Only in very serious minds can these conceptions of the US government co-exist:
1. The US government is so hopelessly inefficient and incompetent, that any attempt to deliver government-provided health insurance (or the option thereof) to the uninsured (and some/all of the already-insured) is an unprecedented fool’s pipe dream of a fantasy of a boondoggle with no chance for any positive outcome. Also, socialism.
And at a price tag of $1.2 trillion dollars over ten years, there is no way we can afford to chase such fantastical chimera.
AND
2. The US government is so remarkably efficient and competent that it can transform (wholesale) Iraqi and Afghan societies (at the same time) and remake those societies into US-friendly, Western-conceived models of good governance, free market economics and liberal democracy all through multi-decade armed occupations. These goals are easily attainable for a government so adept at devising and delivering effective political, economic, social service and governance measures, and resounding victory is almost certain, as long as we don’t lose our nerve and do something foolish like withdraw.
And at a price tag of $3-4 trillion dollars over the past 8 years, the continuation of these policies at that burn rate for the next 25-50 years would be a bargain.
November 9, 2009 at 10:34 am
Oh, I thought it would be:
2. Any possible gubmint insurance option will be so attractive an option to health insurance consumers (who want good care at a cheap price, presumably) that it will out compete the private companies, take over the market COMPLETELY, and put the poor, hard-working murcan health executives right out of business.
November 9, 2009 at 11:28 am
That is an acceptable alternate answer.
November 9, 2009 at 11:02 am
Word!
November 9, 2009 at 11:18 am
And the word is: Doublethink.
November 9, 2009 at 10:08 pm
I agree.
What?
November 10, 2009 at 6:07 am
You’re right, what was I thinking? Orwell was an idiot. The word is actually “love.”
Say it and you’ll be free.
November 9, 2009 at 11:15 am
Of course the two positions are contradictory! Just like “super tax cuts for all” and “balance the budget!”, etc. etc.
All that means is that there’s a deeper underlying motivation, that dare not appear in public, because it would be too obviously evil.
Like Cthulhu, we only see the visible manifestations of a horror that transcends our dimensions of time and space.
Either that, or the conservitives are moronically stupid hypocritical assholes.
Come to think of it, I’m not sure that there’s any way to distinguish the two hypotheses. Oh well.
November 10, 2009 at 8:47 am
Like Cthulhu, we only see the visible manifestations of a horror that transcends our dimensions of time and space.
Either that, or the conservitives are moronically stupid hypocritical assholes.
Come now–there’s no reason it can’t be both.
November 9, 2009 at 12:19 pm
All I know is the horror of the last month is behind us. Praise be to Shakira’s Ass!
A moment of silent contemplation….
November 9, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Shakira’s Ass? What did I miss?
November 9, 2009 at 7:13 pm
He means the month-long drought of no posts.
November 10, 2009 at 8:10 am
Apparently, you have a primnitive notion of deities.
November 10, 2009 at 9:17 am
Nothing primitive about MY worshipful lust. My sacred lechery is *nuanced*.
November 11, 2009 at 8:49 am
Yes! All Hail Shakira’s booty-licious booty! It’s also an ‘onion butt’. :-P
November 11, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Heh. U speld bootay rung.
November 9, 2009 at 1:13 pm
#1 involves helping poor, possibly funny-talkin brown people.
#2 involves bombing the everloving shit out of same.
November 9, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Smirk is smart
Cheney is kind
The Doughy Pantload deserves the Nobel prize for literature
The Putz is intellectually honest
Beckkk is sane….oh, wait, is that too much of a reach?
November 9, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Shorter wingnuts/serious thinkers/Republicans:
“If my taxes are going to pay for someone’s healthcare and welfare, they better damn well be Iraqi and not American!”
November 9, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Ah, tis true: the new Iraq has nationalized health care.
Of course, so did the old Iraq IIRC.
November 9, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Well, Iraqis are fellow Caucasians.
November 9, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Funniest paradox since the night Doc Severinsen sat in for Johnny and the first guest was one Julius Irving. That was really something.
November 10, 2009 at 9:53 pm
The TV pilot they shared, Sever and Son, never took off. Irving made a piss-poor Lamont and Doc never clicked as Fred Sanford.
November 9, 2009 at 7:09 pm
A friend sent me this rant about the amazing situational flexibility of Republican “principles.” Seems to apply here.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/06/60minutes/main5555565.shtml
Hackers sabotaged Brazil’s power grid in 2007, knocking out power to a huge area for 2 days. I have read several articles recently–not crazy-eyed blogs, but actual, legitimate articles–detailing our severe vulnerability. We outsource all of our routers and other networking equipment manufacturing to China, of course, so that we can save money. China puts backdoors into the router software and then sells them to us. Fat dumb and happy, we put the routers in place, and now they can easily hack our system. This has been extensively documented. They’ve been caught snooping several times.
Now, if Obama was to propose that, in the name of national security, we needed to require the energy industry to comply with certain rules that would contain this threat, Mr. I-Object and his hordes would all scream, “SOCIALISM! STATE-RUN ENERGY INDUSTRY! NATIONALIZATION! CONCENTRATION CAMPS!” And then, if the attack hit, those same people would suddenly find sinister connections between Obama and China, proof positive that he personally helped the Chinese to attack us.
November 10, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Tis but too true. In fact I think a rural RE-electrification idea would be a GOOD THING. Sell it to the bloofers in the name of National, need I say, HOMELAND Security. Wind turbines set up at gubmint expense on all parcels of land exceeding 60 acres. Need not take up more than 1 acre of course, per installation. New off grid, and hence ROBUST electricicty for the heartland, where our vital national security interest mainly lies. Agriculture and a few hidden away laboratories.
November 9, 2009 at 7:56 pm
curv3bal, you post those things as if they defied logic or something. But they’re both in perfect accord in wingnut land.
Health insurance for all defies the first Republican prime directive: Fuck the poor! They deserve whatever happens to them, but they DO NOT deserve any possibility of climbing out of poverty.
Devoting massive resources to other lands USED to be anathema to Republicans, but since they found out that this drives liberals crazy (because we tend to kill and/or torture many innocents in the process), they’ve decided it’s good thing now.
November 9, 2009 at 10:11 pm
I want to say something tangentially humorous and ironic about this, but there’s no room left. curv3 has sautéed this very serious paradox superbly, and bikelib (stunning lipstick, BTW) topped it with a perfectly complimenting nutty brown sauce.
November 9, 2009 at 10:12 pm
This is the part where I say, “cognative dissonance”.
Seriously, call Lieberman, any Senator named Nelson, Landrieu, Lincoln, Baucus, and Conrad and tell them you’ll set yourself on fire on the lawn of the Dirkson Building unless KBR gets more Government subsides and tax cuts.
PS
Tell Byrd to shut the fuck about reconciliation, if that’s the way we have to go, that’s the way they have to go.
PPS
You can use this as a form letter.
PPPS
You’re Welcome.
November 10, 2009 at 1:55 am
The three wisest words ever spoken:
“Follow the money”.
As General Butler said, War is a racket that benefits big business (mostly (R) but quite a few (D)s like Feinstein as well, plus the military expenditures in all 50 states.
Better health care system will benefit the disempowered, those at the tail end of the government gravy train.
Old Money doesn’t want to pay for J6P’s medical bills, they want him or her to FOAD.
November 10, 2009 at 2:14 am
It’s that conflict of interests that keeps the working man at the other working man’s throut instead confronting the elite, because they all feel that they have a shot at being the elite, well 100% can’t be 5%.
November 10, 2009 at 10:51 am
Sure, your liberal ‘math’ says that $3.4 trillion is more than $1.2 trillion, but show me where it says that in the Constitution.
November 10, 2009 at 3:45 pm
I see many pithy witty remarks but not a single ill-chosen music video, although that Michelle broad scats some caterwaulingly fine be-bop scat.
Honorable Mention to Kleber for successfully channeling the teabag spirit, if tougher than they could hang.
Set yourself on fire? On somebody’s LAWN? Nay, sir, too much. But I swear on this stack of Rand books that I’ll hold my breath until I turn blue or my pants turn brown!
November 10, 2009 at 6:30 pm
I should spam your site with facts. It would be an upgrade. Do you people actually believe that you present a credible threat to conservative logic?
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq’s war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in `material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations’ and urged the President `to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations’ (Public Law 105-235);
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;
Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677′;
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),’ that Iraq’s repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and `constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,’ and that Congress, `supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688′;
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge’ posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,’ while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable’;
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all
relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it
November 11, 2009 at 9:01 am
Wow. Your logic is irresistible.
November 10, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Interestingly enough, you don’t mention those conservative pundits that clearly advised against staying in Iraq (especially when it became clear there were no WMD’s there) and wanted to limit our mission in Afghanistan to stopping the Taliban and nothing more. These same pundits are also saying, we can’t afford to pay for everyone’s health care and that’s not a function of government, anyway.
I’m not endorsing these or any other positions. I’m just pointing out that your hilarious juxtaposition is only true for politicians and flunkies. Not actual thinkers, even conservative thinkers you don’t like who hold positions you don’t support. Not being beholden to a party, their free to be consistent.
And thus, much less hilarious.
November 11, 2009 at 9:00 am
Interestingly enough, you don’t mention those conservative pundits…
Interestingly enough, I didn’t mention “conservatives” at all.You know why?
Because the aforementioned paradox is not limited to conservatives. Nor are all conservatives guilty of espousing said paradox.
There are plenty of chin stroking liberal interventionists and nominal Dems (see, ie, Blue Dogs, Lieberman, George Packer, et al) that are equally, or roughly as, guilty. Not to mention such liberal media oases as the Washington Post editorial page.
And there are plenty of conservatives (Larison, Bacevich, ie) that are consistent. Incidentally, I don’t disagree with those conservatives on nearly as many issues as I used to. Especially on foreign policy issues.
I’m just pointing out that your hilarious juxtaposition is only true for politicians and flunkies.
I don’t think I claimed otherwise. Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with the Internet Tradition of “very serious people.”
Then you would fully grasp that my hilarious juxtaposition is just as hilarious as it is. No more, no less.
November 12, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Oh my. This is becoming vewwy vewwy sewious. With intewectuwal wigah, even. So, now, therefore be it.
November 10, 2009 at 6:48 pm
I jist postered your critique at Ornery American because it was so brilliantly conceived, curv3, but rereading it I noticed it was also perfectly executed.
Salut!
November 10, 2009 at 10:02 pm
Welcome back.
November 11, 2009 at 12:18 am
In my younger days I used to hang out on atheist message boards and read Dawkins and Hitchens and all that, and then at some point I just got tired of it.
The problems of religion aren’t subtle; the monotheists haven’t even been able to come up with an answer for why a good god would allow evil. There are an entire host of unresolvable problems with religion that should be obvious to anybody who spends more then a minute thinking about them, and yet pointing out the obvious is somehow daring, controversial, and maybe even evil.
It’s the same here; of course it’s incomprehensible to say “I’m terrified of every branch of government except the guys with the guns and the waterboards”. Why does this even need to be pointed out? Why do conservatives feel no need to address this rather glaring flaw in their ideology?
This constant need to explain over and over again that the Emperor has no clothes just depresses me so damn much.
November 11, 2009 at 8:43 am
Some kind of reverse psychology a la Stockholm syndrome might explain conservative (and much liberal) willingness to mistrust the IRS but grant the shooters full faith.
A strange tangent to this is that your standard grunt is unique in swearing oath to uphold and defend the USA constitution. I believe Congress and other elected officials swear a similar oath, but the armed forces are unique, I believe, in being this huge corps, millions of members, who swear to defend the Constitution.
Not that I think this fact itself much colors the thinking of the average mainstream political lunatic (1/3? 1/2? 2/3? the American populace?) but it does seem to connect somehow with the sanctified trust so many folks blindly place in the military/industrial complex called the USA Armed Forces.
Finally, I observe that this crazy attitude is not consistent. It goes through cycles, like religious revivals in the Burnt-Over district in the early 19th century. Support Our Troops ribbon magnets are now so passe I’m thinking of getting one for my adult trike, right next to my Who Would Jesus Do? fender sticker.
November 11, 2009 at 4:45 am
Evil question answered, at a middle school education level. Next.
http://www.gotquestions.org/did-God-create-evil.html
November 11, 2009 at 10:30 am
Priceless:
“Evil has no existence of its own; it is really the absence of good.”
Reality has no existence of its own; it is really(sic) the absence of nothingness.
It’s like reading Kant via Burroughs cut-up on a string of used TP.
November 11, 2009 at 10:35 am
“God did not have to create evil, but rather only allow for the absence of good.”
It’s like the Dubya question:
is he really that malign or merely that incompetent?
November 11, 2009 at 10:36 am
Or God as Nixon:
“I am NOT omnipotent!”
November 11, 2009 at 10:45 am
But it doesn’t even answer the question!
The question being:
The problems of religion aren’t subtle; the monotheists haven’t even been able to come up with an answer for why a good god would allow evil.
All the link said was that God didn’t “create” evil, but that evil is the absence of good. And God allowed for there to be instances of the absence of good. Thus, god allowed evil to be.
The question is, why woud a good God do that?
November 11, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Moreover the ‘evil as nonbeing’ argument is also flawed with respect to positive evil — i.e. a murder-torturer say is not JUST a less perfect being than a normal person. In any objective sense, he may well be as perfect, i.e. as able to function, as smart as disciplined etc etc. He may even fully realize the difference between wrong and right. He may realize that causing pain etc. is evil and wrong. He simply may consciously choose to do evil.
And THAT isn’t explained by the ‘negative’ argument.
Ah but ‘free will’ does, eh? But why create people who are capable of a perverted free will in the first place?, I mean, typhoons and earthquakes and malaria and cancer aren’t ENOUGH BADNESS??
November 11, 2009 at 1:06 pm
A good God would do that so that free will is not a joke, a trick, a mindgame or a mcguffin. It would be a true challenge to manifest goodness only in a world where the difference between good and evil is a real choice.
If you are completely atheist but believe in free markets, you might ask why a good market allows poverty to exist.
November 11, 2009 at 1:29 pm
But the free market analogy breaks down because “belief” in free markets does not entail “believing” that free markets are all good, omnipotent, omniscient, divine, absolute, etc.
So, free markets allow poverty to exist because they are…well, because that’s what happens with free markets. There is no contradiction.
(for the record, I’m not an atheist)
November 11, 2009 at 2:44 pm
You presume a bit about the nature of God as good, omnipotent, et al. I think it is sufficient to suggest that God is merely infinite.
At any rate, the nature of God, which most intelligent Christians will tell you plainly is mysterious, does not dictate the shape of faith – which is why the whole ‘if God is this, then why’ logic is the wrong kind of question to ask.
Take it back a notch and say God creates the universe or God is the nature of Plank’s constant or Avogadro’s number or Pi. Obviously without pi you can’t have circles, but it’s obvious that there are circles. Describing God is like describing pi. You’ll never finish.
November 11, 2009 at 2:57 pm
So you’re saying that God is transcendental as well as irrational.
November 11, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Sorry, you haven’t made the leap to transcendental. Might be be algebraic?
November 11, 2009 at 3:15 pm
I could make Deist evasions, or perfectly rational Deist explanations all day long, but I think it’s hardly the point. The point of the original tangent is why do monotheists fail to convince atheists that their image of God makes sense? This is relevant because at bottom there is that old Hitchens prepositional calculus about being able to convince people anything is true if they accept one lie – the lie presumably being the existence of God. (Or a ‘rational’ proof of the existence of God). This relates to the contradiction in terms assumed to be a characteristic manifestation of Republican/Conservative beliefs about the nature of Government. Which gives us the parallel question, why do conservatives fail to convince liberals that their ideas about government make sense.
In the same way we don’t have to prove the existence of government or the nature of government to make reasonable statements about the cognitive dissonance between Right and Left, we don’t have to prove the existence of or the nature of God to make reasonable statements about the dognitive dissonance between atheists and monotheists. One simply has to make arguments more comprehensible to the other side. It helps then, to understand what the other side is trying to accomplish, which hopefully is something more artful than the demonization of their loyal opposition.
November 11, 2009 at 3:26 pm
You do love to blather on.
You’re not related to Jeff Goldstein, are you?
November 11, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Again, evasions and explanations, all day or night, etc, etc.
I still don’t see how the linked piece answers the question, at a middle school level of education, or any other level of education.
But, OK, it appears you want to just kind of move past that link unacknowledged/defended.
November 11, 2009 at 3:42 pm
According to Bill Whittle, Jeff Goldstein and I are in the same tribe. And I do enjoy a little blather now and then.
As for that middle school stuff, I didn’t write it.
November 12, 2009 at 10:55 pm
“I think it is sufficient to suggest that God is merely infinite.”
Um, look here boys and girls, let’s cut the hype and get serious. I am merely infinite. This means I am very very very very very well hung.
No offense intended, Cobb, and I love me a good blatherer now and then.
I just can’t resist making God jokes.
God is obviously whatever we think God is.
November 13, 2009 at 7:27 am
So to explain the ‘problem of natural evil’ you resprt to an infinite, but not necessarily good God. And to explain the existence of positive evil (moral evil) via free will, you posit a good God. Well, which is it?
I agree with your gist to the extent that a God, usually expected to be good not evil, need not actually conform to our ideas of good or evil, seeing as how we imperfect creatures don’t really understand ‘good’ or ‘evil’ in any substantive sense.
Yet it still hurts.
It hurts way more than it HAS to, pace Leibniz.
The only thing I can posit from these coniisderations is that Evil exists (a la Kant, the ‘anomaly’ defying the categorical imperative). Symmetry arguments might then be invoked to posit a source of Good. But not very convincingly.
November 13, 2009 at 7:41 am
This is another area in which Darwinian explanations are so much more satisfying than theological ones. In a community where everyone obeys the rules, there’s a ‘fair’ (equal) distribution of resources etc., cheaters are basically discouraged (usually by tit for tat punishments). Yet a LITTLE bit of cheating makes some few have advantages others don’t, and is not unlike any other ‘meritorious’ advantage that individual members may possess. It does however have a more ‘zero sum’ component to it — a cheater must usually ‘take’ from someone else, whereas a good singer or clever hunter or valorous warrior hurst nobody else in the community. A community INFESTED with cheaters is highly unstable. Therefore there will be some small amount of cheating which is allowable and which can be considered ‘selected for’. Nonetheless there is ALSO a sense that cheating is bad, this feeling too is selected for, to prevent the cheating from generally getting out of hand, and maintaining instead the community’s cohesion.
Cheaters basically KNOW they are breaking the rules and getting away with it. That is the thrill of it.
And more satisfying a mechanistic picture than: “God wanted real moral choice, and an agency of wrong moral choice, and EXACTLY this much suffering for the Devil’s existence, no more no less, was calculated by Him to be optimal.”
November 13, 2009 at 8:20 am
Porge — actually in Steven Adler’s ‘stochastic first’ pre-quantum mechanics there are two ‘stochastic’ variables which represent more or less, dynamical Casimir operators, which for particular realizations could be considered constants of nature. These two have the role of ‘effective Planck’s constant (action)’ and ‘effective phase constant’ (imaginary root of unity, i.e. SQRT(-1)). Q-M is recovered for ‘h’ and ‘i’. And the lack of any extra terms in Lie derivatives beyond the commutator between ‘p’ and ‘q’.
November 13, 2009 at 8:26 am
shorter me: if God is not Good, and not omnipotent, and not omniscient, is he still the God of our fathers? If he is not good, why do we owe him any allegiance?
Do men still worship Zeus? Kronos? And if he is responsible for positive evil, at least in some sense, how can he escape being part of that evil? We may not understand Good, per se’, but evil is a human idea, and we do understand it fully. Which suggests as you do above, in another way: good and evil are not mirror images.
November 13, 2009 at 8:38 am
as well, what I intimated above, free will also requires AGENCY. One cannot easily comprehend a being which freely chooses UNBEING. (another reason why evil, moral evil, is not just the absence of good). Nor as I say is it necessarily the mirror image of good.
There still has to be AGENCY if there is to be ‘will’ at all. And agency for doing ill, opposed to good, which NORMALLY SPEAKING could be defined as ‘that which is best for one. that which one naturally wants (if tastes are pure and uncorrupted) to do. How then can onyone want what is not good? Because there is an agency for UNDOING the good. Which we call the Devil.
The Agency of evil, IOW.
November 13, 2009 at 9:31 am
I have a cynical realist perception of God – that is to say when I consider what a (relatively) onmiscient and omnipotent being might be, it doesn’t necessarily conform to simple or benevolent shapes. The actual God of Abraham, might very well be a slumming, bored member of a vastly superior alien race. It might be, a la Martin Amis, ‘the janitor on Mars’, or a ship mind from Iain M. Banks’ Culture. God might also very well be the laws of Physics themselves. I have a very difficult time believing that God exists outside of the realm of the physical universe if God is not the Big Bang itself. But that still leaves a whole lot of possibilities, given the size and age of the universe, for any number of possible Gods. Hell, we still can’t figure out how much water is on Venus, and you trust such a limited species to accurately define and perceive the actual God?
However my faith, my ethical beliefs as informed by religious duty and teaching, necessitates that I focus on that fraction of God’s work that is objectively relevant, and good, for humans. So to the extent that I can say that God is the origin of all humanly perceptible good and evil in the universe (after all, it is a Christian teaching that God created Lucifer) then it is still possible to accurately interpret God’s will for the faithful.
What I think the athiest suffers is the conceit that their intellectual pursuits are more relevant to the disposition of mankind- ie that to put a great deal of mental energy into everything but theology or faith is an objectively better use of time. But even I as a Christian did not consider how my own religion has reconciled itself to the evolving non-theological understanding of the natural world.
So the choice for me is simple. One can choose a system of ethics that pursues good through faith and reason, or one that pursues good through reason alone. Athiests should not assume that they are the one eyed man in the land of the blind. And in that regard it doesn’t matter what the shape of God is, only the religious minority is actively working it out, and so have the advantage.
November 11, 2009 at 1:36 pm
I’m currently in a university senior-level course doing exegesis on selected Old Testament passages.
A “good” God, my ass.
November 11, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Cobb: that’s all well and good. As I said, I’m no atheist. However, the link that was provided that you purported provided an answer to the paradox did not do what you said it would do.
It didn’t, you know, provide the answer.
All the rest makes for real interesting conversation, and I don’t necessarily disagree. But the link? Worth little to that same discussion.
November 11, 2009 at 9:39 am
Somewhere a conservative’s head just popped.
November 11, 2009 at 1:34 pm
A quote from our new little friend, Cobb:
I’m getting to the point at which I hate black people, just the way I hate Mexican food. That’s because what everybody takes to be ‘Mexican food’ is only the Mexican equivalent of American junkfood. Tacos and burritos are hamburgers and hotdogs. Everything ‘black’ these days is cultural junk, which is why we’re talking about the psyches of highschool students who cannot portray history without becoming slaves to.. well.. the legacy of slavery.
November 11, 2009 at 1:38 pm
I guess the gift of free will from God allows individuals the opportunity to choose racism.
November 11, 2009 at 2:39 pm
You guess right.
November 11, 2009 at 2:47 pm
I’m actually an old little friend that hung around the Poor Man before he became an institute. But I’ve been busy for several years hanging out with blacks and Mexicans.
November 11, 2009 at 3:24 pm
sounds frustrating
November 11, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Not at all. I only hang out with the best blacks and Mexicans who are, according to popular multicultural identity politics, neither black nor Mexican. Therein lies the problem. But we needn’t go there.
November 11, 2009 at 3:47 pm
No worries. I was just poking.
November 13, 2009 at 12:47 pm
I’ve been hanging around the poorman all my life.
One way or another.
November 11, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Whatever. Re: the point of the original post, a major factor in play involves the color of skin possessed by the people on the business end of the two policies.
November 11, 2009 at 10:05 pm
When I think of the government takeover of health care I think of death panels, dead grannies, reeducations camps, Nazis and Communists, Hitler and piles of dead bodies and the loss of our freedoms.
On the other hand when I think of warrantless wiretaps, preventative detention, revoking legal and human rights, secret prisons and invasions of foreign countries I see freedom on the march. Blind faith is called for here- after all, if you can’t trust your own government who can you trust?
November 12, 2009 at 5:29 am
Here’s a mindbuster for another type of very serious person.
I can trust private enterprise to provide food, clothing, shelter and higher education for Americans, but I can’t trust private enterprise to provide health insurance.
November 12, 2009 at 8:06 am
“Trust” is the wrong word.
The question isn’t trust, it’s a question of market function, failure and incentive.
Private health insurance providers are motivated by the desire to make profit. As such, they view any and all payouts to their clients as “losses” (their word, not mine).
Thus, private insurers have all the incentive in the world to:
1. Refuse coverage to high risk/already ill consumers.
2. Kick clients off the rolls once they become sick.
3. Erect delays for clients once they become sick in an attempt to exhaust/deter the client from seeking amounts owed.
But look, if you want to trust private insurance to provide you with all the coverage you need at an affordable rate, go right ahead. You might get lucky and have nothing but satisfactory experiences.
As long as you’re not high risk, already ill or a victim of recission. And can afford the high premiums paid to private insurance in order to pad the multimillion dollar executive salaries and stockholder approval.
November 12, 2009 at 10:17 am
It seems to me that as old as the practice of actuarial accounting is, that somebody could come up with a straight answer as to what constitutes fraud in healthcare provision. Except there is no political incentive to do so, which is why the new social democrats are popular with exactly the masses they pander to and nobody else, and the Republicans can stonewall without offering better ideas.
Our president introduced us to his vision of health care by talking about a 53 year old woman with cancer. His aim was clearly (as is your criticism) at catastrophic health care. So one really ought to do an actuarial cost/benefit analysis on matters of life extension vs overall healthcare for the nation. You could probably fund all childhood immunizations with a tax on viagra and lipitor alone. But it begs the question of the business model under which the pharmaceutical industry operates, and that has everything to do with the expectations of Americans.
The bottom line is that in a country where it is politically acceptable to tell people that the government can provide low cost catastrophic healthcare, which is essentially a lie, you are bound to run afoul of economic sense. Which is why this administration is not really interested in reform, but revolution, as if the nation were in crisis.
Remember that WalMart obviated Bush’s prescription drug coverage…
November 12, 2009 at 10:31 am
The bottom line is that in a country where it is politically acceptable to tell people that the government can provide low cost catastrophic healthcare, which is essentially a lie, you are bound to run afoul of economic sense.
Insurance, not health care. The insurance is lower cost due to lower administrative overhead. You pool the risk to absorb the high cost of catastrophic health care, which no one is claiming is low cost. No lie there.
but revolution, as if the nation were in crisis
Your claim of exaggeration is exaggerated.
November 12, 2009 at 7:10 pm
I’ll tell the FDA, The Department of Agriculture, the department that makes sure that your babies clothes are fire retardant, and University of California that they are excused.
November 13, 2009 at 7:52 am
insurance is not a tangible good, like clothing food and shelter. Barriers to entry into supplying such services are also higher. The same can be said for telecommunications and mass transportation and energy.
Things which have economies of scale and can be considered natural monopolies regionally. Yet if they are not socialized, can be a drag on economic development, i.e. if held in private hands — see, ‘Rhine castles’, ‘feudalism’, ‘effect of tolls on trade’
November 12, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Cobb: I think you should add “and very serious” to the title of your blog.
November 13, 2009 at 12:49 am
“The bottom line is that in a country where it is politically acceptable to tell people that the government can provide low cost catastrophic healthcare, which is essentially a lie, you are bound to run afoul of economic sense.”
Except in all the countries where it does make sense, because after all sick workers, missed work, chronic conditions made worse, holds back your potential GDP. You can’t sell if there are no buyers.
It’s inefficient to have these middle men who’s sole purpose is to find ways to with hold treatment thereby making a profit for themselves but America in general doesn’t profit from our current system, we spend the most money and receive a worse result the Costa Rica. These middle men, delay, deny, and find anyway to not pay medical bills, even though the consumer faithfully pays the corporation. Does this make sense even from a pro-business perspective? There is no VALUE in over paying and under performing except for the few people who own the most shares of the big 7 insurance corporations. Who we are now making to big to fail. Won’t it be fun bailing them out in ten years? Fuck them, and fuck you if you still don’t get it after fifty years of bullshit.
November 13, 2009 at 2:00 am
Sick workers? Dude, that’s sick.
I’m working in Cleveland these days. Ever been there? It ain’t lack of healthcare insurance that made American steel mills idle. It’s people who can do the same work for less money. I challenge anyone to find steelworkers elsewhere on the planet that get better benefits.
Do they make steel in Costa Rica?
November 13, 2009 at 3:03 am
30 million working poor in America with no health insurance, every American subject to recession. This damages the economy, the fear and worry ripples through families. Ask anyone who’s been sick with a chronic illness or severe injury what its like to deal with insurance companies that will just ignore legal requests, calls from Doctors who haven’t been paid in two years after the insurance company agrees to pay in agreements signed by Judges who can’t execute orders. Go down to any Workers Compensation Appeal Board and talk to the guys with the missing eyes and crushed arms. See how easy, easy street is. Those are the people with insurance.
Examine the changes to California Labor Code 5814 and the resulting maimed on the job workers who get nothing but grief from the Insurance Corporations who bankrupted themselves into CIGA reformation, because they refused regulation.
Ask the Steel Workers about the inflation rate of the their co-pays, and the decling quality of health care. The IBEW will tell you the same thing.
Ask Walmart why they instruct employees to apply for Medicaid instead of stepping up and insuring all of their employees, because they can.
There are less and less pockets of working people with quality benefits because as the Union’s shrink so does the leverage of those working people. Know and blue collar workers not in a Union with a pension?
People are working harder for less pay, the middle class is shrinking. Health Care Reform has to be done to relieve some revolutinary pressure on the working poor a la the New Deal, and finance the defecit. The Senate better listen to Jay Rockefeller and produce a version that will save people money and be pro-consumer.
I don’t know if you’ve been paying attention to the last eight years, but the Republicans once again spent a surplus just to prove to themselves that government can’t help. Then they invaded Iraq predicated on the assumption that government can only execute military affairs. They lost their argument on Supply Side Economics, Expression of Power, and the role of Government vis a vis regulation to avoid degredation of the interests of the working class Americans. Ask Alan Greenspan. He’ll tell you he was wrong.
Some governments can’t help, this one can help because it’s source of consent is the people. The people want an end to recessions, pre-exisitng conditions, they don’t want to lose their insurance if they lose their job, access to afforable insurance if you’re working poor. This is good for the economy. Every worker who can work and isn’t working subtracts from your productivty. Union workers are more productive, google it, because of their safety nets that they bled and died for, that we all free ride off of. OSHA, 40-hour weeks laws, Child Labor laws, quality compensation for the people who build our buildings, mop our floors, mine, work in those steel mills. These people provide the demand for the products that make the effete wealthy. The owner needs an employee as much as an employee needs a job, and we better redress the balance in this country or contiinue to see the middle class shrink on our way to resembling Costa Rica.
You have your priorities all fucked up. What’s good for the poor and middle class is good for you. Crime rates down, production up, more achievment in art, science and culture, when people can count on some net, because we’re all in bodies that we know will all get damaged and or fail. Just like you need water, you need health insurance to pursue life, liberty, happiness and in your case a clue.
November 13, 2009 at 9:11 am
Yes and what’s good for Citibank is good for the poor and the middle class as well. It’s all connected. But it’s clear that we have an administration with a zero-sum populist mentality a la Robin Hood which is more interested in control than reform. So I hope the omnibus fails and that we get a smarter Congress next time around. I’m prepared to wait until there is a real crisis.
On heartless principle I am hard pressed to see why the actuarial death toll of healthcare delivery up to this point suddenly owes all of its existence magically to 8 precise years of Republican rule. The death count is political, like ‘excess deaths’ from the Lancet. I do not doubt that there are likely 50 excellent portions of reform we could have, which is exactly why I’m rather anti-federalist on this. Let the states reform at their own pace and then let us follow the examples of the best states.
Right now Texas beats Pennsylvania.
November 13, 2009 at 9:19 am
Yes and what’s good for Citibank is good for the poor and the middle class as well. It’s all connected.
Not necessarily. Likewise, what’s good for the poor and middle class is good for Citibank. So let’s start there instead. Plus, the poor and middle class don’t send billions in investments to overseas locations.
But it’s clear that we have an administration with a zero-sum populist mentality a la Robin Hood which is more interested in control than reform.
Yeah, you can divine this by the way he lavished money on Wall Street. Tim Geithner and Larry Summers: unrepentant Robin Hoods. Hilarious.
Right now Texas beats Pennsylvania.
Um, yeah. Except, the opposite is true. Other than that, good point.
November 13, 2009 at 10:08 am
I think it remains to be seen whether or not sending money oversees is a good idea. I’m wrestling with that now. But it’s clear that in the global economy, the American way of doing business has been, thus far, the most trusted way. And now that our megabanks have screwed the pooch, everybody’s kinda waiting to see which way to go is better. The dollar may be weakening, but it’s still the world’s reserve currency. As long as that is the case, I angle towards a ‘domestic empire’, which is pretty much this argument. Given American liberty and defense of rights, (and health care facilities – regardless of how people afford them), that just about any industry serves the people of the world better if it is located within the aegis of the US. It’s the whole ‘conflict diamond’ story writ large. When America makes steel, thanks to our socialist, green and otherwise anti-competitive constituents, our steelworkers end up better off. So if America were a steel monopoly, or close to it, all of the people in the steel industry would be better taken care of than the current situation.
This is counter-balanced, of course, by the wage inflation and corrupting luxury generated by the inevitable addiction to perks we in America have the temerity to call a ‘living wage’ all perpetrated by those same socialist, green and otherwise human-centric, rather than efficiency-centric political shapers of the American economy. So it makes it relatively easy for non-American competitors to hijack our industrial advantage.
The problem is that in the fundamental industries, like energy and steel, it takes many many years to build up capacity. Labor is fluid, infrastructure is not. So I see unions pushing to try to make labor less fluid than infrastructure, and I think that is foolish. And that is exactly why I call into question those arguments about countries that have government subsidized healthcare insurance. They are not industrial on the scale that America ought to be – their solution doesn’t fit. Costa Rica doesn’t make steel, it has no infrastructure investments to lose by making its labor pool more expensive.
November 13, 2009 at 10:27 am
The steel industry wasn’t at all affected by lack of planning for future conditions, by emphasizing profits first and longevity last, was it?
Couldn’t be.
All this ideo-this vs. ideo-that is secondary. Primary is Take Care of Business per the Market Environment at Hand, or, don’t Be Greedy AND Stupid at the Same Time.
November 13, 2009 at 10:47 am
I think it remains to be seen whether or not sending money oversees is a good idea.
If you’re a trickled down guy – the good for Citibank type – it does create some problems. Trickle up is more efficient.
Given American liberty and defense of rights, (and health care facilities – regardless of how people afford them), that just about any industry serves the people of the world better if it is located within the aegis of the US.
Have you ever heard of Europe? You should look into it.
It’s the whole ‘conflict diamond’ story writ large. When America makes steel, thanks to our socialist, green and otherwise anti-competitive constituents, our steelworkers end up better off.
See above, re: Europe.
This is counter-balanced, of course, by the wage inflation and corrupting luxury generated by the inevitable addiction to perks we in America have the temerity to call a ‘living wage’ all perpetrated by those same socialist, green and otherwise human-centric, rather than efficiency-centric political shapers of the American economy.
Yeah, greedy workers. Now the executive class has a real understanding of living wages. You don’t see them partaking in any self indulgent excess. Especially when their compensation is compared to exec compensation in other markets.
So it makes it relatively easy for non-American competitors to hijack our industrial advantage.
So it makes it relatively easy for non-American competitors to hijack our industrial advantage.
Yes, things would be better for American workers if they just agreed to comp packages and conditions as seen in China and India.
And that is exactly why I call into question those arguments about countries that have government subsidized healthcare insurance. They are not industrial on the scale that America ought to be – their solution doesn’t fit.
Your conclusion does not flow from your premises. This is not a cogent argument.
Also, have you ever heard of Europe?
November 13, 2009 at 11:34 am
Tim Geithner & Larry Summers aren’t people. They’re people doing a job, so talk about the job. TARP was a bad idea primarily because Congress didn’t have the brains or the balls to reclass assets. It STILL hasn’t been done, and there is still no ringfence around toxic assets. A smart change in the rules about asset classes could have been done without spending a dime, bankruptcy courts could have been upscaled, and we could have let a lot of failures work they way they’re supposed to. Before the teat was offered, Wells Fargo moved incredibly swiftly to handle Wamu and Wachovia. The bloodletting on Wall Street was fast and furious. Now that the teats are out there, change is coming ever so slowly. The valuation of Wells Fargo shows that we know how to handle very large failures without government intervention. Everybody knows that this administration is ignoring Volker who saved the dollar last time. It will end in tears.
Yeah. I’ve heard of Europe. They do things differently & they don’t vote here. There are reasons for that and I think those reasons are un-elidable. So this monkey sees, but doesn’t necessarily do.
I like some things they do in Europe. Other things make no sense whatsoever.
For example, in Europe, you can ask a prospective female employee if she plans on getting married or pregnant over the course of the next few years, and adjust her salary accordingly. Did ya know that?
I’ve also heard of Japan. Once upon an 80s time, Americans though everything they did in business was pure genius too.
I say Europe for the Europeans. Hell, maybe they can buy off the Somali pirates with a benefits package. Make them into French civil servants or something.
November 13, 2009 at 11:47 am
While it’s very impressive that you know some stuff, it would be more impressive if you could string the stuff you know into a cogent argument.
In other words, you didn’t actually respond to the point. Which is: the same people that poured trillions of taxpayer dollars all over banking executives are not properly labeled revolutionary robin hoods. Nor are any other policies pursued by that same administration properly described as same.
Or, if you prefer, their collective job descriptions don’t entail them acting as revolutionary robin hoods.
And yes: Europe is a separate place, with non-translatable voting rights, etc.
But you were the one that was comparing the US to the rest of the world. Kind of poor form to then reject comparisons as apples and oranges.
November 13, 2009 at 11:49 am
Indian and Chinese standards of pay! What we need here is a new kind of textual indication of snark other than smileys. Your text would be full of it, aside from that which it is already full.
Speaking from my experience with outsourced Indian labor, I would offer that on the whole, you get what you pay for – which is to say by and large boilerplate, uncreative, inflexible competence in the software & IT arena. Not to mention a whole new class of class warfare amongst larger teams. But that’s global integration for you. Much less efficient than empire when it comes to results, and excellent for the distribution of responsibility towards the point at which every manager becomes Sgt Schultz. Oh but so very cost-effective.
The bottom line, as we are fond of saying, is that it will always be the case that for extraordinary results, you must pay extraordinary prices. It goes against human nature to do otherwise, which is exactly why Barack Obama ran the most expensive campaign in the history of the republic and generated so much enthusiasm. But as fools eventually learn, just because you pay a premium doesn’t mean you always succeed, but you do have the luxury of saying that you did your best and weren’t trying to cut corners.
So when it comes to labor, understand that I agree that workers should be greedy. Sure the European way is to buy a small car instead of two, and take 6 weeks of vacation instead of two or three. But the American way is to work longer hours and have less money taken out of the paycheck, and that ethic should not die without a brutal bloody fight. And after all, you’re all welcome to work for BP and ask for a transfer.
November 13, 2009 at 11:51 am
If all this stuff could be made cogent in the space of a couple days of blogging, we could take over the world, eh comrade?
Instead, I’m going to Fry’s and buying an XBox360 with Call of Duty MW2. I feel the need to shoot somebody.
November 13, 2009 at 11:57 am
But the American way is to work longer hours and have less money taken out of the paycheck, and that ethic should not die without a brutal bloody fight. And after all, you’re all welcome to work for BP and ask for a transfer.
That depends on when you start the clock on the definition of “the American way” that shouldn’t die without a brutal bloody fight.
There was a time when getting some amount of worker rights involved a very bloody, very brutal fight.
The American way has a long history of expoitation of labor, and it’s not entirely clear why that way should be defended with gory fangs and talons.
Further, if America changes in ways you do not like, you are also free to transfer to more libertarian locales. Get on down with your Galt self.
November 13, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Finally for the moment, I would define the American way as something that encourages men to be more than peasants, and defends the property of those who accomplish that. So the question is whether the coersion gets past point x.
For me, I could say that for the benefit of living in these united states, I am perfectly willing to be taxed up to a third of my income in total. Beyond that, we fight. And yeah I know Eisenhower presided over higher taxes than Clinton. So for wartime I can accept either an additional 5% or conscription at the lower rate.
The Catholic Church lasted hundreds of years on tithes. Why should government be a bigger religion?
November 13, 2009 at 12:51 pm
The Catholic Church lasted hundreds of years on tithes. Why should government be a bigger religion?
No, not a religion – the opposite: Caesar.
And the reason: because the government does more than the Church, and so requires more. But if you want to talk cutting the massive military budget some, I’m with you comrade.
November 13, 2009 at 4:15 am
You know what destroys marrriages and breaks up families? It’s not Satan, it’s not sloth, it’s the family’s security infrastructure, income and insurance. Half of all bankruptcies were related to medical bills, 75% of those people had insurance. That’s good for the bank. Bad for the family. But then the Banks fuck themselves and everyone else up with their bad undemocratic choice to create a credit default swap, dervitive, unsustainable finance based economy in lieu of our former manufacturing tangible assets economy. You undermine the democratic government to create power vacuum to be filled by corporations, and they failed to serve their own interests because they have the mentality of a Great White Shark.
Loss of income and/or insurance is totally destablizing for families of which 50% of all marriages end in divorce. If you care about families you have to take this once and a lifetime chance a starting a foundation for medical security that we can improve and progress on. This window is six weeks. Otherwise it gets kicked to Spring. Failure is not an option.
November 13, 2009 at 10:23 am
“Half of all bankruptcies were related to medical bills, 75% of those people had insurance.”
We are SO close to this. And yes, we have insurance. GOOD insurance. We are so close to financial collapse…. but shall persevere, for even though I am a godless liberal socialist sympathizing health care reformnik, I am still capable of self-reliant independent action without being goaded by tax stimuli and the works of Ayn Rand and other very serious prophets.
November 13, 2009 at 4:18 am
It’s like arguing about whether or not we should feed soldiers or stare into the Sun. I think soldiers could just forage and the free market of the battle field will feed them. No studies have proven that staring into the sun is lethal according to this study conducted by Philip-Morris. We tried it your way for fifty years, it failed, now fuck off and let the people have an up or down vote.
November 13, 2009 at 10:29 am
Cobb brings back a pet phrase of an old forum buddy of mine regarding a certain kind of VSP (Very Serious Poster), who are predominantly of a self-described conservative stripe but also come in the march-naked-for-gay animal-rights variety: tortured geniuses.
They suffer for their wisdom, as do we.
November 13, 2009 at 12:50 pm
There was one guy in the 19th century who really was an unrecognized genius.
Grassman.
Every body else was just striking a pose.
November 13, 2009 at 2:12 pm
So I googled Grassman and I still couldn’t find his comic book.
November 13, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Hermann Grassman?
November 14, 2009 at 1:23 pm
yep Hermann Grassman.
November 13, 2009 at 10:30 am
Was that incivil? Shame on me. I must clam down now. I go to take a hot bath and spritz myself with Calgon via my AirWolf bathtub action toy.
November 13, 2009 at 10:34 am
“I don’t know if you’ve been paying attention to the last eight years, but the Republicans once again spent a surplus just to prove to themselves that government can’t help.”
[!RimShot!]
They couldn’t starve it to death so they tried to spend it to death. Kill government! It interferes with plutocracy, er, free trade!
November 13, 2009 at 12:52 pm
As a wise person once wrote on the intertubes:
“Can I sell chopped up and butchered babies in the stalls at Lexington Market (that’s in Baltimore, FWIW)? No? Then STFU about ‘free markets’.”
November 13, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Chopped up and butchered? Value-added? That’s only semi-free. when you get into derivatives like that, regulation is inevitable.
November 13, 2009 at 4:57 pm
1. Health care might help poor people… and most especially, COLORED poor people. Very Serious commentators who know and understand these issues can’t have that. If a poor person dies of cancer because they can’t afford medical bills, then maybe they just shouldn’t have gotten cancer in the first place! They had a choice not to!
2. Wars are awesome…. Especially if they bring freedom (bombs) and democracy (missles) to Ay-rabs and other weird foreign peoples who aren’t white and don’t speak Gods chosen language of English. As a side note, wars also provide great masturbating material for Bill Kristol who likes his air strikes with a little bit of freedom lube on the side. Health care on the other hand just can’t provide that kind of intense action.
November 13, 2009 at 11:34 pm
MegaDittos.
I would also like to add that these people might vote, and then the GOP might never win another election and polls would have to count Lil Wayne as a likey voter.
There isn’t a problem in the world that can’t be solved with a F-22, except rain. How many likely voters did we prevent from spuriting through the cracks with that nifty diversion?
This is about election results, which is the greatest extent to which democracy can be expressed in this nation, and every GOP model for winning rests on low voter turnout, every GOP polling firm undercounts non-whites and women as not likely voters, so really un-people with un-interests. If only White voters voted in 2008 then John McCain would have won a LANDSLIDE election with 54% of the vote. If only wealthy White People voted, then we really might have that Nationalist Socialist Dictatorship with the GOP crowning 66-70% of the vote, that FOX keeps accusing Obama of running.
Representative Democracy is supposed to reflect the interests of all the people. When you are White, Male, and have a little tucked away, you are more likely to vote and give time and money to politicians so now we have a a refraction of reality instead of a reflection of the population in our democratic republic, so the results of the endevour serve only nterests of 5% of the population and those goals and priorities govern the rest of us. This is ass backwards. Not a freemarket of ideas. A spoils system dupololy that Jefferson knew need to be tended to and fixed constantly so that we can remain free, but that means including all of the people this Union is for, by and, of and that means bringing the poor to the table via health and education so they can participate effectively, and it shouldn’t matter if you are rich or poor, we should all have equal access under the law, all man made problems have man made solutions.
November 30, 2009 at 9:15 am
[...] Besides, government provided health insurance will never work, while transforming Afghan society, quelling multiple interlocking civil wars and insurgencies and pacifying the region permanently (as an outside and distrusted power) is totally doable. [...]