Why Conservatives Have Problems With Fanatics

Those of us on the left-hand side of the political spectrum think that it might be in bad taste to muck up someone's religious icon or text but on the whole we don't particularly care. Those of them on the right-hand side of the political spectrum get enraged when some one mucks about with the bible or Jesus.  Unfortunately for them, complaining about it makes them look like religious fanatics in an increasingly secular world.  What can they do? What can they do?  Bitch about people taking offense at the "desecration" of Islamic texts and icons because no one takes offense at the desecration of Christian texts and icons, which is -- in case you weren't paying attention -- to complain that no one but them and the rest of the professional Christian victims out there is complaining about etc.

Relatedly, the same NRO hero reads of a maniac from the UK in the EU Parliament calling another parliamentarian a Nazi and, while he tut tuts over the unfortunate language, he understands the sentiment and, in general, he is supportive of the maniac from the UK. 

What is it going to take before the professional victims of the right-hand of the political spectrum give over and begin to act like adults?

An Answer to the Question of Why So Few Women are Conservative

K-lo passes on the well wishes of a real he-man conservative:

Preparing to leave for the three hour drive to my in-laws in Chico while my wife continues packing…and packing…and as I wait in the kitchen, reading NRO, it seems a perfect moment to express my appreciation for the consistently fine work your writers and editors deliver.  Thank you.

Ah, how dull life would be without the foibles of the little women and their comedic packing for the holidays while the man o' the house harrumphs his way through a semi-literate vanity project disguised as a serious intellectual endeavor.

WTF is David Brooks on About?

Is there a point to David Brooks' column today? Does he have a copy editor? Is this the loopiest sentence ever written:

There were many consistencies running through Tolstoy’s life, but there were also two phases: first, the novelist; then, the crusader. And each of these activities called forth its own way of seeing.

It couldn't be that Tolstoy changed his "way of seeing," whatever that might be, and consequently adjusted his activity, could it?

And what are we to make of this conclusion:

But public spirited, he also wanted to heal the world directly. Tolstoy devoted himself to activism and spiritual improvement — and paid the mental price. After all, most historical leaders write pallid memoirs not because they are hiding the truth but because they’ve been engaged in an activity that makes it impossible for them to see it clearly. Activism is admirable, necessary and self-undermining — the more passionate, the more self-blinding.

Tolstoy, it would seem, lobotomized himself when he tried to fix the world through spiritual renewal and George Bush wrote a mendacious book on non-existent "Decision Points" because his desire to rescue his reputation from the gutter led him to lie repeatedly about his own and others' actions. Consequently, working to improve the world as it is is proof of blindness and stupidity.

Hear that boys and girls if you are trying to make things better you have blinded yourself to the reality that the world as it is is the best of all possible worlds particularly if you're David Brooks, a man with no discernible skills, and people pay you ridiculous sums of money to make "arguments" both convoluted and empty of content.

Birds of a Feather Flock Together

Recently some guy at Salon took it upon himself to list the 30 greatest, in the negative sense, hack journalists in America. It's a fine list and, although I might disagree with the ranking -- Brooks is worse than he is being given credit for, and want to see others included, no Clive Crook?  No Megan McArdle? Still.

So what do we make of a serious journalist who engages no less than three of the the Thirty on the same day without once pointing out that they are pathetic chumps?  Perhaps he, for it is a he, is trying his darnedest to get into the pantheon?  In which case, I say, done and done.

Food For Thought

I hope you enjoyed your Thanksgiving as much as I did.  Alan Simpson, as most of you know, was the head of the the debt commission and he concluded that the best way forward was to slash poor and middle class folks with a riding crop while lavishing more czar-era goodies on the rich and super-rich.  Recently, he sat down and explained himself to the Wyoming Tribune.

Why are people opposed to the riding crop slashing?  Because, he says, "We had the greatest generation -- I think this is the greediest generation[.]"

Who should be not listen to?

You don't want to listen to the right and the left -- the extremes," he said. "You don't want to listen to Keith Olbermann and Rush Babe [Limbaugh] and Rachel Minnow [sic] or whatever that is, and Glenn Beck. They're entertainers. They couldn't govern their way out of a paper sack -- from the right or the left. But they get paid a lot of money from you and advertisers -- thirty, fifty million a year -- to work you over and get you juiced up with emotion, fear, guilt, and racism. Emotion, fear, guilt, and racism.

I am particularly fond of Rush Babe.

What do we need more of in our crazy world of teat sucking greedheads?

There are 18 of us on the commission, and it took us four months to establish trust," he said. "That's how bad things are in Washington. Four, five months before we could trust somebody not to leak what we said or go out and crater it.

Trustiness and riding crop slashing is the clear way forward.

All the same he

really believe[s] that there are more patriots in America than selfish, selfish people.

 So, ultimately, the patriotic riding crop slashers will overcome the Rachel Minnows of the world and all will be safe for czardom.

via

Keith Moon and Financial Reform

This essay on Keith Moon's drumming and Keith more generally is just really good.  I've always, since 1972 anyway, thought that The Who was rock's greatest band. The essay helps to explain why.

This essay is particularly good on the social uselessness of most of the financial market.  Remember, as an example, this guy who got rich off the housing market failure whose only useful contribution was his and his fellow investors getting rich off the housing market failure.

Also, next year when the Republicans drag Elizabeth Warren in front of the Congress every time she tries to stop more socially useless financial shenanigans let's see who the Tea Party Patriots stand up for the shenaniganers or the folks.

Progress and Republican Obstructionism

In this morning's Wisconsin State Journal there was a report on Middleton looking into one of those bike share dealies.  I predict that tomorrow if not sooner, some Republican/Tea Party Patriot will explode with rage about the wasted spending.  Why?  Because they hate America.  Seriously.

Consider, Scott Walker has foolishly halted the train, despite the fact that everybody thinks we need to do more to prepare for the future and create jobs today.  The train would do both. And what's more it is a clear attempt to do something, which drive Repbulicans/Tea Party Patriots mad. They don't want to do anything; they want to sit around and carp about all the things that have bee done successfully.

The bike share deally actually ties into the train because both are sensible attempts to increase transportation choice at low cost and high benefit for all. Imagine if small outlying communities came to Madison and Middleton for the fun that both offer and were able to ride bikes around for yet even more fun.  Why, it would make the world funner and, more importantly, it would be doing something.

Republicans and Tea Party Patriots would rather sit in a mud puddle that lift a finger to make the world a better organized, more pleasant, and funner place.

MSNBC is Silly

So now it is Joe Scarborough, a one-time Republican congressman, who is suspended for making political campaign contributions without asking permission.  This is beyond silly.  Lean forward indeed.

Dogs in Bloggs

Is your day a bit gray?  Well, go and read this cartoon and text story of two dogs and a move cross country.

Some Things

The Obama administration's decision to try Ahmed Ghailana led to a 20 yr minimum with a maximum of life in a "Supermax" prison, where he would in isolation for nearly all the time. A success, one might think.

The GM IPO is going like gangbusters.  A success, one might think.

The FDIC is probing, in a non-alien abduction way, 50 bankers. A success, one might think.

Tom Delay shoots himself in the foot, evidence wise.  A failure one, might think.

House Republicans stall an extension of jobless benefits.  Given the anemic growth in jobs, a failure, one might think.

Leading Republican senator Kyl threatens to stop the Start Treaty, leading to nearly everyone to call him nutzo. A failure, one might think.

Meanwhile a third Palin endorsed candidate loses in her home state, no less.  A failure one, one might think.

Think about it.  On the basis of the available evidence, Obama is moving forward making sane, if centrist, policies which actually accomplish what they are supposed to do; while the Republicans run round and about making fools of themselves and are riven with internal dissent between their Tea Party and the saner, if still crazyish, wings.  Who, one wonders, will win in the long run?

He Walks on Water

Uff Da

Sarah Palin makes up a word and is roundly mocked for making up a word. It was soon clear that she made up the word out of ignorance. Colbert's Truthiness, on the other hand, mocked the rising tendency of folks who preferred a world in which that which they wished was the fact of the matter was treated as the facts of the matter even if the facts of the matter were the opposite of that which they wished. This act of creation was both funny and intentional  Yesterday, the OED declared Refudiate the word of the year. The OUP Blog, on which the announcement was announced, makes a weak argument in favor refudiate..  One, which is to say I, hopes or hope that the elevation from scattered-brained to dictionary is withdrawn due to popular refudiation.

On Firing Bad Teachers

Lots of people, serious people yet, insist that the first step to improved education, given the crises of the American educational system, is to remove teacher protections because "bad" teachers cause the crises.  Obviously, this is false and obviously this is a continuation of the neo-Liberal attack on workers.  Why are teachers protected from firing?  Well, here's an example of a "bad" teacher:

Jay McDowell, a teacher in Howell, Michigan, was temporarily suspended without pay earlier this month after telling a student wearing a Confederate flag and a student making anti-gay remarks to get out of his class. At a school-board meeting on Friday, openly gay 14-year-old high-school student Graeme Taylor came to McDowell's defense, thanking the teacher for doing "an amazing thing" in a town home to the KKK, and urging the school board to give McDowell his pay and reverse the disciplinary actions. The inspiring video has made its way around the Internet, because how cool is this kid?

What, I wonder, would have happened to a teacher who had the audacity to behave like a decent human being absent union protection?  Are all the teachers in the various or alleged "rubber rooms" across this great land of ours -- long may she wave, similarly situated?  Obviously not.  Are some of them, yes, yes they are.  Is it the case that making it easier to fire folks makes the easier-to-fire folks less likely to take some decent and honorable stance if that stance is going to irritate the powerful?  Well, you tell me, although for what it's worth I think the answer is yes.

See also.

Three Things

I solved the budget "crisis."

George Bush allowed an innocent man to be executed:

But DNA tests completed this week at the request of the Observer and the New York-based Innocence Project show the hair didn’t belong to Jones after all. The day before his death in December 2000, Jones asked for a stay of execution so the strand of hair could be submitted for DNA testing. He was denied by then-Gov. George W. Bush.

The TSA security regime is crazy and not in a good way. One guy tells of how

before I could go through the metal detector, I was pulled out of line to go through the backscatter machine. When asked, I half-chuckled and said, "I don't think so." At this point, I was informed that I would be subject to a pat down, and I waited for another agent.

A male agent (it was a female who had directed me to the backscatter machine in the first place), came and waited for me to get my bags and then directed me over to the far corner of the area for screening. After setting my things on a table, he turned to me and began to explain that he was going to do a "standard" pat down. (I thought to myself, "great, not one of those gropings like I've been reading about".) After he described, the pat down, I realized that he intended to touch my groin. After he finished his description but before he started the pat down, I looked him straight in the eye and said, "if you touch my junk, I'll have you arrested." He, a bit taken aback, informed me that he would have to involve his supervisor because of my comment.

When he

began to make my way to the stairs to exit the airport, when I was approached by another man in slacks and a sport coat. He was accompanied by the officer that had escorted me to the ticketing area and Mr. Silva. He informed me that I could not leave the airport. He said that once I start the screening in the secure area, I could not leave until it was completed. Having left the area, he stated, I would be subject to a civil suit and a $10,000 fine.

What a great country indeed.  America is exceptional.

How is This Possible

Didn't Hume claim that miracles were no longer possible?

Seeming Rather Than Being

One of the ways in which people who know little to nothing about a specific topic seek to act like they know something is to insist on the universality of some aspect of the topic under consideration.  So, for example, if someone argues that the Russian Revolution succeeded because the army abandoned the state, let's say, the know nothing can argue that the American Revolution succeeded without the British army going over to the
revolutionary side.  The proper response to this is: that's a non sequitur, we're not talking about the American Revolution, which was quite a different kettle of fish.  Oh yeah, the know nothing might respond, then how's a come we call them revolutions?  Well, you might seek to explain, we call them the same thing but we understand the causes of the revolutions as well as the causes of success or failure are the results of the concrete reality of this or that historical moment and aren't attributable to some abstract law or other universally true something or another. Well, the know nothing might continue, how about scientific law? That's universally true, aina?  Yes, your might continue, but the act of discerning historical causes has little to nothing to do with science and rather more to do with making coherent arguments based on plausible readings of the available evidence while avoiding claims to universal truths.  Consider the problems with Hemple's Covering Laws

We might even go further and point out that all manner of events, financial panics, wars' beginnings and conclusions, etc, are historical events and it is best to understand them based not on some universal truth but rather on the facts of the matter and their interpretation. We might also make the point that insisting that an explanation of a discrete moment of history explain all similar or similarly classified moments is more of an attempt at seeming like you know something.

What has this do with Matt Yglesias?  I have already tried to show that his arguments often result from misreading specific texts or on his general and unfounded hostility toward sensible government intervention in the markets to avoid consumer fraud or protect labor.  Today, because I feel like it, I want to point out his reliance on universal truth when stuck.  Recently, Henry Farrell of Crooked Timber fame criticized Yglesias' interpretation of the recent Irish economic collapse by recourse to evidence and argued that

[t]he simplified political economy story goes as follows. Ireland had low nominal and even lower effective corporate tax rates. It also had low personal taxes, both because of the belief that this would foster entrepreneurship etc, and because the government used to periodically sweeten bargains between business and labor by promising tax cuts (which of course favored the rich more than the poor), inter alia buying off unions who might otherwise have started getting feisty about organizing the unorganized bits of the new Irish economy.

The result was that even with booming economic growth, the government faced a fiscal hole. This hole was filled by taxes on property transactions which, as the property market got ever more bubbly, became an ever more important source of government revenue. This provided the government with an extremely strong incentive not to deflate the bubble, reinforcing the already considerable incentives towards inaction resulting from cronyism between politicians and property tycoons, ideological notions about not interfering with ‘free’ markets etc.

Whether this is true or not, I don't know but it's a clear and coherent argument about a specific moment.  Yglesais responds

As a causal story, I still don’t really buy this. We had property booms in the United Kingdom, in Spain, in the United States, in Iceland, etc. all under different tax trajectories. And I can’t think of any examples of a government anywhere deliberately acting to deflate asset prices. The fact that the Irish government didn’t do so isn’t really a fact in need of explanation.

See what he did there?  Unable to discuss the Irish case in detail, he insists that any explanation of this or that historical moment has to explain all similar or similarly classified moments. More importantly, it is a rhetorical slight of hand designed to win an argument, if only because some of your readers might think you've scored, rather than trying to understand an argument about an event. However, as is the case in seeking to find a common cause for "success" in the American and Russian revolutions this demand for a universal causal narrative is a non sequitur. This desire, to "win" as opposed to understand or -- even better -- learn something lies at the heart of Yglesiasism and all of the juice box mafiosi.  So when you read him or McArdle remember they aren't as interested in knowing things as they are in seeming to know more than the rest of us.

I Realize

That it is adolescent in the extreme to make fun of people's names; in this case, however, it is not so much fun as evidence of some higher level of truth about Republican governance. In other words, a headline from NRO:
"Jerry Lewis Endorses Flake for Appropriations"

That's Our Georgie Boy!

What is a "Decision Point," anyhow?

UPDATE:
On George's new book:

And so the Wagner Question poses itself yet again. Every Saturday when the Brazilian sea monster murders his X-Factor song, 14 million people ask themselves how and why he is there. Reading these ghost-written titbits, you ask yourself the same. How in the name of all the saints did George W Bush, wastrel drunkard son of an East Coast patrician family, find his way to Pennsylvania Avenue by playing the genial good ol' boy from the South, and why in heaven's name did he want it anyway? And answers come there none.

and

The reduction of Bush's two terms to a satirical sequel to one of those US prep school movies in which the smirking, idiot boy breaks the honour code but is rescued by his Brahmin dad had come to seem shamefully hackneyed. But the one cliché worth trotting out here is that clichés are clichés because they are true. Somehow this half-witted frat boy journeyed, via some jovially preposterous sequence of events involving failed oil deals and baseball team franchises, from japes with Alpha Sigma Phi to possession of the nuclear codes.

It Didn't Work Like That, Part Two

I mentioned that I found Eric Posner's discussion of the Roman Republic's Constitution flawed, largely based on its level of abstraction.  I mentioned Syme's critique, which Posner instances in note 7.  Posner, it is true, does allude to patron/clientage as key aspect of Roman society, although, tellingly, he offers no sustained discussion of its social, political, or economic dimensions and, consequently, fails to offer any response to Syme or to the many historians who agree, which he really isn't allowed do.  And as by the way, I don't think that abstract supposition about what ought, might, or should happen under some idealized set of abstractions counts as rebutting a concrete fact-based, i.e., Syme's, argument counts as responding.

I would like to make an additional point.  Posner, on page 24, argues that

[t]he Roman system may have worked well enough for a period of time, but its chief flaw became apparent in the last century. Because no civilian politician could amass much power through office, and perhaps because none had strong incentives to discharge their official duties competently, none could stand up to the military leaders who earned glory at battle and could offer loot to soldiers and civilians who supported them. Military posts was not term-limited; and so successful generals could earn a popular following over a long period of time. These military leaders included Marius, Sulla, Pompey, and Caesar, and they were the dominant figures during the last century of the Republic’s existence.

On page 31, he argues that

[t]he senate also kept the magistrates weak because it feared that powerful magistrates would redistribute wealth to the people; but in the process it also failed to give magistrates the power to keep order and prosecute wars in an efficient manner. All of this gave rise to a demand for powerful figures who would serve the interests of the masses and engage in efficient governance. A number of individuals saw the opportunity to obtain power by appealing to the masses and adopting redistributive programs. These included Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus from roughly 132-121 B.C.

Here's the problem, the Gracchii Brothers sought to reform the Rome's agrarian system and, with Giaus, its treatment of the Knights in a way that would forestall the weakness Posner (correctly) identifies. They and their supporters were murdered by the Optimates because the Optimates social, political, and economic success rested on the corrupt practices that led to increased landlessness among the soldiers and the equally corrupt distribution of the public lands. Gracchii died precisely because their reforms threatened the Senatorial classes continued domination of Rome's political system and their ability to increase their control of its economic life. Oddly, or perhaps expectedly, Posner accepts that reforms designed to fix the fundamental flaw, by granting soldiers some form of pay and veterans lands sufficient on which to live, were -- in fact -- illegitimate appeals "to the masses."  Read fairly, in particular the unprecidented violence that accompanied the Gracchian reforms, the criticism ought to be of those in the Senatorial class who were narrow-mindedly wedded to their short-term interests.

Why is does this matter?  Well, it matters because Posner, like lots of lawyers these days, is trying to use history as a means of advancing his policy or interpretive preferences when the facts of the matter lead to different conclusions, in this case reform is better than dictators, military strongmen, and princeps.

Shark!

Why did Russ Feingold lose to an inarticulate dolt with no ability to articulate his policy preferences? Sharks, that's why.

Voters have great difficulty judging which aspects of their own and the country’s well-being are the responsibility of elected leaders and which are not. In the summer of 1916, for example, a dramatic weeklong series of shark attacks along New Jersey beaches left four people dead. Tourists fled, leaving some resorts with 75 percent vacancy rates in the midst of their high season. Letters poured into congressional offices demanding federal action; but what action would be effective in such circumstances? Voters probably didn’t know, but neither did they care. When President Woodrow Wilson—a former governor of New Jersey with strong local ties—ran for reelection a few months later, he was punished at the polls, losing as much as 10 percent of his expected vote in towns where shark attacks had occurred.

New Jersey voters’ reaction to shark attacks was dramatic, but hardly anomalous.

This time, of course, the sharks' bite was 30 years of failed neo-Liberal, Reganite, Thatcherite, and Libertarian policies.  Which is to say, stuff over which Feingold had less control that Wilson did sharks.

The idiotic sharks attack therefore I won't vote for the incumbent dynamic explains why this dust up between Glenn Greenwald and Larry ODonnell is so embarrassing for  O'Donnell; he, after all, blamed policies when its was sharks.

Here In Wisconsin

So in the wake of Walker's victory Doyle suspends the billion dollar free money and many jobs creating high speed rail.  Why, many ask, would he do such a think?  Read yesterdays WSJ op-ed piece decrying the decision because, after all, the WSJ editorial board didn't think that Walker was serious when he said he would cancel the whole thing. Doyle has now asked Walker to put up or shut up and more power to him.  For far too long Dems have been pulling Republicans' chestnuts out of the fire when their beloved don't tax and spend policies drive the country into a ditch.  Now, Walker has to make an actual decision: reject money that will improve Wisconsin's draw for companies and individuals by improving infrastructure over the long haul and create god know how many jobs over the short term.  Is he, in other words, going to govern or posture in the vague hope the Michelle Bachman  and Sarah Palin will shower him with their magical starbursts.

Olberman and Objectivity

Josh Marshal writes, in part, that disagreeing with Olberman's suspension

doesn't mean I don't see the point of rules barring people in the news business from giving money to politicians. I do. I think they usually make sense.

I think that this position fundamentally misunderstands being as opposed to seeming when it comes to partisan commitments and objective reporting.  As a commentator, as Marshal notes, Olberman is overtly partisan on a network that, it seems, wants to represent itself as the center-left's intellectual home.  Consequently, Olberman's lack of objectivity ought not be a problem.  Fine and dandy.  Is is, however, the case that someone who contributes to a politician, cause, or party loses their "objectivity."  I don't see how this can be the case, unless you want to argue that all political engagement flows from some sort of irrational force and argue that putting your money where your mouth is is a sign of the irrational overtaking the rational. Consider one of America's top scientists and a key figure in reestablishing the rule of reason in the doing of public science: Francis Collins. He is a born again Christians who, apparently, realized the truth of the Trinity after seeing a frozen waterfall.  Despite this clearly irrational moment and his consequent spiritual rebirth, Collins remains a dedicated scientist and has done an excellent job of defending the NIH from the Republicans hatred of science and reason. My point here is that there is no reason to make rules designed to ensure that newsies seem objective when their daily activities can be scrutinized for being objective, particularly when the rules involve curtailing civic engagement.

I'm Not Much for Joining, But:

I'd join this

1. The Coffee Party has had the privilege to meet people from many different creeds and races, and despises fear-mongering towards any one group.
2. The Coffee Party also hates xenophobia towards immigrants. We don’t plan to vote for any candidate who first exploited an immigrant for nine years and now wants to deport her.
3. And ixnay on Yet Another Xenophobia aimed at particular trading partners, falsely blamed for our economic woes. The Coffee Party likes free trade — how else are we going to get our Coffee?
4. While we’re at it, we don’t want Homophobia or Misogyny either.   
5. The Coffee Party wishes the tax debate would also discuss whether we are getting our money’s worth. We have a tax-bloated government here at Coffee Party HQ, so why did they cut the one government activity we actually find useful – subways!?#!
6. Suppose you had to make an agonizing decision whether to endanger the mother of your child by going through with a pregnancy. Pick one: (1) you and the mother should decide yourselves, (2) some Old Fart on a Bench or Legislature should decide for you.  The Coffee Party does not consider this a difficult pick.
7. The Coffee Party wonders why all candidates from all parties have forgotten to mention that we are still waging war for reasons no longer clear, not to mention still violating civil liberties of both citizens and foreigners?
8. Speaking of wars, how about ending the War on Drugs, which is so destructive  to our inner cities and to the source countries? (link to Nick Kristof){Wait a minute, we could even tax pot and restore subway service! (see 5) }
9. Oh yes, Development. Frankly, the candidates are doing so badly on our issues 1 through 8, the Coffee Party is not expecting much from them on Global Development. At this point, we would just ask them not to destroy industries in poor countries with some arbitrary trade policy decision.
10.   Our country is based on the ideals that ALL “are by nature equally free and independent,” and have “inalienable rights, among them life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” men and women, blacks and whites, gays and straights, immigrants and natives, Christians and Muslims, Jews and Gentiles, citizens and foreigners, rich and poor. The Coffee Party wants our country back.

Election Fallout

Did you see Obama's press conference?  Did you think that the press corps wanted him to rent his garments and rub ash in his hair? Me too. Did you think that Gingrich's suggestion that Obama take a short nap until the victors came to town was silly? Me too.  Did you find all the lies about the cost of the trip to India and points east idiotic?  Me too.  Do you think that retaining Pelosi as Minority Leader the right choice?  Me too.  Is the proper response here to double down and continue doing what is right and what works instead of triangulating and such?  Me too.  Do you think that Obama will continue to govern from the slightly left-of-center?  Me too.  Do you think that the Republicans and Conservative will continue to push an anti-American agenda wholly, as opposed to slightly, owned by corporations and the idiotically rich?  Me too.

I Never Watch Keith Olberman's Talk Show

And I think his sport commenting stick is tedious.  However, unlike the Sanchez and Williams firings, Olberman's indefinite suspension is absurd on its face.