My TV watching is markedly down. The only new show I'm interested in is Revolution, although I'm already wondering how no electricity also means no internal combustion engine (or steam engine for that matter). I'm also having trouble believing that the government would fall if there was no electricity. I could stop watching it if they never resolve these issues to my satisfaction, but for now I enjoy the show. Bad people are dying.
What other new shows are you kids watching or planning on watching these days? The old lady is interested in 666 Park Avenue.
I found this interesting
(#291759)Substitute drone attacks with any number of issues, and I can see where this guy is coming from.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
Yes, liberals and leftists are the real enemy
(#291764)I've read the same concern trolling hundreds of times.
I blame it all on the Internet
He's got a point
(#291774)And I'm not sure you actually read the link. It was about how liberals and leftists better fall in line come November 6th. Criticize dear leader and you're no longer a serious person.
If Zell Miller did indeed end up being the Democratic nominee for President, the Democrats around here would be telling me the same stuff they've been telling me for the last few weeks: it's a two party system, and that's never going to change, so grin and bear it because the Republican nominee is worse.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
You sure didn't hear that from me.
(#291776)And I'm a registered Democrat.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
Then you get a pass
(#291777)You can't really believe I meant every person here who is a registered Democrat individually told me something to that effect.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
Just Sayin'
(#291780)Be careful when you shoot 360, and "Democrats around here" is an unfortunate generalization, to say the least.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
I think you're the only one who's not voting for Obama tho
(#291784)as far as I know.
I don't think anyone can accuse me of not having criticized Obama, however, and I'm still wondering if I should vote Green.
I Might in a Swing State
(#291790)Stin is in Ohio and I definitely would have a lot less certainty than he in that case.
Don't get me wrong, a Romney win would be decidedly bad news. But the Democrats need to respect their left flank and significant votes for the Greens where possible should send that message.
The difference appears to be that Stin is not a Democrat to begin with. Johnson is not an attractive candidate to me by quite some distance, even as I agree with his Bill of Rights based positions. Economically, they are a fast road to a privately owned authoritarian future. And of course the Libertarians score zero on environmental thinking.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
Where possible?
(#291792)A conditional message is hardly an intimidating message.
My position is that the time for the left flank to discipline Obama was during the primaries. I would have welcomed and probably supported the right primary challenge. Win or lose, it would have sent a message. Now, unless you actually support Romney over Obama, I haven't really heard a persuasive argument for voting third party. The signalling argument is deeply flawed, and the moral argument is just narcissistic to the point of nihilism.
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
Hey, you heard it here yourself
(#291794)it's OK to have a few decades of lousy governance to prove a point.
I blame it all on the Internet
That's not my philosophy
(#291802)And I hope I've made that clear.
Also, I'd remind you that we are getting a few decades of lousy governance regardless. Not a few of our current problems were started under Democratic presidents. I've been through the repeal of Glass-Steagall (a.k.a. the Citicorp can do whatever it wants to Act) too many times already.
I think in Ohio the most rational move is to vote for Obama. But I would not crucify those who decide not to.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
I wasn't talking about you
(#291807)Stinerman said it a few days ago.
I blame it all on the Internet
It's not clear to me
(#291808)that the choice is between a few decades of lousy governmen t and a few decades of acceptable government with the RepDem dichotomy. Both seem pretty corrupt to me.
Well One May Be Corrupt but Reformable...the Other is Actually
(#291809)...physically dangerous to itself, the world and the United States.
I don't like the choice either, but, the Democratic Party seems salvageable....the Republican Party is actually dangerous as presently constituted.
I sincerely will also work for the reform of the Republicans also after this election...and I may have more success with them.
For now these are my plans. And a clear choice.
Traveller
I hope you're right.
(#291810)They seem pretty much bought and paid for to me. I had some hope that the tea party movement might be the start of the end for that. I know it was largely astro-turfed at the start but I had a sense it was running away with itself. I disagreed with the direction but the fact that it was in motion and that it was being powered from the ground up was encouraging. I gather that mostly from the signs I saw for local meetings when I was in Northern California in 2010 and the tenor of the signs and comments at their meetings as reported by the press.
I suppose the open question is whether this particular form of parasitism - corrupt politicians - is fatal to the host or not.
How is any politician gonna tell the difference
(#291800)between a conditional and non-conditional message?
It seems like a threat to me and would let politicians know which direction to move to pick up more votes in the future.
It's all in the numbers.
(#291804)Politicians look at percentages. If the Greens get a decent percentage in key states, political calculometers will register that. Cuomo has been backtracking on fracking for years now, but it's still not a certainty he will ban it (though the momentum is in the right direction). And he's a potential presidential candidate.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
C'mon
(#291817)Even when it made a huge difference (Nader in 2000) it still didn't work. As I've explained before, the safer move in that situation is to move to the center, not the left, because the missing votes on the left can't speak with a single voice on what it would take to win them back, or whether they even would come back.
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
Really?
(#291801)You don't think that a major Green vote in a deep blue state like NY would send any signal?
I think it would.
I am not sure I am making a moral argument. I don't intend to. I just try to respect other people's vote.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
No, MA
(#291845)My evidence is empirical: Nader did not cause the Dems to go to their left.
And my evidence is theoretical: Just go to the center if you're losing votes to a far left party, because a) if you go left you will lose votes in the center with no guarantee of winning them back from the left, since they can't signal with one voice what it would take to win them back, and b) if you go to the center you will not just add a vote to your column, but take away one from the other guys.
Once more and with feeling: the time of leverage is the primary. Empirical evidence: the huge effect the Tea Party has had on the Republicans. Primary challenges work.
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
Two things
(#291869)Two things, Nader is not a party, which would have a more permanent, substantial weight to the threat, and the other, in answer to points a and b, the Democratic leadership of past while has been able to win elections from time to time and even then against some very mediocre opponents. Great leadership is just that; exactly the ability to do a and b and more.
It strikes me though that the political system is corrupt through and through and is rigged in such a way as to prevent third parties from emerging, and rigged to weed out candidates who have leadership skills and a pesky will to change things.
You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh
Nader ran as a candidate for the Green Party
(#291872)which still exists and is running a candidate this year. In fact it's been mentioned by several third party fans in this very diary.
I blame it all on the Internet
As a builder of the Green party?
(#291882)Didn't Nader also run as the candidate of the Reform party? After Pat Buchanan? I think Nader has a passion for running for president. As a builder of the Green party? No.
You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh
You're not helping the third party cause
(#291887)if they were willing to run a celebrity like Nader even if he didn't share their goals, and just to have a chance of winning an election, why should I consider that they'd act any differently than the major parties if they ever managed to gain office?
I blame it all on the Internet
look to Germany
(#291891)Maybe you could look to Germany if you want to see the results of a strong Green party.
You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh
I don't live in Germany
(#291892)and you haven't dealt with my point.
I blame it all on the Internet
Well, I think I did address your point
(#291910)Well, I think I did address your point. If a third party were to gain power, they wouldn't be able to do it without adopting much of what allowed the other two to gain power. Business as usual, but their reign would also be garnished by some extra 'green' policies. You don't have to live in Germany to see the results of greens gaining some power in Federal politics there.
You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh
On Nader re: party building
(#291921)Nader wasn't a party builder. He ran as the nominee of the Green Party in 1996 and 2000, but was never an actual member of the party. So you are correct there.
Due to our ballot access laws over here, Nader ran as an independent in some states, as a member of the Reform Party in others, and probably a few other various parties in yet other states (considering 2004 and 2008). In some states it's actually easier to qualify a new party than it is to run as an independent.
One thing that foreigners should remember when speaking about our Presidential election is that it isn't 1 election with the same rules everywhere. It's better understood as 51 different elections where some of the elections count for more points than others, and the guy with at least 270 points wins. The laws regarding how one gains access to the ballot are different in every state and DC.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
Not having a parliamentary system
(#291899)Doesn't count as corruption. The binary party system is a natural outgrowth of our constitution, not something that has been imposed upon it.
Moreover, I just never hear proponents of third parties here deal with problems of them. When the third party holds the balance of power (as the religious parties in Israel do) then their power is expanded beyond their numbers, a decidedly undemocratic effect.
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
Your system is corrupt
(#291904)because influence is bought and sold. Just because it has been legalised and given constitutional protection doesn't mean it doesn't stink. And regardless of how ballot access laws arose, they too are a scandal. Ditto the gerrymandering that you seem to take for granted over there.
As for disproportionate influence, I have a few comments on that
1. Their actual influence is in proportion to their support. If larger parties magnify this in order to get their manifesto implemented/grubby hands on power then that is their perogative and is an expression of the will of the people who voted for them. in other words, what you are seeing is the will of the people who voted for the larger parties being represented through the actions of the smaller party. In practice, you very rarely see the tail wagging the dog. In most cases the parliamentary arithmitic is pretty limited and the options for a smaller party are also limited. Their bargaining chip is to refuse to form a government and that really is an electoral nuclear option and would be punished by the voters in most cases. i've seen this, and the chagrin of their supporters when 20% of their platform gets green lighted, many times. For example the Greens in the last Fianna Fail government or the Lib Dems in London today. If the religious nut-jobs in Israel get a better deal it's because BiBi doesn't mind giving them what they want. Perhaps he even agrees with most of it.
2. The obvious corrolary to your complaint is that in your system the large parties have too much influence. If people had real choice they would have fewer votes.
3. The undue influence issue arises in your system too. You have senators for Boeing, for JP Morgan and so on.
I mean really, I learned pretty quickly when my son was 2 that to control him you need to frame the questions. By 3 he had it figured out. I'm not sure what's taking you guys so long.
Again, the conflation
(#291906)I agree with your first paragraph. But neither the 2-party nor the parliamentary system is free from corruption, so let's not confuse the issue.
"I don't want us to descend into a nation of bloggers." - Steve Jobs
No, but all Big Company Corp needs to do
(#291907)in the US is buy both parties and your hands are tied.
In a system with a lower bar to ballot access and proportional representation the people can quickly punish that sort of behaviour.
Sadly they don't always choose to, but that is another problem.
Not sure where the parliamentary angle comes in. A parliamentary system can be two party too. More or less inevitable after a few cycles of first past the post I would think.
In Italy, the way it works is you just buy a coalition.
(#291908)Since a coalition (i.e. parliamentary majority) is constitutionally required in order to form a government, what you have essentially is a 2-party system after the fact...that is, you have MOPs representing the governing coalition on one hand, and MOPs representing the out of power minority on the other.
This setup gives a great deal of power to third-party (or 15th-party) spoilers...a small group of representatives willing to form a coalition. Third party spoilers are quite a bit easier to buy than an entire governing coalition...buy the spoiler, you buy the government. The net result is that Italian politics is a bewildering, byzantine clusterfork of hidden negotiations, backroom deals, corruption, bribery & conflict of interest as most of the important decisions involving "governing" are actually made out of sight of the public.
M Aurelius was probably right.
I refer the honourable gentleman
(#291909)to the point numbered "1." above.
Italy is Italy. The major parties are as much of a circus as the minor ones. You will need to explain why other PR systems aren't similar.
On backroom deals I would suggest you now have the same thing happening in the US, it's just more orderly and with less oportunity for you to break up the monopoly of power by starting a political party, posting an ex pornstar Mussolini relative for candidate etc...
I guess you guys are more like China than Italy.
Of course, I want to make ckear that I am not saying that a proportional representation voting system kills corruption. It most certainly does not. I jus think it is a more finely calibrated tool for reflecting the will of the people, which is a good in and of itself in a moral system where we value democracy. In adition i think it gives more levers to the people to change the direction of the country. I'll claim an additional side benefit - it reduces the sense of disenfanchisement since people can see someone supporting their views run for election and, given a reasonable number of seats per constituency, have a realistic chance to see them elected.
I wonder how the house/senate would be broken down now if you had had PR for a generation. What would be the parties in the houses adn at what levels of representation. Interesting thought experiment.
rise of strong regionally based parties would be natural
(#291911)I would have thought that the rise of strong regionally based parties would be the 'natural outgrowth' for politics in such a large federal system as the USA.
I'm not advocating a third party. But I think it strange that there is so much resistance to the idea. I think in Egypt recently there were 13 candidates for president.
Sometimes third parties in parliamentary systems do hold undemocratic sway. Sometimes that's good. I don't want the 51% lording it over the 49%. A third party can be effective in stopping bad things from happening. I'm thinking of the role of BQ in Canada a few years back. And other times besides with NDP.
You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it. - Ho Chi Minh
That statement is inaccurate
(#291919)The two party system is due to the fact that our voting method is first past the post. This is called Duverger's Law.
With respect to the "decidedly undemocratic effect" of a minor party having influence, it can be no worse than the influence that the very conservative primary voters have on the Republicans. This influence is hidden because the coalition is done before the election, not after.
Believe it or not, most Republicans are decent people. They just happen to elect bat-merde crazy nutjobs.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
Fair Enough
(#291885)I think the validity of the Nader example is limited. Nader is a one-off, not really a party builder at all. Also, voting for Nader in a swing state like Florida was definitely counterproductive to the goals one would assume of Nader voters. But was it counterproductive elsewhere? I am not convinced.
Your point on primary challengers is a good one. The Tea Party strategy has been effective in that domain and is worth learning from. That said, the arc of the Tea Party has yet to play out fully, and while it offers lessons, I am not sure it offers a sustainable template. We'll see.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
You Have Heard it From Me, And Will Hear it for the Next 5 Weeks
(#291781)...swollow your oh so sweet & tasty moral self righteousness and Vote for, and enthusiastically support, the re-election of President Obama.
After 8 years of Bush the Foolish, unnecessary and/or wrongly waged war, a trillion dollars of added debt, tax cuts for the wealthiest...and people want a repeat of this? We've been here before!
You may be willing to see your country and your future washed down the drain so that you can maintain some theoretical purity...I call it narcissism and some false self regard higher than simple reality.
Play with fire, it is your future and your children's you are ruining.
Have fun in your hard bed of misspent votes.
Best Wishes, Traveller
I think the point...
(#291783)...is that unnecessary war will continue, as will debt and advantages for the rich and so on.
Not to mention:
A man has the right to decide not to be a party to these things. Were I in Ohio I am not sure I would agree with Stin, but I certainly respect the guy.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
I Agree, I Agree, And On November 7, I Will be Writing Letters
(#291786)...I will in good faith and open honesty, go after Mr. Obama and this Administration like foaming, fleck mouthed Junk Yard Dog.
They will hear from me and they will hear from me and they will hear from me...
On November 7.
Best Wishes, Traveller
I would add the banks/Treasury
(#291787)and Simpson-Bowles to that list.
And what they all have in common
(#291793)is that they're popular with the public. A party can go against the public on a few issues, but if you want to lose the Presidency and both houses then just oppose every popular position out there.
There are limits to what you can do politically given the views of the American public.
I blame it all on the Internet
Huh?
(#291803)The TSA is popular? Who knew?
Drones over American soil are popular? Really?
Keystone XL is popular? How come Obama is not taking an electoral hit for suspending it? On the contrary, he will almost certainly approve it after the election. That's the very definition of doing something unpopular.
Drilling in national parks? (not just federal land) Most people are not even aware of this travesty.
Please.
I am not a pessimist. I am an incompetent optimist.
Yup, popular
(#291806)Keystone XL pipeline
TSA
Drones in the ME
Drones in the US - plurality approves
Support for offshore drilling and fracking
I don't like it either, but it doesn't make much sense to ignore it.
I blame it all on the Internet
I have to conclude
(#291782)that you've never actually read this blog. There's been plenty of liberal criticism of Obama.
But feel free to vote third party. It's an easy way to feel superior to the two major parties without actually changing anything.
I blame it all on the Internet
So far I've been proven right
(#291811)Based on the responses here. Suck it up and vote for the Democrat.
You'd also think that I alone hold the keys to the White House. This is an amazing development, let me tell you. As one of over 5,000,000 Ohio voters, I alone hold the decisive vote (because we know for certain that Ohio will decide the election). I'll be soliciting bids to change my vote. So put your money where your mouth is. Determine the odds that my vote will help elect Romney and then determine how much money you'd be willing to give up to keep that from happening.
I'm genuinely curious if anyone has ran the numbers. What are the odds of me voting for a minor party candidate enough to tip the election in Romney's favor? Nate Silver et al. puts it at around 1 in 10 million.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
Time to shut the do' on that line of thinking
(#291822)Every vote we take, and every vote we don't make are important Stine, we've got lurkers here.
We've got lurkers and your vote is just too darn important to throw away, look forward Stine, look forward.
"I’m to believe that North Korea is so dangerously unhinged that they would attack without warning – yet so meek and easily cowed that they will sit quietly and not retaliate when we start bombing them."
Major Kong
By not voting for the lesser of two evils,
(#291824)you are voting for the greater evil. I understand that it's disappointing and rather icky that our political system is set up this way, but our political system is set up this way.
I absolutely agree with most of the criticisms of the Obama administration on civil rights & human rights grounds, and with the need for greater institutional reform, real economic reform, etc. But none of those reform efforts are going *anywhere* if you can't win national office with a reform agenda. And you can't win national office by protest voting for spoiler candidates...instead, you have to either find ways to pressure one of the major parties to vote your way, or you have to foment a split and takeover of one of the major parties by a third party.
I'd start by identifying candidates who support your positions, but who are also moderate enough to work with one of the major parties. You also need PACs, outreach, education, a voice in the media, etc. in order to help broaden the appeal of those positions. Because here's the thing: if there's no broad support for a set of positions, simply voting for those positions is at best a waste of time, and at worst it's a gimme for the opposition party's far worse positions.
M Aurelius was probably right.
I do want to make something clear
(#291842)I do feel superior to the Democratic and Republican Parties. I'd hope that we all do.
I do *not* feel superior to any of the commenters here for my decision to vote for someone not of a major party. I truly hope that everyone here will vote for, when looking at the names on their ballot, will vote for the person they believe will best represent their views. For many of you, that's Obama. More power to you. Hold your head up high, fill in that oval for the electors for Barack H. Obama, II and Joseph R. Biden, Jr. and be proud of it. For some of you that's Romney. Great for you as well.
What I hope people won't do is simply vote for Obama because they believe that's the only thing they can do to stop Romney (or vice versa). I think that's throwing in the towel and surrendering to a urine-poor electoral system that seeks to give us a narrow set of choices so that we have to settle for less than what we deserve.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
Here's my point
(#291860)simply voting third party will do nothing to improve the system. I'm not sure if you remember Ross Perot, he got closer than anyone since Teddy Roosevelt. And after his attempt, what changes got made?
If you want to make changes, pick a party closest to your views and get involved in the primaries. But you'll still have to compromise, that's the way politics works.
I blame it all on the Internet
I do remember ol Ross
(#291924)I think what he ended up doing was getting people to talk about the deficit. He raised issues that the major players ignored and got people talking about them.
Ok, maybe now I'm seeing the disconnect. One the most important things I'd like to change is to get rid of first past the post voting and the two party system it creates. As I've stated before, if Mitt Romney could somehow mandate a change to proportional representation and an alternative voting method, I'm voting for him. No other questions asked. I'd be willing to give up *a lot* to get it.
There is no vehicle in a major party to reduce the influence of major parties. That's the dilemma.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
The debt and deficit?
(#291931)You must be joking. Politicians and pundits love nothing better than talking about the debt and deficit.
It's the central conceptual tool against expanding social programs and for cutting them.
The richest country in the history of the world has been entirely broke ever since I started paying attention to politics.
Talking about the deficit was nothing special. Perot's contribution, if there was any, was his weird combo of being anti-NAFTA, pro-choice, pro-EPA, but Republican on every other issue.
Haven't seen Revolution, but electricity
(#291762)is necessary to any modern ICU engine to function. Diesel engines are fired by gas compression rather than a spark ignition from a sparkplug, so in theory they could work with no electric current...but something has to turn it over to get it started in the first place. Usually that means battery power running an electric starter. There's also the problem of fuel feeding...even if you find a diesel passenger car that you can turn over by popping the clutch (a Mercedes sedan or something), you'd have to make sure it has mechanical fuel injection (i.e. the entire fuel system must be mechanical). Also you need a mechanical cooling system (a lot of modern cars use an electric radiator fan). I don't know the premise of the show, but it it involves something like "electromagnetism no longer functions" then it'd be pretty tough to find an all-mechanical car with a transmission that you could use to do a rolling start.
We're gonna be watching Dexter and Homeland, the former to see how well the writers dig themselves out of last season, the latter to see if the writers can meet or exceed the awesome first season. Yes, I know some of the storylines already, but I've kept myself mostly unspoiled.
The Walking Dead...we might drop in now and then, but last season was dumb dumb head extraordinaire.
M Aurelius was probably right.
Unfortunately for their premise
(#291765)if electromagnetism stopped working there's be nothing to hold molecules together. Or to hold electrons in atoms.
I blame it all on the Internet
Best part...
(#291769)let's preserve the "secret" to its interruption on a USB flash drive.
Genius, I tells ya'.
Ha
(#291771)I haven't seen the show, but that's pretty funny.
I blame it all on the Internet
Yeah, lame
(#291775)But it's a genre I enjoy, so they've got me for now.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
Total protonic reversal. -nt-
(#291788).
M Aurelius was probably right.
They haven't said
(#291778)Which is why I'm holding out hope for a good reason why electricity doesn't work anymore. As others have said here, the fact that a USB stick somehow gives people power is a bad omen.
I used to watch Dexter, but I stopped watching after Season 4 and never got back into it. I have Season 5 on DVD (and bought it the day it came out), but I've yet to pop it in.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
Maybe some kind of EMP field
(#291789)that disables electronics, some kind of satellite network monkeying with the earth's magnetic field? Now I'm curious enough to try to find out if it's anything more thought out than just a convenient plot device.
I think the real mystery is why most of the iPhone and iPad owners are still alive. I mean, no more wifi and cell networks, the end of texting, no more touch screens, you'd think there'd be mass suicides for weeks....
M Aurelius was probably right.
I hate to tell you guys
(#291791)but this has a strong smell of "it was all a dream" as the resolution device.
I blame it all on the Internet
I think it is a CPD field
(#291826)I'm another one underimpressed with Revolution: not so much for its Silly Science premise (with plot holes the size of the Lincoln Tunnel); but the fact that the "post-apocalyptic society" has already been done to death on TV; the British Survivors, Falling Skies, The Walking Dead (where it's been done past death!) - even JJ Abrams isn't able, in this case, anyway, to make it into something less trite.
Tonight?
(#291766)The Simpsons, Bob's Burgers and Homeland. That last one in particular.
Have to tell you though...we were all pretty disappointed in Revolution.
Anyway, my TV season starts with Justified.
The Ads For "Revolution" Just Rubbed Me The Wrong Way
(#291772)Plus the promos were failing the "willing suspension of disbelief" test for me--an EMP event (or something similar to it) would be bad, but nowhere near that bad. . .and there would be a *lot* of guns and ammo left in the US after that. I'll take a pass for now and maybe try it later if it lasts and I hear good things about it.
I was also going to pass on "Last Resort" because of the creepy Facebook ads and my impression that it was going to be yet another US bashing show, but I DVR'd the first hour and my dad said it was pretty good, so I'll check it out. "Elementary" (the Sherlock Holmes re-imagining with Lucy Liu as Watson) was fun and got the feel of the Sherlock Holmes legend right while managing the era transplant competently.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
Alas,
(#291779)these days I watch Doctor Who and not much else. An irregular work schedule will do that to you.
"I've been on food stamps and welfare. Anybody help me out? No!" Craig T. Nelson (6/2/2009)
Couple shows
(#291785)Sons of Anarchy and Grimm. There are a few others but most of those half suck so I don't care if I miss a few. Grimm isn't even all that good but I'm a sucker for the whole 'alternate humans' genre. Not so much the super-hero stuff but the more mythological/folklore based tuff.
In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome.
The Good Wife--Legal Show (if only because it is on after...
(#291805)...Sunday night football). But it is fun to me. If not Sunday night football, then it is on after The Amazing Race.
These are about the only normal TV Shows I watch, and even these are hit and miss.
I did see two good movies this weekend: The Band's Visit, in Arabic, English and Hebrew, which one might think would make it pretty hard to follow, but not so. A mid-Eastern movie full of human beings...like the Iranian movie, A Separation...this is something one should see, (though a little slow at times...like real life)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1032856/
Also Miss Bala, in Spanish and English, but without subtitles, so one can struggle with this movie, almost true, about a Mexican Beauty Queen forced into the Cartel. Some people have complained that the movie is grim...well, being in the Cartel is pretty grim.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1911600/
Best Wishes, traveller
I don't think there's a single new show I'm interested in.
(#291820)The new comedies on Fox look reasonably OK. Revolution just looks awful from the ads I've seen. I might check out that submarine one at some point, but that's solely because of an unresolved fixation on Frank Pembleton.
Far as old shows, I've already fallen behind on Boardwalk Empire, and find myself unmotivated to catch up; I'll have to find some method of watching Homeland S2, since I don't have Showtime; there's 30 Rock, Parks & Rec, and New Girl (which is actually pretty funny!); and ... uh ... not much else on the horizon. Louie just finished S3, Justified doesn't start until the winter, and no more Breaking Bad until next year.
Maybe I'll read a book.
A man must be orthodox upon most things, or he will never even have time to preach his own heresy.
New Girl?
(#291839)The old lady likes that one.
Myself? I'd consider watching it if the show was 22 minutes of Zooey Deschanel naked, but alas, it is not. So I don't watch.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
It's hard to think of someone more overrated than Zooey
(#291849)Deschanel. As the Hollywood "alt girl," she doesn't hold a candle to the alt girl of the 1990s, Janeane Garofalo. Compare Garofalo to Deschanel: one was caustic, witty, intellectual (and made a younger me feel an inordinate amount of lust), whereas the other is... quirky. Oh, look! She's silly and a free spirit!
Bah! Less quirky, more caustic intellectual, says I.
[Wanders away shaking cane angrily.]
But Garofalo is not attractive
(#291925)She's annoying as hell, too.
Deschanel is on par with Sarah Sliverman, another attractive lady that has done nothing interesting, commercially speaking.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
I am not understanding the nonsense combination of letters
(#291930)appearing under your name. Garofalo unattractive? Are you mad?
I gotta say I'm with ya here, Andrew
(#291933)I too used to think Garofalo was hot. I haven't seen her on the tube in years though, so my agreement is conditional. She could be bald or 400 pounds at present for all I know.
In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome.
She's actually lost weight recently, which
(#291959)makes her appear a bit gaunt compared to her days of greatness in the late 90s. Still one of the better comediennes out there.
Not my style
(#291936)I don't go for the Suicide Girls look. Get rid of the tattoos and the emo-rim glasses and I might be willing to reconsider.
Until then I'm going to enjoy the old lady first and foremost, the girl who is doing those Wendy's commercials (apparently named Morgan Smith Goodwin, who is from Alabama, which makes her slightly less attractive), and Melissa Rauch (better known as Bernadette Rostenkowski from TV's Big Bang Theory) as my holy trinity.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
Since Her Brain Noticeably Detached From Her Mouth, Yes
(#291939)The Nazi salute tic isn't terribly attractive, either.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
"Garofalo unattractive" It's a matter of fact
(#291963)What's next, you going to attempt to claim that Angelina Jolie is attractive?
And since every college instructor I know IRL knows that SNSD > PSY, here's Taeyeon.
"I’m to believe that North Korea is so dangerously unhinged that they would attack without warning – yet so meek and easily cowed that they will sit quietly and not retaliate when we start bombing them."
Major Kong
Silverman's overrated
(#291943)-- or was, for a minute there -- but she delivered one of the top 2 or 3 versions of the joke in The Aristocrats. And there were some real doozies in there.
A man must be orthodox upon most things, or he will never even have time to preach his own heresy.
I Saw Sarah Last Month....
(#291949)...in a small theater where she was trying out new material for a Pilot or Small Movie...sigh, even in old blue sweats and a a t-shirt, perky nipples poking out...she was hot, funny and fabulous.
I met her briefly, 15 seconds, I was tongue tied...lovely Jewess she was.
A Superior Hotness...to me. I was surprised.
Traveller
Ok Hobbesist, so are you
(#291847)recommending 'New Girl'? IMHO, Zooey Deschanel is a close second to Natalie Portman for the title of 'most overrated while actually being quite horrible' actresses on the big and little screens. If you tell me Zooey D actually makes a facial expression then I'll give an episode or two a shot.
In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome.
Deschanel's better than I'd expected
(#291854)but the show's good because of the guys who play Schmidt and Nick; they're hilarious. It took awhile for the show to figure it out (which coincided with Zooey becoming a part of an ensemble rather than the focus of the show), but once they did, it turned into one of the funnier network comedies, imho.
A man must be orthodox upon most things, or he will never even have time to preach his own heresy.
Modest sight of relief
(#291829)ISM manufacturing index is back into positive territory. Most importantly, new orders and employment are also up someone substantially. Although construction declined for September, it was revised upward for July and August. Year over year private construction spending on both residential and non-residential are up. Initial Unemployment claims are also in the range of 375k, which isn't really territory for robust payroll gains, but still points to fairly positive numbers. Once QE3 starts to kick in, we should, on the whole, be okay.
(Also: on my end, tenure-track postings are once again up year-over-year, and I've also hired an interview consultant--turns out, shockingly, that I ramble).
What a Bracing Act of Admission...However, I See You as...
(#291835)...concise and very specifically on point. I seldom see you ramble, or, wander all over the conservational table as many of us do.
Maybe you just write better that you speak, and you write damned well...not a bad or even uncommon phenomena, but I admire your willingness to look honestly at yourself and take positive steps to address this flaw, if this assessment is true.
I suppose that might be my only caution, we are our own worst critics, and while everyone's personal speaking style might benefit from a polishing and tightening up...remaining Authentic is also a necessary goal.
Best Wishes, Traveller
Does the consultant
(#291836)specialize in academic interviews? What counts as rambling in an MBA interview would probably be seen as rudely terse in an academic setting.
Yes--purely academic
(#291843)which also has the advantage of being much cheaper than an interview consultant for the corporate world would be.
Outside the hard sciences, precision is not a virtue.
(#291848)-
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
Hockey stick graph
(#291841)Number of people subjected to warrantless surveillance of their personal communications. Some people will vote for Obama because they like this stuff. Some will vote for him claiming it's despite this stuff. Their ballots will be indistinguishable, will send identical messages, and those messages will be in favor.
What message does voting for Johnson or Stein send?
(#291850)..and to whom?
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
It's more the message
(#291863)it doesn't send. Whoever wins will claim a "mandate" for their program, and the bigger margin they run up, the more solid the mandate. I'm not interested in endorsing that graph.
And I'm saying that
(#291913)the graph would look no different under an actual Johnson or Stein administration. The plain fact that neither of them will ever be able to mount a serious challenge for the top spot affords them a license to make policy proposals they wouldn't touch with a 7' barge pole should they actually find themselves with a realistic shot at the presidency.
So, if you truly want to change that graph you would do better to pick a tent and piss out rather than in. But choose wisely grasshopper.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
Ok, I'll bite
(#291927)Hypothetically, let's say I take your advice and get active in the Democratic Party. Great. It's 2013, Obama won, and my major beef with him is that warrantless surveillance has increased quite a bit. By what tool do I use to convince Obama to reverse the graph? I honestly don't know. Should I write letters to him? Should I donate to the DNC? Should I try to elect Democratic representatives that will push for more regulation of such surveillance up to and including primary challenges? All of the above?
Ok, now it's 2015 and I'm backing...oh...Dennis Kucinich who is making a comeback and running for President. I'm doing everything I can to get him elected, but lo and behold, he doesn't win. Instead Hillary Clinton won the nomination and has said she's going to continue Obama's policies on the matter. So I'm now supposed to...support Hillary Clinton and keep working on this in the 2018 midterms? I'm honestly not sure here either.
Anyway, I'm getting a little carried away. I think what you and most of the other Democrats here are saying is something like the following (please correct me where I'm wrong):
1) Try as hard as you can to get a major party to think your way on an issue.
2) If you lose, try again next time, but in the meantime you must back your party's candidate at any cost because voting for anyone else is an exercise in futility.
To me that sounds a lot like "It is extremely important to me that my party's candidate take position X on issue Y, but don't worry because I'm not going withhold my support over it."
I'm wondering where you guys draw the line. I mean if the Democrats nominated Joe Manchin for President are you going to happily go along with that? Does it depend on who the Republicans nominate? I'm just wondering at what point you throw up your hands and say "No, I can't vote for this guy". I'm not trying to be provocative or anything, I just wonder.
I think another of our disconnects is that every election feels to me like Jim DeMint v. Scott Brown. Sure one candidate is better than the other and it's obvious which one is which, but I don't agree with the better of the two enough to justify voting for him. How bad does it need to get until you guys feel the same way? Granted, I feel this way because a lot of my priorities are completely outside the mainstream. I could talk about parliamentary rules, alternative voting methods, intellectual property law, and all kinds of things like that every day on here. I never get to because no one here really cares about those things. I can live with having unpopular ideas or priorities, but I'll be a monkey's uncle if I have to pretend I don't care about them.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
It's a little different. More like 2) You can vote for
(#291928)someone else, but that person hasn't got a chance in hell of winning, and you're basically casting a vote for the *opponent* of the guy you'd have to hold your nose to vote for.
Put another way, only someone who can get 50+1% of the vote can become President (or Senator, or Representative). If you want things to change, you're going to have to make it so your *issues* can get 50+1 support. Voting for someone who can't win is a way to help guarantee someone who can win, will. Generally the last person you'd vote for.
M Aurelius was probably right.
I don't see how that's any different than my #2
(#291935)If you actually look at the mathematics of such statement you're wrong. Let's say the candidates are Obama, Romney, and let's go crazy, Lady Gaga.
Here's the score so far:
Obama: 100
Romney: 95
Gaga: 5
If I vote for Lady Gaga, the vote is
Obama: 100
Romney: 95
Gaga: 6
If we eliminate Gaga completely the vote is:
Obama: 100
Romney: 95
Which means that my voting for Gaga is more akin to not voting at all than voting for Romney. A vote for Gaga does not help Obama, but it also doesn't help Romney. It's neutral for purposes of Obama or Romney winning.
To what point is your advice based on my being in Ohio? I can tell you that Obama doesn't have a chance in hell of winning in Utah. Romney will probably break a modern-day record (I'd expect him to get near 80% there) for the vote differential. Am I still obligated to vote for Obama if I moved to Utah or does it matter anymore?
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
You math funny.
(#291938)Let's try that again, using math that maths better.
Say there are 100 voters. Say you vote for Obama.
Obama: 49
Romney: 48
Gaga: 1
No vote: 2
Obama wins. Now say you vote Gaga.
Obama: 48
Romney: 48
Gaga: 2
No vote: 2
Uh, oh. Run-off election. Now say you vote Gaga, and Catchy decides not to vote at all:
Obama: 47
Romney: 48
Gaga: 2
No vote: 3
Romney wins.
The point being, if your inclination is to prefer Obama's policies over Romney's, by voting for someone who has no chance at all of winning (or of influencing policy), you are effectively shifting votes in favor of your *least* preferred policies. Same goes for those who abstain from voting.
Here's the principle: you must vote for candidates that have a chance of winning, or you are throwing away your vote. In general this means you must vote for candidates whose views are as close as possible to yours while still being able to garner an electoral majority. If you ignore the requirement to garner a majority, then you will likely never see your preferred policies come to light, and your vote will actually tend to promote your least favorite policies.
M Aurelius was probably right.
Is that really the principle?
(#291955)"you must vote for candidates that have a chance of winning, or you are throwing away your vote. In general this means you must vote for candidates whose views are as close as possible to yours while still being able to garner an electoral majority."
I don't think you really mean this.
1984: Reagan vs Mondale. Given the poll numbers and the margin of error, by October anyone knowing basic stats could tell you that Mondale had no chance of winning by any reasonable definition. The only candidate able to garner an electoral majority was Reagan; therefore, he is the only candidate satisfying Jordan's Principle, and you would insist that everyone vote for Reagan.
1992: Bush vs Perot vs Dukakis. It was clear by October that no one was going to get a majority. Therefore no candidate met the Jordan Criteria, and you would insist that everyone stay home, because voting for anyone at all would "actually tend to promote your least favorite policies".
Perhaps you need some further qualifiers on your Principle; e.g. there are multiple candidates with a chance of winning; and some corrections, e.g. plurality rather than majority, etc. A definition of what counts as a "chance of winning" and a statement of when this probability is measured would also help.
By October?
(#291960)Couple points: yes I meant plurality, not majority. Mondale had a reasonable shot at winning a plurality up through November, assuming turnout numbers and so forth changed. It'd be silly to use poll margins as a reason to vote or not to vote.
M Aurelius was probably right.
The results were 59-41.
(#291967)The margin of error on polls is typically 4% with a 95% confidence interval, and the result would have had to change by 9%, more than twice the margin. The chances of Mondale winning were something <<1%.
By October. It was reasonable to support his campaign.
(#291968)It was more than reasonable to support his party, which did have a chance to beat Reagan if not that year then later. You're trying to splice this down to differences of a few percentage points in the final weeks of an election: I'm talking about the difference between getting 40% of the vote vs. getting 0.3% of the vote.
It's reasonable to think that a party commanding 40% of a vote could make some adjustments and cobble a new coalition together in order to win a plurality. It isn't reasonable to think a fringe candidate, leader of his own fringe party, is going to do anything of the kind.
M Aurelius was probably right.
Hey, we need your advice
(#291977)Recent Senate poll results in Missouri:
Democratic Claire McCasill 46%
Republican Todd Akin 40%
Libertarian Jonathan Dine 9%
Apparently 9% of the people find some of Akin's positions objectionable. However, it's been suggested that voting third party is irresponsible. Despite some stupid statements about rape and abortion (which are not very relevant, since there is no chance that rape will be made legal, or abortion made illegal) and a generally miserably anti-libertarian record, the fact is Akin is less anti-libertarian than McCasill, who is horrible on a whole slew of issues.
So...do you think that that 9% should vote for Akin? He's closer to their position.
I think Akin opened his mouth a bit too late in the process
(#291979)to really open the door to a challenger. Libertarians would have better luck primarying him next go-round. If Akin wins, you can bet he's going to tell Dine voters to pound sand for the next two years. Voting Dine will set back their agenda one way or another.
The wrinkle is that Akin appears to be a misogynistic dolt. Sometimes it's better to lose if winning means electing a misogynistic dolt.
M Aurelius was probably right.
Aha! Finally
(#292029)So you've got a limit after all, it happens to be at misogynistic dolts. Mine happens to be at wiretap-happy torturer-protecting drug warriors who greatly expand the scope of government.
But purists who promise reform they'll never deliver,
(#292043)those are just fine?
M Aurelius was probably right.
Indeed
(#292134)Better than a pragmatist who'll never even bother promising it.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
Better still a pragmatist who promises to work towards it,
(#292145)and looks for ways to make it happen. (For the record, prosecuting the previous President might be legally and morally the right thing to do, but politically it could without too much trouble destroy the union...I can appreciate the hesitation. There's also such a thing as the pardon power, not to mention prosecutorial discretion. Granted the latter has often been associated with abuse of power, but it is legitimate in the vast majority of cases, and it is legal.)
M Aurelius was probably right.
Yes that is a real and serious danger
(#292197)especially in your devided nation (or so it seems to me).
I think he would have fulfilled his duties if he had started at the bottom, the bleeding edge if you will, and worked up, even a layer or two. There was a time when following orders didn't cut it.
I'm willing to admit your scenario is possible
(#291957)However unlikely (as I said previously, Nate Silver put it at 1 in 10,000,000 that a single vote would swing an election). Three points and then I've run my course on this for the near future.
1) In the case that the election hinges on my vote, then I'll take the heat. You can come to my house and spend the next four years reminding me it was my fault, I'll even pay for you to fly out and for lodging. You can have the spare room downstairs.
2) I can't control catchy's vote. Catchy will vote as catchy wishes. My vote for Gaga does not induce others to vote for anyone in particular or to vote at all.
3) If you're so worried that I'm going to throw the election to Romney with my idiotic notions of voting for a minor party, try to get a voting method that doesn't allow for spoilers. Here's a really easy one: Approval Voting. Everyone votes for as many candidates as they want and then whomever has the most votes wins. I'd vote for Obama (and Stein and Johnson and Alexander) under that system. Can we agree on that? Why aren't Democrats working to make sure I can't spoil the election? Shouldn't that be a major goal?
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
The likelihood that your vote will swing the election
(#291961)is immaterial...the math is the same whether there are 100 voters in your state or 100 million. As you said in 2) your vote for one candidate doesn't induce any other voters...I assume the reverse is true, and the number of other voters and their likelihood of voting a certain way has no impact on your choice. Similarly, I can try to convince you to change your choice whether your vote actually throws the election or not. The point remains that it could.
I don't have a problem with approval voting in theory, though I'm not sure how easy it would be to implement in practice (vote fraud!!). More importantly, I'm surprised to hear that you'd vote for Obama under that system, provided you could also vote for your first choices. I fail to see much daylight between your choice under that system and your choice under the current system, other than timing, given that the outcome would be the same. You can work throughout the primary process to promote candidates more to your liking.
If you'd said proportional voting, I could understand the preference, although proportional voting is in my mind just a way to take coalition building out of the voters' hands. If Gary Johnson wins seats in parliament, he's still going to have to compromise with people (and policies) you find detestable in order to implement any policies of his own.
M Aurelius was probably right.
I think the underlying problem here
(#291972)is that people get frustrated and don't want compromise or coalitions. They just want things fixed. There aren't any shortcuts available in democratic countries. Accommodations have to be made, and people get tired of accommodating.
The problem is that's not how politics usually works. It does happen sometimes, like when there are very serious economic problems, but the lack of compromise usually leads to as many problems as it fixes.
I blame it all on the Internet
I think they've been pretty clear on where the line is.
(#291951)No matter how bad the democrat, as long as the republican is worse you should vote for the democrat. Democrats want to exterminate the Armenians? That is in and of itself not a reason not to vote for them apparantly, since the republicans might want to exterminate the Armenians and call them rude names.
In fact, if the Rs and Ds get to gether and agree that the Armenians should go and that they will both propose it so there is no choice on the matter, you should still vote D, because the world is completely remade after every election, there is no such things as a duopoly, parties never collude and rude names make baby Jesus cry.
In fact, the only thing worse than voting for extermination and rude names is voting for a 3rd party who doesn't want either extermination or rude names. People who do that have demonstrated that they understand that rude names are bad but still go ahead and vote for them by voting against them. They are traitors. If only they would take the responsible adult position, swallow their vain pride and get on with the unfortunate business of exterminating the Armenians, the rude names could be avoided.
It's not R's and D's, it's what can win elections.
(#291952)If you want to set policy in a democracy, you have to win elections. It's that simple.
You'll note that the US is a country which, just a few short years ago, voted to reelect an administration that had lied its way into a horrendously destructive invasion of Iraq. Assuming you oppose policies like that, the only way to effectively change them is to...win a plurality of the same voting public. Voting for third parties who get tiny fractions of the popular vote accomplishes nothing.
M Aurelius was probably right.
What did you accomplish in 2004?
(#291956)"Assuming you oppose policies like that, the only way to effectively change them is to...win a plurality of the same voting public. Voting for third parties who get tiny fractions of the popular vote accomplishes nothing."
In 2004, I lost 99.7-0.3. You lost 52-48. We both lost. Did you somehow accomplish something that I didn't?
I had a chance of winning, and you didn't? -nt-
(#291958).
M Aurelius was probably right.
That affected policy...how?
(#291966)Actually, after the fact, we can say that your chances were zero. That's true in any probability problem once you know the result. So all you really had was the temporarily reasonable belief that you had a chance.
Under winner takes all, 48% is no better than 0.3%.
That would be true
(#291974)except for the whole other branch of government known as Congress, where an absolute majority is not enough to pass everything one would like.
I blame it all on the Internet
That would be persuasive except for the candidate's positions
(#291973)War? Obama wants to pressure Iran but won't commit to military action. Romney indicates that he will.
Torture? Obama signed an EO ending it. Romney has said he'll allow it.
Health care? Obama passed the PPACA, the Republican position is to repeal the entire thing.
Taxes? Obama wants to keep middle class taxes where they are, Romney wants deep cuts for the wealthy.
Social programs? Obama has said he wants to make unspecified changes, Romney wants to voucherize them all.
So sure, if you ignore the candidate's actual positions on issues than you can make silly comparisons about how alike they are.
I blame it all on the Internet
You are making nyoos's case for him
(#291976)On the issues you mentioned, Obama's stated position is just barely to the left of Romney. That's not an accident. The man's only principle is that he wants to be elected, and he knows that under the Jordan Principle (also known as Harleyism) that everyone to his left *must* vote for him. Therefore he moves as far as possible to the right without passing Romney, to increase the number of voters to his left.
If the Republicans become more extreme, the optimum strategy for any Democrat politician is to follow the Republicans to the right, because you've made an unconditional promise to vote for them unless they pass the Republicans in extremity.
????
(#291984)Ending torture is just to the left of reintroducing it? Passing the PPACA is just to the left of repealing it? Raising taxes on the wealthy is just to the left of lowering them? Keeping social programs intact with some modifications is just to the left of voucherizing them?
I think you need to recalibrate your scale here.
I blame it all on the Internet
On my scale it is
(#291988)Further left than ending torture is prosecuting those that engaged it in, contrary to federal laws that were on the books at the time the alleged actions occurred.
Further left than passing the PPACA is Medicare-for-all.
On taxes I suppose "further left" is to raise them more, but I wouldn't necessarily be for raising them more (cap gains? yeah, marginal rates for ordinary income, not at this time)
Further left than "intact with some modifications" is eliminating the wage base or better yet, folding Social Security and Medicare into regular income taxes.
I don't necessarily agree with all these, but there is something further left than the positions of Barack Obama.
I do want to remind you that the PPACA was largely the Republican answer to single-payer until about 4 years ago.
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
Of course there's more room
(#291992)in theory. But looking at where the spectrum is in American politics today is more realistic. You act like the President can wave a wand and make things happen, which is simply not true. Our political system requires compromise, and you seem to want to bypass that, but that's not how the system we have works.
To say torture/not torture is "just a bit" different is gross exaggeration. And I know you keep bringing up Medicare for all (which I support) but the idea that a congress that just barely passed the PPACA would agree to it is daydreaming.
Similarly, I'd love to see the elimination of carried interest and excessively favorable capital gains tax rates. But you're not going to get that with a Republican congress, and you won't get it without a Dem supermajority in the Senate. So why you expect Obama to sacrifice effort on those topics when there's no possible way of getting the votes for them seems strange to me.
I blame it all on the Internet
I know it isn't going to happen
(#291994)I just want him to say he's for it. That isn't too much to ask, is it?
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
It may be
(#291995)if staking out an unpopular position makes it difficult or impossible to accomplish other things.
I blame it all on the Internet
That's the point
(#292030)"But looking at where the spectrum is in American politics today is more realistic."
I think you ought to consider how the spectrum got where it is today. It's because Democrat politicians move to the right when the Republicans do, and they do that because it's a winning strategy with an electorate that believes they have to vote for the second worst candidate.
There's a reason Democrats did what they did
(#292031)and it was to start winning elections again. Your problem is with the American electorate because they support stuff you hate (as do I). I posted a comment to MA a few days ago where I linked to polls showing that a bunch of things he hated about Obama were politically popular.
Look, I really hate what Republicans have done over the last 30 years, but their whole "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery and Ignorance is Peace" propaganda operation has been remarkably effective. How you get working class people to hate unions is amazing in an abhorrent kind of way.
I blame it all on the Internet
Not Really
(#292032)Unions have a way of being insanely tone deaf regarding how their demands look to those on the outside.
I have a counterproposal for the NBA Players Union, by the way: First flopping offense, warning. Second offense, suspended for the season *with pay* (no cap relief, naturally). No salary impact on the player, so no grievance. Let's see how long it takes teams to start cracking down on the floppers when that happens.
Of course, tossing offenders into pits full of rabid honey badgers would seem to get around the union's objection, too. My plan is gaining momentum.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
And management doesn't?
(#292033)This is the propaganda I'm talking about - it makes everybody think the way a business owner does even though they're not business owners. It makes $60K for a teacher look excessive while increasing taxes 5% on a millionaire is putting them in the poor house.
Like I said, Republicans have been very effective at making wage slaves think they're part of the 1%. Sports figures are something like .05% of all union members, so they have absolutely nothing to do with normal labor issues.
I blame it all on the Internet
Agreed. There's a lot of false analogy going on here. -nt-
(#291991).
M Aurelius was probably right.
He didn't end it.
(#292034)he suspended it.
I'm not a US health insurance policy wonk, the PPACA seems like an improvement but seems like it's one gained by throwing big piles of cash at vested interests. Where costs will go is an open question.
The other stuff is a question of how hard and fast you march right. Faster might be better for the real left. The frog in the pot and all that. You don't seem to engage with the idea that you might be being played by the 2 parties and their corporate owners. Good cop/bad cop.
But, the torture thing. The global torture network that completely abrogated the concept of a rule of law (not only in the US, Western European govs were also dragged into this) and brought torture into the range of acceptable options for a state. A quiet little "stop that all of you" does not do it. I had hoped for a real change. Some asses in prison OR lifting the lid on everythingthat was done (like the rape of children in AG to pressure their parents). It would just do more damage to everyone for that to happen, but failing a classical judicial process a sort of truth commision would be the minimum.
Anyway, you've swapped torture for drone strikes, assiniation of american citizens and hugely expanded wiretapping.
Who knows, maybe unencumbered by a need to get reelected he might have a second term that actually delivers on hope and/or change. I doubt it. Anyway, "need" is one of the most overutilised words in our society. Obama doesn't need to get reelected. He might want to, but for me, punishing those who engaged in torturing their fellow human beings in order to make sure that the red line is redrawn bright and clear on the right side of torture, is more important than him being reelected.
Hey, if you want to trade in Obama
(#292037)who immediately signed an executive order to end torture and replace him with Romney who has said he wants to reinstate it, that's fine, but don't try to BS me and say that it's an issue that's important to you. Similarly, if you want to trade in Obama who has resisted committing to military action in Iran with Romney who has advocated - well, he's pretty much advocated every single thing that's more aggressive than Obama, that's your right as well.
Once again, I'm getting this weird "all or nothing" impression. Which means you'll get nothing.
I blame it all on the Internet
I think it would be better.
(#292054)It seems like it is a fight that is brewing and we will loose if the worlds dominant power can duck in and out of torture from one administration to the next. If the american people choose torture then so be it, that is democracy. The choice for Western Europe will be stark but at least clear.
So worse is better than better?
(#292056)How do people think themselves into pretzels like this?
M Aurelius was probably right.
If by a pretzel
(#292060)you mean other than a straight line between two points, I plead guilty.
Obama has made it so that torture is the perogative of the president in power. He suspended it and in doing so legitimised it to a degree. I would argue that it would be better to have lost or postponed that battle and in order to win it conclusively for another generation. I want the torture debate out in the open and an enduring decision made. A Church Comittee I suppose.
And if the torture side wins, then so be it. Let them out it in their laws and wear it on their chests with pride.
As a corollary, I understand, I think, why Obama did what he did. This went to the top of the previous administration. But i believe it was a very serious moral failing. He was handed a set of cards on assuming office where the only correct thing to do was to tackle this issue head on. Bottoms up if needs be, but from somewhere.
That phony reasoning lies in ribbons just up the thread.
(#292061)Issuing an Executive Order reinforcing the fact that all US personnel must obey US law, UCMJ law, the Army Field Manual, and treaty obligations under the Geneva Conventions and Conventions against torture is not some backdoor way to "legitimize" torture...unless passing all of those laws, regulations and treaties in the first place constitute a bass ackwards legitimization as well.
Laws don't legitimize the things they prohibit. Sorry. The pretzel logic & bad analogies have got to stop.
Declining to prosecute those who've broken the law is another story, but the EO you guys are talking about does not do that.
M Aurelius was probably right.
It's pretty simple,
(#292095)by declining to prosecute O has set a precedent. Not a legal one, but one none the less.
The laws you list already applied before the EO and before Bush II. The EO added nothing except making it clear that for the next 4 or 8 years torture shouldn't happen.
Both Bush and Obama decided not to apply them.
Bush said they didn't apply to the specific cases and Obama said they did but refused to actually apply them. There's a difference there, but if you live on the real world you might go cross eyed looking for it.
So why legitimised? The system as now applied is that a president can decide to apply laws on torture or not. A subsequent president will not hold him or his torturers accountable. The torturers in the US security services know this now as do future AGs etc.
For Pete's sake, Romney, you guys tell me, is already claiming he'd start torturing people again. As a campaign position. Does that not make my point?
It makes your point
(#292097)that Obama could have handled enforcing the laws on torture differently. It does not make the point that there's no difference between them or that it would be better for Romney to get elected.
I blame it all on the Internet
Executive order
(#292057)I'd appreciate a straight answer to the following multiple choice question:
(a) Torture is legal if the president approves it, and illegal if the president disapproves it.
(b) Torture is illegal and the president has no authority to approve or disapprove it.
I think you know the correct answer here. I realize Obama's intentions were (probably) good and he wanted to send a message that he's anti-torture. Personally. Under current conditions. However, he did two things.
1. By issuing the executive order banning torture, he effectively asserted that Presidents have the authority to disapprove.
2. By ordering a policy that Bush era torturers would not be prosecuted if they had higher level approval, he effectively asserted that Presidents have the authority to approve.
Obama's position is (a) above, and that is flat unacceptable. It doesn't matter whether he uses his discretion to not torture, having the discretion at all is a serious civil liberties violation all by itself. The "if" in his second action is particularly noxious, it would have been better to do a blanket pardon for all torturers than to endorse Bush's authority.
To take an analogy - in virtually all cases where adulterers are condemned to death by stoning in Iran, the Supreme Leader or other judicial authority issues a pardon/commutation - the equivalent of an executive order - as an expression of their personal benevolence and principles of Islamic forgiveness. That does not make their legal system OK.
Make the bad analogies stop!
(#292059)(a) Torture is legal if Congress approves it, and illegal if Congress disapproves it.
(b) Torture is illegal and Congress has no authority to approve or disprove it.
Making a law, signing a treaty, or issuing an order regarding torture is *not* the same thing as having discretion to authorize torture if you feel like it, any more than making laws or issuing federal guidelines involving murder is a backdoor way of saying Congress or the President can murder people. Did you actually read the EO? Seriously, the bad analogies are getting out of control.
Passing a law, or implementing that law in the federal code, or promulgating an order clarifying same, is nothing like "issuing a pardon." If it were, then all of the following acts would constitute "pardoning" torturers:
M Aurelius was probably right.
Read the last line
(#292150)of the EO:
In plain English: all of the above is enforced purely at my, Barack Obama's, discretion. If someone violates my order, I'll decide whether to hold them accountable, and (heh heh) I've never held anyone accountable before.
That line appears at the end of just about every Executive Order
(#292152)ever signed. It's standard language.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/25/executive-order-st...
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:Cp-WH58SVdQJ:www.justice.gov/...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment
Secretaries' and Directors' Orders use it too:
http://www.nps.gov/policy/dorders/dorder9.html
Governors also use it:
http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=16908
Executives cannot create sovereign law which they can then enforce.
M Aurelius was probably right.
That Graph is Soooo Depressing...(re Domestic & Foreign Spying)
(#291851)....I have repeatedly & recently driven by the new Spy Center being constructed in central Utah. What is interesting as this is being constructed is the newly added huge power lines carrying power into the complex to run all the information gathering, and worse, collating, array after array of computers...
I am told that this is enough electricity to run all of Salt Lake City every day. Hummmm
Here's the thing, if the government wants us, they can have us any time they wish.
Do I want to play a Dr. Spock role? I am getting old enough to maybe not care how thick my FBI file becomes.
A better America.
Best Wishes, Traveller
You have an FBI file?
(#291853)Well, I suppose all Westerners are filed, indexed, catalogued and categorised in some way or another (apart from illegal immigrants, maybe).
Why is this depressing? Its been going on for several decades. People volunteer their personal info on the Net, and on television. Its part of your culture.
There's a scheme on to do that here, but it will obviously fail.
literally anything can become right or wrong if the dominant class of the moment so wills it
I am a Former 60's Activist, So I don't Know, but I do Write...
(#291857)...a lot of letters, I attend rallies, here and abroad...so one presumes, with a shrug.
My problem is that my life is so good....just leave it all alone or....find some civil disobedience courage?
maybe in another 10 years.
Best Wishes, Traveller
Here ya go, Trav
(#291859)It's almost too easy!
Of course, if you don't already have a file, filling that out will probably open one.
ACLU wants Congress to enhance reporting requirements
(#291858)on pen register and trap and trace orders. I can get behind that...who should I vote for to ensure the best chance that Jerrold Nadler's bill or something like it gets meaningful support in the next few years?
M Aurelius was probably right.
food for thought
(#291896)*The GM Looks Sternly At The Munchkin*
(#291897)"No, I'm not going to let you make another character. You agreed to total random character generation in exchange for the two extra background options, and this is what you got. May God have mercy on your fuzzy soul."
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
Catchy, hey man, that ain't safe for work.
(#291914)Or anywhere else for that matter. Aaaaaaand I think I know that guy.
In the medical community, death is known as Chuck Norris Syndrome.
A man of many understated talents
(#291915)I didn't know you played the guitar.
Also, you need to make the pic smaller if you are going to use it as an avatar.
"Something I think most liberals don't understand is exactly how stupid many conservative leaders are." - Matt Yglesias
Aren't those "Rock Band" guitars?
(#291941)which means not really guitars at all.
I blame it all on the Internet
I'm excited for the debates!
(#291932).
What's the drinking game this year?
(#291934)Drink every time Romney says "Job Creators"?
The Constitution does not vest in Congress the authority to protect society from every bad act that might befall it. -- Clarence Thomas
2008's 1st debate destroyed me
(#291940)right before it started, someone made 'Joe the Plumber' a bottle finisher, and the first debate is when McCain really rolled him out.
I was on the floor about 40 minutes in.
I don't think I can watch em this year. I have too much work to do to get plastered in the middle of the week and they're absolutely unbearable sober.
Mariners To Move Safeco Field Fences In Next Season
(#291942)The response of Mariners' hitters to the news was dignified and subdued:
The reaction of the Mariners' pitching staff was likewise tasteful and professional:
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
OK, which one of you guys lives in MD?
(#291947)[link]
I blame it all on the Internet
Luntz's Focus Group Goes Heavily For Romney
(#292016)Wow, I bet the Democrats are glad that everyone agrees *those* don't mean anything.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
A republican's focus group goes for Romney?
(#292022)I'm shocked.
I blame it all on the Internet
If You Can Find One That Went The Other Way. . .
(#292024). . .I'll take a look.
The universe may well have been created without a point--that doesn't imply that we can't give it one.
Too hard to find one that wasn't upwind
(#292047)that soon after the low altitude merdestorm.
"I’m to believe that North Korea is so dangerously unhinged that they would attack without warning – yet so meek and easily cowed that they will sit quietly and not retaliate when we start bombing them."
Major Kong
Shows my wife and I have been watching lately:
(#292574)1. Breaking Bad; still rules.
2. Boss. Kelsey Grammar really is Shakespearean in the role; a cross between Richard III and Mayor Daley.
3. Boardwalk Empire; still dark, still beautiful, still very loosely based on fact.
4. Dexter. Season 6 was a disappointment, Season 7 is continuing the trajectory, still addicted.
4. Homeland; scared of a sophomore slump, but the Machurian candidate meme may rescue it.
5. Big Bang; it's like Meth, either you're on it or you're not. I gave it my teeth long ago.
6. Copper; beautiful, well-cast, well-researched. Wish it was a touch less formulaic.
7. Downton Abbey; what can I say? I love Julian Ffellowes. Like Jonathan Richman, I'm in love with the old world.
8. Southland; still the greatest cop show on TV even with its budget cut in half.
9. Episodes; if you haven't watched both seasons of this hilarious Showtime sendup of TV production, rent it at Netflix.
Agreed especially on #9.
(#292576)It's amazing how Matt LeBlanc is able to parody himself while at the same time playing a hilarious, complexly effed-up and thoroughly fascinating human being. The sleeping with his stalker bit, the Joey cologne, the episode about Hollywood funerals. Satire rarely ever gets this good, so brutal it's almost loving. Very well made show.
M Aurelius was probably right.