May 22, 2008
Please wait, your request is processed...
jsarets
Recent comments by this user
Parrot Yells Obama Slogans (VIDEO)
Wait a minute... At the very end, did that parrot say "I want to smoke, yeah. You cool?" LOL... posted 05/22/2008 at 00:49:55
I wanted him to say "fired up, ready to go!". Maybe it's just the encoding, but it sounds a little bit fake, like a vocoder. I don't doubt that African Greys can do that for real, though. posted 05/22/2008 at 00:44:52
Cheney to grads: War will not drag on indefinitely
Dick Cheney: The only VP in American history so phenomenally unpopular that he can only speak in front of military audiences. posted 05/21/2008 at 23:56:12
Pakistan, Taliban Deal A "Victory For bin Laden And al Qaeda": US Officials
Victory for Hezbollah, victory for the Taliban, victory for al-Qaeda... The "global war on terror" clearly isn't working. posted 05/21/2008 at 15:09:07
You Read it Here First! $1000-a-Barrel Crude!
"Isn't it sort of too late already?"
For most of us. There will be 2-3 billion humans on Earth in 2100. posted 05/22/2008 at 03:31:14
For most of us. There will be 2-3 billion humans on Earth in 2100. posted 05/22/2008 at 03:31:14
Georgia Newspaper Puts Obama In Crosshairs
One more reason why being black is clearly an advantage when running for president. Oh, wait, that doesn't make any sense. Sorry... posted 05/21/2008 at 18:18:13
A Republican Climate Revolution?
We outlawed CFCs, that's what happened to the hole in the ozone layer. We listened to the science, took action, and solved the problem. Question answered. Happy? posted 05/21/2008 at 16:46:26
During the last greenhouse period, the Turonian stage of the Cretaceous Epoch, the only surviving mammals were small rodents that fed on insects, worms, and the rotting remains of crustaceans. The vast majority of marine life died, and the anoxic oceans would release large amounts of poisonous hydrogen sulfide gas into the atmosphere as enormous quantities of dead organic matter decomposed. posted 05/21/2008 at 15:41:52
A portion of the Gulf Stream shut down for 5 weeks last summer. The North Sea and the now the Gulf of Mexico are headed toward anoxia. The arctic sea ice will completely melt in the summer within 5 years. Temperature doesn't matter. The oceans are dying. Do you understand what that means for humanity? posted 05/21/2008 at 15:21:34
Hezbollah, Lebanese Government Reach Peace Deal Ending 18-Month Political Stalemate
al-Qaeda has little to no popular support in Iraq, unlike Hezbollah and Hamas, which have substantial constituencies in Lebanon and Gaza. They are only in Iraq to embarrass the United States, and they have no intention of governing Iraq.
Iraq is a hot potato. If we really despise Iran, all we have to do is leave. The last thing Iran wants to happen, especially given their current economic situation, is for the United States to drop Iraq in their lap. Everybody wants to meddle in Iraq, but nobody wants to own it. Unfortunately for Iran, the immutable geopolitical reality is that Iraq is their problem if nobody else wants to take responsibility. posted 05/21/2008 at 14:23:10
Iraq is a hot potato. If we really despise Iran, all we have to do is leave. The last thing Iran wants to happen, especially given their current economic situation, is for the United States to drop Iraq in their lap. Everybody wants to meddle in Iraq, but nobody wants to own it. Unfortunately for Iran, the immutable geopolitical reality is that Iraq is their problem if nobody else wants to take responsibility. posted 05/21/2008 at 14:23:10
Oil Executives Defend Enormous Profits Before Senate
There is absolutely no incentive for oil companies to invest in increasing their capacity. All they have to do is sit on their black golden egg, keeping supply stable while demand increases exponentially, causing prices and profits to do the same. Globalization will keep demand rising even as the price goes up, since there will be much more people buying a little less gas on average.
As long as China and India keep industrializing, the oil market will be fine at $300-400 per barrel or more. Americans won't be able to drive 15,000 miles per year as we like to do, but why should that keep the oil barons awake at night? This is a global economy, and while America is stagnant, the developing world is exploding. If we're not growing 10% per year, then we don't matter to the global economy in the grand scheme of things. posted 05/22/2008 at 00:13:46
As long as China and India keep industrializing, the oil market will be fine at $300-400 per barrel or more. Americans won't be able to drive 15,000 miles per year as we like to do, but why should that keep the oil barons awake at night? This is a global economy, and while America is stagnant, the developing world is exploding. If we're not growing 10% per year, then we don't matter to the global economy in the grand scheme of things. posted 05/22/2008 at 00:13:46
Latest McCain Economic Proposal Seen As Incoherent
McCain is getting hit from the left and right on economic and foreign policy. Who agrees with this guy?
The only way that McCain can pay for his tax cuts is by drastically cutting either defense or Medicare. Guess which one is headed for the chopping block. And they say Obama will have trouble with seniors... posted 05/21/2008 at 18:39:34
The only way that McCain can pay for his tax cuts is by drastically cutting either defense or Medicare. Guess which one is headed for the chopping block. And they say Obama will have trouble with seniors... posted 05/21/2008 at 18:39:34
Countrywide CEO Mozilo Calls Borrower's Plea For Help "Disgusting"
"Obviously they are being counseled by some other person or by the Internet. Disgusting."
Obviously the home mortgage industry relies on the assumption that its borrowers cannot afford access to competent legal counsel. How dare they use boilerplate language in their complaints! Countrywide is clearly being defrauded by clients that misrepresented themselves as defenseless and ripe for exploitation. posted 05/21/2008 at 17:41:00
Obviously the home mortgage industry relies on the assumption that its borrowers cannot afford access to competent legal counsel. How dare they use boilerplate language in their complaints! Countrywide is clearly being defrauded by clients that misrepresented themselves as defenseless and ripe for exploitation. posted 05/21/2008 at 17:41:00
Right is Wrong: the New York Times Corrects Latest Kristol, Brooks Columns on Obama
William Kristol and Robert Kagan were the founders of the infamous Project for a New American Century, the think tank which, prior to 9/11, advocated for a series of military strikes and regime changes in the Middle East and argued that the radical change they sought would only be politically viable if there were an attack on the American homeland on the scale of Pearl Harbor. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, he derided as nonsense the "pop sociology" that held that Sunnis and Shia wouldn't get along and that the latter would want to set up an Islamic theocracy. posted 05/21/2008 at 23:47:41
McCain's Burden of Proof
It's going to be a tough year for McCain, what with a substantial chunk of the Republican Party openly rejecting McCain's foreign policy. McCain's disdain for diplomacy will sink his campaign. Also, where are you going to get the money for those tax cuts, Sen. McCain? Are seniors going to vote for a candidate that wants to eliminate Medicare? Are veterans going to vote for a candidate that refuses to fix the VA or restore the GI Bill? posted 05/21/2008 at 17:20:46
Oracle Of Oil Predicts $200 Barrels
While we're making predictions, here's one of mine:
There will be less than 3 billion humans on Earth in 2100.
You read it here first. posted 05/22/2008 at 05:48:53
There will be less than 3 billion humans on Earth in 2100.
You read it here first. posted 05/22/2008 at 05:48:53
What Oregon Says About America
Fact check, missing a decimal point: Oregon is 1.6% black, not 16% black. Thanks for playing! posted 05/21/2008 at 16:51:24
Obama plans general election team
Paul Tewes is the GOTV genius behind the Obama campaign, and the general election will be predominantly about turnout. McCain's coalition is made up of historically high-turnout demographics, whereas Obama is very strong among typically low-turnout groups. Demographic preferences are quite stubborn, but turnout can vary wildly depending on strategy and investment. The higher the turnout, the more likely Obama will win and the more seats Democrats will gain in Congress.
If there's anything that the primary campaign taught Democrats about electoral politics, it's that $1 spent on organization is worth $10 or more spent on advertising. Obama will have an org chart that extends all the way down to volunteer community organizers in every precinct in the United States. Every eligible voter should have a conversation with an Obama volunteer than starts with the question, "What do you think about Obama?" and proceeds to overcome objections.
Obama is going to take national politics down to the personal level. He will have a face-to-face dialog with every American through his organizational network. He won't be "exotic", he'll be the former Marine from down the street or your daughter's English teacher. That's the kind of bottom-up politics that will encourage us to take back our government, and that's what Obama is all about. posted 05/21/2008 at 01:56:44
If there's anything that the primary campaign taught Democrats about electoral politics, it's that $1 spent on organization is worth $10 or more spent on advertising. Obama will have an org chart that extends all the way down to volunteer community organizers in every precinct in the United States. Every eligible voter should have a conversation with an Obama volunteer than starts with the question, "What do you think about Obama?" and proceeds to overcome objections.
Obama is going to take national politics down to the personal level. He will have a face-to-face dialog with every American through his organizational network. He won't be "exotic", he'll be the former Marine from down the street or your daughter's English teacher. That's the kind of bottom-up politics that will encourage us to take back our government, and that's what Obama is all about. posted 05/21/2008 at 01:56:44
Chuck Hagel Takes On McCain, Repeatedly Praises Obama
FISA: This is the only one of bunch that I totally disagree with.
S-CHIP: Would be nice, but we really need universal healthcare for everybody, not just kids.
Redeployment: Not going to happen while Bush (or McCain) is president regardless of what Congress does, sorry.
Stem cells: I'm all for stem cell research, but there is no shortage of private funding from anti-cancer and similar organizations, why does the government have to fund this?
Flag burning: Stupid wedge issue, I couldn't care less, I can think of so many better ways of demonstrating against government policy than burning an American flag, and isn't it generally illegal to set stuff on fire in public places?
Tax cuts: Hey, if we followed Hagel's advice on foreign policy, we could reduce military spending enough to pay for those tax cuts and then some, although I believe that the tax cuts should go to lower-income households. posted 05/21/2008 at 01:04:02
S-CHIP: Would be nice, but we really need universal healthcare for everybody, not just kids.
Redeployment: Not going to happen while Bush (or McCain) is president regardless of what Congress does, sorry.
Stem cells: I'm all for stem cell research, but there is no shortage of private funding from anti-cancer and similar organizations, why does the government have to fund this?
Flag burning: Stupid wedge issue, I couldn't care less, I can think of so many better ways of demonstrating against government policy than burning an American flag, and isn't it generally illegal to set stuff on fire in public places?
Tax cuts: Hey, if we followed Hagel's advice on foreign policy, we could reduce military spending enough to pay for those tax cuts and then some, although I believe that the tax cuts should go to lower-income households. posted 05/21/2008 at 01:04:02
Clinton Camp Privately Assures Superdels: We Won't Embarrass You
I can't possibly see what they're worried about. The Clinton campaign hasn't been an embarrassment at all... posted 05/20/2008 at 15:14:40
Obama's Congressional Backers Wary Of "Dream Ticket"
I don't think I'm going very far out on a limb in predicting that Obama's VP will NOT be Clinton, Webb, or any other sitting Democratic Senator. It's either going to be a Midwestern/Western swing-state governor, elder statesmen, retired general, or paleoconservative Republican. The Dream Ticket is Obama/Hagel. I'm not sure this is very likely, but I can't see how McCain beats this ticket. posted 05/20/2008 at 16:01:00
Is Paul Volcker Right? Not This Time
"... food and fuel are not likely to keep rising at current rates... "
Maybe if you subscribe to the supply-side school of infinite resources. The fact of the matter is that we'd need 7-8 Earths worth of arable land and extractable hydrocarbons to lift the developing world up to what we would consider a minimally middle-class standard of living, and that is precisely what globalization promises to do.
If we're going to have 8+ billion people on this planet, then most of them need to live in pre-industrial subsistence communities. If we integrate these communities into the global economy, then several billion people will starve, and we will be headed toward a global oceanic anoxia that may rival the Turonian stage of the Cretaceous Epoch.
Quite frankly, if we're debating monetary policy within the constructs of an expansionary economic system, then nobody is right. The only correct answer is that we need to quarter the Earth's human population AND reduce our per-capita energy consumption by an order of magnitude within two generations. We have to choose between adopting a contractionary economic system or extinction, and I bet we choose the latter. posted 05/20/2008 at 18:08:27
Maybe if you subscribe to the supply-side school of infinite resources. The fact of the matter is that we'd need 7-8 Earths worth of arable land and extractable hydrocarbons to lift the developing world up to what we would consider a minimally middle-class standard of living, and that is precisely what globalization promises to do.
If we're going to have 8+ billion people on this planet, then most of them need to live in pre-industrial subsistence communities. If we integrate these communities into the global economy, then several billion people will starve, and we will be headed toward a global oceanic anoxia that may rival the Turonian stage of the Cretaceous Epoch.
Quite frankly, if we're debating monetary policy within the constructs of an expansionary economic system, then nobody is right. The only correct answer is that we need to quarter the Earth's human population AND reduce our per-capita energy consumption by an order of magnitude within two generations. We have to choose between adopting a contractionary economic system or extinction, and I bet we choose the latter. posted 05/20/2008 at 18:08:27
The Audacity of 'Nope'
I say this with all due respect and support for your cause, but the GLBT community is handling this issue with such astonishing ineptitude.
START A RELIGION!!!
Think of it as a spiritual support system for those who practice or advocate alternative sexuality, which, most importantly, holds at the core of its theology that any two people of the appropriate age may obtain the blessing of the church to marry.
Our Bill of Rights contains an ingenious little bit called the Establishment Clause. It protects religious institutions from the government and vice versa. If you are a member of a recognized religion that believes in gay marriage, then the government is bound by the Constitution to respect this belief.
Come on, you folks are smarter than this. You are entitled to your spiritual beliefs. This is a matter of religious freedom, one of the few founding principles to actually survive the Bush Administration. Don't expect the government to intervene in religious matters, let religion intervene on your own behalf! posted 05/21/2008 at 02:30:27
START A RELIGION!!!
Think of it as a spiritual support system for those who practice or advocate alternative sexuality, which, most importantly, holds at the core of its theology that any two people of the appropriate age may obtain the blessing of the church to marry.
Our Bill of Rights contains an ingenious little bit called the Establishment Clause. It protects religious institutions from the government and vice versa. If you are a member of a recognized religion that believes in gay marriage, then the government is bound by the Constitution to respect this belief.
Come on, you folks are smarter than this. You are entitled to your spiritual beliefs. This is a matter of religious freedom, one of the few founding principles to actually survive the Bush Administration. Don't expect the government to intervene in religious matters, let religion intervene on your own behalf! posted 05/21/2008 at 02:30:27
1964
It doesn't really matter what percentage of bisexual Asian soccer moms votes for Obama. Those preferences are largely set in stone and may only change slightly no matter what the candidates say and/or do. The important part is how many Jewish albino veterinarians show up to vote. How the candidates run their campaigns can substantially affect turnout amongst various demographics.
Obama's strategist know quite well that the bubba vote is not going to come around. The appropriate response is to depress (not suppress) turnout among these voters. Don't bother courting them, just help them realize that they are terribly unenthusiastic about John McCain. He's George W. Bush without the charismatic cowboy shtick, someone you can't bear to watch on TV for more than 30 seconds without changing the channel.
Meanwhile, work the bottom-up organizational masterpiece that is the Obama campaign on the youth, blacks, professionals, urbanites, teachers, single women, etc. We know which kinds of people vote for which kinds of candidates. What we don't know is how many of each of these kinds of people will vote in November. That's where this election will be won or lost. posted 05/21/2008 at 03:11:46
Obama's strategist know quite well that the bubba vote is not going to come around. The appropriate response is to depress (not suppress) turnout among these voters. Don't bother courting them, just help them realize that they are terribly unenthusiastic about John McCain. He's George W. Bush without the charismatic cowboy shtick, someone you can't bear to watch on TV for more than 30 seconds without changing the channel.
Meanwhile, work the bottom-up organizational masterpiece that is the Obama campaign on the youth, blacks, professionals, urbanites, teachers, single women, etc. We know which kinds of people vote for which kinds of candidates. What we don't know is how many of each of these kinds of people will vote in November. That's where this election will be won or lost. posted 05/21/2008 at 03:11:46
New GOP Agenda Downplays Anti-Gay, Anti-Abortion Legislation
GOP 2008: We apologize for screwing everything up. We've changed. Please vote for us. Please? posted 05/19/2008 at 16:16:13
Why Republicans Might Attack Iran Before the General Elections
I'd like to think that the Republicans would be destroyed in November if Bush has the temerity to attack Iran. It would solidify in the minds of Americans the horrific dystopia that would be a McCain presidency. It would force Reagan Democrats and Clinton loyalists to question the wisdom of voting for McCain.
And if Iran retaliates asymmetrically by attacking Israel, it will be the end of human civilization as we know it. The risks are too high, even for the neocons. I don't think they'll push the button, but I don't think they'll stop talking about it either. posted 05/20/2008 at 00:58:57
And if Iran retaliates asymmetrically by attacking Israel, it will be the end of human civilization as we know it. The risks are too high, even for the neocons. I don't think they'll push the button, but I don't think they'll stop talking about it either. posted 05/20/2008 at 00:58:57
Warren Buffet Backs Obama For President
Duh. Stock markets and the fortunes of capitalists like Buffet depend on societal optimism, and Obama is all about keeping the hope alive. Remember, folks, the next several years are going to suck because of the hole we've dug for ourselves. Somebody will have to be beamed into millions of households every night to tell us how we're going to lead the world to a sustainable future. Somebody has to sell the public and the private sector a vision for the future that's worth investing trillions to achieve.
That person is certainly not John McCain, and as much as I used to admire Hillary Clinton, it seems painfully obvious that Barack Obama is the right leader to motivate the unprecedented global transformation needed to save humanity and preserve. As he so often emphasizes, government can't solve all of our problems, but with a compelling vision and sound policy, government can lead us in the right direction, and we the people can come together to solve our problems.
I support Obama because he's not a big gov posted 05/19/2008 at 15:34:17
That person is certainly not John McCain, and as much as I used to admire Hillary Clinton, it seems painfully obvious that Barack Obama is the right leader to motivate the unprecedented global transformation needed to save humanity and preserve. As he so often emphasizes, government can't solve all of our problems, but with a compelling vision and sound policy, government can lead us in the right direction, and we the people can come together to solve our problems.
I support Obama because he's not a big gov posted 05/19/2008 at 15:34:17
Duh. Stock markets and the fortunes of capitalists like Buffet depend on societal optimism, and Obama is all about keeping the hope alive. Remember, folks, the next several years are going to suck because of the hole we've dug for ourselves. Somebody will have to be beamed into millions of households every night to tell us how we're going to lead the world to a sustainable future. Somebody has to sell the public and the private sector a vision for the future that's worth investing trillions to achieve.
That person is certainly not John McCain, and as much as I used to admire Hillary Clinton, it seems painfully obvious that Barack Obama is the right leader to motivate the unprecedented global transformation needed to save humanity and preserve. As he so often emphasizes, government can't solve all of our problems, but with a compelling vision and sound policy, government can lead us in the right direction, and we the people can come together to solve our problems.
I support Obama because he's not a big government progressive (e.g. Kucinich, Feingold, etc.). He's a bottom-up progressive. He believes in giving people the tools to help themselves. He believes that Reagan-esque personal responsibility would actually work with the right support structure in place. He believes that we can move forward together as a society without sacrificing our individuality. With supply-side policy running into a wall of demand-side recession, Obama is simply good for business. posted 05/19/2008 at 15:30:50
That person is certainly not John McCain, and as much as I used to admire Hillary Clinton, it seems painfully obvious that Barack Obama is the right leader to motivate the unprecedented global transformation needed to save humanity and preserve. As he so often emphasizes, government can't solve all of our problems, but with a compelling vision and sound policy, government can lead us in the right direction, and we the people can come together to solve our problems.
I support Obama because he's not a big government progressive (e.g. Kucinich, Feingold, etc.). He's a bottom-up progressive. He believes in giving people the tools to help themselves. He believes that Reagan-esque personal responsibility would actually work with the right support structure in place. He believes that we can move forward together as a society without sacrificing our individuality. With supply-side policy running into a wall of demand-side recession, Obama is simply good for business. posted 05/19/2008 at 15:30:50
Obama Adds To Superdelegate Tally
"Barack Obama is a noble-hearted patriot and humble Christian"
Wow! What a direct and concise rejection of the electoral "liabilities" that crippled Obama in Senator Byrd's home state. He lost WV by 41 points, and their highly-regarded senior Senator, Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, essentially tells them that they are dead wrong about Barack Obama.
Let's see, do I respect the opinions of the WV electorate, or the courageous Senator who eloquently expressed his exasperation at his colleagues' refusal to seriously debate the Iraq War resolution? Tough call... posted 05/19/2008 at 15:58:11
Wow! What a direct and concise rejection of the electoral "liabilities" that crippled Obama in Senator Byrd's home state. He lost WV by 41 points, and their highly-regarded senior Senator, Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, essentially tells them that they are dead wrong about Barack Obama.
Let's see, do I respect the opinions of the WV electorate, or the courageous Senator who eloquently expressed his exasperation at his colleagues' refusal to seriously debate the Iraq War resolution? Tough call... posted 05/19/2008 at 15:58:11
Does Obama Have a Loyalty Problem?
Why is loyalty desirable in a chief executive? I think our government should be a meritocracy, where the most effective public servants rise to the top and the rest are tossed aside. Samantha Power is a brilliant policy advisor with horrible political instincts. She should have never spoken to the press without clearing her statements with the communications staff beforehand.
I'm almost certain that Ms. Power and Robert Malley will be welcomed back into Obama's foreign policy advisory team after the general election. Something tells me that the only serious and permanent separation resulting from the campaign so far will be Jeremiah Wright, who flagrantly tossed Obama in front of the bus for no apparent reason beyond self-aggrandizement. That one hurt. The rest were just casualties of the 23/7 news cycle.
Finally, Obama does have long-time confidantes. The most important one is Valerie Jarrett, who may have a more Rove-like role in the Obama machine than anyone realizes. She's a very low-profile, fiercely loyal, extremely smart power broker who could be Obama's Deputy Chief of Staff. posted 05/19/2008 at 17:11:54
I'm almost certain that Ms. Power and Robert Malley will be welcomed back into Obama's foreign policy advisory team after the general election. Something tells me that the only serious and permanent separation resulting from the campaign so far will be Jeremiah Wright, who flagrantly tossed Obama in front of the bus for no apparent reason beyond self-aggrandizement. That one hurt. The rest were just casualties of the 23/7 news cycle.
Finally, Obama does have long-time confidantes. The most important one is Valerie Jarrett, who may have a more Rove-like role in the Obama machine than anyone realizes. She's a very low-profile, fiercely loyal, extremely smart power broker who could be Obama's Deputy Chief of Staff. posted 05/19/2008 at 17:11:54
Forecasters See Weak Economy, Higher Unemployment Coming
There's no way that even core inflation will stay down below 4 percent post peak oil. Much of the consumer market has not yet internalized the surging oil prices, hoping that it's just a bubble. But the thing about peak oil is that it's more than just the point of maximum production, it's also the tipping point between cheap oil and expensive oil.
Nobody ever predicted that peak oil would usher in a period of gradual inflation over decades, giving the global economy a gentle transition away from oil. All credible analyses projected an abrupt and disruptive shift from oil being an abundant commodity to a scarce and precious resource.
Therein lies the problem with market fundamentalism: the market's foresight is considerably shorter than the length of time needed to solve most of the problems it will encounter. Just as economists never know if we're in a recession until we've been in one for a while, the market will never respond to systematic challenges until it's too late to do anything about them.
We've k posted 05/19/2008 at 14:19:48
Nobody ever predicted that peak oil would usher in a period of gradual inflation over decades, giving the global economy a gentle transition away from oil. All credible analyses projected an abrupt and disruptive shift from oil being an abundant commodity to a scarce and precious resource.
Therein lies the problem with market fundamentalism: the market's foresight is considerably shorter than the length of time needed to solve most of the problems it will encounter. Just as economists never know if we're in a recession until we've been in one for a while, the market will never respond to systematic challenges until it's too late to do anything about them.
We've k posted 05/19/2008 at 14:19:48
Market fundamentalism: a steady-state economy for a transient world. posted 05/19/2008 at 14:19:19
There's no way that even core inflation will stay down below 4 percent post peak oil. Much of the consumer market has not yet internalized the surging oil prices, hoping that it's just a bubble. But the thing about peak oil is that it's more than just the point of maximum production, it's also the tipping point between cheap oil and expensive oil.
Nobody ever predicted that peak oil would usher in a period of gradual inflation over decades, giving the global economy a gentle transition away from oil. All credible analyses projected an abrupt and disruptive shift from oil being an abundant commodity to a scarce and precious resource.
Therein lies the problem with market fundamentalism: the market's foresight is considerably shorter than the length of time needed to solve most of the problems it will encounter. Just as economists never know if we're in a recession until we've been in one for a while, the market will never respond to systematic challenges until it's too late to do anything about them.
We've known this was coming for over 50 years! But the way the market works is to cling to wishful thinking and silver bullets until the harsh reality finally arrives. Now there's nothing we can do. Billions of people are going to starve and life for the rest will never be the same. We don't have enough oil left to build the sustainable infrastructure we kinda knew we needed all along. So much for blind faith... posted 05/19/2008 at 14:16:57
Nobody ever predicted that peak oil would usher in a period of gradual inflation over decades, giving the global economy a gentle transition away from oil. All credible analyses projected an abrupt and disruptive shift from oil being an abundant commodity to a scarce and precious resource.
Therein lies the problem with market fundamentalism: the market's foresight is considerably shorter than the length of time needed to solve most of the problems it will encounter. Just as economists never know if we're in a recession until we've been in one for a while, the market will never respond to systematic challenges until it's too late to do anything about them.
We've known this was coming for over 50 years! But the way the market works is to cling to wishful thinking and silver bullets until the harsh reality finally arrives. Now there's nothing we can do. Billions of people are going to starve and life for the rest will never be the same. We don't have enough oil left to build the sustainable infrastructure we kinda knew we needed all along. So much for blind faith... posted 05/19/2008 at 14:16:57
Clinton Quiet About Her Own Radical Ties
Yeah, and Ayers never had any advisory role or policy influence with Obama, but that didn't stop the Clinton campaign from playing the politics of association. You're absolutely correct that associating Hillary with the views of certain legal clients from the 70s is patently absurd. That's why the Obama campaign never pushed this story, and that's why it's disappointing that the Clinton campaign pushed Ayers. posted 05/19/2008 at 14:31:22
Jim Webb Speaks Out On VP Prospects, Bush, His Tattoos (VIDEO)
Keep him in the Senate. We're already running a Senator on the top of the ticket. Governors and elder statesmen only, please. Bill Richardson and Sam Nunn are my top picks. posted 05/18/2008 at 23:41:31
"You Don't Quit Until You Finish What You Started"
"You don't quite until you finish what you started"
Hey, it worked for Bush arguing why we need to stay in Iraq. It's about time we rule out presidential candidates that stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the facts on the ground. Both Bush and Hillary waged their wars based on best-case expectations. But after the statue of Saddam was toppled and Super Tuesday returns were in, there were no plans to deal with the ensuing situations. All that was left was a lot of creative spin and wishful thinking.
As much as Clinton and Bush differ substantially on policy, they both never let facts get in the way of their perceived principles, they both never admit their mistakes. and they both believe that the electorate is largely unqualified to pass judgment on policy. They stand up for what they believe, even if it's not what most Americans or most experts believe. That may be a positive character trait for a citizen, but not for a representative.
As we know, things happen of the course of a presidency that could not have possibly been predicted during the campaign. Just like we didn't know how dramatically 9/11 would change Bush, we don't know how future events will shape our next president. That's why it's more important, in my view, to have a president that values public opinion and listens to experts of all ideological stripes that to have one that goes with their gut and sticks to their guns. posted 05/18/2008 at 03:51:05
Hey, it worked for Bush arguing why we need to stay in Iraq. It's about time we rule out presidential candidates that stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the facts on the ground. Both Bush and Hillary waged their wars based on best-case expectations. But after the statue of Saddam was toppled and Super Tuesday returns were in, there were no plans to deal with the ensuing situations. All that was left was a lot of creative spin and wishful thinking.
As much as Clinton and Bush differ substantially on policy, they both never let facts get in the way of their perceived principles, they both never admit their mistakes. and they both believe that the electorate is largely unqualified to pass judgment on policy. They stand up for what they believe, even if it's not what most Americans or most experts believe. That may be a positive character trait for a citizen, but not for a representative.
As we know, things happen of the course of a presidency that could not have possibly been predicted during the campaign. Just like we didn't know how dramatically 9/11 would change Bush, we don't know how future events will shape our next president. That's why it's more important, in my view, to have a president that values public opinion and listens to experts of all ideological stripes that to have one that goes with their gut and sticks to their guns. posted 05/18/2008 at 03:51:05
Nonsense. A tax on the producer is the same as a tax on the product. These production/consumption taxes are equally regressive, and a true economic progressive would advocate replacing their revenue via the individual income tax. All other taxes are passed on to the consumer to some extent, and in the case of a federal production tax on oil companies, consumers would end up paying the vast majority of the tax.
The fallacy of the liberal orthodoxy on tax policy is that taxing corporations hurts consumers and workers as much or arguably more than it hurts the owners of the corporations. Working-class people spend most of their income on consumption, and taxing the corporations that make the products we consume certainly won't make them any cheaper.
Tax business owners on the individual incomes (including capital gains) that they derive from their businesses, but don't tax the businesses themselves. This is how we can encourage entrepreneurship and capital investment while discouraging windfall profits and excessive compensation. This is progressive economic policy. posted 05/18/2008 at 03:09:18
The fallacy of the liberal orthodoxy on tax policy is that taxing corporations hurts consumers and workers as much or arguably more than it hurts the owners of the corporations. Working-class people spend most of their income on consumption, and taxing the corporations that make the products we consume certainly won't make them any cheaper.
Tax business owners on the individual incomes (including capital gains) that they derive from their businesses, but don't tax the businesses themselves. This is how we can encourage entrepreneurship and capital investment while discouraging windfall profits and excessive compensation. This is progressive economic policy. posted 05/18/2008 at 03:09:18
Japan Running Out Of Engineers
Why enter a productive career where the vast majority will never make six figures when you could enter the overhead services industries (finance, healthcare, marketing, etc.) and have a decent shot at affluence? The problem with production is that it's usually governed very tightly by supply and demand. Service providers, on the other hand, have a lot of leeway in setting prices and terms of service, and services are more resistant than products to commoditization.
It's clear that an economy cannot be healthy without a functional manufacturing sector, even in a global economic system. However, in market capitalism, the biggest profits and highest wages are to be found in the service sector. As more national economies embrace the winner-take-all philosophy of American capitalism, the people of these countries are going to shoot for the top, and there will be shortages in the middle tiers where jobs require considerable skill but don't pay a lot of money.
All of this, however, is trumped by my grand theory of excess labor: that there are several times more potential consumers in the world than the number of workers required to provide the goods and services they demand. In other words, full employment is impossible, not even close, because of the incredibly efficiency of the global economy. This hypothesis challenges the underlying basis for market fundamentalism, that everybody should work and pay their own way, and suggests that mechanisms for sharing both work and wealth are necessary and inevitable. posted 05/18/2008 at 09:39:25
It's clear that an economy cannot be healthy without a functional manufacturing sector, even in a global economic system. However, in market capitalism, the biggest profits and highest wages are to be found in the service sector. As more national economies embrace the winner-take-all philosophy of American capitalism, the people of these countries are going to shoot for the top, and there will be shortages in the middle tiers where jobs require considerable skill but don't pay a lot of money.
All of this, however, is trumped by my grand theory of excess labor: that there are several times more potential consumers in the world than the number of workers required to provide the goods and services they demand. In other words, full employment is impossible, not even close, because of the incredibly efficiency of the global economy. This hypothesis challenges the underlying basis for market fundamentalism, that everybody should work and pay their own way, and suggests that mechanisms for sharing both work and wealth are necessary and inevitable. posted 05/18/2008 at 09:39:25
GOP' Needs New Slogan
GOP 2008: Change is Scary. posted 05/17/2008 at 18:22:50
Robert Mondavi, California Winemaking Pioneer, Dies
I just visited Robert Mondavi's winery last weekend. It's sad to hear of his passing. He was the original champion of the idea that inexpensive wines can be close enough in quality to expensive French wines as to be incredible values. If not for Mondavi, we may not have had Two Buck Chuck, Yellow Tail, or any of the other quality budget wines. posted 05/18/2008 at 05:34:47
Obama Responds To Bush, McCain Appeasement Attack
This general election campaign is going to be fun for Obama. He may be a Muslim in the eyes of some, but McCain is Bush in the eyes of many. An older, less "marketable" Bush. Now all we need to do is introduce a narrative where "maverick" is really just a euphemism for "flip-flopper". We have the video, we have the Senate records, we have the evidence to take him down on a wide variety of issues. Not only is he Bush today, but he wasn't Bush as recently as two years ago.
The only way McCain beats Obama is if he runs with Hillary Clinton as his VP, and while I wouldn't put it past her, I can't see the RNC letting that happen. posted 05/16/2008 at 17:09:26
The only way McCain beats Obama is if he runs with Hillary Clinton as his VP, and while I wouldn't put it past her, I can't see the RNC letting that happen. posted 05/16/2008 at 17:09:26
McCain Budget Would Create Largest Deficit In 25 Years
Why does Nixon get the blame? Sure, he resigned in disgrace, but he was the last remotely sensible Republican. He established a raft of new environmental, health, and consumer protections. He cooled off the Cold War with his foreign policy of detente. He opened up normal diplomatic relations with China. He placed controls on wages and prices during recession. He was the first American President to advocate universal healthcare, although his plan (very much like HillaryCare 2008) was rejected by organized labor.
Quite frankly, our nation has moved so far to the right since Reagan took office, that a Nixon-like ideology is near the progressive edge of electoral viability. He was a neoliberal nationalist, very much like the DLC/Clinton Democrats of today. It was Reagan that convinced Americans that we would be happier and more prosperous in an every-man-for-himself, winner-take-all society. It was Reagan that advocated stick-and-more-stick diplomacy. Reagan led the Republican Party astray. posted 05/16/2008 at 13:53:15
Quite frankly, our nation has moved so far to the right since Reagan took office, that a Nixon-like ideology is near the progressive edge of electoral viability. He was a neoliberal nationalist, very much like the DLC/Clinton Democrats of today. It was Reagan that convinced Americans that we would be happier and more prosperous in an every-man-for-himself, winner-take-all society. It was Reagan that advocated stick-and-more-stick diplomacy. Reagan led the Republican Party astray. posted 05/16/2008 at 13:53:15
Denny Crane: Commander-in-Chief. I like it! posted 05/16/2008 at 13:18:21
Paul Krugman and the New York Times' Pious Pontifications at the Pump
If the price of oil skyrockets and yet consumption stays about the same, then it seems more likely that oil was previously undervalued than it is currently overpriced. What we're experiencing now is not a precipitous departure from supply and demand, but rather the precipitous return to supply and demand after many years of predatory pricing.
What OPEC did was cruel. They artificially suppressed market forces that would lead to investments in alternative fuels by selling oil for much less than consumers would be willing to pay. Now that the market is finally beginning to move beyond oil, OPEC will take every penny we're willing to pay.
We're paying for Bush's "addicted to oil" rhetoric, which unfortunately didn't come along with any actions that would expedite the transition away from this suddenly much more expensive substance. OPEC would have continued to give us cheap oil as long as we steadfastly ignored alternatives, but we broke our end of the bargain. Now our only option is to sever our ties as quickly as possible. posted 05/19/2008 at 07:01:58
What OPEC did was cruel. They artificially suppressed market forces that would lead to investments in alternative fuels by selling oil for much less than consumers would be willing to pay. Now that the market is finally beginning to move beyond oil, OPEC will take every penny we're willing to pay.
We're paying for Bush's "addicted to oil" rhetoric, which unfortunately didn't come along with any actions that would expedite the transition away from this suddenly much more expensive substance. OPEC would have continued to give us cheap oil as long as we steadfastly ignored alternatives, but we broke our end of the bargain. Now our only option is to sever our ties as quickly as possible. posted 05/19/2008 at 07:01:58
McCain's Lobbyist Scandals Prompt Additional Scrutiny
Charlie Black is McCain's Scooter Libby. posted 05/18/2008 at 23:33:51
Yup. That's the game plan. posted 05/16/2008 at 17:34:15
John McCain: Obama Unfit To Protect The United States
Iranian politicians won't recognize Israel for the same reason that American politicians won't negotiate with Iran: to win elections. Democracy is all well and good until politicians discover that appealing to their constituents' most backwards beliefs is the surest way to stay in power. Plus, they don't really need to listen to their more appropriate political concerns as long as they pander to their deep-rooted bigotries.
In America, we have a bad habit of blaming our own problems on others. Our economic policies don't distribute wealth equitably, so we blame trade. We provide incentives for corporations to move labor out of the country, so we blame immigration. We overthrow a dictatorship with no electorally viable replacement, so we blame Iran. It's better to blame America first than to refuse to blame America at all. Then at least we'd get our ship in order before we start telling others what to do. posted 05/15/2008 at 19:02:07
In America, we have a bad habit of blaming our own problems on others. Our economic policies don't distribute wealth equitably, so we blame trade. We provide incentives for corporations to move labor out of the country, so we blame immigration. We overthrow a dictatorship with no electorally viable replacement, so we blame Iran. It's better to blame America first than to refuse to blame America at all. Then at least we'd get our ship in order before we start telling others what to do. posted 05/15/2008 at 19:02:07
Future Shock?
I'm designing a home of the future right now (that's my job). It's a zero-carbon building with a south-facing, 30-degree pitched roof covered in solar panels. The cooling is done by pumping water from an underground tank to drip nozzles along the top edge of the roof, partially evaporating as it runs over the solar panels in a thin sheet. This evaporatively chilled water is circulated to radiant ceiling panels throughout the building.
Heating and domestic hot water is provided by an electric heat pump instead of a natural gas boiler. Strategically-placed windows and automated motorized light shelves provide enough natural sunlight to eliminate the vast majority of electric lighting during daytime. The external walls have an overall thermal resistance of R-30 (typical would be R-11), and the roof is R-45 (versus the typical R-19).
The projected energy usage is about 80% less than a typical building of this size, and the remaining 20% is completely offset by rooftop solar generation. The building also features innovative rainwater collection and wastewater recycling systems to reduce freshwater consumption. Most aspects of the building's operation can be monitored and controlled through a web interface. posted 05/18/2008 at 08:42:51
Heating and domestic hot water is provided by an electric heat pump instead of a natural gas boiler. Strategically-placed windows and automated motorized light shelves provide enough natural sunlight to eliminate the vast majority of electric lighting during daytime. The external walls have an overall thermal resistance of R-30 (typical would be R-11), and the roof is R-45 (versus the typical R-19).
The projected energy usage is about 80% less than a typical building of this size, and the remaining 20% is completely offset by rooftop solar generation. The building also features innovative rainwater collection and wastewater recycling systems to reduce freshwater consumption. Most aspects of the building's operation can be monitored and controlled through a web interface. posted 05/18/2008 at 08:42:51
California Gay Marriage Ban Overturned: Major Updates
Demographers estimate that 40-50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce within 15 years. The variation is primarily due to divorce laws in different jurisdictions. Wherever "no-fault" divorces are easier to obtain, and wherever the bias toward women in granting child custody is stronger, the divorce rate is higher. Among college-educated couples, 90% of divorces are initiated by the wife.
Studies show that the single most effective way of reducing divorce rates is to reduce or eliminate the bias toward women. Far fewer divorces would occur if mothers and fathers were expected to share custody. The idea the children naturally belong with their mother threatens the institution of marriage considerably, while it isn't clear that homosexual marriage threatens it at all.
It could also be argued that many aspects of our economic policy prioritizes the accumulation and consumption of product over the pursuit of happiness. There are too many marriages based on financial convenience. American workers don't have enough vacation time to spend strengthening their marriages and families. The widespread need for two incomes to pay the bills puts marriages under considerable stress. Some aspects of the American Dream are lonely and strangely unfulfilling. posted 05/15/2008 at 16:25:49
Studies show that the single most effective way of reducing divorce rates is to reduce or eliminate the bias toward women. Far fewer divorces would occur if mothers and fathers were expected to share custody. The idea the children naturally belong with their mother threatens the institution of marriage considerably, while it isn't clear that homosexual marriage threatens it at all.
It could also be argued that many aspects of our economic policy prioritizes the accumulation and consumption of product over the pursuit of happiness. There are too many marriages based on financial convenience. American workers don't have enough vacation time to spend strengthening their marriages and families. The widespread need for two incomes to pay the bills puts marriages under considerable stress. Some aspects of the American Dream are lonely and strangely unfulfilling. posted 05/15/2008 at 16:25:49
Bush Compares Obama To Nazi Appeasers
Here we go, folks! The general election campaign is unofficially underway, Obama vs. McBush, and look at all the issues we have on the table. I'm absolutely ecstatic that we get to talk about important things like diplomatic posture instead of Obama's flag pin and Hillary's testicles.
Here's to hoping that Bush continues to prove that Godwin's Law doesn't only apply to online discussion boards, that even heads of state are prone to outrageous invocations of "Hilter" or "Nazi" to smear their adversaries, thus automatically losing the argument at hand. Every time Bush steps into the race, he puts pressure on McCain to stand by the leader of his party and tighten the association that will cripple his campaign. posted 05/15/2008 at 15:18:56
Here's to hoping that Bush continues to prove that Godwin's Law doesn't only apply to online discussion boards, that even heads of state are prone to outrageous invocations of "Hilter" or "Nazi" to smear their adversaries, thus automatically losing the argument at hand. Every time Bush steps into the race, he puts pressure on McCain to stand by the leader of his party and tighten the association that will cripple his campaign. posted 05/15/2008 at 15:18:56
Specter: Patriots' Spying Wider Than Admitted
It's great that we live in a country that's so devoid of major political problems that our politicians get to concentrate on minutia like cheating among sports entertainers. With 80% of Americans say that we're heading in the wrong direction, it's critical that our trust in the integrity of sports be restored immediately. Besides, I can't wait to see Bill Belichick show up to testify before Congress in a hoodie. posted 05/14/2008 at 20:33:34
Race (and West Virginia) Makes the Democrat's Obama Gamble Riskier than Ever
Public opinion polls suggest that about 15% of whites say they won't vote for a black man and 45% of whites say they don't think that other whites in general will vote for a black man. In other words, white Americans think that they're three times as racist as they really are, and they take this misconception into the voting booth.
Pundits, including a frankly surprising number of black pundits, keep telling us that we're too racist to vote for a black man, and this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. In today's version of political correctness, it's not okay to be racist, but the presumed racism of others is a valid reason to discriminate on the basis of race at the polls.
This is the lowest-common-denominator style of politics that, in my view, jeopardizes America's future. Every election year, we're presented with a caricature of American mediocrity and advised to consider our political views from a stereotypical "Middle American" perspective. We're not supposed to vote based on who we are individually, but based on who we think we are collectively.
I realize that we live in a country with lingering racial tensions that will survive long after the children of the Civil Rights movement pass away. But why should we glorify this societal disorder? We should be marginalizing and dismissing it. We should vote as who we are, even if we believe in the moral inferiority of others.
(continued) posted 05/14/2008 at 14:02:37
Pundits, including a frankly surprising number of black pundits, keep telling us that we're too racist to vote for a black man, and this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. In today's version of political correctness, it's not okay to be racist, but the presumed racism of others is a valid reason to discriminate on the basis of race at the polls.
This is the lowest-common-denominator style of politics that, in my view, jeopardizes America's future. Every election year, we're presented with a caricature of American mediocrity and advised to consider our political views from a stereotypical "Middle American" perspective. We're not supposed to vote based on who we are individually, but based on who we think we are collectively.
I realize that we live in a country with lingering racial tensions that will survive long after the children of the Civil Rights movement pass away. But why should we glorify this societal disorder? We should be marginalizing and dismissing it. We should vote as who we are, even if we believe in the moral inferiority of others.
(continued) posted 05/14/2008 at 14:02:37
(page 2)
I'm Jewish. My relatives occasionally send me chain emails (many of them discredited) that play on the memory of Holocaust to drum up hatred and contempt for Muslims and Palestinians. They tell us never to forget about the atrocities, but what they really suggest is to never forget that we were and will always be the victims.
So while I can't relate personally to being a clearly-visible American minority, I can relate to the perverse comfort of victimhood exhibited by the some in the black community. As long as we agree that America is a land of racism, black Americans have the comfort of viewing their accomplishments from the perspective of lowered expectations and limited possibilities.
Now we have a black man as a major party's presumptive nominee for president, a success that raises the bar and shatters glass ceilings for the black community. No Jew has come as close to the presidency as Obama has, and yet racism is widely believed to run much deeper in American culture than anti-Semitism. Could it be that we are chronically overestimating this problem? posted 05/14/2008 at 14:02:18
I'm Jewish. My relatives occasionally send me chain emails (many of them discredited) that play on the memory of Holocaust to drum up hatred and contempt for Muslims and Palestinians. They tell us never to forget about the atrocities, but what they really suggest is to never forget that we were and will always be the victims.
So while I can't relate personally to being a clearly-visible American minority, I can relate to the perverse comfort of victimhood exhibited by the some in the black community. As long as we agree that America is a land of racism, black Americans have the comfort of viewing their accomplishments from the perspective of lowered expectations and limited possibilities.
Now we have a black man as a major party's presumptive nominee for president, a success that raises the bar and shatters glass ceilings for the black community. No Jew has come as close to the presidency as Obama has, and yet racism is widely believed to run much deeper in American culture than anti-Semitism. Could it be that we are chronically overestimating this problem? posted 05/14/2008 at 14:02:18
You Broke It, You Own It -- Obama Style
Let's face it, the Democratic Party has been broken since LBJ, and the Clintons have only made it worse. Like many of the programs it valiantly defends, it needs to be reformed, not preserved in nostalgic amber.
The Obama campaign isn't just about putting Democrats back in the White House, it's about fundamentally re-thinking the way the Democratic Party wins elections. As we've seen in the primary, Hillary Clinton is a typical modern Democrat with one electoral strategy based on targeting certain demographics and no recourse if it fails. Obama doesn't tailor his message to demographic groups, instead focusing on increasing turnout.
Obama is not going to do well against McCain with older white voters no matter what he does. But this is already a high-turnout demographic, and Obama does well in a lot of historically low-turnout demographics. It's a lot easier to get young people to vote than to get old white people to vote for a younger black man instead of an old white man. Demographics are stubborn, turnout is highly variable.
The U.S. record turnout since industrialization is 63% in 1960, when JFK won. If we set a new record this year, Obama will almost certainly beat McCain. We achieved our lowest turnout since the middle of WWII when a Clinton faced an old, cranky Senator. We don't want to do that again. Anything we can do to increase turnout helps the Democrats, and Obama is the master of turnout. posted 05/14/2008 at 19:22:51
The Obama campaign isn't just about putting Democrats back in the White House, it's about fundamentally re-thinking the way the Democratic Party wins elections. As we've seen in the primary, Hillary Clinton is a typical modern Democrat with one electoral strategy based on targeting certain demographics and no recourse if it fails. Obama doesn't tailor his message to demographic groups, instead focusing on increasing turnout.
Obama is not going to do well against McCain with older white voters no matter what he does. But this is already a high-turnout demographic, and Obama does well in a lot of historically low-turnout demographics. It's a lot easier to get young people to vote than to get old white people to vote for a younger black man instead of an old white man. Demographics are stubborn, turnout is highly variable.
The U.S. record turnout since industrialization is 63% in 1960, when JFK won. If we set a new record this year, Obama will almost certainly beat McCain. We achieved our lowest turnout since the middle of WWII when a Clinton faced an old, cranky Senator. We don't want to do that again. Anything we can do to increase turnout helps the Democrats, and Obama is the master of turnout. posted 05/14/2008 at 19:22:51
Does Obama Even Need The Jewish Vote?
Well, the polls still say that Obama gets two-thirds of the Jewish vote against McCain. That's less than Clinton gets, but it's still a landslide win in this demographic.
I'm Jewish, I have relatives living in Israel, and I support Obama. I believe that his platform and strategic vision are firmly in the best interests of the state of Israel. I do not agree with the ideologies of Likud, AIPAC, and CUFI, all of which are based on an assumption of inherent Jewish moral superiority over Islam that does nothing but further enrage the enemies of Israel.
My parents voted for Clinton in the NJ primary, and my mother in particular thinks Obama is "a little scary", although she can't say why. My father said it best: "I don't know Obama and I don't trust Hillary, but I strongly disagree with McCain". My mother isn't really into politics, but when I asked for her biggest political concern, she surprised me by describing the widening gap between rich and poor. There's no way that these baby boomer Reagan Democrats will vote for McCain over either Democratic candidate.
(continued) posted 05/14/2008 at 17:10:43
I'm Jewish, I have relatives living in Israel, and I support Obama. I believe that his platform and strategic vision are firmly in the best interests of the state of Israel. I do not agree with the ideologies of Likud, AIPAC, and CUFI, all of which are based on an assumption of inherent Jewish moral superiority over Islam that does nothing but further enrage the enemies of Israel.
My parents voted for Clinton in the NJ primary, and my mother in particular thinks Obama is "a little scary", although she can't say why. My father said it best: "I don't know Obama and I don't trust Hillary, but I strongly disagree with McCain". My mother isn't really into politics, but when I asked for her biggest political concern, she surprised me by describing the widening gap between rich and poor. There's no way that these baby boomer Reagan Democrats will vote for McCain over either Democratic candidate.
(continued) posted 05/14/2008 at 17:10:43
(page 2)
It's true that many Jewish Americans support a strong and active national defense. But most Jews are pro-choice, tolerant of alternative sexuality, advocates of sensible gun control, steadfast supporters of public education, and believers in universal healthcare. So while many Jews would prefer the more aggressive, unilateral foreign policy posture of Hillary Clinton to the multilateral diplomacy favored by Barack Obama, McCain's economic policy is way off in right field.
If the Republicans want to court Jews, then they need to stop emulating Reagan and start channeling Nixon. It's Nixon's blend of strong defense and law enforcement with center-left (by today's standards) economic policy (e.g. EPA, SSI, universal healthcare, etc.) that most closely reflects their views, although Nixon himself was not fond of Jewish influence. However, the Jews already helped create the DLC in the image of Nixon, so the point may be moot. posted 05/14/2008 at 17:10:11
It's true that many Jewish Americans support a strong and active national defense. But most Jews are pro-choice, tolerant of alternative sexuality, advocates of sensible gun control, steadfast supporters of public education, and believers in universal healthcare. So while many Jews would prefer the more aggressive, unilateral foreign policy posture of Hillary Clinton to the multilateral diplomacy favored by Barack Obama, McCain's economic policy is way off in right field.
If the Republicans want to court Jews, then they need to stop emulating Reagan and start channeling Nixon. It's Nixon's blend of strong defense and law enforcement with center-left (by today's standards) economic policy (e.g. EPA, SSI, universal healthcare, etc.) that most closely reflects their views, although Nixon himself was not fond of Jewish influence. However, the Jews already helped create the DLC in the image of Nixon, so the point may be moot. posted 05/14/2008 at 17:10:11
The Bipartisanship Scam
I think you're missing an important component of this issue, Arianna. I always think about government as a two-pronged process of policy and politics. In this sense, I agree with you that policy can and should often be a partisan affair. However, it's no good for anybody to have partisan politics.
It's these tactical initiatives like Bush's determination to veto any bills with Democratic fingerprints that cripple our government. It's the outrageously contrived spin that the campaign surrogates can't possibly believe that limits the substantive potential of our democratic discourse. It's the "say whatever your base wants to hear and hurts your opponent" political strategy that renders our government virtually incapable of addressing any problems.
Both Obama and McCain are portraying themselves as ideologically partisan but politically bipartisan. In other words, they'll reach across the aisle, if only to disagree with their colleagues on the other side. Obama and McCain have substantially different views on the role of government in our domestic economy and the role of America as a world superpower, but I think they're both more willing to listen to the other side and consider their ideas than both Bushes or both Clintons. For example, McCain was one of the first prominent Republicans to break on the environment, and Obama is generally more open to freedom of choice and personal responsibility arguments than the Democratic orthodoxy. posted 05/12/2008 at 18:16:20
It's these tactical initiatives like Bush's determination to veto any bills with Democratic fingerprints that cripple our government. It's the outrageously contrived spin that the campaign surrogates can't possibly believe that limits the substantive potential of our democratic discourse. It's the "say whatever your base wants to hear and hurts your opponent" political strategy that renders our government virtually incapable of addressing any problems.
Both Obama and McCain are portraying themselves as ideologically partisan but politically bipartisan. In other words, they'll reach across the aisle, if only to disagree with their colleagues on the other side. Obama and McCain have substantially different views on the role of government in our domestic economy and the role of America as a world superpower, but I think they're both more willing to listen to the other side and consider their ideas than both Bushes or both Clintons. For example, McCain was one of the first prominent Republicans to break on the environment, and Obama is generally more open to freedom of choice and personal responsibility arguments than the Democratic orthodoxy. posted 05/12/2008 at 18:16:20
GOP's New Slogan Already Being Used To Market Anti-Depressant
If I were the chairman of the RNC, I'd attempt to argue that the Republicans were not in power for the last 7.5 years, that this popular misconception was the result of a massive smear campaign by the liberal media. It doesn't seem that the GOP can win this year unless people are convinced that it wasn't the GOP that screwed up so royally. posted 05/12/2008 at 18:31:01
How John McCain Can Rescue the Republican Party
It's simple. About 50% of Americans have a "strongly unfavorable" opinion of Bush, and about 30% favorable or strongly favorable. If Obama's Democratic Party can cultivate a strong connection in the minds of the electorate between McCain and Bush, then Obama and many of the down-ticket Democrats will win in landslides by capturing half of the voters who find Bush (less than strongly) unfavorable.
McCain = Bush + more military spending + fewer domestic investments. We'll have the most absurdly expensive and outmoded military in recent centuries defending a chronically neglected and crumbling socioeconomic infrastructure. If we don't take care of ourselves, there will be little left that's worth protecting. posted 05/12/2008 at 14:36:57
McCain = Bush + more military spending + fewer domestic investments. We'll have the most absurdly expensive and outmoded military in recent centuries defending a chronically neglected and crumbling socioeconomic infrastructure. If we don't take care of ourselves, there will be little left that's worth protecting. posted 05/12/2008 at 14:36:57
What Should Obama Do In West Virginia and Kentucky?
I think Obama should relax his position on coal just a tad. Instead of banning any new coal plants that don't have 100% carbon capture and sequestration, require at least 50% CCS, limiting coal plants to the carbon emissions level of natural gas plants. It's primarily a semantic issue given the enormous expense and questionable feasibility of CCS, but it seems unfair to allow natural gas plants to emit carbon but not coal.
Obama shouldn't be sending a message that can be construed as an unreasonable double-standard against the coal industry. He should make it clear that his position is all about creating a level playing field for all hydrocarbon energy sources based on the one that performs the best. If coal can be made as carbon efficient as natural gas, that's great, but until then, we deserve better. posted 05/12/2008 at 01:47:30
Obama shouldn't be sending a message that can be construed as an unreasonable double-standard against the coal industry. He should make it clear that his position is all about creating a level playing field for all hydrocarbon energy sources based on the one that performs the best. If coal can be made as carbon efficient as natural gas, that's great, but until then, we deserve better. posted 05/12/2008 at 01:47:30
Matt Cooper Taking Wagers on Clinton's Political Future Ending Permanently
The tragedy of Clintonism is that they package the kind of policies we need in the kind of politics we most certainly don't. The "Third Way" is really just a hybrid of Democratic policy and Republican politics, and the inevitable result is that Democrats have to run the right on policy in order to beat the Republicans at their brand of politics.
The Republicans and Clintons sell politics like IBM sells computers, through an arcane network of distribution channels accumulated over time: the MSM, lobbyists, think tanks, PACs, patronage, etc. This paradigm works well to the extent that politics (and computers) can be sold from the top down.
But Obama has arrived with a direct model that brings to politics what Dell brought to the computer industry. In his style of politics, Obama controls his relationship with the electorate by providing direct access through a centralized communications hub. His plan is to coopt the burgeoning sea of online political communities with one of his own, where he can deliver -- and the American people can receive -- his message unfiltered.
It's all part of Obama's "take back your government" agenda. Americans like to feel important, and the direct model extends this sensation to those who aren't really important enough to have their own IBM sales rep or K Street lobbyist, but who have a Constitutional right to participate in our democracy. He's won't just "work" for us, he'll listen to us. posted 05/08/2008 at 21:10:03
The Republicans and Clintons sell politics like IBM sells computers, through an arcane network of distribution channels accumulated over time: the MSM, lobbyists, think tanks, PACs, patronage, etc. This paradigm works well to the extent that politics (and computers) can be sold from the top down.
But Obama has arrived with a direct model that brings to politics what Dell brought to the computer industry. In his style of politics, Obama controls his relationship with the electorate by providing direct access through a centralized communications hub. His plan is to coopt the burgeoning sea of online political communities with one of his own, where he can deliver -- and the American people can receive -- his message unfiltered.
It's all part of Obama's "take back your government" agenda. Americans like to feel important, and the direct model extends this sensation to those who aren't really important enough to have their own IBM sales rep or K Street lobbyist, but who have a Constitutional right to participate in our democracy. He's won't just "work" for us, he'll listen to us. posted 05/08/2008 at 21:10:03
Will Obama Win Enough White Votes to Beat McCain?
Pundits like to talk about polling breakdowns because it's a clinical and emotionless way to remind us of our identities and hopefully keep us in the various little boxes they've created to sell advertising. What they don't like to talk about is turnout, because they only care how many soccer moms tune in to their shows, not how many show up to vote.
Obama is running about even with McCain in national polling based on turnout models extrapolated from previous presidential elections. However, the last time we had a general election without an incumbent president or vice-president on the ballot was 1952, more than a decade before the white flight to the Republican Party.
It's safe to say that, for a number of reasons, we've never experienced a presidential campaign with turnout potential quite like this one. We could easily have 65% turnout for the first time since industrialization. We're pursuing multiple major combat operations yet the vast majority of our draft-age population remains at home. We're a graying population with declining economic expectations among the younger generations.
(continued) posted 05/09/2008 at 03:57:25
Obama is running about even with McCain in national polling based on turnout models extrapolated from previous presidential elections. However, the last time we had a general election without an incumbent president or vice-president on the ballot was 1952, more than a decade before the white flight to the Republican Party.
It's safe to say that, for a number of reasons, we've never experienced a presidential campaign with turnout potential quite like this one. We could easily have 65% turnout for the first time since industrialization. We're pursuing multiple major combat operations yet the vast majority of our draft-age population remains at home. We're a graying population with declining economic expectations among the younger generations.
(continued) posted 05/09/2008 at 03:57:25
(page 2)
I already invested six figures in my education, but in my view, the results of this election could be worth more to me in expected lifetime income than my college degree. Every day that we continue our unilateral military interventions and supply-side market fundamentalism, I increasingly see my future going down the drain.
And you know what? It's not African-American or Hispanic-American or Asian-American young adults that are the most worried about failing to meet or exceed the standard of living set by their parents. They have opportunities their parents didn't have. It's the white young adults that are most concerned about their downward mobility.
Obama's strongest demographics are the ones, like 18-39 and blacks, that don't usually turn out in large numbers but turn out for him. The historic turnout models are wrong. If the polls say Obama and McCain are neck and neck, then it could be an Obama landslide at the swollen turnout levels that are likely this year. posted 05/09/2008 at 03:56:50
I already invested six figures in my education, but in my view, the results of this election could be worth more to me in expected lifetime income than my college degree. Every day that we continue our unilateral military interventions and supply-side market fundamentalism, I increasingly see my future going down the drain.
And you know what? It's not African-American or Hispanic-American or Asian-American young adults that are the most worried about failing to meet or exceed the standard of living set by their parents. They have opportunities their parents didn't have. It's the white young adults that are most concerned about their downward mobility.
Obama's strongest demographics are the ones, like 18-39 and blacks, that don't usually turn out in large numbers but turn out for him. The historic turnout models are wrong. If the polls say Obama and McCain are neck and neck, then it could be an Obama landslide at the swollen turnout levels that are likely this year. posted 05/09/2008 at 03:56:50
Gas Tax Holiday A Political Gift To Obama
A state gas tax holiday is a completely different animal than a national gas tax holiday. From one state's perspective, there may actually be some economic basis for suspending consumption taxes during hard times. However, it has an adverse effect on other states, especially neighboring states, and it doesn't work if many states do it together.
The bottom line on Illinois gas tax holiday was that less than 60% of the tax cut was passed onto the consumer. I suppose you could say it worked, but as tax-cut stimulus goes, cutting a consumption tax on a commodity like gasoline is just about the worst conceivable approach.
I agree with your comment below that consumption taxes are regressive, and as a progressive, I believe that they should be eliminated. But a production tax on oil companies is the same as a consumption tax on gasoline. They're both regressive.
I support one tax: an individual income tax. No corporate taxes, no sales taxes, and no break on capital gains. Any income above the poverty level is taxed at a flat rate, and any income above 5 times the poverty level is also subject to a flat poverty tax that makes up the revenue on untaxed income.
In this system, the wealthy and to a lesser extent the upper middle-class have an incentive to make economic and political decisions that help reduce poverty. It's not about punishing rich people, it's about fighting poverty and otherwise apportioning tax burden according to income. posted 05/09/2008 at 10:52:45
The bottom line on Illinois gas tax holiday was that less than 60% of the tax cut was passed onto the consumer. I suppose you could say it worked, but as tax-cut stimulus goes, cutting a consumption tax on a commodity like gasoline is just about the worst conceivable approach.
I agree with your comment below that consumption taxes are regressive, and as a progressive, I believe that they should be eliminated. But a production tax on oil companies is the same as a consumption tax on gasoline. They're both regressive.
I support one tax: an individual income tax. No corporate taxes, no sales taxes, and no break on capital gains. Any income above the poverty level is taxed at a flat rate, and any income above 5 times the poverty level is also subject to a flat poverty tax that makes up the revenue on untaxed income.
In this system, the wealthy and to a lesser extent the upper middle-class have an incentive to make economic and political decisions that help reduce poverty. It's not about punishing rich people, it's about fighting poverty and otherwise apportioning tax burden according to income. posted 05/09/2008 at 10:52:45
Obama Floated Idea Of Voluntarily Capping Donations
There's no way that reducing the cap on donations can do anything but help Obama. McCain can't match Obama's fundraising with the $2,300 cap, and the money gap would be even more pronounced if the cap was lowered to (let's say) $500. By making it more affordable for middle-class Americans to max out, Obama stands to benefit tremendously.
I'm very sympathetic to the argument that the money has a negative influence on politics. However, I worry about public campaign finance for two reasons: First, fundraising is an important way for candidates to demonstrate their ability to build the coalition they will ultimately need in order to govern effectively. Second, I don't believe that taxpayer money should ever wind up as private profit, in this case lining the pockets of the media conglomerates.
I support public funding for an extensive and substantive series of debates, policy presentations, and expert analysis produced by PBS and distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 license. I don't support a multi-million-dollar blank check. I think that if the public buys something, we should get exactly what we want, we should buy it at cost, and if there's any property involved, we should own it. Anything less is a misappropriation of public funds, and quite frankly, it legitimizes the arguments of the conservative ideologues that worship at the church of low taxes. posted 05/08/2008 at 22:33:30
I'm very sympathetic to the argument that the money has a negative influence on politics. However, I worry about public campaign finance for two reasons: First, fundraising is an important way for candidates to demonstrate their ability to build the coalition they will ultimately need in order to govern effectively. Second, I don't believe that taxpayer money should ever wind up as private profit, in this case lining the pockets of the media conglomerates.
I support public funding for an extensive and substantive series of debates, policy presentations, and expert analysis produced by PBS and distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 license. I don't support a multi-million-dollar blank check. I think that if the public buys something, we should get exactly what we want, we should buy it at cost, and if there's any property involved, we should own it. Anything less is a misappropriation of public funds, and quite frankly, it legitimizes the arguments of the conservative ideologues that worship at the church of low taxes. posted 05/08/2008 at 22:33:30
Obama's Got His Groove Back
The momentum swung back to Obama at the last minute because of the gas tax issue. There are two perceptual planes on which candidates compete in a campaign: right vs. wrong and strong vs. weak. Obama opened the primary campaign with a strategy of shadowing Clinton on policy while using his hope/change/unity narrative to project strength.
It worked until Wright came along, at which point Obama started getting hammered by Clinton on strong/weak with very few policy distinctions to go after her on right/wrong. The gas tax gave Obama an opening to make the case that he's right and she's wrong, and the electorate bought that argument by a substantial margin.
Moving on to the general, there's certainly no shortage of surface area between the platforms of Obama and McCain, which is a good thing for Obama, because he's likely to have problems on strong/weak. In his NC victory speech, Obama outlined a general election strategy based on characterizing McCain's platform as clearly being on the wrong side of public opinion. He'll portray him as McSame and McWrong.
Obama will seek to turn this election into a referendum on the Bush administration, because that's an argument he cannot lose. If you liked Bush, you'll love McCain. That's the message. The Bush connection puts the 50% of Americans whose opinion of Bush is "strongly unfavorable" in Obama's column, and the rest is gravy for the landslide. posted 05/08/2008 at 23:40:35
It worked until Wright came along, at which point Obama started getting hammered by Clinton on strong/weak with very few policy distinctions to go after her on right/wrong. The gas tax gave Obama an opening to make the case that he's right and she's wrong, and the electorate bought that argument by a substantial margin.
Moving on to the general, there's certainly no shortage of surface area between the platforms of Obama and McCain, which is a good thing for Obama, because he's likely to have problems on strong/weak. In his NC victory speech, Obama outlined a general election strategy based on characterizing McCain's platform as clearly being on the wrong side of public opinion. He'll portray him as McSame and McWrong.
Obama will seek to turn this election into a referendum on the Bush administration, because that's an argument he cannot lose. If you liked Bush, you'll love McCain. That's the message. The Bush connection puts the 50% of Americans whose opinion of Bush is "strongly unfavorable" in Obama's column, and the rest is gravy for the landslide. posted 05/08/2008 at 23:40:35
Ed Koch: Obama Is A Sure Loser, Clinton Should Fight On
Let me paraphrase: Polling data and primary outcomes suggest that electorate doesn't disapprove of Obama's relationship with Wright or his response to the situation nearly as much as the conventional wisdom predicted, but this means that it is the electorate -- not the conventional wisdom -- that is wrong. Yeah. Right...
How many times does reality have to contradict the conventional wisdom before the pundits realize that they don't really understand the American people? The fact of the matter is that Clinton does only slightly better against Obama among voters who say they care about the Wright issue than among those who say they don't care. Plenty of voters are actually drawn to Obama because of the way he's handled the Wright issue.
To be clear, Wright is a net-negative issue for Obama. But an issue that the conventional wisdom said might sink his campaign has done little more than dull the gleaming shine of his early victories. In a strange way, it makes him seem less "messianic" and more real. Here's a guy who isn't perfect but who possesses a remarkable faith in the ability of other imperfect people to change our communities, our nation, and our world for the better. It's only through a collective acceptance our imperfections that we can work to form a more perfect Union. posted 05/07/2008 at 19:48:21
How many times does reality have to contradict the conventional wisdom before the pundits realize that they don't really understand the American people? The fact of the matter is that Clinton does only slightly better against Obama among voters who say they care about the Wright issue than among those who say they don't care. Plenty of voters are actually drawn to Obama because of the way he's handled the Wright issue.
To be clear, Wright is a net-negative issue for Obama. But an issue that the conventional wisdom said might sink his campaign has done little more than dull the gleaming shine of his early victories. In a strange way, it makes him seem less "messianic" and more real. Here's a guy who isn't perfect but who possesses a remarkable faith in the ability of other imperfect people to change our communities, our nation, and our world for the better. It's only through a collective acceptance our imperfections that we can work to form a more perfect Union. posted 05/07/2008 at 19:48:21
Key Voting Blocs Boost Obama in Indiana
It looks like courting the gun-toting, whiskey-drinking, cajones-bragging white males caused Hillary to slip substantially among white women. Just as I suspected: women don't really appreciate the less civilized aspects of manly behavior, they merely put up with it. Surely few women understand this better than Hillary, after what Bill put her through. posted 05/06/2008 at 23:13:30
Bob Barr Is All That Stands Between Us And Darkest Night
I may be running to the right of my typical progressive ideology, but lately I've been on an individual liberty kick. Let them have their ridiculous semi-automatic assault rifles. Assault with a deadly weapon is a felony offense. Blaming guns is like blaming terrorism. They are tactics used by people with a desire to kill. The desire to kill is the problem, not the tactics used. Legislating the tactics will only cause prospective murderers to either break one additional law or select an alternative tactic.
In Switzerland, all adult male citizens are issued a semi-automatic handgun by the government and are required by law to keep it in their home. Despite this universal conscription policy, the United States owns twice as many guns per capita as Switzerland. I guess some Americans like to have a whole lot of guns. We have four times the gun homicides per capita as Switzerland. So not only do we have twice as many guns, but we also kill twice as many people per gun. Maybe there's some truth to the argument that if everybody was required to own a gun, there would be fewer gun homicides. posted 05/06/2008 at 16:50:34
In Switzerland, all adult male citizens are issued a semi-automatic handgun by the government and are required by law to keep it in their home. Despite this universal conscription policy, the United States owns twice as many guns per capita as Switzerland. I guess some Americans like to have a whole lot of guns. We have four times the gun homicides per capita as Switzerland. So not only do we have twice as many guns, but we also kill twice as many people per gun. Maybe there's some truth to the argument that if everybody was required to own a gun, there would be fewer gun homicides. posted 05/06/2008 at 16:50:34
On an Obama/Clinton Ticket: A Response to Andrew Sullivan
Obama's ideal running-mate is Wesley Clark. He's a Clinton surrogate, so there's some "reconciliation" factor, and nobody can question his credentials or his ability to assume the presidency under crisis. He's the only U.S. military commander to ever lead his forces to victory in a major conflict without taking a single combat casualty. He's the Democratic counterpart to Dick Cheney. posted 05/05/2008 at 23:05:45
Gas Tax Holiday? Who's the Real Elitist?
To be clear, I agree with you that reduced consumption is necessary to reduce prices. But no aspect of Clinton's gas tax proposal encourages this. posted 05/05/2008 at 16:24:21
Huh? How can the suspension of a consumption tax be "used" as an opportunity to reduce consumption? Even if consumers were planning on reducing their consumption, than eliminating the consumption tax could only cause them to reconsider. The idea simply doesn't make any sense. posted 05/05/2008 at 16:20:43
Why The 'Right' Gets Net Neutrality Wrong
Nonsense. I'm a computer engineer. I haven't worked on network QoS, but I have extensive experience with process scheduling, which is fundamentally the same problem of allocating shared resources to clients of varying interactivity (e.g. sleepers and hogs).
As the Linux kernel became more commonly used on multimedia PCs, developers theorized that interactive, latency-sensitive processes such as playback should be given a dynamic priority boost over non-interactive, throughput-sensitive processes such as encoding. This work culminated with the O(1) scheduler and some derivatives such as the Staircase scheduler.
However, recent work has rejected this theory, demonstrating that scheduler "fairness" is the fundamental metric that drives the optimal allocation of processor time between processes regardless of their interactivity. This work resulted in the Completely Fair Scheduler (CFS), which is now the default scheduler for all normal processes in Linux.
The same realities apply to network QoS. Fairness is actually better than fancy introspective priority algorithms. If latency-sensitive protocols aren't performing well with fair scheduling, then bandwidth has to be expanded. Boosting their priority will hurt the hogs more than it helps the sleepers. posted 05/05/2008 at 21:55:19
As the Linux kernel became more commonly used on multimedia PCs, developers theorized that interactive, latency-sensitive processes such as playback should be given a dynamic priority boost over non-interactive, throughput-sensitive processes such as encoding. This work culminated with the O(1) scheduler and some derivatives such as the Staircase scheduler.
However, recent work has rejected this theory, demonstrating that scheduler "fairness" is the fundamental metric that drives the optimal allocation of processor time between processes regardless of their interactivity. This work resulted in the Completely Fair Scheduler (CFS), which is now the default scheduler for all normal processes in Linux.
The same realities apply to network QoS. Fairness is actually better than fancy introspective priority algorithms. If latency-sensitive protocols aren't performing well with fair scheduling, then bandwidth has to be expanded. Boosting their priority will hurt the hogs more than it helps the sleepers. posted 05/05/2008 at 21:55:19
Yeah, I know. It's funny to watch the telcos complain about heavy users monopolizing their networks while they continue to insist on marketing all-you-can-eat service plans to everyone and their email-forwarding grandmas. They eliminated any incentive to moderate bandwidth usage, and now they want Google to pay for their own nonsensical pricing model.
Obviously they must discriminate on the basis of purpose before they even consider discriminating on the basis of quantity. Surely it wouldn't make any sense for them to increase the price of the unlimited plan for chronic downloaders and introduce metered plans for light users. There doesn't seem to be anything that the telcos could do to avoid this inevitable infringement of our individual freedoms...
Imagine if the most popular means of buying gasoline was in the form of an unlimited monthly subscription, and the oil companies pleaded for Congress to let them make SUV owners pay more than small car owners. No! Everybody pays for each gallon of gasoline they consume regardless of what kind of car they drive, and likewise, everybody should pay for each bit and/or bps they transfer regardless of whether it's BitTorrent, Shockwave, AJAX, etc. posted 05/05/2008 at 20:44:37
Obviously they must discriminate on the basis of purpose before they even consider discriminating on the basis of quantity. Surely it wouldn't make any sense for them to increase the price of the unlimited plan for chronic downloaders and introduce metered plans for light users. There doesn't seem to be anything that the telcos could do to avoid this inevitable infringement of our individual freedoms...
Imagine if the most popular means of buying gasoline was in the form of an unlimited monthly subscription, and the oil companies pleaded for Congress to let them make SUV owners pay more than small car owners. No! Everybody pays for each gallon of gasoline they consume regardless of what kind of car they drive, and likewise, everybody should pay for each bit and/or bps they transfer regardless of whether it's BitTorrent, Shockwave, AJAX, etc. posted 05/05/2008 at 20:44:37
The term "neoconservative" is misleading. This wing of the Republican party is clearly the world's most radical manifestation of neoliberalism to the extent that there is a perceived mandate to spread market capitalism around the world, at gunpoint if they see fit.
In the popular American political lexicon, the conservative/liberal spectrum generally refers to the degree to which the government intervenes in the the domestic economy in the interest of social cohesiveness. But everywhere else in the world, the deregulation and privatization of basic infrastructure and social services is considered liberal, whereas regulations and social programs are considered conservative.
While the freedom of the private sector from whims the public sector (e.g. the tyranny of the majority) is clearly a valid concern, as market liberalization proceeds, the freedom of private actors from other private entities becomes increasingly important. This challenge is made more complicated by the proliferation of services where the provider and user engage in sophisticated relationships as opposed to products where there are only simple transactions.
(continued) posted 05/05/2008 at 18:17:07
In the popular American political lexicon, the conservative/liberal spectrum generally refers to the degree to which the government intervenes in the the domestic economy in the interest of social cohesiveness. But everywhere else in the world, the deregulation and privatization of basic infrastructure and social services is considered liberal, whereas regulations and social programs are considered conservative.
While the freedom of the private sector from whims the public sector (e.g. the tyranny of the majority) is clearly a valid concern, as market liberalization proceeds, the freedom of private actors from other private entities becomes increasingly important. This challenge is made more complicated by the proliferation of services where the provider and user engage in sophisticated relationships as opposed to products where there are only simple transactions.
(continued) posted 05/05/2008 at 18:17:07
(page 2)
The operative question becomes: which kinds of contractual terms of service result in market interactions that are less free (as in freedom) than a product transaction? In my view, providers must treat their services as a quantifiable entities priced on the basis of supply and demand but never on the basis of purpose. When I buy a gallon of milk at the grocery store, they don't charge different prices based on whether I plan on drinking it straight or with cereal.
In the context of digital communications services, providers may charge for bits and/or bitrate up or down as functions of time (and potentially related to coincident demand). They can get as innovative as they like with their metering and/or prioritizing algorithms as long as every bit and/or bit per second is considered equal at that moment in time.
In short, providers should be allowed full control over the quantitative aspects of the traffic on their networks but zero control over the qualitative aspects. This extends the market liberty inherent in the classical producer/consumer transaction to the more general case of the provider/user relationship. posted 05/05/2008 at 18:16:40
The operative question becomes: which kinds of contractual terms of service result in market interactions that are less free (as in freedom) than a product transaction? In my view, providers must treat their services as a quantifiable entities priced on the basis of supply and demand but never on the basis of purpose. When I buy a gallon of milk at the grocery store, they don't charge different prices based on whether I plan on drinking it straight or with cereal.
In the context of digital communications services, providers may charge for bits and/or bitrate up or down as functions of time (and potentially related to coincident demand). They can get as innovative as they like with their metering and/or prioritizing algorithms as long as every bit and/or bit per second is considered equal at that moment in time.
In short, providers should be allowed full control over the quantitative aspects of the traffic on their networks but zero control over the qualitative aspects. This extends the market liberty inherent in the classical producer/consumer transaction to the more general case of the provider/user relationship. posted 05/05/2008 at 18:16:40
Overwhelming Majority See Gas Tax Suspension As Political Ploy
This is mostly irrelevant. Americans want a politician that would rather be seen as "wrong" than "weak". They don't care that the gas tax holiday won't work. What they see is that Clinton and McCain are "doing something" about gas prices, whereas Obama isn't.
Right vs. wrong is not a viable political strategy in the era of "fair and balanced" media coverage. It's impossible for any political idea to be truly "wrong" unless nobody is willing to go on TV and suggest that it may possibly be right. Until Bill Clinton himself says otherwise, Hillary's gas tax holiday has a non-zero chance of saving Americans big bucks at the pump.
But there is never any question whether a political position is strong or weak. Blowing things up is strong and talking to foreigners is weak, going with your gut is strong and seeking expert analysis is weak, short-term stimulus is strong and long-term investment is weak, and these realities may never change. posted 05/04/2008 at 23:59:33
Right vs. wrong is not a viable political strategy in the era of "fair and balanced" media coverage. It's impossible for any political idea to be truly "wrong" unless nobody is willing to go on TV and suggest that it may possibly be right. Until Bill Clinton himself says otherwise, Hillary's gas tax holiday has a non-zero chance of saving Americans big bucks at the pump.
But there is never any question whether a political position is strong or weak. Blowing things up is strong and talking to foreigners is weak, going with your gut is strong and seeking expert analysis is weak, short-term stimulus is strong and long-term investment is weak, and these realities may never change. posted 05/04/2008 at 23:59:33
It means that America thinks it's more racist than it really is. posted 05/04/2008 at 23:40:55
Clinton Gas Tax Holiday: Hillary Attacks Economists
She's going with her gut on this one, and her gut says working-class Americans didn't take Econ 101. My gut agrees.
Hey, just because it's refreshing to have a politician like Obama that doesn't always start with the assumption that Americans are proudly anti-intellectual doesn't necessarily mean it's good politics.
There are substantial pockets of Americans that really do hate book-learnin' know-it-alls, and it's a political liability for Obama to continue to campaign on a vision of America as a place where we embrace the power of the human intellect as the predominant means of societal progress.
But he does it anyway, and that's why I support Obama, even as the only remaining candidate who is not the spouse of a billionaire heiress or former president is branded as the out-of-touch elitist.
They're not saying that Obama is too rich or too well-connected to understand Americans. They're saying he's too intellectual, too dependent on facts and analysis, too likely to see the world as it is rather than as we wish it were.
Truth is dangerous and disruptive, they say, and we're better off without it. The world is changing too damn fast already, and this Obama guy says we need more change, says we need to "re-think" stuff? F that! All I want is to gas up the truck. posted 05/04/2008 at 17:18:34
Hey, just because it's refreshing to have a politician like Obama that doesn't always start with the assumption that Americans are proudly anti-intellectual doesn't necessarily mean it's good politics.
There are substantial pockets of Americans that really do hate book-learnin' know-it-alls, and it's a political liability for Obama to continue to campaign on a vision of America as a place where we embrace the power of the human intellect as the predominant means of societal progress.
But he does it anyway, and that's why I support Obama, even as the only remaining candidate who is not the spouse of a billionaire heiress or former president is branded as the out-of-touch elitist.
They're not saying that Obama is too rich or too well-connected to understand Americans. They're saying he's too intellectual, too dependent on facts and analysis, too likely to see the world as it is rather than as we wish it were.
Truth is dangerous and disruptive, they say, and we're better off without it. The world is changing too damn fast already, and this Obama guy says we need more change, says we need to "re-think" stuff? F that! All I want is to gas up the truck. posted 05/04/2008 at 17:18:34
Cyclone kills hundreds in Myanmar; junta response a concern
America has got to help immediately. The United States, Myanmar, and Liberia are the only nations on Earth that haven't standardized on the metric system. This is obviously a crucial alliance of strategic importance. There's something so communist (or perhaps terrorist) about the metric system, and besides, those science-mongers use it to perpetrate their global warming and evolution hoaxes. posted 05/04/2008 at 22:30:20
The Dummies' Guide to Stupid Leaders and Misleading Numbers
In the Ownership Society, anyone who can't find a job is given the option of enlistment or imprisonment. posted 05/05/2008 at 00:46:14
Operation Anti-Chaos: The Narrative on "White Voters" Is Fiction
Don't be silly. We all know that even non-racist whites won't vote for Obama because they know that racist whites won't vote for him. As long as Obama has any weak demographics, it doesn't make sense for anybody to vote for him, because, after all, he's not white. If he can't win uneducated blue-collar Catholic white racist female seniors, then he's obviously unelectable, because, clearly, no non-white candidate has ever won the presidency without them. posted 05/03/2008 at 21:46:34
California Considering New Taxes On Takeout Food, Personal Trainers, Movie Tickets
Earth to Governator: Consumption and production taxes are regressive. Apportion ALL taxes by household income including capital gains, exempting income up to the poverty level, and made-up with a poverty tax on any income above 10 times poverty level. This is simple, progressive, and very friendly to small businesses. posted 05/03/2008 at 22:34:59
Same damn thing!! Taxing the producer is the same as taxing the product!! The gas tax and now this... it's getting ridiculous. Why doesn't anybody understand how taxes work? posted 05/03/2008 at 22:10:49
Why an Economic Turn for the Better? It's Government, Stupid.
I'm sorry, but I disagree with this piece almost as much as I disagree with market fundamentalism.
Rebate stimulus doesn't work. Supply-side stimulus causes income to fall faster than prices. Demand-side stimulus causes prices to rise faster than income. Both reflect a loss of consumer purchasing power due to producers taking profit on the stimulus.
Additionally, by deficit spending on stimulus, we're placing a bet that the next 50 years will be substantially more prosperous for Americans than the boom times of the past 50 years. The only way we make this bet pay off is if the United States leads a global movement back toward protectionism.
The only effective way for government to keep the economy humming along is through long-term infrastructure investments in education, healthcare, transportation, communications, and energy. These investments make private enterprise vastly more prosperous.
The Federal Reserve is NOT government. It is a consortium of private banking entities vastly more beholden to Wall Street than to Congress. If Congress didn't revoke the Fed's charter during the Great Depression, then it extremely unlikely that they're ever going to take back their Constitutional power to regulate the money supply.
Furthermore, market liberalization by so-called "conservative" politicians has substantially limited the Fed's ability to enforce monetary policy. Their Treasury-backed capital pool is now in direct competition with hedge funds, investment banks, sovereign funds, and other private capital pools for control of the macroeconomic climate, and they're losing. posted 05/02/2008 at 19:12:41
Rebate stimulus doesn't work. Supply-side stimulus causes income to fall faster than prices. Demand-side stimulus causes prices to rise faster than income. Both reflect a loss of consumer purchasing power due to producers taking profit on the stimulus.
Additionally, by deficit spending on stimulus, we're placing a bet that the next 50 years will be substantially more prosperous for Americans than the boom times of the past 50 years. The only way we make this bet pay off is if the United States leads a global movement back toward protectionism.
The only effective way for government to keep the economy humming along is through long-term infrastructure investments in education, healthcare, transportation, communications, and energy. These investments make private enterprise vastly more prosperous.
The Federal Reserve is NOT government. It is a consortium of private banking entities vastly more beholden to Wall Street than to Congress. If Congress didn't revoke the Fed's charter during the Great Depression, then it extremely unlikely that they're ever going to take back their Constitutional power to regulate the money supply.
Furthermore, market liberalization by so-called "conservative" politicians has substantially limited the Fed's ability to enforce monetary policy. Their Treasury-backed capital pool is now in direct competition with hedge funds, investment banks, sovereign funds, and other private capital pools for control of the macroeconomic climate, and they're losing. posted 05/02/2008 at 19:12:41
You Own It -- You Broke It
Those aren't Blue Dogs, those are the DLC. There are three factions in the Democratic Party. The Blue Dogs are like traditional libertarian conservatives except they support union labor. The DLC are neoliberals that support aggressive foreign policy, both corporate and social welfare systems, and cultural liberalism. The Blue Dogs are closer to Ron Paul than to Hillary Clinton. posted 05/02/2008 at 14:09:43
Clinton Camp Defends Gas Plan: She Doesn't Need To Listen To Experts
I support Obama, but until this gas tax proposal, I considered Clinton to be sensible on economic policy if not on foreign policy and strategic vision. Well, not anymore.
Low information voters love the gas tax holiday because they are told (and they believe) that it will cause gas prices to drop. But Clinton's proposal is an economic placebo. A production tax on oil companies is functionally equivalent to a consumption tax on gasoline. The price of gas stays the same, and the split between the oil companies and the government stays the same. Her plan does absolutely nothing but lie to the American people.
The worst part is that Hillary Clinton knows she's lying. She knows her plan will not reduce gas prices. But she's doing it anyway, because she also knows it's good politics in an election year. Vote for Hillary: She'll turn all of our consumption taxes into production taxes for reasons that only make sense to pollsters and pundits. posted 05/01/2008 at 18:35:40
Low information voters love the gas tax holiday because they are told (and they believe) that it will cause gas prices to drop. But Clinton's proposal is an economic placebo. A production tax on oil companies is functionally equivalent to a consumption tax on gasoline. The price of gas stays the same, and the split between the oil companies and the government stays the same. Her plan does absolutely nothing but lie to the American people.
The worst part is that Hillary Clinton knows she's lying. She knows her plan will not reduce gas prices. But she's doing it anyway, because she also knows it's good politics in an election year. Vote for Hillary: She'll turn all of our consumption taxes into production taxes for reasons that only make sense to pollsters and pundits. posted 05/01/2008 at 18:35:40
Labor Leader Says Clinton Has "Testicular Fortitude"
I don't have the intestinal fortitude to deal with this nonsense anymore. What's next? Barack Obama has the plump white breasts Americans want in a leader? McCain fathered another black baby, this time with Cindy?
Ugh... posted 05/01/2008 at 14:50:19
Ugh... posted 05/01/2008 at 14:50:19
Gas Tax Holiday Splits Clinton And Obama: Who's Right?
Obama's right, McCain is wrong, and Clinton is pandering (what else is new?). Cutting the gas tax will cause the pre-tax price of gas to increase by almost as much, resulting in negligible savings for consumers while redirecting money from public infrastructure to oil company profits. Clinton's plan is a placebo: consumers will pay the same amount to both the oil companies and the government regardless of whether it's a gas tax or an oil baron tax.
Clinton's plan is functionally the same as Obama's plan (do nothing), except it plays so much better politically. However, Obama transcends the subtle partisanship of Democratic economic policy. Taxing the producer is equivalent to taxing the product, yet Democrats love play politics with this economic slight of hand.
The optimal approach, from a progressive point of view, is to eliminate all sales taxes and corporate taxes and replace the revenue with progressive individual income tax (where capital gains are income). Eliminating regressive production/consumption taxes reduces the required progressivity of the income tax.
It may be hard for some progressives to accept that replacing corporate tax dollars with income tax dollars is progressive policy, but please take a moment to think about it. Not only would this immediately increase the purchasing power of the working class, but it would also gain back a lot of the American jobs lost to globalization. posted 04/29/2008 at 21:22:37
Clinton's plan is functionally the same as Obama's plan (do nothing), except it plays so much better politically. However, Obama transcends the subtle partisanship of Democratic economic policy. Taxing the producer is equivalent to taxing the product, yet Democrats love play politics with this economic slight of hand.
The optimal approach, from a progressive point of view, is to eliminate all sales taxes and corporate taxes and replace the revenue with progressive individual income tax (where capital gains are income). Eliminating regressive production/consumption taxes reduces the required progressivity of the income tax.
It may be hard for some progressives to accept that replacing corporate tax dollars with income tax dollars is progressive policy, but please take a moment to think about it. Not only would this immediately increase the purchasing power of the working class, but it would also gain back a lot of the American jobs lost to globalization. posted 04/29/2008 at 21:22:37
A Little Love for Big Oil
McCain seems to think the oil companies will invest in our public transportation infrastructure or that our infrastructure will maintain and improve itself. Clinton seems to think that most voters don't realize that taxing the producer is equivalent to taxing the product. McCain is wrong, and Clinton is right (unfortunately).
Clinton's plan is economically equivalent to Obama's plan (do nothing), but by renaming the gas tax to the oil baron tax, it plays better politically. Obama refuses to pander to the working class with economic placebos that repackage a regressive consumption tax as a regressive production tax, even though such ploys are staples of Democratic partisanship.
A much better option would have been to increase the progressivity of the individual income tax to reflect the impact of rising costs of energy and food on those that spend a larger portion of their income on such things. But instead of shifting the tax burden from the working class to the investing class, we opted for a stimulus package that shifts the burden to future generations.
It sure doesn't seem like the next 50 years are going to be substantially more prosperous for Americans than the boom times of last 50 years, but this is the bet that our political leaders have placed. We have to continue our unprecedented domination of the global economy against the equalizing effect of globalization, while our leaders' attempts to use deficit spending to sell free trade are all but guaranteeing America's gradual movement toward protectionism. posted 05/01/2008 at 14:27:21
Clinton's plan is economically equivalent to Obama's plan (do nothing), but by renaming the gas tax to the oil baron tax, it plays better politically. Obama refuses to pander to the working class with economic placebos that repackage a regressive consumption tax as a regressive production tax, even though such ploys are staples of Democratic partisanship.
A much better option would have been to increase the progressivity of the individual income tax to reflect the impact of rising costs of energy and food on those that spend a larger portion of their income on such things. But instead of shifting the tax burden from the working class to the investing class, we opted for a stimulus package that shifts the burden to future generations.
It sure doesn't seem like the next 50 years are going to be substantially more prosperous for Americans than the boom times of last 50 years, but this is the bet that our political leaders have placed. We have to continue our unprecedented domination of the global economy against the equalizing effect of globalization, while our leaders' attempts to use deficit spending to sell free trade are all but guaranteeing America's gradual movement toward protectionism. posted 05/01/2008 at 14:27:21
Shell Profits Soar By 25% Thanks To Record Oil Prices
This isn't supply and demand, this is a massive credit super-bubble that has been inflated by central banks since WWII and is now boiling off in the form of various smaller bubbles bursting all over the economy. It turns out that untold trillions of dollars worth of debt is worthless, with no practical or even theoretical basis for it ever being repaid, and since our money is backed by debt, our money is going to collapse.
Everybody who knows the scam knows the jig is up, and they're pushing into commodities like nobody's business in anticipation of a great currency collapse among debtor nations. The fundamentals look way out of whack right now because all the hedge funds, sovereign wealth funds, and investment banks are out ahead of the curve. It's their rational expectation and self-fulfilling prophecy of currency collapse that's driving the macroeconomic climate.
The central banks have an interest in preventing currency collapse, but they have largely lost control of monetary policy. Radical liberalization by so-called "conservative" politicians has made the financial markets largely autonomous. Vast pools of private capital are in control, much of which is held by foreign capitalists who want to crash the American domestic economy and finance its recovery.
The irony of the situation is that America used its military to crush and/or coopt foreign nationalism and develop capitalist economies, and the resulting foreign capitalists are now using their money to crush and/or coopt what's left of American nationalism. posted 04/29/2008 at 15:48:54
Everybody who knows the scam knows the jig is up, and they're pushing into commodities like nobody's business in anticipation of a great currency collapse among debtor nations. The fundamentals look way out of whack right now because all the hedge funds, sovereign wealth funds, and investment banks are out ahead of the curve. It's their rational expectation and self-fulfilling prophecy of currency collapse that's driving the macroeconomic climate.
The central banks have an interest in preventing currency collapse, but they have largely lost control of monetary policy. Radical liberalization by so-called "conservative" politicians has made the financial markets largely autonomous. Vast pools of private capital are in control, much of which is held by foreign capitalists who want to crash the American domestic economy and finance its recovery.
The irony of the situation is that America used its military to crush and/or coopt foreign nationalism and develop capitalist economies, and the resulting foreign capitalists are now using their money to crush and/or coopt what's left of American nationalism. posted 04/29/2008 at 15:48:54
Billification and Other Bad Ideas
Bill would be Hillary's Dick Cheney (shudder). posted 04/28/2008 at 12:19:45
Why You Shouldn't Spend Your Stimulus Check
I'm 25. The debt-money system will surely collapse during my expected lifetime, right? I mean, the whole macroeconomic equation doesn't balance out without an exponentially increasing flow of assets from public to private ownership, and at some point, there won't be any more public assets left to privatize. After global capitalism swallows everything, the debt-money system will collapse because it doesn't work as a closed system.
Then we'll have to face the simple fact that any output value beyond the value of its inputs becomes debt, because there isn't any money in the system to account for this margin. Any profit is unsustainable in the long-run. We can argue about the morality and/or utility of the profit motive, but all it really does is create debt.
More debt will be issued than can ever be paid back, because that's the way the mathematical underpinnings of the debt-money system work out. It's a big giant scam to pressure sovereign authorities to privatize their assets and thereby receive the tangible short-term benefits of this magical debt-money that has no sustainable reality. posted 04/28/2008 at 16:45:43
Then we'll have to face the simple fact that any output value beyond the value of its inputs becomes debt, because there isn't any money in the system to account for this margin. Any profit is unsustainable in the long-run. We can argue about the morality and/or utility of the profit motive, but all it really does is create debt.
More debt will be issued than can ever be paid back, because that's the way the mathematical underpinnings of the debt-money system work out. It's a big giant scam to pressure sovereign authorities to privatize their assets and thereby receive the tangible short-term benefits of this magical debt-money that has no sustainable reality. posted 04/28/2008 at 16:45:43
Why The Left Must Shout Louder
The stated goal of our economy is to increase productive output, which is driven by consumption. Milton Friedman's supply-side theory says that consumption is driven by prices, while Keynesian demand-side theory argues that consumption is driven by income.
The practical failure of these theories is that supply-side stimulus causes income to decrease faster than prices, and demand-side stimulus cause prices to increase faster than income. Both situations reflect a decrease in purchasing power equal to the portion of stimulus taken as profit.
Wealth is the difference between income and output. By basing our economy on maximizing output growth, we are effectively minimizing or even reversing wealth creation. In my view, we should reconsider our priorities. Wealth is the true measure of economic well-being.
Production is the economic reaction of labor and resources in the presence of capital. The difference between output price and labor cost cannot be paid from income and therefore becomes a deficit. Consumers can choose to assume this debt or pass it on to the producer.
Increased capital from wealth creation allows more efficient production of output from labor and/or resources. However, reducing labor costs results in either reduced or unsustainable demand. The only sustainable application of capital is toward the reduction of resource costs.
In conclusion, there is only one strategy for sustainable wealth creation: shift income from consumption to investment in resource efficiency. This approach increases wealth while also addressing resource shortages and environmental concerns. posted 04/25/2008 at 07:41:52
The practical failure of these theories is that supply-side stimulus causes income to decrease faster than prices, and demand-side stimulus cause prices to increase faster than income. Both situations reflect a decrease in purchasing power equal to the portion of stimulus taken as profit.
Wealth is the difference between income and output. By basing our economy on maximizing output growth, we are effectively minimizing or even reversing wealth creation. In my view, we should reconsider our priorities. Wealth is the true measure of economic well-being.
Production is the economic reaction of labor and resources in the presence of capital. The difference between output price and labor cost cannot be paid from income and therefore becomes a deficit. Consumers can choose to assume this debt or pass it on to the producer.
Increased capital from wealth creation allows more efficient production of output from labor and/or resources. However, reducing labor costs results in either reduced or unsustainable demand. The only sustainable application of capital is toward the reduction of resource costs.
In conclusion, there is only one strategy for sustainable wealth creation: shift income from consumption to investment in resource efficiency. This approach increases wealth while also addressing resource shortages and environmental concerns. posted 04/25/2008 at 07:41:52
Carly Fiorina As McCain's VP?
Great! Why wouldn't we want McCain to select as his running-mater the most ineffective computer industry CEO since the fall of DEC? She nearly destroyed HP with the Compaq merger, stood alone in propping up the ill-conceived Itanium processor architecture, and allowed Dell to leap up-market into the midrange rackmount space. I doubt she could have done much worse.
But then again, the Republican Party seems to the place where failed executives go to find a less results-oriented audience for their chronic ineptitude. posted 04/24/2008 at 21:16:43
But then again, the Republican Party seems to the place where failed executives go to find a less results-oriented audience for their chronic ineptitude. posted 04/24/2008 at 21:16:43
The New York Times is Wrong
The criticism against negative campaigning isn't that it doesn't work, because it clearly does. The point is that negative campaigning shifts focus away from what's really important in favor of the most trivial forms of media sensationalism. I doubt that many Americans would care about negative campaigning if it wasn't effective. It's a problem because it induces people to vote against their interests, resulting in us not getting the government we deserve.
Nowhere in this piece does the blogger explain why negative campaigning is good for America, only that it is good for the Clinton campaign from a process standpoint. Quite frankly, and I don't mean her any disrespect, but I don't care very much about Hillary Clinton's political aspirations. I'm vastly more concerned with America's strategic vision for the future, which has the potential to drastically impact my financial and personal well-being over the course of my life. Nothing in those negative ads speaks to Clinton's vision for America. They are worse than worthless. They actively detract from our ability to make informed decisions. posted 04/24/2008 at 18:24:03
Nowhere in this piece does the blogger explain why negative campaigning is good for America, only that it is good for the Clinton campaign from a process standpoint. Quite frankly, and I don't mean her any disrespect, but I don't care very much about Hillary Clinton's political aspirations. I'm vastly more concerned with America's strategic vision for the future, which has the potential to drastically impact my financial and personal well-being over the course of my life. Nothing in those negative ads speaks to Clinton's vision for America. They are worse than worthless. They actively detract from our ability to make informed decisions. posted 04/24/2008 at 18:24:03
McCain Camp Uses Free Prison Labor
I highly disagree with appropriating public resources unequally in the service of partisan activities. However, I'm also strongly in favor of employing our massive nonviolent prison population in a wide range of public infrastructure programs. This way, Americans receive a valuable service in exchange for funding their incarceration, and the inmates receive a structured work environment that will prepare them for reentry into society. Ideally, we should require all adult inmates without a high school diploma to earn their GED through prison education programs before they can be released. posted 04/24/2008 at 17:29:34
McCain opposes equal pay bill in Senate
"this kind of legislation... opens us up to lawsuits for all kinds of problems"
Who is "us", Senator McCain? It seems to me that employers already have an unfair advantage over their employees. In a capitalist economy, it's absolutely crucial that all parties have the right to seek justice when the value of labor, commodities, or products is being unfairly constrained by market externalities such as social prejudice.
Now, if the Democrats were to propose legislation that requires employers to maintain equal pay rates for men and women across their workforce, then I would oppose it. In general, I believe that such issues are better handled by the courts on a case-by-case basis than by imposing blanket regulations that may be inappropriate in certain contexts. Corporate interest groups and their Republican surrogates must decide whether they prefer to deal with prescriptive regulations or punitive lawsuits. They can't get rid of both. posted 04/24/2008 at 15:58:34
Who is "us", Senator McCain? It seems to me that employers already have an unfair advantage over their employees. In a capitalist economy, it's absolutely crucial that all parties have the right to seek justice when the value of labor, commodities, or products is being unfairly constrained by market externalities such as social prejudice.
Now, if the Democrats were to propose legislation that requires employers to maintain equal pay rates for men and women across their workforce, then I would oppose it. In general, I believe that such issues are better handled by the courts on a case-by-case basis than by imposing blanket regulations that may be inappropriate in certain contexts. Corporate interest groups and their Republican surrogates must decide whether they prefer to deal with prescriptive regulations or punitive lawsuits. They can't get rid of both. posted 04/24/2008 at 15:58:34
Europe's Turn Back To Coal Raises Climate Fears
I don't understand why we insist on destroying precious geological compounds to create heat for electric generation when we have so much heat flow from the Sun and heat reserves from the Earth's mantle that we could be capturing.
The technology and economics of solar thermal capture is simple (mirrors and water loops), and combined with thermal buffers (insulated water tanks), the turbines can operate 24/7. What's the holdup? Enhanced geothermal capture is a bit tricky, but we haven't tapped many of our natural dry steam fields yet. I get 57% of my electricity from a nearby geothermal plant that can operate for thousands of years on nothing but periodic additions of recycled wastewater. posted 04/24/2008 at 09:24:20
The technology and economics of solar thermal capture is simple (mirrors and water loops), and combined with thermal buffers (insulated water tanks), the turbines can operate 24/7. What's the holdup? Enhanced geothermal capture is a bit tricky, but we haven't tapped many of our natural dry steam fields yet. I get 57% of my electricity from a nearby geothermal plant that can operate for thousands of years on nothing but periodic additions of recycled wastewater. posted 04/24/2008 at 09:24:20
Petraeus Promotion Just One More Crony Replacing A Commander
Patraeus knows his job and does it well. His boss asked him to polish a turd. He reported back to Congress twice to share his fairly balanced assessment of how shiny he made the turd, how much work it takes just to maintain this level of turd shininess, and how the turd would quickly tarnish if we were to ever stop polishing it.
There's no reason for him to entertain any suggestions that don't involve a polished turd, since that isn't want his boss wants to see. If his next boss would rather see the turd converted into something useful, such as fertilizer, so that we can stop buffing the damn thing, then that's another story. But given the strategic turd beautification initiative we have in place, it's fair to say that Patraeus is performing on par or perhaps even better. posted 04/23/2008 at 20:03:49
There's no reason for him to entertain any suggestions that don't involve a polished turd, since that isn't want his boss wants to see. If his next boss would rather see the turd converted into something useful, such as fertilizer, so that we can stop buffing the damn thing, then that's another story. But given the strategic turd beautification initiative we have in place, it's fair to say that Patraeus is performing on par or perhaps even better. posted 04/23/2008 at 20:03:49
Popular Stories on HuffPost
A front page story in today's New York Times wonders whether...
One of Sen. Hillary Clinton's top financial supporters offered $1 million to the...
The Washington Post reports from Obama's rally in Portland, Oregon: Sen....
Yesterday, Time's Joe Klein noted that he could find no evidence...
Chuck Hagel is quickly becoming Barack Obama's answer to Joe Lieberman. The
John Hagee, the controversial evangelical leader and endorser...
In a last ditch stand, Hillary Clinton is trying to turn the seating of the disputed Florida...
WASHINGTON — Democrat Barack Obama has a message for Tennessee's Republican Party: "Lay off my wife." Obama,...
The AP reports on Clinton's latest proclamations about how long she plans to...
The Legal Framework for the Prosecution That the king can do no wrong is a necessary and...
Listen to the talking heads...
7:03 (all times are EDT) Even though the early returns are...