Douche-bag of the Day!

It has been a while since I have done one of these, but well, I thought Rep. John Shadegg performed above and beyond the call of duty.

The people of Arizona could not hope for a more clueless representative:



I will just let you bask in his idiocy. I am no huge fan of Mike Barnacle, but from an economic standpoint he has the right of it......

-Cheers

We are just tribal creatures.....

These sorts of articles just absolutely crush any optimism I have for a rational society.

The phenomenon is referred to as motivated skepticism. Ezra Klein pulls a lot of this stuff together, to start my day off badly. The reasons for this are obvious. It has recently been a topic of some conversation, the motivations of the Republican Party.

The money quote of the piece, for me would be:

Three scary sentences from the piece: "when reference group information was available, participants gave no weight to objective policy content, and instead assumed the position of their group as their own. This effect was as strong among people who were knowledgeable about welfare as it was among people who were not. Finally, participants persisted in the belief that they had formed their attitude autonomously even in the two group information conditions where they had not."

Rational analysis, is completely secondary to identifying with your group. Let that roll over in your mind for a bit. Presented with verifiable information, party id mattered more then objective policy content.

I really don't have a good retort for this right now. Normally I like to game out strategies and such to work around these sorts of obstacles, but with the high level of polarization in the country, I am not sure what the solution is.

Mr. Klein also reminds us of a quote by one of my favorite philosophers, Bertrand Russell:

"If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence."

That leads me to one question. We all agree that the economy is bad, and on shaky ground. The President has proposed multiple "moderate" (read as warmed over and retreaded Republican plans from the past, from the health care reform bill, to the Stimulus) policies to help ameliorate some of the massive problems we have been through the past couple of years and that is characterized as socialist. So one has to wonder if presented with a choice of taking steps to fix the economy that yield politically positive benefits for President Obama or stymieing that effort, what would be the Republican answer for that?

Thus far, the answer is "No".

You should be very concerned. One party is concerned about governing during a severe economic recession and the other is concerned with returning to power.

The president and the democrats seem unwilling to accept that.

If the president is having a hard time understanding why his base is demoralized, he need look no farther then his decision on the federal pay freeze or the Bush Tax Cuts. An inability to make your opposition pay for their intransigence and an unwillingness to fight for your ostensible beliefs.....

Yeah I am not happy this morning.

-Cheers

Now for the negotiations.....

I am sorry Mr. President this is a stupid move. It is bad economics during a recession and bad policy when dealing with an intractable opposition.

Pre-conciliatory gestures will get you nothing sir. Nothing at all. The republicans want to destroy your presidency. It further depresses your base. It just doesn't make any sense. Get out there and fight for your beliefs.

Bad move.

-Cheers

Putting a pretty bow on it....

Over the last couple of weeks I have been in a number of lengthy political arguments with conservatives via Facebook. It has been illuminating.

Those who know me well, know that I am not an overtly aggressive person, but I can be combative when discussing issues I view as matters of fact (i.e what were the employment numbers from the 90's as compared to the 00's, increases and decreases in real wages, health insurance enrollment or poverty statistics). Anything that there is documented evidence or data for, I feel on much firmer ground when discussion.

Both of the major discussions I had, started from different points but converged in an interesting way. One started from a commenting stating that the Bush Administration oversaw the "greatest economy ever". The other began when I made a comment about Mrs. Sarah Palin in which I provided a quote from her about her support for the TARP program, when Bush implemented it during the last presidential election. The quote was a nonsensical collection of republican boilerplate, which showed no grasp of the relevant policy or its implications. That to me was terrifying.

From those two points the conversations spiraled down in the same way and the "arguments" of the individuals in questions had the same whiff of sententiousness and a heavy reliance on argumentum ad populum. I will not re-litigate those arguments here, but I wanted to comment on the general tenor. What I saw was a complete disregard of any data which contradicts their perspective, an unwillingness to provide any support for their assertions and a willful misreading of their opponents arguments. It was somewhat maddening.

I am fully aware that once an argument starts that no one will ever change their opinion based on that discussion. It is profoundly human failing. It is alright to appear stupid or even bigoted, but wrong is never an option.

Okay now that I have gotten that substantial preamble out of the way, I really just wanted an excuse to post a couple links that caught my eye.

First off that, Argumentum ad Populum (additional analysis here) that I spoke of before:

Taibbi: To me, the main thing about the Tea Party is that they’re just crazy. If somebody is able to bridge the gap with those voters, it seems to me they will have to be a little bit crazy too. That’s part of the Tea Party’s litmus test: “How far will you go?”

Gergen: I flatly reject the idea that Tea Partiers are crazy. They had some eccentric candidates, there’s no question about that. But I think they represent a broad swath of the American electorate that elites dismiss to their peril.

Hart: I agree with David. When two out of five people who voted last night say they consider themselves supporters of the Tea Party, we make a huge mistake to suggest that they are some sort of small fringe group and do not represent anybody else.

Taibbi: I’m not saying that they’re small or a fringe group.

Gergen: You just think they’re all crazy.

Taibbi: I do.

Gergen: So you’re arguing, Matt, that 40 percent of those who voted last night are crazy?

Taibbi: I interview these people. They’re not basing their positions on the facts — they’re completely uninterested in the facts. They’re voting completely on what they see and hear on Fox News and afternoon talk radio, and that’s enough for them.

Gergen: The great unwashed are uneducated, so therefore their views are really beneath serious conversation?

Taibbi: I’m not saying they’re beneath serious conversation. I’m saying that these people vote without acting on the evidence.

Gergen: I find it stunning that the conversation has taken this turn. I disagree with the Tea Party on a number of issues, but it misreads who they are to dismiss them as some kind of uneducated know-nothings who have somehow seized power in the American electorate. It is elitist to its core. We would all be better off if we spent more time listening to each other rather than simply writing them off.

In my opinion this discussion perfectly distills that logical fallacy. Simply because large numbers of people believe something does not always make it true. Sixty years ago in the United States, large swaths of Americans believed that blacks were less deserving of equal treatment then whites. Or if you prefer a non-racially charged analogy, during the dark ages large portions of the afflicted communities believed that carrying flowers protected you from the Black Plague.
To take Taibbi's point the people he interviewed would eschewed any data that disagreed with them. In his estimation that made them crazy.

Now the next two blog posts are Palin related (here and here). Mrs. Palin, has changed the political equation, she has touched a nerve politically and the pundits (and her opponents) have been slow to realize this. As the able guys and gals over at Balloon Juice explain in the most plain language I have seen:

This is a standard beltway political analysis, and it reflects a basic misunderstanding of Palin’s strategy in general, and specifically why Palin doesn’t give a shit about Michelle Obama’s gender or popularity.

Palin’s goal is to mobilize a base of Fox-watching, resentment-driven primary voters. These people are mainly white and male, and they do not like Michelle Obama. Palin’s characterization of Michelle Obama as an elite black woman who thinks she knows better just stirs the pot of resentment that Palin thinks will drive her primary victories. In the eyes of the typical Palin primary voter, Mrs. Obama’s anti-obesity program is in no way “benign”—it’s another example of that uppity Princeton-educated black ballbuster thinking she knows better than real Americans.

Second, if Palin does get the nomination, she’ll be a weak candidate with little or no positive agenda. So, she’ll have to attack Michelle and Barack Obama, Sasha, Malia and Bo, repeatedly and without regard to their poll numbers. She will run a constant Twitter and Facebook attack machine with the goal of making Obama look weak if he doesn’t respond, but also making him look like he’s picking on her and her family if he does. Her strategy for attracting women voters will be to make Obama look like he isn’t tough enough to defend his wife and family, and then to make him look like a jerk for attacking poor defenseless Sarah.

Palin will be able to pursue this strategy in large part because she won’t be subject to the same media rules as her primary or general opponents. The mainstream media dutifully reports her every tweet but is unable to question her directly on the horseshit that she spews. My guess is that she won’t travel with any press but Fox and associated friendly outlets. She’s shown a basic capability of participating in a debate and not making a complete ass of herself, if she’s prepped correctly, so she’ll probably outperform the low expectations that will accompany that little ritual.

My point isn’t that she’s unstoppable, just that the campaign analysis in the mold of Teddy White and Jack Germond isn’t the way to understand the Palin project. She isn’t part of that system, and she doesn’t play by its rules.

And this reflection from Andrew Sullivan:

There is no maturity here; no self-reflection; no capacity even to think how to appeal to the half of Americans who are already so appalled by her trashy behavior and cheap publicity stunts. There is a meanness, a disrespect, a vicious partisanship that, if allowed to gain more power, would split this country more deeply and more rancorously than at any time in recent years. And that's saying something.

Say what you want about our current president, from his statements and actions he just doesn't have the same disdain for his opponents as this woman shows.

Now none of these were fact based arguments other then looking at the on record quotes of individuals and evaluating those statements. What they do illustrate is an unwillingness to entertain doubt. That there are times when you ideology is not sufficient to address all issues, and that even sometimes it may be incorrect.

And as Master Kenobi tells us, "Only a sith deals in absolutes. I will do what I must.". So when I see arguments that lack support other then the force of opinion, I will do my best to attack and probe them. Why? Because I must. It is the only way to better the discourse we have.

-Cheers

Off the beaten path...

A little break from politics today. I found this blog post about "sex with Aspergers", incredibly compelling.

It was an interesting perspective, that honestly, I had never thought about. I have know several people that fall ,at various points, on the scale but I never once thought about how frustrating/difficult it must all be.

Almost instinctively, for most of us, we have and understand that their is a game that must be played in the pursuit of sex. Not once do we even question it. It simply is the way it is. Whether we are proficient or not, we know the rules.

So what would it be like with out that sort of knowledge? Other than in some sort of anthropological sense, it would be terrorizing. That all being said, I giggled like a little school boy when I read this little passage:

We dated. To get rid of him, I told him I was a lesbian and I only wanted to date him if there could be another woman there, too. That didn’t just make him pursue me with more fervor. It made the whole trading floor pursue me. And I had no idea why.

Notice how there’s one theme here: I have no idea how other people think about sex.

At least in this regard Mrs. Trunk is not alone. I honestly have no idea what other people think about sex. You just kind of hope that your sexual habits do not scare off whoever you are trying to bed.

Interestingly enough I find that oddly comforting.

-Cheers

Pernicious Lies.....

Okay now can we stop with how tax cuts are the tonic which solves every economic ill.


I am guessing no. The magic economic fairy will come along and create jobs! All we need to do is reduce revenue and spending and all will be right!

-Cheers

Like a record spinning.....

With all the talk of the deficit commission going around, I had prepared a very lengthy post on the relative merits of the commission. I was going to post lots of charts, graphs, and discussion of the topic focusing mainly on the points raised by Dr. Krugman.

But that post had gotten so overly large as to be unwieldy, so instead, I will just sulk and point to this post from earlier this year:

It really sucks to be right about the predictability of politicians and the punditocracy. But if I recall, some extremely brilliant blogger had this to say several months ago:

It is like people refuse to learn the lessons that history teaches us.

Reminder FDR listened to those who were clamoring for "deficit reduction" and that plunged the US back into depression.

I make this simple statement ignore the budget hawks for now. Do what we must to repair the economy and get job growth positive. I guarantee the public will not say a fucking word about the deficit if that happens.

The American people have an extremely limited vocabulary when it comes to economics. During high economic anxiety deficit reduction is always the first thing people say they want, even though it is the wrong thing to do in the midst of an economic contraction.

But don't listen to me, I don't really know that much about economics or "liquidity traps", but there are a few articles, from actual experts like Dr. Paul Krugman here and here, with a solid piece in the Washington post, here.

This is why we need to do better at teaching history.

This also looks very bad, for the rest of us, because the people in charge are either to blinded by
ideology or too stupid to take the proper corrective.

That's right, I have quoted myself twice! Anyway, this push for austerity is common during economic contractions. When it is absolutely the wrong sort of thing to do. Cutting spending in the midsts of a recession is a sure fire way to prolong that recession.

So again I must ask, why do we have a deficit commission instead of a "growth" or "get people jobs" commission?

There are some arguments and suggestions in the chairman's commission report that do bear some discussion, however, the very existence of the commission is concession to the arguments made by Republicans. The idea that we are talking about this instead of ways to create more jobs or encourage growth is extremely disappointing and demoralizing.

-Cheers

What the People want....

There have been a lot people running around talking about how the democrats over played their hand on health care reform. Ezra Klein at the Washington Post posted and interesting chart on various previous of the health care law.

Massive parts are the bill are wildly popular, when the public is informed of them. While the ways of paying for them are not.

This shouldn't be surprising, paying for anything is never popular. But here is the chart:


Now democrats have done a lousy job of informing the public on what is in the bill, but then that isn't surprising either. Republican messaging is easier on this. Health Care is massively complicated so especially susceptible to demagoguery.

-Cheers

Why we are screwed.

I know it is all the rage that "both sides are the same". A matter of collective fact, as it were.

But how do square this quote:

What have I told you about diet and exercise? Exercise is irrelevant.... "How do you know all this?" One of the reasons I know what I know is that I know liberals, and I know liberals lie, and if Michelle Obama's gonna be out there ripping into "food desserts" and saying, "This is why people are fat," I know it's not true. "Rush, do you really believe that? It's that simple to you, liberals lie?" Yes, it is, folks. Once you learn that, once you come to grips with that, once you accept that, the rest is easy. Very, very simple. Now, my doctor has never told me to restrict any intake of salt, but if he did, I wouldn't. I'd just spend more time in the steam or the sauna sweating it out.

Show me the prominent progressives, or liberals, or Democratic leaders who would say this about Conservatives or republicans? This is anti-science, anti-knowledge, anti- anything that makes sense. The two sides are not the same. Not even remotely.

To paraphrase Robert Novak (from the excellent Lee Atwater documentary Boogie Man), the difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats truly believe in governing, and Republicans just want power.

He is right, and they illustrate that with every day. Just watch their rhetoric. Holding two contradictory positions simultaneously is common place (we will cut spending and create jobs all while during a economic contraction. An economic impossibility.).

So again, I absolutely agree with Bill Maher from my previous post.

-Cheers

False Equivalence

I found this monologue from Bill Maher to be compelling, and I have had a hard time expressing this very same sentiment.




-Cheers

Change those dressings....

It was a bloody night for the democrats last night. No doubt about it. Lots of coverage on the elections. I would recommend staying away from most of it. A lot of it is conjecture and idle speculations will be crap. I would recommend reading this post by Brendan Nyhan:

I'm bracing for an avalanche of nonsense tomorrow night about why Barack Obama is responsible for the expected Republican landslide. Here's a guide to what you should expect.

It's long been obvious that Obama's political standing would decline as a result of the poor economy and the passage of time. Similarly, substantial Democratic losses in the House were always likely given the large number of seats the party had to defend in a midterm election in which it controls the presidency. The continued weakness of the economy subsequently appears to have enhanced the Republican advantage, helping to produce tomorrow's pro-GOP wave.

Instead of focusing on these structural factors, journalists and other political figures have constructed a staggering number of ad hoc claims about messaging, tactics, etc. to "explain" what has happened to Obama and the Democrats:

Also the in fighting shall begin, and we shall hear how much to the left Obama has gone. It really is simple the economy is crap. Nothing else matters. Perhaps on the margins there is some movement here and there. But you can not message past that.

I continue to be amazed how uninformed the electorate actually is. The lack of understanding of basic economics is saddening. If I have to look at Rep. Cantor (R-VA), and listen to spending cuts and tax cuts....well I suspect the next two years will be good times for me blogging.

Keep your head up and start working to make the country better tomorrow.

The White House seriously needs to do a better job of dealing with its base. Insulting them, ignoring them and treating them like naive children will not endear them to that base. Also if the White House believes that the republicans will work with them, they absolutely are mistaken. As I have said in other medium. This was a positive feedback loop for republicans. They will only continue on their path.

-Cheers

Obama = Keynesian

I am sure I will make some of my friends who attended the Rally for Sanity slightly angry with this post, but this totally made me laugh.

Pragmatism, centrist, moderate these are ideologies as well. Both sides are not the same, it is one thing to complain about the volume of the discourse, but at least know what the discourse is about.

Also, if there is one thing that is consistent across the political spectrum, it is ignorance. There are stupid people everywhere.

-Cheers

Why I will vote tomorrow...

I remember too.

I had written a very lengthy explicative filled post about voting, but I thought this video gives a good idea of why I will be voting mostly democratic tomorrow.


I will always be supportive of a party that at least tries to solve problems, over one that pretends they never caused any. Or places their own gains for power over the countries needs.

Go vote tomorrow.