endorsement does not mean Obama's position on the war has changed. I think it is more likely that Powell is trying to rub off some of the Obama magic in order to redeem himself from his failures as Bush's Secretary of State. Powell knows that his UN presentation is a major blemish on his record. By attaching himself to Obama, he can "redeem" himself in the eyes of history.

I'm not saying that Powell's motives are entirely calculating. I watched his endorsement yesterday and it felt heartfelt. But I'm sure Powell also saw something in Obama that could benefit him, Powell, in the long run. Whereas the benefit for Obama is the more short-term goal of  derailing McCain's "comeback" talk for a few days.

This could change if Obama decides to actually use Powell in a high level role in his administration. Then the questions about what this says of Obama will have more relevance.

Smells like a loser

Sharks circling:
"One piece of press bias is they don't like losers," says CBS correspondent Jeff Greenfield. "When the whiff of defeat surrounds a campaign, the press picks up on it the way sharks smell blood in the water, and then it becomes a feedback loop."
I noticed this way back in 1996, even before I became politically active. I didn't like Bob Dole, but I thought the media coverage of his campaign was terrible. I think it was precisely for the reason Greenfield suggests: the press doesn't like losers. But what isn't asked is why they don't like losers. I think it has something to do with the journalists resenting having to spend time on a campaign that they have already concluded is over. They want to move on to the new hotness and a losing candidate is a moldy piece of bread that can't be "legitimately" thrown out until after election day.

Even though this mentality is benefiting us today, Democrats shouldn't be happy about it. There are plenty of times it has bitten us.

To ought or not to ought

So, this guy's position is that scientists ought not to use word like "ought" in their positions?

I'm being snarky, but I, for the most part, agree with his point of view. Where I disagree is on the pragmatic level. Scientists are human beings and expecting them to artificially separate themselves from questions of morality is both difficult (because they are human) and, quite possibly, dangerous. It also encourages the layman's misconceptions that scientists are nothing but eggheads who have no appreciation of "real" life.

Scientists should think about the moral implications of their work. But they should also avoid letting moral qualms get in the way of pure research. It's a delicate balancing act that can't be resolved with hard and fast rules about what "ought" to be done.

Sunday, October 19, 2008

Powell's age

When I suggested that an Obama/Powell contest in 2012 would be exciting to watch I honestly didn't know that Powell is in his early 70s. Damn but that man is well preserved! Just think, he's almost the same age as McCain yet he looks virile and spry. If I had had to guess based on his appearances today, I would have thought he was in his early 60s at most.

Still, considering his age, I'd have to think the idea of Powell leading a resurgence of the respectable wing of the Republican party is highly unlikely.

Thought for the day

2012 Presidential Election: Barack Obama vs. Colin Powell

Good god wouldn't that be an election worth watching!

We are all Americans

This is the image Colin Powell talked about in his endorsement of Obama (youtube link):



Colin Powell on taxes

This video of Colin Powell, taken right after he endorsed Obama on Meet the Press, is fascinating on many levels. I'd like to focus specifically on his discussion of taxes towards the end. Powell comes right out and says that taxes are always a redistribution of wealth, but the redistribution is often given back to those who pay it in the forms of roads and services and what not.


That is the progressive/liberal position on taxation stated in perhaps the most concise fashion I have ever heard and it comes from a nominal Republican!

Perhaps our public dialog on taxes will begin to change. It is a positive sign when a Republican of Powells's stature states that taxes as a redistribution of wealth is not a bad thing.

I have problems with Powell. Specifically, I don't think he has sufficiently explained his presentation to the UN on alleged Iraqi WMDs. But that doesn't prevent me from seeing the power of a statement like this.

Update: Transcript of Powell on Taxes
Taxes are always a redistribution of money.  Most of the taxes that are redistributed go back to those that paid them.  In roads and airports and hospitals and schools.  And taxes are necessary for the common good.

And there's nothing wrong with examining what our tax structure is or who should be paying more or who should be paying less.  And for us to say that that makes you a socialist, I think, is an unfortunate, an unfortunate characterization that isn't accurate.  

And I don't want my taxes raised.  I don't want anybody else's taxes raised.  But I also want to see our infrastructure fixed.  I don't want to have a 12 trillion dollar national debt.  And I don't want to see a annual deficit that's over 5 hundred billion, heading for a trillion.  So how do we deal with all of this?