New Blog Links.

I have been a little remiss in updating my blog links.

So I have a couple to add:

For economics I have come to trust Dr. Krugman. His ability for explaining complex economic principles is invaluable.

Since moving to the Washington Post Greg Sargent has been doing yeoman's work on all manner of politics. It is a good place to get a good rundown on politics.

And it is good to see David Wiegel with a blog again.

So they will be getting added to the blog roll.

-Cheers

Washington Post Chat

Eugene Robinson at the Washington Post had a reader chat the other day, that was pretty good. I wish there were was more commentary like this on cable new. I found this portion particularly
interesting:

Q.

NYC Mosque

You are simply misinformed and misguided and blinded by your liberal bias. It was a minority of Germans and Japanese that brought the horrors of WWII to the world. It similarly is a minority of Muslims that have brought 9/11 and soon nuclear horrors to the world. Like the Germans and Japanese ALL Muslims must bear the responsibility and wear this stain on themselves for generations until they have cleansed themselves thru good acts as have the Germans and Japanese. Additionally Obama said this Mosque will prevent another 9/11. Why haven't the exiting 100 Mosques prevented 9/11? This Mosque is a symbol of Muslim domination over America and IT WILL NEVER STAND.

• –
  August 24, 2010 5:37 AM
• Permalink

A.

Eugene Robinson writes:

Sigh. first, since the Germans invoked God in committing their atrocities, by your logic we should blame all Christians, no? Second, establishing an open-door community center devoted to interfaith understanding would seem to me to be a "good act." There is no question of "Muslim domination over America." Give me a break. Do you have so little faith in our Constitution and our nation?

– August 24, 2010 11:08 AM

This is just a microcosm, of what the essential arguments being made by the mosques opponents are. All Muslims are to blame for 9/11. That is simple bigotry and religious intolerance.

Should all Christians be tarred with the actions of the IRA, or the actions for murderous anti-abortion activists? I believe the answer to that question is "no". But it seems for far too many of my fellow citizens the resounding answer is "yes".

-Cheers

Real Profiles in Political Courage....

Seriously, kudos to Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) and Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) for showing clear and real courage for standing up for fundamental rights.

Merkley made the essential point here:

The debate swirling around the proposed mosque and Muslim community center in lower Manhattan near the World Trade Center site has, for many, tapped into strong emotions of a national trauma that is still raw. But in the churning political and constitutional arguments, one question has not been adequately addressed: what makes a mosque near ground zero offensive....

[M]any mosque opponents argue, just because it can be built does not mean it should be. They say it would be disrespectful to the memories of those who died on 9/11 to build a Muslim facility near the World Trade Center site. I appreciate the depth of emotions at play, but respectfully suggest that the presence of a mosque is only inappropriate near ground zero if we unfairly associate Muslim Americans with the atrocities of the foreign al-Qaida terrorists who attacked our nation....

And Mr. Paul makes the salient point about rights here:

It is repeatedly said that 64% of the people, after listening to the political demagogues, don't want the mosque to be built. What would we do if 75% of the people insist that no more Catholic churches be built in New York City? The point being is that majorities can become oppressors of minority rights as well as individual dictators. Statistics of support is irrelevant when it comes to the purpose of government in a free society--protecting liberty.

I am not a fan of Rep. Paul, but his argument is a fundamentally libertarian one. So I applaud him on standing up for first principles.

-Cheers

You know you have gone too far....

...When Pat Buchanan calls you out for going to far in demagogueing a minority group:



Seriously...Pat fucking Buchanan is calling you out on intolerance....

I did not see that coming.

-Cheers

Word of the Day

It has been a while, but I thought I would fish out a word for people to use.

Today's word is :

Pomander

po·man·der

   /ˈpoʊmændər, poʊˈmændər/ Show Spelled[poh-man-der, poh-man-der] Show IPA

–noun

1.

a mixture of aromatic substances, often in the form of a ball, formerly carried on the person as a supposed guard against infection but now placed in closets, dressers, etc.

2.

the ball, box, or other case in which it was formerly carried.

I don't think we need a sentence for this one. I just sounded delicious.....

-Cheers

My feelings exactly....

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Mr. Olbermann definitely hit the nail on the head. The constant bashing/dissing or the out right ignoring of some of your most ardent supporters gets old.

-Cheers

Argumentum Ad Awesome

Hopefully this will be the beginning of a new periodic, blog post series (joining the ranks of Douche-bag of the week, word of the day and Ask a Spy on the list of items I update for a few weeks then forget about!).

The idea is to spotlight cogent arguments. Mainly because what passes for argument in our political culture nowadays is so riddled with logical fallacies that is down right embarrassing. My goal is to pick sound arguments (whether I agree with them or not) and highlight them.

So to start things off Ms. Rachel Maddow squaring off versus Mr. Bill O'Reilly-Fox New Channel:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

And here goes Ted Olson, going all Matlock on Chris Wallace and Fox Nation:


It is sad, that I find this sort of thing refreshing. It would be nice if a well reasoned argument actually swayed people, but at the very least I appreciate when people still try to convince others through a cogent and reasoned discourse.

-Cheers

The world of intended consequences...

One of my main objections to the Arizona law is that it would disproportionately affect people of Hispanic and Latino descent. Why do I think that? Well I could cite my own life experiences, but I would prefer something less subjective. Just take a look at the statistics from New York's "stop and frisk" laws (actual statics embedded at the linked cite).

From 2005 to 2008, approximately 80 percent of total stops made were of Blacks and Latinos, who comprise 25 percent and 28 percent of New York City's total population, respectively. During this same time period, only approximately 10 percent of stops were of Whites, who comprise 44 percent of the city's population.....

..Between 2005 and June 2008, only 8 percent of Whites stopped were also frisked, while 85 percent of Blacks and Latinos who were stopped were also frisked.

It is definitely having an effect.

The data demonstrates a paucity of stops resulting in weapons and/or contraband yield across racial lines. Of the cumulative number of stops made since 2005, only 2.6 percent resulted in the discovery of a weapon or contraband. Though rates of contraband yielded were minute across racial groups, stops made of Whites were slightly more likely to yield contraband.

Arrest rates during the period of 2005 through the first half of 2008 were low for all racial groups at between 4 and 6 percent of all NYPD-initiated stops during that period.

If we want to talk about racial issues in this country we have to do a much better job of it. Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) writes about "The Myth of White Privilege", but he does a fair job of ignoring or minimizing the effects of structural racism/bigotry in our society. If Arizona's law had been enacted as written I am confident there would have been more stories like this one from Florida:

The incident that provoked the lawsuit occurred in April when Janet Lovett and her husband took their 7-year-old son, who is autistic, to the Children's Splash Park in Tavares. While she was in the park, Lovett was splashed by water, which soaked the front of her white T-shirt and made her padded bra visible.

Janet Lovett's lawyer said the Florida woman is suing the city of Tavares for violating her rights because she was arrested after her shirt got wet at a kiddie splash park there.

"She was ultimately approached by an individual [who] professed to be a city employee and [told] she was not appropriately dressed for the park," Marks said. "[He told her] she would have to change into a bathing suit or some other clothing."

Marks said his client left her husband with their child, put a towel over her shoulders and walked out of the city-owned park. She was planning on going home to get a bathing suit when she was approached in the parking lot by a police officer.

"[The] police officer confronted her and started essentially quizzing her and demanding information from her, stating that she needed to put Mrs. Lovett's name in a database," Marks said.

Lovett, a Peruvian native who was granted American citizenship in January, speaks English, albeit "not perfectly," Marks said. She said she explained the situation to the officer and requested to speak with her husband. The officer allegedly denied that request and asked Lovett to produce her identification. She had none with her and told the officer it was in her car.

"I started shaking. I [felt] nervous. My son was inside [the] park with [my] husband. I was alone," Lovett said in an interview with ABC-affiliate WFTV. "[I was] very scared. I [had] never been arrested before."

A police report obtained by WFTV indicates Lovett did not give her name fast enough. As a result, she was taken into custody on suspicion of obstructing justice and resisting arrest.

This is what you run the risk of. We have seen this sort of thing play out before. When people are scared/economically distressed minority rights are secondary.

-Cheers

Biology and "friends with benifits"

*This post is instead of the massive, many delayed post I had been working on about racial disparities in the US. I found that topic so depressing that, I decided to put up something about booty calls instead. Enjoy


Salon had an interview with the author of the study "Positioning the Booty Call on the Spectrum of Relationships", Peter K. Jonason of the University of South Alabama.

It is an interesting read, sure to anger all sorts of people. It is provocative, with out being particularly hyperbolic. But I think his comment at the end of the interview is what will make it most controversial:

As much as you want to escape your biology, there it is, in your face. Humans have the illusion that they can escape their biology, but we're just like any other animal, the difference is our leash is longer. It appears that we have all this freedom to make these choices, but we really don't.

This is really the crux of it. Not that we can not evolve, but that as a species we ignore the role our biology plays in even our most basic interactions. We lie to ourselves, and do a great disservice as well, when we think that we are better then we actually are. We ignore our "flaws" and pretend that they are purely an intellectual construct. They are not.

Maybe when we come to grips with that, we can actually make some forward progress.

All that being said, I found the paper amazingly interesting. Hopefully you will take the time to
read it and the interview. It presents human relationships in for more transactional sort of light.

-Cheers