George Will's intellectual FU.

The United States has a crisis.

The crisis is this. We let ignorant, intellectually dishonest shitfuckers like George Will pollute our public discourse without any consequences.

Mr. Will has a new column up at the Washington Post defending his perfidy laden op-ed piece from two weeks ago.

I am not sure what is the most shocking aspect of it, the sheer unadulterated hubris, or the seemingly unmitigated mendacity of both articles.

My previous post on the subject is here.

If you are wondering why I care so much about this, or why it seems to bother me so much, it is really quite simple, it has to do with both a deep abiding love of science (in its myriad forms) and a deep all consuming hatred of willful ignorance.

There are many parts of the Mr. Will's article which bother me, but I suspect these two to be the greastest offenders:

"The column contained many factual assertions but only one has been challenged. The challenge is mistaken."

and

"Citing data from the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, as interpreted on Jan. 1 by Daily Tech, a technology and science news blog,.."

Now the first statement is absolutely and completely false, the topic of whether there was a consensus amongst the Scientific community on the subject of "Global Cooling" during the 70's was also attacked, as well as his interpretation of date presented by both IPCC and U.N World Meteorological Organization (a general summation of the principle offenses of the article).

As for the second quote, I like blogs, I think they are very useful and exceptionally entertaining, what they are not, however, is peer-reviewed journal. I don't give a flying fig about your opinion on the matter unless a) you are an expert on the topic being covered, b) you bring some mad data to support your attack of the premiss. Baring that, your opinion doesn't matter. On the subject of Climate Change far too many people who have no idea of even the basic science involved are given equal voice. They should not be.

Yeah I said it, your opinion is not sacrosanct. Just because of the odd firing of your neurons allowed you to postulate a flawed hypothesis does not mean it is the equal of peer-reviewed and tested data of seasoned researcher.

It just doesn't. One is the application of the scientific method, the other is just naked ideology.

If you wish to attack a consensus in the scientific community, collect data, and present your findings (or find others who have done this) for review. That is how a hypothesis is disproved.

Secondly we have this little gem of wisdom from Fred Hiatt (the editor of the Op-ed page at WashPo, interview by CJR):

"It may well be that he is drawing inferences from data that most scientists reject -- so, you know, fine, I welcome anyone to make that point. But don't make it by suggesting that George Will shouldn't be allowed to make the contrary point. Debate him."

A point of order here, "drawing inferences from data", would have implied looking at data and coming to a different conclusion then the initial one stated by the scientists. What Will does in his pieces is imply that the researchers in question, support his position. Basically he says they mean the opposite of what they actually state in their paper. That is not an inference, that is a blatant misrepresentation of a documented position.

So I will close with this observation from Dr. Jennifer Francis of Rutgers:

This battle never ceases to amaze me. People seem to be much more inclined to believe what they hear from non-experts because it’s what they’d rather hear.

Its called confirmation bias, and yeah it is amazing and depressing all at the same time. No amount of data will dissuade some people from their lunacy and pride is even worse. So yeah I am worried about our future when we let Luddites such as this spew their ignorance unmolested.

For more articulate take downs on the Will article, I would recommend here, here and here.

-cheers

edit- In my haste and verve I forgot to add this very comprehensive list by Think Progress on the matter, as well as Ombudsman Andrew Alexander's most recent commentary on the subject.

For whom the bell tolls....

You can just ignore my post tomorrow on the impending George Will article.

I am certain polemic and screed will probably be appropriate descriptions for what I intend to post.

So I thought I would offer fair warning.

-Cheers

Tweet..tweet....twittering away...

Seriously I know that mainstream America doesn't want to be considered un-hip, like it was, for its lack of embracing Facebook/Myspace. But seriously does every correspondent at MSNBC, really need a Twitter account? Being a late adopter is one thing....but come on.

Now I love me some Erin Burnett, don't get me wrong, I am all for keeping a close eye on what she is up to. But do literally all of them need to be hawking the Twitter after every segment?

And the verb form for the uninitiated is, "to tweet".

My life would need to be substantially more interesting to even entertain the notion of using Twitter, but maybe it is just a psychological ploy to justify the huge "Crack-Berry" fees?

I expect Mike will have an account any day now. :-)

-Cheers

Spreading the addiction...

Time magazine has an article up about "The Internet's Greatest Hits, so I thought I would share.

Greg Rutter compiled a list and here it is.

Yes "All your base are belong to us.", "Pork Chop Sandwiches", and "George Washington"
are on the list.

"He once held an opponents..wife's hand...in a jar of acid. At a party."

-Cheers

Non-SoTU, SoTU.

I got to watch both speeches last night. I thought the President delivered a superb "State of the Union". It wasn't a "the state of the Union is strong" sort of barn burner, but it definitely showed off Obama's oratorical gifts. He does the pivot to "Hope" well, and gave a forceful advocacy for a spate of left of center policies.

I do think the line that will stick for most, was his riff on the importance of education:

"Every American will need to get more than a high school diploma. And dropping out of high school is no longer an option. It’s not just quitting on yourself, it’s quitting on your country."

It is not a liberal message or a conservative message, it is as near to apolitical as one can get. Whether you support civil unions or not, believe in climate change or not, hell believe in the efficacy of the stimulus bill or not, we all can agree that innovation is the only way to rectify or mitigate this downturn.

I am sure there are more in depth breakdowns across the interwebs, but as I have said often over the last month, it is nice to have a President who does not talk to me like I am a 6 year old.

Here is the speech in its entirety if you didn't get to catch it.

Also here is Bobby Jindal's Republican response to the president.

I will not comment on the delivery or whether he carried himself like "Kenneth the Page", but I will say that his message seemed more dated for the early to mid 80's then it was to the present economic crisis. The sheer fetishistic zeal republican officials have for tax cuts, is mind boggling. The constant carping on less regulation and the unassailable virtues of the free market, seemed tin eared and disconnected from the present.

But that is just my shabby opinion on the matter.

-Cheers

Bookends

Over the last week there has been a fair amount of attention drawn to the George Will column I have mentioned a couple of times already. If you have not read it I suggest that you do so. It is a marvel of intellectual dishonesty and hubris.

The reason it has stuck in my craw is it's just the sort of article that just gets under my skin. There are a variety of reasons for that, not the least of which is, someone who lacks a sufficient background in science opining and mischaracterizing peer-reviewed data.

Now this is not to say, that I am attacking anyone for having an opinion about a subject that they have not studied in great detail. I have a blog after all, so I am all for opining. What I do have a problem with, is when someone tries to dress up their ill-informed opinion as fact and then it is given the veneer of credibility because of their perch atop the editorial pages of a major periodical. It wouldn't be much different then me penning a piece for say, The Economist that stated that leveraging risk and artificially inflated housing assets are good for long term economic growth. All available data absolutely disagrees with that statement, but, "Hey! It is the Economist, how can it be wrong!". And more importantly it is my opinion on the matter.

Normally this would be the point where I would point out the offending segments and contrast them with the relevant text, however this time, I think I will focus on the the Washington Posts extremely inane response.

After being thoroughly made aware of the errors in said article this is what Ombudsman Andy Alexander had to say (TPMMuckracker had the coverage):

Dear Mr. Johnson,

Thank you for your e-mail. The Post’s ombudsman typically deals with issues involving the news pages. But I understand the point you and many e-mailers are making, and for that reason I sought clarification from the editorial page editors. Basically, I was told that the Post has a multi-layer editing process and checks facts to the fullest extent possible. In this instance, George Will’s column was checked by people he personally employs, as well as two editors at the Washington Post Writers Group, which syndicates Will; our op-ed page editor; and two copy editors. The University of Illinois center that Will cited has now said it doesn’t agree with his conclusion, but earlier this year it put out a statement (http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/global.sea.ice.area.pdf) that was among several sources for this column and that notes in part that “Observed global sea ice area, defined here as a sum of N. Hemisphere and S. Hemisphere sea ice areas, is near or slightly lower than those observed in late 1979,”

Best wishes,
Andy Alexander
Washington Post Ombudsman

Hilzoy and Carl Zimmer do an amazing take down of just what is so inane about this response. So I will just do some cutting and pasting, mainly because the amount of vitriol they extol is greater then even I could summon.

Hilzoy had this to say, "Naturally, I clicked the link Mr. Alexander provided, and read it. Did he? I don't know what would be worse: that he did, and takes it to support Will, or that he didn't take his job seriously enough to bother."

What she is referring to would be this:

From Will's column. His citation from the Arctic Climate Research Center.

"As global levels of sea ice declined last year, many experts said this was evidence of man-made global warming. Since September, however, the increase in sea ice has been the fastest change, either up or down, since 1979, when satellite record-keeping began. According to the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979."

Now what the Link actually directs you to, and the relevant context, as Hilzoy was able to divine using her arguably supernatural reading comprehension skills.

Here's the statement Mr. Alexander cites as "one of" Will's sources, including the sentence he specifically references. It's a response to an article in the Daily Tech called "Sea Ice Ends Year at Same Level as 1979":

"One important detail about the article in the Daily Tech is that the author is comparing the GLOBAL sea ice area from December 31, 2008 to same variable for December 31, 1979. In the context of climate change, GLOBAL sea ice area may not be the most relevant indicator. Almost all global climate models project a decrease in the Northern Hemisphere sea ice area over the next several decades under increasing greenhouse gas scenarios. But, the same model responses of the Southern Hemisphere sea ice are less certain. In fact, there have been some recent studies suggesting the amount of sea ice in the Southern Hemisphere may initially increase as a response to atmospheric warming through increased evaporation and subsequent snowfall onto the sea ice. (Details: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/06/050630064726.htm )

Observed global sea ice area, defined here as a sum of N. Hemisphere and S. Hemisphere sea ice areas, is near or slightly lower than those observed in late 1979, as noted in the Daily Tech article. However, observed N. Hemisphere sea ice area is almost one million sq. km below values seen in late 1979 and S. Hemisphere sea ice area is about 0.5 million sq. km above that seen in late 1979, partly offsetting the N.Hemisphere reduction."

Hilzoy further goes on to castigate Mr. Alexander and Will,

Where I come from, when someone writes something of the form: "P is not evidence for Q, and here's why", it is dishonest to quote that person saying P and use that quote as evidence for Q. If one of my students did this, I would grade her down considerably, and would drag her into my office for an unpleasant talk about basic scholarly standards. If she misused quotes in this way repeatedly, I might flunk her. (emphasis added mine)

Indeed.

I believe that is the whole crux of the matter for me. A person, who does not posses the expertise to interpret data, does so anyways and tries to not only pass it off as a dispositive of peer reviewed studies, but impugns the researchers work by blatantly misrepresenting their findings.

That is worse then intellectual dishonesty. It is more like the intellectual equivalent of a praline and dick flavored pizza.

Also I might add that there still has been no correction nor has there been even the slightest retraction.

The late Senator Patrick Moynihan said it best, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. "

George will is implying consensus where their was none (Global Cooling), and denying consensus where their is (anthropogenic climate change).

Simply because your ideology says something is not possible does not make it so.

-Cheers

Resignation....

So at some point you have to make peace with what you actually are.

I think I have finally gotten to that point. Even in the year of alchemy, one has to recognize their limitations.

So this is a lamentation of that fact.

Being more of an ass would be swell.

But I guess I am not wired that way and that is just as well.

On the upside had an exceptional night out with AV, single T, and the Bav.

I'll be back to postin' on politics, come Monday.

But today instead we shall reminisce:

Yep the music is contagious.

Why prosecutions are necessary.

It is an extremely poorly kept secret that I am supporter of investigations and prosecutions into the governments activities with regard to the "War on Terror".

Not as some statement of vengeance against the Bush administration, but as long overdue re commitment to the rule of law.

By our own laws. By our own Constitution. We are bound by the treaties we sign. So the case of Binyam Mohamed stands out.

Once again the estimable Glenn Greenwald and Andrew Sullivan, do the heavy lifting on this issue.

Mr. Greenwald, in this instance, articulates something I have had a very difficult time committing to words, about the nature of the case those who counsel against investigations are making:

It cannot be emphasized enough that those who are arguing against criminal investigations for Bush officials are -- whether consciously or implicitly -- arguing that the U.S., alone in the world, is exempt from the laws and principles which we've been advocating and imposing on other countries for decades. There is simply no way to argue that our leaders should be immunized from criminal investigations for torture and other war crimes without believing that (a) the U.S. is and should be immune from the principles we've long demanded other nations obey and (b) we are free to ignore our treaty obligations any time it suits us.

This seems to me to be the crux of the very argument. That is what I find depressing. Not whether laws were broken or human rights were violated. But about the propriety of it all.

Regardless of whether you think every man, woman, and child currently held in GITMO is a hardened terrorist or not. We have a social compact in this country of ours, which states that we are a country of laws and not of men. We have formed those laws as protection from those who might seek to use power unjustly over their fellow man. We have enforced those laws on other countries and condemned the very acts, that we have instigated, when others partake of them. Yet because we do it, it makes it less bad, or the people we do it to less worthy of humane treatment? People, under the laws of our country, have the right to know what they are charged with, and not to be detained indefinitely with out due process.

Torture under the laws of this land is illegal.

Mr. Sullivan does a wonderful job of defining torture accurately and pointing out the shell game that those who support "enhanced interrogation" are playing.

Some want to define "actual" torture in ways that mean that freezing someone to near-death, or forcing them into weeks of sleeplessness, or stringing them up in excruciating ways until they break, or isolating them indefinitely from any sensory perception, is somehow an "humane alternative" or "not-torture". What they miss - or rather what they refuse to address - is that torture cannot be defined by specific techniques and legally isn't.

Almost any coercive act sustained long enough against a person in captivity can become torture. Think of how we understand the drip-drip-drip of the "Chinese water torture" to be torture. It's not even, as the former vice-president would say, a splash of water on the face. It's a mere drip. But even a drip, sustained long and relentlessly enough, can break a human being. The test for torture is not whether it leaves brutal physical marks or not (that was the Gestapo standard). The test for torture is whether it is of sufficient immediate or cumulative force to rob the capacity of a human being to say voluntarily what he or she knows to be true. It is the imposition of sufficient coercion to destroy an individual's ability to resist giving some kind of answer, true or false, or some unknowable, random blend of the two.

Some wish to paint this as "looking back" or " a partisan witch hunt". That is simply not the case. It is not even an issue of some Manichean right vs. wrong debate. It is quite simply whether we are a nation of laws or not. Whether we met the obligations of that compact. If we are, then we absolutely must investigate. If not, then we should state that, so that other countries and our citizenry understand that our political leaders are not honest brokers on our behalf.

I mentioned Mr. Mohamed above, regardless of what you think of the governments prosecution of the war on terror, this is the sort of thing that should give you pause:

The court papers describe horrific treatment in secret prisons. Mr. Mohamed claimed that during his detention in Morocco, “he was routinely beaten, suffering broken bones and, on occasion, loss of consciousness. His clothes were cut off with a scalpel and the same scalpel was then used to make incisions on his body, including his penis. A hot stinging liquid was then poured into open wounds on his penis where he had been cut. He was frequently threatened with rape, electrocution and death.”

Whatever your ideological bent is, or whatever your views on "American exceptionalism" may be, this is not humane. I would highly recommend reading both the article above as well as the New York Times piece. This is what is being done in your name and in blatant opposition to the laws under which we the citizenry live.

I can only further echo what those, far more gifted in the written word, have said before. Torture is abhorrent because it removes the individuals volition. Think of the most vile thing you can, and then imagine that you were tortured until you allocuted to that thing. Professing a culpability that you know is untrue. That was only said, to stop the dripping of the water, or to allow you finally sleep, or to warm up for just a minute, or to not mutilate your genitals, or to not have routine body cavity searches, or to not have to hold your arms up for one more minute, etc. Because that is what torture does, it becomes more about ending the torment then about the answer given.

I understand that we live in world of dangerous people. But I also understand that along with all the benifits of liberty and freedom, it will and always does, require sacrifices of its people. Sometimes that price is paid in blood, and others it standing up for the rights of those who can not do so on their own. More importantly embracing the sort of rhetoric proffered by those who see no merit in investigations ensures that there are two different legal systems. One for the common people and one (a far more lenient, far less probing) for our elites.

If it is indeed a new day, then it is time for us to hold our leaders as accountable as they would hold us.

-Cheers

p.s. For those that were wondering what I was talking about last night, when I was going on about the harder then a diamond here is the link.

It's time for the percolater...

No real post of substance today.

Have a lot of pots on the burner, so to speak. Several big issues on my mind today that I want to roll over a bit more before I commit my thoughts to the tubes in any long form manner.

Charlie Savage has a piece up at New York Times which is troubling. Some nice analysis is here and here.

The Bush administration seriously expanded the power of the presidency at the expense of both our collective national interest and civil liberties in general, this is part of the change I voted for in November. An end to the, "ends justifies the means" mentality that dominated our government. Our Constitution has meaning and power, and power is not just the enshrinement of the authority of the executive. It may be asking too much to expect any man to walk away from that sort of power, but I do. He said he would, and that is what I will hold him to. Again this is troubling on a number of different levels. Transparency is the only tonic that we have to protect ourselves from the machinations of men/women in power.

Senator Roland Burris, is still an ass. We are not "rushing to judgment" sir. We have had months to roll over all this. You were warned and questioned on these very things and it is now shown, by your own admission that you lied. Sir, we are not rushing to judgment, some of us built summer homes there. They have crenelations and parapets, from which it is much easier to pelt prevaricating, mendacious politicians such as yourself.

I am not sure what Rush and Hannity will talk about now....

Republicans in Congress make my head hurt.

-Cheers

God Bless you Michelle Bachmann

I was struggling yesterday to come up with a topic. There were several topics that had gotten my attention over the weekend from Roland Burris's abject inability to do anything that doesn't serve his narcissism. George Will's dance with "teh stoopid", or Eric Cantor's love of "teh Aerosmith".

All those are worthy topics to talk about, but I have to give the nod to my gal up in Minnesota. She is gonna corner the market on "teh crazy".

Rep. Bachmann gave an interview to KTLK's Chris Baker on the Stimulus Bill. Some of the highlights, that Steve Benen was nice enough to compile a list:

* ACORN is "under federal indictment for voter fraud," but the stimulus bill nevertheless gives ACORN "$5 billion." (In reality, ACORN is not under federal indictment and isn't mentioned in the stimulus bill at all.)

* many members of Congress have "a real aversion to capitalism."

* the stimulus bill includes a measure to create a "rationing board" for health care, and after the bill becomes law, "your doctor will no longer be able to make your health care decisions with you."

* the recovery package is part of a Democratic conspiracy to "direct" funding away from Republican districts, so Democratic districts can "suck up" all federal funds. Bachmann doesn't think this will work because, as she put it, "We're running out of rich people in this country."

* the "Community-Organizer-in-Chief" is also orchestrating a conspiracy involving the Census Bureau, which the president will use to redraw congressional lines to keep Democrats in power for up to "40 years." When the host said he was confused, noting that congressional district lines are drawn at the state level, Bachmann said Obama's non-existent plan is an "anti-constitutional move."

Further I have to agree with Mr. Benen when he says, "There's no point in trying to fact-check such unhinged stupidity". I could do a point by point refutation of what she declares, but really would that help?

Okay it would make me feel better. But her level of stupidity is just so astounding. It is like she didn't even look at the bill. When you are so divorced from reality that these are the sorts of claims that you make, claims that are demonstrably false what does that say about you?

Also I must echo Steve again. This is not some fringe member of the right-wing. This is a duly elected official from the state of Minnesota. This is the sort of crazy that gets to vote on legislation that will effect our lives. While I applaud President Obama on his outreach, how do you bridge the stupidity gap with this sort of person?

-Cheers

Happy Birthday George

"He once held an opponents wife's hand....in a jar of acid.....at a party."

What is best in life?

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women. -Conan

(You can't see it but I am giggling like a school girl)

-Cheers

Social Coteries...update

The plan is still to meet after the Crackmonkey V-ball game at Bentley's around 8:30 ish.

Topics will be drawn from the following list:

Stimulus Package Redux (think I have posted enough on this subject)

Micheal Phelps, Chris Brown (media coverage gone awry)

re-litigating the New Deal (I am sorry this just bothers me)

Facebook Lists (I am not my bookshelf!)

If you want to throw some more suggestions in the comment section I will cull through there before tonight.

For the ladies....and your word of the week

I might well blow a gasket, if I don't lay off the hard news so Tyler and Eric interceded and convinced me to do a lighter post.

This first bit is brought to you by Eric. He loves the ladies...so I thought I would share some of the items he has brought to my attention today.

First up, I now know why I should never dance again...and I apologize for all of mandom, for what you ladies have to deal with.



I think it is the push-ups that I love the most. This woman is both brave and providing a valuable service to her community.

Also a new site for you ladies to visit: Why Women Hate Men

Next up, also from Eric, is the sad tale of Meco and her harrowing tale of overcoming masturbation. The truth is, I feel sorry for this young lady, this is not a slight on religion....but I do feel bad for her. It is sad when someone is not comfortable with them self or their sexuality.

I started masturbating as early as 7th or 8^th grade, but overall my imprisonment to lust started as early as 4 or 5 years of age. When I was a little girl, I had a friend that I played with. Something must have happened to her because it was from playing with her that I had my first sexual experience. After this one time experience I wasn't the same and I developed homosexual tendencies as well.

Personally I am big fan of masturbation. And of girls. So I think they would go well together. Err...

And finally a long overdue Word of the Week!

This Word of the Week is brought to you by the letter Tyler and the number 7.

Meretricious

Yo Roman, what do you think of that shirt the young lady is wearing?

Hmm...well I know the off the shoulder thing was bumpin' in the 80's, but nowadays it seems a bit meretricious.

-Cheers

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Dammit...expectations are rising......

Least I have you thinking...

That I am just an Obama administration water carrier.

I am not pleased with this. In fact I am very disappointed by this.

Torture is wrong. Renditions to countries who torture is really wrong.

Hiding behind "executive privilege" or "State secrets" is even more wrong.

That is most definitely not change I can believe in. Hiding this information hides the crimes that went on.

Individuals who engaged in this should be prosecuted, they can offer their defense before a court of law.

I will probably have more on this later.

-cheers

Desperate times require desperate measures

Suffice to say...I am not very pleased with the predicted compromise in the Senate on the Stimulus Bill.

Now that is not to say, I want to see the bill fail. I have been struggling to come up with what the problem is. And I think it is one of scope. The centrists in the Senate suffer from a serious lack of vision. They worry that is the bill is too big. I worry it is that it is too small.

When facing a possible financial failure of catastrophic and epic proportion. The solution is not moderation. Simply because it is better to overshoot the goal then to undershoot.

That and the cuts they have proposed do not seem to make any sort economic of sense. They cut programs which are some of the most uncontroversial, effective (education spending and aide to the states) and increased others which have a limited stimulative effect (tax cuts). I think Dean Baker summed it up pretty well:

Trying to save money on stimulus is like finding a short cut for your jogging route. We can do it, but it undermines the whole point of the effort.

-cheers

Social Coteries....Part 2..

In chatting with Alex, Michelle, and Tyler they suggested a nefarious plan for some of the Crackmonkey participants.

Evidently there is a big game for the Crackmonkey Volleyball team on Wednesday, so it was suggested that we go and show our support.

So I am thinking that is a swell idea! Maybe we'll make signs!!!!

But the previous post with the original nefarious plan is here!

I will try to come up with some new topics, though some suggestions would be nice as well.

As a reminder the whole idea is to start something that resembles a book club...without the books.

I was thinking the new start time would be around 8:30 ish (depending on end of game) and the location will remain the same Bentley's

All are welcome.

But if it is your first night, bring your opinions. Because you will have to talk.

-cheers

Rachel does it better!

Ms. Maddow in her sexy intelligent way, does a better job then I of describing the current republican argument.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

And "bullpuckie" is the new word of the day.

Shorter Maddow. Repubs, ur doin it wrong!

More Stimulus!

I have been watching more cable news on the tee-vee box, and the striking thing about the debate Stimulus Bil is how poorly our educational system actually works.

We have individuals in Congress and the media, who do not know what happened during the Great Depression.

We have individuals tasked with making decisions on topics that they have no grasp of. Yet they purport to have a better understanding then those who have made a study of that particular field.

Most of the debate is over whether the bill can get bipartisan support. That is not the issue, the issues are whether it will work. Whether it is big enough to address the problems that we currently face.

The truly frustrating part is we have people who do not even understand the language of the problem. Literally we have people arguing over what the definition of a stimulus plan is. I posted it below but it bears repeating that every successful stimulus plan over the last 70 years involved governmental spending. It is a spending plan by definition.

Macroeconomics principles are different then Microeconomics principles. This is an important distinction that seems to get lost in all the cable and villager chatter. And something that most people do not now. What works on a micro scale, not only may not work on the macro level, but may also worsen the problem.

What is a personal virtue can paralyze a large economic model. Aggregate activities are way more dangerous at that point. People do not seem to grasp this. If everyone starts saving money and cuts spending, then there is less being money being spent, less products being produced. Profits drop. Jobs are slashed. Leading to more saving/hoarding, and even less spending. A vicious cycle.

Compromise and moderation can and are good things, however sometimes they should not be embraced simply to embrace them. Compromising with bad ideas for the sake of compromise is a bad idea.

The constant paeans to moderation miss the larger fact, that if we had learned some of the lessons of the past ('93, Great Depression, Japan's economic collapse). Sometimes extreme times, require extraordinary measures.

I know that there are those that are philosophically opposed to any government spending, and are absolutely convinced of the efficacy of tax cuts and spending cuts. To pull us out of this economic tailspin. Though there is no hard evidence that, that is the case. I could produce chart after chart showing that governmental spending (infrastructure, increased benefits) is 3 to 4 times more effective then tax cuts. Yet that still would not convince those die hard tax cuts proponents out there.

The facts at hand are this. Our country is facing at least a 2 trillion dollar deleveraging. We are trying to fill that with 900-800 billion dollars of "stimulus". Dr. Krugman described it correctly it is like trying to bridge a canyon but with only enough material to go halfway across the expanse.

-cheers

Stimulus and You.....

Over the last couple weeks I have become a tad frustrated with the conversation concerning the Stimulus Package currently being debated on capital I had prepared this extremely detailed diatribe on how much it irked me. It was chalk full of hyper-links, graphs, charts and quotes from respected economists.

When I was done it weighed in at about 7 single spaced Word pages, so I figured that was a bit much. So instead I threw all that away and decided on something more concise.

Here is are a few example of what set me off.

Poor and slanted coverage.

Uninformed people people making comments that lack historical or logical relevance.

After listening to this for almost a week, I almost broke my keyboard.

I do not think that every part of this bill is good. I have argued for the inclusion of more infrastructure spending and less in the way of tax cuts (maybe pushed more to to payroll tax breaks instead). But it is better then the alternative of doing nothing.

Now I wrote what I thought was the best and most rousing defense that punctuation and narrative challenged chemist could come up with for why quick passage of this Stimulus Bill is necessary, but I found it wanting. So instead I will turn it over to Dr. Paul Krugman and President Obama.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Both are worth listening to. Also here is the actual bill and a good break down. Educate yourself, so you don't sound like an idiot.

Yes there are some questionable parts of the bill. Bu there always is. No matter how good a bill is, something will be put in there that someone somewhere does not agree with.

So I must concur with the president, "We must make the perfect the enemy of the essential."

On a separate note, I also have a lot of issues with the notion of "bipartisanship" for the sake of bipartisanship. It takes two to accomplish that. The President mad the effort and the Republican caucus has rebuffed him on that. Also it seems that the definition of that word has changed. Republicans in the house and senate seem to believe that it means capitulation with their demands. It most definitely does not.

As I have said before, and I suspect I will say again. If you are not being sensible, you do not get a say. I came across the perfect analogy (found the quote!):

I really don’t understand how bipartisanship is ever going to work when one of the parties is insane. Imagine trying to negotiate an agreement on dinner plans with your date, and you suggest Italian and she states her preference would be a meal of tire rims and anthrax.

-Cheers

Weekday round-up

So I was thinking of doing an inaugural "Get people to go out to strange location and chat about strange things" social gab session. The location? Bentley's. The time? 7:30ish. Day? Wednesday.

Topics?

Tax issues and confirmations

Phelps toking it up

Painfully stupid stuff

Worst case scenario, I will just argue with myself.

Also there is an Irish band that plays on Wednesdays.

*Make that a week from Wednesday. Got my days mixed up.

Because it is Monday

Nothing real meaty to post today. Still recovering from last nights grilling bonanza.

So all you get is a web-comic link.

Good Morning

Seriously I may become a vegetarian, just because. Though the there were many delicious things there this year.

-cheers

Operation Ginsanity!

Words can't describe the evening. So youtube to the rescue.

Also I will give gratuitous shout outs to those who made the evening a memorable one. Thanks to Steph and Candice for treking down from the Chi.

Thanks to Stacey, Miki, Michelle and Jamie for coming out, when I thought they would not!

Thanks to Woody, his lovely wife Jules, Jay-z, and the fabulous Tyler for soldiering through.

Further thanks to Shawn, Amy, Elizabeth and other Stephanie for rocking the joint along with Heather and Miles!

And a special thanks to Jasmijn, the Bav, Heather Miles and Single T for just being awesome.

My liver hates you all.


-Cheers

*For those wondering why Miles and Heather got thanked twice....well you had to be there! :-)