Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Memetrics
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktOne of the features I love most about the internet is following links that are embedded in links……………………….you never know what you’ll find. Generally it’s either a virus or a piece that agrees with the original you’ve just read but with either a twist or a few added details. Occasionally you find an unexpected source of information or amusement.
I woke up way too early this morning, for someone who was out until midnight, and spent the wee hours of the morning following links and came across this guy. It’s too early to tell if he’ll be a valuable source of information or just another quack hiding behind some interesting ideas, but the piece I read this morning might interest some of you.
It’s been suggested by more than one wit that life imitates art far more often than art imitates life. The United States military these days seems intent on becoming a poster child for that proposal. Industrial design classes at MIT used to hand out copies of “Superiority” as required reading; unfortunately that useful habit has not been copied by the Pentagon, and as a result, the US armed forces are bristling with brilliantly innovative wonder weapons that don’t do what they’re supposed to do.
You’ll notice that this has done little to stabilize the puppet governments we’ve got in the Middle East these days, and even less to decrease the rate at which American soldiers are getting shot and blown up in Afghanistan. There’s a reason for that. The targets for drone attacks have to be selected by ordinary intelligence methods—terrorists don’t go around with little homing beacons on them, you know—and ordinary intelligence methods have a relatively low signal-to-noise ratio. As a result, a lot of wedding parties and ordinary households get vaporized on the suspicion that there might be a terrorist hiding in there somewhere. Since tribal custom in large parts of the Middle East makes blood vengeance on the murderers of one’s family members an imperative duty, and there are all these American soldiers conveniently stationed in Afghanistan—well, you can do the math for yourself.
He goes on to talk about torture being another ineffective use of the military and then explains a theory based on chaos, discord and confusion. I especially like this explanation of chaos and discord comparing a tropical storm (chaos) to antibiotic resistant bacteria (discord).
If we shift attention from Tropical Storm Isaac to the latest recall of bacteria-tainted produce, we move from chaos to discord. Individually, bacteria are nearly as dumb as storms, but a species of bacteria taken as a whole has a curious analogue to intelligence. All living systems are value-oriented—that is, they value some states (such as staying alive) more than other states (such as becoming dead) and take actions to bring about the states they value. That makes them considerably more challenging to deal with than storms, because they take active steps to counter any change that threatens their survival.
If X occurs, then Y must occur………………………………………..
This bit of systems theory is relevant here because American culture has a very hard time dealing with any kind of uncertainty at all. That’s partly the legacy of Newtonian science, which saw itself—or at least liked to portray itself in public—as the quest for absolutely invariant laws of nature. If X occurs, then Y must occur: that sort of statement is the paradigmatic form of knowledge in industrial societies.
It also explains a good bit of why the United States has stumbled from one failed counterinsurgency after another since the Second World War.
You can’t treat a hostile country like a passive object that will respond predictably to your actions. You can’t even treat it as a chaotic system that can more or less be known statistically. At the very least, you have to recognize that it will behave as a discordant system, and react to your actions in ways that support its values, not yours: for example, by shooting or blowing up randomly chosen American soldiers to avenge family members killed by a Predator drone.
There’s more and he gets into the confusion aspect of his theory…………I just thought it was an interesting exercise in expanding the way we think.
MiA – I am pulling a Kevin and adding a Ted Talk here. Liberals, conservatives, and the Moral Mind
Haidt is a liberal. After the first few minutes that include bashing conservatives for the amusement of liberals, he presents what he says are the pre-wired pathways that lead to developing an adult sense of morality. He claims five from neuroscience, and liberals will be inclined to criticize him when he says conservatives use all five while liberals rely on two. I will shorthand the five neural presets as: nurturing-hurting, fairness-cheating, group loyalty or betrayal, authority-rebellion, and purity-disgust. I would criticize him just as I would Kant for the categorical imperative: we do not I think, have the tools to make this a simple matter. But what Haidt says in this Ted talk is interesting [after the cheap shots in the beginning], and I think worth attending. If the neurosci is accurate, then it has more weight than most offerings on “morality”.
Filed under: Open Thread, TED Talks |
All Things in Moderation 
As expected:
“Police: All Empire State shooting victims were wounded by officers”
LikeLike
Have a nice Saturday John and anyone else who stops by……………….I have (unfortunately) a lot of work to do.
LikeLike
lms:
Me too. Gotta get as much done today as possible to avoid the onslaught of Paulistas coming in tomorrow …
One more thing to note — home court advantage was really good to Apple:
“Apple won a sweeping victory in its landmark patent dispute against Samsung when a Silicon Valley jury ruled Friday that a series of popular smartphone and tablet features — from the rounded rectangle shape to the way screens slide and bounce to the touch — are proprietary Apple innovations.
The nine-person jury overwhelmingly sided with Apple’s claims that Samsung had infringed on valid patents when it copied those and other design elements while seeking to compete against the wildly popular iPhone and iPad. The jury rejected claims that Apple had infringed on several of Samsung’s patents.”
Can’t wait to see how AAPL does at market open on Monday.
LikeLike
lms
Biker bar?
Michigoose: chaps?????
LikeLike
Nice sex scandal to liven up the end of August with a twist:
More explicit details are here:
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/homeland_homegirls_Se5i5dCvDQc84CE9rSpvBM?utm_medium=rss&utm_content=National
LikeLike
lms:
I know this wasn’t the point of the link, but it ties into an earlier discussion:
All living systems are value-oriented—that is, they value some states (such as staying alive) more than other states (such as becoming dead) and take actions to bring about the states they value.
And thus he has articulated the rational foundation of morality.
LikeLike
Uh Scott, I’m no philosopher but I have to disagree that non-human living entities are moral. Staying alive is instinctual, not moral. Doesn’t morality have more to do with how we treat others than ourselves? I doubt anyone wracked with a bacteria that is resistant to antibiotics would consider the premise that said bacteria is acting morally. I don’t think rational equals moral.
LikeLike
Lulu, watch the TED talk I added for an alleged link between the functions of the physical brain and the concepts of morality.
LikeLike
lms:
Uh Scott, I’m no philosopher but I have to disagree that non-human living entities are moral.
I’m not sure what you think I think or why, but to clarify, as I said the other day, I think moral notions serve to guide the behavior of rational beings. I am unaware of any non-human rational beings, so at least for now I suppose I agree with your disagreement.
I don’t think rational equals moral.
I don’t either, but I do think rationality is a necessary precondition for notions such as right/wrong to be applicable.
LikeLike
Senator Barbara Boxer, speaking at Planned Parenthood:
“There is a sickness out there in the Republican Party, and I’m not kidding. Maybe they don’t like their moms or their first wives; I don’t know what it is.”
What a class act. Californians must be so proud.
LikeLike
Mark Steyn on the Dems attempt to make the election about abortion:
LikeLike
John and Michi
Biker bar? Sure, as long as there’s either a pool table or shuffle board or both. No chaps. We use chaps out here for horse back riding not motorcycles, unless you’re a dork biker.
LikeLike
Mark
Why, am I wrong? I’ll watch it later, cooking dinner right now. Give me a synopsis.
Edit, sorry Mark, just saw that you did give us the gist.
LikeLike
The death of Neil Armstrong has brought the where were you then media pieces out in full.
For me, it was a different speculation. Some people live charmed lives. If anybody was destined not to die in bed at an advanced age, it would seem to have been Armstrong, Korea, test pilot and then early astronanut. To whatever forces you attribute “destiny” it does seem to take a hand in the lives of some of us, for either good or evil.
LikeLike
John, he certainly had an eventful and adventurous life. We talk a lot about adventure here. I remember trying to convince my grandson a couple of years ago that moving was a great adventure……………………..he wasn’t buying it at the time, but now that he’s seen snakes, racoons, coyotes, skunks, squirrels, rabbits, frogs, scorpions and more in their back yard he agrees with me.
LikeLike
When I think about the definition of words on a broad basis I like to look at the Thesaurus.
Definition: ethical, honest
Synonyms: aboveboard, blameless, chaste, conscientious, correct, courteous, decent, decorous, dutiful, elevated, exemplary, good, high-minded, honorable, immaculate, incorruptible, innocent, just, kindly, kosher*, laudable, meet, meritorious, modest, moralistic, noble, praiseworthy, principled, proper, pure, respectable, right, righteous, saintly, salt of the earth, scrupulous, seemly, square, straight, true-blue, trustworthy, truthful, upright, upstanding, virtuous, worthy
Notes: moral (noun) means the lesson or principle of a story or event – (adjective) relating to lessons or principles of right and wrong; morale is a state of individual psychological well-being based upon a sense of confidence and usefulness and purpose or the spirit of a group that makes the members want the group to succeed
Antonyms: amoral, bad, corrupt, dishonest, evil, immoral, sinful, unethical, unprincipled, vile
LikeLike
There was a story in the Post about a young woman who was riding her motorcycle home when the derecho hit. A tree blown over by the storm bent her in two and broke her back. She was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. She survived, though will not walk again.
I was out of the area when the storm hit, visiting family in Missouri with my sons. Had my wife been in the wrong spot that day, I might be a single father. Fortunately, she was home and ours is well constructed.
We have a penchant for naming storms in this area (Snowpocalypse, Snowmageddon…) Were the derecho to have a name, I’d call it Capricio.
BB
LikeLike
One pissed off Blade. I’m twenty minutes into writing a post and WordPress nukes the page and logs me out. Yeah yeah yeah, compose off line. If they want people to contribute, they shouldn’t pull that crap.
BB
LikeLike
Scott
I am unaware of any non-human rational beings, so at least for now I suppose I agree with your disagreement.
Rationality, I think, is only one aspect of morality though and the portion of the drone piece you used to justify the rational foundation of morality had much more to do with self preservation than anything else which is a foundation of something completely different than morality, imo. I don’t think there’s anything particularly moral about survival of the fittest although it may indeed be rational and instinctual as well.
I was curious about your thoughts on non-human rational beings after I read this from the other day so I think you’ve cleared that up for me anyway.
So to say they are universal is simply to say that they apply in the same manner and same respect to all rational individuals. If there are members of the human race that are not rational, then they will not apply to them. And if there are non-humans that are rational, they will apply to them.
LikeLike
Haahaaa, Steyn sounds pretty cynical regarding women being able to discern what’s important in a presidential election. It would be a much more interesting election if either party was truly interested in solving any or all of the economic issues mentioned above or had some idea of how to move forward without the advice of “captured” economic advisers. I think a large majority of Americans are convinced that neither party can solve our financial woes.
LikeLike
lms:
Steyn sounds pretty cynical regarding women being able to discern what’s important in a presidential election.
What in the world makes you say that? Certainly he questions the “peculair” view of progressives. But not of “women”. There’s nothing that I can see to suggest that Steyn thinks women have a singular ability (or lack thereof) to discern what is important.
LikeLike
Departing NYT public editor Arthur Brisbane, in his final column, acknowledges a small portion of what the rest of us have known for years:
LikeLike
Scott
But not of “women”
Still, one should never underestimate the peculiar lens through which “progressives” view reality: The “war” on women boils down to Sandra Fluke, a 30-year-old schoolgirl,
Perhaps I have a different interpretation of these words than you do. I thought he had a curious way of highlighting only the women speakers, I assume there will be men speaking as well, and boiling it all down to a 30 year old schoolgirl. “Schoolgirl” is a term we’re very familiar with here so maybe I’m reading a little too much into it. Or perhaps you don’t see it because you agree with him, much the same way I agree with Taibbi on a lot of things so I’m not offended by his use of language.
LikeLike
lms:
Perhaps I have a different interpretation of these words than you do.
I guess so. I interpret him as saying that progressives view reality through a peculiar lens. I think that because, well, that’s what he said. It seems rather strained to interpret this to be a claim about how ‘women” view things. Not all, indeed I would venture to guess not even most, women are progressives.
Even if we grant that the term “schoolgirl” is an insult, it is an insult against one woman, Sandra Fluke, not women as a class.
so maybe I’m reading a little too much into it.
I think you are reading way too much into it.
LikeLike
And now, I have to get back to work. I know, we’re working straight through the weekend………………………..yuck.
LikeLike
Scott:
I think you are reading way too much into it.
Much as you read way too much into Taibbi, perhaps? I’m with lms on her interpretation; the sheer number of words in quotation marks in that second paragraph turns that paragraph into pretty much one long insult.
LikeLike
Mich:
Much as you read way too much into Taibbi, perhaps?
No, not at all. When have I read way too much into Taibbi? Please be specific.
I’m with lms on her interpretation; the sheer number of words in quotation marks in that second paragraph turns that paragraph into pretty much one long insult.
An insult of who?
LikeLike
As a result, developments like the Occupy movement and gay marriage seem almost to erupt in The Times, overloved and undermanaged, more like causes than news subjects.
And important stories which are embarrassing to their progressive tribe are ignored as long as possible. As if Matt Drudge scooped everyone on Monica Lewinsky.
LikeLike
Scott
I think you are reading way too much into it.
Maybe, but at least I didn’t call him a boring prick because of his choice of words or accuse you of lack of judgement for linking to his piece. He doesn’t really bother me that much, I just thought his segue from women speakers and school girls into the dire economic situation that is sooooooooo much more important was telling, especially considering how we got here with the help of Republicans who don’t seem to have any new ideas to solve any of these problems.
Edit: I should add new ideas that don’t also add to the defict
LikeLike
lms:
Maybe, but at least I didn’t call him a boring prick because of his choice of words or accuse you of lack of judgement for linking to his piece.
You could have as far as I am concerned. Wouldn’t have bothered me in the slightest.
I assume you are referring to my comments on Taibbi. To be clear, I never called him boring. He’s certainly not that, except perhaps in his predictable prickness. And I called him a prick because, well, he is a prick. I think Taibbi actually strives to be a prick. I sometimes get the impression that his very purpose in writing is to achieve new levels of prickery with each column. Steyn can sometimes be a prick, but he’s a mere amateur compared to Taibbi.
LikeLike
Sorry, I couldn’t let that comment go without a come back. Back later.
LikeLike
FWIW, I interpret the “schoolgirl” comment to mean “She is 30 years old and can pay for her own contraceptives – it isn’t like she is some 17 year old schoolgirl who needs the state to pay for her contraceptives.”
LikeLike
I’m curious Lms, what is it you think the government could do to cure our financial ills? In my opinion, its done the most to create them so I have zero confidence it can (or has ever desired to) solve them.
LikeLike
what is it you think the government could do to cure our financial ills?
The right question to a liberal, George, I agree.
The right question to a conservative is similarly “What do you think the private sector could do to cure our financial ills”?
These are subsets to two bigger questions:
“What do you think government ought to do that the private sector will not, and how can it be paid for?”
“What current government services could be handled more efficiently/cheaply by the private sector?”
***
These questions are posed as if there is either a governmental or a private solution, they ignore the view that some problems should not be addressed at all, and they assume there is no room for cooperation between the public and private sectors.
OTOH:
I believe that we have experience and history that tells us what can work and that there is room for Jack Kemp’s mixed approach to many problems. A little taxpayer seed money can often be leveraged to greater benefit in the private sector than an expansive government funded project. George, I think enterprise zones are a concept whose time is right during a recession. I also think state government has been shirking its responsibilities – essentially, schools and roads – in part because of the promise of federal aid. If states fixed their schools and roads they would boost the economy. If they won’t, I am not thinking the federal gummint should rescue them. The disparities between states that have good roads/or public transit in crowded little states, and good schools, as well, and the states that do not, will become apparent over time.
There are four direct federal problems that affect the economy, I think. 1] Medicaid. 2] Defense budget. 3] bad immigration policy. 4] bad tax system.
There are more ways than one to do better on each of these scores, but I only have suggestions for 2,3, and 4. Medicaid is beyond my ken.
LikeLike
Has anyone watched the TED talk I posted?
I’m gone again. Will ck in later.
LikeLike
Mark:
Has anyone watched the TED talk I posted?
I watched it last night. I need to see it again and think about it a bit, but at first glance I don’t think he actually answered the two questions he proposed to answer: What is morality and where does it come from. I also wonder about the relevance of animal behavior to the development of his five measures of morality. We quite specifically do not do use moral terms/notions to describe animal behavior, so why would he look to animal behavior to confirm the ubiquity of those metrics?
First impressions. Like I said, I need to watch it again.
LikeLike
Regarding the war on women, I will compare the GOP to the Catholic church. Whle the church teaches against “artificial” birth control, the gender that most often violates that teaching are women rather than men, even those that consder themselves very good Catholics.
Any of you that have an old parent or granparent around may have had the experience that they give you TMI in their final years, about things that were long taboo in life.
For instance, it was only in my forties that my father told me that his aunt had killed herself in 1918 because she had gotten pregnant by a man who went off to war. Also he told me that his mother’s expression about the number of kids she had had was “that’s between me and God, not the church” and this was in the 1920s and 30s mind you.
So I think that the GOP’s views are those of men primarily on subjects in which their partners may agree on the surface, but live an entirely different way privately.
LikeLike
banned:
Regarding the war on women…
There is no such thing.
So I think that the GOP’s views are those of men primarily on subjects in which their partners may agree on the surface, but live an entirely different way privately.
It’s amazing to me the number of ways that liberals try to reconcile and rationalize their belief that they speak on behalf of “women” with the plain evidence of women explicitly disagreeing with them.
LikeLike
“The head of Germany’s Bundesbank stepped up his opposition to the European Central Bank’s latest moves to battle the euro zone’s debt crisis on Sunday, saying that plans to buy bonds risked becoming a drug on which governments would get hooked.
In the latest sign of a deepening rift within the ECB that has worried financial markets, Jens Weidmann warned in an interview in weekly Der Spiegel that the buying program verged on the taboo for the bank of outright financing of governments.”
http://www.cnbc.com/id/48793722
I think we all agree that it’s a dangerous drug, but the rift comes when we attempt to decide if it’s heroin or chemotherapy.
LikeLike
Headline that should surprise no one:
“China’s arms exports have surged over the past decade, flooding sub-Saharan Africa with a new source of cheap assault rifles and ammunition and exposing Beijing to international scrutiny as its lethal wares wind up in conflict zones in violation of U.N. sanctions.
Weapons from China have surfaced in a string of U.N. investigations in war zones stretching from the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Ivory Coast, Somalia and Sudan. China is by no means alone in supplying the arms that help fuel African conflicts, and there is no proof that China or its arms exporters have intentionally violated U.N. embargoes in any of those countries.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/chinas-arms-exports-flooding-sub-saharan-africa/2012/08/25/16267b68-e7f1-11e1-936a-b801f1abab19_story.html?hpid=z3
LikeLike
It’s unfortunate that the comment board of PL has become such a low IQ wasteland, when there are so many good discussions that could be had on real differences between the parties.
LikeLike
Scott
Steyn can sometimes be a prick, but he’s a mere amateur compared to Taibbi.
Yeah, it really doesn’t interest me that much that either one of them are or are not pricks. Sometimes I wish I could be more of a prick myself, unfortunately though, guys are generally the pricks and girls are usually prickly. Hahahahahaha. Anyway, who cares?
I think we can discuss their opinions without the name calling but it doesn’t particularly bother me. I am bothered by someone questioning my judgement though because I linked a piece they don’t like by a fairly well recognized author. There are lots of pricks in the world but not all of them can write or have a valid opinion. I also don’t have to agree with everything a person writes to appreciate what they’ve written or a point or two they’ve made. I’m not some teenager with a crush on Matt Taibbi although he does have a pretty good sense of humor which I like.
Anyway, my real point was that Steyn may not win over many women with his words, but how many women who are undecided or more moderate will read his piece anyway? It was just an observation on my part and I always want to throw up a little when I hear conservatives talking about the deficit……………….lol
LikeLike
lms:
I am bothered by someone questioning my judgement though…
Feel free to question my judgment any time you want. In fact, I take it as a given that liberals think my judgment is screwed up in one way or another. If they thought I had good judgment, they’d agree with me a lot more often.
LikeLike
I suppose the attempted murder of US officals in Mexico by Mexican police can’t really be called terrorism can it? Nor can it be linked to the “drug war” which the President says must continue of course.
I guess it was simply a random act in the universe like a lightning strike, for which the only real solution is to go in the house and turn everything off.
LikeLike
Don Juan:
So I think that the GOP’s views are those of men primarily on subjects in which their partners may agree on the surface, but live an entirely different way privately.
That is very insightful. Having been married to a fellow liberal I hadn’t thought about it that way, but instinctively I think you’re right.
LikeLike
McWing
I’m curious Lms, what is it you think the government could do to cure our financial ills
Not much at this point McWing……………….I think we’re all just waiting for the majority of the American people to deleverage enough to begin spending money again. That saving the banks to save Main Street seems to have been more hope than reality. I don’t expect either party to have much daylight between them on economic policies except for Ryan’s big designs on Medicare, Medicaid and SS. Otherwise, when the consumer starts spending, jobs will increase and the deficit will go down except for health care costs, which the Republicans also don’t have any solutions for IMO, so there you go.
LikeLike
“bannedagain5446, on August 26, 2012 at 11:16 am said:
It’s unfortunate that the comment board of PL has become such a low IQ wasteland”
I don’t think low IQ per se is the cause. It’s more of a battle of the talking points where the other side is viewed as morally unfit.
LikeLike
Like the late Lloyd Bentsen I believed our FP took MX for granted and paid it no heed. MX and CA are more important to the national security and well being of the USA than all the other countries in the world, and the sooner we come to grips with that the better. And, yes, that means finally cutting our losses in the so-called War on Drugs, for starters. But there is so much to do, and so much that can be done, unlike the situations in the Middle East.
edit: while this appears as a reply to jnc, it was most definitely posted as a reply to and an agreement with don juan.
LikeLike
Ross Douthat makes a similar argument as Steyn in a more measured way:
“The Democrats’ Abortion Moment
By ROSS DOUTHAT
Published: August 25, 2012”
The Akin situation has been a huge gift to the Democrats, provided he loses in November. Should he win, the bounds of what is considered acceptable in politics will have been defined down once again, in no small part due to the actions of certain Democrats (Claire McCaskill chief among them) in helping to keep him in the race for cynical political advantage.
The Catholic church contraceptive overreach of the Obama administration was a much more favorable framing for the Republicans on these sorts of social issues, since it’s much easier to make the case that “access” does not equate to a forced subsidy, and arguing that the previous status quo prior to 2012 constituted an unacceptable burden as part of the “War on Women” was always a stretch.
LikeLike
Philosophic musing of the day:
Regarding as discussed above the tendency of people to reveal things late in life to their children, I wonder if it is with a sense of regret that they hid themselves in some ways from their chidren, as all parents do to one degree or anohter.
LikeLike
jnc:
Yes, poor prhasing on my part. Like Congress, it’s the opposition invidivduals who are viewed as “illegitimate” in and of themselves, rather than their arguments.
LikeLike
jnc:
I think we have reached the point in this country where it is time to seriously reconsider the tax-empt status of churches. We certainly can cease to pretend that they are in any way above the fray of politics (to the extent they ever were) and so should be treated like the ordinary businesses they really are. (not that I’m suggesting there is any actual chance of seeing that happen during out lifetimes)
LikeLike
banned:
I think we have reached the point in this country where it is time to seriously reconsider the tax-empt status of churches.
I think we should reconsider the tax exempt status of every institution. Why should any institution be tax exempt?
LikeLike
MoDo invokes the always faithful The Only Good Republicans are the Dead Ones. Almost as classy as Senator Ma’am.
“The G.O.P. has veered so far right that Jack Kemp, Dole’s running mate in 1996, now looks like Teddy Kennedy compared with Kemp’s protégé Paul Ryan…”
LikeLike
george
It was a trade with the Dems. You got Bill Clinton and Jack Kennedy in return.
LikeLike
So I finished my work and my son is on his way momentarily to help my husband in the warehouse. Hubby doesn’t do ladders anymore and I generally leave the vicinity when someone rolls out the ladder so I get to help my grandson on his back stroke instead…………………….I have the luck in the family. See y’all later.
LikeLike
Mike Wise has an interesting piece on Lance Armstrong:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/othersports/longtime-witness-against-lance-armstrong-finally-vindicated/2012/08/25/804ed02c-ef07-11e1-b829-786e028dccb3_allComments.html?ctab=all_&
Armstrong and his people were basically the Clintons until 1998.
Admit nothing, deny everything and make counter accusations.
LikeLike
I know we don’t do sports, but Steelers rookie OL got what could be a severe knee injury last night. Being a Steelers OL is like being a pilot in WW I. You know your lifespan just got shortened considerably, even though you love the job.
LikeLike
Mark perhaps you will back me up on this?
This is exactly the way it ISN’T supposed to happen in a jury:
” One of the reasons — perhaps the main reason — the jury was able to deliver a verdict in Apple’s (AAPL) landmark suit against Samsung in less than three days was that it chose as its foreperson a 67-year-old retired engineer with two grown children, three civil cases under his belt, a 35-year career in hard-drive technology (Memorex, Storage Technology, Digital Equipment) and a U.S. patent in his name.
It was Velvin R. Hogan who signed the 20-page jury form and read the verdict aloud. And it was reportedly under his guidance that the jury worked through the thorny issue of whether Apple’s patents were valid.
“We were debating heavily, especially about the patents on bounce back and pinch-to-zoom,” juror Manuel Ilagan told CNET in the first published interview with a jury member. “Apple said they owned patents, but we were debating about the prior art… Hogan holds patents, so he took us through his experience. After that it was easier.”
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/25/apple-v-samsung-meet-the-foreman-of-the-jury/
I have no idea whether or not Samsung is guilty, but the reason for instance that law enforcement people never get picked to be on juries is that defense counsel believe that the other jurors will give their opinion to much weight in deliberations, and act as uncalled “expert witnesses” if you will.
It’s the double edged sword that makes juries a bad way to decide things in complex cases, you can get people who have very limited cognitive abilities, or you get one or two people who take the jury away from the courtoom case as presented.
LikeLike
“An untested leftist party is taking the lead ahead of the Dutch election next month, reflecting resentment over austerity and signalling that one of the euro zone’s core northern countries could reject German demands to tighten public deficits.
Opinion surveys show the Socialist Party could out-poll the pro-business Liberal Party on September 12, suggesting it can win between a fifth and a quarter of the seats in parliament.
That would put the Socialist Party and its leader, Emile Roemer, in a position to form a coalition where they can influence policy on Europe despite having no experience of government beyond the local level. ”
http://www.cnbc.com/id/47155336
“Cannons to the left of them. Cannons to the right of them”
Probably because I don’t know enough about Europe I am surprised that left parties have been gaining in the elections. I had thought that the general xenophobic nature of blame throwing would be an advantage for the right, not the left.
LikeLike
“It’s amazing to me the number of ways that liberals try to reconcile and rationalize their belief that they speak on behalf of “women” with the plain evidence of women explicitly disagreeing with them”
Not sure what evidence you are referring to. For instance in the anti-abortion crowd. I was always amazed out how many were childless and/or had no adopted or foster children (Pat Buchanan) It seems to me that at the leadership level at least, the major concern was for the dignity of life up until the moment of birth. After that the dignity meter broke.
I get the philosophical position that all life is sacred, but then you can’t run away from the idea that the world is full of bad parents. You can’t throw them in jail and if you take the babies away, you have to have someplace for them to go.
LikeLike
lmsbanned:Not sure what evidence you are referring to.
Well, all the women who articulate agreement with GOP policies, of course. You seem to be saying that secretly they actually disagree and live privately as if they do disagree. Is actual female disagreement with the liberal faith really that hard to fathom?
It seems to me that at the leadership level at least, the major concern was for the dignity of life up until the moment of birth. After that the dignity meter broke.
I don’t buy that in the slightest, but it is nevertheless besides the point. Your claim was that GOP women agree with GOP men “on the surface”, but in reality they don’t and live their lives totally differently in private. I don’t know how you profess to know how they live privately, and I think you are simply trying to rationalize away the uncomfortable fact many women oppose liberals on so-called women’s issues.
Liberals do not speak for women as a class, regardless of how much they pretend to do so.
LikeLike
scott
on the tax situation, I’ll drive us to the rally together!
LikeLike
Don Juan, about that jury: on the two tech cases I tried to a jury in Austin, both I and opposing counsel struck ciphers and ended up with damn near blue ribbon jurors, because we both thought we were correct.
I won one and lost one. I lost a 10-2 jury verdict with the two practicing attorneys voting for my side.
I can only think that both Apple and Samsung were afraid of ciphers, too.
Now, in the biggest trade secret jury case I ever watched, live, the lawyers also struck ciphers and got 12 college grads, 7 advanced or professional degrees, and an AMD exec on the jury. The jurors were all signed to confidentiality agreements and for some testimony the courtroom was cleared. After two weeks, the AMD exec approached the bench and told the judge he had learned, while skating upon but not violating his confidentiality agreement, that AMD had proprietary information that bore upon the case. He was dismissed. It went to verdict with 11. Neither side liked the verdict, as I recall.
Ever since the IBM-ATT case, I would guess the whole legal community has thought that massive trade secret or patent cases should have as fact finders jurors who themselves are experts in the field because that is what a jury of peers means. No single judge – no judge at all – can handle the flood of evidence in these cases, nor distinguish among the experts. A jury can perhaps better handle the flood, but is still lost and over its head. Unless, of course, it is a jury of electrical engineers and computer scientists, in a case like this.
LikeLike
Scott:
It’s amazing to me the number of ways that liberals try to reconcile and rationalize their belief that they speak on behalf of “women” with the plain evidence of women explicitly disagreeing with them.
I think you just illustrated Don Juan’s point here.
LikeLike
Mich:
I think you just illustrated Don Juan’s point here.
I think you must have totally missed his point, which was that “the GOP’s views are those of men primarily on subjects in which their partners may agree on the surface, but live an entirely different way privately.” I said nothing, and you know nothing, how my “partner” lives or thinks privately.
Your claim here is even more bizarre than your still unsubstantiated claim about my comments on Taibbi.
LikeLike
I just watched a TV show called Bar Rescue for the first time. It’s a typical reality show on the same format as Restaurant Impossiible.
I was fascinated though about somethng called “bottle service”. I had no idea how much money there is in serving a bottle of booze at a table versus an individual drink. I’m not the target audience for these shows that soak up the “drama’, but the economics involved fascinate me!
LikeLike
jnc:
I assume you’d already seen this?
What do you think? Could Johnson pull a Reverse Nader?
LikeLike
Mark and Don Juan:
Since I would actually like to serve on a jury at least once, I assume that means I’ll never get selected (I’ve been summoned three times and actually had my number come up and make it into the court room once, but. . . )??
LikeLike
Kelley, in any case where both sides think they are right you would not likely be struck, today. There was a time when lawyers selected for “nulls” and “ciphers”. But jury selection is actually juror rejection. Each side “rejects” 12 from the panel and the middle twelve, if there are no cross strikes, are who remain. When there are cross strikes, both sides think they wasted strikes.
LikeLike
What do you think? Could Johnson pull a Reverse Nader?
I think Nader has a lot more brand name recognition than Johnson. Still, I hope not.
LikeLike
Brent:
I know you’re a Romney fan and I still haven’t figured that out. I’d much rather have you run for President than him. Have you seen this piece by John Dean from February?
LikeLike
I’m probably being a brat here but Scott you left the important part out of my comment about judgment.
I am bothered by someone questioning my judgement though because I linked a piece they don’t like by a fairly well recognized author.
I thought it seemed a little petty to raise my judgment as an issue over a linked piece, but whatever. I’d rather save my disagreement and criticisms for something more important like one of your opinions instead of someone you’ve linked to. No big deal I suppose I just like to be clear………………….believe it or not. I wouldn’t presume to “set you straight” on your reading material.
LikeLike
lms:
I thought it seemed a little petty to raise my judgment as an issue over a linked piece
I didn’t raise your judgement as an issue. I said it was a mystery to me why he keeps getting linked here.
I wouldn’t presume to “set you straight” on your reading material.
If I say something, or recommend something, that you know is not true, I wish you would set me straight.
LikeLike
mark
I understand and agree that jurors don’t possess the expertise. However if you want the judgment to rest only on the evidence presented, then I think that judges are a good choice. If you buy into the jury trial thing at all. it seems crucial that you limit the case to those people who are reasonably cognitive but who don’t bring real world knowledge in depth.
LikeLike
Michi:
Thanks for the kind words. I am a somewhat geeky introvert and probably the least suited person for political office on the planet.
Re John Dean, I agree that Obama has the advantage of being the incumbent. I would also point out that the state of the economy in Feb was much better than the state of the economy now. And, if you believe the Fed and CBO forecasts, it probably will be worse in Oct than it is now. But a lot of smart moderate Republicans I know think obama wins. That said, my old boss will probably end up on Romney’s council of economic advisors if he wins, and if there has been anyone who has been ahead of everyone on the stock and real estate bubble, it has been him.
So, why do I like Romney?
I think Obama starts with a fundamentally wrong premise (Wall Street Greed, Deregulation, and Glass-Steagall caused the meltdown). I disagree – a bursting housing bubble did. Residential real estate bubbles are the Hurricane Katrinas of the banking sector. Whether the retaining walls were made 12 inches thick or 18 inches thick doesn’t matter – you are still going to get destroyed.
I am of course biased towards the financial industry, but I think the post-mortem has been carried out in a VERY ideological manner (and Phil Angeledes is the Matt Taibbi of financial regulators) IMO Obama has been more interested in slaying the GWB / Free Market / Wall Street hydra than figuring out what actually happened. And since we fundamentally disagree about what happened and what caused it, I think the policies that come out of that worldview will be at best ineffective, and at worst counterproductive.
Regarding Obama’s prescription, until someone can provide a legitimate non-“More Cowbell” explanation of why it hasn’t worked in Japan, I will be against it. Yes, I understand the economic argument and learned my trade at the People’s Republic of Wisconsin, so I do understand their arguments. I think economic inequality is a solution in search of a problem, and I do not think slugging the rich will make the middle class better off. In fact, I believe the net effect on the middle class will be negative as business owners pull in their horns. Yes we have to do something about the debt, and taxes will have to go up, and entitlements for seniors will have to be reformed. You would laugh if you knew how far from the 1% I really am.
I take Romney’s nod to the Religious Right the way the Left takes obama’s nod to the far left – a political tip of the hat, but nothing more than lip service. I think Romney is not a social issues guy. FWIW, neither am I. I am not a religious guy. I think abortion is a necessary evil, the world will not spin off its axis if we allow gay marriage, and that pot should be legalized. But that said, I am not going to go all out pledging support for Lily Ledbetter and I think there have been some negative effects due to Title IX.
For that matter, I don’t get too bent out of shape regarding Gitmo or drone strikes. I don’t forward the conspiracy emails that ask why is DHS hoarding ammunition. I don’t see a massive problem if a real judge and jury tries terrorists.
What do I think Romney will do differently? For starters, I think he will not impose regulations just to “do something,” but will be more deliberate. He will be cognizant of the law of unintended consequences. I think he will consult more than simply academics and policy wonks. I think huge swaths of the private sector will feel like the bullseye has been taken off their backs. I think he will revisit Dodd Frank and give the financial sector clarity on what the rules of the road are going forward. I think he will be more apt to take a hands-off approach to letting the residential real estate market bottom.
I agree wholeheartedly with his belief that cheap energy will be the catalyst for the next economic boom. FWIW, I believe that the solution to the carbon problem will be natural gas and the electric car, neither of which need to be subsidized by government. I think green energy will remain a marginal player in our energy needs and that subsidizing it is a waste of money, given that there are billions and billions of capital on Sand Hill Road that is trying to fund the next big thing.
Obama’s FP has been a pleasant surprise. I will give that much to him. But, as we become more energy independent, I want us to disengage, especially in the Middle East. I want to shrink the defense budget in a big way and go back to defending our borders. Take the money saved and put it against the deficit. Ironically, I probably am more in step with the progressives on this board than I am with the Republicans which is odd since I am a vet.
So, in some ways, I agree with Romney and others I disagree. But on the things that matter the most to me (and my livelihood) Romney is very close to my own beliefs.
LikeLike
mark
additionally of course there is a world of differnce between criminal and civil cases too, which I failed to point out.
LikeLike
I am assuming civil cases and having enough fact finders that collectively they can recall the evidence in a complicated case. No judge is good for more than about eight hours of testimony, in terms of substantial recall. So its either an expert jury or a substantial judicial panel, I think. Although it would be possible, I agree, to address a complex technical case to a cognitively strong non-expert jury.
It is, as you suggest, wrong for a jury to have knowledge of the actual facts of a case, for reasons of injection of evidence not taken in the proceeding. I agree completely with that. But the massively technical case is so far removed from tort, breach of contract, fraud, all of which rely on common perceptions of ordinary adults about fault, fair dealing, and the like, and their common experiences in autos, in buying and selling, and in how people act. In the tecchie cases, the ordinary jury is being led through the wilderness, and is bored, to boot.
LikeLike
“but I think the post-mortem has been carried out in a VERY ideological manner (and Phil Angeledes is the Matt Taibbi of financial regulators) IMO Obama has been more interested in slaying the GWB / Free Market / Wall Street hydra than figuring out what actually happened.”
Brent
I would have to disagree enitrely on this. When has Wall Street in general ever been in a worse position and had a president who took less advantage of the situation than these 4 years?
I mean Obama may have somewhere said something like FDR:
“The money-changers have fled from their high seats in the temple of our civilization, We may now restore that temple to ancient truths.”
But I don’t think it ever registered if he did.
LikeLike
“I would have to disagree enitrely on this. When has Wall Street in general ever been in a worse position and had a president who took less advantage of the situation than these 4 years?”
Maybe the S&L crisis – GHWB certainly didn’t attempt to go after the banks (though he did RICO Drexel), but it wasn’t an ideological crusade the way Obama’s has been.
LikeLike
Brent, thanks for such a detailed insight into your politics. I’m always curious about these things. I agree with some of what you’ve said but I’d like to understand what you mean by this;
I think economic inequality is a solution in search of a problem Are you saying there is no solution or there is no problem?
And I sometimes think Obama’s tone with the banks or even the oil industry and billionaires is just a bunch of words to his base that wants to hear he’s going to get tough. So far none of them seem to have suffered and they’ve enjoyed a much more robust rebound than the middle class, homeowners in general, or the unemployed. I think Obama’s done a lousy job on the economy but I have little faith that Romney would be any better.
We have contact with thousands of small businesses across the country, many of them my husband has dealt with for as long as 30 years. These are retail shops and their only complaint is demand…………………….”business is slow”. Taxes and regulation aren’t even on their radar……………………but the cost of health insurance sure is. I think there is a real disconnect in this country between the financial industry and the businesses that actually generate products and services and employ most Americans. I have no idea how to fix that but I think it’s a real problem that never seems to be addressed.
LikeLike
Scott I think your last comment should have been directed at banned rather than me.
yup, thanks. Fixed. – SC
LikeLike
Scott:
I said nothing, and you know nothing, how my “partner” lives or thinks privately.
Absolutely correct. And yet you tell lms and me that you know how thousands, if not a couple million women think and that we don’t.
Edit: And, BTW, nobody has presumed to speak for all women. What we’ve said–or at least I’ve said–is that there are more than likely women who are just keeping their heads down and their powder dry, and that I think you’ll be in for a surprise at the gender gap on some issues as time goes on.
LikeLike
Mich:
And yet you tell lms and me that you know how thousands, if not a couple million women think…
I think you will search my comments in vain for any such suggestion. But feel free to point out what you are talking about.
LikeLike
Are you saying there is no solution or there is no problem?”
I think income inequality is due to globalization and technology which has devalued unskilled labor and there is not a lot you can do about it. If reducing income inequality is your goal, all you can realistically do is tax the rich more. You can’t bring the bottom up, at least not with any policy tools. And I do think that going after the rich will affect the bottom in the wrong way because as taxes increase, a lot of marginally profitable projects / ventures become uneconomic. Which doesn’t help anyone.
The reason why I say a solution in search of a problem is that income inequality is not the real problem – a lousy economy is. You want to help the middle class? Prosperity is the way. And socking it to the rich is not the way to prosperity.
LikeLike
Brent:
Thank you so much for your long and detailed answer. I need to read through it again because I’ve got some questions for you. . . but I’ve got a house guest arriving in about an hour and won’t have time to do it tonight. I know where I’ll be able to find you tomorrow morning, though. 🙂
LikeLike
“ScottC, on August 26, 2012 at 1:08 pm said:
banned:
I think we have reached the point in this country where it is time to seriously reconsider the tax-empt status of churches.
I think we should reconsider the tax exempt status of every institution. Why should any institution be tax exempt?”
Ditto. Among other things, this eliminates the preferred tax shelters of George Soros and Warren Buffet, specifically the personally directed non-profit institution that they can route their wealth through. No reason that form of ego gratification for the wealthy should be more tax advantaged than say Larry Ellison’s preference for yacht racing or buying islands in the Pacific.
LikeLike
Brent
Prosperity is the way. And socking it to the rich is not the way to prosperity.
The problem is prosperity only seems to travel up the ladder and not down. Don’t you think it’s a problem that executive compensation is so much higher, by hundreds of percentage points, than it was a couple of decades ago? To me that says something other than our workers have lost the global and technical battle, which I agree is at least part of the problem.
I’m not interested in punishing wealthy people through the tax code but the tax code as it is now gives a real advantage to people with capital gains and investment income over straight billable hours income.
LikeLike
brent:
“but it wasn’t an ideological crusade the way Obama’s has been
What crusade?
LikeLike
“Don’t you think it’s a problem that executive compensation is so much higher, by hundreds of percentage points, than it was a couple of decades ago? ”
Well, the world of management has changed. A few decades ago, CEOs ran corporations like fiefdoms and couldn’t have cared less how the stock performed, because they didn’t own any. Armand Hammer of Occidental Petroleum is a Harvard Business School case study in Agency costs. They guy funded the Armand Hammer Art Center with shareholder funds. CEOs got company cars, country club memberships, gargantuan offices, an army of secretaries, etc etc. Whether the company was profitable or not, they got paid. In cash. Guys like H Ross Johnson spent their time playing golf with the bigwigs and not running the company. Don’t forget tax laws influenced that behavior – when incremental income is taxed at the 90% level, it is worth less to you. Things that are untaxed (like vacation, time off, hobnobbing with glitterati, become compensation instead.)
By the 80s, institutional investors became fed up with this sort of thing and demanded that CEO compensation be linked more to shareholder value. So instead of getting paid a big chunk of cash with a COLA every year, CEOs were paid with a fraction of the cash, but a lot more stock. Away went the company cars, company country club memberships, etc. The CEO was all about getting the stock price up. And if the stock rallies, they get paid. A lot. I would argue though, this is a healthier state of affairs than it was in the 70s.
If you pay CEOs less, it doesn’t necessarily follow that the lower employees will be paid more. If anything it is cash-flow neutral (since the payment is in stock) but the benefits will accrue to stockholders, not labor.
LikeLike
“Well, all the women who articulate agreement with GOP policies, of course. You seem to be saying that secretly they actually disagree and live privately Is actual female disagreement with the liberal faith really that hard to fathom?”
All is a very dangerous category and I don’t think that I actually made that big of a generalization.
“Whle the church teaches against “artificial” birth control, the gender that most often violates that teaching are women rather than men, even those that consder themselves very good Catholics.”
“So I think that the GOP’s views are those of men primarily on subjects in which their partners may agree on the surface, but live an entirely different way privately”
Note that in the first case I said most often violates, not most violate, not implying that most GOP do, but that of those who do the vast majority in my opinion would be the wives and girlfriends.
In the second quote I stand by what I said. I think that the views of the GOP on abortion and contraception are male views primarily, which MAY or may not be shared by their wives.
LikeLike
banned:
All is a very dangerous category and I don’t think that I actually made that big of a generalization.
Too big regardless, I think.
I think that the views of the GOP on abortion and contraception are male views primarily…
Let’s take abortion first. Given that there really hasn’t been a substantial difference between the percentage of men and percentage of women who are for/against legal abortion, it’s hard to understand why you think so. Unless, as you suggested in your first, you think that women who express opposition to abortion are not being honest for some reason. You’ve presented no evidence, however, to support this theory. Hence my conclusion that you invented it in order to explain away the uncomfortable facts.
Now, on contraception….what “GOP view” of contraception are you referring to?
which MAY or may not be shared by their wives.
Are you backing away from your original thesis, which was that it was publicly shared, but privately rejected?
LikeLike
“The CEO was all about getting the stock price up. And if the stock rallies, they get paid. A lot. I would argue though, this is a healthier state of affairs than it was in the 70s”
I would argue this is a theory not reality. Most options vest very easily and even Apple has simply stuck it to shareholders by backdating them:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9003879/Apple_Steve_Jobs_knew_of_stock_option_backdating
LikeLike
What crusade?
Changing the priority of creditors in the automaker bankruptcies to benefit his campaign contributors
Telling Wall Street that “There will be a time in the future for profits and bonuses, but now is not that time”
Calling out Bank of America by name when they hiked debit card fees
Attempting to cram down uneconomic modifications by bullying servicers.
Saying there should be a cap on income earned by people in the financial sector
Sorry John, You and I just see this issue a lot differently.
LikeLike
@ John,
I obviously do not support the options backdating. IMO that was criminal if it wasn’t disclosed (and it should have had to have been brought up before the Board and given a vote)
LikeLike
A generalized thought on anti-abortion in general, espeically the leadership of the movement, not anyonr this board who may be in that camp.
If indeed being right to life and anti-abortion REALLY meant being about the sacredness of life and the rights and welfare of the baby, then it would seem you have a funny way of showing it.
You are talking about a million or more people who by definition don’t want their baby. Somehow though you expect a magical conversion to take place the moment that the baby is born which will transfrom them into good parent(s), against all evidence to the contrary.
So if concern for the baby was what you REALLY believed, then you would be ADDING money for child care services, head start, child protection budgets, and above all early and prenatal healthcare insurance, because you would understand that if the parent doesn’t want the child in uutero they aren’t likely to do very well by the baby ex-utero either. THIS would of course be of great concern since it’s all about the baby, which you would address by making the above budget increases and becoming foster or adoptive parents when possible.
Now as we would all agree that one party is more identified with abortion than the other and vice versa. Yet strangely enough it is the pro-life party whose concern for lives of these children does not much take in account B-day plus 1 through infinity in terms of money. When it comes right down to it we all vote most genuinely with our wallets and through those whom we elect to spend money on our behalf.
LikeLike
banned:
A generalized thought on anti-abortion in general, espeically the leadership of the movement
Your comment is premised upon the typically liberal notion that concern about a given issue must be, and can only be, expressed through government spending. If one opposes government spending on problem X, or even if one simply opposes spending more than is already spent, then necessarily one doesn’t care about, and is not interested in alleviating, problem X. This, of course, is a false premise on many levels.
LikeLike
brent
Fair enough. I respect our differences.
LikeLike
Brent:
had to add on this one
“Calling out Bank of America by name when they hiked debit card fees”
Did you somehow find that to be more of a crusade against Wall Street than when Hank Paulson or Bernanke (they’re pointing fingers at each other) helped destroy the value of my shares by threatening Ken Lewis if he didn’t do the Merrill deal?
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2009-04-23/wall_street/30064228_1_ken-lewis-bank-of-america-board-chairman-bernanke
I gotta tell ya, I find that to be a little more anti Wall Street than anything the Obama guys have ever done or contemplate doing.
LikeLike
scott:
While we can agree that in the case of adults, competent or not, who SHOULD be able to take care of themselves government spending is not indicative of values; in the case of defenseless children who are not being taken care of properly, yes, government spending is the primary and indeed ONLY indication of concern. Words, policy papers, etc don’t cut it.
LikeLike
scott:
Fron your own link I would say yes 7% is a huge difference for a poll, and that is before you take into account where I came in to this, namely that what people say for public consumption and what they do in private for themselves is vastly different.
Case in point Rick Santorum’s wife. This is their business not mine, but somehow I doubt that a woman who lived with an abortion doctor would have made the decision to have that poor last baby had not her husband been vehemently out in the public eye on such an issue.
Before you say it, yes I know that’s presumption on my part to which I freely admit.
LikeLike
banned:
in the case of defenseless children who are not being taken care of properly, yes, government spending is the primary and indeed ONLY indication of concern
I could not possibly disagree more. Volunteers, charitable organizations, people who donate directly to them…ie people who actually take it upon themselves to actually do something, indicate to me more concern than politicians who simply vote to throw other people’s money around. Or those who simply condemn others for not so voting.
Fron your own link I would say yes 7% is a huge difference for a poll
So you think the fact that there are 7% more men than women who identify as pro-life makes that a “man’s view”, even though a higher percentage of women identify as pro-life than as pro-choice? Sorry, but that makes no sense to me at all.
namely that what people say for public consumption and what they do in private for themselves is vastly different.
I think at this point it is clear that this is nothing but an article of faith for you. It’s not based on anything substantial, and is non-falsifiable. And hence, not creditable.
LikeLike
banned:
BTW, I remain curious what you think the GOP view on contraception is.
LikeLike
I’m not a huge Samuelson fan but he kind of supports what I said to McWing earlier so what the heck.
Obama and Romney can’t do much to aid the middle class. They face a dilemma. The middle class can’t regain its self-confidence and financial health without a strong economic recovery. But the economy can’t recover strongly without a financially healthy middle class, which provides most consumer spending. Not surprisingly, the economic expansion is glacial. Household debt is reduced gradually. Wealth is slowly rebuilt through higher saving and stock prices — and the hope that home values will follow.
There is also a larger conflict. Sooner or later, broad-based tax increases will be needed to reduce budget deficits. How large depends on how much federal spending is cut. This creates an unavoidable conflict between workers and retirees, because workers are the biggest taxpayers and retirees are the biggest beneficiaries of federal spending. Which middle class deserves support? Cut Social Security and Medicare and help workers. Raise taxes and help retirees.
For now, what’s telling is the resilience of middle-class norms. About 11 million homes are “underwater,” reports CoreLogic: Their mortgages exceed their values. Still, most owners make monthly payments even though defaulting might be advantageous. Similarly, long-term unemployed workers send out hundreds of resumes despite repeated disappointment.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-samuelson-saving-the-middle-class/2012/08/26/0f5be24a-ef9a-11e1-adc6-87dfa8eff430_story.html
LikeLike
“A southern California man killed by a grizzly bear in Alaska’s backcountry was shooting photos of the animal that killed him just moments before the attack, a National Park Service official said Sunday.
The bear that killed Richard White, 49, was still with his body when rangers found him in Denali National Park on Saturday, the official said.
The San Diego resident had been backpacking alone for three nights when he was mauled to death by the bear, according to a park service statement.”
Our ancestors may have been “primitive” in many ways, but in a few they were a whole lot smarter.
LikeLike
One thing I’ve found re the gender gap in addition to what banned has suggested is the difference between mothers and fathers and their awareness of what their daughters both may and may not be doing as they reach puberty and beyond. I’ve found, in both liberal and conservative households, that the father is generally kept in the dark and quite often by choice. Most fathers don’t want to hear too much about periods, sexual activity and God forbid birth control. And I’m not always sure how forthright their wives are in telling them what’s going on. Purely anecdotal on my part. I doubt there are any polls detailing these statistics.
LikeLike
“For now, what’s telling is the resilience of middle-class norms. About 11 million homes are “underwater,” reports CoreLogic: Their mortgages exceed their values. Still, most owners make monthly payments even though defaulting might be advantageous.”
In other words, they make poor business decisions because they view it as a morality play, unlike a succesful businessman ( or woman) would. That’s also why this is still going on. The most analytically sound recovery method would have been to get people out of these houses quickly and put them back on the market as rentals, which could then have been far more affordable for the ousted owners, leaving far more cash in their pockets to spend elsewhere.
LikeLike
lms
I assume mine are all virgins, since they have never told me otherwise! I will maintain this theory, until I see a grandchild. I am also fairly sure that my parents never had sex except for three times and if they did I hope they had the decency not to enjoy it.
LikeLike
Troubling contrasting deus ex machina headlines on the same page from CNBC tonight:
“China’s industrial profits fell 2.7 percent in the first seven months of 2012 from a year ago to 2.7 trillion yuan ($425 billion) , the National Bureau of Statistics said on Monday.
That marked an acceleration of the profit drop of 2.2 percent in the first half of this year.
In July alone, industrial profits were down 5.4 percent from the same period a year ago to 366.8 billion yuan, the NBS said in a statement on its website.”
however
“Asia Mostly Higher on Fed, ECB Policy Hopes”
LikeLike
scott:
I think Santorum was a little too honest about the GOP future on contraception. Limit it as much as possible, wherever possible.
“One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, ‘Well, that’s okay. Contraception’s okay.’ It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.
[Sexual relationships] are supposed to be within marriage, they are supposed to be for purposes that are, yes, conjugal and unitive but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that’s not for purposes of procreation, that’s not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can’t you take other parts of that out? And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it’s simply pleasure. And that’s certainly a part of it, and it’s an important part of it, don’t get me wrong, but there’s a lot of things we do for pleasure, and this is special, and it needs to be seen as special.”
and also:
This was the number two guy in the GOP race for the presidency saying he doesn’t believe in artificial birth control!
Just like Paul Ryan considers banning all abortions but rape and incest a starting point, not a finsh line.
“Look, I’m proud of my record,” the Wisconsin congressman said at a brief news conference on his plane. “I’m proud of my record. Mitt Romney is going to be president and the president sets policy. His policy is exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother. I’m comfortable with it because it’s a good step in the right direction.”
LikeLike
banned:
I think Santorum was a little too honest about the GOP future on contraception.
I see. So when you say GOP view, what you really mean is Rick Santorum’s view. Does Santorum define the GOP’s view on all things, or just contraception? Or perhaps only when you find it convenient to pretend he does?
The notion that the GOP has an agenda, secret or otherwise, to outlaw birth control is akin to birther and truther claims…a paranoid fantasy.
LikeLike
Last thought of the night.
Just finished watching the game and I have to say that I would be more sanguine as the father of Tim Tebow’s girlfriend than I would be as a wide receiver in his offense.
LikeLike
scott
you are a hard man to please and to pin down
When Romney’s view on abortion is less extreme than the GOP platform and his own vice-president, we are told don’t worry about the platform. It’s the views of the candidate that count,
When Santorum the second choice for the presidency among GOP voters says he doesn’t believe in artificial birth control, or Griswold v Connecticut, the idea is don’t worry about what the candidate says, it’s the GOP’s views that count.
(not that you are saying these things personally, but that’s what appears from GOP leaning people in the media)
Furthermore, earlier you chastised me as being overly broad and presenting (admittedly) my own opinion without any evidence.
Now, on a separate issue I quote the GOP number 2 candidate’s own words several times using video no less and you reply with your own opinion calling it a paranoid fantasy
Apparently the battle between evidence and opinion is a moveable feast.
LikeLike
banned:
you are a hard man to please and to pin down
And yet to substantiate this you cite claims that you go on to acknowledge I haven’t even made. The process by which you draw conclusions is odd indeed.
Apparently the battle between evidence and opinion is a moveable feast.
It is you, not I, who is making positive assertions based on nothing more than your apparent ability to read the secret thoughts of others. In the first instance, you assert that many women who publicly oppose abortion secretly and privately support it. How do you know? You just know, that’s all. No evidence needed.
In the second instance you assert that a thought articulated publicly by one Republican is secretly a GOP policy position, or at least a desire held by the majority of the GOP. How do you know? You just know, that’s all. No evidence needed.
Sorry, banned, but these are not rational arguments, and there’s nothing contradictory in pointing it out.
LikeLike
Apparently the battle between evidence and opinion is a moveable feast.
Heh. Yes, it can be!
LikeLike
Seven Days in May?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/sunk/2012/08/21/96209788-cebd-11e1-aa14-708bac2c7ee9_story.html
LikeLike
Mark
Nothing wrong with that, per se, but the problem was that “we don’t understand Iran’s perception of what we’re doing, and we haven’t understood what they’re doing and why,” Nichols said. “It makes miscalculations possible.”
The perfect example of chaos, discord and confusion.
LikeLike
I”n the second instance you assert that a thought articulated publicly by one Republican is secretly a GOP policy position”
You and I can respectfully disagree policy wise.
However few would agree with you that in quoting the man who finished a strong second for GOP nomination, who has repeatedly and openly said that the SCOTUS case which made birth control legal in this country (Griswold v. Connecticut) was wrongly decided and for whom abortion and birth control are perhaps his most passionately held positions, I was articulating a paranoid fantasy or talking about the policies of a fringe member of the GOP who can easily be dismissed as unrepresentative.
LikeLike
banned:
However few would agree with you that in quoting the man who finished a strong second for GOP nomination, who has repeatedly and openly said that the SCOTUS case which made birth control legal in this country (Griswold v. Connecticut) was wrongly decided and for whom abortion and birth control are perhaps his most passionately held positions, I was articulating a paranoid fantasy or talking about the policies of a fringe member of the GOP who can easily be dismissed as unrepresentative.
According to this poll from earlier this year (see question 56, and the breakdown by party affiliation), 77% of Republicans agreed that is it not wrong “to use artificial birth control methods, also known as contraceptive” while only 16% thought it was wrong.
I feel pretty secure that, whatever many or few people might agree with, the evidence clearly shows that Santorum’s views are indeed fringe, and that they should indeed be dismissed as unrepresentative of the GOP.
Also worth noting, earlier you seemed to maintain that it was reasonable to call the pro-life position the “man’s view” because it was a position held by 7% more men than women, ie 53% to 46%. Now we see that, by a margin almost 9 times larger, 77% to 16%, Republicans think the use of contraceptives is “not wrong”. Yet you would hold that it is reasonable to call opposition to the use of birth control the “GOP view”. I am not the one being inconsistent here.
I believe the fact that just 16% of Republicans, and only 12% of the total population, think that the use of contraception is wrong, shows pretty clearly that there is virtually no threat that birth control might become illegal in the US. Any discussion about it is a total distraction, whether intentional or not, from anything that might be remotely relevant to US politics. When was the last time a law was passed in the US to which 82% of the population was opposed?
LikeLike
“lmsinca, on August 27, 2012 at 5:56 am said:
Mark
Nothing wrong with that, per se, but the problem was that “we don’t understand Iran’s perception of what we’re doing, and we haven’t understood what they’re doing and why,” Nichols said. “It makes miscalculations possible.”
The perfect example of chaos, discord and confusion.”
Seven Days in May it is not. More of the usual Washington career games.
Esquire article referenced:
http://www.esquire.com/features/fox-fallon
LikeLike
btw
Your party may be moving beyond you personally, as it fights “the long war” against abortion and birht control. The next step is so called conscience clause legislation being introduced in many states across the country by Republcans which would make it legal for pharmacists to refuse to fill ordinary birth control prescriptions (not just RU-486 and it’s progeny) if they have a moral objection to the same:
http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/pharmacist-conscience-clauses-laws-and-information.aspx
LikeLike
“bannedagain5446, on August 27, 2012 at 6:05 am said:
…
who has repeatedly and openly said that the SCOTUS case which made birth control legal in this country (Griswold v. Connecticut) was wrongly decided”
Technically, Griswold v Connecticut made access to birth control a Constitutional right, among other things. It was already legal in some places and not in others. There is a distinction between something being “legal” without rising to the level of a Constitutional right.
LikeLike
jnc
I wasn’t talking about the intrigue aspect of her career and assertions, I was merely pointing out that we still, after all these years of involvement in the Middle East, appear to understand or care very little about their perceptions of us or factor in the volatility of what their responses might be. I’m not a foreign policy expert but at times I feel our “war on terror” has made us less safe. By all appearances her contributions would ostensibly be valuable in that regard.
LikeLike
jnc:
correct, it meant that individual states could not make laws contravening, which as we know from current practice is the way that elements of the GOP fight things like evolution, not on a national level but one state at a time
LikeLike
The notion that the GOP has an agenda, secret or otherwise, to outlaw birth control is akin to birther and truther claims…a paranoid fantasy.
Rick Santorum’s words on this issue parrot the official doctrine of the Catholic Church which he would institute into law if he could. The only debate within the GOP is how large of a partial loaf they would be willing to settle for.
The new buzzwords within the right-to-life movement are deliberately phrased to include IUDs, morning-after pills and even daily hormonal contraceptives as abortifacients.
Playing off the morning after pill and Akin’s intemperate remarks is this video for the Mourning After Pill for rape victims. (Possibly not safe for work)
LikeLike
“The International Energy Agency (IEA) likely will call on countries to release oil reserves to combat rising prices and maintain the integrity of Iranian sanctions, according to trade journal Petroleum Economist. With oil prices spiking 30 percent since June, unnamed IEA sources said the agency is poised to dip into Western nations’ strategic reserves as early as September. The IEA originally opposed a unilateral U.S. plan to tap its Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). But the agency reportedly gave in after the Obama administration insisted on using the SPR.”
Notwithstanding the delicate problem that all informed parties agree that the world oil market is more than adequately supplied at this time, and that rising prices reflect the potentila of future market distuptions, not inadequate supply.
A cheap election stunt by the Obama administration having nothing to do with Iran
LikeLike
A cheap election stunt by the Obama administration having nothing to do with Iran
Agreed. And to what end? Opening the former Naval Reserve to drilling will have no impact on oil prices now, and, at most, pennies, two or more years from now.
Meanwhile, we will be tapping the Strategic Reserve, which is meant for the defense forces in time of war.
If production can be instant on-off, I would buy opening the SR to directly supply or replace the petroleum to be used in the withdrawal from AFG. That is NOT what is going on. Cheap stunt.
*****
Scott, my many R friends and colleagues do not hold Santorum’s views or the purported platform views of the R Party on abortion, rape, and contraception. Some hold JNC’s libertarian view that the govt. needs to be out of the bedroom and out of funding health care, in toto, with an occasional nod toward veterans, which they view as contractual care for services rendered. Most of my friends are like Brent, however. But you are defending yourself and almost all Rs I know. DonJuan is attacking RP positions and the positions of leading RP candidates and officials. You are talking past each other. I think DonJuan has picked up on this, at this point.
LikeLike
mark:
But you are defending yourself and almost all Rs I know. DonJuan is attacking RP positions…
banned is maintaining that opposition to birth control is an RP position. I am disputing that claim. The above seems to imply that you too think that it is an RP position. Again, I question the characterization. It is neither an official party position nor is it a position held by most party members.
Update…corked by McWing!
LikeLike
yello:
What brings you back here today, to the dark side of the force?
(not that you aren’t always welcome of course)
LikeLike
What brings you back here today, to the dark side of the force?
For the waters. I was misinformed.
I lurk a lot. So much either goes over my head or is too esoteric for me to dive into.
LikeLike
scott:
National polls do not make state wide laws. As I suggested above, the idea is not to attempt to get through Congress a law banning birth control. However for instance overturning either Roe or Griswold would clear the way for states to begin to outlaw these, as would various other states rights law that have been proposed in Congress that would bypass the SCOTUS problem.
You also can’t anwer the question why if so many Republicans are against the idea, why do so many Republicans in state legislatures across the country keep introducing legislation to chip away as this.
LikeLike
banned:
As I suggested above, the idea is not to attempt to get through Congress a law banning birth control.
The issue before us is what can sensibly be characterized as the “GOP view” on birth control. If your contention was that the GOP view is the federalist position that states have the constitutional power to regulate access to birth control, I might agree with you. But that was not your contention. Your contention was that opposition to birth control itself was the “GOP view”. The evidence obviously does not support that. Opposition to birth control is neither official GOP policy, nor is it a view held by a significant number, much less a majority, of Republicans. It is a fringe view with even less support among the party faithful than trutherism had among Dems in ’07/’08.
However for instance overturning either Roe or Griswold would clear the way for states to begin to outlaw these, as would various other states rights law that have been proposed in Congress that would bypass the SCOTUS problem.
First, let’s not conflate issues. We were talking about contraception, not abortion. Overturning Roe in itself would have no impact on states’ inability to regulate contraceptive use.
Griswold, which is relevant to regulation of contraception at the state level, is a bone of contention primarily because Roe was founded upon it. Eliminating Griswold would eliminate Roe, and that is why it has become a focal point, not because it prevents states from regulating birth control. It is true that the elimination of Griswold would in theory open the door for states to to begin regulating contraceptive use if they desired, but that fact does not imply that the GOP would walk through that door. And given that the vast majority of Republicans have no problem with contraceptive use, the chances that it would walk through that door are incredibly slim. At most a couple of states might do so, but even that possibility seems remote to me. There simply isn’t enough popular support for such a movement to be viable.
As a political strategy, I understand the appeal to abortion-rights supporters of fear-mongering over access to birth control. Because so few people actually oppose birth control, it makes sense to generate the fear that if Griswold goes away, birth control will also go away, as they are then more likely to garner support for defending the foundation of legalized abortion without having to actually defend abortion itself, to which many more people actually do object. So I get the appeal of portraying Republicans as being against birth control. But in our discussions here, I would hope that you and I can distinguish between political strategy and reality. It simply is not true, by any reasonable or objective measure, that the Republican party opposes birth control.
You also can’t anwer the question why if so many Republicans are against the idea, why do so many Republicans in state legislatures across the country keep introducing legislation to chip away as this.
I am aware that a lot of state legislatures have tried to restrict legalized abortion in various ways. But I am not aware of them “chipping away” at legal access to birth control. What efforts do you have in mind?
here’s another one because I know that you will dispute me on evidentiary reasons.
None of the links you provided relate to laws that would regulate or restrict legal access to contraception. They all relate to issues over 1) government funding of contraception and 2) laws forcing insurance companies/employers to pay for contraception.
Legal access to contraception is not at risk in any of the cases you linked to.
LikeLike
scott:
here’s another one because I know that you will dispute me on evidentiary reasons.
if you google, you can come up with a ton of similar and more extreme bills:
“Arizona Birth Control Bill Penalizes Women For Using Contraception For Non-Medical Reasons”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/14/arizona-birth-control-bill-contraception-medical-reasons_n_1344557.html
Even in New Hampshire, what was uncontroversial 10 years ago, is under attack today:
http://www.npr.org/2012/02/24/147326639/n-h-gop-moves-to-revise-states-contraception-law
Even TIME is williing to publish pieces explaining that what once was unthinkable is now “thinkable”.
LikeLike
Hat tip to Andrew Sullivan, here is a fascinating history of condoms in America. It seems it flourished in the 19th century until a moral crusade drove it underground for several decades.
We seem to go through these swings in public morality with rather precise tempos.
LikeLike
According to Ryan, rape is just another method of conception……………sheesh
LikeLike
From Wonkblog:
”In each incarnation, Mr Romney’s trademark was pragmatism…Which brings us on to the presumptive Republican nominee’s main problem: his party. Like any aspiring president, Mr Romney has had to pander to people with whom he might normally disagree…Mr Romney has been forced to abandon common sense positions to get the nomination…In each case, Mr Romney has submitted to prevailing – and hardening – Republican theology…If it goes well the convention ought to showcase Mr Romney’s executive skills. It may also shine the light on the growing anti-enlightenment dimension to the party he now leads.” Edward Luce in The Financial Times.’
Interesting.
LikeLike
I’m moving to the MOrning Report, so Brent won’t feel lonely!
LikeLike
Late to the party, but here’s what the GOP platform on life/abortion is, supposedly. Guess we’ll have to wait an extra day to find out for sure.
LikeLike
“yellojkt, on August 27, 2012 at 7:23 am said:
…
We seem to go through these swings in public morality with rather precise tempos.”
Hopefully alcohol Prohibition won’t be making another swing through the neighborhood.
LikeLike
Mark, banned is trying to demonstrate that the prevailing R opinion on abortion/birth control is out of the mainstream. Scott is trying to demonstrate that it is not. No talking past each other.
LikeLike
george:
Crucial difference in what you wrote. What is Republican mainstream is not the same as US mainstream, as Santorum running a close second in the primary races would prove.
LikeLike
banned,
I do not understand what you’ve written. Prevailing R opinion on abortion / BC is mainstream, just as prevailing D opinion on the subject is mainstream. What you’ve written, that one party’s prevailing opinion, a party that represents close to half of the voting public is not mainstream but the prevailing D opinion, which represents the other half of the voting public is mainstream. You’re saying that the prevailing opinions of close to 50% of the voting public are not mainstream because,… why?
LikeLike
Here is Kathleen Parker drawing the distinction I thought Don Juan was drawing, although now I think maybe he wasn’t.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/08/26/what-s-wrong-with-the-republican-party.html
LikeLike
Luckily for women who both use and believe in BC, from both sides of the political spectrum, not too many states are flirting with this but………………………..I’m anxious to read the final product of the Republican platform as the young delegate was worried about the potential banning of the morning after pill. Is fertilized egg as person going to be on the platform or not? It’s unclear to me right now.
Alabama is actually just one of many states including Nevada, Oklahoma, Virginia, Florida, Pennsylvania, Colorado and Mississippi that have introduced bills attempting to define the start of human life. The Alabama bill defines life as beginning at the moment of conception, a concept that would not only make all abortion illegal even when the pregnancy threatens a woman’s life, but would also outlaw contraceptives like birth control pills and IUDs.
LikeLike
george
You keep calling GOP leadership positions mainstream. The platform calls for a constitutional amedment that would effectively ban all abortions while in the most recent polling somehwere around 75% of all Americans favor exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother.
“A Gallup poll last year found that 75 percent of adults say abortion should be legal in cases of rape or incest.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ap-sources-gop-platform-draft-keeps-amendment-to-end-abortions-with-no-stated-exceptions/2012/08/21/e91f3672-ebed-11e1-866f-60a00f604425_story.html
No these really AREN’T mainstream positions.
LikeLike
“But that was not your contention. Your contention was that opposition to birth control itself was the “GOP view”. The evidence obviously does not support that.”
It’s just a statistical coincidence that all of the legislators at the state level proposing birth control restrictions are Republican.
LikeLike
First, let’s not conflate issues. We were talking about contraception, not abortion. “Overturning Roe in itself would have no impact on states’ inability to regulate contraceptive use.”
You’re overstepping your legal expertise. If Roe falls Griswold would inevtiably go with it because the legal theory behind both is exactly the same.
LikeLike
Well I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed that. I don’t know if Parker was channeling Don Juan or not but she sure as hell was reading my mind and making the same argument I’ve been making to Scott to no avail.
LikeLike
“As a political strategy, I understand the appeal to abortion-rights supporters of fear-mongering over access to birth control. Because so few people actually oppose birth control, it makes sense to generate the fear that if Griswold goes away, birth control will also go away,”
My links are all part of an ongoing process. You want me to show you a bill proposed by dozens of co-sponsors that attempts to outlaw abortion at the Federal level. That would make it easy. The GOP is much smarter than that. They are waging at present a guerilla campaign, which like all of them, focuses on targets of opportunity not frontal assualts. Thus new questions about the liine between government and religion can be used to restrict access to birth control by making a pharmacist exception and revoking previously existing state laws which require payment for it, that even Republicans used to favor. The newest platform language will apparently call abortion unhealthy rather than morally wrong. It’s about drip, drip, drip.
Because relatively moderate Republicans such as yourself don’t beleive in it doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.
LikeLike
banned:
It’s just a statistical coincidence that all of the legislators at the state level proposing birth control restrictions are Republican.
Again, I have no idea what legislation you are talking about. You have yet to provide any information on any legislation aimed at restricting or eliminating legal access to birth control. But even assuming the existence of such proposed legislation, and even assuming they are proposed exclusively by legislators who are Republicans, that still tells us nothing about what the “GOP view” is. The fact (if indeed it is one) that all or most attempts to restrict access to abortion are proposed by a Republican in no way implies that all or most Republicans support such proposals. And if such proposals (if they exist) are routinely defeated with more Republican votes against than for, your characterization makes even less sense.
You’re overstepping your legal expertise.
I don’t profess to any legal expertise, so maybe, but I can think logically, and I am pretty sure what I said is accurate. I said that (emphasis added) “Overturning Roe in itself would have no impact on states’ inability to regulate contraceptive use” That is true. Roe does not regulate contraception. You are assuming that overturning Roe must necessarily invalidate Griswold. I don’t think that is the case. Griswold came first, and therefore does not rest on the existence of Roe. It is conceivable I think (although maybe not likely) that Roe could be invalidated on grounds that did not effect Griswold, and if so then my statement above is accurate.
You want me to show you a bill proposed by dozens of co-sponsors that attempts to outlaw abortion at the Federal level.
No. Again the issue is contraception, not abortion.
I want you to show me any evidence suggesting that the Republican party opposes birth control. You have provided evidence that a couple of party members do. I myself have provided evidence that 16% of party members do. But if the notion of “the party” holding a position means anything it means either that it is official policy (it is not) or that a majority, or at least a substantial minority, of the party membership hold that position (they do not).
They are waging at present a guerilla campaign, which like all of them, focuses on targets of opportunity not frontal assualts.
I actually agree with this entirely. Where we disagree is the point/goal of the campaign. Many Republicans want to prohibit, or at least severely restrict, access to abortion. The Supreme Court, via Roe, has made it impossible for them to take on the task directly, so they have had to do so indirectly, focusing, in your terms, on targets of opportunity instead of frontal assaults. This results in, for example, attempts to defund abortion providers like Planned Parenthood, and the passage of laws like the Virginia ultrasound bill, and attempts to define life so as to bring the fetus under the purview of laws outside of the reach of Roe, among others But all of these “guerrilla campaigns” are designed to do one thing – end the practice of legal abortion.
You are claiming that the goal of the campaign is ending the use of birth control (or worse, perhaps…subjugating the nation to the Pope?!?!) That may be the goal of a few people somewhere, but there is no reason to suppose that this is what the Republican party as an organization is trying to accomplish, as evidenced most obviously by the fact that the vast majority of the party membership has no objection to the use of birth control. In fact, I suspect that, if Roe was not the law of the land, few people would have heard of Griswold v Connecticut, and even fewer people would care about it, because having made it impossible for a state to pass laws that so few want to pass in any event, it would be irrelevant.
Thus new questions about the liine between government and religion can be used to restrict access to birth control by making a pharmacist exception and revoking previously existing state laws which require payment for it, that even Republicans used to favor.
These are not restrictions on access to birth control. They are restrictions on the state’s ability to force people to do something they do not want to do. They have nothing to do with legal access to birth control, and in fact they increase, not decrease, freedom from government restrictions.
If Obama says “you didn’t build that” one time in one speech it becomes the central theme of the GOP convention or one of them, and is embraced as the final word on Democrats positions.
Not by me.
If on the other hand numerous times Santorum says very expllicitly he doesn’t believe in Griswold or contraception, even though he’s the number two GOP vote getter for the nomination, that’s way out there! No way can you consider that Republican!
You are obviously cherry-picking and not doing a reasoned analysis. Mitt Romney was the number one vote getter, and in fact got 2.5 times more votes than Santorum. Why are are his views on birth control not the view of the party, but Santorum’s are? Of the top 4 candidates, the three who do not oppose contraception out-polled the one who does by nearly 4 to 1. Why aren’t their views considered the view of the party, but Santorum’s is? Well, we all know why…because those views do not support your contention. So let’s ignore them.
It’s telling that you are so focused on Santorum. It can only be because he is one of the few, perhaps the only, notable example within the party that holds the views you want to attribute to the party as a whole. In his contraceptive views he is demonstrably the exception, not the rule, within the party.
I submit that, if the fact that the party’s nominee for president does not support position X, and the party’s platform does not support position X, and 77% of the party’s members do not support position X, then it doesn’t make a lot of sense to claim that X is the party position. And if you insist on maintaining that it is, your belief is simply an article of faith that is neither the result of, nor can it be refuted by, any real evidence.
What I get in return is simply personal opinions of that’s not who we are.
That’s rubbish. I cited a poll that demonstrate the fact that 77% of the party rejects the position you attribute to them.
Maybe so, but then you should try out some different leadership people to represent you.
This just gets more and more bizarre. In case you haven’t noticed, the party has selected Mitt Romney, not Rick Santorum, to represent them. In fact Santorum, the single person in whom you have vested so much faith in determining GOP views, doesn’t represent anyone. He holds neither an elected position in the government nor an appointed position of leadership within the party. You really are out in, er, left field on this one.
LikeLike
yello:
The strategy is now very incrementalist. The whole attack on the rarely performed so-called partial birth abortion is to establish that some abortion procedures can be prohibited. Once that precedent is set, it would just be a matter of expanding on that beachhead.
Yes, this is exactly what is happening. And it is precisely the situation that Roe made inevitable.
Roe short-circuited the normal process of political compromise and haggling that is necessary when large segments of the electorate hold polarized views on a given issue. Instead of political compromise in which each side is vested in the outcome because it got some measure of what it wanted, one side, and indeed the most extreme element of that side, was granted complete victory by judicial fiat, leaving the other side totally aggrieved. So now the only recourse left to this aggrieved side is the incrementalist, or “guerrilla campaign”, approach that you and banned speak of.
It is worth noting that Roe has also produced the perverse outcome in which the extremes end up defining the terms of the debate, and moderates who are actually relatively close to each other in their positions – and who probably together make up a decent majority – end up having to choose between the extremes because political compromise has been prevented. So the argument ends up being (as banned has amply demonstrated today) either allow the grisly practice of partial birth abortion of perfectly viable babies, or you won’t be able to use contraception. This choice is of course absurd, and the vast majority of people want no part of either choice. But Roe has produced this ridiculous outcome, because political compromise, and a moderate (and varied, as federalism would allow) solution, has been explicitly disallowed.
Abortion is going to continue to dominate and define our politics in perverse ways until finally the idiotic, completely a-constitutional ruling in Roe is finally overturned, and a rational abortion policy amenable to a moderate majority can be finally achieved.
LikeLike
Here’s tje problem with this discussion and my absolute last post on this thread
If Obama says “you didn’t build that” one time in one speech it becomes the central theme of the GOP convention or one of them, and is embraced as the final word on Democrats positions.
If on the other hand numerous times Santorum says very expllicitly he doesn’t believe in Griswold or contraception, even though he’s the number two GOP vote getter for the nomination, that’s way out there! No way can you consider that Republican!
So it really doesn’t matter that I have presented link after link of things happening all around the country and the quotes themselves saying exactly what I wrote.
What I get in return is simply personal opinions of that’s not who we are. Maybe so, but then you should try out some different leadership people to represent you.
LikeLike
banned,
I said mainstream R opinion on birth control. I never said R leadership opinion on BC is the same as mainstream R opinion on birth control,
LikeLike
My links are all part of an ongoing process.
Yes. The strategy is now very incrementalist. The whole attack on the rarely performed so-called partial birth abortion is to establish that some abortion procedures can be prohibited. Once that precedent is set, it would just be a matter of expanding on that beachhead.
The Kathleen Parker article is very nuanced. Parker was one of the major critics of the Palin nomination and this is not the first time she has had to reconcile her conservative outlook with current trends in Republican leadership.
LikeLike