| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Glenn Beck's Operation | ||||
| ||||
2009-08-15
Schadenfreude: Glenn Beck Shown To Be Biting Self, Via Daily Show
Charter Schools Help Divide America
President Obama's Education Secretary is a Charter Schools booster. Sigh.
The NY Times Gets One Right
I've been the NY Times website homepage only a few times in the last few years but I went yesterday, and what did I find, on the front page, top left, but this piece calling the stories about "death panels" "false rumors." Sarah Palin wrote that the currently proposed legislation includes provisions for a government panel that decides whether people live or die. They might even have killed her own son, Trig, for his abnormalities, she wrote!
It's bullshit, but that hasn't stopped quite a few people from repeating the claim, or just using the term "death panel" without defining it. The inestimable Bob Somerby covers the NY Times piece. He even embarrasses me, though not by name, because I must have some power, and I feel like I've done precious little to stop the degradation of the public debate. So, with that in mind, I'll comment on an ancillary piece of garbage that Bob brings up, Charles Lane's op-ed Undue Influence: The House Bill Skews End-of-Life Counsel, which, it turns out, Bob had suggested people wrestle with the day it was written.
I don't have much patience for garbage, and I didn't even finish the article before I saw what Lane had done. We are talking about catastrophe care. Do you want doctors to leap tall buildings to save you if you will never recover, say, brain function? If you've already been hit by a bus and are lying in a coma, it is too late to ask, so, of late, people have been encouraged to put their will down on paper. This is often called an "advance directive."
Section 1233 of H.R. 3200 is, I must say, quite explicit about what should be discussed when a doctor and patient have a discussion about, while being vague about such things as key questions (highlighted in orange) that a doctor must ask a patient to consider. Lane is being fair when he points that out. Lane makes a couple small boob moves, along with his amazing absurdity, and when he says that a doctor might think to offer the Roman Catholic Church or Dr. Jack Kevorkian as a "resources" to help with end-of-life planning. Does your local Archdiocese provide such information? They might. If they did, would you want this information hidden from you? Probably not. Would a doctor be obeying this law if they provided a list that only included a local Church? Definitely not, since the bill explicitly mandates the minimum list the doctor might provide (highlighted with blue in three places).
One other lame move of Chuck's is his link to the full 1000 page PDF version of the bill, instead of something handy, like I provided above and again here. And yet another is when he writes this piece of innuendo "If Section 1233 is innocuous, why would 'strategists' want to tip-toe around the subject?" Strategists, a word which does not require quotes, have strategies, and if they told you what they were, they wouldn't be very good at being strategists. Guess all you want, but if a strategist says they are doing something, that's probably part of the strategy, too.
The real inexcusable insult to my intelligence in Chuck's logic comes when he tries to explain how a provision to fund consultations on advance directives might result in people signing away health care when they didn't want to, pressured by doctors to do so. Section 1233 is "not totally innocuous" he writes. He says that now doctors have an financial incentive to initiate conversations with patients concerning end-of-life care. As closely as I can read the text of the legislation, I can't find anything that resembles a change in in the law concerning who might initiate a consultation, which makes me think Chuck is just making shit up, but I can pretend that I am reading the magic version of the bill that Chuck is, in order that I may shove this little tidbit down his reality-pipe. If a doctor starts encouraging people to sign up for consultations, paid for by government, in order to make a buck, why on Earth would that same doctor recommend that the patient refuse catastrophe care? There is no money to be made in letting a brain-dead, accident victim die. A doctor only makes money keeping people alive. Doctors have a financial incentive, except when it comes to making money, according to the Chuck Lane. Does this guy have an editor? If not, why not?
This absurdity let's Chuck mock Representatives Blumenauer and Levin. He doesn't forward any arguments by the Representatives, or anyone else, that 1233 doesn't do what he says it does, he just quotes people contradicting him and says they aren't being "realistic."
Yes, please, fire, or at least demote, Chuck Lane, thank you.
It's bullshit, but that hasn't stopped quite a few people from repeating the claim, or just using the term "death panel" without defining it. The inestimable Bob Somerby covers the NY Times piece. He even embarrasses me, though not by name, because I must have some power, and I feel like I've done precious little to stop the degradation of the public debate. So, with that in mind, I'll comment on an ancillary piece of garbage that Bob brings up, Charles Lane's op-ed Undue Influence: The House Bill Skews End-of-Life Counsel, which, it turns out, Bob had suggested people wrestle with the day it was written.
I don't have much patience for garbage, and I didn't even finish the article before I saw what Lane had done. We are talking about catastrophe care. Do you want doctors to leap tall buildings to save you if you will never recover, say, brain function? If you've already been hit by a bus and are lying in a coma, it is too late to ask, so, of late, people have been encouraged to put their will down on paper. This is often called an "advance directive."
Section 1233 of H.R. 3200 is, I must say, quite explicit about what should be discussed when a doctor and patient have a discussion about, while being vague about such things as key questions (highlighted in orange) that a doctor must ask a patient to consider. Lane is being fair when he points that out. Lane makes a couple small boob moves, along with his amazing absurdity, and when he says that a doctor might think to offer the Roman Catholic Church or Dr. Jack Kevorkian as a "resources" to help with end-of-life planning. Does your local Archdiocese provide such information? They might. If they did, would you want this information hidden from you? Probably not. Would a doctor be obeying this law if they provided a list that only included a local Church? Definitely not, since the bill explicitly mandates the minimum list the doctor might provide (highlighted with blue in three places).
One other lame move of Chuck's is his link to the full 1000 page PDF version of the bill, instead of something handy, like I provided above and again here. And yet another is when he writes this piece of innuendo "If Section 1233 is innocuous, why would 'strategists' want to tip-toe around the subject?" Strategists, a word which does not require quotes, have strategies, and if they told you what they were, they wouldn't be very good at being strategists. Guess all you want, but if a strategist says they are doing something, that's probably part of the strategy, too.
The real inexcusable insult to my intelligence in Chuck's logic comes when he tries to explain how a provision to fund consultations on advance directives might result in people signing away health care when they didn't want to, pressured by doctors to do so. Section 1233 is "not totally innocuous" he writes. He says that now doctors have an financial incentive to initiate conversations with patients concerning end-of-life care. As closely as I can read the text of the legislation, I can't find anything that resembles a change in in the law concerning who might initiate a consultation, which makes me think Chuck is just making shit up, but I can pretend that I am reading the magic version of the bill that Chuck is, in order that I may shove this little tidbit down his reality-pipe. If a doctor starts encouraging people to sign up for consultations, paid for by government, in order to make a buck, why on Earth would that same doctor recommend that the patient refuse catastrophe care? There is no money to be made in letting a brain-dead, accident victim die. A doctor only makes money keeping people alive. Doctors have a financial incentive, except when it comes to making money, according to the Chuck Lane. Does this guy have an editor? If not, why not?
This absurdity let's Chuck mock Representatives Blumenauer and Levin. He doesn't forward any arguments by the Representatives, or anyone else, that 1233 doesn't do what he says it does, he just quotes people contradicting him and says they aren't being "realistic."
Yes, please, fire, or at least demote, Chuck Lane, thank you.
2009-08-09
The Pashtun
Since I am always pointing people to these two articles, I should make them easier to find!
- The beginnings of the Taliban. This was written by an ex-Soviet Central Asia/Caucasus specialst in 2001. Turkmenistan never gets mentioned anymore, but they were there are the beginning.
- The Taliban == The Pashtun. I think it is important to point out that the "Taliban" are a co-extensive with the Pashtun language community. It makes strategizing much easier, once you know it.
Honest and Forthright, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York
Lots of Federal Reserve bank conspiracy theory nuts out there, but that's not me. I was wondering who sits on the boards of the regional banks, and the first regional bank that popped up was my own local Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Follow that link and you'll see there are three classes of boardmembers, and three in each class. The first class is those voted in by the member banks to represent the member banks, the second class are voted in by the member banks to represent the public, and the third group is voted in by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve.
Right now, there are two board seats vacant, both of those appointed by member banks to represent the public. They do have one seated, though, and that is Jeffrey R. Immelt, the Chairman and CEO of General Electric. Does anyone else think he's a real public advocate? If so, could you show me any evidence of this? Isn't it GE which refuses to clean up the mess they made in the Hudson River? Update! It looks like, after thirty years, GE has decided to clean up the Hudson, at least partially. Don't you worry, even if this guy oversees a company which refuses to clean up millions of pounds of cancer-causing chemicals from our Rivers, he is looking out for the public.
Right now, there are two board seats vacant, both of those appointed by member banks to represent the public. They do have one seated, though, and that is Jeffrey R. Immelt, the Chairman and CEO of General Electric. Does anyone else think he's a real public advocate? If so, could you show me any evidence of this? Isn't it GE which refuses to clean up the mess they made in the Hudson River? Update! It looks like, after thirty years, GE has decided to clean up the Hudson, at least partially. Don't you worry, even if this guy oversees a company which refuses to clean up millions of pounds of cancer-causing chemicals from our Rivers, he is looking out for the public.
2009-08-08
America is Right of Center, More Conservative than Europe
I'm sure you've all heard that and, whatever the reason, for good or ill, it is true.
Well, if not Europe, what countries are about as conservative as America, and who is more conservative than us?
Let's use one metric, "religious/traditional" versus "rational/secular." According to one of the largest surveys in the world, America is about as traditional as India, Poland, Vietnam and Northern Ireland. We come out a bit more rational/secular than Turkey, Portugal, Indonesia, Chile or Argentina, and a bit more traditional/religious than Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia, Croatia, Spain and Australia. The most traditional? El Salvador, Puerto Rico, Colombia, Tanzania and Morocco. The most secular/rational? Japan, Sweden, Norway, E. and W. Germany (these polls started when they were two countries) and the Czech Republic.
(link)
Well, if not Europe, what countries are about as conservative as America, and who is more conservative than us?
Let's use one metric, "religious/traditional" versus "rational/secular." According to one of the largest surveys in the world, America is about as traditional as India, Poland, Vietnam and Northern Ireland. We come out a bit more rational/secular than Turkey, Portugal, Indonesia, Chile or Argentina, and a bit more traditional/religious than Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia, Croatia, Spain and Australia. The most traditional? El Salvador, Puerto Rico, Colombia, Tanzania and Morocco. The most secular/rational? Japan, Sweden, Norway, E. and W. Germany (these polls started when they were two countries) and the Czech Republic.
(link)
2009-07-31
I Was So Ignorant!
The cop did not violate the law when he arrested Professor Gates. Professor Gates was injuring the Officer's pride, so the Officer lured him outside where his, well, rants, would be a punishable offense. The cop tricked the citizen.
As I wrote before, "disorderly conduct" must be done in a public place, or where the public could become alarmed. Now, on the face of it, there is no chance any of would be disturbed to the degree that we'd be inclined to call the police if we were to hear Professor Gates yell. The cop, however, knew that wasn't important.
Professor Gates was wrong to lose his composure, and not to insult the (almost certainly at least a little, aren't we all?) racist police officer with a raised voice, but to call him "Boy," "Stooge," or even "Fascist," in a calm cool voice, as if he ran the plantation, as if the Police Officer were his servant, a servant of the public, the public of which Professor Gates is a member. If the cop acted in a racist way (and we'll never know quite for sure), then that may well have been within reason.
But by raising his voice, Professor Gates opened up a possibility. In your home you can call a police officer anything you want, and act in any "tumultous" way you desire, and talk about the Officer's family, too. But on the street, you can't yell like that.
So, ask yourselves, why did the officer ask Gates out of his home if not to entrap him? Certainly he had broken no law so far. Why did Gates act so immaturely and yell, instead of with dignity and disdain, if one poor slob didn't treat him with the respect he felt he deserved?
As I wrote before, "disorderly conduct" must be done in a public place, or where the public could become alarmed. Now, on the face of it, there is no chance any of would be disturbed to the degree that we'd be inclined to call the police if we were to hear Professor Gates yell. The cop, however, knew that wasn't important.
Professor Gates was wrong to lose his composure, and not to insult the (almost certainly at least a little, aren't we all?) racist police officer with a raised voice, but to call him "Boy," "Stooge," or even "Fascist," in a calm cool voice, as if he ran the plantation, as if the Police Officer were his servant, a servant of the public, the public of which Professor Gates is a member. If the cop acted in a racist way (and we'll never know quite for sure), then that may well have been within reason.
But by raising his voice, Professor Gates opened up a possibility. In your home you can call a police officer anything you want, and act in any "tumultous" way you desire, and talk about the Officer's family, too. But on the street, you can't yell like that.
So, ask yourselves, why did the officer ask Gates out of his home if not to entrap him? Certainly he had broken no law so far. Why did Gates act so immaturely and yell, instead of with dignity and disdain, if one poor slob didn't treat him with the respect he felt he deserved?
2009-07-30
Where There Could Be A Consensus On National Health Insurance
Communicable diseases are of special interest to all the citizens of a Republic. Whether you have nothing, or are among the wealthiest people in the world, you have an interest in the detection and treatment of communicable diseases in the people around you.
In New York City in the first decade of the last century, Typhoid Mary infected more than 50 people that she came in contact with as a cook. Poorer people generally both fill the service roles that wealthier people use, and, it can be imagined, are less willing to visit a doctor if they suspect they might be ill. This is because they can't afford it, and they can't afford to lose their wages if they are sick and their illness forces them to be quarantined for any length of time.
It is self-interest that none of are infected by the people around us, and we don't even care if the person doing the infecting is here in this country without documentation.
It might be an issue whether or not STDs are covered. That all STDs can be transmitted through other means suggests that they should be. In addition, for good or ill, it is clear that most people share some risk. Ironically, recent history has found some of the loudest critics of this state of affairs engaging in the behavior which puts us all at risk.
As a general rule, it is also in all of our interests to be treated for communicable diseases. People with health insurance mostly are already.
In New York City in the first decade of the last century, Typhoid Mary infected more than 50 people that she came in contact with as a cook. Poorer people generally both fill the service roles that wealthier people use, and, it can be imagined, are less willing to visit a doctor if they suspect they might be ill. This is because they can't afford it, and they can't afford to lose their wages if they are sick and their illness forces them to be quarantined for any length of time.
It is self-interest that none of are infected by the people around us, and we don't even care if the person doing the infecting is here in this country without documentation.
It might be an issue whether or not STDs are covered. That all STDs can be transmitted through other means suggests that they should be. In addition, for good or ill, it is clear that most people share some risk. Ironically, recent history has found some of the loudest critics of this state of affairs engaging in the behavior which puts us all at risk.
As a general rule, it is also in all of our interests to be treated for communicable diseases. People with health insurance mostly are already.
Obama Was Close, Cop Arresting Gates IgnorantAbusing His Power (UPDATE 2)
UPDATE 1: Added final paragraph.
UPDATE 2: Please ignore this post, it has been superseded by this one.
Here's a case from the Massachusetts Supreme Court, Commonwealth v Joseph Mulvey, which says that disorderly conduct must occur in public to be an offense. From the synopsis:
Thanks to Adam Winkler for cluing me into Commonwealth v Lopiano which cites Mulvey. Thanks to Time magazine for publishing the same thing.
The WSJ has a poll which shows fully 27% of Americans think Professor Gates was at fault. Therefore we should recognize the media's role in this, muddling the issue. In addition, the Chief of Police in Cambridge, in a public press conference, says that they shouldn't have dropped the charges, showing that he, too, is ignorant.
UPDATE 2: Please ignore this post, it has been superseded by this one.
At the trial of a criminal complaint charging disorderly conduct in violation of G. L. c. 272, s. 53, there was insufficient evidence to prove the public element of the offense, and the judge therefore erred in denying the defendant's motion for a required finding of not guilty, where the defendant's conduct took place on purely private property, and the Commonwealth failed to establish that the disturbance had or was likely to have had an impact upon persons in an area accessible to the public. [582-585]
The Current Health Care Proposal - McCain-Hannity interview
Sean Hannity interviewed John McCain concerning the health insurance bill before Congress. They agreed that raising taxes right now, during a bad recession, is a bad idea. The current proposal, if passed, will result in roughly 22% of small businesses paying for something they didn't have to before, either a new tax or health care. It makes sense to me to amend the bill to waive this tax for the first year, or at least until a figure like GDP per capita starts increasing again.
As someone else wrote:
As someone else wrote:
The whole concept of employer based health care should be scrapped. It [i]s an artifact of an attempt to get around a loophole in a price control schem[e six] decades ago. It kind of made sense when people worked for the same company for 30 years, which isn't the situation today.
2009-07-20
The Web Is Divided Along Language Lines
Says the New Scientist.
Well, makes sense, doesn't it? It's impossible to read web pages in languages with unknown scripts, and even when the script is the same, but the language is different, like German or French for readers of this text, it isn't easy.
This will cause problems. For instance, you have a group like MEMRI, which takes inflammatory news and video clips from the Middle East and translates them into English. Then you have a group that translates Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and other's most vitriolic statements into Arabic. Both groups are leading us to war, whatever their intentions. Both of these groups are taking the worst sh*t in each society and shoving it under the nose of the other. The newspapers of the Kaiser and the Tsar did similar things before WWI, according to James Joll. To incite a population into becoming worthy of death one must focus on the very worst of it, and ignore anything better.
What's worse, I suppose, in a way, is that few if any Teutons learned what Slav-language newspapers were saying about them, and vice-versa.
P.S. I don't actually know of any group translating American vileness into Arabic, Farsi or Pashto, but we do know that when Bush called his war a "crusade" that was repeated millions of times in the Middle East. The ignorance and hate get translated. There's no money in peace.
Well, makes sense, doesn't it? It's impossible to read web pages in languages with unknown scripts, and even when the script is the same, but the language is different, like German or French for readers of this text, it isn't easy.
This will cause problems. For instance, you have a group like MEMRI, which takes inflammatory news and video clips from the Middle East and translates them into English. Then you have a group that translates Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and other's most vitriolic statements into Arabic. Both groups are leading us to war, whatever their intentions. Both of these groups are taking the worst sh*t in each society and shoving it under the nose of the other. The newspapers of the Kaiser and the Tsar did similar things before WWI, according to James Joll. To incite a population into becoming worthy of death one must focus on the very worst of it, and ignore anything better.
What's worse, I suppose, in a way, is that few if any Teutons learned what Slav-language newspapers were saying about them, and vice-versa.
P.S. I don't actually know of any group translating American vileness into Arabic, Farsi or Pashto, but we do know that when Bush called his war a "crusade" that was repeated millions of times in the Middle East. The ignorance and hate get translated. There's no money in peace.
2009-07-19
The Choice of Sarah Palin
Why did McCain choose Palin as his running mate for the 2008 Republican Presidential ticket? I'll say that McCain's campaign was fooled by the Fox News Channel and others into thinking many millions of Democratic supporters of Clinton were fed up and would not support Democratic nominee Obama, and simultaneously had missed the general thrust of the campaign of his own supporters, who had spent months focusing the relative inexperience of Senator Obama.
The one place this worked as McCain expected was Arkansas. Between 2004 and 2008 roughly 50,000 voters shifted from the Democratic column to the Republican, the only notable increase for the Republicans that year. The exit polling shows that the entire shift, and then some, was among the women of Arkansas, since McCain did one percentage point worse than Bush among Arkansan men.
The one place this worked as McCain expected was Arkansas. Between 2004 and 2008 roughly 50,000 voters shifted from the Democratic column to the Republican, the only notable increase for the Republicans that year. The exit polling shows that the entire shift, and then some, was among the women of Arkansas, since McCain did one percentage point worse than Bush among Arkansan men.
2009-07-04
The Media Is Destroying the Republican Party:Sarah Palin Announces She Would Waste Millions (Update 2)
Serious Republicans, their ideas, and their legisation, are ignored as Our National Press Corps concentrates on joke-of-a-candidate Sarah Palin..
One need not look further than her resignation speech today to see what a joke she is. She explains that if she were to stay in office she'd waste more money than most people earn in a lifetime, and lots of time, too. Some parts of "politics as usual," a phrase she has used more times than anyone knows, is electing people who, well, if not competent, at least put on a good show of it.
Our National Press Corps, apparently, want Sarah Palin to run in 2012. They want her to run and lose. I guess a lot of the Republicans want to justify their own faith in her in 2008. And the Democrats, I guess, both enjoy a good laugh and would like to win.
UPDATE 1 (same day): This is all about a scandal, not about a run for the Presidency.
UPDATE 2: No, I was correct in the first instance, this is about the Presidency.
One need not look further than her resignation speech today to see what a joke she is. She explains that if she were to stay in office she'd waste more money than most people earn in a lifetime, and lots of time, too. Some parts of "politics as usual," a phrase she has used more times than anyone knows, is electing people who, well, if not competent, at least put on a good show of it.
Our National Press Corps, apparently, want Sarah Palin to run in 2012. They want her to run and lose. I guess a lot of the Republicans want to justify their own faith in her in 2008. And the Democrats, I guess, both enjoy a good laugh and would like to win.
UPDATE 1 (same day): This is all about a scandal, not about a run for the Presidency.
UPDATE 2: No, I was correct in the first instance, this is about the Presidency.
2009-05-31
The Most Horrible Future I Can Imagine
Some people have been talking about what will happen if the government cuts back on bonus pay for Wall St. types. They say, for example, the industry will lose "the best and the brightest" (that from Amity Shlaes). What these people are saying is that the most capable people go to work for Wall St. because those jobs offer the most money.
So, I started having this nightmare. Imagine if, by law, teachers earned the most of any profession. What if all the "best" of us spent their time educating the children?
Surely, with people a lot more educated, Wall St. Ponzi schemers and bubble-inflaters would have a much more difficult time fooling people, both because the people would have been taught more about scams and the schemers wouldn't be the "best and the brightest" anymore.
As for advertising, I'm not saying Madison Avenue would stop producing multi-million dollar campaigns to convince the teeming masses to buy one brand of flavored-colored-sweetened-caffeinated-bubble-water over the other, but if these ad men weren't as well paid as the people who were preparing the kids for what to expect from Madison Avenue, the outcome is less certain.
And what about the news industry? Who would the media have to fool if, instead of paying clowns like Brian Williams and Chris Matthews multi-million dollar contracts, those same two (motivated by the money) were teaching the young of today how to not be fooled by the likes of a Brian Williams or Chris Matthews?
The worst effects, undoubtedly, would occur in the realm of politics. I daren't even think of it.
It seems like, no matter where I turn my imagination, this idea of "paying teachers the most, because the future is important" is a recipe for a global disaster of epic proportions. Give me multi-trillion dollar asset destroying economic bubbles, give me advertisements featuring young, healthy people enjoying the most fattening foods ever created, give me news that keeps me blissfully unaware, and give me more politicians like we have today! Do I even need say it? Give Me Freedom!
[This message brought to you by the ruling class.]
So, I started having this nightmare. Imagine if, by law, teachers earned the most of any profession. What if all the "best" of us spent their time educating the children?
Surely, with people a lot more educated, Wall St. Ponzi schemers and bubble-inflaters would have a much more difficult time fooling people, both because the people would have been taught more about scams and the schemers wouldn't be the "best and the brightest" anymore.
As for advertising, I'm not saying Madison Avenue would stop producing multi-million dollar campaigns to convince the teeming masses to buy one brand of flavored-colored-sweetened-caffeinated-bubble-water over the other, but if these ad men weren't as well paid as the people who were preparing the kids for what to expect from Madison Avenue, the outcome is less certain.
And what about the news industry? Who would the media have to fool if, instead of paying clowns like Brian Williams and Chris Matthews multi-million dollar contracts, those same two (motivated by the money) were teaching the young of today how to not be fooled by the likes of a Brian Williams or Chris Matthews?
The worst effects, undoubtedly, would occur in the realm of politics. I daren't even think of it.
It seems like, no matter where I turn my imagination, this idea of "paying teachers the most, because the future is important" is a recipe for a global disaster of epic proportions. Give me multi-trillion dollar asset destroying economic bubbles, give me advertisements featuring young, healthy people enjoying the most fattening foods ever created, give me news that keeps me blissfully unaware, and give me more politicians like we have today! Do I even need say it? Give Me Freedom!
[This message brought to you by the ruling class.]
2009-05-16
Torturing Americans
Jon Haidt, after doing some research, finds that you can sum up human morality with five concepts: do no harm, fairness, purity, loyalty and obedience. The responses he received from tens of thousands of questionnaires, including respondents from many different countries, show that liberals strongly believe in the first two, a bit more than conservatives, while conservatives put the last three on par with the other two, perhaps even putting them over fairness.
The topic of the day is "What are we to do about the American torturers?"
Releasing the pictures will do harm.
Fairness, or justice says that the torturers, those who ordered the torture, and those who crafted legal rationales for torture, should all be punished.
All the liberals I know want to bothrelease the pictures and punish the transgressors.
All the conservatives whose opinions I've read want to both hide the pictures andnot to prosecute any Americans.
If both sides are advocating something wrong, as I suggest they are, and I believe a fair understanding of Haidt's moral framework confirms, then I consider this a win for me and Haidt.
Details
Harm: The first harm I thought of first was to the people that the Great Bush Tragedy put in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan. But I also realize that there is sometimes a need to protect the victims. If your face were shown in a naked, human pyramid would you necessarily want the picture released to the public? This is an extension of the idea that in rape and sexual molestation cases, sometimes there is harm to the victim if all the evidence is made completely public. There is a third group which will be harmed by the release of the photos, the group harmed the most so far, the Iraqis and Afghans. For surely if attacks against Americans are stepped up, the lethality and brutality of the American response will be stepped up even more. This is obvious when you realize that we've killed or wounded many times the number of Iraqis as they've killed or wounded coalition troops. I don't know the comparable numbers for Afghanistan.
Purity: Releasing the pictures will put yucky thoughts in the minds of millions. You do not want to see videotape every time some lunatic does something horrifying. Whether or not you are allowed to see the videotape is orthogonal to purity.
Obedience: The conservatives don't see a problem with people following orders, even wrong ones, or are at least willing to balance the wrongness of the act with what they perceive as the wrongness of not following orders.
Loyalty: The conservatives are loyal to Americans, and are willing to ignore punishment if those who are to be punished are our allies, or at least are willing to weigh that loyalty against the prospect of punishment.
The topic of the day is "What are we to do about the American torturers?"
Releasing the pictures will do harm.
Fairness, or justice says that the torturers, those who ordered the torture, and those who crafted legal rationales for torture, should all be punished.
All the liberals I know want to both
All the conservatives whose opinions I've read want to both hide the pictures and
If both sides are advocating something wrong, as I suggest they are, and I believe a fair understanding of Haidt's moral framework confirms, then I consider this a win for me and Haidt.
Details
Harm: The first harm I thought of first was to the people that the Great Bush Tragedy put in harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan. But I also realize that there is sometimes a need to protect the victims. If your face were shown in a naked, human pyramid would you necessarily want the picture released to the public? This is an extension of the idea that in rape and sexual molestation cases, sometimes there is harm to the victim if all the evidence is made completely public. There is a third group which will be harmed by the release of the photos, the group harmed the most so far, the Iraqis and Afghans. For surely if attacks against Americans are stepped up, the lethality and brutality of the American response will be stepped up even more. This is obvious when you realize that we've killed or wounded many times the number of Iraqis as they've killed or wounded coalition troops. I don't know the comparable numbers for Afghanistan.
Purity: Releasing the pictures will put yucky thoughts in the minds of millions. You do not want to see videotape every time some lunatic does something horrifying. Whether or not you are allowed to see the videotape is orthogonal to purity.
Obedience: The conservatives don't see a problem with people following orders, even wrong ones, or are at least willing to balance the wrongness of the act with what they perceive as the wrongness of not following orders.
Loyalty: The conservatives are loyal to Americans, and are willing to ignore punishment if those who are to be punished are our allies, or at least are willing to weigh that loyalty against the prospect of punishment.
2009-04-24
Ahmadenijad Covers Up Arab Muslim Past
Do you realize that Ahmadenijad said this at the UN racism meeting?
Now, everyone can agree that he should get points for pointing out that there was some hard core, violent opposition to science from the Church that most Westerners prefer to forget about. But did you know that, overall, it is reasonable to say that the Arabs brought almost exactly as many slaves away from Africa's east coast as the Europeans and Americans brought away from Africa's west? Now, Ahmadinejad isn't Arab, but he is blatantly covering up for them here.
In the middle ages, thinkers and scientists were sentenced to death. It was then followed by a period of slavery and slave trade, when innocent people in millions were captivated and separated from their families and loved ones, to be taken to Europe and America under worse conditions
Now, everyone can agree that he should get points for pointing out that there was some hard core, violent opposition to science from the Church that most Westerners prefer to forget about. But did you know that, overall, it is reasonable to say that the Arabs brought almost exactly as many slaves away from Africa's east coast as the Europeans and Americans brought away from Africa's west? Now, Ahmadinejad isn't Arab, but he is blatantly covering up for them here.
2009-04-22
The Value of Earth
What is the value of Earth? If we price everything, and add it all up, what do you think the value of the planet would be?
I've heard that the value of America was about 50 trillion dollars, which is certainly a better estimate than 5 or 500 trillion. And I'll go out on a limb and say Europe and Asia are worth as much, and 50 trillion for the rest, bringing the grand total to about 200 trillion.
What is an interest rate swap? An interest rate swap is (most generally) when one party trades the interest payments on a fixed rate debt for the interest paid on a floating rate debt. One side is betting interests rates will go down, and so wants the payments of a fixed rate debt, and the other side is betting they will go up, and so will get the increased payments from the floating rate.
In a manner similar to many other derivatives, the debt payments in question don't actually have to exist, it is all a sort of pretend.
Hopefully you are asking "What's this got to do with the Value of Earth?"
The total value of the debts being paid off in the Interest Rate Swaps market is greater than the Value of Earth.
This is bad, and like the Credit Default Swaps market, as long as most things are moving along normally, there is no sign of any danger.
Personally, although I benefit from the trade, I'm not entirely convinced that any derivatives should be legal, but allowing that you can insure your ownership in companies (the value of a stock is insured with Put and Call options, the most basic type of derivatives) and your bonds, then I'm pretty darn sure that people who don't own the underlying paper(stock, bond, whatever) shouldn't be allowed to hedge(insure) the position implied by the ownership of the paper.
This is really serious. So is the FX market, but for different reasons.
I've heard that the value of America was about 50 trillion dollars, which is certainly a better estimate than 5 or 500 trillion. And I'll go out on a limb and say Europe and Asia are worth as much, and 50 trillion for the rest, bringing the grand total to about 200 trillion.
What is an interest rate swap? An interest rate swap is (most generally) when one party trades the interest payments on a fixed rate debt for the interest paid on a floating rate debt. One side is betting interests rates will go down, and so wants the payments of a fixed rate debt, and the other side is betting they will go up, and so will get the increased payments from the floating rate.
In a manner similar to many other derivatives, the debt payments in question don't actually have to exist, it is all a sort of pretend.
Hopefully you are asking "What's this got to do with the Value of Earth?"
The total value of the debts being paid off in the Interest Rate Swaps market is greater than the Value of Earth.
This is bad, and like the Credit Default Swaps market, as long as most things are moving along normally, there is no sign of any danger.
Personally, although I benefit from the trade, I'm not entirely convinced that any derivatives should be legal, but allowing that you can insure your ownership in companies (the value of a stock is insured with Put and Call options, the most basic type of derivatives) and your bonds, then I'm pretty darn sure that people who don't own the underlying paper(stock, bond, whatever) shouldn't be allowed to hedge(insure) the position implied by the ownership of the paper.
This is really serious. So is the FX market, but for different reasons.
2009-04-09
Death To Them All!
Extra-terrestrials bent on dominating Earth, I mean, should it ever turn out they exist.
In the meantime, between gnashing of teeth and contemplating the alien menace (as likely as not to emerge in the form of an asteroid hurtling towards Earth) consider enjoying some websites about music
Aurgasm : not exactly sure how it works, some music comes out.
GrooveShark : if you know the song, they play the song.
CherryPeel : don't know the song? other people vote on them.
In the meantime, between gnashing of teeth and contemplating the alien menace (as likely as not to emerge in the form of an asteroid hurtling towards Earth) consider enjoying some websites about music
Aurgasm : not exactly sure how it works, some music comes out.
GrooveShark : if you know the song, they play the song.
CherryPeel : don't know the song? other people vote on them.
2009-04-04
The Money Supply
Generally it is rightists who complain about the government's ability to print money.1
With technology nowadays, we could almost say that, to print each $300,000,000 dollars2 , they just deposit $1 into everyone's bank account.
You might think this is radically egalitarian, but it isn't as long as long as it is the government which actually decides when to disburse funds.
With technology nowadays, we could almost say that, to print each $300,000,000 dollars
You might think this is radically egalitarian, but it isn't as long as long as it is the government which actually decides when to disburse funds.
2009-03-30
Now is the time for a Gas Tax
Dear Citizen,
Now is the time for an increase in gas taxes and to increase funding to limit the effect of oil price shocks on the economy through investment in rail, refurbishing subways, and credits for higher fuel efficiency cars.
The worst news is that this proposal is anti-American, since American auto-makers have thus far refused to compete in the high MPG market and instead utilize the Congressionally sanctioned loophole for light trucks and SUVs to produce cars for the most self-centered drivers.
A gas tax now of even immodest proportions ($1.00/gallon) will result in prices lower than during the 2008 season, but certainly that much would be rejected. Selling the bill as a way to raise funds to make America more energy independent makes this a pro-America bill. 2/3rds of all oil used in America is used in the transportation sector. If American cars became as fuel efficient as China's, we could cut oil consumption by one third. Other bad news is that most Americans don't really care, and some Americans actually produce extra CO2 just to spite the people who care.
A gas tax is better than an incentive program geared towards encouraging people to replace their fuel inefficient cars. One the one hand, the people being rewarded are the ones who blithely purchases an under 18mpg car in the last decade, clearly someone with their head in the sand. Secondly the actual production of more cars, and the premature junking of old cars, contributes substantially to the use of oil and carbon emissions. An inefficient car used in a limited fashion will always be more energy efficient than purchasing a brand new car. The big car makers will spend millions to get this program passed into law, but they are the ones who have, generally speaking, been the biggest problem in this equation, in part by spending the biggest proportion of their advertising budgets money marketing the least fuel efficient cars on Earth.
A gas tax directly addresses people who use oil, and not anyone who owns a car. Oil is a multi-faceted problem, and we know that, someday, only the poorest and most backward nations will be relying on it for a fuel source. This bill is pro-American because it rejects the idea, flaunted by certain idiots, that America should go down the tubes clinging to its inefficient cars. These are very well paid idiots, so there is no reason to expect them to shut up.
Oil is the problem for several reasons: it contributes pollution, it contributes to global warming, it comes principally from a whole range of countries with dubious allegiance to the future of humankind (instead concentrating on acheiving the most power and money in the short term), it puts national security in the hands of foreigners.
To some degree, although all those things are true, they can be overplayed. It isn't like KSA, Venezuela, Russia and Iran would stop selling to America, even if they wanted to the world market is quite flexible and oil is, generally speaking, a fungible good.
A gas tax can pass now because people rememeber paying much more just a year ago. A gas tax makes sense because it directly addresses the oil issue. A gas tax now can help fund a future for America.
Now is the time for an increase in gas taxes and to increase funding to limit the effect of oil price shocks on the economy through investment in rail, refurbishing subways, and credits for higher fuel efficiency cars.
The worst news is that this proposal is anti-American, since American auto-makers have thus far refused to compete in the high MPG market and instead utilize the Congressionally sanctioned loophole for light trucks and SUVs to produce cars for the most self-centered drivers.
A gas tax now of even immodest proportions ($1.00/gallon) will result in prices lower than during the 2008 season, but certainly that much would be rejected. Selling the bill as a way to raise funds to make America more energy independent makes this a pro-America bill. 2/3rds of all oil used in America is used in the transportation sector. If American cars became as fuel efficient as China's, we could cut oil consumption by one third. Other bad news is that most Americans don't really care, and some Americans actually produce extra CO2 just to spite the people who care.
A gas tax is better than an incentive program geared towards encouraging people to replace their fuel inefficient cars. One the one hand, the people being rewarded are the ones who blithely purchases an under 18mpg car in the last decade, clearly someone with their head in the sand. Secondly the actual production of more cars, and the premature junking of old cars, contributes substantially to the use of oil and carbon emissions. An inefficient car used in a limited fashion will always be more energy efficient than purchasing a brand new car. The big car makers will spend millions to get this program passed into law, but they are the ones who have, generally speaking, been the biggest problem in this equation, in part by spending the biggest proportion of their advertising budgets money marketing the least fuel efficient cars on Earth.
A gas tax directly addresses people who use oil, and not anyone who owns a car. Oil is a multi-faceted problem, and we know that, someday, only the poorest and most backward nations will be relying on it for a fuel source. This bill is pro-American because it rejects the idea, flaunted by certain idiots, that America should go down the tubes clinging to its inefficient cars. These are very well paid idiots, so there is no reason to expect them to shut up.
Oil is the problem for several reasons: it contributes pollution, it contributes to global warming, it comes principally from a whole range of countries with dubious allegiance to the future of humankind (instead concentrating on acheiving the most power and money in the short term), it puts national security in the hands of foreigners.
To some degree, although all those things are true, they can be overplayed. It isn't like KSA, Venezuela, Russia and Iran would stop selling to America, even if they wanted to the world market is quite flexible and oil is, generally speaking, a fungible good.
A gas tax can pass now because people rememeber paying much more just a year ago. A gas tax makes sense because it directly addresses the oil issue. A gas tax now can help fund a future for America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
