Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2011 - 04:16pm PT
|
I worked for the government after I got out of school. Eventually I got the insatiable desire to watch a truck come and take away something I had helped make. I needed a truck fix.
I learned something about people in the DC area. They are a helluva mix. Like everywhere else. At merges to the freeways they voluntarily allowed every other car to enter. They avoided political matters at work like the plague. Politics was not that for which they were being paid. In general I have to describe them as, gracious and honorable.
More generally, when I bought 14 cakes of chalk at a pharmacy the black lady waiting on me got very sad and asked if I had seen a doctor. Tell me people are not basically kind. I dare you.
But then once while driving over the 13th street bridge I saw a driver reach into the back seat, retrieve a rifle, and point it at the lady in the car behind.
What is one to do?
Endure.
Do good when the opportunity presents itself.
|
|
corniss chopper
climber
not my real name
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2011 - 04:24pm PT
|
The first act of Liberal insanity was to take an obviously deranged, insane, irrational guy and try to analyze him with sanity and rationality.
They failed completely and literally made fools of themselves.
We win this horribly sad media cycle.
Bad is bad
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2011 - 04:49pm PT
|
Thanks, Skip. I think many forget that government spending does not always help the economy. Laffer's comment below, if anything, understates things.
After World War II, the U.S. cut federal government spending dramatically. In 1945, federal government spending as a share of GDP peaked at 31.6%, and by 1948 it was down to 14.4%. Private real GDP (e.g., GDP less government purchases) for the three years 1946, 1947 and 1948 grew at a 7.5% annual rate. So much for the idea that cutting government spending hurts the economy.
After the success of the (rather accidental) Keynesian stimulus in ending the Great Depression, the consensus of most economists was that the economy would go back to a depression after World War II. No such thing happened, of course.
Government spending can help the economy if there is a lack of effective demand, but that is a very rare circumstance. More normally, the issue is where the government spends its money.
During the Clinton years, defense spending dropped, which was the major source of reduced spending. It turned out that when it came to economic stimulus, money spent on the military was not as effective as money spent by the private sector. If, in contrast, the government invests in public goods that promote the general welfare, its GDP multiplier can be very efficient, indeed.
My beef with the "stimulus" spending is that it has not been spent wisely. There was, and will be, too much too late. Maybe it's just my parochial perspective: In Fresno-Clovis, I've seen a lot of stimulus money spent to half-build projects. In any case, my own assessment of the situation is that more government spending of the sorts we can expect now will not enrich us later, it will only fuel a later inflation -- particularly when coupled with the Fed's expansive monetary policy.
John
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2011 - 04:57pm PT
|
Would this Laffer happen to be the same brilliant economist who authored Reagan's
"trickle down" theory of conservative capitalism?
Nah, can't be. He was discredited decades ago.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2011 - 05:28pm PT
|
It's funny that a lot of the people who say "the liberal media" think Fox is "fair and balanced".
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2011 - 05:30pm PT
|
Hank, nice!!!!
It's funny that a lot of the people who say "the liberal media" think Fox is "fair and balanced".
Fet, is anybody, really???
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2011 - 05:31pm PT
|
I saw some of Obama's speech last night. I'm afraid that I also find it odd that the audience at times applauded. That's not Obama's responsibility, of course. I've been to several memorials where people applauded. In context of a serious occasion, it doesn't seem quite right. But perhaps public mores are changing, or that's how they do things in Arizona.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2011 - 05:37pm PT
|
ok, i'll play along...please explain to me how i'm a hypocrite...yes, i work for the government AND i call for a REDUCTION in government spending (including the elimination of the entire department of education)...i understand this reduction might include my retirement funds
i have often railed about the political influence of the unions; i have not singled out private sector lobbyists but neither have i defended them; i have criticized the unions in response to others who have focused entirely on corporate lobbyists, HYPOCRITICALLY ignoring the union (especially public sector unions) lobbyists...more importantly, i haven't criticized union members, only the leadership
ok, you see my use of the teachers' association as an act of selfishness...one might also see it as standing up to the monstrous bureaucracy of the government using the only means available...i couldn't afford to hire attorneys and the work performed by the association on my behalf did not cost taxpayers a dime
by the way, i support merit pay but do not support tenure for public school teachers, which, i guess, in your liberal dictionary makes me a hypocrite, too
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2011 - 05:38pm PT
|
note the last example in which a democrat candidate suggested (to put it mildly) the execution of his opponent...but, i guess, that isn't really "vitriol" in your liberal dictionary
'It Did Not'
A rebuke from Obama leads the New York Times to run from the fight it started.
By JAMES TARANTO
As we have noted, the New York Times's response to last weekend's murders in Tucson was to instigate a witch hunt against Republican politicians and "particularly" against members of the independent (nonliberal) media. This appealed to what one might call the Manichaean wing of American liberalism: those who mistake political disagreement for enmity, who are so strongly prejudiced against conservatives as to regard them, in some sense, as less than fully human.
Yet that is not what one would call a broad appeal--a point powerfully made by a USA Today news story:
Most Americans reject the idea that inflammatory political language by conservatives should be part of the debate about the forces behind the Arizona shooting that left six people dead and a congresswoman in critical condition, a USA Today/Gallup Poll finds.
A 53% majority of those surveyed call that analysis mostly an attempt to use the tragedy to make conservatives look bad. About a third, 35%, say it is a legitimate point about how dangerous language can be.
This is an astonishing finding. Only 35% of those surveyed think the New York Times's position is even legitimate. And although President Obama, in his speech last night, did not go so far as to call it illegitimate, he did make his disagreement clear:
If, as has been discussed in recent days, their death helps usher in more civility in our public discourse, let us remember it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy--it did not--but rather because only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to the challenges of our nation in a way that would make them proud.
"It did not." With those three truthful words--an improvisation or a late addition, as they were not in the prepared text--the liberal president rebuked the out-of-control liberal media that have, under the leadership of the New York Times, been engaging in a vicious campaign of lies and smears.
The Times's response, in an editorial this morning, could hardly have been weaker:
It was important that Mr. Obama transcend the debate about whose partisanship has been excessive and whose words have sown the most division and dread. This page and many others have identified those voices and called on them to stop demonizing their political opponents.
The newspaper that seized upon a horrific crime to demonize its political opponents--and to demonize "particularly" those in the media who reject its worldview and its presumption of moral authority--is now applauding the president for being able to "transcend the debate" that it instigated with its yellow journalism.
[botwt011411] Associated Press
The Times expresses a desire to change the subject, to "gun safety laws and improvement to the mental health system" before taking another shot (just a figure of speech, people!) at Sarah Palin, this time for her "especially disturbing" description of the Times-led smear campaign as a "blood libel"--a term that, as we shall see below, the Times itself has used more than once other than in reference to the traditional anti-Semitic smear.
Obama's speech reinforces our observation yesterday that, in general, liberal politicians have behaved far more decently than liberal journalists in the aftermath of Saturday's atrocious crime. Reader Don Rubottom offers some insight as to why:
As a staunch Republican, and then a state senator in Oklahoma, I was present when Bill Clinton participated in the citywide memorial service at the Oklahoma City Fairgrounds. His gifts were then on display, and that is the reason for his political gains from that tragedy. Despite accompanying vitriolic noise about talk radio, etc., Clinton showed his amazing gift for connecting with human hearts. He was everyone's president that day, notwithstanding Dick Morris' calculations back at his indecent hotel room.
As you acknowledged today, all successful politicians have at least a capacity to imitate civility and compassion in a way that makes voters willing to believe them to be human. (Hence the practicing fire breathers calling for an end to fire breathing. Hypocrisy is a nod of vice to virtue.) You call it a sense of decency. I consider it a connection to reality.
Our journalist friends, on the other hand--including some on both sides of the political divide--do not require such capacities. They don't need people to vote for them or identify with them, only to notice them. The more hostility they incite, the higher their ratings. They are rarely made accountable to good taste or any standard of decency. (Did Dan Rather err? Not in his eyes!)
This is quite entertaining in many instances. In recent years, though, journalists have pretended that they are participants in the political contest, rather than mere critics or cheerleaders. They fail to acknowledge that they are not bound by any rules and are not subject to any tally of points scored.
A politician is the "man in the arena," in Teddy Roosevelt's phrase. Each one puts his name on ballots and suffers real consequences for his bad taste, lack of empathy, or any mistaken sense of public approval. Journalists pretend to compete with the politician, but they aren't in the same game. They get to grade themselves, and they get to declare victory every time they knock over a straw man. Those characteristics can give them a sense of invincibility.
As long as their social crowd approves of their attacks or prescriptions, the truth, legitimacy, effectiveness and civic utility of their work remains irrelevant. To me, few approximate anything close to a "first draft of history." They are more like bantam roosters or chihuahuas.
In the case of the New York Times editorial page, they are rabid yet toothless chihuahuas. They lack both the integrity to renounce their scurrilous slanders and the courage to attempt a defense.
"Decent people of whatever political stripe must say enough is enough," we wrote on Tuesday. When Barack Obama said, "It did not," that was his meaning. This column has found much to criticize about the president and his policies. We expect to find much more over the next two years. Last night, however, he committed an act of decency for which Americans can be grateful.
For Bernard-Henri Levy
To understand the story behind the title of this item, tune in to CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" this Sunday at 10 a.m. or 1 p.m. ET. The subject is Sarah Palin's statement yesterday that "especially within hours of a tragedy unfolding, journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn."
Palin-haters have zeroed in on the phrase "blood libel," which usually refers to the ancient anti-Semitic claim that Jews kill Gentile children and use their blood in the baking of matzohs for Passover. The haters claim to be shocked by her tasteless appropriation of the term.
This column takes no position as to whether the phrase was well-chosen, and we acknowledge that some people who are not haters, such as John Podhoretz and Jonah Goldberg, are uncomfortable with it. In substance, the analogy seems suitable: The New York Times and its followers in the media are seeking to blame Palin and other "outside" media figures for murder, including the murder of a child. Her outrage is entirely justified. But that does not answer the question of whether her choice of words was tasteful.
The outrage of the Palin-haters over the use of the term, however, is phony. Many of the outraged haters have themselves used the term "blood libel" in similar metaphorical senses, including the New York Times. Here are a couple of examples:
From a Dec. 5, 1989, Times book review: "During the yellow fever plague a form of blood libel is imposed on the blacks in Philadelphia; they are said to be both responsible for and immune to sickness because of the color of their skin."
On Sept. 14, 1990, the late Abe Rosenthal penned a column in response to Pat Buchanan's assertion, after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, that "there are only two groups that are beating the drums for war in the Middle East - the Israeli Defense Ministry and its amen corner in the United States." Rosenthal countered: "We are not dealing here with country-club anti-Semitism but with the blood libel that often grows out of it: Jews are not like us but are others, with alien loyalties for which they will sacrifice the lives of Americans."
Andrew Sullivan, whose Palin obsession is extreme even by the standards of Palin-haters, wrote yesterday:
We know this much right now: Palin does not possess the self-awareness, responsibility or composure to respond to crises like this with grace. This message--even at a time of national crisis--was a base-rousing rallying cry, perpetuating her own victimhood and alleged bloodthirstiness of her opponents.
One would have thought that Palin, like any responsible person in her shoes right now, could have mustered some sort of regret about the unfortunate coincidence of what she had done in the campaign and what happened afterwards. Wouldn't you?
Here is the same Andrew Sullivan, showing his typical level of self-awareness, responsibility and composure, in a post of Oct. 12, 2010:
[New York Republican nominee for governor Carl] Paladino speaks of "perverts who target our children and seek to destroy their lives." This is the gay equivalent of the medieval (and Islamist) blood-libel against Jews.
Our favorite example comes from Josh Marshall of TalkingPointsMemo.com, who wrote yesterday, albeit with more smirk than dudgeon:
The claim that Sarah Palin was the victim of a "blood libel" had been making the rounds in the right-wing media for a few days before Palin decided to make the accusation herself.
On Nov. 21, 2000, Marshall quoted then-Rep. Peter Deutsch, a Florida Democrat, as complaining on CNN's "Crossfire" of "almost a blood libel by the Republicans towards Al Gore, saying that he was trying to stop men and women in uniform that are serving this country from voting. Marshall's response:
". . . almost a blood libel." That's pretty strong stuff. Strong, but not too strong. Because it's true.
(Deutsch can get away with this statement, in part, because he's Jewish. But so is Talking Points; so he gets a pass too!)
You don't just toss around charges that the possible next president of the United States is conspiring to take the vote away from American soldiers overseas. Given the volatility of the moment and the divisions already existing in American society it really is almost like a blood libel. Almost.
Deutsch's analogy is far more of a stretch than Palin's. No one was accusing Gore of killing children, or anyone else. OK, Deutsch said "almost," but does anyone think Marshall or the other Palin-haters would have been satisfied had she used the same qualification?
The only element Marshall cites that arguably makes the accusation against Gore worse than the accusations against Palin is "the divisions already existing in American society." In 2000, the country really was split down the middle between Bush and Gore--hence the election dispute. Today, as that USA Today poll shows, the country is largely united against the libel (blood or otherwise).
On CNN Sunday--we taped the show earlier this afternoon--Levy, a French intellectual, will declare it "obscene" to use the term "blood libel" in a metaphorical sense. This may reflect the standards that prevail in France, which of course has a much worse history of anti-Semitism than America does. In American intellectual and journalistic circles, however, the term has been used with some frequency. As a foreigner, Levy may not know better. But American Palin-haters lack that excuse.
For the Record
Jonathan Chait of The New Republic has generally been a voice of reasoned liberalism this week. We certainly never thought we'd write that, but it's been a strange week. Whether carelessly or deliberately, however, Chait misstates our position in a blog entry from this morning:
A few days ago, Paul Krugman noted that famously unhinged member of Congress Michele Bachmann urged her constituents to be 'armed and dangerous." Wall Street Journal right-wing blogger James Taranto calls this a "lie," and insists the the context of Bachmann's full quote is very different.
In fact, what we called a lie was Krugman's characterization of the Bachmann quote as "eliminationist rhetoric," which Chait does not acknowledge, much less defend. We conceded that Bachmann's words were ill-chosen and that one might reasonably regard them as irresponsible, as Chait appears to.
Chait owes us a correction. We emailed him just after noon ET to ask for one. So far, he has not replied.
One Man's Tiramisu Is Another Man's Fruitcake
Ex-Rep. Paul Kanjorski, the Pennsylvania Democrat who said in October of now-Gov. Rick Scott of Florida that "they ought to . . . put him against the wall and shoot him," is defending his eliminationist rhetoric, reports the Citizens Voice of Wilkes-Barre, Pa.:
Reached by phone Tuesday, Kanjorski said "only fruitcakes" would take his statement about Scott literally. The 73-year-old Democrat from Nanticoke, who this fall lost in his bid for a 14th term representing the 11th Congressional District, admitted he's well known for using "colorful language."
"I probably would never have made the statement if I anticipated anything like this happening," Kanjorski said. "It was obviously not in humor, but not literally."
Perhaps Kanjorski should heed this recommendation, from an editorial in the Seattle Times:
One cannot anticipate how high-caliber heinous vitriol will be translated by extreme and disturbed elements, but that is no excuse to dismiss such talk as colorful rhetoric.
Although come to think of it, only fruitcakes would take rhetorical advice from a writer who turns phrases like "high-caliber heinous vitriol."
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2011 - 05:39pm PT
|
again, hedge, was barry lying last night when he said the rhetoric was not responsible for the shooting?
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2011 - 05:40pm PT
|
Skip?
Please take the time to carefully read what you are posting in response to.
If you go back and read my post you will see the name "Laffer" and NOT Keynes.
Now, can you see that you are making statements about me posting about an individual that I NOT
reference, mention, or say anything about?
Thank you
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2011 - 06:05pm PT
|
John wrote: After World War II, the U.S. cut federal government spending dramatically. In 1945, federal government spending as a share of GDP peaked at 31.6%, and by 1948 it was down to 14.4%. Private real GDP (e.g., GDP less government purchases) for the three years 1946, 1947 and 1948 grew at a 7.5% annual rate. So much for the idea that cutting government spending hurts the economy.
John...what happened in 1945...end of a war.
We are in two...did you forget that??
And don't deficit always rise during times of war?
Also...President Obama is seeking an additional $75.8 billion in war funds for this fiscal year. It is possible that Congress will add to this amount before final passage. If Congress enacts Obama's request, total war spending will come to $144.6 billion for Fiscal Year 2009 (which ends on September 30, with Fiscal Year 2010 beginning on October 1). This compares to the $186 billion war spending in 2008. Obama's proposed war budget for 2010 is $130 billion.
|
|
Nibs
Trad climber
Humboldt, CA
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2011 - 06:12pm PT
|
"After the success of the (rather accidental [really??]) Keynesian stimulus in ending the Great Depression, the consensus of most economists was that the economy would go back to a depression after World War II. No such thing happened, of course."
actually, you need to look at what happened to the economy in 45 when the troops were discharged. Truman deserves a great deal of credit for keeping the economic slump that DID occur limited; and by early 46 the economy turned around. He fought with industry, unions, and the republican party to pull it off.
republicans - the reactionary party; party of fear: set the stage for the Great Depression, were isolationists before WWII (thank god for the Truman commission), they were isolationists after the war (thank god for the Marshal Plan and the Truman doctrine), and fear mongering liars unleashing McCarthyism. what a track record; not much different today - only the names have changed.
carry on
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2011 - 06:30pm PT
|
Mother of god.
Art Laffer and John Keynes are two different people, of very different times in history,
with two very different theories of economics.
If one does not know the differences, wikipedia is only source for information.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2011 - 07:02pm PT
|
locker is perv................
I'm just satijn'.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2011 - 07:08pm PT
|
Thank you Dr. Toe, that was funny.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2011 - 07:39pm PT
|
40,000 = Mon, 4:21 pm.
Closest guess, no overs.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2011 - 07:45pm PT
|
Well I was going to post about the shortcomings of the “liberal agenda” but when I looked into it I found out that what the right portrays over and over as the liberal agenda is in fact nothing like what most liberals want. Liberal comes from the Latin word for freedom (which makes conservative claims that liberals want a nanny state or socialism laughable), and the historical definition of a liberal is someone open to change and a conservative is someone who want to keep things the same. Beyond that it’s all really up to an individual’s interpretation, so it’s tough to really quantify the liberal agenda.
But for the sake of argument let’s take some possible liberal positions (that may or may not be true) on these issues:
Immigration: Liberals want open borders and anyone can become a citizen. Although this seems like a great ideal (kind of bleeding hearted) we have invested in our country in education, defense, etc., and our forefathers have made sacrifices to make this a great country. If we allow anyone to come in and be a citizen the US would have a population of over 1 billion and we’d degrade into a 2nd or 3rd world country. One of the few issues I’m with Bush on, let’s have a guest worker program. They can work here and pay taxes and come and go to their home countries where the cost of living is lower. I’ve asked a few immigrant workers their thoughts and they agreed it was a fine compromise. Of course keep a limited number of openings for full citizenship for those that apply and are productive.
Political Correctness: I think it’s better to joke about and use offensive words and language rather than hide them away and give them more power than they deserve. E.g. some people in the black community get mad when rappers use the word nigger, but I’d rather have them take ownership and a certain pride in the word rather than avoid it and give it power to only those who use it as an insult.
Language: I’m all for people retaining all languages, having pride in them, and using them as they see fit in business or personal use, but I think the govt. should strive to provide most services in English and if provided in other languages people should pay extra for them. Otherwise where does it stop? Do we need to provide everything in 100 languages and who pays for it? Public education should try to emphasize English Immersion classes for foreign language speakers and minimize things taught in other languages. There is unity in sharing one language that everyone should be proud of.
Well that’s really all I got, because I think most of what the right says is the liberal agenda is utter B.S. Perhaps Dr. F you could post some of what you think are your more liberal preferences and I could address them.
I did find this good description of the daily Liberal Agenda though:
8:00 - Wake up. Hug tree.
8:10 - Quick breakfast of Wheaties w/ banana and unborn fetuses, stem cells spread on toast.
8:20 - Get dressed in hemp suit.
8:30 - Miscellaneous worship of false idols.
8:45 - Drive to methadone clicnic in hybrid car; 30% electric, 70% Bible furnace.
8:50 - Receive methadone. Sell for pot.
9:00 - Catch up on a little reading: Torah, Koran, Book of Mormon, other books not The Bible.
10:00 - Stop on way to welfare office to drown puppies.
10:20 - Pickup welfare check.
10:30 - Cash check.
10:35 - Buy more pot.
11:30 - Miscellaneous Sodomy.
12:00 - Light lunch of sushi and stem cell pie, plus cappuccino, at upscale coffee shop.
12:30 - Stop at nearest cemetery to bleach flags on veterans' graves.
1:30 - Miscellaneous coveting.
3:00 - Steal babies, throw them from bridge.
3:30 - Bomb a church.
4:00 - Meeting with Jews for instructions on what news stories to run today.
5:00 - Formal dinner/fundraiser of virgin Christian sacrifice. Guest speakers Michael Moore, Al Franken, Satan, and Bizarro Ann Coulter.
6:30 - Smoke cigars lit by a burning pictures of Jesus
6:45 - Infiltrate the school system to attract impressionable young student to the homosexual lifestyle.
7:00 - Miscellaneous taking the Lord's name in vain.
7:10 - Smoke pot.
7:15 - Giggle for about twenty minutes.
7:35 - Order pizza with extra cheese and stem cells.
8:00 - Pay pizza man in food stamps.
8:30 - Watch Real Time with Bill Maher.
9:30 - Bedtime snack of nachos with three kind of cheese and peppers. No stem cells, watching weight.
10:00 - Miscellaneous dishonor of mother and father.
10:30 - Early bedtime, need rest for tomorrow's All-Day Sodomy Fest.
Edit: Also I think generally the private sector is more efficient at allocating resources than the public sector. If you personally were given a thousand dollars to invest or use you would put great effort into getting good deals. And spending or investing in the right ways. If you worked for the govt. and had a thousand dollar budget for a project, you just wouldn't put the same effort or thought into how you used that money. Where the govt. must come into play is public goods such as the air and water. The private sector has little incentive to protect public goods so the govt. must do it.
|
|
Gunkie
Trad climber
East Coast US
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2011 - 07:53pm PT
|
#39600
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Jan 13, 2011 - 08:02pm PT
|
Speak for ONLY yourself, Dr F, when you talk about what "liberals" want.
You do not speak for me.
Every person is unique and different.
The very definition of left, progressive, democrat, or liberal means different things to
different people.
It is very wrong and unfair to think that all Repubs think alike or should be labeled
and thrown into convenient categories.
Same with people who don't lean to the right politically.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!