Your 18% Gratuity Has Been Included »

By Michael

A few named and vocal people hope Barack Obama thanks George W. Bush for practically everything the prior president had his name attached that was Iraq-related. Because I assume that every person who reads this blog is white and hates Obama for being some sort of communist rather than hating him for the fact he is a normal-Democrat-and-he-does-pretty-much-what-a-Democrat-or-Republican-and-every-other-politician-would-do, I proffer this thought experiment regarding his sincere thanks to Bush.

The only way for Obama’s administration to be better, is if it were worse.

• • •

I Guess »

By Michael

I genuinely like Conor Friedersdorf and a lot of what he writes. However, there is one thing he (and many others) does, which really gets on my nerves.

…if either liberals or conservatives disappeared entirely from the American scene, leaving the right or the left to pursue their best ideas and most flawed excesses alike, this country would be in far worse shape than it is today.

I’m sorry, but thinking and giving credence to the rumor that these two species are that far removed from each other is laughable. Arlen Spector is a Democrat! And riddle me this: what is Joe Lieberman Independent of exactly?

• • •

This is What You Want »

By Michael

I’ve rarely, if ever, had any major disagreements when Patrick Appel has understudied for Andrew Sullivan.  However, in this post, his facts are right, but his conclusion I think just misses the mark.

… there were certainly conservative pundits arguing against “Obamacare” but conservative healthcare experts were seriously outgunned.  The opposite is also true: liberal foreign policy experts were undoubtedly outnumbered during the lead-up to the Iraq war.

I’m assuming that the possibility that these two “ends of the spectrum” are actually achieving things that they either passively accept, or don’t care about in outcome, hasn’t entered Patrick’s mind.

But that’s really the beauty of the system, is it not?  An anti-war group gets labeled as crazy because there are politicians dubbed “on the left” (whatever the hell that means) who support war.  Accordingly, a government that has always been an accomplice for state capitalism is then given the honor of becoming socialist because it enacted a healthcare law that was originally conceptualized and enacted by a Republican governor.

Whatever; everyone is obviously making this up as they go along.  It’s just that I’m the only one owning up to that.

• • •

I’ve Tried »

By Michael

Patrick Appel plays devil’s advocate to an argument against an idea that Ross Douthat came up with regarding marriage/unions (I came up with this idea as well almost a year ago).

Ross says that this domestic partnership would allow for adoption. Following Ross’s guidelines, let’s pretend that I’m a heterosexual male in a domestic partnership with my heterosexual best friend. We decide that we want to adopt a child together, a right it seems we would have under Ross’s law. What happens, several years later, when one of us meets a woman we want to marry? How do you resolve the domestic partners’ financial obligations to each other and the custody battle?

The best I could do with the conundrum that Appel serves up (I too came up with the same problem) was that the arrangement should be held to a business standard having renewal dates and fiduciary duties that would detail points of action for dissolving the partnership (e.g. penalties, support for children, etc).  Such action plans would be necessary if there were children involved.  Or they could just do what most family court judges do and award custody of the child to the female, or most effeminate partner.  Oh please, as if you thought there was something else they were doing.

• • •

A Secret Logic »

By Michael

While I know left-wing politics does this just as well, my most prevalent memory of hypocritical/double standard logic comes from the old right-wing bit of scaring everyone into brown-pants-syndrome when there’s a leak regarding as to how the U.S. investigates terrorist activity.  Specifically, SWIFT.  If you recall, the program puts under review transactions in foreign bank accounts.

The controversy regarding the program was that it was done without oversight or anything resembling a warrant.  The controversy over the leak was that the U.S. should not let terrorists know how we are spying and investigating them.

Well, by that logic, I could then surmise that this algorithmic program being developed by Ian Horsley and Steve Levitt will have absolutely no effect on terrorists because by merely describing some of the variables that are used to indentify terrorists, they will now adapt, and avoid capture.  So, according to the logic aforementioned, we shouldn’t even try to engage in this program since the public knows about it.  You’re welcome.

• • •

On Democracy »

By Michael

Many weeks ago on Facebook, a friend of mine wrote in regards to the iPhone staying proprietary to the AT&T network, “muuuuaahahahahaaha! Dont worry, verizon isn’t as good as everyone claims it to be.”

It’s funny how we, as Americans, claim our democracy is the best form of available government, yet we continuously find examples where democracy in its barest form, is purported to be wrong (e.g. look above). If we’re willing to acknowledge that society at large makes decisions in plurality (or majority) that are wrong, then likewise, on the other side of the political spectrum, the free market must fail on similar principles.

And while your mind tackles with the logic that once again, there cannot be two sets of “facts,” the reality is that while Verizon may not be “as good as everyone claims it to be” (whatever that means), there is a reason why users of AT&T say it sucks.

• • •

Two Heads – Same Coin »

By Michael

I must admit, there is some sort of morbid enjoyment I receive in figuring out how terrible our current system of government and business operates in tandem.

In the example I’d like to show to you today, I will discuss Tim Geithner.

First, from Matt Taibbi, who has been chronicling the Wall Street bailout since its inception.

Geithner and Ben Bernanke continued a bailout policy that rewarded the very people who were most responsible for the crisis.

This is understandable and supported by many facts and first hand accounts.  People saw what Geithner was doing as a classic tactic of tackling a problem in a manner that would first -and probably only – help large financial institutions.  To wit, Geithner’s background follows along and maintains the same criticisms of Henry (Hank) Paulson’s background when Paulson served as the Treasury Secretary.  Both former executives from large financial firms only to go to work for government to be seen as helping only large financial firms.

Then, there’s this tidbit from Paul Krugman Friday:

Jimmy Cayne’s reaction to Tim Geithner’s reluctance to bail out Bear Stearns:

“The audacity of that [punk] in front of the American people announcing he was deciding whether or not a firm of this stature and this whatever was good enough to get a loan,” he said. “Like he was the determining factor, and it’s like a flea on his back, floating down underneath the Golden Gate Bridge …, saying, ‘Raise the bridge.’ This guy thinks he’s … He’s got nothing, except maybe a boyfriend. I’m not a good enemy. I’m a very bad enemy. But certain things really—that bothered me plenty. It’s just that for some clerk to make a decision based on what, your own personal feeling about whether or not they’re a good credit? Who … asked you? You’re not an elected officer. You’re a clerk. Believe me, you’re a clerk. I want to open up on this …, that’s all I can tell you.”

(Expurgated — even though this was reprinted in the WSJ, I’m trying to protect the dignity of the Times. And he didn’t actually say punk).

It all makes for a great soap opera really.  Jon Stewart made a joke on his show about this all becoming a great movie, and he’s right.  And this is by no means an effort to give Tim Geithner some sort of pass for any bad choices he’s made.  Rather, I’m simply trying to point out how so much is not enough in terms of “bailing out” such large firms.  It’s really quite amazing how indignant people like Jimmy Cayne can be.

• • •

What Else Do You Want to do With Them? »

By Michael

Dan Froomkin reports on a bill that will allow released felons to vote again:

Von Spakovsky … both mocked and questioned the motivations of the bill’s sponsors:

Why does this bill not also amend federal law to allow them to once again own a handgun? Are we to believe that they can be trusted to vote but not to own a handgun? Are we to believe that the sponsors of this legislation think that a convicted child molester can be trusted to vote but cannot be trusted to be a teacher in a public school? … Or is the true motivation here based more on the fact that their vote is important to winning close elections?

They’re changing the law just because they think it will help them win votes?  Inconceivable!

Personally, I enjoy the idea of reintegrating ex-cons into society by completely shunning them from it.  I always figured the idea was to keep the cost of jailing people down by keeping the same restrictions on them while they’re out.

Economically speaking, the real problem is always recidivism.  In the end, ex-convicts get forced back into the same underground / black market that they were arrested for participating in anyway.

I love the idea of it all, anyway.  In the end, no one wants to come to terms with admitting or calling out that we’re engineering second class citizens.  I’m sure the idea is something akin to, We’d love to keep you failed, but frankly we can’t afford it.  But don’t worry you won’t be able to do much outside, and we’re sure you’ll be back soon as your life is now ruined.

• • •

Scott Brown: The Man, The Myth, The Conqueror, The Teabagger, The Legend »

By Will

Anyone who concludes that the election of Scott Brown is a referendum on national politics is a liar or has never followed politics. No candidate is elected based upon that which he or she could-might-possibly do in the future. A voting person votes for the person with whom he or she most identifies. Candidate Brown was perceived as likable. Candidate Coakley, not so much.

Was she actually likable though? The confounding variable in the election is the Republican Machine™ which can easily transform an opposing candidate into a social outcast. Democrats get themselves elected when Republicans on the whole can be factually and demonstrably shown to be incompetent. Until an election forces the Democrats to distinguish themselves, they’re the left-wing of the Republican party.

• • •

Can’t Win, Don’t Try »

By Michael

This just in from Megan McArdle: can’t win,don’t try.

George Bernard Shaw wrote, “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.”

Yet, we give careers to those who wish to decry these unreasonable people, while at the same time insisting that change can happen without anyone truly wanting or working for it.

• • •
12345Next Page >10...15