Jim Henley has an excellent post on whatever happened to small government conservativism which takes off from one of Glenn Reynolds recent idiocies.
Briefly and less eloquently, he concludes that self proclaimed libertarians (or whatever) like Reynolds have abandoned everything they believed about the state and the market for three reasons. War caused them to suspend their critical abilities, they are obsessed wtih criticizing the left and are too busy looking for inconsistencies in the claims of the left to notice the logical inconsistencies in their own statements and that they got infected by American triumphalism by the neocons. All true and to the point but perhaps a bit too lapsarian.
I think part of the reason small government conservativism bowed before Bush is that there wasn't much to it to begin with. Libertarianism has always been a fringe movement found mainly on universities and on the web (roughly at places which owe their existence to the state). Hayek Nozick et al provided a few arguments and slogans that the really existing Republicans found useful, but never were powerful.
Consider another vanished movement States Rights conservativism. Quite different from small government conservativism and once genuinely powerful, it has vanished. I think it is clear what happened. No one really believed in States rights as a principle, but people in the South, the South West and the mountain states found it a useful slogan because they didn't like which states were imposing federal policies. As soon as the red states took over, they forgot about federalism. Similarly, I think, when big government meant big bucks for big business instead of social welfare spending and health safety and environmental regulation, K-street stopped pretending to believe in the market. More importantly, when Reagan showed the deficits didn't matter so people decided they could get both low taxes and big government the pseudo libertarians who only cared about their own tax bill lost interest.
Small government conservativism vanished because it was composed of liars, useful idiots and Jim Henley. Now he's all alone, David fighting Goliath *and* the army of Davids.
Update: Note I said it was composed of three groups. Three not two.
Friday, May 05, 2006
Mark Kleiman notes that Michael Isikoff is explaining to Americans why torture is not only a crime but also a mistake.
He has been doing this for some time having reported almost two years ago that some of the bogus evidence apparently suggesting that Iraq supported al Qaeda was a false confession obtained via "Aggressive interrogation techniques"
He has been doing this for some time having reported almost two years ago that some of the bogus evidence apparently suggesting that Iraq supported al Qaeda was a false confession obtained via "Aggressive interrogation techniques"
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Jury Rejects Death Penalty for Moussaoui
I am opposed to the death penalty, so I am pleased. In fact I am quite pleased and proud of my fellow Americans on the jury. However, their decision does help show just how arbitrary the application of the death penalty is in the USA. We often kill people for basically ordinary murders adn Moussaoui was guilty of much more than that. My opposition to the death penalty is not based on arbitrary sentencing, but supporters of the death penalty should wonder what is going on.
I am opposed to the death penalty, so I am pleased. In fact I am quite pleased and proud of my fellow Americans on the jury. However, their decision does help show just how arbitrary the application of the death penalty is in the USA. We often kill people for basically ordinary murders adn Moussaoui was guilty of much more than that. My opposition to the death penalty is not based on arbitrary sentencing, but supporters of the death penalty should wonder what is going on.
Saturday, April 29, 2006
What Would a Patriot Buy ?
I have gone commercial and put a link to google adsense. Since selling out, I have built up a big big balance of 25 cents.
Recently google ads choice of links was seriously amusing. There was an add for Patriotic US made patiotic refrigerator magnets. Not allowing my economic interests to bias my blogging, I won't tell you the link (also I don't know what it was) but I was surprised that the all knowing google system thought I was a flag waver.
The I understood. It was because of these two posts on "How Would a Patriot Act" which you can pre order here.
Hey if I'm going to include advertisements at least they can be for a product which I am sure is excellent (even though I haven't read it yet).
I have gone commercial and put a link to google adsense. Since selling out, I have built up a big big balance of 25 cents.
Recently google ads choice of links was seriously amusing. There was an add for Patriotic US made patiotic refrigerator magnets. Not allowing my economic interests to bias my blogging, I won't tell you the link (also I don't know what it was) but I was surprised that the all knowing google system thought I was a flag waver.
The I understood. It was because of these two posts on "How Would a Patriot Act" which you can pre order here.
Hey if I'm going to include advertisements at least they can be for a product which I am sure is excellent (even though I haven't read it yet).
Finally A Really Important Waldman
I have noticed that, while I am the only blogging Waldmann of whom I am aware, there are at least 3 blogging Waldman's more prominent than me. Also Michael Waldman is a definitely more prominent economist and Amy Waldman can singTilted edge suggested that my problem might be the spellling of my name and that I consider changing it to Waldmann.
Now I discover a really important Waldman.
In a story on the intersection of the K-Street Project and the mafia. Schmidt and Cillizza (who between the two of them have quite a few more excess consonants between them than I do) report that Jack Abramoff (not Abramof, Abramoff) had two (not one two) partners in his effort to gain control of the Sun Cruz nautical casino company.
"Ney's involvement with the cruise line took place in 2000, when Abramoff and partners Kidan and Ben Waldman were in difficult negotiations to buy SunCruz Casinos from Fort Lauderdale businessman Konstantinos "Gus" Boulis."
Oh and by the way Tilted, I'm now thinking of changing my name to Waldmannn.
I have noticed that, while I am the only blogging Waldmann of whom I am aware, there are at least 3 blogging Waldman's more prominent than me. Also Michael Waldman is a definitely more prominent economist and Amy Waldman can singTilted edge suggested that my problem might be the spellling of my name and that I consider changing it to Waldmann.
Now I discover a really important Waldman.
In a story on the intersection of the K-Street Project and the mafia. Schmidt and Cillizza (who between the two of them have quite a few more excess consonants between them than I do) report that Jack Abramoff (not Abramof, Abramoff) had two (not one two) partners in his effort to gain control of the Sun Cruz nautical casino company.
"Ney's involvement with the cruise line took place in 2000, when Abramoff and partners Kidan and Ben Waldman were in difficult negotiations to buy SunCruz Casinos from Fort Lauderdale businessman Konstantinos "Gus" Boulis."
Oh and by the way Tilted, I'm now thinking of changing my name to Waldmannn.
The Second Time As Farce
The Italian Senate is still trying to elect its president. To preside over the Senate a senator must win an absolute majority of the votes. The center left currently has a majority of one among elected senators and the support of one elected independent (elected in South America of course but that is another story). The two living former presidents of the Republic are also senators and there are Senators appointed for their lifetime as a huge honor (like being in the house of lords) which has suddenly become a real political factor.
The naive or very young might imagine that the center left will just elect their candidate Franco Marini (a former trade union leader and minister of labor whose most brilliant contribution to the national discussion occurs whenever he keeps his mouth shut). The center right is supporting Giulio Andreotti, 7 times prime minister, now a senator for life, who has served the Republic every parliament since it was founded and who, according to an official court verdict and finding of fact, stopped serving the mafia in 1980 and therefore does not belong in jail.
There is also a senator Giulio Marini. who has not been mentioned as a compromise candidate, but who played a very key role in the second second ballot for president of the Senate.
La Repubblica reports
that is
The difference between "Franco" and "Francesco" took from Franco Marini the presidency of the senate for only three votes. "Francesco", in fact, was written on three of the 162 ballots which were [unofficially] attributed to him in the second vote. But Marini's legal name is Franco. Therefore the second vote was annulled by the provisory president Oscar Luigi Scalfaro and repeated, with objections, at 10 PM.
But also after midnight, at the end of vote 2b, the response for the candidate of the center left was negative. He obtained 161 votes, since one ballot, on which only "Marini" was written, could not be considered valid there being another senator with the same last name, Giulio Marini of Forza Italia.
Francesco Marini was written for the n'th time on another.
The extremely naive and electors of Palm beach county Florida, might be forgiven for imagining that Italian Senators can not manage the mechanics of voting. My immediate reaction was as follows "Why does Clemente Mastella want the world to laugh at the Italian Senate?"
I have neither proof nor doubt that the apparent mistakes were made by the senators for the UDEur lead by Clemente Mastella. This is a party of people elected with the center right in 1996 which switched sides and elected Massimo D'Alema prime minister when the still comunists withdrew support and made the Prodi goverment fall. Sadly the center left did not cut them adrift in 2001 and lost anyway. I thought at the time that at least the election might have served for sending Mastella back to Berlusconi or, even better, causing the UDEur to win no seats, which has been the end of many Italian parties. Thus the UDEur is still around, still part of the center left (at least for now) and with a big big delegation of three a necessary component of the center left majority in the senate. The absurd errors on ballots serve to keep the voting open and to remind people of how narrow the majority is.
I think there is a strategic reason to cast incorrectly marked ballots as opposed to blank ballots. Life Senators often cast blank ballots out of respect for democracy. No one can imagine that the senators who wrote "Francesco Marini" or "Marini" are burdened by such weaknesses. They are saying that they have not yet been paid the price for their votes. They may be hinting that they are prepared to sell to the highest bidder.
Of course I don't really know that the three spelling impaired senotors are the three UDEur senators. As I said I have neither evidence nor doubt.
Elisabetta Addis says that from now on she will refer to one of them as Inclemente Mastella.
I guess that tommorrow Clemintine Mastella will vote for Franco Andreotti.
The Italian Senate is still trying to elect its president. To preside over the Senate a senator must win an absolute majority of the votes. The center left currently has a majority of one among elected senators and the support of one elected independent (elected in South America of course but that is another story). The two living former presidents of the Republic are also senators and there are Senators appointed for their lifetime as a huge honor (like being in the house of lords) which has suddenly become a real political factor.
The naive or very young might imagine that the center left will just elect their candidate Franco Marini (a former trade union leader and minister of labor whose most brilliant contribution to the national discussion occurs whenever he keeps his mouth shut). The center right is supporting Giulio Andreotti, 7 times prime minister, now a senator for life, who has served the Republic every parliament since it was founded and who, according to an official court verdict and finding of fact, stopped serving the mafia in 1980 and therefore does not belong in jail.
There is also a senator Giulio Marini. who has not been mentioned as a compromise candidate, but who played a very key role in the second second ballot for president of the Senate.
La Repubblica reports
La differenza tra Franco e Francesco ha tolto per soli tre voti a Franco Marini la presidenza del Senato. Su tre delle 162 schede che gli erano state attribuite nella seconda votazione, infatti, c'era scritto Francesco. Ma Marini si chiama Franco, anche all'anagrafe. Pertanto la seconda votazione è stata annullata dal presidente provvisorio Oscar Luigi Scalfaro, e ripetuta, tra le contestazioni, alle 22. Ma anche dopo mezzanotte, al termine della seconda votazione 'bis', il responso per il candidato del centrosinistra è stato negativo: ha ottenuto infatti 161 voti, dal momento che una scheda, sulla quale c'era scritto solo Marini, non poteva essere considerata valida, essendoci un altro senatore con lo stesso cognome, Giulio Marini, di Forza Italia.
Su un'altra era scritto, per l'ennesima volta, Francesco Marini.
that is
The difference between "Franco" and "Francesco" took from Franco Marini the presidency of the senate for only three votes. "Francesco", in fact, was written on three of the 162 ballots which were [unofficially] attributed to him in the second vote. But Marini's legal name is Franco. Therefore the second vote was annulled by the provisory president Oscar Luigi Scalfaro and repeated, with objections, at 10 PM.
But also after midnight, at the end of vote 2b, the response for the candidate of the center left was negative. He obtained 161 votes, since one ballot, on which only "Marini" was written, could not be considered valid there being another senator with the same last name, Giulio Marini of Forza Italia.
Francesco Marini was written for the n'th time on another.
The extremely naive and electors of Palm beach county Florida, might be forgiven for imagining that Italian Senators can not manage the mechanics of voting. My immediate reaction was as follows "Why does Clemente Mastella want the world to laugh at the Italian Senate?"
I have neither proof nor doubt that the apparent mistakes were made by the senators for the UDEur lead by Clemente Mastella. This is a party of people elected with the center right in 1996 which switched sides and elected Massimo D'Alema prime minister when the still comunists withdrew support and made the Prodi goverment fall. Sadly the center left did not cut them adrift in 2001 and lost anyway. I thought at the time that at least the election might have served for sending Mastella back to Berlusconi or, even better, causing the UDEur to win no seats, which has been the end of many Italian parties. Thus the UDEur is still around, still part of the center left (at least for now) and with a big big delegation of three a necessary component of the center left majority in the senate. The absurd errors on ballots serve to keep the voting open and to remind people of how narrow the majority is.
I think there is a strategic reason to cast incorrectly marked ballots as opposed to blank ballots. Life Senators often cast blank ballots out of respect for democracy. No one can imagine that the senators who wrote "Francesco Marini" or "Marini" are burdened by such weaknesses. They are saying that they have not yet been paid the price for their votes. They may be hinting that they are prepared to sell to the highest bidder.
Of course I don't really know that the three spelling impaired senotors are the three UDEur senators. As I said I have neither evidence nor doubt.
Elisabetta Addis says that from now on she will refer to one of them as Inclemente Mastella.
I guess that tommorrow Clemintine Mastella will vote for Franco Andreotti.
Strange Google Referal of the Day
Someone in Romania is interested in Curio Pintus, the only person who has ever even hinted that he might some day consider suing me for allegedly defamatory statements on this blog.
Someone in Romania is interested in Curio Pintus, the only person who has ever even hinted that he might some day consider suing me for allegedly defamatory statements on this blog.
A Specter is Haunting Washington
Kevin Drum notes
I fear that Sen Specter remains confused about the administration he threatens to confront, or, more likely, is pretending that he remains confused. What makes him think that witholding funds has any real authority that the FISA act which provides for a penalty of up to 10 years in prison does not have ? The Bush administration already made it clear that it feels it has the authority to spend money in ways not appropriated by congress when it transfered funds from the war in Afganistan to preparation for invasion of Iraq as noted by the Congressional Research Service Jonathan Weisman via Matthew Yglesias
http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/04/post_230.html.
Specter should (actually probably does) understand that the Bush administration considers the constitution obsolete. Specifically forbidding spending on warrentless wiretaps would not prevent warrentless wiretaps anymore than FISA did. Specifically forbidding spending on any wiretaps would be extreme and would not prevent warrentless wiretaps anymore than FISA did.
Congress has two weapons left in its arsenal impeachment and prayer. Specter can pray that God tells Bush to obey the constitution, he can pray that the house impeaches Bush or he can (and will) hope that things will just work out and his play acting will win applause.
Still supportive e-mails without any reference to my doubts about his sincerity can't hurt and contact information remains here.
update: My letter to Senator Specter. I hope I am right in assuming that he doesn't read this blog
Dear Senator Specter
Thank you for standing up for the Constitution by threatening to block funding for the clearly illegal NSA domestic warrentless evesdropping program. I was very pleased and impressed by your statement.
I personally have no hope at all that your warning will cause the Bush administration to seriously consider the obeying the laws passed in congress including FISA and the Patriot Act which President Bush was for while he was violating it . I think it will probably be necessary to cut off funding even to get the administrations attention. This will involve voting with Democrats and your life will be made very unpleasant, but your place in history will be assured.
You have guessed perhaps that you and I do not belong to the same party, however you also clearly understand that the issue far transends party and normal policy debate. It is sad that so few Senators of either party understand what is at stake. Almost all Republicans seem to have forgotten about their oversight responsibilities while most Democrats seem interested mainly in whether the issue is a political winner or loser. The founding father's understood the issue even though they didn't know what a telephone was.
I am glad that at least one Senator understands how important it is that the goverment of the United States of America remains a government of laws and not of men.
Kevin Drum notes
Arlen Specter claims that he's so frustrated over the Bush administration's refusal to answer questions about the NSA's domestic spying program that he might actually do something about it:
In a warning to the White House, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said he planned to introduce legislation that would cut off funds for the surveillance program, which he described as a threat to civil liberties and a violation of domestic espionage laws.
...."What's the use of passing another statute if the president won't pay any attention to it?" Specter said. "When you talk about withholding funds, there you're talking about a real authority."
I imagine that, as usual, someone from the White House will coo soothing words in Specter's ears and he'll back down, but who knows? Maybe this time he'll demonstrate some spine and do what's right. A few supportive calls and emails couldn't hurt. Contact info is here.
I fear that Sen Specter remains confused about the administration he threatens to confront, or, more likely, is pretending that he remains confused. What makes him think that witholding funds has any real authority that the FISA act which provides for a penalty of up to 10 years in prison does not have ? The Bush administration already made it clear that it feels it has the authority to spend money in ways not appropriated by congress when it transfered funds from the war in Afganistan to preparation for invasion of Iraq as noted by the Congressional Research Service Jonathan Weisman via Matthew Yglesias
http://www.prospect.org/weblog/2006/04/post_230.html.
Specter should (actually probably does) understand that the Bush administration considers the constitution obsolete. Specifically forbidding spending on warrentless wiretaps would not prevent warrentless wiretaps anymore than FISA did. Specifically forbidding spending on any wiretaps would be extreme and would not prevent warrentless wiretaps anymore than FISA did.
Congress has two weapons left in its arsenal impeachment and prayer. Specter can pray that God tells Bush to obey the constitution, he can pray that the house impeaches Bush or he can (and will) hope that things will just work out and his play acting will win applause.
Still supportive e-mails without any reference to my doubts about his sincerity can't hurt and contact information remains here.
update: My letter to Senator Specter. I hope I am right in assuming that he doesn't read this blog
Dear Senator Specter
Thank you for standing up for the Constitution by threatening to block funding for the clearly illegal NSA domestic warrentless evesdropping program. I was very pleased and impressed by your statement.
I personally have no hope at all that your warning will cause the Bush administration to seriously consider the obeying the laws passed in congress including FISA and the Patriot Act which President Bush was for while he was violating it . I think it will probably be necessary to cut off funding even to get the administrations attention. This will involve voting with Democrats and your life will be made very unpleasant, but your place in history will be assured.
You have guessed perhaps that you and I do not belong to the same party, however you also clearly understand that the issue far transends party and normal policy debate. It is sad that so few Senators of either party understand what is at stake. Almost all Republicans seem to have forgotten about their oversight responsibilities while most Democrats seem interested mainly in whether the issue is a political winner or loser. The founding father's understood the issue even though they didn't know what a telephone was.
I am glad that at least one Senator understands how important it is that the goverment of the United States of America remains a government of laws and not of men.
Friday, April 28, 2006
The Italian Senate is electing it's President
The Senate is almost equally divided between center left and center right. One very very odd feature of the Senate is that it has unelected members including former presidents of the Republic and "Senatori a vita" that is Senators for life. To be named a senator for life has typically been similar to being named a peer in England.
However, now the senatori a vita can decide votes. It was argued when it seemed that they might be necessary to give Prodi a majority that this is undemocratic. Now the same people support a Giulio Andreotti a senatore a vita as President of the Senate (and another Senatore a Vita who was honored for running Fiat into the ground declared that he voted for Andreotti). The center right is voting for Andreotti. This is mainly an effort to show how very thin Prodi's majority is as a first step to getting to new elections.
One important particular has not been mentioned in the extensive debate. Andreotti has been found by an Italian court to have been an ally of the mafia up untill 1980 (when the Corleonese seized control from the Palermitani). This did not imply a conviction for any crime, since the statue of limitations had run out. Andreotti could have asked for a trial on the merits to be conducted by the highest court of appeal. He chose not to.
For some totally mysterious reason, the sentence with the official finding that Andreotti has been an ally of the mafia was treated as a vindication and he is now being considered for a high office, officially the second highest office in the Republic after the President of the Republic.
The Senate is almost equally divided between center left and center right. One very very odd feature of the Senate is that it has unelected members including former presidents of the Republic and "Senatori a vita" that is Senators for life. To be named a senator for life has typically been similar to being named a peer in England.
However, now the senatori a vita can decide votes. It was argued when it seemed that they might be necessary to give Prodi a majority that this is undemocratic. Now the same people support a Giulio Andreotti a senatore a vita as President of the Senate (and another Senatore a Vita who was honored for running Fiat into the ground declared that he voted for Andreotti). The center right is voting for Andreotti. This is mainly an effort to show how very thin Prodi's majority is as a first step to getting to new elections.
One important particular has not been mentioned in the extensive debate. Andreotti has been found by an Italian court to have been an ally of the mafia up untill 1980 (when the Corleonese seized control from the Palermitani). This did not imply a conviction for any crime, since the statue of limitations had run out. Andreotti could have asked for a trial on the merits to be conducted by the highest court of appeal. He chose not to.
For some totally mysterious reason, the sentence with the official finding that Andreotti has been an ally of the mafia was treated as a vindication and he is now being considered for a high office, officially the second highest office in the Republic after the President of the Republic.
Thursday, April 27, 2006
If You Are All So Smart Why Are We The Minority ?
Democrats propose "legislation that would put a moratorium on the Federal gasoline tax for at least 60-days to provide consumers immediate relief at the pump,” but would also "chop oil company tax benefits and burden refineries with unwarranted reporting requirements, making it unable to win enough support in Congress to have even a remote chance of passing."
ohn Whitehead, at the Environmental Economics blog, calls it "silly plus stupid (i.e., "inefficient" to an economist)" and Brad DeLong chimes in labeling the initiative an example of "stupidity."
Matthew Yglesias argues that proposing the amendment is smart since it "accomplishes the political goal of making the Republicans unpopular -- siding with their corporate masters to defeat a plan to lower the price of gasoline -- while also accomplishing the policy goal of not making gasoline prices lower. That, to me, deserves the label 'smart.'"
Atrios agrees with Yglesias
By the way, I guessed that Brad was at least one of the wonks gently chided by Atrios before clicking the link, which shows I am brilliantly stupid enough to spend huge amounts of time reading blogs which attempt to convince me of that which I already believe.
I agree with Yglesias that the Democrats are being smart. I do fear that they will blow it by being against gas taxes before they were for them. Posturing can be risky if you are not willing to actually implement bad policies. The only way to posture without appearing hypocritical is to be firmly, resolutely and consistently hypocritical. The Republicans have no problem with that, Democrats have been known to flinch. Still I basically trust them to not sacrifice electability for principle if it comes to that.
I also think that Whitehad and DeLong are being smart, very smart. By denouncing the Democrats' posturing they semi effectively buff their credentials as call em as they see em straight shooting non partisan policy intellectuals. This makes them more useful to the party. I stress that I am guessing as to their motives. I have never met Whitehead and have not discussed the issue with DeLong.
Finally I think Yglesias and Atrios are being smart, very very smart. By chiding Whitehead and DeLong they signal to political strategists that they understand politics and are willing to let their policy intellectual credibility take one for the team. By criticising Whitehead and DeLong they very effectively buff Whitehead and DeLong's as call em as they see em straight shooting non partisan policy intellectuals, which makes all four of them more useful to the party.
The whole "debate" strikes me as blogospheric Kabuki in which debate serves the debaters. Or as Robert Barro once said "sometimes a critical site is more valuable that a favorable site ... I mean I'm just speaking from casual empricism." (I hasten to add that cutting out the middle man by explaining in footnotes why the argument in the main body of the text is nonsense strikes me as a suboptimal strategy for developing intellectual credibility).
So my question is if they are all so smart why can't Democrats win ?
Comments
JasonSpalding
Have you ever looked at a map of gas prices in the United Stated based on county? Have you compared it to the results of a presidential election based on a county winner map? Here are a couple links what do you see?
Posted by JasonSpalding to Robert's Stochastic thoughts at 4/28/2006 12:46:12 AM
Democrats propose "legislation that would put a moratorium on the Federal gasoline tax for at least 60-days to provide consumers immediate relief at the pump,” but would also "chop oil company tax benefits and burden refineries with unwarranted reporting requirements, making it unable to win enough support in Congress to have even a remote chance of passing."
ohn Whitehead, at the Environmental Economics blog, calls it "silly plus stupid (i.e., "inefficient" to an economist)" and Brad DeLong chimes in labeling the initiative an example of "stupidity."
Matthew Yglesias argues that proposing the amendment is smart since it "accomplishes the political goal of making the Republicans unpopular -- siding with their corporate masters to defeat a plan to lower the price of gasoline -- while also accomplishing the policy goal of not making gasoline prices lower. That, to me, deserves the label 'smart.'"
Atrios agrees with Yglesias
Smart Posturing
What Yglesias says. Sometimes our wonkier types just need to keep their traps shut. Plenty of bad ideas, especially when they're both relatively harmless and unlikely to pass, make for good political theater. The party out of power can't actually do policy, so relax and let them do some politics.
By the way, I guessed that Brad was at least one of the wonks gently chided by Atrios before clicking the link, which shows I am brilliantly stupid enough to spend huge amounts of time reading blogs which attempt to convince me of that which I already believe.
I agree with Yglesias that the Democrats are being smart. I do fear that they will blow it by being against gas taxes before they were for them. Posturing can be risky if you are not willing to actually implement bad policies. The only way to posture without appearing hypocritical is to be firmly, resolutely and consistently hypocritical. The Republicans have no problem with that, Democrats have been known to flinch. Still I basically trust them to not sacrifice electability for principle if it comes to that.
I also think that Whitehad and DeLong are being smart, very smart. By denouncing the Democrats' posturing they semi effectively buff their credentials as call em as they see em straight shooting non partisan policy intellectuals. This makes them more useful to the party. I stress that I am guessing as to their motives. I have never met Whitehead and have not discussed the issue with DeLong.
Finally I think Yglesias and Atrios are being smart, very very smart. By chiding Whitehead and DeLong they signal to political strategists that they understand politics and are willing to let their policy intellectual credibility take one for the team. By criticising Whitehead and DeLong they very effectively buff Whitehead and DeLong's as call em as they see em straight shooting non partisan policy intellectuals, which makes all four of them more useful to the party.
The whole "debate" strikes me as blogospheric Kabuki in which debate serves the debaters. Or as Robert Barro once said "sometimes a critical site is more valuable that a favorable site ... I mean I'm just speaking from casual empricism." (I hasten to add that cutting out the middle man by explaining in footnotes why the argument in the main body of the text is nonsense strikes me as a suboptimal strategy for developing intellectual credibility).
So my question is if they are all so smart why can't Democrats win ?
Comments
JasonSpalding
Have you ever looked at a map of gas prices in the United Stated based on county? Have you compared it to the results of a presidential election based on a county winner map? Here are a couple links what do you see?
Posted by JasonSpalding to Robert's Stochastic thoughts at 4/28/2006 12:46:12 AM
I'm not suggesting that Glenn Greenwald plagiarised 1984 to write "How Would a Patriot Act?". It seems that way, but I'm sure there's an innocent explanation.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Mary McCarthy update MCCXXXVI
There seems to be much less than meets the eye to the case of Mary McCarthy, the CIA officer fired for talking to Dana Priest. First, I am glad to say, that she will not be taking me up on the offer of helping fund her retirement as the CIA is still going to pay her pension. In fact, the total penalty seems to be ten days' salary as reported by R. Jeffrey Smith and Dafna Linzer in the Washington Post
"[Ty] Cobb said ... that her firing 10 days before she was to retire"
and
The motives for the dismissal are still more interesting. McCarthy denies that she revealed classified information. More to the point
(yes her lawyers name is Ty Cobb who sure aint gonna hurt his batting average in fact I consider his fee in this case a steal. Quite "the group" they make).
McCarthy denies having told Priest about the secret prisons. She would not have known operational details.
The existence of prisons in secret locations was, of course, universally known to anyone who followed the news. In 2004, the Bush administration constantly repeated (and exagerated) the number of top Al Qaeda operatives who had been captured. The location of the prisoners was not made public. Thus they were being kept in secret prisons. The existence of secret prisons was as secret as the design of the US flag. Never has there been a more open secret.
Ah yess open secrets. The instant that McCarthy was fired with pension 10 days before her retirement, the world new she had donated money to John Kerry (takes about 5 clicks to get here)
Given the almost complete absence of any other reason to fire her, might the firing be the CIAs effort to show they are not soft on Democrats ? Recall
via many.
It seems that Smith and Linzer placed that key fact at the end of their older article because they are still investigating the issue. The more recent article is calling foul as loud as news reporters are allowed to scream.
I wonder if John Collinge and Alvin Krongard are worried. Ellen Hemmindinge is already safely retired.
And notice that only 5 people who donated in 2002 or 2004 list their employment as the Central Intelligence Agency. Come on guys you can't all be covert.
hmmm 3 more in 1998 or 2000 and Krongard is probably not pleased that I keep mentioning him.
3 more in 1994 or 1996
One more in 1990 or 1992 (and she has the same last name as the candidate)
update: Hope I haven't gotten Alvin Krongard in trouble. Someone came here after google blog searching "Krongard". I do hope the evil opponents of CIA agents who are active citizens aren't using google -- the idea of Big Brother googling is scary.
There seems to be much less than meets the eye to the case of Mary McCarthy, the CIA officer fired for talking to Dana Priest. First, I am glad to say, that she will not be taking me up on the offer of helping fund her retirement as the CIA is still going to pay her pension. In fact, the total penalty seems to be ten days' salary as reported by R. Jeffrey Smith and Dafna Linzer in the Washington Post
"[Ty] Cobb said ... that her firing 10 days before she was to retire"
and
the senior intelligence official confirmed that McCarthy was preparing to retire and said she will retain her government pension despite the agency's decision.
The motives for the dismissal are still more interesting. McCarthy denies that she revealed classified information. More to the point
The statement by Ty Cobb, a lawyer in the Washington office of Hogan & Hartson who said he was speaking for McCarthy, came on the same day that a senior intelligence official said the agency is not asserting that McCarthy was a key source of Priest's award-winning articles last year disclosing the agency's secret prisons.
(yes her lawyers name is Ty Cobb who sure aint gonna hurt his batting average in fact I consider his fee in this case a steal. Quite "the group" they make).
McCarthy denies having told Priest about the secret prisons. She would not have known operational details.
Cobb said that McCarthy, who worked in the CIA inspector general's office, "did not have access to the information she is accused of leaking," namely the classified information about any secret detention centers in Europe. Having unreported media contacts is not unheard of at the CIA but is a violation of the agency's rules.
The existence of prisons in secret locations was, of course, universally known to anyone who followed the news. In 2004, the Bush administration constantly repeated (and exagerated) the number of top Al Qaeda operatives who had been captured. The location of the prisoners was not made public. Thus they were being kept in secret prisons. The existence of secret prisons was as secret as the design of the US flag. Never has there been a more open secret.
Ah yess open secrets. The instant that McCarthy was fired with pension 10 days before her retirement, the world new she had donated money to John Kerry (takes about 5 clicks to get here)
Given the almost complete absence of any other reason to fire her, might the firing be the CIAs effort to show they are not soft on Democrats ? Recall
The White House also has recently barraged the agency with questions about the political affiliations of some of its senior intelligence officers, according to intelligence officials.
via many.
It seems that Smith and Linzer placed that key fact at the end of their older article because they are still investigating the issue. The more recent article is calling foul as loud as news reporters are allowed to scream.
I wonder if John Collinge and Alvin Krongard are worried. Ellen Hemmindinge is already safely retired.
And notice that only 5 people who donated in 2002 or 2004 list their employment as the Central Intelligence Agency. Come on guys you can't all be covert.
hmmm 3 more in 1998 or 2000 and Krongard is probably not pleased that I keep mentioning him.
3 more in 1994 or 1996
One more in 1990 or 1992 (and she has the same last name as the candidate)
update: Hope I haven't gotten Alvin Krongard in trouble. Someone came here after google blog searching "Krongard". I do hope the evil opponents of CIA agents who are active citizens aren't using google -- the idea of Big Brother googling is scary.
Monday, April 24, 2006
Look Ma You're a Secular Whackjob
or
Atheist Theological Disputation part N
P Z Myers caught a live one -- Melinda Barton denouncing atheists on
Raw Story
Barton is rude and Myers seems to have demolished her arguments pretty thoroughly. I am actually just going to quote him partly quoting her, because my main aim is to engage him in Atheist Theological disputation.
Barton is very odd. She seems to see a fundamental difference between believing something and thinking that it is true. This seems to me to be inconsistent with the English dictionary. Now one can hold beliefs without certainty and therefore not be certain that they are true, but I don't see any difference between "I believe x" and "I think x is true". I have reached mutual non comprehension with many people on this topic and have learned to drop it as soon as it arises.
More to the point, Barton and Myers both seem to me to underestimate the role of faith in thought. In particular, I think to arrive at a conclusion using reason and evidence one must have faith, at least, in some method of reasoning such as the scientific method. Thus even if the scientific method forced everyone who applied it honesty and ably to conclude that there is no God, the resulting atheism would be based on faith. No reasoning is possible without assumptions and no one would bother to reason without at least some faith in the assumptions. Again, certainty is not required, but something prior to evidence is or one would just stare at the world and never infer anything. I believe David Hume agreed with me on this point. Myers is witty with the sandwich analogy, but he doesn't address the question of whether or not he has faith in the scientific method. Sad to say, I think the scientific method goes on to ask "do you have any priors" and if you answer no the scientific method sighs and says it can't help you, that is, one leap of faith is not enough to get you anywhere useful
Here I absolutely disagree with Myers and agree with Barton. I am an atheist but I believe in objective moral truth -- That some actions are right and others are wrong and that this rightness or wrongness is separate from my feelings and beliefs and is unchanged since before any living thing existed. Obviously there can be no evidence for the existence of objective right or wrong (as opposed to beliefs about right and wrong and moral sentiments and conciences and such like). Thus I do not accept Occam's razor, or rather, I think it guides us well except for when we ask if there is a moral law. Embarassing to have to use "except" when discusing epistemology, but that's what I think.
Now consider Myers' analogy. There is a difference in that, if I believed there was a unicorn in my back yard, I would assign positive probability to seeing it. I do believe that there is the moral law in my back yard, but I also think it is invisible. My failure to see it does not imply a posterior probability that it is there lower than my prior probability. Similarly it is weightless and hoofless so I learn nothing by finding no moral law prints. Finally the moral law does not defecate - no shit. Absence of evidence of something which could produce evidence of its existence is evidence of absence. Perhaps weak evidence of absence but certainly evidence of absence. Absence of evidence of something which could not produce evidence is not evidence of absence.
God's not like that, by definition God is omnipotent and has inentions (being benevolent). That implies lots of predictions many of which seem to me to be false. Even if it is possible to reconcile the existence of God with all the horrible things in the world, faith in God must be challenged by the enormous intellectual effort required. This is clearly evidence of the absence of God, at least if God is defined as being omnipotent and benevolent.
Here I agree entirely with Myers (noting that he is joking and not really proposing a revision to the first amendment). I think there should be an established norm that if someone brings up quantum physics, they should normally be quizzed on the subject to either show they know what they are talking about or humiliate them. I think that questions whose answers are known because they are reproducible experimental results found in the peer reviewed literature would do. That is 99% of abuse of quantum mechanics could be eliminated by humiliating people who don't know the relevant facts without even testing their understanding of current theories.
Heh indeed. How is it possible that Raw Story published such nonsense ? This is a serious question. I can think of three explanations.
One is that left of center people have noticed that we keep losing elections because we are seen by many voters to be hostile to religion. Thus they are desperate enough to find some way of partly agreeing with those voters to resort to intellectual dishonesty based on outrageous straw men.
Another is that current standards of tollerance are inconsistent with logic. This is very much true of religious tollerance. It is considered intollerant to say that one thinks one's beliefs are true and that logically inconstent beliefs are false. Clear thought can not survive under such ground rules.
Finally, I suspect that religious people who attempt to reason with atheists either become atheist, become agnostic or drive themselves crazy.
update: spelling corrected thanks to Sarah's anonymous father.
Update 2: Further spelling corrections thanks to Sarah's anonymous and persistent father (or maybe some other kind anonymous soul). I have also learned that when I try to search this page with firefox it doesn't look in this box (where I am typing) so I get "Meyers" not found when "Meyers" appears repeatedly. Odd that I never learned that till now.
or
Atheist Theological Disputation part N
P Z Myers caught a live one -- Melinda Barton denouncing atheists on
Raw Story
Barton is rude and Myers seems to have demolished her arguments pretty thoroughly. I am actually just going to quote him partly quoting her, because my main aim is to engage him in Atheist Theological disputation.
You know, I'm a fairly extremist atheist myself, and I just find her assertions daffy.
Outrageous claim number 1: Atheism is based on evidence and reason and is philosophically provable or proven. Atheism is a matter of thought not belief. In other words, atheism is true; religion is false.
Well, yes, I believe religion is false; that's no more a damning trait than the fact that Melinda Barton believes religion is true. But this claim that atheism is proven is bizarre; who says such things? She tries to quote a writer for the Atheist Foundation of Australia who defines atheism as "the acceptance that there is no credible, scientific or factually reliable evidence for the existence of a God, god/s or the supernatural"…tell me, where is the claim of provability there? She goes on to argue that both the presence and absence of a deity are matters of belief, setting up a false equivalence in which she tries to argue that both are therefore matters of faith. What nonsense; the absence of faith is not faith, any more than the absence of a sandwich is also a kind of tasty snack between two slices of bread.
Barton is very odd. She seems to see a fundamental difference between believing something and thinking that it is true. This seems to me to be inconsistent with the English dictionary. Now one can hold beliefs without certainty and therefore not be certain that they are true, but I don't see any difference between "I believe x" and "I think x is true". I have reached mutual non comprehension with many people on this topic and have learned to drop it as soon as it arises.
More to the point, Barton and Myers both seem to me to underestimate the role of faith in thought. In particular, I think to arrive at a conclusion using reason and evidence one must have faith, at least, in some method of reasoning such as the scientific method. Thus even if the scientific method forced everyone who applied it honesty and ably to conclude that there is no God, the resulting atheism would be based on faith. No reasoning is possible without assumptions and no one would bother to reason without at least some faith in the assumptions. Again, certainty is not required, but something prior to evidence is or one would just stare at the world and never infer anything. I believe David Hume agreed with me on this point. Myers is witty with the sandwich analogy, but he doesn't address the question of whether or not he has faith in the scientific method. Sad to say, I think the scientific method goes on to ask "do you have any priors" and if you answer no the scientific method sighs and says it can't help you, that is, one leap of faith is not enough to get you anywhere useful
Outrageous claim number 2: Since the natural is all that we have or can scientifically observe and/or measure, it is all that exists.
Now we get into some real craziness. This basic claim of metaphysical naturalism, which is a reasonable interpretation of the absence of evidence, is called a blatant logical fallacy and scientifically inaccurate by Ms Barton.
She claims it is a logical fallacy because absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That's an extravagant misuse of the aphorism, I'm afraid. Absence of evidence is a legitimate argument for the absence of a phenomenon. If I claim there is a unicorn living in my backyard, but repeated attempts to observe and record it, or to find indirect evidence such as footprints or unicorn scat all fail, it is perfectly reasonable to provisionally suggest that the claim is false, and to insist that any further consideration of the idea will require positive evidence from the claimant.
Here I absolutely disagree with Myers and agree with Barton. I am an atheist but I believe in objective moral truth -- That some actions are right and others are wrong and that this rightness or wrongness is separate from my feelings and beliefs and is unchanged since before any living thing existed. Obviously there can be no evidence for the existence of objective right or wrong (as opposed to beliefs about right and wrong and moral sentiments and conciences and such like). Thus I do not accept Occam's razor, or rather, I think it guides us well except for when we ask if there is a moral law. Embarassing to have to use "except" when discusing epistemology, but that's what I think.
Now consider Myers' analogy. There is a difference in that, if I believed there was a unicorn in my back yard, I would assign positive probability to seeing it. I do believe that there is the moral law in my back yard, but I also think it is invisible. My failure to see it does not imply a posterior probability that it is there lower than my prior probability. Similarly it is weightless and hoofless so I learn nothing by finding no moral law prints. Finally the moral law does not defecate - no shit. Absence of evidence of something which could produce evidence of its existence is evidence of absence. Perhaps weak evidence of absence but certainly evidence of absence. Absence of evidence of something which could not produce evidence is not evidence of absence.
God's not like that, by definition God is omnipotent and has inentions (being benevolent). That implies lots of predictions many of which seem to me to be false. Even if it is possible to reconcile the existence of God with all the horrible things in the world, faith in God must be challenged by the enormous intellectual effort required. This is clearly evidence of the absence of God, at least if God is defined as being omnipotent and benevolent.
As for her claim that metaphysical naturalism is scientifically inaccurate…her defense consists of abusing quantum physics. I'm thinking there ought to be an exam and some kind of licensing requirement before people are allowed to use The Argument From Quantum Physics in public.
Here I agree entirely with Myers (noting that he is joking and not really proposing a revision to the first amendment). I think there should be an established norm that if someone brings up quantum physics, they should normally be quizzed on the subject to either show they know what they are talking about or humiliate them. I think that questions whose answers are known because they are reproducible experimental results found in the peer reviewed literature would do. That is 99% of abuse of quantum mechanics could be eliminated by humiliating people who don't know the relevant facts without even testing their understanding of current theories.
Outrageous claim number 4: The eradication of religion in favor of secularism will bring about utopia.
Again, a straw man, and she has got to know it. She reaches for the usual extremist examples with which atheists are typically beaten, the anarchists and communists, and says that they believe "the total eradication of religion is an essential but not sufficient step in the creation of an atheist utopia." The statement of her religious claim and her recitation of an example follow one after another; are we to believe that she doesn't understand what the phrase "but not sufficient" means? Possibly. She's not exactly dazzling us with her clarity of thought here.
Outrageous claim number 5: All religious people want to force you or convince you or coerce you to believe as they do.
Just a rhetorical tip to Ms Barton: it's a bad idea to end a list of arguments for your position with the weakest, lamest, most pathetic claim you can think of, and also to immediately admit that it's unsupportable. You know, like this:
I tried to find an "official" source for this hasty generalization with no luck, but chose to include it here based on personal experience.
Jebus. Never mind. Do we even need to try to rebut this kind of nonsense?
Heh indeed. How is it possible that Raw Story published such nonsense ? This is a serious question. I can think of three explanations.
One is that left of center people have noticed that we keep losing elections because we are seen by many voters to be hostile to religion. Thus they are desperate enough to find some way of partly agreeing with those voters to resort to intellectual dishonesty based on outrageous straw men.
Another is that current standards of tollerance are inconsistent with logic. This is very much true of religious tollerance. It is considered intollerant to say that one thinks one's beliefs are true and that logically inconstent beliefs are false. Clear thought can not survive under such ground rules.
Finally, I suspect that religious people who attempt to reason with atheists either become atheist, become agnostic or drive themselves crazy.
update: spelling corrected thanks to Sarah's anonymous father.
Update 2: Further spelling corrections thanks to Sarah's anonymous and persistent father (or maybe some other kind anonymous soul). I have also learned that when I try to search this page with firefox it doesn't look in this box (where I am typing) so I get "Meyers" not found when "Meyers" appears repeatedly. Odd that I never learned that till now.
Sunday, April 23, 2006
I think that Mary McCarthy did the right thing when she told Dana Priest about the secret CIA prison system and that the CIA did the right thing when it fired Mary McCarthy. Finally I think the Pulitzer committee did the right thing when it awarded Priest a Pulitzer prize.
[see update, recantation and flip flop below]
Now firing is not the worst possible punishment, but it is very painful and costly to McCarthy. How can I think that someone should be fired for doing the right thing ? I agree with the action of revealing this particular secret, because I think that, in this case, it is necessary for the public to know what is being done in our name for us to recognise the threats to our principles. However, allowing the act to go un punished amounts to official sanction and establishes a precedent. I think that breaking the rules when there is a compelling reason to do so is right, but that establishing a new rule that the rules can be broken if it serves the public interest implies establishing a rule that the rules can be broken if a plausible case can be made that the public interest was served. This would lead either to an end of secrecy, which would be costly, or more likely, a crackdown which would involve arbitrary punishment.
Now the current law protects whistle blowers, that is, the classification system can not be used to hide crimes and people can not be punished for revealing crimes. However, as far as I know, the establishment of the secret prison system did not violate US law (torture of prisoners in the system certainly does violate US law). The system violated European Union law, but the CIA violates foreign laws all the time and we want it that way. Thus according to current law and rules, McCarthy should be fired (and can be prosecuted).
The different consequences of breaking the rules and allowing a known rule breaker to go un punished makes it possible that it is good to punish a good action. It is unpleasant but not logically inconsistent.
Also, since journalists should report newsworthy truths without considering whether it is good for us to know such truths, Priest's action was not only socially useful, but typical of socially desirable conduct by journalists. Thus I see no contradiction in thinking she should be rewarded while her partner in truth telling should be punished.
I do think that, if the prize has a monetary component, she should help McCarthy out with her new private sector retirement plan. I'd be willing to chip in a bit myself, since hope in disintrested actions by strangers has never led anyone into a life of crime.
Update: I now think I was wrong when I thought the CIA did the right thing when it fired McCarthy. The key issue related to Federal government firing policy is whether the activities she revealed were criminal. If so, she is a whistle blower and should nto be fired. Glenn Greenwald explains that they were (and are) criminal. One key point is that McCarthy revealed torture, which was clearly against US law, and in particular the international convention against torture )which has been ratified by the Senate and is the law of the land). The Bush administration made a plainly absurd argument that the ratification added nothing to the restrictions in the US Constitution (which only applies inside the USA) but an argument presented by the allegedly guilty party does not make a crime other than a crime unless and until it is accepted by a judge.
The passage in the article (which I forgot as it wasn't news to me) was "et CIA interrogators in the overseas sites are permitted to use the CIA's approved "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques," some of which are prohibited by the U.N. convention and by U.S. military law. They include tactics such as "waterboarding,""
Furthermore secret prisons are themselves forbidden by the Geneva conventions (also the law of the land) and captured people can be declared illigitimate combatants not covered by the conventions only after a hearing (none of which have been completed so far). Thus holding captured people in secret prisons inside or outside of the US is a crime under US ratified treaties which the Constitution clearly states have the force of law.
Finally the fact that the US held people in secret prisons was not, itself, really secret. The capture of, for example, Khalid Sheik Mohammad was made extremely public. His location was never described and was clearly not Guantanamo, therefore it was tacitly made clear that he was being held in a secret prison. To me, McCarthy's leak was barely a leak (since was already sure of the content).
The point is that she clearly denounced criminal actions. The fact that the President is one of the criminals does not change her whistle blower status, and she should not be fired.
I repeat my offer to chip in a bit (not much sorry I'm stingy) for her retirement (see also Mark Kleiman). I also think she should sue demanding her job back. I'd say there are a fair number of judges who would be willing to express a binding view on who is guilty here.
[see update, recantation and flip flop below]
Now firing is not the worst possible punishment, but it is very painful and costly to McCarthy. How can I think that someone should be fired for doing the right thing ? I agree with the action of revealing this particular secret, because I think that, in this case, it is necessary for the public to know what is being done in our name for us to recognise the threats to our principles. However, allowing the act to go un punished amounts to official sanction and establishes a precedent. I think that breaking the rules when there is a compelling reason to do so is right, but that establishing a new rule that the rules can be broken if it serves the public interest implies establishing a rule that the rules can be broken if a plausible case can be made that the public interest was served. This would lead either to an end of secrecy, which would be costly, or more likely, a crackdown which would involve arbitrary punishment.
Now the current law protects whistle blowers, that is, the classification system can not be used to hide crimes and people can not be punished for revealing crimes. However, as far as I know, the establishment of the secret prison system did not violate US law (torture of prisoners in the system certainly does violate US law). The system violated European Union law, but the CIA violates foreign laws all the time and we want it that way. Thus according to current law and rules, McCarthy should be fired (and can be prosecuted).
The different consequences of breaking the rules and allowing a known rule breaker to go un punished makes it possible that it is good to punish a good action. It is unpleasant but not logically inconsistent.
Also, since journalists should report newsworthy truths without considering whether it is good for us to know such truths, Priest's action was not only socially useful, but typical of socially desirable conduct by journalists. Thus I see no contradiction in thinking she should be rewarded while her partner in truth telling should be punished.
I do think that, if the prize has a monetary component, she should help McCarthy out with her new private sector retirement plan. I'd be willing to chip in a bit myself, since hope in disintrested actions by strangers has never led anyone into a life of crime.
Update: I now think I was wrong when I thought the CIA did the right thing when it fired McCarthy. The key issue related to Federal government firing policy is whether the activities she revealed were criminal. If so, she is a whistle blower and should nto be fired. Glenn Greenwald explains that they were (and are) criminal. One key point is that McCarthy revealed torture, which was clearly against US law, and in particular the international convention against torture )which has been ratified by the Senate and is the law of the land). The Bush administration made a plainly absurd argument that the ratification added nothing to the restrictions in the US Constitution (which only applies inside the USA) but an argument presented by the allegedly guilty party does not make a crime other than a crime unless and until it is accepted by a judge.
The passage in the article (which I forgot as it wasn't news to me) was "et CIA interrogators in the overseas sites are permitted to use the CIA's approved "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques," some of which are prohibited by the U.N. convention and by U.S. military law. They include tactics such as "waterboarding,""
Furthermore secret prisons are themselves forbidden by the Geneva conventions (also the law of the land) and captured people can be declared illigitimate combatants not covered by the conventions only after a hearing (none of which have been completed so far). Thus holding captured people in secret prisons inside or outside of the US is a crime under US ratified treaties which the Constitution clearly states have the force of law.
Finally the fact that the US held people in secret prisons was not, itself, really secret. The capture of, for example, Khalid Sheik Mohammad was made extremely public. His location was never described and was clearly not Guantanamo, therefore it was tacitly made clear that he was being held in a secret prison. To me, McCarthy's leak was barely a leak (since was already sure of the content).
The point is that she clearly denounced criminal actions. The fact that the President is one of the criminals does not change her whistle blower status, and she should not be fired.
I repeat my offer to chip in a bit (not much sorry I'm stingy) for her retirement (see also Mark Kleiman). I also think she should sue demanding her job back. I'd say there are a fair number of judges who would be willing to express a binding view on who is guilty here.
Friday, April 21, 2006
Ramesh Ponnuru thinks that people don't know how well the economy is doing just as they didn't know how well it was doing as it was falling into the great depression.
He is alarmingly ignorant and too arrogant to, say, glance at an encyclopedia or high school history textbook *and* he is quoting someone equally clueless
I guess maybe the key point is that he means up to January 1 1930 at which point the depression was inevitable but people didn't know. Ponnuru seems to think that people in the 1920s thought the economy was going poorly. I am really shocked at such ignorance.
Also I got there via Atrios and TBogg and neither found the odd view of the US economy in the 20s and in 1930 (or on January 1 1930 if you insist) remarkable.
Is this par for the course for the corner ? I'm certainly not going to waste my time and raise my blood pressure checking.
He is alarmingly ignorant and too arrogant to, say, glance at an encyclopedia or high school history textbook *and* he is quoting someone equally clueless
hey aren't going to change their minds about the economy, either. People have not yet adjusted their mental picture of the economy to fit today's dynamism. "The average person sees high gas prices and bankrupt airlines and GM layoffs and it doesn’t fit in their minds that this can be going on during a good economy. There are some ways in which it’s analogous to . . . say, 1880 to 1930. . . . The reality was you were creating unprecedented amounts of wealth and moving people out of agrarian poverty into what we started to call the working class. But the commentary was almost uniformly negative. People just didn’t understand it. Nobody was saying, Gosh, this is great, people are moving off the crummy farms and into cities."
I guess maybe the key point is that he means up to January 1 1930 at which point the depression was inevitable but people didn't know. Ponnuru seems to think that people in the 1920s thought the economy was going poorly. I am really shocked at such ignorance.
Also I got there via Atrios and TBogg and neither found the odd view of the US economy in the 20s and in 1930 (or on January 1 1930 if you insist) remarkable.
Is this par for the course for the corner ? I'm certainly not going to waste my time and raise my blood pressure checking.
Atrios Atrios himself asks for my opinion.
"I'm curious if any people a bit closer to the action on the ground have a sense of how the Italian population is reacting to Silvio's shenanigans"
I live in Rome. The Italians I know are disgusted but not surprised by Berlusconi's antics. A refusal to reject the legitimacy of anyone who disagrees with him, including the majority of voters in this case, is typical. He is beyond Bush in arrogant denial of reality. This is the second time he has questioned the validity of counted votes. The other time he said his own internal exit polls (which showed him winning as always) were more reliable.
The problem is that I have almost never met anyone who admits to voting for Berlusconi (I work at a University but still ...). Somehow he has won two national elections with almost 0 confessed supporters.
Oddly I got a glimpse of pro Berlusconi views in a cab on election night (I waited at center left headquarters untill the victory speach at 3:00 AM and all public transportation was long closed).
The cab driver was not pleased at the results but mainly hoped that tons more money wouldn't be wasted on another vote. He said Prodi's plan to reintroduce the inheritance tax was unfair to working class Italians. He said corrupt politicians should just leave public life. His example of corruption was Massimo D'Alema who, gasp, once rented an apartment without paying a rent higher than the absurdly low legal maximum (this is due to an insane national rent control law eliminated by the center left last time they were in power).
There are Berlusconi supporters (half of the population) but few talk to me and their perception of the facts is more bizarre than Glenn Reynolds'. The explanation can be found back on election day, when the center left put on Murdoch owned Sky TV for a relatively fair and balanced report on what was happening (Berlusconi owned and Berlusconi controlled public TV had reported projections that Berlusconi had won).
"I'm curious if any people a bit closer to the action on the ground have a sense of how the Italian population is reacting to Silvio's shenanigans"
I live in Rome. The Italians I know are disgusted but not surprised by Berlusconi's antics. A refusal to reject the legitimacy of anyone who disagrees with him, including the majority of voters in this case, is typical. He is beyond Bush in arrogant denial of reality. This is the second time he has questioned the validity of counted votes. The other time he said his own internal exit polls (which showed him winning as always) were more reliable.
The problem is that I have almost never met anyone who admits to voting for Berlusconi (I work at a University but still ...). Somehow he has won two national elections with almost 0 confessed supporters.
Oddly I got a glimpse of pro Berlusconi views in a cab on election night (I waited at center left headquarters untill the victory speach at 3:00 AM and all public transportation was long closed).
The cab driver was not pleased at the results but mainly hoped that tons more money wouldn't be wasted on another vote. He said Prodi's plan to reintroduce the inheritance tax was unfair to working class Italians. He said corrupt politicians should just leave public life. His example of corruption was Massimo D'Alema who, gasp, once rented an apartment without paying a rent higher than the absurdly low legal maximum (this is due to an insane national rent control law eliminated by the center left last time they were in power).
There are Berlusconi supporters (half of the population) but few talk to me and their perception of the facts is more bizarre than Glenn Reynolds'. The explanation can be found back on election day, when the center left put on Murdoch owned Sky TV for a relatively fair and balanced report on what was happening (Berlusconi owned and Berlusconi controlled public TV had reported projections that Berlusconi had won).
Josh Marshall Translates Daniel Davies into Polite English
asking "Can you think of any policy-decision or action President Bush has taken in his five-plus years in office that didn't enjoy its greatest popularity on day one and then become more or less consistently less popular over time?"
It is interesting that it has taken over 3 years for the question to move from a Shrill hit and run to a sober serious bleg. I hope it doesn't take 3 more for it to be asked on TV.
asking "Can you think of any policy-decision or action President Bush has taken in his five-plus years in office that didn't enjoy its greatest popularity on day one and then become more or less consistently less popular over time?"
It is interesting that it has taken over 3 years for the question to move from a Shrill hit and run to a sober serious bleg. I hope it doesn't take 3 more for it to be asked on TV.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)