Meryl Yourish thinks that safety helmets aren't enough for sledders. I agree.
Not only do we need mouth guards and eye protectors, we need to do something about those bloody unsafe metal runners! Yep, it's all fun and games until someone loses a finger...
My proposal is to replace metal runners with Nerf runners. This follows in the footsteps of other great ideas like Nerf footballs, Nerf frisbees, and Nerf dartguns. Mind you, the kids won't go very fast with Nerf runners on their sleds, but isn't that all to the good? God forbid someone might get hurt having fun.
This mindless bit of dreck has caused a bit of a stir by claiming that Will Smith said "Hitler was a good person." What stands out to me is that anyone actually reading the article should immediately realize that there were no actual quotes to that effect.
Word to the wise folks: look for the quote marks. If you don't see them, then the reporter is making things up.
Eugene Volokh, Ilya Somin, and Dave Price all agree that Smith never said anything resembling the quote attributed to him.
Mr. Price seems to think that Smith displayed a certain degree of naivety for his general point of view, while the Volokh Conspiracy writers limited their skepticism to the idea that someone like Hitler could be "reprogrammed" or psychologically reshaped; a position with which I agree.
Smith's general point rang a bell with me, and it bothered me for a bit. For quite a while I've held to the belief that no one sees themselves as evil, but I couldn't recall the seed of that belief. Then it hit me: Heinlein, naturally!
Your enemy is never a villain in his own eyes. Keep this in mind; it may offer a way to make him your friend. If not, you can kill him without hate--and quickly.While the second part of that directive might prove problematical, I prefer Heinlein's formulation, especially his use of the word "villain" as opposed to "evil."
So maybe Will Smith isn't quite so naive after all.
This should go along nicely with the last post about the Fred bumper sticker.
Frank Facts about Fred Thompson.
Some of my faves:
* Fred Thompson has on multiple occasions pronounced "nuclear" correctly.
* Fred Thompson has blasted more people in the face with a shotgun than even Dick Cheney.
* Every night before going to sleep, Osama bin Laden checks under his bed for Fred Thompson.
* Though Fred Thompson left the Senate in 2003, Harry Reid still hasn't stopped wetting his pants.
* Fred Thompson's gaze can kill small animals.
* Fred Thompson once ended a filibuster by ripping out a Senator's heart and showing it to him before he died.
* Fred Thompson's sense of strategy is so great that he can checkmate you using only a pawn and a knight.
* Fred Thompson can know both the exact position and momentum of a particle. Furthermore, he knows Schroedinger's cat is dead because he personally strangled it.
Will Collier, over at Vodkapundit, has ID'd the best slogan to date for Fred Thompson.
Hell, I forgot he was even in that movie; it's been too long!..
(apologies for the Galaxy Quest quote, but it seemed appropriate.)
I've been following the debate over John Edward's decision to keep running, including over at Dean's World. Since that thread seems to reflect some of the "real world," I'll ground my comments from that thread.
First up we have Arnold Harris, who says
If Elizabeth Edwards were my wife, with terminal breast cancer, I would not leave her immediate presence -- except for the obvious and vital sanitary purposes -- for as long as she could live.I sure as hell would put aside every other activity.
I feel sorry for the former senator, even though I would not want him for US president. I feel sorry for his family. I feel sorry for his beautiful and gracious wife.
Well, Arnold, you -in spite of you very kind words- aren't John Edwards, are you ? Nor am I you.
Which is my point, really. This truly is a personal decision, one which pretty much by definition will be different for each person, as they are different people.
I have to say I have trouble understanding those who espouse the "can he still run the country" thread. Do these people think he'll just fall into an incoherent puddle if/when his wife dies? Have they been watching too many cheesy movies on the Lifetime channel?
Let's shift the question just a little. The personal pressure a recovering alcoholic faces every day is tremendous, because every day is a new challenge all over again. And it will be that way for the rest of their lives.
My question is: do you think someone who faces that kind of day-to-day emotional pressure can handle the job of President of the United States?
I hope -if you answered "yes"- that you didn't vote for Dubya, since he is in fact a recovering alcoholic, and will be so for the rest of his life.
Let's look at another facet: the men and women who have a spouse in Iraq or Afghanistan. Should we expect that each and every one of them to collapse into a futile heap of emotional goo if their spouse dies? From what I've read and heard, just about all of them (Cindy Sheehan excepted) have managed to master the pain & grief, and get on with their lives.
...How odd it is that I am on the same side as mikeca on this one. :))
I am reminded of the old question: would you rather have a long life, or a glorious one? Or -to rephrase the latter- would you go out fighting?
...Hmmm. How many of you critizing Edwards have seen (and loved! {g}) 300 yet? You know the drill: death before surrender; glory; fight for what you believe in... whoops, isn't that what the Edwards are doing?
Right now I'd like to cite the excellent Captain Ed on this. By way of context, his wife (the lovely First Mate) has faced several health challenges the past few years.
It's a tough call for Edwards to make, and it's tough to criticize it either way. I think it's fair to say that Elizabeth has invested herself pretty deeply into John's campaign up to now, and she probably strongly resisted a suspension in the campaign. If this is what will keep her spirits high, then Edwards made the right decision.Bottom line, that's it; we need to keep Elizabeth & John Edwards in our prayers, respect his (and her) decision, and base our votes as sane adults.All I can offer is my own perspective. My wife has had a number of chronic illnesses and acute crises, such as the one ongoing now, and one simply cannot stop living life or making a living. That being said, it usually helps to stay closer to home and family, just for one's own peace of mind. Edwards might find himself distracted on the campaign trail, and nagging issues might get blown out of proportion as he gets frustrated with the stress. ...
Edwards has the good fortune to have a fortune, so he can keep his family close while on the campaign trail. If he can balance the needs of his family with a presidential campaign, then he's made the right decision. I'm not hoping he succeeds in his political ambitions, but I do hope he stays strong for his family and that Elizabeth can remain as healthy as possible from now on.
CODA: Joe Gandelman has an excellent round-up, as well as a truly heart-breaking wedding photo of the Edwards. I defy you to look at that picture, and not shed a tear...
I used to enjoy at least some of Ann Coulter's work. When she kept out of the gutter she could be inventively witty and genuinely funny.
Alas, she has become more and more hatefully unpleasant.
The most recent incident (courtesy of Captain Ed) involves calling John Edwards a faggot.
I'd say something about John Edwards, but if you use the word 'faggot', you have to go to rehab.
That's bad enough. What's worse is that many in the audience actually applauded her! In fact a couple of commenters on Captain Ed's post tried to defend her. Sheesh. Thank God there are classy conservative folks like Ed who are willing to call Ms. Coulter out on her hateful remarks.
This is the sort of vicious, mindless drivel that convinces the rest of the world that conservative Republicans really are a bunch of mindless homophobes, no matter the reality. I think the Human Rights Campaign has it about right when Joe Solomonese said
We demand that every single Presidential candidate in attendance at this conference, along with Vice President Cheney stand up and publicly condemn this type of gutter-style politics,” continued Solmonese. “If not, then their silence will be deafening to the vast majority of Americans who believe this type of language belongs no where near the discussions about the future of our country.”
This is exactly the kind of crap which can drive independents such as myself away from Republican candidates. I've known and worked with gays/lesbians for over thirty years in local music, theater, and other areas, and (here in the midwest) they're pretty much like straights. It's just that their compass points in a different direction. One lesbian couple I know own a home, and want nothing more than to get married and raise a kid. How Republican is that!?
Sorry, Annie; you have now been officially defined an Idiotarian by the Gantry Launchpad Mission Control.
Just got back from errands and voting; I live in John Boehner's district in Ohio.
I was surprised to see so many cars there at just before six o'clock. The sole "activist" (in favor of a local county levy to increase mental-health funding) out front told me it had been busy all day.
It turns out one of the reasons was the new voting machines. Yep, I finally got to vote electronically. My personal preference is for paper ballots, but this system seemed to work well.
First I had to provide identification, something new for Ohio. The nice ladies at the polling station told me the requirement wasn't restricted "official" IDs such as state of Ohio ID, or even a photo ID such as a driver's license.. All that is required is a valid document with your correct name and address on it. One woman brought in her checkbook, and the the nice ladies told me a phone bill and/or electric bill were equally acceptable.
This impresses me as a healthy compromise which helps eliminate vote fraud while not placing an undue burden on citizens.
Since this was the first time using electronic voting machines, folks (understandably) took a bit longer to make sure they got everything right. I know I made a point of double-checking everything.
Another time-sponge was the fact that the "ballot" was 14 pages long. Yep. 14 pages. There were some Ohio constitutional amendments (proposed raise of the minimum wage), as well as local and county amendments which took up most of that space. Whoops, almost forgot to mention the idiotic proposed state amendment to further ban smoking in "public" areas. Feh. I read through that one twice, to make sure I voted correctly (I'm agin it. {g}).
The process went as follows: I gave them proof I was really me, signed the register (which included a scan of my signature from the last election), and waited in line.
When my turn came, I got some sort of smartcard to activate the machine. I inserted the card as instructed, and was puzzled by the lack of activity on the screen. Just before I decided to ask for help, I saw small notice next to the card receptacle which instructed me to push the card in until it "clicked." Ah, that was it! Can't say if that was bad ergonomics, or me just staring at the screen and nothing else. Heh.
The screen itself was (didn't think to measure it at the time) roughly 18" high and about 12" wide. Easy to read; nice and big. To my mind the instructions were pretty clear. Touch the box next the person you wish to vote for, or the box yes/no, depending on your choice for a referendum. The instructions pointed out there was a help button at the bottom of the screen, as well as "forward" and "back" buttons (with arrows). There were also options to change the contrast and type size to aid visually-challenged voters.
Voting itself was straightforward, and closely followed the earlier punch ballots I've used in previous Ohio elections. Just touch the box next to the name of the man or woman for whom you are voting. A feature I liked was that the Republican and Democratic candidates were clearly labled as such; I don't know if that's common across the country, but it helps avoid confusion similiar to that apparently suffered by some voters in Florida back in 2000. Just look for the Democrat or the Republican, and press the appropriate box. Simple.
As I said, there were very large and easy-to-read "forward" and "back" buttons at the bottom of the screen. I was immediately reminded of a web browser. In fact, I used them several times, as I find "legal" language rather obscure, so I prefer to go over proposed amendments very carefully to ensure I understand just what a "yes" or "no" vote does.
Overall, the ability to navigate the ballot seemed -to me- more than adequate, and the options to validate your vote worked well. Once I finished my ballot, my selections were presented in pages (or screens, if you prefer); three if I recall. The instructions told me to carefully review each page, and go back (via the "back" button) if I had made any mistakes. Once I was satisfied with that page, I pressed a "commit" button (don't recall the actual word), and a hard copy of that page was printed on a log which resembled a grocery-store receipt, except that I couldn't access it. I could, however, read it quite nicely through a window. For example, my vote for governer showed Ken Blackwell [X], and so on.
Once I approved that page of choices, I went to the next; again I saw a summary on the screen of my votes, pressed "commit," then saw the hardcopy log of my vote, which allowed me to double-check the result.
After I went through three pages (or screens) to review I was presented with a screen saying, basically, "Ok, once you press this button your vote will be logged. If you want to make ANY changes, do so now!" So I pressed the final button, and Bob's your uncle.
One suggestion I would offer is ejecting the smartcard from the holder once the voter has pressed the final "I'm done" button, as additional feedback that voting has been completed. It would provide a useful ergonomic signal.
After that I removed the smartcard and returned it to the registrars, then bothered the nice ladies with more questions. When I asked what would happen if I had pressed "commit," then realized I had been an idiot and mucked up my ballot, they told me a voter had three chances to "re-do" their ballot, if I understood them correctly. I'm not sure if that meant I had three chances at that final "commit," or three chances to go back and fix things at the final review stage. Since (as I mentioned above) they were still busy at the time I didn't want to waste any more of their time.
All in all I found the system to provide more than adequate options to both review and correct my choices, especially the viewable hard copy as a paper-trail backup. Then again -full disclosure- I'm a college grad and a techno-geek. On the gripping hand my own preference is for paper ballots with X's as advocated by the Instapundit. I believe that's the most effective route if your highest priority is eliminating voter fraud and confusion. I don't think the extra day it would take counting the ballots; isn't that a trivial price to pay?
A closing note: when I queried the nice ladies at the polls, they said our precinct was busier than in 2004. Hmm...
GayPatriotWest cites Pat Buchanan's latest idiot remark, and makes a strong case that the Patster shouldn't be considered a conservative any more.
Good stuff. Go read it.
Scott Kirwin manages to generate some light and heat over Ann Coulter's latest faux pas, when she disrespected the so-called "Witches of East Brunswick."
First, let me address the bottom-feeders who think it's funny to disrespect Ms. Coulter for her appearance: you are vile, superficial slugs. Cracking on someone's appearance has nothing to do with their argument, and that's the way I've always fought my (rhetorical) battles. Except for Micheal Moore. So, I'm not perfect...
The people who talk about Ann's height, "skinny ass," or imply that she's "really a man" (or in drag) are just as crass, superficial, and cruel as the people who crack on Condi Rice's color, teeth, "big nose," or other features just because they don't like her politics.
Those creatures -whether left or right- who have nothing better to criticize are some of the worst kind of bottom-feeders around. Why? Because their very arguments demonstrate their complete intellectual and moral bankruptcy. If the best you can come up with is cracking on how someone looks, how they talk or who they fuck; you ain't got nothin' to say to me.
Remedial rhetoric, people: attack the idea,, not the person.
Which mistake Ms. Coulser has, in fact, committed herself in this case. She has gone way past attacking these ladies' ideas, to attacking their very souls.
There are few worse crimes than betraying the one you solemnly swore to "love, honor, and cherish," which is exactly the crime with which Ms. Coulter has charged them. She seems to think that the four widows of East Brunswick have cheerfully traded in their husbands, their soulmates, the father(s) of their children, for the cheap coin of paltry political advantage.
Shame, shame upon you, Ann Coulter! What right do you have to accuse those former wives (now widows) of crass calculation? Is is, perhaps, the only political coin you understand?
Lest the hasty accuse me of moonbattery, I state here that I consider the public, political statements of those four women the worst sort of foolish tripe. Their political positions are emblematic of a silly and banal opposition.
That said, neither I, nor anyone else in this country has the "moral authority" to condemn them as human beings, or (in some ways worse yet) as wives and mothers.
Think about it; is it a good thing, to accuse these women of ENJOYING the loss of their lifemates, just to they might gain their "15 minutes of fame?" How does this compare to those on the virulently-unthinking Left who claim the military families are ignorant, unthinking dupes of the ChimpyMcHitlerBusHalliburton regime?
How would you, the generic supporter of the "War on Terror" react if the moonbats gleefully accused one (or more) of the Gold Star mothers of enjoying their celebrity? No, really?
No, Ms. Coulter has not only crossed the line, in this case she has obliterated it. All of us, left or right, Republican or Democrat, have an obligation to console, care for, and respect those who have suffered loss for the greater good. We have, in fact, a greater obligation: to confront the ideas with which we disagree, and not the people.
There have been far too many instances where both sides have "jumped the shark" since 9/11. Don't believe me? Ask Cynthia "Bush knew" McKinney. Or perhaps you should talk to Fred "God hates Fags (as well as American soldiers)" Phelps. Or perhaps you should talk to Ann "All liberals are traitors" Coulter...
This episode has provided our citizens with the opportunity to say "Enough is enough! No more 'hippies are traitors,' no more 'Bush is the AntiChrist;' come, now, let us reason together. (Isaiah 1:18)"
You just can't make this stuff up!
A former French military air traffic controller says a fragment of Comet Schwassman-Wachmann will hit the earth in two weeks.
Better yet, it's all Bush's fault:
He concludes the May 25 event is tied in to the Bush administration's policy of preemptive use of nuclear weapons against Iran, and the effect of nuclear weapons on the realms of higher intelligences.
First Katrina, then this. What's next?
DAYS SHORTEN, LEAVES FALL OFF TREES, BUSH TO BLAME!!
A big thanks to Professor Phil Plait of Bad Astronomy for the original link.
I originally put this up in February 2005; I find it to be even more relevant today. Please note that I have taken the opportunity to add some detail wherein I felt the original occasionally lacked.
Any party that reigns unchallenged for a long period of time tends to become corrupt. Acton once said "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely." Analog editor John Campbell once said that he would change that to "unchallenged power corrupts absolutely." I think that this is largely true.
A review of the political history of the United States does not indicate much Federal corruption for the first eighty-plus years of our existance. This is true mainly for two reasons: the Federal government lacked the political power it has today, and it controlled a far smaller percentage of the national income. Recall that tariffs were the main sounce of income for most of the 19th century; hence their importance for the Civil War-era politicians.
For at least a generation after the Civil War, the GOP reigned supreme over the United States, damn near literally. A single act sufficed, generally, to quell any possible Democrat upstart: waving the bloody shirt; a phrase introduced at this time by actually waving a bloody, torn shirt supposedly taken off of the body of a man flogged by unreconstructed Rebels in the South.
The Republicans could taint any Democrat with the slur of "traitor" until the Spanish-American War, wherein the old hostilities finally ended.
This granted the Republican Party nearly unchallenged political power for a good generation. This tends to explain the degree of corruption found in Republican politics of the time, from Grant on forwards. True, the method was frequently financial, but the goal was political.
What financial corruption which existed in the Federal government at the time was related to private corporation influence (rail companies especially) who bribed representatives to allow said corporations to literally charge all the traffic could bear, whether product was coal, clothes, machinery, food, or transportation.
Basically political influence was seen (by the corporations) as a legitimate method of maintaining a laissez-faire economy. In other words, controlling Washington, DC, was a means to an end, as opposed to an end in itself.
The Democrats, stymied by the perennial charge of treason and lacking a great leader, found little to lead with until the emergence of the Populist movement just before the turn of the century. That movement gave them the first impetus to an appeal to populism which lasted through the 20th century. Note here the passage of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, coincident with the emergence of Populist/Progressive political thought at the national level. The amendment didn't effect any major political changes until the Second World War induced a tremendous increase in spending.
Woodrow Wilson managed to touch many Americans with his idealism, but he ultimately failed as a political leader. It fell to Franklin Delano Roosevelt to bring the populist message into the mainstream of Democratic thought, and his skills allowed the Democrats to regain their supremacy for the first time in over seventy years.
FDR melded together a party of underdogs, as it were; all those who werent part of the dominant party were attracted to the opposition. By 1932, this included the great majority of Americans, especially after the Crash of 29
-An aside: This narration falsifies the hoary old myth that the GOP is the party of rich people. The GOP didnt cater to, or target to rich men; rather rich men became so because they joined the Republican Party, which had been dominant for seventy years. This again- illustrates the principle that any group or organization will become corrupt in the absence of any major external challenge.-
Let us return to FDR. His first two terms were marked by a return of optimism and hope to American political life (one of my favorite quotes of the time comes from Will Rogers: Even if he burnt down the White House, we can say At least he got a fire started! ). The Republicans of the time, in the face of a resurgent Democratic Party, could only regurgitate the ossified slogans of the previous two generations. They could offer no new vision to challenge Roosevelts work.
-another aside: FDR has to have been one of the most vilified men to ever hold the Presidency, bar one. I would say that, in order, the five worst would be
1. Lincoln
2. FDR
3. Washington
4. Bush Jr.
5. Clinton
One may wish to swap FDR & Washington. Or Bush Jr. and Clinton, for that matter. :) -
What really infuriated Republicans was that FDR broke the unofficial, but hitherto sacred precedent of Washingtons Two term limit. Worse yet, he did so to the tune of humiliating majorities in both houses for two elections.
When you add to this his brilliant leadership in World War Two, the GOP looked, well, like a bunch of selfish contrarians. They were up against a smart politician with a healthy vision who played it smart in a major war. I imagine they were tempted to cry in frustration more than once One is compelled to conclude that FDR is the most successful president to date, including Reagan, mainly because FDR accomplished far more domestically than did Reagan. Rooseveldt's performance lead to a Democratic Party domination of national political life greater than the previous GOP performance, although of shorter duration.
The Truman administrations can be considered as an extension of the Roosevelt, with the additional issues of who lost what to the Communists, and the accusations of corruption. When put together, the FDR/Truman administrations (1933-1953) introduced tremendously larger Federal budgets, as well as a greatly increased level of Federal intervention in both local politics and private citizens' lives. The impetus was the percieved need to address the Great Depression, then the Second World War, and finally the beginning of the Cold War. The result was a Federal government which provided the winning party access to monies and power hitherto unknown even to the British Empire.
By the 1952 election the Democratic Party had reigned unchallenged for twenty years. Eisenhower was elected for 2 major reasons: he led the Allies to victory in Europe, and he symbolized a return to a less corrupt polis.
I believe it is significant that Eisenhower was the only real challenge to Democratic Party primacy until the 1968 election, and even Nixons election was a reaction to the Democrats poor handling of the Vietnam War.
It wasnt until the 1972 election (AKA the Great Ass-Whup of 72) that the GOP scored a major victory over the Democratic Party, as I count the election of 1968 as a negative reaction to the party in power, as opposed to a positive reaction to the party in opposition.
So, really, the Democrats enjoyed nearly unchallenged power from 1932 until 1972; 40 years. This beats the Republican Party domination of 1865-1895 (30 years). This may appear to contradict my earlier cite of 70 years, but that number includes both the early Republican supremacy as well as their less-powerful domination of the early 20th century.
Watergate and the end of the Vietnam War tended to confuse things for most of the 1970s, so I shall pass on the next few years -Ford was unelected, and Carter quickly dis-elected- except to note that the Reagan administration signaled a renaissance of the Republican Party. The question whether the Clinton administration was a hiccup in the face of new GOP supremacy for the early 21st century I shall leave for the diligent student. :) Both administrations were examples of a nearly-untouchable, popular president contending with an opponent-controlled Congress.
My conclusions are:
First: any party in a position of unchallenged power tends to ossify and become corrupt. This happens in other areas as well: American auto manufacturers in the 1970s, for example, or IBM before Microsoft stole their thunder.
Second: when challenged, the dominant party has trouble developing a new meme to suit new circumstances, including a crumbling power base and loss of dominance. An example would be the Republican emphasis on "normalcy" during the first part of the 20th century.
Third: the now-eclipsed party clings to outmoded memes because they have no new ideas: they look back to past greatness and good times. I cite the Democratic nostalgia for the ante bellum and the GOP obsession with socialists and financial propriety in the 1920s.
Finally: any renaissance of the now-eclipsed party must come from an outsider (vis: FDR and/or Reagan) as the insiders still cling to past glory.
It should be quite apparent that I consider the Democratic Party to be the current now-eclipsed party.
Most of the Democratic Party leaders look back to the halcyon times of the 1960s, when the counter-culture and rebellion were not only stylish, but sexy as well. Rock songs feted their actions, while news organizations hung upon every word.
This was the time of Watergate, and the Washington Post; when the Fourth Estate could bring down Presidents.
Modern leaders, alas, confuse popularity and accolades with leadership and vision. They fail to see that rebellion, per se, is not a virtue, and must be viewed in context.
The modern Democratic Party harks back to old days of glory, when Buffalo Springfield could sing must be a thousand people / in the streets, and everyone knew that the government was after, well, everyone. Considering Nixons paranoia, this was not too far off the mark.
The problem is that Nixons dead, and Vietnams over. African-Americans have made great strides in economic as well as political terms, and even the gay-lesbian community has advanced their agenda to the point where gay/lesbian marriage is now considered a mainstream political issue, instead of something that only freaks and perverts worry about.
The problem is that the Democratic Party as a party- has run out of traditional issues.
I do not claim that America no longer has any social issues, any more than I would claim that (as some have said) that history ended with the fall of Communism and the Soviet Union. I will claim that the issues we do face are exacerbated by Federal intervention, not ameliorated. Perhaps we should turn away from the governmental Goliath, and turn to the multitudinal Davids.
I will also say that, in this context, it becomes understandable why Democratic Party stalwarts fall back on hyperbole and ad hominem attacks on the Bush administration; they have no relevant new arguments to put forward as an alternative; only more of the "same old" from the past fifty years.
I conclude that the Democratic Party members, and all American citizens, need new memes, and new social paradigms to discuss modern challenges in a relevant way.
Otherwise we face the possibility that the GOP will be able to reign unchallenged for yet another generation, to the detriment of our country. Note that this is not an attack on the Republican Party; merely an observation that both parties are subject to the corruption of unchallenged power.
Who will be the next William Jennings Bryant, and (more important) who will be the next paradign-shifting FDR, or Reagan?
POSTSCRIPT:
In the fourteen months since I originally wrote this, the Republican leaders in Washington, DC have become a living oxymoron: leaders who won't lead. While the Democrats are stuck in the 60s, the Republicans are stuck in some bizarro never-never land where the aquisition and retention of political power have trumped all other considerations.
UPDATE: Thanks to John of Argghhh!!! for the link, and welcome fellow Denizens...
Linked to the Mudville Gazette Open Post May 9, 2006.
A recent thread on Dean's World induced this post, and I haven't even had the chance to read to read the Reaon Foundation article to which Dean originally linked, yet. Heh.
What sparked my post was bad reasoning, assumed beliefs about illegals (how they get paid, whether they "steal" jobs from Americans), blithering about what's "fair" or "right," and several magnificent posts by the inimitable Arnold Harris.
My thougts, as follows:
For those of you hyperventilating about "lost taxes," try investigating how hard it is to create and run a small business in the US today. Even a local drive-through has to take out fed, state, and FICA taxes before paying an employee.
Paul S. repeats a popular argument, but one that lacks force. I can testify from personal experience that -while there are jobs Mexicans will do that Anglos won't- the workers aren't paid less. Go to damn near any restaurant in America, and you'll find managers who will hire anyone willing to work hard at well above minimum wage. In fact, many Mexicans expect more exactly because they are willing to work so hard.
Paul is, of course, perfectly free to contradict my position by providing facts to the contrary. :)
Arnold (as usual) does a magnificent job defining the problem. While I don't agree with every word, the gist is inarguable.
Jeffrey: go back and read what Arnold actually said. Then read up on the coastal states (New York city especially comes to mind) who hire thousands of staffers just to print ballots in Spanish, or the bi-lingual teachers who psychotically resist English immersion techniques for first-generation kids. There is a large (and growing) group which expects to dispense with the tradition assimilation process. Ever hear of Aztlan?
In fact, Jeffrey really blows it later when he confounds the American expectation just to learn English with bigoted European attempts to preserve the "purity" of their culture. He obviously misses (or is unaware of) the tradition that one becomes an American by renouncing the old country. One chooses to become an American, which is exactly what the new-generation relativists are objecting to.
It occurs to me that Jeffrey is completely unaware of hoary old tradtion of native resistance to cheap immigration labor. Does "No Irish need apply" ring a bell? How about anti-China immigrations laws on the west coast in the late 19th/early 20th centuries? What about "a dollar a day is a white man's pay?"
So, no, the tradition has not always been open arms to new immigrants. But let us not confuse that with Arnolds (perfectly just) requirement that they become Americans first, and foremost. None of this "Aztlan," or "Europeans go home" crap.
And -apparently- Jeffrey believes laws of the United States are somehow optional. Tell me, Jeff, which laws do you follow? Do you do 80mph in a school zone? Or do you perhaps hump the underage high school girls you haven't killed with your car yet?
Or maybe you just gad about embezzling funds from honest citizens with get-rich-quick schemes?
Now, I don't think for a moment that Jeff does any of these things. The point here is that -while it is easy and emotionally satisfying to cavil about laws one doesn't approve of- this does not give anyone the right to summarily ignore those laws.
Yes, yes, I've heard of civil disobedience. I've also heard of the concept that one should be able to put forth a persuasive argument against any particular law before you start deliberately breaking it.
Even then, those who break a law in order demonstrate the moral, ethical, or legal bankruptcy thereof are obliged to face legal punishment, until such time as the law is changed.
Jeff seems to have trouble grasping the concept of sovereignty. In fact, his ignorance is breathtaking.
Just because Congress passes a law saying something doesn't make it something you have to agree with, or even obey.The citizens of the United States have assigned to the House and Senate the right to pass such laws they find fit. We, as citizens, are then obliged to obey said laws. If we find them onerous or objectionable, we (again, as citizens) are obliged to vote out the old scoundrels, and vote in a new set who would change said laws. Until then, those laws are, well, legal, hence one is obliged to obey them.
Thats one of the ways things get fixed in this country, from the Boston Tea Party on up to those who ignored Prohibition.Uh, no. The Tea Party was an act deliberately designed to inflame public opinion against the British authorities by a group of minority radicals. Also, those who ignored Prohibition (one assumes Jeff includes here the 20s gangsters as conscientious objectors) did not "fix" things. That was done by voting for FDR, who pledged to repeal the Eighteenth Amendment, which he did in a legal manner, not by ignoring it.
Voting rights for women? Passed new laws. Civil rights in the 60s? Passed new laws (and got old ones repealed or struck down). The pattern here is that legal action, taken in a court of law (or by passing new laws) is how one changes the status quo).
Neither you, nor any other citizen gets to ignore laws they find inconvenient, or with which they don't agree. You break the law, you suffer the punishment.
I hate to break it to you, but the fact that Mrs. Boser's little boy doesn't agree with the definition of "felon" doesn't mean a damn thing. A felon is one who has been convicted of a felony. If the representatives of the citizens of the United States passes a law calling illegal immigrants felons, then they're felons. QED. You want it changed? Run for office, vote for someone who agrees with you. Or shut up. There are nearly a third of a billion Americans, and they don't all agree with each other. The only way we avoid continual civil war is the (generally unspoken) contract that all citizens will abide by the law.
That's what the "rule of law" means. Defense of the sovereignty of this country is both ethical and legal. Please note that I have not expressed my own opinion about the poor buggers who've come north. That is to a great degree irrelevant, as is whining about what's "fair." "Fair" not an objectively arguable point; the concept is both subjective and analog. "Legal" is objective, and discrete. It is, in fact, binary.
I see Arnold has a follow-up post. I can add some specifics here. I won't mention the company I work for, but we do employ Mexicans. Apparently the rule is that holder of a valid green card who provides a SS# is assumed to be a valid immigrant. There is (again, apparently) no mandate to validate the SS#, and (perhaps more importantly) no mechanism to do so. FWIW, everyone -legal or not- gets city, state, and Federal taxes taken out, not to mention FICA and Medicare. As far as I know, this is true of practically any business in the United States which does not deal strictly in cash.
The irony here is that the statist liberals are the ones responsible for all the paperwork and regulations which help ensure that even illegals pay taxes... :)
One of the things which really irks me are historical hair-splitters who claim things like "Hitler was never democratically elected to power."
For all the Monday-morning-quarterbacking, Hitler was -in fact- legitimately elected to his defined job of Chancellor, according to the Weimar Republic.
And, despite the revisionist whining, the leader of the NSDAP followed all proper parilmentary rules and procedures while gaining the office of Chancellor.
The mistake the other parties made was that they expected Adolf to actually honor his promises.
What truly cemented the Nazi victory was a parlimentary vote to provide the Chancellor with a 1-year "emergency decree" of absolute power, which was allowed by the Weimar Constitution. That is what gave Hitler legitimacy.
The ultimate flaw was that German citizens trusted their rulers, not to mention what those rulers claimed. The very definition of American government has been, since the introduction of Federal power, has been the dispersion, dilution, and distrust of central power.
Despite the clamor in some quarters, Hitler gained power in a legitimate manner, in the same fashion that Oswald acted alone.
Sometimes ugly things happen, and you can't alibi them away, no matter how bad the flavor.
That said, Dean is entirely correct to state that incitement to riot is not protected speech.
In fact, John Irving nails it quite nicely. Claiming the Holocaust didn't happen is vile (but protected) speech. Saying "X did (or did not) happen, therefore we must attack Y" is not protected speech.
It's the difference between bitching about the New York Times publishing pictures of the "piss Christ," and burning down their central offices over the same question.
As I review, while I disagree with the contention that "Hitler was never democratically elected to power," it is entirely correct that Germany had a wide variety of speech-control laws in effect, and in fact Hitler was not allowed to speak in public for six or seven years after the Beer Hall putsch. We can all see how well those laws worked...
Hell, I live in Cincinnati: the city which is legally obliged to allow the Klan to put of a cross on Fountain Square at Christmas. It's not "racist;" the cross references Romans 12.
In other words, one (or more) groups had a hissy fit because the Klu Klux Klan wanted to put up a cross on Fountain Square with a Bible citation. Their objection? "It's the friggin Klan, guys!"
You see, that's the whole point of free speech. It's free. As in "ufettered," or "not officially controlled," or even "not according to what those in power consider appropriate."
In fact, while trying to recall which verse the "Cincinnati Klan cross" mentioned, I encountered a Cincinnati Post story which mentioned the "Black Fist, which has held protests against alleged police misconduct and racism, blame(s) the group which displays the menorah."
In other words, devout Jews displaying the menorah during a holy season are empowering racism. That's a "bad thing!"
Is it possible to find a better example of why "hate speech" laws are a bad idea?...
One of the more popular talking points on the right for the past couple of years involves mentioning that Wilson (the "idealist," "war to end wars" president) actually jailed anti-war commentators. Compare this to the Bush administration.
Despite all provocation, the Bushies haven't thrown people into jail just for criticizing them; Hell, if that were true, we wouldn't see any movies made for the next twenty years! Still, the liberals worry about suppression of speech.
And -in this case- the liberals are right. You can't (or shouldn't) throw someone in jail just because they said something you don't like, disagree with, or find morally/legally/politically/religiously objectionable.
If Andrew Sullivan wants to advocate unrestricted sodomy, that's his right. If Pat Buchanon wants to blame our war dead on faggots, that's his right. Even if he is a vile hypocrite...
If The Daily Kos wants to blame every unfortunate event in the United States of America on George W. Bush, that's their collective right; although I reserve the right to mercilessly ridicule them about it.
On the other hand, it's the God-given (er, apologies to the athiests out there {g}) right of every American citizen to make life a living Hell for our elected representatives, even if I don't agree with them, or they with me.
But, you see, that's the difference between Weimar Germany and classical America. They thought they had "throttled" and silenced Hitler. Hence, they were unprepared for his later popularity, and most politicians had no idea who they were dealing with. Most of them (most likely) would never have voted for that emergency decree, if they had a decent idea of his actual goals, publicly stated in Mein Kampf.
That's the bottom line. The function of free speech is to shine a bright light on every claim, every accusation, every statement made in the public arena. Only then can we contradict the obfuscation, misdirection, and unpleasant hatred of all stripes, whether from Ann Coulter, Ted Rall. Jimmy Carter, or Fred Phelps.
After all, only slugs fear the bright light of day, no?
UPDATE: added a link to Greyhawks excellent Daily Post.
The ever-irrepressible Stephen Green links this New York Times article: Kerry Urges Alito Filibuster, but His Reception Is Cool, with the title What Do You Do With a Broken Party?
Ouch...
Fer chrissakes, Kerry literally phoned his objections in! From fracking Switzerland!! Does Frank J. know of this?
What is noteworthy about the Times article is the nearly uniformly negative vibe cast regarding Kerry's awkward attempts to promote a last-minute filibuster of Sam Alito. As they say in the boonies, "When you've lost the New York Times, you've lost," well, the mindlessly parochial urban upper-class vote.
But I'm sure there's a truly pithy quote regarding this in the boonies, somewhere...
The main reason I'm linking this -aside from the excellent "heads up" from Mr. Green- is this felicitous phrase:
In the space of 48 hours, the three top Democrats for 2008 proved themselves to have all the staying power of a nervous virgin on the set of a porn shoot.
I have to nominate this as the early front-runner of the 2006 Sweepstakes for exellence in phrase-coining. Or some such. ;)
Mary Madigan -on Dean's World- has been inspired by Neo-neocon to contemplate just why someone like Ramsey Clark would even think of legally defending Saddam Hussein. After all, Hussein is one of the worst sleazeballs down the pike since at least Idi Amin.
Does Clark hate his own country that much?
I think I have an answer.
It's very simple. Recall one of the basic elements of modern liberal mindset which has nothing to do with hating America, blue-collars, or anything else: the tendency to orient towards a morally binary ("all or nothing") point of view.
So, war is either inherently good or fundamentally evil. A law is either just and necessary, or corrupt and should be abolished. Any goal which is not perfectly just is -be definition- wrong.
Let us refer to an historical example, the Civil Rights movement. Anything which advanced the cause of black Americans was just, and proper. So any erosion of individual rights, states rights, or arrogation of power to the federal government was ignored. Their cause was just, hence any actions taken were just. Anyone who protested the steps taken were labled racists, no matter their reasons. This resulted in Barry Goldwater being lumped in with the Klan, since he was on the "same side" as the evil people.
You can see the same attitude today, which is frequently confused with "America hating," since both groups corrosively criticize the United States. The difference is that the haters are just that, while the "all or nothing" crowd use the following reasoning: The United States has committed an immoral/evil act (McCarthy, My Lai, Watergate, etc.), and is therefore evil.
First corollary is that America is just as evil as the USSR, Libya, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Nicaragua, Cuba; take your pick.
Second corollary is that the US must persue a perfectly moral path in order to speak or act with moral authority. Since that's impossible, they regularly condemn America, no matter what America does.
This explains Clark, as well. Since he sees the world in morally binary terms, Hussein must be innocent or guilty; no "maybes." And -since a true liberal refuses to prejudge anyone, especially a lawyer- there must be a doubt about his guilt. Hence he is owed a true defense.
See? No hating, no deep, ulterior motives. Just a very simple worldview. One that is highly moral, within its precepts. Alas, those precepts far too simplistic.
Just in case any conservatives are tempted to pull a holier than thou attitude, let's recall the decades-long popularity of the Frankensteinian "communists bad, anti-communists good" mentality; no matter how much of a repressive, murdering rat bastard that anti-communist was.
Foreword: Dean Esmay writes about A Voice of Sanity on Intelligent Design. After I finished writing this, I was surprised by my conclusions. As opposed to Dean, I'm agnostic, and believe there are "things on Heaven and Earth, undreamt-of in your philosophy." On the other hand, I still insist on scientific rigor when processing ideas.
So where does that leave me?
-Scott Kirwins
So you've got the debate between steady-state evolution vs. catastrophic evolution all sussed out, Scooter? You'd better write Science and let them know! :)
Point being that there are many areas of uncertainty within the overall theory. Painting the basic theory as unassailable begs the question. We may find encounter data in the next fifty to one hundred years which calls at least some of the current assumptions into question. Einstein developed a theory which strongly altered Newtownian physics, but not until new data was introduced.
-
Of course, this means that many areas called science, aren't, including psychology, psychiatry, sociology, and so on. You can call them studies, disciplines, or even areas of expertise. They just aren't science. JDS, alas, drops the ball with the claim "the value one places on science is, in itself, a philosophical view." Untrue.
Real science is -as I said above- measurable, repeatable, and subject to mathematical analysis. Real science (in fact) deals in objective, not subjective concepts. This is (as has been mentioned previously) why science cannot address the issue of God. There are no "God fossils" lying around, and He has been recently uncharitible in providing a convenient miracle to confound the skeptics. ;-) We are therefore forced to rely upon unpleasant facts, logic, and statistical analysis.
I would, therefore, like to take issue with Martin's
That turns out not to be the case. An actual statistical analysis gives only one of two results: reject, or cannot accept or reject. I have to add that the latter is sometime referred to merely as "not reject," but I find that unclear, with an implication that "not reject" is equal to accept.
It works like this: one tests a hypothesis (say: smoking causes lung cancer) by creating a null hypothesis opposite to the starting hypothesis. In this case the null hypothesis would be "there is no connection between smoking and lung cancer." The next step would be in analyzing the statistics, which (the results have been established for years) show that there is a relation between smoking and lung cancer. We then reject the null hypothesis. This allows us to accept the original hypothesis, at least to the extent that we use further analytical techniques to further test it.
Please note that you can't use this approach to "prove" a hypothesis; the best you can do is not reject a hypothesis. You can view falsification as winnowing the scientific wheat from the inaccurate chaff.
I suppose I should point out here that a 90% level of confidence doesn't mean the research is 90% confident; rather it means that 90% of the time, the actual (as opposed to statistically estimated) value will fall within a specific interval. To take a common example, an approval rating of 35% [+-3%] for the president, with an established confidence level of 90%, means that 90% of the time the actual approval rating of the entire country will fall between 32% and 38%.
What most folks miss is the immediate corollary: 10% the actual value will fall outside of that range. This means that 10% of the time one (incorrectly) rejects the null hypothesis. For the above example, this would have meant that there was no relationship between smoking and cancer, despite the data indications.
This is known as a "Type I error:" incorrectly rejecting the null hypothesis. A "Type II error" is when you fail to reject a null hypothesis. Again, note that a Type II error doesn't mean one has incorrectly proved a hypothesis, but merely that you failed to reject it. It is, in other words, not evidence to the contrary.
I just came across an interesting analogy while double-checking my memory: this is similar a court decision, wherein "guilty" is the definite rejection of a false hypothesis, and "not guilty" is failure to reject. Most people equate "not guilty" with "innocent," which are both legally and semantically different. One may fail to convict an actual criminal due to lack of evidence. One may fail to reject a false hypothesis for the lack of data.
What this boils down to is that -scientifically speaking- one may disprove a false hypotheses, but not positively prove a true hypothesis.
So those who say that any scientific theory -evolution, for example- has been "proven" are incorrect in their statement. It would be more accurate to say that the theory in question accurately explains the known data. Also note that I do not say that they are wrong, but rather inaccurate. A proper respect for science tends to instill respect for semantics as well. :)
This common confusion about statistics is also reflected in the common confusion about probability, as the study of any state with a lottery can attest. One of the more popular (bad) arguments is "argument by unlikelyhood."
You can even see this in political discussions, wherein one disputant makes the claim that event X was so improbable that it is only logical to assume that conspiracy/criminality/take your pick is the only possible answer.
The first problem with this is that these arguments never establish actual probability distributions before the fact, which begs the question. How unlikely is an event? Say someone rolls two dice 108 times. Furthermore, the roller gets "snake eyes" (two 1's) three times. An observer then immediately claims the dice are loaded, since there's such a low chance of rolling two 1's, which is non-quantitatively true. But an objective examination of the probability distributions shows that -in 108 throws of a pair of honest dice- one should expect precisely three sets of "snake eyes." This is a simple example. Generally, one must specify the probabilities before an event, not after.
Another area of confusion is trying to estimate after-the-fact probabilities. Our example: every US dollar bill has a serial number consisting of a letter, eight digits, and another letter, e.g. B11895196B. What are the odds of my having that particular dollar bill?
(For those completely unfamiliar with probability, the probability of a combination of statistically independent events is equal to the product of the separate events. In the above example, the probability of rolling "snake eyes" is 1/6 x 1/6 or 1/36. The probability of rolling three 1's with three dice is 1/6 x 1/6 x 1/6, and so on. The probability of picking out two B's out of a bag of SCRABBLE tiles (assuming a single tile for each letter, and replacing the tile between picks) is 1/26 x 1/26, or 1/676, which is about 0.14%)
Someone who knows a bit about basic probability would reply "well, that's a series of independent probabilities, so you multiply 1/26 x 1/10 (6 times) x 1/26, and get 1/(26 * 1,000,000 * 26), or 1/676,000,000. Thus our math wizard answers that the author has a one out of nearly seven hundred million chance of having that dollar bill in hand. A very unlikely event, indeed!
There's only one problem with that: the actual answer is precisely 1.0.
How do you resolve this apparent paradox? Simple: the event has already occurred. That is, I already had the dollar bill in hand when I phrased the question! (Literally. I took one out of my wallet to get the example serial number.)
In other words, the probability of an event which has already occurred is always 1.0, or 100%. Therefore anyone who argues that event X (having already occurred) is suspect, because the event is statistically unlikely, is providing an argument which is statistically irrelevant.
...Which -now that I think about it- seems to shoot a pretty big hole in ID. Whoops. On the other hand, I doubt this would impress them very much, as they reject the classic definition of science I presented above, in terms of "real" science is that data which can be measured, analyzed, and reproduced. If you can't use the math, don't call it science.
Actually, if you go here, and read some of the arguments presented by the Discovery people, you'll find they're hyping philosophy over science, preferring metaphysical hot air (but I redund) over objective, measurable reality. Basically, they attack real science as "positivistic," and try to vitiate the elemental concepts of measurability, observability, and falsifiability.
Instead (assuming that Steve Meyer's article is representative of the whole) they try to make ID acceptable by formulating "philosophical" definitions of science which allow the introduction of supernatural intervention via appropriate definitions.
By the nineteenth century, attempts to distinguish science from non-science had changed. No longer did demarcationists attempt to characterize science on the basis of the superior epistemic status of scientific theories; rather, they attempted to do so on the basis of the superior methods science employed to produce theories. Thus science came to be defined by reference to its method, not its content. Demarcation criteria became methodological rather than epistemological.(emphasis added) In other words, Meyer prefers the philosophical, subjective approach -arguing about "true" vs. "false' knowledge- as opposed to the modern, objective approach, which still relies on measurement and analysis, despite what he has to say about it, such as his complaint that Newton's laws did not "explain" gravity
First, many laws are descriptive and not explanatory. Many laws describe regularities but do not explain why the regular events they describe occur. A good example of this drawn from the history of science is the universal law of gravitation, which Newton himself freely admitted did not explain but instead merely described gravitational motion. As he put it in the "General Scholium" of the second edition of the Principia, "I do not feign hypotheses" -in other words, "I offer no explanations." Insisting that science must explain by reference to "natural law" would eliminate from the domain of the properly scientific all fundamental laws of physics that describe mathematically, but do not explain, the phenomena they "cover." For the demarcationist this is a highly paradoxical and undesirable result, since much of the motivation for the demarcationist program derives from a desire to ensure that disciplines claiming to be scientific match the methodological rigor of the physical sciences. While this result might alleviate the "physics envy" of many a sociologist, it does nothing for demarcationists except defeat the very purpose of their enterprise.In other words, Meyer insists that a natural must explain the ultimate "why" of a process, as well as the process itself.
I could go on, but basically the above article (and again, by extension the ID position) relies on philosophy and fancy tap-dancing about definitions instead of science.
True, Carl Sagan once observed that the scientific process does include at least one metaphysical concept: the world is a rational place, and operates according to physical laws, which can be derived and comprehended by human beings. So far, that assumption has withstood examination.
The odd thing about this is that I have no theoretical objection to God, I just expect His works to follow the known laws we have derived from our (aha) God-given faculties. If you check up the Roman Catholic position these days, the Pope decided a few years ago that evolution was compatible with Christianity, as long as one posited some sort of "divine spark" inherent to the speciation of homo sapiens. It's gonna be bloody difficult to test the idea, though!
A major part of the confusion in this debate is, I fear, yet more confusion about terms. This isn't really about science, or the "philosophy about science" (what the fubar is that, anyway? how can you get philosophical about the Fourth Law of Thermodynamics?) It's about control of the political entities in our lives.
In this case, it is the question of who runs the local school. Is it the local community, the county, state, or federal authorities? Jerry Pournelle has repeatedly pointed out that the best answer to this question is to reduce authority to the smallest denominator; in this case the local school board. As the good doctor has pointed out, this will no doubt result in some very silly-looking reading lists, but that's the cost of liberty. The beauty of this approach is that 90% of the worthless dolts (er, politicians and lawyers) who interfere now, can't.
This isn't a case for the courts, nor even for the state legislature, as long as the school isn't breaking any laws. Certainly it's none of D.C.'s business.
The problem is that everyone likes to talk about liberty, but they hate to let other people exercise it. Simply put, the left breaks out in hives about "God in the classroom," while the right wets their pants about "sex in the classroom." Here's a new idea: let the parents decide. It's their kids, and it's none of our business. If you're that worried about it, work on your own kids first. If you don't have any, shut the Hell up, as it's literally none of yours.
Mary Madigan -while writing at Dean's World- recently quoted a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll to the effect that " 38 percent said no one is to blame" for the Katrina disaster.
Not to break up the mutual-congratulation party, but FEMA has come in for a bit of legitimate criticsm, including Republican reps in Congress.
Apparently Mike Brown's performance has underwhelmed more than a few folks who can't be called Bush-haters. Some folks have pointed out his absolute lack of anything resembling experience for his appointed position, while others say that his role is primarily ceremonial.
Either way I see no problem with shit-canning him. Even if he didn't screw up, it would be a tremendous confidence-builder for the nation.
For those who consider this somewhat harsh, I recommend dropping by Castle Arrgggh! and seeing what John has to say about all this, such as this:
And obviously, it doesn't look good for the people in charge. And I fault the people in charge.John Derbyshire's arrogant ignorance kept pissing me off. Until I realized what I just said. Ignorance. Lack of knowledge. Derb isn't stupid, he's ignorant. And whose fault is that? Not his.
In order -
The Government of Louisiana, Kathleen Blanco, Governor. It was their job to get the ball rolling. The Federal government doesn't respond, by law, until the Governor asks them to. (If you think FEMA in their Ops Center at Weather Mountain wasn't already alerting you're wrong, but *acting* is governed by law).
The Federal Government, George W. Bush, President.
Because neither of them have got the Public Face of the Government getting out the info. Believe it or not, that, to my mind, is actually the Most Important Thing to be doing up front and early. Because the professionals will be handling the details of getting the response moving. That isn't the politicos job. Crying on camera is fine - as long as it's preceded or followed by "This is what we're doing, this is how we're going about it, and this is how we're coordinating for more help." Not just being stunned. Getting.Out.The.Word. Guys like me will be getting out the Stuff.
I think the President should have called off the California gig and headed for Washington.
WTF? Donovan is saying getting talking heads out putting out info is more important than Boots on the Ground, rescuing people and delivering aid?
Yes. That's what I said.
Why? Because Controlling The Perception of The Disaster in it's early stages will help shape the form of the follow-on actions. Guys, I've worked with FEMA. They're smart people and well-organized.
BUT IT TAKES 3-5 DAYS TO GET PEOPLE IN PLACE AND FUNCTIONAL. Minimum. Not the prepositioned people in the waiting-to-be-activated DFO, Disaster Field Office... the Outside Responders.
One solid criticsm I've heard re:FEMA is that they really should have anticipated a quick breakdown in New Orleans. After all, isn't the corruption of the "Big Easy's" government proverbially infamous by now?
In other words -for this city at least- the feds should have counted on an early breakdown, instead of surprised.
... While I was double-checking the links, I re-read an update by John here, where he seems to be coming around to that line of thought:
As I read through this - while I think NOLA screwed the pooch, they were hip-deep in water while they did it.(emphasis added)More and more, my jaundiced eye is looking at the Louisiana State government, especially it's Department of Homeland Security, as being damn near criminally negligent in the performance of their duties - and with the leading elements of the Federal response (to include the President) as being insufficiently sensitive to that fact.
For that matter, what would you call leaving one thousand first-responders (firefighters) hanging in Atlanta taking a sexual-harassment class instead of heading for New Orleans.
Instead, they have learned they are going to be community-relations officers for FEMA, shuffled throughout the Gulf Coast region to disseminate fliers and a phone number: 1-800-621-FEMA.On Monday, some firefighters stuck in the staging area at the Sheraton peeled off their FEMA-issued shirts and stuffed them in backpacks, saying they refuse to represent the federal agency.
Federal officials are unapologetic. "I would go back and ask the firefighter to revisit his commitment to FEMA, to firefighting and to the citizens of this country," said FEMA spokeswoman Mary Hudak.
The firefighters - or at least the fire chiefs who assigned them to come to Atlanta - knew what the assignment would be, Hudak said.So, Louis, what you're saying is that you more interested in the bloody paperwork than oh -I dunno- looking for, and finding victims to save!?One fire chief from Texas agreed that the call was clear to work as community-relations officers. But he wonders why the 1,400 firefighters FEMA attracted to Atlanta aren't being put to better use. He also questioned why the U.S. Department of Homeland Security - of which FEMA is a part - has not responded better to the disaster.
The firefighters, several of whom are from Utah, were told to bring backpacks, sleeping bags, first-aid kits and Meals Ready to Eat. They were told to prepare for "austere conditions." Many of them came with awkward fire gear and expected to wade in floodwaters, sift through rubble and save lives.
"They've got people here who are search-and-rescue certified, paramedics, haz-mat certified," said a Texas firefighter. "We're sitting in here having a sexual-harassment class while there are still [victims] in Louisiana who haven't been contacted yet."
The firefighter, who has encouraged his superiors back home not to send any more volunteers for now, declined to give his name because FEMA has warned them not to talk to reporters.
... [snip]
[Salt Lake Fire Chief Steve] Foote said his crews would be better used doing the jobs they are trained to do.
But Louis H. Botta, a coordinating officer for FEMA, said sending out firefighters on community relations makes sense. They already have had background checks and meet the qualifications to be sworn as a federal employee. They have medical training that will prove invaluable as they come across hurricane victims in the field.
Christ on a fracking crutch! Have we decayed to the point where some bureaucratic paper-pusher is more worried about someone's paper trail than actually helping people in need?
I repeat:
Federal officials are unapologetic. "I would go back and ask the firefighter to revisit his commitment to FEMA, to firefighting and to the citizens of this country," said FEMA spokeswoman Mary Hudak.(emphasis added) You know, like maybe they should re-think the whole "saving people" thing, or something.
But, hey, the got to do something important:
But as specific orders began arriving to the firefighters in Atlanta, a team of 50 Monday morning quickly was ushered onto a flight headed for Louisiana. The crew's first assignment: to stand beside President Bush as he tours devastated areas.
Not to worry, as the local authorities have now announced that no civilians will be allowed firearms in New Orleans, despite the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments.
One historian said about Pearl Harbor: "there's enough blame to go around."
Another wit once said: "to err is human; to really screw things up it takes a computer!"
In this case they might have said "it takes overlapping levels of unaccountable bureaucracy" instead.
Now. Yodeling "IT'S ALL BUSH'S FAULT!!!," while morally satisfying, is ultimately non-productive. New Orleans has become a Bitches' Brew of feckless human incompetance, from the corrupt New Orleans PD, to Mayor "Where's the buses?" Nagin, through governor "tears" Blanco, up to "What me, worry?" Mike Brown.
I also think it's very arguable -in this case- that Bush fumbled the directive which John outlined above, of "the Government getting out the info."
Both the military and the engineers of our country have a process called "lessons learned," in which a study lists the mistakes made during a specified exercise/project, why the mistakes were made, and how we can do better in the future.
One of of the key features of these studies is their dispassionate nature. Very few engineers or soldiers are interested in CYA excuses. They tend to ask hard questions such as "did the person in charge have sufficient knowlege? Did they show foresight, or recieve appropriate guidance and direction? Could they (in fact) have materially changed the course of events by their personal actions?"
The studies aren't limited to specific decision-makers, but to organizations as well. What worked? What didn't work? What can we change to do better next time?
Winston Churchill once said that "In war-time, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies." In modern America, that has been twisted to "In peace-time, our political goals are so precious that they should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies."
We -all of us, as Americans- have already stepped to the challenge of Katrina. The contributions of time and money, as well as "blood, toil, tears, and sweat" have demonstrated that.
Aside from the ongoing challenge of rebuilding, which I don't doubt will take many years, we -as Americans- need to face the challenge of an honest and dispassionate examination of "what went wrong, and how do we fix it?" in terms of Katrina.
The next disaster may be another hurricane, or a bioweapon disaster, or a dirty bomb. It might even be something as prosaic as the Spanish Flu.
The supreme defense against that sort of challenge are citizens who recognize the grey challenge.
Just over a half-hour ago London suffered another series of bomb attacks on subway stations.
London Police Chief Ian Blair origonally reported four explosions or attempted explosions. Later reports used the word "bang(s)."
The latest developments at the Command Post blog seem (to me) to indicate that some detonators went off, but no known major explosions as yet.
UPDATE: BBC has more info: "The BBC's Andrew Winstanley said devices had been found but appeared to have been dummies, containing no explosives."
MORE: Instapundit is on it, and apparently the London media is as self-destructive as the D.C. crew: "Some idiot correspondent asked Blair if the attacks were his fault because of the Iraq war. And others are taking an equally negative line -- one asks if the propaganda war against terror is being lost."
I like Reynolds' response:
You're idiots, cowards, and political hacks. Yes! The preening, point-scoring irresponsibility of the press, which is if anything worse in Britain than in America, is one of the most striking things about this war, and it will be decades before it recovers. If it does.
The kind of question I'd like to see from the media? How about: "Mr. Prime Minister, how long do you expect before we hunt these rat bastards to their graves?"
Just what is the "moderate" political position in America today?
Dean Esmay asked the hard question: is there a moderate position today? He concludes -righly, I think- that "moderate" is an approach or a temperament, not a political position.
On the other hand Alan, of The Yellow Line argues that centrist is a more appropriate word. But "centrist" is just as bad as "moderate." The reason being that one is still defining a political position in terms of other people's political positions, especially when you consider that Alan says that centrist/moderates "are more interested in moving outside the dichotomy of left and right." In that case, they aren't centrist anymore, because they've changed the frame of reference.
I also have to severely disagree with the definition of moderate as "socially liberal/moderate and fiscially conservative." Is that "the" moderate posistion, or is it just one of them? And just who defines moderate? Is there a central (aha) comittee for the Centrist/Moderate Party no one's heard about? Or is this some sort of alleged statistical measurement of a mean or median? If so, who measured it, and how?
What is a moderate, except someone who is willing to compromise? If so, are they willing to compromise on all issues? If that's the case, they're spineless jellyfish. There are some things worth fighting for; but as soon as you take a definite stand on an issue, whether free speech, gun ownership, small government, or the war on terror, haven't you stopped being centrist/moderate? If not, why not?
If you read Alan's post (which you should), you'll see that he explicitly defines centrist/moderates as "middle of the political spectrum," but this contradicts the rest of the article, which relates more to a moderate approach to politics than a "center of the road" moderate position.
One of Dean's questions is: what are the political principles which define the centrist/moderate position? That's a good question. Alan objects to this, and calls the reasoning "ridiculous," but neglects explaining just why this is so. He does go on to explain what centrist/moderates are not, and therein lies the clue.
Centrists in America aren't defined by what they are, but what they aren't. Listen to a self-labled centrist/moderate; what you'll hear is "we aren't..." Jack Grant takes the same (flawed) approach at Random Fate.
Listen further, and you will percieve that these people are, indeed moderate, but not politically. There's no generic "middle of the road" political position. But they are moderate in their approach to political questions.
Now, generally, this is a good thing. Certainly I'm sick of the mindless mud-slinging of "fascist!" and "traitor!" we've seen the past five or ten years. But is a moderate approach by itself neccessarily a virtue? Recall that all "moderate approach" means is that one discusses an issue in a civilized manner.
Suppose a communist or NAMBLA member tries to discuss their cherished views in a civilized manner? Does that make them moderates? I have to say "no," since one follows a corrupy, vicious ideology, and the other buggers young boys.
So a moderate approach, by itself, does not define a "moderate." And we still haven't managed to define "moderate."
I don't think we can. Why? Exactly because moderates generally define themselves in terms of other ideologies; even Alan does this when he defines moderates as "socially moderate/liberal but fiscally conservative."
But there is yet another clue in Alan's approach, and I've already quoted it, in part:
Centrists are more interested in moving outside the dichotomy of left and right and finding new solutions altogether. ... my solution isn't to just decry the methods of idealogues but to convince enough people that they don't have to be right or left. Politics is not a straight line. It's not either/or.
So what he's really saying is that he wants to go to the root of the problem (perception of a left/right dichotomy) for a solution. Do you know what you call someone who attacks the root of a problem?
That's right! A radical.
Ladies and Gentlemen, Alan Stewart Carl is a RADICAL!
Lock up the kids and hide the silverware....
Just don't ask me what a moderate is. :)
Captain Ed over at Captain's Quarters points out that Senator "white nigger" Byrd has tried to paint the Bush administration as Nazis, because they want to change the Senate committee rule on cloture.
What's that? Simple. The minority party can block, indefinitely, a committee approval or disapproval of a presidential candidate by keeping that nominee approval in committee. How? By talking. And talking. And more talking. And, by not sending the nominee for an approval vote to the full Senate. In other words, they can shove the nomination in a hole, and ignore it, unless 60 out of 100 senators approve a move to a full vote on the nominee. That's a cloture. And how many times has one party (or the other) had that kind of super-majority in the Senate? And that's the problem...
The Democrats have been dancing around this for a couple of years, now, and the bottom line is that the minority party is keeping certain Bush nominees from getting a simple, for-the-record, up or down vote.
Why? Because the nominees are too conservative. They're not "bad" or "incompetent" judges, nor have they been accused (much less convicted) of any crime. Heck, the worst accusation against some of them is that they're "too religious." -Um, hold on a sec, while I go warn George Washington, Abe Lincoln, and FDR...-
The Dems have been piously reassuing everyone that they're just making sure that only the best of the best will become federal judges, but that's dishonest. If any given senator has a problem with any given nominee, then they may vote "no" on that nomination. That's not the problem. The problem is that the Democrats in the Senate are trying to avoid the vote completely.
My guess is that they hope Bush will become tired of pushing for the people he really wants, and nominate people acceptable to the Democrats. AKA the people who have lost the last three general elections in this country, and are now (quite officially) a minority party. Which is the real problem These people want influence that they haven't earned at the ballot box.
The Republians have the Senate; they have the House, and they have the White House. That gives them the right to nominate judges, and (reasonably) expect them to be approved. Now if one of the nominees turned out to be genuinely unacceptable (say, for joining the KKK, or cheating on his wife; but I digress...), then the Democrats have an obligation to turn said nominee down. No worries there. But if there is no real reason to reject a given candidate, they should say so, then turn the vote over to the full Senate.
That's the really dishonest part of Byrd's speech. Not the part where he compares the Bush administration to Nazis, (and where have we heard that before?) No, the dishonest part is where Byrd won't admit that his part is, in fact, blocking the proper function of the United States government.
You see, the controversy about cloture votes isn't in any definable, or citable book of rules or laws. I can promise you it isn't the Constitution.
No, it's a custom; a guideline, rather than a law. That's where the current controversy of the "nuclear option" (i.e. changing House rules) comes in. And -to the chagrin of the Democrats- some of us remember what the Honorable Thomas B. Reed accomplished a century ago.
...Who is Thomas B. Reed, you ask? Why, only the most influential Republican between Lincoln and Reagan, I have to say. You have heard of Reed, indirectly. One of his colleagues in the House once pretentiously quoted Henry Clay to the effect that he "would rather be right than president." Reed retorted the gentleman will never be either.
Another Reed saying is that "All the wisdom in the world consists in shouting with the majority," while his "A statesman is a politician who is dead," is a modern classic.
In any case, back in 1890 one of the traditions of the House was the silent (or disappearing) quorum. To quote Barbara Tuchman, from her excellent The Proud Tower:
The system Speaker Reed had decided to challenge was know as the silent -or disappearing- quorum. It was a practice whereby the minority party could prevent any legislation obnoxious to it by refusing a quorum, that is, by demanding a roll call and then remaining silent when their names were called. Since the rules prescribes that a member's presence was established only by a viva voce reply to the roll, and since it required a majority of the whole to constitue a quorum, the silent filibuster could effectively stop the House from doing business.
As you can see, this could be a very effective tool to prevent the House from doing any business at all. How did House Speaker Reed deal with this conundrum?
Very simply: by counting those present, as present, whether or not they acknowledged the roll call. Democrat "ex-Speaker Carlisle let it be known that any legislation enacted by a quorum which had not been established by a 'recorded vote' would be taken to be court as unconstitutional."
Does any of this ring a bell, yet?
In 1890 the Committe on Elections awarded a contested seat in West Virginia to the Republicans. The Democrats immediately asked for a quorum, and proceeded to their time-tested method of refusing to answer the roll call, in order to obstruct business. 163 men responded as "present" for the call; 166 were needed for a quorum. Their plan -to not conduct business as usual- would succeed.
Or would it? Instead of calling the roll again, Speaker Reed announced "The Chair directs the Clerk to record the names of the following members present and refusing to vote," followed by the names of those representatives who remained silent.
In one of the few appropriate times to invoke this adjective, pandemonium broke loose. Republicans loudly cheered and applauded, while Democrats screamed their objections. Representative McCreary (D - KY) exclaimed: "I deny your right. Mr. Speaker, to count me as present, and I desire to read from the parliamentary law on the subject."
Reed quietly gazed at McCreary, and asked "The Chair is making a statement of the fact that the gentleman from Kentucky is present. Does he deny it?"
Um. Ouch.
For the next four days, Democrats would employ every tactic they could think of, to no avail. And every time they tried to invoke the silent quorum, Reed would serenely list those present and not responding, then declare that a quorum existed to do business.
Finally, well, I'll let Ms. Tuchman describe it:
Now the Democrats, changing their strategy, decided to absent themselves in actuality, counting on the inability of the Republicans to round up a quorum of themselves alone. As one by one the Democrats slipped out, Reed, divining their intention, ordered the doors locked. At once there followed a mad scramble to get out before the next vote. Losing "all sense of personal or official dignity," Democrats hid under desks and behind screens. Representative Kilgore of Texas, kicking open a locked door to make his escape, made "Kilgore's Kick" the delight of cartoonists....
Five years later Theodore Roosevelt wrote that in destroying the silent filibuster, Reed's reform was of "far greater permanent importance" than any piece of legislation it brought to enactment at the time.
Radioblogger has a concisely excellent summary of some of the constitutional points of interest on this...
(with apologies to The Elephant Man)
I was just catching up over at Dean's World, when I caught a post by Michael Demmons announcing that Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter has Hodgkin's disease.
Now Michael -who wishes well for the Senator, as should we all- remarked that 'There are going to be people on the extreme right who will salivate over this - just as people on the far left get giddy when life throws curves to their "enemies."'
This bothered one conservative regular, who felt that conservatives had been insulted. Apparently he missed the adjective far in the phrase "far right." :) Micheal, in reply, suggested a quick check to see what the freepers (regulars on the Free Republic blog) had to say about Specter's illness, and I decided to take him up on it.
You can find the Free Republic thread here.
At the time I posted this, there were 80 comments, and 31 good wishes, godspeed, and prayers extended to a man the freepers generally don't like. Two should suffice;
Agreed. I hate Specter, and think that the fact that he conned his way to the GOP nomination cost Bush PA in November, but I hope he pulls through all right. And I'm not just saying that because RAT Governor Rendell would name Specter's replacement if he had to step down.
Although I wanted to see Specter go, it was NOT like this.Good luck in your treatment Arlen, even those of us Toomey supporters are behind you on this one!
So what we're seeing is 39% "good wishes rating" against an opponent. That's pretty good, when you think about it, especially in today's environment.
Naturally one of the commenters had to bring up the DemocraticUnderground, so I tripped on by over there as well. And yes, they had a thread going too.
There were only 53 comments made when I arrived there. And, here's the thing: I counted 22 "good wishes" out of 53 comments, giving a 42% "good wishes rating."
Ok, so it's "only" 3%, but still... I thought the crazy lefties were supposed to be the haters. Oh, yes, there were a couple of nasty remarks, but I'm not quoting them here. If you must see them, follow the link. There will always be a very few, very sad minority who just can't help themselves. But I have to say even I was surprised. I expected a few folks to say nice things, but not nearly half.
What strikes me is that -when you step back and look at the overall picture- both sides in effect reacted similarly to the plight of someone with whom they don't agree. The Donks don't like him because he's a Derm. The Derms don't like him because he a moderate-to-liberal Derm, or (in crusty con terms) a RINO (Republican In Name Only).
So maybe the crunchy cons should stop and consider this the next time they want to call the squishy liberals nothing but a bunch of haters. And maybe those squishy libs might want to consider that the crunchies aren't as heartless as they thought. Yes, you, in the back; I'm talking to you. Stop shaking your head in scorn! Heh.
It's really sad that someone has to get a terrible disease like cancer before we start seeing something in common with the other side.